|
Zbornik Instituta za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 2025, Vol. 44(3), str. 81–103 |
Original Scientific Paper DOI: 10.47152/ziksi2025035 UDK: 376(497.11)"1918/2000"" |
Defectology, Disability, and Scientific Change: A Historical-thematic Overview of Special Education
and Rehabilitation in
Serbia (1918–2000)
Milena Milićević[1]
Institute
of Criminological and Sociological Research, Belgrade, Serbia
This article examines the historical evolution of defectology, now recognised as special education and rehabilitation, over the past
century. Through conventional content analysis of historical
documents, academic
literature, and research publications, the study identifies key milestones and contextual shifts in the development
of this scientific
and professional field. Particular attention is given to the transition from a deficit-oriented medical model to a biopsychosocial framework, which is represented by the adoption
of the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in 2001. The analysis also
considers changes in terminology and research focus. The findings suggest
that, although the field has
made significant progress, it continues
to face numerous challenges.
These include conceptual ambiguities, fragmentation between educational and rehabilitation approaches, and the need
for stronger integration into contemporary scientific and policy frameworks.
The study concludes by emphasising
the importance of understanding the historical trajectory of special
education and rehabilitation in order to promote more inclusive and responsive practices today.
KEYWORDS: special education / rehabilitation / history of disability
/ defectology / World War I
/ disability
Introduction
The scientific
discipline known today as special education and rehabilitation,
historically referred to as defectology,[2]
emerged from diverse roots within the human and social sciences. Its
development has followed a non-linear path, shaped by shifting theoretical
paradigms and evolving practical applications. Echoing Hermann Ebbinghaus’s
well-known description of psychology[3],
Stošljević (1998, p. 9) similarly characterised defectology as a “…science that
has a short history and a long past”.
Historically,
the care for individuals with disabilities can be traced back to the Middle
Ages. Individuals and philanthropic organisations led early efforts, which
gradually evolved into institutional and, later, state-led responsibilities,
particularly after World War I. In general, the 20th century marked a critical
turning point in the evolution of social care for those requiring additional
support (Jugović & Gavrilović, 2020; Rapaić,
2016; Savić, 1966). Between the two world wars, support for people with
disabilities became increasingly structured and organised. In the post-World
War II era, social care and protection systems became more formalised and
embedded within state governance (Slavnić &
Veselinović, 2015).
Global data
underscore disability as both a public health and social justice issue.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2022, p. 23), approximately
1.3 billion people, or about 16% of the global population, live with a
disability. This number has increased by over 270 million in the last decade
due to population growth, ageing, and noncommunicable diseases. Prevalence
rises significantly with age, and women have a higher rate (18%) than men
(14.2%), reflecting broader patterns of health inequities and differing life
expectancies.
Most people
with disabilities (80%) live in low- and middle-income countries. However,
high-income countries report the highest prevalence (21.2%), possibly due to
better diagnostic capacity. The European and American regions have the highest
rates, while the African region reports the lowest, likely due to
underreporting, limited diagnostic infrastructure, or differences in
demographic structures (WHO, 2022).
Despite these
numbers, people with disabilities face significant institutional,
architectural, professional, and attitudinal barriers that limit their full
participation in society (Goering, 2015; Imms, 2020). Therefore, protecting,
supporting, and including people with disabilities represents a critical,
highly sensitive, and distinctive dimension of contemporary social, economic,
and developmental policy (WHO, 2022).
In this
context, exploring the historical evolution of defectology, now known as
special education and rehabilitation,[4] in
the period following World War I, is particularly essential. In general, a
historical perspective helps illuminate the origins and milestones of how
societies have approached and responded to disability (Barnes, 2020).
Understanding this trajectory offers valuable insights into the cultural,
political, and health-related transformations that have shaped the field over
the past century (WHO, 2022). By situating current barriers within their
historical context, we can more effectively advocate for inclusive, equitable,
and forward-looking policies that address the evolving needs of people with
disabilities worldwide.
However,
despite its significance, the historical development of this field remains
underexamined in many national contexts, particularly within Southeastern
Europe. There is a lack of systematic synthesis of key research directions and
contextual influences that have contributed to shaping special education and
rehabilitation as both a scientific and professional domain. Investigating
these historical trajectories is important not only for understanding how
present frameworks and practices evolved but also for identifying the
underlying assumptions and transitions that continue to influence the field
today.
Research
Aim
This
exploratory study examines the historical and conceptual development of
defectology, later reframed as special education and rehabilitation, as both a
scientific and professional field. Focusing on the period following World War I
to the early 21st century, the research aims to identify the major scholarly
trends and contextual shifts that have shaped the field during this formative
period. Special emphasis is placed on analysing historical developments within
a global context, alongside the evolution of research and publishing practices
within the Yugoslav and Serbian contexts.
Method
The study
employs a historical-conceptual and qualitative approach, along with
conventional content analysis, to examine a wide range of primary and secondary
sources. As a widely utilised method in social science research, conventional
content analysis approach is suitable for exploratory research or when existing
theory or literature on the topic is limited or fragmented. In general, it
systematically and flexibly uncovers new themes when prior information is
scarce. Conventional content analysis is an inductive method, where key
concepts, patterns, categories, and themes are developed directly from the
textual data itself, rather than from prior theories or research. This
bottom-up process typically involves collecting and organising textual data,
identifying high-frequency words and phrases that capture main ideas, grouping
them, revising and consolidating them into categories, and eventually forming
themes that accurately represent the data (Faggiano, 2023; Hsieh & Shannon,
2005; Mustapha & Ebomoyi, 2019).
Data sources
include historical documents, academic journals, books, monographs, and
thematic collections. Primary sources included complete archives (both print
and online) of two national journals[5],
which have continuously documented the development of the field in Serbia and
the broader Yugoslav region: the journal “Belgrade School of Special Education
and Rehabilitation” (analyzed across the first 51
publication years, from 1952 to 2008), and the journal “Special Education and
Rehabilitation” (covering the 2002–2008 period). All available issues were
systematically collected and analysed based on their content, editorials,
titles, and abstracts.[6]
Although this analysis extends beyond the primary temporal focus of the paper,
namely, the development of defectology up to the end of the 20th century, later
issues were included in order to extend our understanding of the historical
trajectory of scientific publishing in the field of disability and
developmental disorders in the Yugoslav and Serbian contexts.
Additional
publications were identified through keyword-based searches using terms such as
“defectology”, “disability”, “special education”, “rehabilitation”, “invaliditet”, “posebne potrebe”, and “development” or “history” in both Serbian
and English. The search included Google Scholar and the National Library of
Serbia’s printed and electronic resources, with emphasis on Serbian-language
publications and those originating from the broader Yugoslav region.
The inclusion
criteria focused on materials addressing conceptual frameworks, historical
developments, educational and institutional reforms, and the evolution of
disciplinary terminology. Publications focused only on inclusive practices or
contemporary intervention outcomes were excluded. The final sample included
approximately 120 relevant sources, predominantly from Serbia, out of which
around 40 were directly cited in the text as the primary sources, while others
were used for contextual triangulation and validation of historical
interpretations.
From
War Rehabilitation to Defectology
Rehabilitation
gained increasing importance following each world war, driven by the growing
number of individuals unable to work and support themselves or their families
due to injury or disability. The vast number of soldiers with physical and
psychological impairments underscored the need for development of physical and
occupational therapy, vocational rehabilitation programs, and specialised
centres for spinal cord injuries (Lanska, 2016).
Societies commonly spend more on supporting individuals with disabilities than
on professionally rehabilitating them for independent living (Elsey, 1997;
Linker, 2011; Martz, 2010).
At the end of
World War I, the re-education of injured veterans became a major concern. A key
conference convened by the Supreme Command of Allied Powers concluded that it
was in the public interest to quickly re-educate all wounded soldiers, helping
them to regain skills essential for daily life and employment (Savić, 1966).
Simultaneously, the U.S. military recognised “reconstruction aides”, or early
occupational therapists, who provided therapeutic services to those with mental
health and physical functioning challenges (Gutman, 1995).
Modern
defectology, as the precursor to today’s special education and rehabilitation,
originated from practices developed for war veterans (Lanska,
2016; Yakobina et al., 2008). However, the progress
of rehabilitation cannot be evaluated solely by the number of individuals
rehabilitated; emphasis must be placed on the quality and accessibility of
services (Elsey, 1997; Gutman, 1995; Linker, 2011; Martz, 2010). These factors
are more significant indicators of system success than rehabilitation counts,
as they influence patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and long-term
outcomes (Camden et al., 2010; Slabkiy et al., 2024; Wolpat et al., 2024).
To fully
understand the evolution of special education and rehabilitation, it is
necessary to revisit its historical foundations[7],
recognise that it is part of a wider social and institutional development
(Ivković & Maksimović, 2023; Jugović & Gavrilović, 2020; Rapaić, 2016; Slavnić &
Veselinović, 2015; Stošljević, 1998). The formation of the modern Serbian state
in the 18th and 19th centuries was closely associated with the purposeful
advancement of education and science. Reformers such as Dositej Obradović and
political leaders like Karađorđe and Miloš Obrenović
recognised that intellectual development and national institutions were
essential for a sovereign society (Ivković & Maksimović, 2023; Savić,
1966). This foundational period created the intellectual and institutional
conditions for the later emergence of defectology (Rapaić,
2016; Slavnić & Veselinović, 2015).
In Serbia,
from the period immediately preceding 1918 to 1929, special education
maintained a primarily private and humanitarian character. Various private
initiatives, humanitarian organisations, and religious orders organised and
funded kindergartens, schools, and “special institutions” for educating
children with developmental disabilities (Rapaić,
2016; Savić, 1966; Slavnić & Veselinović, 2015).
This decentralised model continued until 1933, when the state abolished private
initiatives in this domain and incorporated these institutions into the state
system (Savić, 1966).
State
intervention in child protection began in 1917 with the establishment of the
Child Protection Society. In 1929, a significant shift occurred when the
Ministry of Education assumed responsibility for educating children and youth
with disabilities. This event marked a major institutional realignment, placing
special schools under the umbrella of the national educational system.
Previously, such institutions for the blind, deaf, and physically disabled were
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Policy.[8]
Following this shift, increasing attention was directed toward children with
intellectual disabilities, then referred to as “mentally underdeveloped”,
resulting in the expansion of classrooms based on the principles of Heilpädagogik,
a pedagogical theory aimed at addressing mental deficiencies that hinder
children’s ability to succeed in mainstream education (Rapaić,
2016; Savić, 1966; Slavnić & Veselinović, 2015).
Having only two specialised schools in Zemun and Novi Sad, “support schools”
were established to address these deficiencies.
Following
World War I, special education in Serbia experienced significant growth due to
the introduction of new educational and health regulations. Official curricula
and school programmes were developed, but often remained declarative, with
limited practical implementation. As Savić (1966) critically observed, “much
less was accomplished in practice”.
This period
also saw a growing awareness of the need to provide education within
institutions for the treatment and social care of people with disabilities (Rapaić, 2016; Slavnić &
Veselinović, 2015). Early efforts, such as a 1914 draft law on children
affected by war and a 1916 proposal for a child protection department, failed
as no action was taken. It was only after the 1919 liberation and advocacy by
the Society for the Protection of Children that the Decree for the
Establishment of the State Department for the Protection of Children was
passed. The decree explicitly stated that “crippled children have to be
admitted to take equipment and to be taught and
trained in the institutions for war invalids” (Savić, 1966).
Modern schools
for children with physical disabilities originated from institutions for the
re-education of disabled war veterans. However, the Ministry of Education
showed limited interest in developing these schools between the two world wars.
Although orthopaedic therapy began to gain prominence in the 1930s, broader
approaches addressing social and psychological adaptation had yet to be
adopted. As a result, comprehensive rehabilitation, covering medical,
educational, psychological, and social aspects, remained an aspiration rather
than a reality (Rapaić, 2016; Savić, 1966; Slavnić & Veselinović, 2015). Although this period was
important for the formation of institutional and professional structures,
systematic research and publishing practices in the field were still largely
limited. Publications included professional bulletins, humanitarian reports,
and educational booklets. The first individual papers and translations appeared
in the interwar period, with organised scientific publishing effectively beginning
after World War II.
From
Professional Practice to Academic Institutionalisation
The
development of special education and rehabilitation in Serbia evolved from
early practical initiatives into structured academic training and scientific
inquiry. Following World War I, the first “support schools” and special classes
for children with intellectual disabilities were established, introducing
individualised teaching approaches that emphasised autonomy and sensory-based
learning. Just before World War II, correctional and methodical procedures were
introduced in the practical works, marking a significant shift in pedagogical
strategies (Savić, 1966; Slavnić & Veselinović,
2015).
Initially, the
field was dominated by practical knowledge rather than formal, empirical, or
original research. Between the two world wars, original studies were rare, with
most published work consisting of translations or compilations of existing
works. The field of speech pathology, however, saw some early, pioneering
independent work. For example, Miodrag Matić explored the causes and treatment
of stuttering and babbling (Matić, 1962; Ramadanović
& Matić, 1928). While these works were often more synthetic than empirical,
they laid the groundwork for post-war empirical research.
During this
period, professionals also focused more on children with physical disabilities,
publishing articles in journals such as “The Voice of the Innocent”, “National
Health”, and “Teacher”. These articles included “Hunchback in School Children”
and “The Treatment and Education of Maimed Children” by Božidar Spišić, as well
as “Public Care for Crippled Children” by Đura
Jovanović (Savić, 1966).
The importance
of adequately trained professionals became evident, as most special education
took place in schools and required skilled staff. Professional development in
education began in leading European institutions in 1882. In 1922, teachers
were trained through state-funded visits to foreign schools and institutions,
which focused on the care, education, treatment, and rehabilitation of children
who were deaf, blind, or “mentally underdeveloped” (Rapaić,
2016; Savić, 1966). However, these training courses often did not meet
practical needs. This foreign influence diversified special education, a trend
that continued after World War II.
After 1930,
training moved from various institutes to the Teacher Training School in
Belgrade and, in 1935, to the Male Teachers’ School. A commission was formed
for professional examinations, but many lecturers lacked practical experience,
and early literature was scarce (Savić, 1966; Slavnić
& Veselinović, 2015).
A significant
milestone was the founding of the Department of Defectology in 1947 at the
Higher Pedagogical School in Belgrade, marking the start of higher education
for specialists. This department underwent several name changes, including
becoming the Faculty of Defectology in 1975, until it was renamed as the
Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation in 2005 (Defektološki
fakultet, 2005). The University of Novi Sad and
social work programmes later followed this trend.
From
Medical to Social and Biopsychosocial Models: The Evolution of Disability
Paradigms
Post-WWII
Rise of the Medical Model
Following
World War II, as one social system transitioned into another, many social and
humanitarian associations either closed or were renamed. The state assumed full
responsibility for the care of children and other citizens unable to work.
During this time, the medical model of disability gained increasing prominence
(Rembis, 2019; Silvers, 2009). The aftermath of war and the widespread
occurrence of physical injuries placed a strong emphasis on medical and social
care, leading to a rise in the number of individuals with disabilities.
Rehabilitation
programs, primarily grounded in the medical model and focused on restoring
function, were developed for those with physical impairments (Goering, 2015;
Rembis, 2019). Concepts such as integration and normalisation began to emerge,
signalling a growing recognition of the potential and capabilities of people
with disabilities (Rembis, 2019).
Nevertheless,
even in the post-war period, the dominance of medical perspectives began to
face challenges (Rembis, 2019). Critics argued that disability could not be
adequately explained by medical causes alone, highlighting a complex interplay
of social, economic, and biological factors instead. Principles and methods
were increasingly drawn from multiple disciplines, including physical therapy,
nursing, psychiatry, rehabilitation, self-help, orthopaedics, and social work (Yakobina et al., 2008).
In 1965, Nagi
introduced a rehabilitation model as an adaptation of the medical model, which
was the first one to offer a broader conceptualisation of disability. He
defined disability as “...the expression of a physical or a mental limitation
in a social context” (Nagi, 1965). A decade later, the WHO published the
International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps
(ICIDH). Although still rooted in the medical paradigm, ICIDH acknowledged the
role of environmental factors in shaping the disability experience (WHO, 1980).
The
Rise of the Social Model and Disability Rights
The social
model of disability emerged from the 1960s–1970s civil rights movements, driven
by people with disabilities and activists challenging the prevailing medical
model that viewed disability as an individual deficit (a personal tragedy or a
medical problem to be “fixed” or “cured” (Thorneycroft, 2024). Groups like the
UPIAS[9]
in the UK in the 1970s were crucial in distinguishing between impairment (a
physical or mental difference) and disability (the societal barriers and
exclusion experienced) (Oliver, 2004).
In 1983, Mike
Oliver formally proposed the term “social model”, arguing that people are
disabled by societal barriers (physical, attitudinal, systemic), not by their
impairments (Hemingway, 2011). This model empowered disabled individuals,
becoming fundamental to disability rights activism, anti-discrimination
legislation, and international instruments like the UN CRPD[10] by
reframing disability as a social injustice (Oliver, 1990).
While the
medical model views disability as an individual issue arising directly from
illness, injury, or other health conditions, the social model reframes it as a consequence of the interaction between individuals and
an environment that is not accommodating (Goering, 2015; Silvers, 2009). This
perspective includes not only physical barriers but also social attitudes and
discriminatory practices. By the late 20th century, the social model had become
the dominant paradigm in disability studies (Silvers, 2009; Thorneycroft,
2024).
The growing
advocacy by people with disabilities, influenced by the Civil Rights Movement
and new sociological theories, has transformed the understanding of disability
(Hemingway, 2011; Silvers, 2009; Thorneycroft, 2024). This advocacy emphasises
the recognition of all individuals as rights-bearing citizens, calling
attention to discriminatory structures and practices and demanding legal and
policy developments from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United
Nations, 1948) to the European Commission’s Disability Rights Strategy
(European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and
Inclusion, 2021).
In the late
20th century, the medicalisation of disability became a prominent theme. Mike
Oliver, a key proponent of the social model of disability (Goering, 2015),
argued that medicine misinterpreted disability, framing it as an individual
problem rather than a consequence of societal barriers (Oliver, 1996). He
maintained that physicians lacked the necessary training to address broader
social dimensions and called for interdisciplinary collaboration (Oliver, 1990;
Rembis, 2019). Overall, the social model of disability fundamentally challenged
traditional medical understandings of impairment (Goering, 2015; Oliver, 2013;
Thorneycroft, 2024). The following section explores how these international
trends were reflected, if at all, in the development of defectology and related
professional debates in Serbia.
From
Global Shifts to Local Tensions: Resisting Medicalisation of Disability
Considering
the transformative nature of these international developments, it would be
reasonable to expect that these moments were noted in Yugoslav and Serbian
professional discussions. The social model of disability, for instance,
reframes disability as social oppression, providing a critical framework for
challenging societal barriers (physical, economic, cultural) that disable
individuals worldwide (Hemingway, 2011; Oliver, 1996; Thorneycroft, 2024). This
increased understanding and politicisation of disability rights, which took
place in parallel, did not go unnoticed (Barnes, 2020). For instance, the news
about declaring 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons first
appeared in the pages of the then-journal “Defectology Theory and Practice” in
late 1979, with a theme of “full participation and equality” (Bubanj, 1979). The professional community was, in that
sense, engaged with these wider developments.
However,
reviewing the literature from the 1980s and 1990s reveals similar concerns
about the medicalisation of disability in national academic discussions. These
debates followed the earlier conceptual separation of educational defectology
from medicine, psychology, and pedagogy (Stošljević, 1999). More precisely,
prior to this period, special education gained recognition as the central
domain of defectology. Critiques focused on terminological ambiguities,
methodological inconsistencies, and the inappropriate adaptation of clinical
procedures to educational settings.
Although the
importance of environmental and social support was acknowledged, the focus
remained on expert-driven interventions aimed at normalising individuals rather
than transforming social structures. These concerns extended to the daily
clinical practices of defectologists, highlighting the tension between
educational and medical paradigms (Stošljević, 1999).
The
ICF and the Transition to a New Century
At the turn of
the 21st century, the global disability field underwent a major paradigm shift
with the introduction of the International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health (ICF) by the WHO in 2001. By integrating medical and
social approaches, the ICF offered a biopsychosocial framework that positions
disability as the result of interactions between health conditions and
contextual factors (WHO, 2002). It also emphasised functioning, participation,
and environmental facilitators or barriers rather than focusing solely on
diagnosis or impairment.
While these
global changes were still being interpreted and adopted in Serbia, a symbolic
transition occurred in 2005 when the Faculty of Defectology was renamed the
Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation. In contrast, its journal
adopted a new title reflecting a broader scientific identity.[11]
For instance,
the editorial of the first issue of the newly launched journal “Research in
Defectology” in 2002 highlighted the need for an interdisciplinary approach,
the importance of overcoming strong sub-disciplinary divisions within the field
of defectology, and the consideration of both macro- and micro-level social
contexts of child development (Matejić-Đuričić, 2002). In the local context,
these changes and initiatives marked the beginning of a new disciplinary era
and signalled the gradual alignment with international conceptualisations of
disability, thereby closing the formative chapter of defectology in Serbia.
From
“Special School” to “Belgrade School”: Evidence of Research-oriented
Perspectives
Early
Editorial Missions and Terminological Shifts
Tracing the
developmental trajectory of the first national scientific journal in the field
of special education reveals how evolving paradigms of disability were mirrored
in its changing titles and editorial orientations. Launched in 1952 by the
Association of Teachers of Special Schools of Yugoslavia, the Journal “Special
School” initially addressed the “pedagogical and social issues of defective and
educationally neglected children”, reflecting the broader defectological
framework of the time (Redaction of “Special School”, 1952).
The inaugural
editorial emphasised the Journal’s ambition to cover both theoretical and
practical concerns in special pedagogy, as the “scientific treatment of
theoretical problems and the processing of practical methodological issues from
special pedagogy” were planned (Redaction of “Special School”, 1952). This
opening marked the beginning of a multidisciplinary approach that would expand
in the years to come.
In 1961, the
Journal’s scope was extended to include medical dimensions, prompting its
rebranding as “Special School – A Journal for Pedagogical, Social, and Medical
Issues of Children and Youth with Developmental Disabilities” (Matić, 1962).
This shift aligned with the growing influence of the medical model in the
conceptualisation of disability. Further expansion followed in 1972, when
rehabilitation was added to the title, resulting in “Special School – A Journal
for Pedagogical, Social, Medical, and Rehabilitation Issues of Children and
Youth with Developmental Disabilities” (Ivanović & Savić, 1995).
Despite these
changes, the Journal continued to focus primarily on the educational dimension
of rehabilitation. This perspective is unsurprising, as special education was
widely regarded as the most central component of defectology until the 1990s,
when the so-called medicalisation of defectology became dominant.
Defectology,
Reform, and the Rise of Original Research
The
establishment of the Faculty of Defectology in 1975 marked the beginning of a
new phase. By 1977, the Journal’s subtitle became “Journal of Defectological
Theory and Practice”, and in 1978, it was renamed “Defectology Theory and
Practice”. Following a hiatus in a publication from 1986 to 1993, a new chapter
began with the launch of a successor Journal, “Belgrade School of Special
Education and Rehabilitation”, in collaboration with the Faculty of
Defectology. This new title signalled a commitment to chronicling both the
unique historical development and future directions of defectology in the
region.
A close
examination of the Journal’s content over the decades reveals the maturation of
defectological science in the country. Initially reliant on translated works
and compilations, the field gradually evolved to produce original research
contributions that reflected both domestic expertise and international
influences (Ivanović & Savić, 1995). For example, the development of
Yugoslavia’s special education system in the period between the two world wars
was notably influenced by Czechoslovak models (Savić, 1966).
Foreign
Influences and International Alignment
The historical
evolution of the Journal’s content cannot be fully understood without
recognising the extensive foreign influences that shaped Yugoslav defectology.
The varied foreign influence originated from the practice of sending teachers
abroad for training at foreign schools and institutions. Early on, Czech
influence was predominant in the education of blind individuals, while the
education of deaf individuals drew upon influences from both Czechoslovakia and
France. Conversely, Germany had a significant influence on the education of
children with intellectual disabilities and developmental difficulties. A
notable shift occurred during the 1940s, when Soviet influence became
prominent, especially in deaf education, facilitated by the translation of Soviet
pedagogical manuals. However, many of the adopted ideas from this period
reflected uncritical adaptations of external concepts (Savić, 1966).
Throughout the
decades, the Journal maintained an active engagement with international
scholarship. Its “Foreign Review” section, which remained a fixture into the
1980s, featured curated bibliographies of recent foreign literature relevant to
defectologists. These reviews primarily included works from the Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, supporting the
professional community’s continued alignment with international developments.
Evolving
Research Orientations
The content
published in this journal between 1952 and 1995 can be divided into three broad
categories (Ivanović & Savić, 1995). The first consists of descriptive
articles based on the authors’ personal experiences, mainly focusing on
methodological and didactic practices, often reflecting the concerns and
insights of educators and clinicians working directly in the field, with
limited use of empirical data. The emphasis was on enhancing pedagogical
techniques and classroom-based interventions. The second category includes
empirical works that, while still mainly descriptive, show a growing awareness
of research methodology and academic rigour. Lastly, the third group comprises
mature, original scientific studies grounded in rigorous research, often addressing
specialised areas within defectology.
Strengths,
Limitations, and Future Directions
Our review
extends previous knowledge by providing a historical analysis that traces the
development of defectology in the 20th century, a period marked by several
major socio-political, institutional, and theoretical transformations. It
contextualises the shift from deficit-based models to biopsychosocial
perspectives, attempting to explain the connection between national academic
traditions and international standards.
Several
limitations should be considered. As a historical narrative, this research does
not follow a formal literature selection methodology, and limited source
availability could affect replicability and introduce bias. We primarily used
two national journal bibliographies and other scholarly materials. Next, the
study’s primary scope is national and centred on Serbia as a former Yugoslav
region. Consequently, its findings may not fully reflect trends in other global
or regional contexts. This paper synthesises historical trends and conceptual
shifts, but it does not include original empirical data or systematic content
analysis. Finally, while acknowledging the importance of inclusive education
reforms and contemporary practice changes, this paper focuses on the period
from 1918 to 2000, therefore excluding post-2000 policy transformations and
practical inclusion models, which remain important areas for future research.
Future studies
could use systematic content analysis to strengthen the evidence and
generalizability of conclusions. Cross-national comparisons could examine
whether the transition from defectology (or equivalent disciplines) to the
biopsychosocial model has followed similar or divergent paths across
post-socialist, Western, and global contexts.
Longitudinal
analyses of journal articles, conference proceedings, and university curricula
could track the terminological and theoretical evolution. Authors are advised
to investigate how the professional identity of defectologists has evolved in
response to these conceptual and systemic transformations, with a focus on
values, training models, and perceived roles. Concrete changes in educational
practice, policies, and legislation should also be analysed. Finally,
collecting oral histories and using ethnographic methods could help document
institutional memory and transitional periods.
Practice
and policy implications
This study
offers several practical insights for special education and rehabilitation.
Understanding the historical evolution of disability concepts could help
professionals to reflect critically on present-day practices. The dual nature
of the field, which balances scientific inquiry, professional application, and
pedagogical and rehabilitative approaches, demonstrates the importance of
interdisciplinary collaboration. The findings are relevant to professionals in
medicine, psychology, social work, pedagogy, and other fields, and may
contribute to a better understanding of professional identity and the legacy of
defectology today.
Conclusion
This study
examined the historical evolution of defectology, focusing on its
transformation into contemporary special education and rehabilitation from
World War I to the 21st century. In general, the historical journey of
defectology, from an early emphasis on individual deficits to the adoption of
comprehensive models of disability, reflects a growing recognition of
disability as the result of complex interactions among biological, individual,
and social factors, particularly since the introduction of the ICF in 2001.
However, several points should be addressed.
Firstly, the
field has evolved in response to changing societal values and advancements in
scientific knowledge. Secondly, it is important to recognise not only the long
history of disability care and support but also the challenges and milestones
that have led to current practices. Finally, the discipline’s diversification,
especially after World War II, represents a move away from strict medical
explanations toward interdisciplinary approaches that consider the full
complexity of human functioning.
The
transformation of defectology into contemporary special education and
rehabilitation reflects its dynamic progression. To conclude, the shift from a
deficit-based to a holistic approach highlights the critical role of
environments, societal attitudes, and participation. Therefore, this paper
reaffirms the field’s conceptual development and underscores the relevance of
the biopsychosocial model in understanding the complexities of living with
disability.
Acknowledgment
This paper represents the result of the author’s engagement following the Working Plan and Program of the Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research for the year 2025 (based on contract No. 451-03-136/2025-03/200039) with the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation. Funding was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report and decision to submit the article for publication.
Conflict
of interest
The authors
declare no conflict of interest.
References
Barnes,
C. (2020). Understanding the Social Model of Disability: Past, Present and
Future. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge
Handbook of Disability Studies (2nd edition, pp. 14–31). Routledge.
Bubanj,
V. (1979). 1981. - Međunarodna godina invalidnih lica. Defektološka Teorija
i Praksa, 5–6, 207–210.
Camden,
C., Swaine, B., Tétreault, S., & Brodeur, M.-M. (2010). Reorganizing
pediatric rehabilitation services to improve accessibility: Do we sacrifice
quality? BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 227.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-227
Defektološki
fakultet. (2005). 30 godina Defektološkog fakulteta: 1975-2005 (Z.
Matejić-Đuričić, Z. Kašić, & N. Dimić, Eds.). Defektološki fakultet, Centar
za izdavačku delatnost.
Ebbinghaus,
H. (1908). Psychology: An elementary textbook. D.C. Heath.
Elsey,
E. (1997). Disabled Ex-Servicemen’s Experiences of Rehabilitation and
Employment after the First World War. Oral History, 25(2), 49–58.
European
Commission. Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
(2021). Union of equality: Strategy for the rights of persons with
disabilities 2021 2030. Publications Office.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/31633
Faggiano,
M. P. (2023). Content Analysis in Social Research: Study Contexts, Avenues
of Research, and Data Communication Strategies. BRILL.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004537835
Goering,
S. (2015). Rethinking disability: The social model of disability and chronic
disease. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 8(2),
134–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9273-z
Gutman,
S. A. (1995). Influence of the U.S. Military and Occupational Therapy
Reconstruction Aides in World War I on the Development of Occupational Therapy.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(3), 256–262.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.49.3.256
Hemingway,
L. (2011). Understanding disability: From ‘personal tragedy’ to social
disadvantage. In Disabled people and housing (pp. 51–66). Policy Press.
https://doi.org/10.56687/9781847428073-004
Hsieh,
H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content
Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Imms,
C. (2020). Participation in diverse life situations for people with disability:
A vision for the future. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 62(1),
5–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14399
Invalidsko
pitanje—Opštenarodno pitanje. Sv. 3 / The disability issue—A national issue.
Vol. 3.
(1937). Središni odbor Udruženja ratnih invalida Kraljevine Jugoslavije.
Ivanović,
P., & Savić, Lj. (1995). 60 godina Društva defektologa Jugoslavije.
Društvo defektologa Jugoslavije.
Ivković,
N., & Maksimović, N. (2023). Historical development of education and
science in Serbia from the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th
century. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini, 53(2),
269–286. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrffp53-44613
Jugović,
A., & Gavrilović, A. (2020). Osnove socijalne politike. Univerzitet
u Beogradu, Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju, Izdavački centar
(ICF).
Kako
da zbrinemo naše ratne žrtve: Nacrt novog invalidskog zakona. Sv. 1 / How to
Care for Our War Victims: A Draft of a New Disability Law. Vol. 1, Pub. L. No.
Središni odbor Udruženja ratnih invalida Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 78 стр.
(1937).
Lanska,
D. J. (2016). The Influence of the Two World Wars on the Development of
Rehabilitation for Spinal Cord Injuries in the United States and Great Britain.
In L. Tatu & J. Bogousslavsky (Eds.), Frontiers of Neurology and
Neuroscience (Vol. 38, pp. 56–67). S. Karger AG.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000442569
Linker,
B. (2011). War’s Waste: Rehabilitation in World War I America. The
University of Chicago Press.
Martz,
E. (2010). Trauma Rehabilitation After War and Conflict: Community and
Individual Perspectives (E. Martz, Ed.). Springer New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5722-1
Matejić-Đuričić,
Z. (2002). Uvodna reč [Editorial]. Istraživanja u Defektologiji, 1(1),
9–11.
Matić, M. (1962). Deset godina izlaženja „Specijalne škole“ / Ten
years of publishing the journal “Special School” [Editorial]. Special School,
11(1), 1–3.
Mustapha,
A. I., & Ebomoyi, I. (2019). Methodological Usefulness of Content Analysis
in Social Science Research. African Research Review, 13(1), 93.
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v13i1.9
Nagi,
S. Z. (1965). Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In M.
Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and Rehabilitation (pp. 100–113). American
Sociological Association.
Oliver,
M. (1990). The individual and social models of disability. Paper Presented
at Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the
Royal College of Physicians on “People with Established Locomotor Disabilities
in Hospitals”, Monday 23 July 1990.
Oliver,
M. (1996). Understanding Disability. Macmillan Education UK.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24269-6
Oliver,
M. (2004). The social model in action: If I had a hammer. In C. Barnes & G.
Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the social model of disability: Theory and
research (pp. 18–31). The Disability Press.
Oliver,
M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability &
Society, 28(7), 1024–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773
Ramadanović,
V., & Matić, M. (1928). Govorne mane: (Uzroci i otklanjanje istih):
Praktično upustvo za nastavnike i roditelje gluvoneme, tepave i mucave dece po
Sikorskom, Kristinu i drugim piscima. Pedagoška biblioteka “Nova svetlost.”
Rapaić,
D. (2016). Teorijska i praktična razmatranja specijalne edukacije i
rehabilitacije. Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i
rehabilitaciju, Izdavački centar (ICF).
Ratni
invalidi Jugoslavije / War invalids of Yugoslavia. (1961). Invalidski list.
Redaction
of “Special School.” (1952). Našim čitaocima / To our readers [Editorial]. Special
School, 1(1), 1.
Rembis,
M. (2019). Challenging the impairment/disability divide. In N. Watson & S.
Vehmas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (2nd ed., pp.
377–390). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429430817-27
Savić,
Lj. (1966). Teorija i praksa specijalnog školstva u Srbiji do Drugog
svetskog rata. Savezni odbor Saveza gluvih Jugoslavije.
SCIndeks
– Časopis Istraživanja u defektologiji – Portrait. (2002, 2005).
http://scindeks.ceon.rs/Portrait.aspx?issn=1451-3285
SCIndeks
– Journal Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija – Portrait. (2006, 2023).
http://scindeks.ceon.rs/Portrait.aspx?issn=1452-7367
Silvers,
A. (2009). An Essay on Modeling: The Social Model of Disability. In D. C.
Ralston & J. H. Ho (Eds.), Philosophical Reflections on Disability
(Vol. 104, pp. 19–36). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2477-0_2
Slabkiy,
H., Bilak-Lukyanchuk, V., & Dutkevych-Ivanska, Y. (2024). Accessibility of
rehabilitation services to the population of the mountainous geographical zone
of Transcarpathian Region. Acta Balneologica, 66(5), 318–323.
https://doi.org/10.36740/ABal202405104
Slavnić, S., & Veselinović, I. (2015). Uvod u defektologiju.
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju,
Izdavački centar (ICF).
Stošljević,
M. (1998). Uvod u defektologiju. Defektološki fakultet.
Stošljević,
M. (1999). O medicinizaciji defektologije [On the medicalization of
defectology]. Rehabilitacija hendikepiranih, 1(1–2), 110–114.
Thorneycroft,
R. (2024). Screwing the Social Model of Disability. Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, 26(1), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.1130
United
Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNBISNET.
Više
svetlosti na naš invalidski problem. Sv. 2 / More Light on Our Disability
Problem. Vol. 2.
(1937). Središni odbor Udruženja ratnih invalida Kraljevine Jugoslavije.
Wolpat,
C. D. O., Barbosa, R., Peixoto, M. C. D. O., Santos, G. A. D., & Barbosa,
M. L. L. (2024). Standards of Accessibility to Health, Education, Culture and
Leisure and The Association With Quality of Life For People With Disabilities. Revista
de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(3), e08004.
https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n3-196
World
Health Organization. (2022). Global report on health equity for persons with
disabilities. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/364834
World
Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International Classification of
impairments, disabilites and handicaps (ICIDH). May 1976.
World
Health Organization (WHO). (2001). International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/classifications/en/
World
Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Towards a common language for
functioning, disability and health: ICF.
Yakobina, S. C., Yakobina, S. R., & Harrison-Weaver, S. (2008). War, What is it Good for? Historical Contribution of the Military
and War to Occupational Therapy and Hand Therapy. Journal of Hand Therapy,
21(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2007.07.022.
Defektologija,
ometenost i promene u nauci: Istorijsko-tematski
pregled specijalne edukacije i rehabilitacije u Srbiji (1918–2000)*
Milena Milićević
Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja,
Beograd, Srbija
Ovaj članak
istražuje istorijski razvoj defektologije, danas poznate kao specijalna
edukacija i rehabilitacija, tokom proteklog veka. Kroz konvencionalnu analizu
sadržaja istorijskih dokumenata, naučne literature i naučnih publikacija,
identifikuju se ključne prekretnice i kontekstualne promene u razvoju ove
naučne i stručne oblasti. Posebna pažnja posvećena je prelasku sa medicinskog
modela usmerenog na deficite ka biopsihosocijalnom
modelu, koji je predstavljen usvajanjem Međunarodne klasifikacije funkcionisanja,
ometenosti i zdravlja (MKF) 2001. godine. Analiza
obuhvata i promene u terminologiji i istraživačkom fokusu. Nalazi pokazuju da
je oblast ostvarila značajan napredak, ali da se i dalje suočava sa brojnim
izazovima, kao što su konceptualne nejasnoće, razdvajanje obrazovnih i
rehabilitacionih pristupa i potreba za snažnijom integracijom u savremene
naučne i političke okvire. Zaključuje se da je razumevanje istorijske putanje
specijalne edukacije i rehabilitacije od suštinskog značaja za razvoj inkluzivnije i odgovornije prakse danas.
KLJUČNE REČI: specijalna edukacija / rehabilitacija / istorija
ometenosti / defektologija / Prvi svetski rat / invaliditet
PRIMLJENO: 6.10.2025.
REVIDIRANO: 4.11.2025.
PRIHVAĆENO: 5.11.2025.
Correspondence:
mileninaadresa@gmail.com
[1] ORCID
[2] It should be noted that the terms defectology, special education, special
education and rehabilitation, and occupational
therapy are used interchangeably in this paper, following the predominant
usage in each period or region.
[3] “Psychology has a long past, but only a short
history.” (Ebbinghaus, 1908)
[4] The moment of the name change is related to
the year 2005, when the Faculty of Defectology changed its name to the Faculty
of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
[5] “Belgrade School of Special Education and Rehabilitation” (ISSN 0354-8759, published by the Special Educators and Rehabilitators Association of Serbia & University of Belgrade – Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation), and “Special Education and Rehabilitation” (ISSN 1452-7367, published by the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation).
[6] The first abstracts in the form of a summary
of the text content appeared in 1993.
[7] Some possible historical sources are: Invalidsko
Pitanje - Opštenarodno Pitanje. Sv. 3 / The Disability Issue - a National
Issue. Vol. 3, 1937; Kako Da Zbrinemo Naše Ratne Žrtve: Nacrt Novog
Invalidskog Zakona. Sv. 1 / How to Care for Our War Victims: A Draft of a New
Disability Law. Vol. 1, 1937; Ratni Invalidi Jugoslavije / War Invalids of
Yugoslavia, 1961; Više Svetlosti Na Naš Invalidski Problem. Sv. 2 / More
Light on Our Disability Problem. Vol. 2, 1937.
[8] The selected and translated terms are intended
to reflect the terminology and conceptual frameworks of their historical
period.
[9] Union of the Physically Impaired Against
Segregation.
[10] United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
[11] The journal’s title changed from “Research in
Defectology” (SCIndeks – Časopis Istraživanja u Defektologiji – Portrait,
2002) to “Special Education and Rehabilitation” (SCIndeks – Journal
Specijalna Edukacija i Rehabilitacija – Portrait, 2006).
* Predloženo
citiranje: Milićević, M. (2025). Defectology, Disability, and Scientific
Change: A Historical-thematic Overview of Special Education and Rehabilitation
in Serbia (1918–2000). Zbornik Instituta
za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 44(3), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.47152/ziksi2025035
©2025 by authors
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).