The 2030 Agenda (UNESCO, 2015) calls for promoting learning opportunities for all through inclusive and equitable quality education. At European level, European Commissions (2018) stress the imperative of inclusive education and training at all levels. However, promoting access, participation and achievement for all learners (Both and Ainscow, 2002) is not an easy task. Policy and practices are failing in achieving inclusive education in the interest of social justice in schools (De Beco, 2018). Initial Teacher Education (ITE) plays an important role in this respect. European studies show that ITE does not always prepare preservice teachers for the education challenge (Acquah et al., 2020; Vigo-Arrazola et al., 2019). The literature shows similar results in the Spanish context (Sánchez-Serrano et al., 2021). Among the reasons, are the different conceptualisation of inclusive education (Artiles, 2020) or the dominant special education perspective (Rice, 2020). Research on inclusive education in ITE has focused on previous contact experiences with diversity (Sharma et al., 2008), linking theory and practice (Zeichner, 2010) or the importance of considering spaces for reflection and discussion and individual and collective research (Vigo-Arrazola et al., 2019). However, little research has focused on what arrangements exist in particular sites of practices that are enabling and constraining preservice teachers´ inclusive practices. 

This paper takes as a reference the lenses of the Theory of Practice Architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008) and its conceptualization of practice as a set of “sayings” (understanding), “doings” (actions), and “relatings” (ways in which people relate to). I argue to consider inclusive practice as a practice with its particular “sayings”, “doings” and “relating”. Practices are shaped by individual dispositions, experience or intentions, but are also shaped intersubjectively by arrangements that exist in sites of practice (Mahoon et al., 2016). The arrangements (also called practice architectures) exist simultaneously in a place of practice and enabled and constrained a particular practice (Mahoon et al., 2016). The arrangements are cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements (Mahoon et al., 2016). Furthermore, practice can be situated in multiple sites of practices (Schatzki, 2002). In this paper, two sites of practices that shape preservice teachers´ practices in ITE are considered: university and school placements. 

Using this theoretical framework, the aim is to identify what arrangements (practice architectures) exist in sites of practice that shape preservice teachers´ practice, enabling and constraining inclusive practices.  

Within an interpretive research paradigm, a qualitative approach to the data collection is adopted. The research takes the form of an institutional ethnography (Smith, 2005) that is framed by Theory of Practice Architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008). The participants are 10 preservice teachers attending university courses and school placements during the research. Fieldwork and data analysis are ongoing during the academic year 2022-2023. The empirical data consist of 2 semistructured interviews with each participant, group discussion, reflexive individual essays, document analysis and participant observation by the researcher. The research was conducted through the following phases: phase 1 includes individual reflective narrative in which participants had to describe in their own words what inclusive education is, what inclusive practice is and constraining and enabling conditions for its implementation, what are the principles which provide your framework to implement inclusive practices and how do you make decisions about inclusive practices in school; phase 2 includes regular meetings in which inclusive practices were discussed. During this process, the data were completed by 2 interviews with each participant and the researcher's reflective notes. The information collected has been transcribed and analysed following the phases established by Charmaz (2006) of Grounded Theory. The constant comparative method and a combination of inductive and deductive thinking have characterised the process. In this analysis, and drawing on the conceptual lens of practice architectures, I examine how practices are prefigured by arrangements conceptualised as practice architectures (Mahoon et al., 2016).

Although empirical findings are not generalizable to other contexts, there are features that can be transferable to the European context. The results confirm previous research. Findings show: (i) a ‘gap’ between preservice teachers´ sayings (theory) and doings (practice) regarding inclusive practices. (ii) The existence of different enabling and constraining arrangements existing beyond preservice teachers´ subjectivities in both sites of practices (university and school) and how they relate. Some enablers for inclusive practices are: discussion/sharing spaces, attitude and belief, teacher's research role, shared theoretical framework or work-sharing. Constraints for inclusive practices are: resources (personal and material), time, hegemonic thinking, teachers-pupil´ratio or specialized-knowledge. I conclude by drawing some implications for teaching inclusive practices in ITE. On the one hand, I urge that inclusive education requires attending to differences between sayings (discourse and understanding about inclusive practice) and doings (implementing practice). Paying more attention to the discourses employed and the need for a common interpretive framework on inclusive practices in ITE are key questions. On the other hand, the arrangements and the disconnection between both sites of practices, university and school, present a resistance (Sjølie, 2016). The lack of shared understanding between the university and the school practices in which preservice teachers are immersed must be addressed. As shown, theory of practice architectures helps to examine the ways in which possibilities are opened and closed (Mahoon et al., 2016). Findings present opportunities (enablers) and possibilities to find an equilibrium between theory (sayings) and practice (doings), and between site of practices and its arrangements: university and school. The research presented here has limitations such as the reduced sample or the particularities of particular contexts, but it can contribute to improving ITE in the European context in favour of inclusive education in the interest of social justice.

Acquah, E., Szelei, N., and Katz, H. (2019). Using modelling to make culturally responsive pedagogy explicit in preservice teacher education in Finland. British Educational Research Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3571 Artiles, A. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century: Disruptive interventions. The Educational Forum, 84, 289-295. Barbour, R. (2013). Los grupos de discusión en investigación cualitativa. Ediciones Morata. Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002). Guía para la evaluación y mejora de la educación inclusiva. UNESCO. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Beco, G. (2018). The right to inclusive education: why is there so much opposition to its implementation?. International Journal of Law in Context, 143 (3), 396-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000532 Kemmis, S. and Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education 37–62. Sense. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.) (2016). Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7 Rice, B. (2020). Opportunities for Inclusive Practice: The Stories Our Students Tell. In Inclusive Education Is a Right, Right? 132-144. Brill. Sánchez-Serrano, J., Alba-Pastor, C., and del Río, A. (2021). Training for inclusive education in preservice programs for Primary Education teachers in Spanish universities. Revista de Educación, 393, 311-340. Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park Sharma, U., Forlin, C., and Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of Training on Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education and Sentiments about Persons with Disabilities. Disability and Society 23, (7), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271 Smith, D. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston UNESCO (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good?. UNESCO. Vigo-Arrazola, B., Dieste, B., and García-Goncet, D. (2019). Teacher Education in and for Social Justice. An Ethnographical Research. Profesorado, revista de currículum y formación del profesorado 23, (4), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v23i4.11415 Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 6, (1–2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671