As has already been discussed in various publications (e.g., Gasterstädt, 2021, Artiles & Dyson 2005) and in the context of panels at ECER 2023 (e.g., 04 SES 02 D), the fuzzy nature of terms sometimes is an obstacle to the discourse about inclusive education as well as their realisation. On the one hand, the adaptation of inclusion-related concepts, as those set out in international conventions, across different levels of national/ regional education systems leads to (re)contextualisations such as the creation of specific terms in school practice. On the other hand, we experience the same phenomenon in scientific contexts in the form of separate strands of development linked to language-specific terms.

With the so-called meta-projects, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany has introduced a so far internationally little-known organisation type between project sponsors and funded third-party projects, which is intended to promote the networking of the projects assigned to them in a non-hierarchical manner as well as promoting the utilisation of their results. One of the aims of the ‘Meta-project inclusive education’ (MInkBi), based at Goethe University Frankfurt from 2017-2026, is to analyse the state of research in the academic discourse on an international level in order to situate the results of the 66 funded projects within it. In the form of a systematic review, the meta-project is working on relating the concept of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics), which is specific to the German-speaking community, to the English-speaking dominating debates internationally. By trying to (re)connect terminology and concepts behind it we aim to open up research efforts from all over Germany to the global community. The difficulty here is that these terms cannot simply be translated literally into English, nor can they be understood detached from their specific local and language-bound context.

In the DACH countries of the 1960s, originally medical diagnostic procedures were linked to learning processes, and the term "pädagogische Diagnostik” (pedagogical diagnostics) was coined by Ingenkamp (Ingenkamp & Lissmann, 2008). Over the course of time, a large number of different categorisations and subcategories emerged, for example, the distinction between educational diagnostics in the narrow vs. broad sense, assignment, learning process, status, and support diagnostics (Beck 2023). The currently evolving review is an attempt to place the phenomenon of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics) in an international context and to identify what is known about comparable issues. To this end, an endeavour is made to answer the following questions:

• What empirical research results and conceptual or theoretical approaches are available internationally as an equivalent to the subject of ‘support-related diagnostics’ in the German-speaking discourse?
• How are comparable approaches researched and defined internationally?

It can be assumed that similar challenges arise anywhere when it comes to developing more inclusive education systems and practices as well as when conducting research on this topic, which is why the discourse about international parallels and differences promises valuable synergies. With this paper, we would like to provide an insight into the method and conceptual design of the systematic review. We hope that our contribution will lead to an exchange on potentials and limitations of the approach presented and that we will receive valuable feedback by opening up the discussion within network four.

The term systematic review refers to a large number of scientific studies that, despite sometimes differing approaches, all endeavour to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge, guided by a research question or a specific topic. They therefore have the collection, assessment and presentation of available research findings (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005) in common. The component of these procedures referred to as systematic is the methodological approach, which must be presented in a comprehensible manner on the basis of generally recognised methodology in order to withstand criticism with regard to quality issues such as plausibility and bias (Pati & Lorusso, 2018). The structure of this review is based on the SALSA method according to Grant & Booth (2009), which as an acronym describes the four consecutive work steps: Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis. The process was also orientated on the basis of the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The search was conducted using ProQuest and EBSChost to to identify peer reviewed literature in English across seven databases: PSYNDEX Literature with PSYNDEX Tests, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, ASSIA, IBSS, LLBA. In order to avoid unintentionally limiting the field of research in advance due to bias, the following key words as English counterparts of ‘support-related diagnostics’ were developed from conversations with colleagues from different countries: inclusive diagnostics/ assessment/ measurement. In order to make the search as comprehensive as possible, three individual keyword searches were carried out in each of the two databases: 1. ‘assessment’ AND ‘inclusi*’ 2. ‘diagnos*’ AND ‘inclusi*’ 3. ‘measurement’ AND ‘inclusi*’ As the UNCRPD was adopted in December 2006, the preliminary period chosen for the publication dates of papers was 2007 until the time of the search run in July 2023. In total, this resulted in 1.236 search hits, which were imported into a literature management programme. After duplicates were removed (n = 126) the sample was reduced to 1.110 records. Records are currently being screened for ‘reference to formal (pre-/school) education’ and subsequent screening steps and coding procedures are being discussed within the research team. Therefore next steps are the selection in reference to appropriate types of literature, a focus on diagnostics/ assessment/ measurement and a target perspective on (social) inclusion/ integration. In accordance with our research objectives, we aspire to develop a review of ‘configurative’ nature (Gough et al., 2012), drawing in particular on the thematic synthesis according to Thomas & Harden (2008).

One of the main aims of the project MInkBi is to conduct a systematic review that brings together research findings from around the world in the form of a synthesis which promises the possibility of situating the construct of ‘support-related diagnostics’ shaped by the German discourse. The initial results of our work reflect the need for extensive research, communication and translation efforts, which are essential for drawing connections between concepts of different origins on an international level. We have realised that certain strands of argumentation are also represented in educational research publications in English from around the world and that different conceptualisations are associated with the individual terms assessment, measurement and diagnostics, which we aim to identify with our forthcoming work. So far we can describe our perception that a distinction is being drawn internationally between more medically oriented concepts, which seem to be often characterised by the term diagnostics, and more learning-oriented measures, which tend to be associated with the term assessment. Since the German-language discourse deals with a dimension of diagnostics in relation to the performance of pupils and international comparative studies also concern the aspect of performance measurement, it can be assumed that this aspect might also be reflected to a certain extent in the researched studies. At this point in time, it is unfortunately only possible to draw up expected outcomes in the sense of assumptions, but we are confident that we will be able to present our final findings and synthesis in August 2024.

Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Artiles, A.; Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In: David Mitchell (Ed.): Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Routledge, 37–62. Beck, K. (2023). Inklusion zum Systemerhalt – die widersprüchliche Steuerungsfunktion sonderpädagogischer Diagnostik im Rahmen der inklusiven Bildungsreform in Baden-Württemberg. In: Robert Kruschel und Kerstin Merz-Atalik (Eds.), Steuerung von Inklusion!?, Educational Governance 52. Wiesbaden: Springer, 253-269. Gasterstädt, J. (2021). Same same but different – Ein Vergleich der Entwicklung inklusiver Strukturen in zwei Bundesländern in Deutschland. In: Andreas Köpfer, Justin J. W. Powell und Raphael Zahnd (Eds.): Handbuch Inklusion international. Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung = International handbook of inclusive education: global, national and local perspectives. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 179–196. Gough, D., Thomas, J. & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic reviews, 1, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Ingenkamp, K.; Lissmann, U. (2008). Lehrbuch der pädagogischen Diagnostik (6. Auf.). Beltz Pädagogik. Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 Pati, D. & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. HERD, 11(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717747384 Thomas, J. & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45