PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to methodologically reflect upon the process of conducting a systematic review in the field of inclusive education. I illustrate this process by discussing the project “Inclusive Didactics in Empirical Research – an International Systematic Review” (IDER), while exemplarily drawing on other reviews in the field. The reflections are based on the notion of translatability so as to register and critically analyze how a review process can take shape. METHODS: I approach this objective by first reflecting on possible (mis)translations between the terms Didaktik and didactics as well as between different meanings of inclusive education. I then introduce the purposes, challenges and potentials of systematic reviews in educational research, defining them as a reinterpretation of – qualitative and quantitative – data in the sense of a conceptual translation. On this basis, I present the individual steps I took in conducting the systematic review IDER according to the PRISMA guidelines, discussing the difficulties in translating the research question into a conceptual framework as well as criteria for study selection. Following, I will lay out my search strategy and give insights into reflections on coding and synthesizing results. RESULTS: Main categories from inductive coding can be divided into ‘approaches to inclusive didactics’, ‘barriers to inclusive didactics’ and ‘fields of tensions in inclusive didactics’. The results of my methodological reflections further point at translational challenges between cultural contexts and geographical regions, between different methodological registers, and between original studies and review results. The analysis also shows that international reviewing must acknowledge inequalities in representation and academic knowledge production across the globe, calling for a reflective approach to seemingly objective results. CONCLUSION: Finally, I emphasize the need to critically reflect on one’s own role in systematic reviewing and on the translational processes involved, arguing in favour of a transparent presentation of the process that still leaves room for individual or seemingly unconventional approaches.
Julia Frohn (Sun,) studied this question.