Empowering Inclusion – Practising Inclusion Through Everyday Decisions

By Steffi Pardella.

Inclusion as lived experience, shared responsibility and continuous reflection

Introduction: Inclusion beyond definitions

The youth exchange Empowering Inclusion brought together participants from different countries, backgrounds and life realities to explore what inclusion means in practice. Rather than focusing on definitions alone, the project was designed as a shared living and learning space in which inclusion became tangible through everyday interaction, cooperation and reflection.

As one participant summarised the overall atmosphere:
“Inclusive, inspiring, unforgettable.”

From the beginning, inclusion was understood not as a finished concept, but as something that unfolds through daily encounters, group dynamics and shared responsibility.
Understanding inclusion on different levels
An important starting point was developing a shared understanding of inclusion across different levels:
● personal
● interpersonal
● institutional
● societal / European

Participants reflected on how individual behaviour shapes group processes and learning environments.

As one participant put it:
“Inclusion is not only a spoken or written concept, but a consistent commitment to paying attention to body language, silence and unspoken forms of communication.”
Another reflection emphasised everyday responsibility:
“Inclusion does not begin with big discussions about societal challenges, but with our attitudes and the small actions we take in daily interactions.”

These insights accompanied the group throughout the programme and repeatedly resurfaced in practice, shaping both discussions and everyday interactions.

Privileges, power and perspective-taking

One of the most impactful sessions was The Line of Power, an outdoor exercise focusing on privileges, human rights and exclusion. Participants stepped into different social roles and moved forward based on advantages or disadvantages assigned to their character.
Many participants described this exercise as a strong “aha moment”:
“It made me see how privileged I am and how unequal life chances really are.”
“Putting myself into someone else’s life made inequalities very visible.”
The exercise encouraged reflection not only on society, but also on participants’ own positions and behaviour within groups.

Learning from history:

Berlin and the Stasi Museum
The visit to the Stasi Museum in Berlin offered a historical perspective on exclusion, surveillance and control. Participants reflected on how past political systems continue to influence trust, participation and inclusion today.
“The Stasi Museum was very thought‑provoking.”
The visit connected historical reflection with contemporary discussions on democracy and participation in Europe.
National and European perspectives
Building on these reflections, participants exchanged experiences from their home countries and discussed how inclusion, migration and participation are shaped differently across Europe.
“Talking with people from other countries made me realise how different inclusion processes are, even within Europe.”
These exchanges reinforced the understanding that inclusive practice always needs to be contextualised.

Futurium and the city as a learning space
Berlin itself became a learning environment during the City Bound Challenge and the visit to the Futurium. Exploring the city helped connect abstract concepts such as democracy and participation with lived urban realities.
“Exploring Futurium and the city helped link national and international perspectives.”

Group discussions: navigating inclusion challenges

Facilitated group discussions addressed concrete and sometimes controversial inclusion challenges. Rather than aiming for clear answers, these discussions created space for disagreement, reflection and mutual listening.
Topics included, for example:
● participation of quieter vs. more outspoken participants
● cultural differences around communication, gender roles or punctuality
● inclusive vs. exclusive formats in group decision-making.
● access to education, language courses and support systems
“These discussions helped me understand how contextual and complex inclusion really is.”
Importantly, discussions were continuously connected to everyday group experiences, allowing reflection to be grounded in lived situations.
Shared cooking, supporting groups and everyday coexistence
Cooking together in international teams became one of the project’s most significant learning spaces. Participants negotiated dietary needs, responsibilities, communication styles and time pressure on a daily basis.
“Cooking together brought us closer than any theoretical discussion.”
Everyday tasks such as cooking, shopping and cleaning were closely linked to Supporting Groups, which provided space to reflect on tensions, group dynamics and emotional responses.
“Supporting Groups showed me where inclusion really begins: in addressing tensions and recognising different needs.”

Living and working together for ten days turned the project into a shared social microcosm, where inclusion was constantly negotiated in moments of connection, fatigue, misunderstanding and disagreement.

Group reflections: responsibility and awareness
Regular reflection spaces allowed participants to connect theory with daily experience. These moments focused on participation, communication and shared responsibility within the group.
“I learned that inclusion requires patience, self‑reflection and ongoing communication.”
Rather than assigning blame, reflections supported collective learning and awareness that inclusion requires continuous attention.

Critical Reflection / Ethical Dilemma

Participation, pedagogical boundaries and the feeling of not being heard.
One of the most challenging learning areas of the project emerged at the intersection of participation, pedagogical responsibility and ethical boundaries. Evaluation feedback showed how emotionally complex this balance can be in a project that aims to practice inclusion, not only discuss it.
Tensions arose when participants proposed activities that risked reinforcing exclusion, pressure or unsafe group dynamics. In these situations, we decided not to implement certain ideas and instead addressed them openly within the group. At the same time, feedback revealed that such decisions can lead to frustration or feelings of not being heard.
One participant reflected:
“These situations showed how difficult it is to balance inclusiveness with the responsibility to avoid reinforcing harmful dynamics.”
Another participant described how gossip-based and voting activities affected them personally. It is important to note that these activities were not proposed with harmful intent, but were meant to create shared fun, lightness and group bonding. While the idea of a gossip box and voting formats had previously been discussed critically together and the gossip box itself was ultimately not implemented, a voting activity was later initiated and carried out independently by participants themselves:
“I felt pressured to participate even though I didn’t feel safe asking the group to stop.”
These experiences highlighted how informal, non‑facilitated activities,especially when they emerge outside the jointly agreed learning framework,can unintentionally create social pressure and discomfort. In close group environments, opting out can feel socially risky even when participation is formally voluntary.
For us as trainers, these moments became important professional learning experiences as well. They made visible a central tension in inclusive youth work: inclusion does not mean implementing every idea, but taking responsibility for psychological safety, voluntary participation and the learning framework as a whole.
Inclusive practice therefore constantly moves between openness and protection, dialogue and clear pedagogical positioning.

Reflective questions (post‑project)

The following questions emerged from our post-project reflection and are shared as an invitation for readers, practitioners and participants to pause, reflect and continue the conversation.
● Who feels comfortable with gossip‑based or ranking activities,and who does not?
● When does “voluntary fun” turn into social pressure?
● Which seemingly harmless formats might unintentionally exclude or expose participants?
● Where does pedagogical responsibility begin when setting boundaries, even if this leads to frustration?

These questions remind us that inclusion often begins long before visible exclusion occurs,in subtle dynamics, implicit norms and everyday decisions.

Conclusion: A lived learning space

Empowering Inclusion showed that inclusion is not a checklist, but a lived and ongoing practice. It unfolds in shared routines, responsibilities, disagreements and moments of care.
Participants experienced inclusion through living together, cooking together, reflecting on privileges, engaging with history and navigating group dynamics.
“Inclusion isn’t only about big policies. It’s the daily habits: listening, adjusting, being attentive.”
The project was not perfect,but it was a powerful learning space. A space where differences became visible, tensions were addressed, and learning happened through real experience.
“If my 10‑day experience were a metaphor, it would be a mosaic. Each day, activity and person added a new piece,and only together did they create a complete picture.”