What is new about inclusive schools and how can they be created? In which ways are our own horizons of meaning limited when we think of schools in inclusive terms? Do the boundaries of the hegemonic relations surrounding us remain untouched?

There have been major international efforts over the last 30 years to guarantee adequate equal participation and there is still a long way to go. Inclusion – understood as the realization of equal participation for all – is a necessary claim of a democratic society. At the same time, however, the realization of this claim is itself entangled in (power) relations (Ainscow 2021; Geldner 2020). Based on the thesis that building social consensus does not work as a top-down-strategy (Moser/Egger 2017: 15), I am interested in group processes of building new visions of inclusion.

The topic of my doctoral project is a concept of ‘collective transformation processes of Bildung’ in foundation initiatives of inclusive schools.

Bildung is a German concept and central point within the discourses of educational philosophy and research, which dates back to Humboldt around 1800 (see Humboldt 1960-1981). A first step towards an understanding of Bildung situates the demarcation of the mere gain of knowledge within a horizon of meaning and interpretation or the intentional education of one person. However, it more accurately to a change of that horizon itself and self-education (a.o. ibid.; Koller 2018 & 2020) that is inconclusive, open and teleologically indeterminate. It focuses – similar to the US American concept of transformative learning – on the transformative aspect, more than on the utilitarian notion (cf. Buttigieg/Calleja 2021). It can be seen as a countermovement to a drive towards large scale assessments, to the quest for controllability and plannability of learning.

Koller (2018) has brought together various approaches that continue the historical notion of the term, but also attempt to adapt it to current circumstances, while preserving the critical potential and to connect theoretical reflection with empirical analysis. The idea of theory of transformational processes of Bildung advanced to a widely received and diversely developed theory (a.o. Fritzsche et al 2001; Kokemohr 1989; Koller 2018; Marotzki 1991; Nohl 2006; Peukert 2000).

I want to take this theory as a starting point and offer another approach of – collective – processes of Bildung by linking it to the philosophy of praxis (Antonio Gramsci)and a critical theory of ideology. I understand ideologies as power- and domination-maintaining social consensuses (passive or active) of the current reality (cf. Rehmann 2015).

Koller’s three basic assumptions are the following. First, the object of transformation – according to Humboldt and following Kokemohr – world-self-references of the subjects, which he understands as linguistically mediated relations. Secondly, if the subject is irritated or challenged by a problem that can’t be solved by any patterns within the current world- and self-reference, a crisis occurs, which gives – thirdly – rise to a change not only of those patterns, but of the world- and self-reference itself (Koller 2020: 650; Koller 2018). Thus, Bildung doesn’t appear harmonious, as it did for Humboldt, but as a radical questioning. I want to examine those processes for ideology-critical potential – in the analytical and transgressive sense – that aims at the inner (self-) contradictions, without, however, directly counter the ‘new’, since it arises in the critics (Jaeggi 2019; Gramsci 2012 (GH); Rehmann 2015, 2020).

Accordingly, I understand collective transformational processes of Bildung as practices of creating group-internal consensuses, depending on the (explicit or implicit) criticism of ideology.

Therefore, my research question is: How do founding initiatives of inclusive schools create shared visions of new inclusive schools and how do they deal with hegemonic (school-related) ideologies in the process?

As already indicated, I will question not only ‘what’, but ‘how’ shared visions of inclusive schools are created. Hence, the search aims to offer ‘insights into our everyday practice, which extend beyond this theorizing about our practice.’ (Bohnsack 2013: 219) or in other words: I want to explicate the implicit. For this purpose, I observe and audio-record three self-initiated group meetings of three founding initiatives respectively (via video conference tools chosen by the groups) and interpret their discussions with the documentary method (a.o. Przyborski 2004; Bohnsack 2017; Amlin et.al. 2020). The documentary method leads back to Mannheim’s draft ‘documentary method of interpretation’ from the 1920s (cf. Bohnsack 2013: 217). Its meta-theoretical premises are based in the praxeological sociology of knowledge, as developed by Bohnsack (2017). The core principle is to differentiate between (the notorious discrepant) two dimensions: Frist, the dimension of communicative knowledge, which is more explicit and theoretical (‘what’ we do or say), e.g. norms or expectation. Secondy, the dimension of conjunctive knowledge, which is more implicit, namely shared experiences or knowledge, i.e. perpetuated, action-practical knowledge (‘how’ we do or say it). Both dimensions or layers constitute our everyday life (Bohnsack 2013: 220). In the context of my project, the search for distortions – the handling or critique of the (hegemonic) school system – must not be understood as an (exclusively) conscious process. It is rather constituent of the conjunctive space of experience, which includes both dimensions and the discrepancy between them (Bohnsack 2017: 107). The documentary method offers an access to the internal logic of their practices and allows me to reconstruct collective orientations in their genesis (Bohnsack 2014: 34). In accordance with the method, I first follow the initiative’s reference frames, seek to reconstruct their orientation, their crises or dissolution of boundaries, and moments of processing. Particularly interesting for me are passages that show, what kind of normalcies are produced, passages of implicit reflection, as well as the expanding of positive and negative (counter-)horizons. In a second step, I will examine the results and discuss them in an ideology-critical way, since I cannot anticipate what normalcies may refer to power-preserving ideologies or what discourses may show critical potentials. The documentary method facilitates the connection of theoretical reflection with empirical analysis. It enables an access to collective transformational processes of Bildung, while the notorious discrepancies between communicative and conjunctive knowledge are critically elaborated.

The documentary method is a reconstructive method in two respects: First, it aims to reconstruct collective orientations. Secondly, its methodological procedure was developed in the research process and is further modified and sharpened accordingly on the respective research object. During the research process the so-called ‘implicit reflection’ came to the fore, which has ideology-critical potential. Instead of theoretical, conscious reflection, practical or implicit reflection is more implicit within one’s practice, which – at the same time – enables its modification or transformation (Bohnsack 2020: 61-62). Very prominent, especially for one initiative, are imaginary narratives about which options (for action) won’t be or weren’t realized. Gradually, different modes of discourse become apparent with more or less ideology-critical potential. Also, there are indications that it requires courage to theoretically or implicitly reflect (school-related) normalcies. Through comparative analysis, different ways of dealing with that insecurity of criticism or negation occur, which leads to different collective orientations. Either – but that is only a first notion of my results – to an orientation towards a discourse, (‘everything can be discussed’ or ‘the discussion must go on’) that requires an intimate atmosphere. Or to an orientation towards hierarchy, which requires a clear role distribution and time frames. Ideological criticism can be described as a crisis, which is why it requires courage. It can be seen as negations of the normal, which goes even further towards a ‘paradox irritation’. It does not only refer to one normalcy, but also, to put it simply, to the frame that describes it as a normalcy (Koller 2018: 85; also: Husserl 1931/2014; GH4, §56). However, that is only an outlook. For the paper presentation I want to demonstrate my research on a founding initiative of a school, where different Eastern European languages and cultures, as well as East and West, meet in dialogue.

Ainscow, M. (2021). Inclusion and Equity in Education: Responding to a Global Challenge. In: Köpfer/Powell/Zahnd (Hg.): Handbuch Inklusion international. Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 75 - 87. Amling, S.; Geimer, A.; Rundel, S.; Thomson, S. (Hg.) (2020). JDM - Jahrbuch Dokumentarische Methode. Berlin: ces (2-3). Bohnsack, R. (2013). Documentary Method. In: Flick. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publications, S. 217–233. Bohnsack, R. (2014). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden. 9., überarb. und erw. Aufl. Opladen: Budrich. Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Opladen, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Bohnsack, R. (2020). Professionalisierung in praxeologischer Perspektive. Zur Eigenlogik der Praxis in Lehramt, sozialer Arbeit und Frühpädagogik. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Buttigieg, K.; Calleja, C. (2021). Bildung and Transformative Learning Theory: Two Peas in a Pod? In: Journal of Transformative Education 19 (2), S. 166–185. Fritzsche, B.; Hartmann, J.; Schmidt, A.; Tervooren, A. (2001). Dekonstruktive Pädagogik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Geldner, J. (2020). Inklusion, das Politische und die Gesellschaft. Zur Aktualisierung des demokratischen Versprechens in Pädagogik und Erziehungswissenschaft. Bielefeld: transcript-Verlag. GH: Gramsci, A.; Bochmann, K. (Hg.) (2012). Gefängnishefte. 1. Aufl. Hamburg: Argument Verl. Humboldt, W. v. (1960–1981), Werke in fünf Bänden, Flitner/Giel (Hrsg.). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Husserl, E. (1931/2014). Ideas. General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Jaeggi, R.; Wesche, T. (Hg.) (2019). Was ist Kritik? Symposion "Immanenz und Transzendenz - Konstellationen philosophischer Kritik". 5. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Kokemohr, R. (1989). Bildung als Begegnung? In: Hansmann/Marotzki (Hrsg.): Diskurs Bildungstheorie II. Weinheim: Beltz, S. 327-373. Koller, H.‐C. (2020). Problems and Perspectives of a Theory of Transformational Processes of Bildung. In: Educ Theory 70 (5), S. 633–651. Koller, H.-C. (2018). Bildung anders denken. Einführung in die Theorie transformatorischer Bildungsprozesse. 2., aktualisierte Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. Marotzki, W. (1991). Entwurf einer strukturalen Bildungstheorie. Biographietheoretische Auslegung von Bildungsprozessen in hochkomplexen Gesellschaften. Weinheim: Dt. Studien-Verl. Moser, V.; Egger, M. (Hg.) (2017). Inklusion und Schulentwicklung. Konzepte, Instrumente, Befunde. 1. Auflage. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Nohl, A.-M. (2006). Bildung und Spontaneität — Phasen von Wandlungsprozessen in drei Lebensaltern — Empirische Rekonstruktionen und pragmatistische Reflexionen. Opladen: Budrich. Peukert, H. (2000). Reflexionen über die Zukunft von Bildung. Weinheim: Beltz. Rehmann, J. (2020). Ernst Bloch as a Philosopher of Praxis. In: 10.14746/prt 35 (1). Rehmann, J. (2015). Einführung in die Ideologietheorie. Dt. Orig.-Ausg., 4. Aufl. Hamburg: Argument-Verl.