In Denmark a significant part (15%) of children and youths are categorized as marginalised or at risk (Ottesen et al., 2014). In addition, we know that our children and youth do not sufficiently benefit from the schools learning communities. Thus, approx. 15% of a ninth-grade class are not expected to fulfill an education leading to qualification and professional diploma (SFI, 2016).

In research on how to facilitate children’s and youths development and education, different understandings will directly or indirectly discuss and define the challenges and way to handle them in order to support development and well-being of all children and youth.

In these discussions and based on own research (Molbæk, 2016; Villumsen, 2015), we see research in inclusion and research in children at risk as two fields of knowledge with a joint aim of providing all children well-being and opportunities of participation and development but with different perspectives. In broad terms, we find that research in inclusion focus on the individual’s right to be an active and accepted member of the communities stressing the communities' and institutions' obligation to support the participation of every individual (e.g. Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Farrell, 2004, Slee, 2011), whereas research in children at risk focuses on identifying risk and/or creating positive ways of development (e.g. Ottosen et al., 2018, Laustsen et al., 2010, Rutter, 2012, a&b; Skytte Jakobsen, 2014).

With a point of departure in the two fields of knowledge and their primary focus, we analyse and discuss how research on inclusion and children at risk can contribute to a more varied and nuanced research and professional language regarding the work with children’s development. We investigate central concepts relating to inclusion and children at risk and their implications for the language of the professions and research, i.e. the way the professionals and researchers understand and work with children’s well-being and the production of knowledge related to children’s and youth development.

In conclusion, we suggest how participation theories (Shier 2001, Thomas 2000) and a bottom-up approach with focus on children’s life world experiences (Koch 2018) could contribute a child-centred perspective to the research field of childhood wellbeing for children at risk

In our analysis of the two fields of knowledge, their background and contributions to more nuanced perspective on children’s well-being, we have taken a starting point in two of our Ph.D. theses from respectively 2015 and 2016 (Molbæk, 2016; Villumsen, 2015). Both Ph.D.-projects are empirically and qualitative investigations of professionals work with and collaboration on respectively inclusion and children at risk. Both the analysis of this presentation and our research in general build on an integrative approach to research and knowledge production in order to explicitly include different perspectives and thereby understand the research object in its complexity without making unproductive reductions (Tønnesvang, 2004; Wilber, 1997). Therefore, we undertake a meta-perspective on the two fields of knowledge and their contributions to a more nuanced language and research on children’s development and well-being meaning that our analysis include dissimilar key discourses within the two fields. Our analysis follows Clarke’s approach to grounded theory (Clarke 2005) called ‘Situational Analysis’ where a joint and innovative process of analysis is facilitated through the development of maps identifying the major positions and themes in the fields being examined. The analysis proceeded over three phases: Initially we identified the two fields’ related concepts and primary focus. Secondly, we made a joint map visualizing and organizing the two fields’ concepts in pairs in relation to their understanding of the predominant themes in research and professionals practice. This map and unfolded presentation of the two fields made the frame for the third part of the analysis, where we ordered the identified concepts and the pair-wise representation in four general themes.

Based on our analysis we structured our findings in four themes referring to the two fields’ different focus, subject of analysis, main challenge and whish for change. These four themes will be presented in our presentation under the following headings: 1. Focus: Participation or risk? 2. Subject of analysis: Context or conditions for personal development? 3. Main challenge: Barriers to participation or risk factors in childhood? 4. Wish for change: Development of opportunities for participation or good trajectories of development? Following our analysis, we find that research in inclusion generally has a normative point of departure based on statements focusing on children’s rights to participation and positive development whereas research in children and youths at risk has a more explicit political focus on how well children are doing later on in life and with a focus on risk. In the work with inclusion, focus is often on the schools learning communities and environment whereas research in children and youth at risk to a larger extent focus on either specific groups of vulnerable children or focus on the family as a developmental arena. These differences can appear insignificant, but we argue that they can have major influence in how we conduct research and thus understand and support children’s well-being. Based on our analysis we find that both fields can benefit from a change towards a more ‘inside’ perspective focussing on both the point of view of child and family as well as involving the conditions for wellbeing and development in and across day care, school settings and home life. Both fields can then benefit from each other’s language and primary focus thus it in direct dialogue and together with children and families becomes possible to meet in joined effort towards children’s well-being in and across day-care, school and home.

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion. Bristol, UK: CSIE. Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2011) (3rd ed.). Index for inclusion. Bristol, UK: CSIE. Farrell, P. (2004). School Psychologists. Making a reality for All. School Psychology International, nr. 25/5. Lausten, M, Hansen, H & Nielsen, A.A: (2010): Udsatte børnefamilier i Danmark. København. SFI. 10:14 Molbæk, M. (2016). Inkluderende klasse- og læringsledelse. Ph.d.-afhandling, Aarhus Universitet Ottosen, M.H., Andersen, D., Dahl, K.M., Hansen, A.T., Lausten, M. & Østergaard, S.V. (2014). Børn og unge i Danmark. Velfærd og trivsel. København. SFI. 14:30 Ottosen, M.H., Andreasen, A.G., Dahl, K.M., Hestbæk, A., Lausten, M. & Rayce, S.B. (2018). Børn og unge i Danmark. Velfærd og trivsel. København. VIVE. Rutter, M. (2012)(a). Resilience: Causal Pathways and Social Ecology. p. 33-42. I: Ungar, M. (ed). The Social Ecology of Resilience: A Handbook of Theory and Practice. Springer Science + Business Media LLC,2012. Rutter, M. (2012)(b). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Developmental and Psychopathology 24 (2012), pp.335-344, Cambridge University press. SFI (2016) Notat om livsduelighed. København: SFI Skytte Jakobsen, I. (2014). Resiliensprocesser - begreb, forskning og praksis. København: Akademisk Forlag. Slee, R. (2011) The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge Tønnesvang, J. (2004). Integrativ tænkning og psykologisk forskningsmetodik. Psyke & Logos, vol. 25, nr. 2, s. 839-847. Villumsen, A.M. (2014). Hvorfor det ikke er så lige til med udsathed hos børn og unge. I: Gravesen, D.T. (red) (2014). Pædagogens grundfaglighed. Aarhus: VIASystime. Wilber, K. (1997). An integral theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, No. 1, s. 77-92.