Understandings of inclusive education vary and are situated in specific contexts (Claiborne & Balakrishnan, 2020). Following a comprehensive interpretation, inclusion refers to promoting social justice and an ongoing process (Armstrong et al., 2010). While “the goal has forcefully shifted to inclusive education, (...) there has also been a backlash against this idea(l)” (Powell, 2023, p. xxii). Thus, inclusive education remains contested, especially with regard to the rise of far-right actors across the globe, who delegitimise inclusive education and promote selective school systems (On Education, 2024). As “shifting policy contexts” influence “efforts to advocate for justice- and equity-oriented teacher education” (Cochran-Smith, 2020, p. 49), this is relevant for the increased focus on teacher education for inclusion across Europe (e.g. Epstein, 2025).

“Fostering collaboration” (Epstein, 2025, p. 3) is considered a key aspect of teacher education for inclusion. Addressing multidisciplinary collaboration in teacher education is highlighted in the “Profile for Inclusive Teacher Professional Learning”: This refers to “advocacy, collaboration and teamwork are essential approaches for all teachers and other education professionals” (European Agency, 2022, p. 32). This is relevant, as teachers refer to “little attention” (Friend, 2000, p. 132) on this topic in their professional training. In this respect, the study of Zagona et al. (2017, p. 175) indicated “that special educators felt more prepared to collaborate with their colleagues, as compared with general education teachers”. This might also reflect different models in teacher education which encompass a continuum of collaboration (Pugach & Blaton, 2009). Based on a systematic review of international literature on teacher education for inclusion, Buchhaupt et al. (2022) point to a stronger focus on qualification activities on the topic collaboration for general education teacher compared to comprehensive activities for different professionals resp. teacher education programmes. Overall, in contrast to considering multidisciplinary collaboration as a “quick fix” (Nicols et al., 2010, p. 647), complexities of multidisciplinary collaboration – e.g. “in the observed forms of cooperation” in schools (Sonntag, 2025, p. 6) – emphasize the need for addressing this within teacher education for inclusion (Anton et al., 2024).

In the recent years, research on multidisciplinary teacher draws attention to the situatedness of multidisciplinary collaboration (Hansen et al., 2020). Referring to Strauss’ concept of negotiated order(ing) (Strauss, 1993), social world/arena theory (Clarke, 1991) and Clarke’s emphasis on the “complexities of ‘situatedness’” (Clarke, 2005, p. xxviii), multidisciplinary collaboration can be conceptualized as situated and negotiated ordering (Arndt, 2022). This implies, for instance, the empirical question what (future) professionals consider as negotiable or non-negotiable in a given situation and which differences are made relevant in the situation. This raises questions concerning the ways multiprofessional collaboration is addressed in teacher education and initial teacher education (ITE) students’ perspective, in particular.

Against this backdrop, this paper focusses addressing multidisciplinary collaboration in initial teacher education by presenting results of an ongoing qualitative study on two different approaches within courses on multidisciplinary collaboration in a secondary teacher education programme with the focus on inclusive education at a university in Austria.

In the last decade, there has been an increased focus on multidisciplinary collaboration as a topic and as a format within teacher education in German speaking contexts (e.g. Rabenstein & Kunze, 2017). Based on an analysis of different projects for inclusive teacher education in the German context, Buchhaupt et al. (2017) conclude that the overall aim of the different approaches was to create spaces for explicit negotiation as well as for (joint) reflection of roles and responsibilities. In this respect, Köpfer and Lemmer (2020) emphasize the need for further research ITE students’ concepts of professional collaboration.

Our paper refers to courses on multidisciplinary collaboration within an initial teacher education programme for secondary level with a focus on inclusive education at Bachelor’s level at a university in Austria. Within the teacher education programme for secondary level, ITE students can choose a focus on inclusive education in combination with and equivalent to a teaching subject (e.g. Maths). We focus on two different approaches to address multidisciplinary collaboration within courses on “Networks and Working in Multidisciplinary Teams” drawing on qualitative research methods. The first approach refers to the group discussions of ITE students in the study of Köpfer and Lemmer (2020), in which the ITE students refer to the question on “the ‘perfect’ situation of cooperation” (Köpfer & Lemmer, 2020, p. 93). Following this approach, three group discussion were conducted in the summer term 2022 at the end of the aforementioned course on multidisciplinary collaboration. The group discussion took place without a moderator: To start the discussion, ITE students were ask to describe their understanding of multidisciplinary collaboration in inclusive schools (1) and to imagine a “perfect” situation of collaboration within the classroom (2). Overall, 16 ITE students took part in the group discussion (duration of study: semester 2 to 9). The second approach refers to a cased-based approach in teacher education. Case-based or casuistic approaches are considered as one key approach (also) for teacher education for inclusive education (Fabel-Lamla et al., 2020). The case-based approach referred to casuistic material provided by Lübeck and Demmer (2021) based on qualitative study of paraprofessional assistance in German schools. Following the approach of Lübeck and Demmer (2021) the material was interpreted in groups line by line. This approach uses strategies of reconstructive or interpretative research for joint reflection of school practices (see also Lau et al., 2019). In the summer term 2023 two group interpretation were recorded (overall 11 ITE students, duration of study: semester 3 to 11), in summer term 2024 one (8 ITE students, duration of study: semester 2 to 8). For both, the first and second approach, the audio recordings were transcribed. Our ongoing analysis is based on strategies of Grounded Theory Methodology (Strauss, 1998; Charmaz, 2006) and Situational Analysis (Clarke, 2005; Clarke et al., 2018), especially initial and focused coding, memoing and mapping strategies. Referring to theoretical sampling as an analytical strategy, our analysis encompasses comparing between the two approaches, but also within one approach.

Based on their reconstructive analysis of group discussions of students within German initial teacher education programmes (general education), Köpfer and Lemmer (2020, p. 89) indicate ITE students’ ambivalences e.g. concerning anticipated communication conflicts vs. valued various perspectives and concerning (re)producing vs. questioning different responsibilities of general and special teachers. These ambivalences can also be linked to a strong tradition of discrete models of teacher education (Pugach & Blanton, 2009) in Germany. With regard to inclusive education and teacher education in Austria, Buchner and Proyer (2019) conclude with regard to a reform of teacher education following the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) that curricula are still influenced by “disability-oriented tradition”, nevertheless, the reform formed “a remarkable step forward as it tried to dissolve the dual structure of training, with a strict focus on inclusive settings” (Buchner & Proyer, 2019, p. 92). Against this background, we present results based on group discussion of ITE students and in situ-data on group interpretations in a case-based approach. This ‘zooming-in’ (Clarke et al., 2018) in our analysis, allows us to contribute to a situated understanding of ITE students’ perspectives and challenges (or rather ambivalences) and, by thus, to an increased focus on the complexities of multidisciplinary collaboration. Focussing on the situatedness, seems of particular importances in the challenging times in which ensuring inclusive quality education for all (SGD4) faces backlash on the local, European and global level.

Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29-39. Arndt, A.-K. (2022). Situierte Aushandlung und Differenzkonstruktion – Zuwendung zur Komplexität unterrichtsbezogener Kooperation von Regelschullehrkräften und Sonderpädagog*innen in inklusiven Schulen. https://doi.org/10.15488/12524 Buchhaupt, F., Becker, J., Katzenbach, D., Kaufmann, J., Lutz, D., Strecker, A. et al. (2022). Kooperation in der Qualifizierung für inklusive schulische Bildung. In T. Müller, C. Ratz, R. Stein & C. Lüke (Hrsg.), Sonderpädagogik - zwischen Dekategorisierung und Rekategorisierung (S. 279–289). Klinkhardt. Buchner, T. & Proyer, M. (2020). From special to inclusive education policies in Austria – developments and implications for schools and teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1691992 Claiborne, L. & Balakrishnan, V. (2020). Introduction. In L. Claiborne & V. Balakrishnan (Eds.), Moving towards Inclusive Education. (pp. 1–15). Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Cochran-Smith, M. (2020). Teacher Education for Justice and Equity: 40 Years of Advocacy. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 49–59. Lübeck, A. & Demmer, C. (2021). Zwischen Unterricht und Unterstützung. Fortbildung zur Reflexion von Rollenvorstellungen und Zielsetzungen in der Zusammenarbeit mit Schulbegleitungen. DiMawe - Die Materialwerkstatt. Zeitschrift für Konzepte und Arbeitsmaterialien für Lehrer*innenbildung und Unterricht, 3(3), 17–27. Epstein, M. (2025). Introduction: Teacher Education for Inclusion - Policies and Practices in Europe (TEIPPE). European Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7146/ejie.v4i2.161018 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022). Profile for Inclusive Teacher Professional Learning: Including all education professionals in teacher professional learning for inclusion. Friend, M. (2000). Myths and Misunderstandings About Professional Collaboration. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 130–160. Köpfer, A. & Lemmer, K. (2020). Die "perfekte" Kooperationssituation: Rekonstruktionen ambivalenter Kooperationsvorstellungen angehender Lehrkräfte im Kontext schulischer Inklusion entlang von Norm und Expert. Herausforderung Lehrer_innenbildung 3(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.4119/hlz-2485 Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An Educational Promise for Children with Disabilities or a Quick Fix to Meet the Mandates of No Child Left Behind? Education, 130(4), 647–651 Powell, J. J. W. (2023). Forword. In B. Amrhein & S. Naraian (Eds.), Reading inclusion divergently. Articulations from around the world (pp. xxi–xxiii). Pugach, M. and Blanton, L. (2009) A framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (4), 575-582 Sonntag, M. (2025). Professionelle Kooperation in inklusiven Schulen. Multiprofessionelle und interdisziplinäre Teams in der österreichischen Sekundarstufe.