No outline? About the need of disciplinary self-awareness of special education

Building of disciplinary self-awareness in the field of special education is, as is the case with every science discipline, a historical process. The main field of reference is the idea of discontinuity of sciences, that in the philosophy of sciences has taken not only the form of temporal and epistemological discontinuity, but also that of interdisciplinary discontinuity. Setting the accent on interdisciplinary discontinuity allows us to realize that the disciplines, in their volatility, are not synchronized neither in time, nor the pace of achieving disciplinary maturity, nor the approaches towards dealing with epistemological obstacles. The analysis draws from the premise of broadening boarders of cognitive exploration in special education and focuses on the dangers to special sciences that result from „the obstacle of too broad cognition”. The outline of the discipline’s field is drawn in reference to the category of „disability issues”, which is not clear and does not separate the knowledge about special education from specificity of other disciplines. The reflection is unified by a conviction that the existence of special education (still much less its disciplinary autonomy) is clearly connected to the capacity of the discipline to self-evaluate its ability to create valuable knowledge in new fields.

Building of disciplinary self-awareness in the field of special education is, as is the case with every science discipline, a historical process. The main field of reference is the idea of discontinuity of sciences, that in the philosophy of sciences has taken not only the form of temporal and epistemological discontinuity, but also that of interdisciplinary discontinuity. Setting the accent on interdisciplinary discontinuity allows us to realize that the disciplines, in their volatility, are not synchronized neither in time, nor the pace of achieving disciplinary maturity, nor the approaches towards dealing with epistemological obstacles. The analysis draws from the premise of broadening boarders of cognitive exploration in special education and focuses on the dangers to special sciences that result from „the obstacle of too broad cognition”. The outline of the discipline’s field is drawn in reference to the category of „disability issues”, which is not clear and does not separate the knowledge about special education from specificity of other disciplines. The reflection is unified by a conviction that the existence of special education (still much less its disciplinary autonomy) is clearly connected to the capacity of the discipline to self-evaluate its ability to create valuable knowledge in new fields.