Phenomena as diagnoses of multiple crises, uncertain future prospects, societal polarization, and increasing antidemocratic and inhumane tendencies are considered as dangers for democratic societies. Within discourses on democratic education in response to these challenges we observe increasing references to the concept of tolerance of ambiguity (e. g. Council of Europe 2018; Niehoff 2022; Nolte 2023). In general, this concept addresses one’s ability to acknowledge ambiguities, uncertainties of interpretation, complexity and multiperspectivity as well as to deal constructively with these conditions. A closer look at the use of the concept in these contexts shows that it is used in a number of ways with various conceptual connotations. In the light of the history of reception of the concept this is not surprising: Its origin lies in the field of research of authoritarianism and psychoanalytical research of ambivalence (Frenkel-Brunswik 1949). From there it found entrance into other disciplines and the field of research concerned with this concept appears pretty heterogeneous (Jadkowski 2022).

Against this backdrop the first concern of the paper is a clarification of the concept and its applicability to democratic education. This will need a thorough reconstruction of the content-related definitions and modellings of the concept in psychological and sociological research (e. g. Furnham/Ribchester 1995; Reis 1997; Krappmann 2000; Lietz 2023). Based on an analysis of the different disciplinary uses of the concept the paper will discuss the possibilities and limits of its applicability to democratic education. Which aspects might enrich the discussion of competences which are needed in democratic societies and which could be fostered by democratic education? Which aspects might also bare limits of educational efforts? This discussion will also need a thorough differentiation between specific levels and form of democratic education in school and other educational contexts (e. g. May 2020; Pohl 2022; Sander 2022). Moreover there are to discuss some questions which have been recently raised in the discourse of civic education (Hufer 2023): How is the concept of tolerance of ambiguity related to the ability to deal with conflicts as a core concept of civic education? Does the integration of concept of tolerance of ambiguity imply a shift from the examination of societal contradictions to individual responsibility? The aim of the discussion is to develop and offer a concept of tolerance of ambiguity which might enrich the discussions and concepts of democratic education in a productive way.

Based on that conceptual proposal the paper will focus on Civic and History Education in school, which are particularly addressed by education policies concerned with democratic education in Germany (KMK 2018; SWK 2024). At this point the paper will take up and analyze the proposition that civic education does not have to reinvent itself in order to foster tolerance of ambiguity, but rather has to focus its core business by fostering the students’ competences of judgment in recognition of multiperspectivity, reflexivity, complexity and contingency (Niehoff 2022). To analyze and discuss this proposition the paper will introduce two examples on the basis of classroom videos of Civics and History Lesson which both intend to foster subject specific competences of judgement. Based on the results of this exemplary analyses the paper concludes with some theoretical reflections of the expectations related to the concept of tolerance of ambiguity in context of democratic civic education and an adapted conceptual proposal how to define tolerance of ambiguity in contexts of democratic civic education and, finally, how to foster it in the daily classroom practice.

In its initial points the paper is grounded on a systematic literature review which was guided by the question in which contexts and with which understanding the concept of tolerance of ambiguity has been introduced in didactic discourses. Moreover, the systematic literature review will be extended in order to reconstruct the history of reception in the various disciplines. On the basis of these reviews we develop a systematic overview of the most popular content-related definitions and modellings. We will analyze which aspects has found entrance into the discourses of democratic civic education and discuss the possible reasons as well as the possible benefits and limits of the integration of the concept. Based on these reconstruction of discourses we develop an understanding of tolerance of ambiguity which could be interpret as an aim of democratic education. For the analysis of the classroom videos we will use the method of ethnomethodological reconstruction (Jehle 2020). Even though videographic documentation find its limits in the self-reflective processes of integrating new experiences, we still argue that interpretative work on video data can enable a better understanding of ongoing learning processes in classroom interaction. In accordance with the method of Ethnographic Microanalysis (Erickson 1992) the analysis organizes the video data in subsequences and identify relevant sequences in relation to the intention of the lesson. The micro-analysis of these sequences follows the principles of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis and interprets the classroom conversation as a process of negotiating meaning on a given subject. Particularly, we focus in the analysis on how the students deal with the task to form an opinion and take a stance with regard to a given issue. Which challenges are observable and can they be interpret as aspects of dealing with ambiguity as well?

Following the outlined approach the paper intends, first, a critical examination and reflection of the current references to the concept of tolerance of ambiguity in discourses on democratic civic education. Second, the aim of the systematic literature review is a well-founded discussion of the applicability of the concept to democratic education, the possible benefits and limits of an integration of the concept in the discourse and practice of democratic education. At this moment in time, the third aim is to develop a more detailed concept of tolerance of ambiguity on the basis of the foregoing critical reflections which might enrich the discourse on as well as the practice of democratic education. Particularly, and this is the fourth aim, the intends an exemplary analysis of how to foster tolerance of ambiguity in Social Science and History classrooms.

Council of Europe (2018): Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Stras-bourg. Erickson, Frederick (1992): Ethnographic Microanalysis of Interaction. In: LeCompte, Margaret/Millroy, Wendy L./Preissle, Judith (eds.): The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego, London: 201-225. Frenkel-Brunswik, Else (1949): Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional perceptual personality variable. In: Journal of Personality 18,1: 108-143. Furnham, Adrian/Ribchester, Tracy (1995): Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Concept, Its Measurement and Applications. In: Current Psychology 14, 3: 179-199. Hufer, Klaus-Peter (2023): Ein Kurswechsel der politischen Bildung. Ambiguitätstoleranz. In: wei-ter bilden. DIE Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung 30, 4: 27-29. Jadkowski, Benjamin (2022): Zur Uneindeutigkeit von Zukunft – Widerspruchstoleranz im Umgang mit mehrdeutigen Zukünften. In: Schäfer, Katharina/Steinmüller, Karlheinz/Zweck, Axel (eds.): Gefühlte Zukunft. Emotionen als methodische Herausforderung für die Zukunftsforschung. Wiesbaden: 111-128. Jehle, May (2020): Ethnomethodological Reconstruction. In: Huber, Matthias/Froehlich, Dominik E. (eds.): Analyzing Group Interactions. A Guidebook for Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. London, New York: 156-168 Krappmann, Lothar (2000): Soziologische Dimensionen der Identität. Strukturelle Bedingungen für die Teilnahme an Interaktionsprozessen. Stuttgart. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2018): Demokratie als Ziel, Gegenstand und Praxis historisch-politischer Bildung und Erziehung in der Schule. URL: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2018/Beschluss_Demokratieerziehung.pdf (19.01.2025) Lietz, Almuth (2023): Measuring Tolerance for Ambiguity: A German Language Adaption and Validation of the Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TAS). In: Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences 5: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.5964/miss.11211 May, Michael (2020): Strategien der Demokratiebildung in Zeiten des Rechtspopulismus – Zwischen Ausgrenzung, Neutralität und Gesprächsbereitschaft. In: Oberlechner, Manfred/Heinisch, Reinhard/Duval, Patrick (eds.): Nationalpopulismus bildet? Lehren für Unterricht und Bildung. Frankfurt a. M.: 203-218. Niehoff, Mirko (2022): Prävention von extremistischen Einstellungen. In: Sander, Wolfgang/Pohl, Kerstin (eds.): Handbuch politische Bildung. Frankfurt a. M.: 356-364. Nolte, Felix (2023): Ambiguitätstoleranz. Ausgangspunkt einer konstruktiven Didaktik der politischen Bildungsarbeit. In: weiter bilden. DIE Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung 30, 4: 35. Pohl, Kerstin (2022): Politische Bildung als Unterrichtsfach in der Schule. In: Sander, Wolfgang/Pohl, Kerstin (eds.): Handbuch politische Bildung. Frankfurt a. M.: 143-151. Reis, Jack (1997): Ambiguitätstoleranz. Beiträge zur Entwicklung eines Persönlichkeitskonstruktes. Heidelberg. Sander, Wolfgang (2022): Politische Bildung als fächerübergreifende Aufgabe in der Schule. In: Sander, Wolfgang/Pohl, Kerstin (eds.): Handbuch politische Bildung. Frankfurt a. M.: 152-159. Ständige Wissenschaftliche Kommission der Kultusministerkonferenz (SWK) (2024): Demokratiebildung als Auftrag der Schule – Bedeutung des historischen und politischen Fachunterrichts sowie Aufgabe aller Fächer und der Schulentwicklung. http://dx.doi.org/10.25656/01:30061