This article is a response to a proposition put forth by Julie Allan during her presentation at the annual EERA conference in 2014. Towards the end of her presentation Psychopathology at School: Children’s Behaviour and Mental Disorder Allan pleaded for a shift towards pedagogy thinking in the field of inclusive education, and perhaps even in the wider field of education in general. When asked if this could be understood as a shift towards a more continental way of engaging educational questions and questions of inclusion, she responded ‘yes’. Unfortunately the discussion over the possible implications of such a shift did not follow do to time restrictions. We believe that such a discussion is not only intriguing but perhaps also necessary for the further development of the field of inclusive education.

Although this was perhaps not the point she was trying to make, this proposition of a possible shift points towards a controversy within educational research which has recently been reengaged by various scholars. It is the discussion between the Continental and the Anglo-American conceptions of what educational research and educational thinking concerns, and how it should be performed.

The division between Anglo-American educational theory and continental educational theory is defined by Gert Biesta (2011) as one that consists of understanding education as an object for study, or a field of study, or as an interest in what guides education and what happens within educational processes. This separation is essential in that it points towards the central distinctions between education as something that can and should be studied from the outside, thus becoming an object for study, or as an interest with its own defining terms. Having an interest thus places one inside of the matter, and the associated premises, whereas the study from outside allows one to use different methodologies and theories through which to describe the object.

The point of convergence between the two is the basic premises that educational research is a normative endeavor. The way in which the normative presumptions, the ‘what for’ of education, is brought about is thus the sticking point between the two traditions. In the Anglo-American tradition these answers are brought about by the application of various disciplines upon the ‘object’ education. By studying education and educational processes through the looking glass of sociology, history, psychology and philosophy, the structures and the normative ends of education can be discerned an discovered.

In the German tradition whether it is in the guise of normative pädagogik or geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik the educational interest is placed at the center, considering education not as something to engaged form the outside, but something to be engaged on its own terms. This meant studying the educational process not only as a question of schooling or learning, but as something that goes on in relations between individuals where growth or development is involved.

Much research in the field of inclusive research has been conducted in frameworks such as Sociology of Education and post-structuralism, and can thus be considered to be leaning towards the Anglo-American tradtion of educational research. 

The object of the paper is thus to discern what consequences a shift towards a more pedagogy oriented or continental approach to education would entail for the field of inclusive education. 

Gary McCulloch (2002) “‘Disciplines Contributing To Education’? Educational Studies and the Disciplines” British Journal of Educational Studies 50:1, 100–119. Gert Biesta (2011) “Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: a comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field” Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19:2, 175-192. Gert Biesta (2014) “Is philosophy of education a historical mistake? Connecting philosophy and education differently” Theory and Research in Education 12:1, 65-76. Julie Allan & Roger Slee (2008) Doing inclusive education research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Jürgen Oelkers (1994) “Influence and Development: Two Basic Paradigms of Education” Studies in Philosophy and Education 13: 91-109, 1994. Paul H. Hirst (1963)“Philosophy and Educational Theory” British Journal of Educational Studies, 12:1, 51-64. Valerie Harwood & Julie Allan (2014) Psychopathology at school : theorizing mental disorders in education Abingdon : Routledge. William Richardson (2002) “Educational Studies in the united Kingdom, 1940-2002” British Journal of Educational Studies, 50:1, 3–56