Questions of disciplinary modes of constitution within the special educational field of Pedagogy for Intellectual Disability (PID) are at the center of this research project. Departing from the search for shared scientific facts, the inherent tension between the heterogeneity of the disciplinarily relevant population group and the unity of the scientific field was examined. The scientific-theoretical foundation of the work is based on the writings of Ludwik Fleck (2008). The corpus of the present investigation comprises the eight most recent textbooks in PID, which can provide insights into the knowledge necessary for laypersons to gain access to the thought style of PID (cf. Klix, 2022).

The methodological operationalization of the analysis is conducted in reference to coding strategies of Grounded Theory as well as utilizing the Discourse Linguistic Multi-Level Model (see Spitzmüller & Warnke 2011). The poster presents the central findings of the investigation, which demonstrate that German-language PID has a fundamental constitutional problem, as it can only address the heterogeneity of its presumed population group through homogenization. Thus, the poster reveals the necessity of new disciplinary modes of constitution within German-language PID.

Pedagogy for Intellectual Disabilities (PID) is a specialized field within German-language special education, characterized by its focus on a population of individuals. The disciplinary constitution along an assumed population group appears particularly precarious, as this very population is repeatedly described as heterogeneous and not amenable to unification.

Departing from the finding that PID achieves its own constitution only by negating this heterogeneity, the theory of trilemmatic inclusion (Boger, 2019) is employed to examine how PID understands disability, normality, and alterity across the axes of normalization, empowerment, and deconstruction.

Consequently, multiple perspectives emerge: First, a PID that aims to support the marked 'other' group in participating in normality; second, a PID that uses this very marking of difference to create an educational approach distinct from mainstream education. Lastly, a conceivable pedagogy that seeks to minimize group-based categorization and aspiring to be a pedagogy for all.

Within the presentation, following the demonstration of existential constitutional problems (Klix, 2025), the theory of trilemmatic inclusion will be briefly introduced. Based on this framework, alternative constitutional approaches for PID will be critically evaluated against each other. The disciplinary future of PID, which has thus far primarily addressed students who do not meet classical educational objectives, remains uncertain. Therefore, conceptual contributions appear necessary for both scientific self-assurance and the educational clientele.

The analysis of the eight PID textbooks newly published in the period from 1991 to 2021 is based on methods of social science and corpus linguistic research. The data is broken down using open coding in the sense of grounded theory. Further categorisation work is carried out using inductive and deductive coding, which is based on grounded theory approaches (see Charmaz 2014) and qualitative content analysis (see Mayring 2014). The code and category system developed in the coding process was then subjected to a detailed analysis, which is informed by the discourse linguistic multi-level model (see Spitzmüller & Warnke 2011). The intratextual linguistic elements, which could be classified and analysed using DIMEAN and thus contribute to confirming the findings, were central to this. The combination of sociological and corpus linguistic methods, which has rarely been used in the context of special needs and inclusion education to date, makes it possible to validate the findings generated in the course of the coding work and the initial analysis of the text passages on the basis of linguistic approaches. This is a manifestation of the attempt to respond to the criticism voiced by linguistic-semiotic research of the merely intuitive plausibility of social science analysis methods (see Briese & Klix in press; Staffeldt, 2019).

PID can be described as a pedagogy that is based on group-related differentiation and oscillates between an empowering-normalising and a deconstructing-empowering orientation. With regard to the target group it defines, however, it shows a tendency towards normalising-deconstructing pedagogy, whereby the focus is inevitably on the individual. As an example, Stöppler's (cf. 2017, p. 11) rejection of the idea of a uniform target group, which postulates that the stereotype of a person with intellectual disabilities does not even exist, can be interpreted as an attempt to counteract a normalising-deconstructing pedagogy within the target group and to reduce the tendency towards essentialisation. Here, PID shows an orientation towards the individual, which is, however, only possible within the group-related differentiation. While the thinking style of PID assumes that a stereotypical person with intellectual disabilities does not exist and that the target group is difficult to conceptualise (cf. Stöppler, 2017, p. 11), PID nevertheless defines a group that it subsequently describes as heterogeneous. Although PID is oriented towards the general goal of education and upbringing (empowering-normalising axis), it creates a space within otherness (deconstructing-empowering axis) in which the heterogeneity of the target group, which cannot be uniformly grasped, is recognised (normalising-deconstructing axis). In view of the fact that their own constitution is linked to a target group that can be regarded as contingent and hardly appears to be clearly definable (see chapter 2.3.1), the trilemmatic entanglement becomes clear. If the difference of the target group is used to legitimise the support that is assumed to be necessary, this difference cannot be deconstructed at this moment. A deconstruction of the difference would also inevitably be linked to the group-based pedagogy of the PID, which would result in fundamental constitutional problems and confront every textbook with the question of which subject area it represents at all.

Boger, M.‑A. (2019). Theorien der Inklusion: Die Theorie der trilemmatischen Inklusion zum Mitdenken. Münster: edition assemblage. Briese, J., & Klix, J. (in press). Sprachliche Handlungen und pragmatische Signifikanz intentionaler Verben: Soziale Konstitution von Handlungskraft in der Schülerinnen-Interaktion. Kodikas/Code. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2.th ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE. Klix, J. (2022). Heterogenität und die Rechtfertigung von Einheit in der Pädagogik bei Beeinträchtigung der geistigen Entwicklung – Konzeption einer denkstiltheoretischen Lehrbuchanalyse. In T. Müller, C. Ratz, R. Stein, & C. Lüke (Eds.), Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Forschung. Sonderpädagogik - zwischen Dekategorisierung und Rekategorisierung: Tagungsband zur DGfE Tagung der Sektion Sonderpädagogik (pp. 220–230). Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt. Klix, J. (2025). Die Selbstvergewisserung von Einheit in der Pädagogik bei geistiger Behinderung: Eine denkstiltheoretische Lehrbuchanalyse (Dissertation). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solutions. Klagenfurth. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 Spitzmüller, J., & Warnke, I. (2011). Diskurslinguistik: Eine Einführung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Staffeldt, S. (2019). SAT(T)? – Ein Verwirrspiel in drei Akten. In S. Meier, L. Bülow, F. Liedtke, K. Marx, & R. Mroczynski (Eds.), 50 Jahre Speech Acts: Bilanz und Perspektiven (pp. 27–53). Tübingen, Germany: Narr Francke Attempto. Stöppler, R. (2017). Einführung in die Pädagogik bei geistiger Behinderung (2nd ed.). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.