Not only education has a central role in societies, but also (education) research. This is especially related to knowledge societies, in which science and its generated knowledge is seen as „a dynamic force of social change“ (Merton 1968, S. 585). The production of knowledge as a pivotal task of research is also related to terms and concepts concerning meaning making, reflection, and critically question. With a discourse theoretical perspective, such a (re-)production of knowledge is made within and through discourses (Keller, 2020). However, education research discourses–and education systems in general–differ between cultural contexts as different research traditions, historical developments, and logics of knowledge production exists (Keiner, 2011). But such discourses are also similar with regard to transcultural rules of knowledge production such as paradigms (Kuhn, 2012), thought styles and thought collectives (Fleck, 1979), and rhetorics (Mulkay, Potter, & Yearly, 1983). The construction of terms and concepts is, thus, strongly related to the cultural context and transcultural rules and logics of research. This is also the case in the context of the transnational concept of inclusion. On the one hand, there is a global shared expectation that inclusive education is or should be available at all levels of educational systems, especially when required by international organisations like the United Nations or UNESCO. On the other hand, however, it has been shown that trans- and international reforms and visions like inclusion are not linearly implemented in national discourses but rather offer resistance and objections (e.g. Hargreaves et al., 2001). This is also reflected in the discursive assumption that the meaning of the concept inclusion varies across and even within country-specific scientific discourses (D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). The theoretical reflections mentioned are particularly shown with regard to Germany and the United States. On one side, differences exist between the education research discourses due to varying research traditions and historical developments (Keiner, 2011). On the other side, differences become visible in the context of inclusion. Since the 1970s in the U.S., reforms and laws have been enacted regarding the education for all children and, therefore, the term inclusion has a longer history in education research and policy in the U.S. compared to Germany, where the discussion about inclusion has increased significantly only since the beginning of the 21^st century (Turnball et al., 2020; Hinz, 2008). With this in mind, the question arises how education research discourses in both Germany and the U.S. address and adapt international ideas about and discourses on inclusion. 

Against this background the paper focuses on a comparison of German and U.S. American education research discourses as well as international discourses on inclusion concerning the construction of this concept. The objective is to show how country-specific education research discourses are entangled with international discourses and how they react to them. The paper refers in its theoretical background to the assumptions of the sociology of knowledge by Berger & Luckmann (1967). Here, reality and relating thereto terms and concepts are seen as socially constructed. This theoretical assumption is combined with the discourse theory of Foucault (1972). That means that the meaning of inclusion is constructed within and through discourses which are defined as a system of statements based on signs and language that belong to the same formation and pattern. Here, according to Foucault, power relations concerning rules of speaking play a crucial role in the construction of knowledge. At the same time, processes of negotiation are also significant, which Habermas (1984) highlights in his discourse theory and ethics. These theoretical assumptions are considered in the analysis. 

The clarification of this question and objective is based on a comparative discourse analytical approach in order to analyse similar and different patterns in the discourses in both Germany and the U.S. as well as on the international level. Specifically, the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) has been applied as this research agenda is particularly suitable for investigating and reconstructing processes of social construction of meanings and conceptualizations of the term inclusion (Keller, 2020). To investigate education research discourses, articles from five German and five U.S. American scholarly research journals have been analysed (n=203 articles). The journals have been selected through theoretical criteria (quantitative criterion: Journal Impact Factor (JIF); qualitative criteria: peer review, tradition, recommendations of research associations and education researchers) and all publication of the journals have been chosen with the word ‘inclusi*’ in the title of the articles until 2022. The analysis of the international discourse on inclusion is based conventions and declarations of the United Nations and the UNESCO (n=8 documents) as these organisations play an important role in shaping the meaning of inclusion (Klages & Geiger, i.p.). According to the SKAD, interpretative schemes and classifications in both the national and international discourses has been analysed (Keller, 2020). In doing so, tools of the Grounded Theory such as coding and contrasting strategies (Strauss, 1987) has been used for sequential analysis of the articles. Against the background of the comparative approach, interpretative schemes and classifications reconstructed in the discourses has firstly compared on the national levels. To analyse the addressing and adaption of international developments, the interpretative schemes and classifications reconstructed on the national levels has also been compared with the international discourse. Interpretations are made with reference to the respective cultural and historical contexts of education research and inclusion as well as to the discourse theoretical background.

The findings of the analysis show, firstly, that the meaning of inclusion is quite similar in both German and U.S. American scholarly articles. Inclusion is related to the participation of all children in the general education system; especially children with disabilities are emphasised. Even though the narrative of the discourse in Germany is more on the transformation of systems and in the U.S. more on the efficacy of educational practices, both discourses are framed by ideas of social justice. Here, the findings show the potential of education research to further develop justice in the education system. The comparison of the interpretative schemes on the national and international level indicates also similar meanings, especially concerning the participation and education for all children. However, education research discourses in Germany and the U.S. address and adapt international ideas about inclusion in different ways. In Germany, interpretative schemes of the international discourse play an important role for the justification of inclusion and a discursive alignment exists as the discussion of education for all has a long tradition in German education research discourses. Furthermore and compared to the international discourse, similar terms and concepts, such as heterogeneity, equality or recognition, were already discussed before the term inclusion emerged. Conversely, in the U.S., little to no reference to international developments are made, even though similar meanings and interpretative schemes of inclusion exist. The focus of the justification of inclusion is more on the national political framework. The paper will discuss and explain the similarities and differences in addressing international developments in Germany and the U.S. against the background of the respective cultural context, the logics of cultural characteristics of education research, and global transformations. Thus, the paper contributes to investigations of the relationship of international and national discourses and can explain the discursive power(less) of international discourses.

Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books. D’Alessio, S. & Watkins, A. (2009). International Comparisons of Inclusive Policy and Practice: are we talking about the same? Research in Comparative and international Education, 4(3), 233-249. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Book. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change. Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Hinz, A. (2008). Inklusion – historische Entwicklungslinien und internationale Kontexte [Inclusion – Historical Developments and International Contexts]. In: Hinz, A., Körner, I., & Niehoff, U. (Eds.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen – Perspektiven – Praxis [From Integration to Inclusion. Basics – Perspectives – Practice] (pp. 33-52). Marburg: Lebenshilfe. Keller, R. (2020). The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse: an introduction. In Keller, R., Hornidge, A.-K., & Schünemann, W.J. (Eds.), The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse. Investigating the Politics of Knowledge and Meaning-making (pp. 16-47). London & New York: Routledge. Keiner, E. (2011). Disciplines of Education. The Value of Disciplinary Self-Observation. In Furlong, J., Lawn, M. (Eds.), Disciplines of Education. Their Role in the Future of Education Research (pp. 159-172). Abington, Oxon: Routledge, Klages, A.-L. & Geiger, S. (i.p.). Diversity and Its Discursive Implications for Education and Culture in UN and UNESCO Publications. Perceived Challenges, Proposed Solutions and the Construction of Relative Universalism (in preparation). Kuhn, T.S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Fourth Edition). London: The University of Chicago Press. Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press. Mulkay, M., Potter, J., & Yearly, S. (1983). Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourses is Needed. In: Knorr-Cetina, K.D., & Mulkay, M. (Eds.), Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (pp. 171-203). London: SAGE Publications. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: University Press. Turnball, Ann, Turnball, R., Wehmeyer, M.L., & Shrogen, K.A. (2020). Exceptional Lives. Practice, Progress, & Dignity in Today’s School (Ninth Edition). Hoboken: Pearson.