This paper applies an institutional approach to accountability (Bovens, 2007, 2008) to illuminate how schools navigate their daily efforts to achieve stated goals of including students with special education needs (SEN). Drawing on an empirical study of interdisciplinary collaboration in upper secondary education in a Norwegian county municipality, we examine the complexity of accountability relations in inclusive practices. Our objective is to explore how this theoretical lens can support a more precise understanding of the mechanisms that enable or hinder SEN inclusion. Accordingly, we ask: How can an institutional approach yield a clearer understanding of the workings of accountability for the inclusion of SEN students in upper secondary schools? The study is based on qualitative interviews with school leaders, counsellors, teachers, and special needs advisors. The findings reveal how ambiguities in the legal framework for SEN education, combined with administrative routines that are difficult to implement in practice, challenge professional collaboration. These insights demonstrate how the institutional perspective helps clarify the accountability dynamics at play. 

Inclusive education is increasingly positioned as a foundation of equitable and democratic societies. Despite shared policy goals (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2024), students with special educational needs (SEN) continue to underachieve or leave upper secondary education without a diploma, revealing a persistent gap between political aspirations and educational realities (Ferguson, 2008; Haug, 2024; OECD, 2022; Vogt et al., 2020). 

Inclusive education for SEN students addresses both how inclusion should be organised and how it should be enacted in teaching practice (Fasting et al., 2024). One widely recommended approach is the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes, with targeted, tailored support to meet their individual needs (Nada, 2025). However, the meaning of the term 'inclusion' and how it can be realised in practice remain ambiguous in both research and policy documents (e.g., Uthus & Qvortrup, 2024). Consequently, accounting for inclusive education for students with special needs constitutes a complex undertaking. 

Against this background, we explore how an institutional perspective on accountability (Bovens, 2007) can offer a theoretical lens for evaluating how inclusive practices are shaped in everyday school life. Accountability is understood as a relational process in which actors are required, or feel obliged, to explain and justify their conduct before a forum that evaluates these accounts and may impose consequences (Bovens, 2007; Bovens et al., 2008). Such accountability arrangements vary in formality, power relations, and timing, and multiple accountability forums may coexist, giving rise to distinct accountability regimes within the same organisational context. 

Institutional perspectives on accountability provide frameworks to analyse interactions among key actors within and between institutions and governance systems (Bovens, 2007). We argue for the relevance of such perspectives as research on inclusion of SEN students emphasises the necessity of extensive collaboration and interdisciplinary efforts (Donohue & Bornman, 2014; Patana, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Effective inclusion requires continuous, multi-level engagement from all stakeholders (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). Recognising these complex demands, we explore how accountability works – or could work – in these collaborative processes, in dynamic, real-world settings.  

In our data, we find that Bovens (2007, 2008) conceptions of legal, administrative, and professional accountability regimes are particularly salient. While legal and administrative accountability are anchored in formal regulations and organisational hierarchies, professional accountability in interdisciplinary SEN work primarily unfolds in everyday interactions, where professionals alternately act as actors and forums for one another (Lipsky, 2010). Following Bovens et al. (2008), we adopt a learning-oriented approach to accountability, focusing on whether accountability processes foster meaningful dialogue, feedback, and institutional learning. 

The study draws on qualitative group interviews with school leaders, teachers, and counsellors from the counselling services (CSs) in a Norwegian county municipality. The county municipality comprises 58 upper secondary schools, serving approximately 22,000 students and apprentices and employing around 3,000 teachers. The CSs provide special educational and psychological counselling and are organised into four regional offices, employing 111 counsellors. The study is part of an ongoing professional development project (Tolo, Hagatun & Hesjedal, 2021), in which researchers and practitioners collaborate to improve inclusion practices. Informants were recruited strategically to ensure strong organisational anchoring and to capture perspectives from different professional positions and levels. In an initial step, the first author and representatives from the county municipality jointly decided which informant groups to include, aiming to generate "thick descriptions" of contexts and social practices. Three groups were selected: (1) school leaders, (2) teachers, and (3) counsellors from the CSs. The county municipality administration selected schools and CSs to ensure variation across geography and organisational contexts. School principals and CS leaders then identified potential informants, who were subsequently contacted by the first author and invited to participate. The group interviews were conducted via Zoom in November–December 2021. In total, 43 informants participated across 19 homogeneous groups, each consisting of 2–5 participants holding similar positions. The semi-structured interviews lasted approximately one hour and followed a thematic interview guide. Informants were asked about their professional responsibilities, experiences of collaboration, and how expectations, procedures, standards, and regulations were perceived to support inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The material, consisting of approximately 250 pages of transcripts, was analysed using an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Bovens' (2007) and Bovens et al.'s (2008) conceptual frameworks on accountability guided the analysis. NVivo was used to organise the material in a two-step process: first, identifying descriptions of accountability situations across legal, administrative, and professional regimes; second, assessing these situations from a learning perspective. Based on this mapping, one illustrative case was selected for deeper analysis because it demonstrates how multiple accountability regimes operate simultaneously. Throughout the project, preliminary findings have been continuously discussed with practitioners, contributing to ongoing validation and refinement of the analysis. The study followed NESH ethical guidelines, with particular attention to voluntary participation, informed consent, and anonymisation, given the project's organisational context.

By applying Bovens' (2007) and Bovens et al.'s (2008) frameworks to map and assess accountability in a specific case, we identified nuances in the complex, real-life interplay between formal and informal practices. Once identified, these practices can be examined, brought to light, and improved. The findings show that in our case, various accountability regimes – legal, administrative, and professional – function simultaneously in a hybrid form (Benish & Mattei, 2020). In certain accountability situations, we observed informal and inconsistent practices, and the absence of clear accountability mechanisms was particularly evident. However, we also identified a high-trust culture, which fosters opportunities for democratic dialogue and organisational learning (Bovens et al., 2008). While these conditions provide a solid foundation for accountability that enhances institutional learning, there remains potential for a more systematic and consistent application of accountability practices and for the development of relevant instruments. In line with an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), we critically engaged with Bovens' (2007) theory of accountability. While Bovens' framework is well-suited for analysing existing accountability arrangements, we repurposed it to highlight gaps and shortcomings in accountability practices within a particular field. Our analysis revealed multiple mechanisms through which accountability either does or could operate within institutions and broader governance structures. We refer to these mechanisms as potential accountability workings. This term encompasses the diverse, implicit regimes that shape how responsibility for including SEN students is managed in practice. These workings function independently of formal performance-based accountability (PBA) systems and are frequently overlooked. By describing these dynamics, our approach provides a more nuanced understanding of who is responsible for what, and the prerequisites for how diverse actors handle their responsibilities. Consequently, our approach is also normative, proposing how accountability systems could be improved to better support professional work on the inclusion of SEN students in schools.

Benish, A., & Mattei, P. (2020). Accountability and hybridity in welfare governance. Public Administration, 98(2), 281–290. Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & ’t Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225–242. Donohue, D., & Bornman, J. (2014). The challenges of realising inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–14. Fasting, R., Haug, M., & Hausstätter, R. (2024). Approaches to inclusive education: A review of the literature on inclusive education for children and youth with disabilities in low-income countries in Africa and Asia. NIBR. Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109–120. Haug, P. (2024). 30 år med inkluderende opplæring i norsk skole. Paideia, 28, 15–24. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. Munday, B. (2007). Integrated social services in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing. Nada, C. (2025). Special educational needs – a careful balance between targeted support and inclusion. European School Education Platform. European Union. OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. Patana, P. (2020). Inclusive education and cross-sectoral collaboration between education and other sectors. UNESCO. Qvortrup, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 803–817. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. Tolo, A., Hagatun, K., & Hesjedal, E. (2021). Kartlegging av samhandling mellom skular, rettleiingsteneste, lærebedrift og anna støtteapparat i Vestland fylkeskommune. Universitetet i Bergen / Vestland fylkeskommune. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2024). The Salamanca statement anniversary: 30 years of progress? Celebrating inclusion in education. UNESCO. Uthus, M., & Qvortrup, A. (2024). Lessons learned from Norway: A values-based formulation of inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 40(2), 244–258. Vogt, K. C., Lorentzen, T., & Hansen, H.-T. (2020). Are low-skilled young people increasingly useless, and are men the losers among them? Journal of Education and Work, 33(5–6), 392–409.