Inclusion and inclusive education are transnationally-discussed concepts in the field of education as well as pivotal visions for the organization of education systems worldwide. Related to this concept is the global shared expectation that inclusive education is or should be available at all levels of educational systems, especially when required by transnational organizations like the United Nations and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (e.g. OECD, 1997). Discourses on education research have an important and responsible role in shaping these shared expectations about inclusion because meanings and perceptions of inclusion–as well as exclusion–are constructed within and through them. Discourses and in particular education research discourses have a structuring function and construct symbolic orders, which instruct and guide thinking and speaking of subjects in their social and cultural context and influence the implementation of inclusion in educational systems (Foucault, 1972; Keller, 2011). As expectations about and the implementation of inclusive education becomes increasingly similar in educational systems worldwide (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015: Drori et al., 2003), the education discourses focused on them also increasingly align. However, it has been shown that trans- and international reforms and visions like inclusion are not linearly implemented in national discourses but rather offer resistance and objections on national levels (e.g. Hargreaves et al., 2001), not least of at all due to the fact of path dependencies and country-specific discourses (e.g. D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). This is particularly shown with regard to Germany and the United States. Many significant differences persist between the educational systems in Germany and the U.S. due to varying research traditions and historical developments in each country. For example, the education research discourses on inclusive education and associated concepts also reflect persistent differences. Since the 1970s in the U.S., reforms and laws have been enacted regarding the education of all children and, therefore, the term inclusion has a longer history in education research and policy in the U.S. compared to Germany, where the discussion about inclusion has increased significantly only since 2005 (Turnball et al., 2020; Hinz, 2008).

Against this background, the paper presentation–that is based on a running PhD project–focuses on a comparison of German and American meanings and conceptions of inclusion in education research discourses in Germany and the U.S., respectively. The paper analyzes how inclusion is understood and constructed in scholarly educational research publications in both Germany and the U.S. Using the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) (Keller 2011)–a discourse analytical and sociological research strategy–articles of German and American education research journals will be analyzed in order to compare both education research discourses with regard to the understandings of inclusion and exclusion and their justifications, discourse formations, discursive practices constructing these understandings, and power relations within discourses on inclusion. The presentation will illustrate how meanings of inclusion are constructed and (re-)produced as well as explains similarities and differences between the mentioned discourses against the backdrop of the national and cultural contexts of Germany and the U.S, respectively, as well as the broader transnational environment. The findings demonstrate how national education research discourses deal and interact with transnational reforms and ideas and show the response of these discourses to required changes on inter- and transnational levels. The paper presented here will briefly summarize the background of the study, the history of inclusion and education research cultures in both Germany and the U.S. The main focus will be on the presentation and discussion of the findings of the discourse analysis.

The paper is based on the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) (Keller, 2011) in order to analyze the above-mentioned research questions. The theoretical background of this methodological approach mainly refers to the discourse concept of Foucault (1972) and assumptions of the sociology of knowledge by Berger & Luckmann (1967). This research approach is particularly suitable for investigating and reconstructing processes of social construction of meanings, conceptions, and orders of knowledge and, thus, analyzing discursive constructions of the concept inclusion. In order to analyze education research discourses, articles from five German and five American scholarly research journals as well as documents of inter- and transnational organizations and actors (United Nations, European Union, OECD, The World Bank, UNESCO) will be analyzed. The scholarly journals have been selected through theoretical criteria (quantitative criterion: Journal Impact Factor (JIF); qualitative criteria: peer review, tradition, recommendations of research associations and education researchers) and all articles of the journals have been chosen with the word ‘inclusion’ and/or ‘exclusion’ in the title of the articles until 2018. The project uses analyzing tools of the Grounded Theory and Situational Analysis (Strauss, 1987; Clarke et al., 2018) as well as sequential analysis in order to reconstruct frames and classifications within the discourses (Keller, 2011). The research findings will be interpreted against the background of the respective cultural and historical contexts of education research and inter- and transnational developments concerning inclusion. In doing so, the systems theory (Luhmann, 2013) and the theory of neo-institutionalism (e.g. Drori et al., 2003; Wiseman et al., 2013) will be used.

The findings presented here reflect the inter- and transnational requirement and idea of inclusive education in the context of national education research discourses in Germany and the U.S. and reveal how both nation states discuss the concept within their research systems and how the understandings of inclusion are discursively constructed. The results show that the concept inclusion and the discussion about this concept depend on the respective research culture. Research about inclusion in the U.S. is more focused on empirical and evidence-based research, compared to Germany, where articles about inclusion have a focus on theoretical and philosophical issues (e.g. Johanningmeier & Richardson, 2008; Keiner, 2011). Nevertheless, in both countries inclusion is strongly related to the realization of participation and social justice as well as the improvement of educational processes and systems. Against this background, the results can demonstrate how both education systems and particularly education research systems interact with the transnational requirement of inclusive education in their respective research system. Thus, the paper can make a contribution to the relationship and entanglement of transnational and national discursive processes and can deconstruct assumptions of inclusion and exclusion. Furthermore, the findings illustrate changes in national discourses with regard to the understanding of inclusion and can also show–especially concerning the comparative perspective–which topics and issues are not addressed within the national discourses in both Germany and the U.S. Against this background, the results can contribute to the debate on inclusive education and can show topics and meanings discussing in education research discourses in a European and in a non-European country.

Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books. Clarke, A.E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R.S. (2018). Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory After the Interpretive Turn (2nd Edition). Los Angeles et al.: SAGE. D’Alessio, S. & Watkins, A. (2009). International Comparisons of Inclusive Policy and Practice: are we talking about the same? Research in Comparative and international Education, 4(3), 233-249. Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F.O., & Schofer, E. (2003): Science in Modern World Polity. Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Book. Hardy, I. & Woodcock, S. (2014). Inclusive education policies. Discourses of differences, diversity and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 141-164. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change. Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Hinz, A. (2008). Inklusion – historische Entwicklungslinien und internationale Kontexte [Inclusion – Historical Developments and International Contexts]. In: Hinz, A., Körner, I., & Niehoff, U. (Eds.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen – Perspektiven – Praxis [From Integration to Inclusion. Basics – Perspectives – Practice] (pp. 33-52). Marburg: Lebenshilfe. Johanningmeier, E. & Richardson, T. (2008). Educational Research, the National Agenda, and Educational Reform. A History. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Keiner, E. (2011). Disciplines of Education. The Value of Disciplinary Self-Observation. In Furlong, J. & Lawn, M. (Eds.), Disciplines of Education. Their Role in the Future of Education Research (pp. 159-172). Abington, Oxon: Routledge. Keller, R. (2011). The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD). Human Studies, 34(1), 43-65. Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of Society. Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1997). Implementing Inclusive Education. Paris: OECD. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: University Press. Turnball, Ann, Turnball, R., Wehmeyer, M.L., & Shrogen, K.A. (2020). Exceptional Lives. Practice, Progress, & Dignity in Today’s School (Ninth Edition). Hoboken: Pearson. United Nations (2006). UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html [Jan 10, 2021]. Wiseman, A.W., Astiz, M.F., Baker, D.P. (2013). Globalization and Comparative Education Research: Misconceptions and Applications of Neo-Institutional Theory. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, no 1, 31-52.