Ulrich (2018: 75) points out that inclusion – in a pedagogical definition – dodges the aspiration of formalization that organisations process. Instead, it remains in the undefined which refers to the unavailability of the mental systems and attitudes of the organisational members (cf. ibid.: 74). This indirectly describes an empirical research program that is dedicated to the question of what exactly happens when organisations (such as schools) work inclusively – or claim to do so. More precisely – in terms of the level of pedagogical interaction following the systems theory sensu Luhmann (2002) – it would be to speak of an underdetermination: the decisions made at the organisational level tend to take on a form that contours the operational level (e.g., the classroom interaction) but does not determine it extensively (cf. Kuper 2008: 153). In this sense, organisations specify the rather diffuse expectations on the part of society and translate them into concrete programs (e.g., via curricula, timetables, cf. ibid.) or prevent them from being overwhelmed – as not all decisions can be made in the classroom itself (cf. Luhmann 2002: 121). On the other hand, freedom is created for professionalised actions, which cannot be oriented towards rules, since it always must deal with individualised clients (cf. Stichweh 1996: 60).

In this view, there is drawn a complex relationship between the interconnection and disconnection. Subsequently, research questions should not only focus on the orientations and practices of teachers, but also on the organisational structural condition for the interaction (cf. Bohnsack 2017: 135). In this context, Bohnsack – following Luhmann (2000: 222ff.) – describes it as a characteristic of organised social systems that they are based on decisions enabling further decisions. Consequently, interactions within organisations differ categorically from those outside since the latter do not know such (decision-based) frameworks (cf. Bohnsack 2017: 135). In this respect, the praxeological sociology of knowledge speaks of a constituting framing since it is of constitutive importance for organisations (cf. ibid.).

The question of how the specific framing is contoured can function as a 'yardstick' of professionalised action, because it focuses on the necessary processing of the demands on the part of the organisation as well as on the part of the interactions with the clients (cf. Bohnsack 2020: 109). Bohnsack thus addresses a tension that has already been raised in existing theories of professionalised action (cf. Oevermann 1996) but outlines it differently – especially regarding the question of how the individualised clients (Stichweh 1996: 60) are thought. The present contribution wants to use this framework within an empirical study.

As Feuser (1996) emphasizes, it should actually be an inherent pedagogical concern to focus on what a person can become according to his or her possibilities – and not on how he or she appears to us at the moment. However, the word 'actually' already indicates that this is often not the case – also in pedagogy that operates as inclusive. Wagener (2020: 118), for example, observes in his classroom study the consolidation of 'disabled identities' in Swiss secondary school class settings with an inclusive orientation. As Bohnsack (2020, 28f.) points out, these 'constructions of total identities' (Garfinkel 1976) are not clearly illuminated in theories of (professionalised) pedagogical action: Oevermann (1996: 148-149), for example, speaks of the fact that the pupil is to be grasped in its totality as a whole person (ibid.: 149). Bohnsack (2020: 29) opposes such delimiting tendencies by pointing out the 'degradation ceremonial' (Garfinkel 1976) potentially associated with this. Instead, he works out that persons are to be thought of as products of social systems (cf. Bohnsack 2020: 42). Thus, professionalised action is conceived as handling the discrepancy between the normative requirements of the organisation and the constitution of a shared practice with the clients (ibid.: 31). As tertium comparationis with the aim of making the specific characteristics of the different professionalised practices visible, this approach was used for the analysis of empirical data in the SNF project "Primary schools in the field of tension between inclusion and educational standards" (Wagner-Willi and Zahnd 2020) – more precisely: in the sub-project, which pursues a reconstructive case comparison. This sub-project systematically examines classroom practice through group discussions with class teams (class teachers, special needs teachers, assistants) and pupils, as well as classroom videography in the different class settings of mainstream and inclusive classes (4th-5th grade). Both settings are entrusted with the implementation of integrative solutions (cf: D-EDK 2018: 5), but differ in terms of composition and resources: While three to five pupils in integrative classes receive so-called 'enhanced measures' (ibid.: 4) and a permanent double staffing with class teacher and special needs teacher is structurally provided, in mainstream classes, support can only be claimed on a need-oriented basis (up to five lessons/week).

Initial data evaluated (using the documentary method, Bohnsack 2017) show a shift towards an arbitrary mode of interaction, especially in the integration classes – and to the detriment of the pupils who receive enhanced measures. Thus, it can be observed how moralisations, e.g. being 'negligent' in dealing with technical equipment, or incompetence attributions, e.g. via shifts in the assignment, are processed in relation to these pupils. This has consequences for the constituent framing, which tends to be broken through this. Thereby, it can be demonstrated that this does not coincide with the potential for action that the respective pupils show in the concrete teaching situation. In this sense, the teachers fail in connecting their assessment to the way these pupils participate within the interaction system (cf. Bohnsack 2020: 78). In accordance with previous research findings (cf. Wagener 2020), the danger of total identity constructions is particularly evident in the case of integration classes. This raises the question of the extent to which the organisational coupling of personnel resources with the diagnostically justified and specifically assigned need for so-called enhanced measures encourages the observed forms of an arbitrary mode of interaction. Regarding such an undermining of a professionalised practice, it is important to clarify in further analyses – by comparing cases – how this unfolds in the classroom cooperation of class teachers and special needs teachers.

Bohnsack, Ralf. 2020. Professionalisierung in praxeologischer Perspektive. Opladen/Toronto: Budrich. Bohnsack, Ralf. 2017. Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Opladen/Toronto: Budrich. D-EDK. 2018. Sonderschulung und Lehrplan 21. https://www.regionalkonferenzen.ch/sites/default/files/2019-02/FB%20Sonderschulung%20Lehrplan%2021_2018-01-31.pdf Feuser, Georg. 1996. Zum Verhältnis von Menschenbild und Integration – «Geistigbehinderte gibt es nicht!». http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/feuser-geistigbehinderte.html Garfinkel, Harold. 1976. Bedingungen für den Erfolg von Degradierungszeremonien. In Seminar Abweichendes Verhalten III, ed. Klaus Lüderssen und Fritz Sack, 31–40. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Kuper, Harm. 2008. Entscheiden und Kommunizieren. In Pädagogische Professionalität in Organisationen, ed. Werner Helsper, Susann Busse, Merle Hummrich, und Rolf-Torsten Kramer, 149–162. Wiesbaden: VS. Luhmann, Niklas. 2002. Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen/Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Oevermann, Ulrich. 1996. Theoretische Skizze einer revidierten Theorie professionalisierten Handelns. In Pädagogische Professionalität, ed. Arno Combe und Werner Helsper, 70–182. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Stichweh, Rudolf. 1996. Professionen in einer funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. In Pädagogische Professionalität, ed. Arno Combe und Werner Helsper, 49–69. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Ullrich, Stephan. 2018. Organisationen – der blinde Fleck inklusiver Pädagogik. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Wagener, Benjamin. 2020. Leistung, Differenz und Inklusion. Wiesbaden: Springer. Wagner-Willi, Monika und Raphael Zahnd. 2020. Primarschulen im Spannungsfeld von Inklusion und Bildungsstandards. https://data.snf.ch/grants/grant/188805