The research paper at hand is related to the 'Learning from the Covid-19 pandemic - Building Resilience through inclusive education systems' (BRIES) project of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). In this context the following research questions emerged:

'Which tools or materials - developed by education stakeholders from different levels - can support policy development and implementation for inclusive education systems during crisis situations in Europe?"

Related to this main question, the implementation of the research dealt with the following sub-question:

'How can different stakeholders’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic be turned into an opportunity to build resilience in inclusive education systems?'

Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights for People with Disabilities constitutes one of the main pillars for this paper. It is related to issues around participation in political and public life, namely: ‘[…] to ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life […].’ (UN 2006, online). Therefore, the aim was to include vulnerable learners and other stakeholders in discussions with policy-makers to address challenges and develop tools and material to support inclusive education systems in future times of crisis (Mangiaracina et al. 2021).

A literature research provided the basis for all subsequent activities. For collecting data, a qualitative research approach was chosen (Silverman 2016). Following a theoretical sampling method (Corbin & Strauss 2015), the field research included online focus group discussions and a variety of other methods for exchanging with participants (including a dialogic structure during face-to-face meetings). The focus groups consisted of stakeholders from four different levels (vulnerable learners from lower and upper secondary schools, parents of vulnerable learners, teachers of vulnerable learners, and policy-makers) and six European countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden). The different stakeholder groups were asked to talk about their experiences during the pandemic and try to identify priority areas they think would need most attention.

The collected data (discussion notes and video recordings) were analysed with the qualitative data analysis tool ‘atlas.ti’. Informed consent was collected beforehand.

Regarding the theoretical framework, the research was designed in the style of grounded theory following the constuctivist approach of Kathy Charmaz (2014). Emerging categories and results of the first focus group discussions among same-level stakeholders provided the basis for a second round, this time with multi-level stakeholder discussions within each country. In these discussions participants were asked to think about suggestions of tools and material that might facilitate inclusive education processes in future times of crisis.

Following the concept of ‘constant comparison’ of the grounded theory approach (Clark, 2005), input was analysed with the help of atlas.ti and processed before a third round of exchanges took place. This third round included stakeholders from all levels and all countries. Thereby, two groups consisting of three countries each were formed to make discussions more manageable. For the implementation, different methods were applied.

By presenting outcomes and findings of the research process so far  (see below for more information) it is expected to inspire and inform future research. Furthermore, it is aimed to emphasise the necessity to include stakeholders from all levels in policy-making processes in the inclusive education sector. At the same time, an example of how stakeholder participation can be implemented in practice is presented. This includes discussing benefits for all stakeholders who were involved, but also addressing challenges and concerns that emerged.

As mentioned in the proposal information, the research project followed a research approach in the style of grounded theory as suggested by Kathy Charmaz (2014). Various methods of qualitative inquiry were applied in three different phases of field research. Focus group discussions were used to start in the first phase of data collection. The emphasis was put on participants' experiences during the pandemic and priority areas they could identify in relation to their needs in the context of education. In a second phase, following the theoretical sampling method (Corbin & Strauss 2015) a dialogic structure (Alozie & Mitchell 2014, Lave & Wenger 1999) was used to especially empower learners' and parents' voices (but also teachers' voices) while discussing with policy-makers (Mangiaracina et al. 2021, Robinson & Taylor 2013, Siry 2020). In the third phase, participants exchanged in different stakeholder-levels and across different countries. For this purpose, groups were split up to maintain a reasonable size. In these mixed groups stakeholders discussed concepts that emerged from the previous discussions. They were given the opportunity to rank potential priority areas, exclude or add new ideas and discuss content, aims etc. in different small focus groups (Krueger & Casey 2009, Seal et al. 1998). The concept of constant comparison (Charmaz 2014, Clark 2005) guided the researchers through the different steps of data collection and analysis. Emerging concepts and categories were analysed and discussed further, in case saturation was not reached. In the final step of data collection, different workshop tools allowing smaller group exchanges (Seal et al. 1998) were used in face-to-face meetings (e.g. poster walks, world café approach). Data collection focused on notes, observations, and outputs of the focus group discussions (e.g. posters). The variety of methods used led to a higher quality and depth of exchange between all stakeholders. One hypothesis is that the small group discussions supported participants in reaching a consensus about a potential tool in the end as different view points and experiences had been shared and discussed already earlier.

The core category that emerged from the analysis of all the collected data was the ‘need for effective communication’. This core category feeds into sub-categories (marked with '') by for example supporting the possibility of ‘identifying needs of learners early’, 'ensuring mental health and well-being’ of all involved in inclusive education processes, and 'fighting learning loss’ daily, just to name a few. Regarding the aim of identifying a tool for supporting policy development and all involved in the teaching learning process, a conclusion was reached by all participants. All stakeholders agreed on the development of a ‘framework for effective communication’. It was impressive how united all levels of stakeholders from different countries found consensus in this aspect. In a next step, this framework will be developed with the involvement of stakeholders from all levels. This will mainly take place in spring 2023. The participants' reflections on the discussions and methods used proved the suitability and effectiveness of the latter. Being able to exchange with other country representatives and between levels was extremely fruitful. The positive feedback from participants emphasised the need of including especially vulnerable stakeholders in policy-making processes and discussions. Their motivation to keep on being involved in and contribute to the process of developing a tool for supporting inclusive education on policy level was extremely high. It is essential to provide the time and space for co-operation and exchange amongst different levels of stakeholders. Effective communication enables all involved in and contributing to inclusive education systems to identify and communicate needs early. It supports the possibility to work proactively and preventative; and it keeps negative consequences and the need for interventions low. Especially the involvement of vulnerable learners showed that, once their voices are empowered, policy-makers and other experts listen and act on the issues raised.

Alozie, N. & Mitchell, C., 2014. Getting Students Talking: Supporting Classroom Discussion Practices in Inquiry-Based Science in Real-Time Teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 76(8), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.8.3. Bhan, S. & Julka, A., 2021. Disability Inclusive COVID-19 Response. Best Practices. unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378354 (Last accessed December 2022). Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). Sage. Clark, A. E., 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks et al., Sage. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. L., 2015. Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). Sage. Couper-Kenney, F. & Riddell, S., 2021. ‘The impact of COVID-19 on children with additional support needs and disabilities in Scotland’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (1), 20–34. Krueger, R. & Casey, M. A., 2009. Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research (4. ed..). Sage. Lave, J., & Wenger, E., 1999. Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. Learners and pedagogy, 21-33. Lindblad, S., Wärvik, G.-B., Berndtsson, I., Jodal, E.-B., Lindqvist, A., Messina Dahlberg, G., Papadopoulos, D., Runesdotter, C., Samuelsson, K., Udd, J. and Wyszynska Johansson, M., 2021. ‘School lockdown? Comparative analyses of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in European countries’ European Educational Research Journal, 20 (5), 564–583. Mangiaracina, A., Kefallinou, A., Kyriazopoulou, M., & Watkins, A., 2021. Learners’ voices in inclusive education policy debates. Education Sciences, 11(10), 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100599. Messiou, K. & Hope, A. M., 2015. The danger of subverting students’ views in schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:10, 1009-1021. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1024763 Silverman, D., 2016. Qualitative research (5th edition.). Sage Robinson, C., & Taylor, C., 2013. Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools, 16(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480212469713. Seal, d. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A., 1998. Small Group Dynamics. Group Dynamics, 2(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.253. Siry, C., 2020. Dialogic Pedagogies and Multimodal Methodologies: Working Towards Inclusive Science Education and Research. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-BJA10017. Soriano, V. Young voices on inclusive education. In Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 8. UN, 2006. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-29-participation-in-political-and-public-life.html (last accessed January 2023). UNESCO, 2020. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020. Inclusion and Education: All Means All; Paris, France.