Since the Publication of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) and against the backdrop of social transformations such as digitalization, demographic changes and shifting labour markets (Dobischat et al., 2019; Kraus, 2022; Nuissl, 2023), the importance of inclusion in nonformal education and the world of work has increased significantly. Access to lifelong learning opportunities is regarded as a prerequisite for social participation and social cohesion (Schreiber-Barsch & Zeuner, 2018; Grotlüschen et al., 2024). Consequently, inclusion has become a central topic in educational research, with a growing body of literature addressing the implementation, effectiveness and challenges of inclusive schooling (e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2021; Keles et al., 2024; Navrátilová et al., 2024; …), inclusive higher education (e. g., Filippou et al., 2025; Louw & Louw 2025; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021; …) as well as inclusive work places (e. g., Garg & Sangwan, 2020; Rezaia et al., 2023; …).

However, these developments hat not yet been adequately reflected in research on nonformal adult and continuing education. In particular, disability as a category of analysis has often been overlooked in this field when examining inclusion (Heimlich & Behr, 2018; Schreiber-Barsch, 2023; Seitter & Franz, 2019). Existing reviews tend to conceptualise inclusion in broader terms, for example concerning LGBTQ+-inclusive adult education (Baumgartner et al., 2025), ageing and later-life learning (Schmidt-Hertha et al., 2022), or general questions of social justice and equity (Oduaran, 2019; Walters & Cooper, 2011). The few studies that explicitly address disability, indicate that people with disabilities remain underrepresented in adult and continuing education programmes (e.g., Federal Statistical Office, 2024; Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2021; UNESCO, 2019), suggesting that access is still not equal. Research at the subjective level show not only persistent barriers to access, but also to participate in both formal and nonformal work related education (e. g., Grünenfelder & Zumbach, 2023; Pfister et al., 2017; Wenger, 2025). Moreover, studies adopting critical-deconstructive (e.g., ‘doing dis_ability’, Köbsell, 2016; Boger, 2019) or intersectional (e.g., Schreiber-Barsch et al., 2025b) perspectives on disability are (still) rarely represented within adult and continuing education research. As a result, debates on inclusion have so far not fostered a theoretically grounded discussion of inclusion-related issues. This underscores the need for more systematic, theoretically informed, and reflexive research approaches that critically examine how inclusion is conceptualized, operationalized, and (re-) produced in adult and continuing education research.

To systematically capture this research gap and to move beyond a predominantly German-speaking context, this paper presents the results of a scoping review of international publications on inclusion in the field of adult and continuing education. The review examines which dimensions of inclusion are (not) addressed within existing research and investigates how disability is defined, operationalised, and reproduced within the literature, if at all. In addition to this substantive focus, the contribution places particular emphasis on methodological and epistemological questions while critically reflecting on knowledge production processes using the following methodology.

To examine how inclusion and disability are conceptualised in adult and continuing education research, this study applies a scoping review methodology. Scoping reviews are a form of evidence synthesis that aim to systematically identify and describe the scope of available research related to a broad research question, often irrespective of study design or source type (Campbell et al., 2023). Evidence synthesis methods have gained increasing relevance in recent years, as they support guidance for both research priorities and decision-making in policy and practice contexts (Campbell et al., 2023). Scoping reviews, in particular, aim to provide an overview of the volume and characteristics of research activity in a given field, clarify and analyse key concepts and definitions, examine how research is conducted, summarise existing findings, and identify knowledge gaps (Campbell et al., 2023). As this study aims to identify available evidence on inclusion in the field of adult and continuing education, clarify how inclusion is defined and used in the literature, examine how research on this topic is conducted, summarise existing findings, and identify knowledge gaps, a scoping review represents an appropriate methodological approach. In this study, the scoping review follows mainly the methodological framework proposed by Campbell et al. (2023). Reporting is guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018), which provides standards to enhance transparency and rigor in the review process. Preparatory work was conducted in collaboration with information specialists to develop the search strategy, identify relevant keywords and databases, define inclusion and exclusion criteria, and establish procedures for systematic documentation. The review process comprises the following steps: 1) defining the research question, developing the search string; 2) selecting databases and key reference texts; 3) conducting the literature search; 4) screening and selecting relevant studies; 5) charting data using a structured extraction form; and 6) summarising and reporting the results. Data extraction includes bibliographic information (authors, year, country), study characteristics (aims, research questions, methodology, sample), and findings related to conceptualisations of inclusion (and disability). While scoping reviews enable a systematic and transparent approach, it is important to note their limitations, which will be further discussed in the presentation of this paper. Rather than synthesising results or assessing study quality, scoping reviews focus on describing and categorising existing literature to generate a comprehensive picture of a research area. This can for example pose challenges for interpretation of results and comparing them across diverse study designs.

As this study has not yet been conducted at the time of submission, the conclusions are necessarily based on preliminary observations and a prospective assessment of possible outcomes. While some literature offers initial insights into theoretical perspectives on adult learners in general (e.g., Owusu‑Agyeman, 2019), adult learning (e.g., Schreiber-Barsch et al., 2025a) or concepts of disability in adulthood (e.g., Ross-Gordon, 2024), the application and conceptualisation of inclusion in adult and continuing education research has not yet been systematically examined. In contrast to school education research (e.g., Selisko et al., 2024), there is currently no established analytical framework that integrates theories of disability, models of inclusion, and forms of educational participation for the systematic analysis of research findings in adult and continuing education. Beyond this substantive focus and the aim of initiating such a discussion, the contribution places particular emphasis on methodological and epistemological questions. The scoping review is not only employed as a method, but also as an object of critical reflection. Using this scoping review as an example, the paper explores to what extent this form of systematic literature review is capable to capture the scope of existing knowledge, how such knowledge is constructed, and which assumptions and perspectives are shaping this process. In doing so, the paper discusses both the possibilities and limitations of scoping reviews as a methodological approach and raises questions such as: To what extent can it be trusted as a basis for generating further knowledge and identifying research gaps? What remains invisible or excluded through this approach, particularly with regard to epistemic standpoints and contextual embeddedness? By posing these questions, the aim is to open up space for broader methodological and epistemological discussions, in line with the conference theme.

Boger, Mai-Anh (2019). Theorien der Inklusion. Die Theorie der trilemmatischen Inklusion zum Mitdenken. Münster: edition assemblage. Campbell, F., Tricco, A. C., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Saran, A., Sutton, A., White, H., & Khalil, H. (2023). Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): The same but different—The “Big Picture” review family. Systematic Reviews, 12, 45. 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5 Grünenfelder, R., & Zumbach, D. (2023). Inklusionsindex 2023: Studie zur Inklusion von Menschen mit Behinderungen in der Schweiz. Köbsell, S. (2016). Doing Dis_ability: Wie Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen zu „Behinderten“ werden. In K. Fereidooni & A. P. Zeoli (Hrsg.), Managing Diversity (S. 89–104). Springer Fachmedien. Kraus, K. (2022). Erwachsenenbildung im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Veränderungen: Eine exemplarische Analyse anhand historischer Entwicklungen in der Schweiz. 10.5167/UZH-233374 Owusu-Agyeman, Y. (2019). An analysis of theoretical perspectives that define adult learners for effective and inclusive adult education policies. International Review of Education, 65, 929–953. 10.1007/s11159-019-09811-3 Pfister, A., Studer, M., Berger, F., & Georgi-Tscherry, P. (2017). Teilhabe von Menschen mit Beeinträchtigung (TeMB-Studie). Hochschule Luzern, Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik. Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2024). Learning disabilities and the adult learner. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2024, 46–55. 10.1002/ace.20542 Schmidt-Hertha, B., Findsen, B., & Li, Z. (2022). Inclusion and exclusion in later life learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(6), 634–650. 10.1080/02601370.2022.2158954 Schreiber-Barsch, S., & Zeuner, C. (2018). Lebenslanges Lernen: Positionen, Konzepte, Programmatiken, Befunde. Beltz. 10.3262/eeo16180393 Schreiber-Barsch, S., Curdt, W. & Penkwitt, M. (2025b). Erwachsenenbildung und Inklusion: eine intersektionale Perspektive. Debatte. Beiträge zur Er¬wachsenenbildung, 8 (1), 7–26. Selisko, T. J., Eckert, C., & Perels, F. (2024). Models of disability as distinguishing factor: A theoretical framework of inclusive education and the application to a literature review. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2379681. 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379681 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473 Walters, S., & Cooper, L. (2011). Learning/work: Turning work and lifelong learning inside out. International Review of Education, 57, 27–38.10.1007/s11159-011-9189-9 Wenger, Nina (2025). Zwischen Spielregeln und Barrieren. Eine Grounded-Theory-Studie zu erwerbsbezogener Bildung und Behinderung. wbv Publikation. 10.3278/9783763979158