Abstracts Submission

Encouraged by the advance of the post-WWII disability rights movements, disability studies have become a promising field in the English-speaking academic world over the last three decades. Ranging from non-white disability rights activism to the reckoning of women with disabilities from the perspective of feminism and "crip studies," various intersectional subjects have been well examined. However, the distinctions between young people (proposed here as aged between 15 and 25) with disabilities as a specific age group and their able-bodied counterparts in an ableist world have not been so well studied. Given the importance of this stage in the life cycle and socialization process, it remains unclear how disabled youth and young adults confront discrimination when completing school or college, entering the workplace, or transitioning into adulthood.

In particular, owing to the persistent predominance of Eurocentrism over both youth and disabilities studies, there are few studies regarding youths with disabilities in Chinese society, which will be the focus of this issue. Contrary to their Western counterparts, the shortage of accessibility facilities in infrastructure and the persistent discrimination against disabled Chinse youth today remains palpable. For example, young wheelchair users in China commonly encounter discrimination due to mobility challenges. Meanwhile, Chinese high school graduates with hearing or visual impairments still face rejection in college applications, not due to academic shortcomings, but because their disabilities disqualify them under current admissions policies.

The medical model of disability remains the predominant perception in mainstream society, where disabilities are still described in official and legal documents as "illnesses" or "diseases" rather than as a social construct based on impairment. Furthermore, traditional East Asian family values shape the care of youth with severe disabilities in China, often leaving the responsibility solely to families, while the state rarely takes their needs into account. Taking into account the diverse perceptions of disability and the lived experiences of disabled populations with “Chinese characteristics,” this thematic issue takes an intersectional approach to specific issues of the everyday life of Chinese youth with disabilities and their encounters with ableism from ancient times to the post-socialist period.

Concerned about diversity and inclusiveness, we encourage able-bodied and disabled scholars from across the world and disciplines to take a transnational and comparative approach to the study and analysis of youth with disabilities in Chinese society. We particularly welcome submissions on the following topics:

• What difficulties do Chinese youth with disabilities encounter in secondary and higher education? How do these educational challenges—such as lack of accessible infrastructure, specialized support, or inclusive pedagogies—compare to those faced by their Western counterparts?
• How do Chinese youth with disabilities navigate the transition through puberty and into adulthood? What are the emotional, physical, and institutional challenges during this life stage for them?
• What difficulties do Chinese youth with disabilities face in maintaining relationships with their parents and peers? How are these shaped by stigma, dependency, or social isolation?  In what ways do these interpersonal experiences differ from those of able-bodied youth?
• In what ways do the experiences of disabled youth in China diverge from those of disabled youth in Western countries, especially in terms of institutional support, societal expectations, and cultural narratives around independence and success?

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this issue are asked to consult the journal's instructions for authors and submit their abstracts (maximum of 250 words, with a tentative title) through the abstracts system (here). When submitting their abstracts, authors are also asked to confirm that they are aware that Social Inclusion is an open access journal with a publishing fee if the article is accepted for publication after peer-review (corresponding authors affiliated with our institutional members do not incur this fee).

Readers across the globe will be able to access, share, and download this issue entirely for free. Corresponding authors affiliated with any of our institutional members (over 90 institutions worldwide) publish free of charge. Otherwise, an article processing fee will be charged to the authors to cover editorial costs. We defend that authors should not have to personally pay this fee and encourage them to check with their institutions if funds are available to cover open access publication costs. Further information about the journal's open access charges can be found here.

“Inclusion” and “exclusion” are socially (re)produced phenomena that are highly (inter)dependent on contexts and institutions (Mascareño & Carvajal, 2015). Contemporary societies are characterized by intricate dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that challenge traditional binary conceptions of “included” versus “excluded.” In practice, inclusion mechanisms operate through a gradation of status and rights, suggesting that inclusion and exclusion are not opposing, mutually exclusive categories but rather interrelated processes within the same system. The practical implementation of this idea—central to the work of Luhmann (1987, 1997)—generates complex forms of categorization and differentiation that deviate from strictly binary logic.

Furthering this discussion, Mezzadra and Neilson (2013) extend this reasoning to other areas with the concept of differential inclusion, which facilitates an examination of how certain formal inclusion mechanisms may simultaneously give rise to specific forms of exclusion. This suggests that numerous populations are formally “included” within social or political frameworks—such as legal systems, public spaces, citizenship, or public services—only under certain conditions that can restrict, subordinate, segment, or render such inclusion precarious. Consequently, these dynamics may generate new forms of exclusion or sustain existing ones.

Likewise, different groups, such as Indigenous peoples, migrants, and those with limited access to health services, can be part of a social system, but they are not included in a uniform way. While binary logic is useful for organizing and structuring communication within diverse social systems, it does not adequately reflect the fluidity and complexities of social realities.

In the Mexican context, those social groups face challenges within a legal system that operates on a binary distinction of “legal/illegal.” This framework comprises numerous interpretations and exceptions, making the application of legal rules quite complex. Consequently, this dichotomy evolves into a distinction between “citizen” and “foreigner.” While visas and permits may offer some individuals protection, for others, these mechanisms can serve as tools of control and subordination.

Additionally, populations deemed “vulnerable” or “in need of priority attention,” such as women and members of Indigenous communities, exemplify this complexity. Their inclusion in political citizenship may occur alongside the exclusion of other aspects of their worldview, which leads to a disconnect from their human rights, territorial assets, and the preservation of their cultural identities. Therefore, citizenship is not a uniform category but rather a fragmented concept, characterized by varying levels of belonging and rights.

The health sector provides a compelling example of how inclusion and exclusion operate. While many countries claim to offer universal access to health services, in reality, various institutional, cultural, or linguistic barriers exist that disproportionately affect people based on their origin, social class, or gender. This reveals a situation of partial and unequal inclusion.

In this context, it is crucial to examine the paradoxes inherent in processes of inclusion and exclusion (where there is formal inclusion but actual exclusion). Social structures create forms of inclusion that do not eliminate exclusion; instead, they often reorganize it. This complexity urges us to move away from rigid ideas of belonging or exclusion and instead analyze gradients and trajectories. We can ask critical questions: How can participation in specific systems lead to new forms of exclusion? In what way do state and institutional frameworks contribute to the (re)production of these dynamics? How are these dynamics evident in collective and public spaces, particularly regarding the treatment of women’s bodies?

The goal of this thematic issue is to clarify the complexities surrounding the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion and examine their impact on contemporary societies. This is a call for submissions of scientific papers that explore the (re)production of these dynamics in various social contexts. Papers should be based on empirical evidence analyzing the experiences of specific populations, how state institutions function, their interactions with individuals, and the historical and legal processes that underpin these dynamics. We also welcome analyses of how collective and public spaces reflect these structures, including the regulation of feminized bodies and unequal access to essential services.

In general, we welcome all proposals that contribute to the discussion of differential inclusion, particularly those that provide analytical frameworks for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these processes. Additionally, the call is open to theoretical contributions that address the topic from a critical perspective.

Instead of strictly adhering to a predetermined theoretical framework, the objective is to engage in collaborative reflection to address various legal, political, historical, and social issues through a problem-oriented approach (Shapiro, 2002). By examining the complexities and contradictions within these dynamics, we can enhance our understanding of how exclusions are produced and reproduced in practice and explore ways to promote greater inclusion and social justice.

References

Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp.

Mascareño, A., & Carvajal, F. (2015). Los distintos rostros de la inclusión y la exclusión. Revista CEPAL, 116, 131–146.

Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press.

Shapiro I. (2002). Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics; or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory, 30(4), 596–619.

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this issue are asked to consult the journal's instructions for authors and submit their abstracts (maximum of 250 words, with a tentative title) through the abstracts system (here). When submitting their abstracts, authors are also asked to confirm that they are aware that Social Inclusion is an open access journal with a publishing fee if the article is accepted for publication after peer-review (corresponding authors affiliated with our institutional members do not incur this fee).

Readers across the globe will be able to access, share, and download this issue entirely for free. Corresponding authors affiliated with any of our institutional members (over 90 institutions worldwide) publish free of charge. Otherwise, an article processing fee will be charged to the authors to cover editorial costs. We defend that authors should not have to personally pay this fee and encourage them to check with their institutions if funds are available to cover open access publication costs. Further information about the journal's open access charges can be found here.

In this thematic issue, we invite contributions that examine the livelihood of households in hard times. In recent years, households have been confronted with significant economic challenges, including increasing costs of living and housing, inflation, labour market insecurity, and growing unequal wealth distribution, that intersect with well-known structural inequalities. In addition, tendencies of political polarization exacerbate conditions of social-ecological cohabitation. However, studies that investigate specifically the experience, coping strategies and practices in dealing with these burdens in households are still rare. Research on households in poverty has provided important findings here, but there is evidence that the experience of “hard times” such as financial deterioration and vulnerability extend beyond the poor.

We welcome contributions that explore the conditions under which households are vulnerable to financial hardship and volatile incomes and/or the strategies or habits that households employ to cope with. Complex facets of social and regional disparities may be relevant here as disparate livelihoods may result in unequal resources and access opportunities depending on health services, local infrastructures, networks and communities in urban and rural contexts. Household composition and demographic characteristics may be as relevant as transient or mobile lifestyles, sometimes intertwined with forms of temporally and geographically flexible employment, or critical live events such as death, illness, or separation. Furthermore, welfare state policies play a crucial role in providing a basic safety net, but in current times of austerity, numerous states reduce or cancel social transfers. Against this background, an important aim of the thematic issue is to bring together findings from different welfare states and regions. Interdisciplinary approaches from sociology, social geography, economics and related disciplines are welcome.

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this issue are asked to consult the journal's instructions for authors and submit their abstracts (maximum of 250 words, with a tentative title) through the abstracts system (here). When submitting their abstracts, authors are also asked to confirm that they are aware that Social Inclusion is an open access journal with a publishing fee if the article is accepted for publication after peer-review (corresponding authors affiliated with our institutional members do not incur this fee).

Readers across the globe will be able to access, share, and download this issue entirely for free. Corresponding authors affiliated with any of our institutional members (over 90 institutions worldwide) publish free of charge. Otherwise, an article processing fee will be charged to the authors to cover editorial costs. We defend that authors should not have to personally pay this fee and encourage them to check with their institutions if funds are available to cover open access publication costs. Further information about the journal's open access charges can be found here.

Community and belonging are widely recognised as crucial components of student well-being, motivation, and success in higher education. For doctoral researchers—whose learning is often independent, relationally uneven, and structurally isolating—the presence or absence of community can profoundly influence identity formation, academic progression, and emotional resilience. These dynamics are even more significant for diverse doctoral students, including home and international candidates, mature students, part-time researchers, caregivers, and those entering academia from non-traditional or marginalised backgrounds.

Although “community” is a familiar term, scholarship shows it is a deeply contested and multifaceted concept. Community is often idealised as inherently positive, associated with warmth, security, and a sense of cosiness, and imagined as something shared or characterised by solidarity. Yet community is also political, mobilised as a policy response to social problems, and invoked to support the integration of minority groups. Community can be imagined, symbolic, or utilitarian, fleeting and temporary, concrete and material, or ephemeral and pragmatic.

This thematic issue uses community as a lens to examine how doctoral students experience inclusion, exclusion, and belonging across the intersecting domains of place, networks, and identity. Doctoral researchers often navigate multiple, overlapping communities—academic departments, research groups, disciplinary networks, cultural and linguistic groups, geographic locations, and family or workplace communities. These communities shape students’ sense of belonging, which Ahmed (2015) describes as “feeling or being a part of, rather than apart from.” For international, mature, and part-time students, places may be unstable or dispersed; networks may be fragmented; and identities may shift as students move between academic and non-academic worlds.

We approach belonging not only as a matter of participation and inclusion, but also as an ethical and relational practice shaped by care, vulnerability, responsibility, and uneven relations of power. In this sense, belonging is always produced through particular institutional arrangements, supervisory relations, and labour conditions that differently enable or constrain who can belong, on what terms, and at what cost. Understanding how these diverse groups create, access, negotiate, or feel excluded from academic communities enables institutions to reimagine doctoral education as a genuinely inclusive, relational, and socially just endeavour. Alongside critical analyses of current conditions, then, the Special Issue also invites contributions that imagine alternative ways of organising doctoral life and academic community, including practices of repair, collective support, and inclusion that both work within and challenge existing institutional structures in an increasingly performance-driven higher education landscape.

This thematic issue seeks to:

• Investigate how diverse doctoral students experience community, inclusion, and belonging.
• Examine the social, emotional, structural, and political processes that shape doctoral communities.
• Illuminate how doctoral researchers build and sustain networks, form identities, and negotiate multiple forms of belonging.
• Analyse institutional practices, cultures, and policies that enable or hinder inclusive doctoral communities.
• Highlight innovations, interventions, and models of support that foster belonging for underrepresented, international, part-time, and mature doctoral students.
• Study the antecedents of participation and its consequences on students’ well-being, persistence, and later career trajectories.
• Through the inclusion of quantitatively oriented research, provide robust empirical evidence on patterns, mechanisms, and inequalities of belonging by making visible the structural and relational dynamics that shape doctoral life at scale.

References
Ahmed, A. (2015). Retiring to Spain: Women’s narratives of nostalgia, belonging and community. Policy Press.

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this issue are asked to consult the journal's instructions for authors and submit their abstracts (maximum of 250 words, with a tentative title) through the abstracts system (here). When submitting their abstracts, authors are also asked to confirm that they are aware that Social Inclusion is an open access journal with a publishing fee if the article is accepted for publication after peer-review (corresponding authors affiliated with our institutional members do not incur this fee).

Readers across the globe will be able to access, share, and download this issue entirely for free. Corresponding authors affiliated with any of our institutional members (over 90 institutions worldwide) publish free of charge. Otherwise, an article processing fee will be charged to the authors to cover editorial costs. We defend that authors should not have to personally pay this fee and encourage them to check with their institutions if funds are available to cover open access publication costs. Further information about the journal's open access charges can be found here.