This paper discusses - on a methodological basis - how the entanglement of research object (inclusive education), method (ethnography) and researcher (myself) constructs research on inclusive education in North-South relations. In addition, this paper illustrates how this construction leads to a reproduction of exclusive dynamics within this field of research, by taking into account an Inclusion and Open Science (OS) perspective. These patterns suggest at elements of an ongoing and contemporary postcolonial context in terms of knowledge production, representation and equity. The methodological discussion is part of my PhD project on inclusive education practices in rural Ghana.

To begin with, doing research on inclusive education in an international context is of a human rights based and developmental interest, as both the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) and the Agenda 2030 have politically and legally anchored inclusive education at the international level. However, doing research on this concept in an international context is problematic: both inclusion and dis/ability are considered to be contextually generated constructs that consequently differ from context to context. Both phenomena are themselves constructs that combine socio-economic, historical and politically shaped perspectives. (Singal, 2010, 2013) As a result, an a priori understanding of disability or inclusion is not reliable, so that the concept of inclusive education is limited to the contextual factors in which these phenomena are considered.

The need to discuss and reflect on contextual factors is of particular interest in North-South relations, which are characterized by issues of post-colonialism, power and inequity. This is not sufficiently pursued by academics. Consequently, the negotiation of inclusive education is described as a form of "('western') cultural imperialism" (Haskell, 1998) or as “from the West to the rest” (Grech, 2011). This aspect is hardly surprising, given that the concept itself results from reforms and developments of education systems in the so-called Global North (Global North is italicized to emphasize that it is a social construct based on a discriminatory ideology) (Werning et al., 2016).

It becomes evident that the theoretical negotiation is far away from an open, collaborative, and inclusive interaction that the idea of OS aspires to. By defining OS as a call for the democratization and decolonization of research (Chan et al., 2019), it becomes clear that the dominant norms within knowledge production create an exclusive, constant re-legitimization, in which diversity plays a marginal role. Hence, this closed research process does not fulfil the idea of a science that considers diversity, equity and inclusion as guiding research principles. This framework spans a field of tension where methodology, theory and epistemology need to be critically examined in order to achieve equitable representation, participation and diversity. (Bivand Erdal, 2019; Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018)

Furthermore, inclusive education theory in North-South relations points to methodological challenges: how is research ethically justifiable? Contextualizing my dissertation project on inclusive education practice in rural Ghana within the inclusive education theory and within the OS framework, I critically discussed the development of an inclusive research design in order to reduce exclusive dynamics. To achieve this, I address exclusion in several areas, which in turn may provide implications for an inclusive research process: object, method, and researcher. As outlined, the overarching research interest lies at both a methodological (I.) and a theoretical (II.) level:

1. How does the entanglement of researcher (me), object (inclusive education) and method (ethnography) construct the perspective on inclusive education in North-South relations?
2. How is the inclusive education practice adopted in rural Ghana?

Consequently, I will be able to present the inclusive education practice in rural Ghana as constructive, by considering both levels as influencing each other.

Situating myself within the ethnographic paradigm (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland & Lofland, 2014; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019; Sancho Gil & Hernández-Hernández, 2021), I conducted ethnographic fieldwork in rural Ghana twice for about two months each: in 2017 and 2019. During this time, I lived with a host family in a village of about 200 people, which allowed me to immerse myself in everyday practices, challenges and routines. After weeks of developing access through my constant presence in the area, I met Paul (anonymized), who was introduced to me by the villagers as a mentally and physically disabled boy. From this point on, I was allowed to accompany Paul to school, to attend lessons, interact with teachers and learn about other forms of schooling and activities. I took field notes during my observations and ethnographic interviews, which I then transcribed into protocols. I gained insights through both participant observation and observational participation. The ethnographic paradigm itself represents a constructive process, firstly because of the observations based on the perceptions and perspectives of the researcher, and secondly because of the translation from what is observed to what is recorded in the field notes. Considering the concept of inclusive education as relational, I therefore had to work out the impact of subjective perspectives and the location from which they are observed. I therefore considered subjectivity as an epistemic value. As a result, I developed a personal style of writing ethnographic field notes in which I express subjectivity (Beatty, 2010; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 2011). While research in this context runs the risk of reproducing a "from the West to the rest" (Grech, 2011) mentality at both a theoretical and methodological level, I am attempting to explore a way of considering the influence of myself within this research process in this way. My empirical material is analyzed according to the Grounded Theory Methodology of Strauss and Corbin (1996) and Charmaz (2006), focusing on two different but related levels: the practice of inclusive education and how the observations and experiences affected me as a researcher and as a person. Subjectivity (emotions, irritations, uncertainties of action) became of great interest as a source of knowledge as the analysis gains an empirical basis that can be analyzed systematically, critically and self-reflexively. This step allows me to draw conclusions about (linguistic) images, 'othering' processes and norms that arise from my socialization.

My expected outcomes are based firstly on the level of knowledge production and secondly on the level of access to and participation in knowledge. At the first level, I trace exclusive dynamics by analyzing my ethnographic data in focus (I), atmosphere (II) and formulation (III) and ask how they relate to the biases mentioned below: I. What did I focus on during the fieldwork? What did I leave out? II. What atmosphere does my subjective style of writing style create? How does it reproduce essentialisation? How (detailed) do I describe? III. What kind of words do I use to describe inclusive educational practice? How do they contribute to processes of 'othering'? At the second level, I distinguish between epistemic (a), structural (b), institutional (c) and personal (d) biases. a. How open am I to ‘other’ forms of (embodied) knowledge? Beyond scientific assumptions, what cultural, historical or political conditions and perspectives influence the ethnographic paradigm and the research questions I pose? b. How do I decide whom to cite in my research? Where will I publish and with whom will I share and discuss my research? Do I primarily cite researchers from the Global North? c. How diverse are the interpreters with whom I work? Do I get heterogeneous perspectives on inclusive education and knowledge production? To what extent are my working groups defined by white, endo-cis male, able-bodied, middle-class and Christian socialized people? d. How have I been socialized? How do people's external characteristics influence my evaluation of their work? In summary, the exclusionary entanglement of researcher, object and method produces what I have termed ‘Knowledge Inequity’ within the OS movement. It can be seen as both a consequence and a cause of the “from West to the rest” mentality (Kruschick & Schoch, 2023; Steinhardt & Kruschick, 2022).

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of ethnography (Reprinted.). Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC: SAGE. Beatty, A. (2010). How Did It Feel for You? Emotion, Narrative, and the Limits of Ethnography. American Anthropologist, 112(3), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01250.x Bivand Erdal, M. (2019). Open Knowledge Beyond Replicability – PRIO Blogs. Last access 8.12.2022. Available at: https://blogs.prio.org/2019/10/open-knowledge-beyond-replicability/ Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Day, E. (2002). Me, My*self and I: Personal and Professional Re-Constructions in Ethnographic Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Re-search, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.824 Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing) (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Grech, S. (2011). Recolonising debates or perpetuated coloniality? Decentring the spaces of disability, development and community in the global South. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496198 Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: principles in practice (4 Edition.). New York: Routledge. Haskell, S. H. (1998). Inclusive schooling: The contemporary cultural imperialism of western ideologies. Hold at the Second International Exhibition and Congress on Rehabilitation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Kruschick, F. & Schoch, K. (2023). Knowledge equity and Open Science: An attempt to outline the field from a feminist research perspective. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8. Sancho Gil, J. M. & Hernández-Hernández, F. (Eds.). (2021). Becoming an educational ethnographer: the challenges and opportunities of undertaking research. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge. Singal, N. (2010). Doing disability research in a Southern context: challenges and possibilities. Disability & Society, 25(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003755807 Singal, N. (2013). Disability, poverty and education. London: Routledge. Steinhardt, I. & Kruschick, F. (2022). Knowledge Equity and Open Science in qualitative research – Practical research considerations. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e86387. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e86387 Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: on writing ethnography (Second edition.). Chicago: University of Chicago press. Vicente-Saez, R. & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043 Werning, R.; Artiles, A. J.; Engelbrecht, P.; Hummel, M.; Caballeros, M. & Rothe, A. (Eds.). (2016). Keeping the promise? Contextualizing inclusive education in developing countries. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.