Research on educational transitions in the context of inclusion primarily focuses on forms of structural discrimination of people with disabilities. In this way, (re-)produced deficit orientations and normalization tendencies in educational transitions can be broken down. However, transitions are not solely influenced by structural mechanisms of advantage or disadvantage as well as individual-based characteristics and the way of acting. They are also particularly influenced by the interplay of different lifestyles and socialization contexts. This makes systemic approaches to transitions highly relevant. Individual experiences and coping actions in transition processes are never detached from the respective interactional, institutional and societal contextual conditions, which must also be considered (Fasching, 2020). From a systemic perspective, transitions are produced and shaped co-constructively. They are never only accompanied by changes in the lifeworld of the transitioner but are also dynamically influenced by areas and environments in which the transitioner participates. In this sense, all the actors are involved in some way in the cooperation and thus in the co-construction of the transition (process). Through a systemic approach, the perspective is directed to the context of action, in and through which individual biographical actions take place. In this way, resources for participation in transition processes of young people with disabilities can be opened up and barriers overcome. When talking about disability we refer to an understanding of disability as a social construct. This systemic approach to disability means that we consider barriers in different social contexts, which also implies an interaction between the disability (at individual level) and society’s response to it (Braun, 2004; Fasching, 2020). These theoretical considerations have acted as guidelines in our research project on the experiences of cooperation of young people with disabilities and their families.

Our considerations are based on the design and implementation of the multi-annual research project titled “Cooperation for Inclusion in Educational Transitions.” The project received funding from the Austrian Science Fund and over a five-year period (2016–2021) investigated the experiences of participative cooperation of young people with disabilities and their parents (with/without disability) with professionals in the transition from compulsory school to further education, vocational training or employment. This research project explores and reconstructs, under aspects of diversity, the experiences of cooperation between professionals (teachers, vocational counselors, support givers), young people with disabilities, and their parents during the transition process. It thus furthers theory building in the field of participative cooperation and participatory research through reflecting teams, and also promotes the adoption of political measures for the inclusion of young people with disabilities in education. Participative cooperation for us means the involvement and participation of all those who form part of the transition (young people with disabilities, parents, professionals), not only in practice (involvement in transition counselling processes) but also in the related research (for more information on key findings of the project see for example: Fasching & Felbermayr, 2022; Husny & Fasching, 2020; Tanzer & Fasching, 2022).

The focus of the five-year longitudinal study is on qualitative research methods as applied in a so-called research circle, which was conducted in this case three times (in the years 2017, 2019 and 2020). Figure 1 shows how two qualitative methods were used and triangulated in each research circle: intensive interviewing (Charmaz, 2014) and reflecting teams (Andersen, 2011). Each research circle began with individual intensive interviewing of the young people with disabilities and their parents. The time spans between the surveying phases remained unchanged throughout the duration of the study. The interviews were conducted in the summers of three consecutive years and the reflecting teams met in the winters which followed. The arrows in Figure 1 show that theoretical hypotheses that arose from the intensive interviews were validated by the reflecting teams. In the application of the reflecting team method (Andersen, 2011), the participants are involved in analysis and interpretation in their role as co-researchers in reflecting working groups (Lewis et al., 2008).1

The research project follows the constructivist grounded theory methodology of Charmaz (2014), with data collection, data analysis, and theory building. In line with this methodology, the theory evolves from the actual data and is thus “grounded” in the data. Charmaz (2014) also explains that researchers do not enter the research field or start an analysis in the form of a so-called tabula rasa. This is why great importance is given to permanent reflection – especially in the constructivist variant of grounded theory. In the article at hand, this process is visible in how we develop initial theoretical hypotheses from the data and discuss them with references to the literature.

It is by no means a new trend to use participatory research methods with the aim of increasing participation. In the English-speaking research community, participatory research methods have been used since the mid-1980s to take the perspective of people with disabilities and their families into account. Nowadays, the concept of “inclusive” or “participatory research” refers to a number of approaches that include people with disabilities as co-researchers in academic knowledge production. Therefore, participatory research in inclusive contexts can be understood as an umbrella term for a research approach that explores social reality in partnership with the different actors within this reality (Abma et al., 2019; Bigby et al., 2014; Cavet, et al., 2004; Gilbert, 2004; Walmsley et al., 2003). One fundamental aim of participatory research is to facilitate more participation of the general public through their participation in research (von Unger, 2014, p. 1). In this way, participatory research not only contributes to integration but also makes the claim to change social and political reality. Not only does participatory research make the important claim of empowerment and emancipation, it is also strongly affected by the power dynamics and asymmetrical relationships among the groups that are involved. Claims of power may be inherent to different roles in the research process and need to be reflected continuously. Consequently, it is essential to consider ethical research aspects, especially in the context of participatory research with vulnerable target groups (Fasching & Felbermayr, 2019; Wiles et al., 2005). Participatory research has the potential to give rise to “new forms of knowledge in the process of cooperative generation of knowledge” (von Unger, 2014, p. 7). Those conducting participatory research can thus claim, first, to conduct a comprehensive kind of analysis of social realities and, second, to shape these realities by actively bringing about change through criticism of ideology and authority – all within the practice of cooperative research.

How exactly participatory research takes place depends to a large extent on the research object, the interest in knowledge gain, and the specific methodological design. Successful participatory research has been conducted with young people with disabilities employing focus groups (e.g. Aston et al., 2010; Barr et al., 2003; Conney, 2002; Pallisera et al., 2016). Results obtained by these researchers have shown that a group setting is especially suitable for participatory research with persons with disabilities because the exchange that takes place within the peer group may make it easier for the participants to open up and share personal opinions than the classical interview setting. However, young people can also be inhibited in front of peers. Aston and Lambert (2010, p. 43) recommend that, in participatory research with young people, the moderator should allow the young people to determine for themselves the specific topics that are significant for them in the discussion about their vocational transitions.

While these aspects of participatory research (especially in group settings) are relevant for our study, we have conceptualized our own participatory research to special group settings of reflecting teams – a method which we describe in the following subsection.

For our participatory research, we chose the method of reflecting teams. Reflecting teams can be conceived as group discussions which are based on systemic thinking (Andersen, 1987, 2011) and are frequently used in diverse counseling contexts, particularly family therapy. The Norwegian psychologist and sociologist Tom Andersen developed the concept of reflecting teams in the context of his systemic family therapy in the 1980s. In traditional therapy, a team of therapists discuss their subjective observations of the individuals and exchange their thoughts and observations after the sessions. Andersen, however, considered it important for the client to have access to these reflections. He was convinced that the client would be able to benefit from the conversations between the therapists. This idea also convinced his team and the family with whom he was working. After a number of trials involving the family in the therapy process, a potential improvement was detected in the combination of cooperation and reflection (Andersen, 1987; see also Fasching, 2020). Andersen was always very critical of the traditional therapy system. He found that, due to the power conferred to the therapists, there was little possibility of cooperation and that it was difficult for therapists to influence their clients. This perceived shortcoming led him to develop a democratic working method using reflecting teams (Andersen, 2011), an approach which proved to be very successful and is nowadays applied in diverse counseling and coaching contexts, clinical psychology, and systemic family therapy.

In contrast to classical forms of group discussion, the distinguishing features of reflecting teams include their working together in a team, subsequent reflecting sessions, and “reflection on reflection” (see Figure 2). Reflecting teams aim to make the relationship between counselor and client more symmetrical and to foster an openness to change. Furthermore, ideas are generated not “for” but “together with” the target group (Andersen, 2011). They can thus be used for the investigation of cooperation both in terms of content and method. Von Unger uses the term “cooperative generation of knowledge” (von Unger, 2014, p. 7).

While the popularity of the reflecting team has increased, its application in research is still scarce (Hawley, 2006; Pender et al., 2014), especially for the target group of persons with disabilities (Kaur et al., 2009). One exception is Anslow (2013), who employed the method in relation to the target group of “adults with learning disabilities”. One key finding of her study was that adaptations to the respective target group, such as visualizations, larger font sizes, simple language and the use of metaphors, are necessary when working with the reflecting team method. The risk of imposing excessive cognitive demands on persons with intellectual disabilities can be reduced by making adaptations to the needs of each target group. We find that the democratic approach of the reflecting team (Andersen, 2011) is highly compatible with the demand for participation in (inclusive) research (von Unger, 2014). Both reflecting teams and participatory approaches aim to actively involve all those persons who are part of the process, giving them a stronger voice and an active role. This is the reason why reflecting teams were chosen in our project as the method for participatory research. Below, we briefly explain the research context and then describe in more detail the reflecting teams and their implementation in the project.

We worked with reflecting teams for three main reasons: a) it enabled discussion of the initial hypotheses that arose from the analysis of the interview with the participants in the reflecting teams; b) it allowed for continuous theory generation on participative cooperation; and c) it served as a participatory approach for our collaborative research, which also had a transdisciplinary character.

For participatory research with young people and groups, it is recommended that the role of the moderator be limited to leading the group discussion so that the young people can decide themselves which specific topics they consider relevant (Aston et al., 2010, p. 43). We wanted not only to involve the young people in determining the contents but also to offer them the role of moderator – provided there was interest on their part. Analysis of the first reflecting team session led to the conclusion that the young people were willing to ask each other questions, on occasions at a superficial level (e.g. questions regarding holiday plans) but also at a deeper level (e.g. request to explain disability).

To avoid excess pressure, they received a thorough introduction and careful preparation before assuming this role. Only one young person wanted to become a moderator, and he asked for support in his moderation. In this context, it must be clarified how the decision for, not against, a moderator was made. There is a risk of young people making a decision that will be approved of by society in order to avoid negative consequences. Harris (2003) looked closely at the decision making of people with disabilities and asked which conditions must be met for them to (be able to) make their own decisions and not have them made on their behalf. In all situations, whether it be during the reflecting team sessions or when signing the informed consent (see e.g. Lewis & Porter, 2004), the form in which information is presented (verbal, written etc.) must be adapted to the individual needs of the participants under the absence of pressure in order to allow the participants to make an informed decision. The reflecting team sessions revealed that timing must also be considered. The young people became familiar with the procedure of the reflection team session and with the roles of the individual persons during the first reflecting team session and came to the second one with certain expectations. To decide to use a moderator at the beginning of the second meeting was possibly too late and potentially surprising and overwhelming for the young people. Another possibility would have been to contact them beforehand and talk to them about moderation.

Even though we had already used metaphors and visualizations – adapted to individual needs – in the first reflecting team session, after receiving positive feedback we elaborated the metaphors and visualizations further and used them even more. In the first reflecting team session, the young people with disabilities were invited to name or write down terms they associate with the subject area “school/work” (Figure 3, left side) or “leisure time/hobbies” (Figure 3, right side). As the project was conducted in Vienna (Austria) the terms in the figure are in German. Although the visualization was at a very easy and simple level, it nevertheless animated the young people to talk about their experiences.

In the second reflecting team session, a train metaphor (one engine and four wagons) was used to prepare the topic “Where do I lead the train?/Does the train lead me to school, work and free time?” (see Figure 4). The adolescents decided for themselves who was wanted in each section of the train. They put themselves and their supporters in the engine they were driving. The wagons were contextualized as wagon 1 = school, 2 = work, 3 = leisure, while 4 remained open for a different topic.

In the third reflecting team session, the topic of participative cooperation was explored and validated by means of a “cooperation tree” (see Figure 5). The young people, as co-researchers, filled the branches with their definitions of cooperation by writing on individual “leaves” and attaching them to the tree. When discussing the topic “What is important to me in cooperation?” they wrote keywords on individual leaf cards and hung them on the tree. At the end, the researchers added keywords related to cooperation that had been gathered during the first reflecting team session and which were also discussed.

Our positive experiences of using visualizations are in agreement with the findings of Anslow (2013) who states that visualizations used in reflecting teams with “adults with learning disabilities” have a positive effect. However, using images can also be a barrier for people such as blind youths, which is why the character of each individual target group must always be taken into consideration. Based on the interviews which were conducted prior to the reflecting team sessions, we were aware of the individual needs of the young people with visual impairments (e.g. larger font, contrasting colors). To be self-critical, we should state that we did not offer an alternative for young people with visual impairments. The relaxed atmosphere in the reflecting teams and the longitudinal character (repeated encounters and continuous bonding) also contributed to ensuring the active participation of all the young people with disabilities in the group. Nevertheless, we would recommend involving them in the development of individual reflecting team sessions.

The second type of adaptation was made in the area of reflection. During the first reflecting team session, we realized that we the researchers had to adapt our reflections to the world of the young people to enable them to relate to these reflections. There is always a danger that when adults are asked to reflect on a conversation between young people, they say things that might not help in the goal of developing a more equal participative relationship. For example, advice can be given and praise for what has been said. When the reflecting team is used in family therapy, therapists often take an expert position in relation to those receiving therapy and give advice. Whilst there is a case for such types of response, both advice and praise place the person or persons giving these responses in the position of evaluator or judge of those receiving them. There is a danger that young people could experience such interactions as messages that they are not measuring up to what is expected of them but instead ‘measuring down’ in relation to societal norms. If this had occurred it would not have been helpful in our aim of creating a more participative and equal process between the researchers and the young people. However, there are different models of reflecting teams that can be used that acknowledge and regrade people’s lives.

Narrative therapy describes as a ‘definitional ceremony’ the reflecting team process and the reflecting team members are referred to as ‘outsider witnesses’. One of the key aspects that define this process is that the reflecting team of outsider witnesses is required to answer questions that encourage acknowledgment rather than judgment. Another is that outsider witnesses are invited to engage one another in conversations about what they heard that resonated with them, what they were drawn to, and the images that were evoked. The concept of “outsider-witness response” (Russell et al., 2004; White, 2005) was used to maintain a more participative ethos in the interaction between the young people and researchers. Our reflecting team process was therefore adapted with this communicative approach (Russell et al., 2004, p. 73), which also originated in the field of counseling. Russell and Carey suggest, in reference to Michael White’s (2005) concept of an “outsider-witness response”, the following four steps: 1) Identifying the expression, 2) Describing the image, 3) Embodying responses, and 4) Acknowledging transport (Russell et al., 2004, p. 73; White, 2005, p. 17). In step 1, the observers are invited to choose something that has been said and that seems significant to them; in step 2, they are invited to say something about the image that was generated by this sentence or expression; in step 3, they are invited to establish a connection between their own experiences or values and those of the speaker; and in step 4, they reflect on how they are influenced by what has been said and how it can contribute to their own future lives (Christie et al., 2016; Fasching, 2020; White, 2007). These four steps were applied in the second of the three-part sequence structure (see “Reflection” in Figure 1). By means of this process and the four steps, the researchers were encouraged to include their own feelings and experiences in their reflection and to express them in images. It is through such “retellings that people experience their lives as joined around shared themes” (White, 2007, p. 166). This adaptation of the method helped to increase the involvement of the young people even further and to improve the communicative reflection, and thus cooperation, in the reflecting team. Below, we give one example of a researcher’s (R) reflection to illustrate the use of visual language:

This passage illustrates the effort to use visual language by using the image of “big ears for careful listening”. The personal connection is made by speaking about going to a coffee shop. Young people are viewed as experts who can teach us something. Whilst there was a possibility that this reflection could become judgmental, the fact that the researcher spoke personally indicates that the comment was an acknowledgement of the young people. The reflecting team thus gave the researcher the idea to “become a better listener”, just like the young people. As a self-critical observation, the use of youthful language was not very successful in this example, as the researcher did not use expressions or language typically used by the young people with disabilities themselves. The feedback of the young people to the adapted narration was positive, as shown by the following quotations: