The purpose of education seeks to support students' autonomy, to build sustainable and equitable communities, and to qualify the students for participation and contribution as workers in the society (Biesta, 2009). Within an inclusive perspective on education, these purposes involve all learners in school. This involvement should not be limited to mere presence, but to genuine participation (Wright, 2006) and recognition of each student as an individual with the potential of pursuing every purpose of education (Kristiansen, 2013). Nevertheless, in many countries, there are barriers that hinder students both to fulfil their potentials, to experience fellowship among learners and to be qualified to participate in the future job market (Ainscow, 2020). In a Norwegian context, alongside neoliberal expectations of raising standards for student achievements through individual standardised testing, there are still many young people who does not complete their education (Hatch, 2013), at risk for being economically and socially marginalised (Bruin et al., 2023). In addition, even though understandings of inclusion and policies in Western societies aim to include all learners, there all still challenges on how to put these understandings into effect in practice (Ainscow, 2020). This paper aims for a rethinking of how to address the challenges of inclusion in relation to the purposes of education. Within a social justice perspective, such challenges can lead to exclusion, the "withholding of some recognition held to be legitimate" (Honneth, 2004, p. 352). Therefore, the application of recognition theory (Honneth, 1995) is suggested as an alternative approach to both think and act according to the values (Booth & Ainscow, 2016) that underlies inclusive practices. Since recognition theory is believed to contribute with perspectives on the meanings of qualities within teacher-student interactions and relationships (Honneth, 1995; Thomas, 2012; Warming, 2015), the purpose of this paper is to explore recognition as a perspective relevant for addressing the purposes of education and the processes of inclusion in schools. Hence, the following research questions are asked: 1) How does recognition theory relate to the purposes of education?, and 2) how may this relation contribute to inclusive practices for all learners in school?

Following Booth & Ainscow (2016), inclusive practices should be led by inclusive values like love, trust, equality and rights (2016, p. 11). Such values align with the framework for participation (Florian et al., 2017) where students' participation is understood in relation to the four qualities of access, collaboration, achievement and recognition and acceptance of students' diversity (2017, p. 54). Further, it is emphasized that the nature of relationships (Florian et al., 2017, p. 144) is key to the successful development of inclusive practices, through the countless informal personal interactions (Florian et al., 2017, p. 51) that take place on a daily basis in schools. The inclusive values will further be explored in relation to the values that underpin mutual recognition (Honneth, 1995), namely, love, equality of rights and solidarity. This is an essential part of the theoretical framework since there seems to be a lack of research on the possible connections between recognition theory and inclusive practices, knowing that recognition is about the "normative potential implicit in social interaction" (Honneth, 1995, p. xviii), and "all forms of inclusion and exclusion are social, arising in interactions between people and environments" (Booth & Ainscow, 2016, p. 23). The contribution of theoretical perspectives alongside the empirical findings will be analysed through an abductive approach and further discussed in regard to how recognition talks to education.

The exploration of how recognition theory may contribute to understandings of the purposes of education and inclusive practices has been conducted through an interpretative case study (Merriam, 2010) in a 5th grade classroom for a period of eight weeks. The data construction is based on observations of 26 lessons, three interviews with the teacher, and three focus group interviews with students. The observations (Silverman, 2017) were conducted with the researcher in the classroom writing notes on how the teacher-student interactions played out in the classroom. The teacher interviews were semi-structured (Brinkmann, 2018, p. 1002), following the three-interview series (Seidman, 2006, p. 16) to get rich and in-depth information regarding the teachers’ interactions with the students. The focus group interviews (Halkier, 2010) used open questions allowing the researcher to take on the role of a moderator. Placed around a large table, audio- and video recordings enabled facial expressions and body language to become an integrated part of student interactions and meaning construction. The field notes and the interviews with the teacher and the students were analysed following an abductive analytical approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The construction of analytical themes were conducted through a procedure which alternated between the theoretical concepts of recognition (Honneth, 1995) and pedagogical tact (van Manen, 2015) and empirical codes. The analysis led to the construction of three main themes: care, together, and support, where perspectives from the theories and the empirical findings are aligned. How these themes represent recognition in relation to the purposes of education and inclusive practices are elaborated in the discussion section. Ethical considerations have been conducted in line with both the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (sikt.no, 2024), and The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH, 2023).

Expected outcomes of this study include highlighting possible connections between the theoretical perspectives of recognition, education and inclusion. This will be done by emphasising empirical themes that can be understood as recognition in the teacher-student interactions. First, the findings show that the empirical theme care can be understood as a recognitional quality within the teacher-student interactions that make the students feel safe with their teacher and their environment, supporting their autonomy related to the concept of subjectification (Biesta, 2009, p. 7), outlined as one of the functions of education. Second, the findings show that when the students experience care and being safe, they are more likely to participate in joint activities together with the other students, as long as the activities are conducted with an openness towards the students different ways of participating. This finding can be seen in relation to the function of education called socialisation (Biesta, 2009, p. 7). Third, when the students experience support and solidarity with their efforts and merits in class, this finding can be understood according to the third function of education, qualification (Biesta, 2009, p. 6). Through the teacher's recognitional practices students can experience self-trust in a way that supports development of their potentials as well as their entrance into, and participation in the fellowship of other learners. In this way, the study suggest how recognition theory can contribute to understandings of the purposes of education and to the development of inclusive practices in school.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Biesta. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092–008-9064-9 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). The index for inclusion: A guide to school development led by inclusive values (Fourth edition). Index for Inclusion Network (IfIN). Bruin, M., Tutlys, V., Ümarik, M., Loogma, K., Kaminskiené, L., Bentsalo, I., Väljataga, T., Sloka, B., & Buligina, I. (2023). Participation and learning in Vocational education and training—A cross-national analysis of the perspectives of youth at risk for social exclusion. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2023.2283745 Florian, L., Black-Hawkins, K., & Rouse, M. (2017). Achievement and Inclusion in Schools (2nd ed.). Routledge. Halkier, B. (2010). Fokusgrupper (K. Gjerpe, Trans.). Gyldendal akademisk. Hatch, T. (2013). Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9206-1 Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.; Reprinted). Polity Press. Honneth, A. (2004). Recognition and Justice: Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice. Acta Sociologica, 47(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699304048668 Kristiansen, A. (2013). Rettferdighet, anerkjennelseskrav og legitimitet i utdanning. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 97(01), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2987-2013-01-07 Merriam, S. B. (2010). Qualitative Case Studies. In International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 456–462). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01532-3 NESH. (2023). Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Forskningsetikk. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/ sikt.no. (2024). Sikt – Kunnskapssektorens tjenesteleverandør | Sikt. https://sikt.no/ Silverman, D. (2017). Doing qualitative research (Fifth edition). SAGE Publications Ltd. Thomas, N. (2012). Love, rights and solidarity: Studying children’s participation using Honneth’s theory of recognition. Childhood, 19(4), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568211434604 Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact: Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do. Left Coast Press. Warming, H. (2015). The life of children in care in Denmark: A struggle over recognition. Childhood, 22(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568214522838 Wright, M. V. (2006). The Punctual Fallacy of Participation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00185.x