Conferences as catalysts for researcher development: Lessons from Post-Soviet contexts and reflections from ECER

Conferences as catalysts for researcher development: Lessons from Post-Soviet contexts and reflections from ECER

by | Emerging Researchers' Group

What does it truly mean to attend a conference? Is it merely about collecting certificates and adding lines to a CV, or does it represent a deeper professional journey? My experience at European Conference for Educational Research (ECER) and several other conferences I have attended since beginning my PhD in the United Kingdom have helped me answer these questions and reflect on the challenges faced by researchers in post-Soviet contexts.

Two journeys, two systems

When I first arrived in the UK to begin my PhD, I carried with me a clear formula for academic success: academic achievement = conferences + publications. That belief originated from my first PhD experience in Azerbaijan, where the rules were explicit, three conferences (one international) and five articles, or no degree. While there was comfort in that structure, it also brought pressure. Conferences were obligations, not opportunities.

Interestingly, my supervisors in the UK encouraged a different approach: “One meaningful conference is better than five rushed ones.” Initially, this lack of rigid targets and checklists left me uncertain about how to measure progress. However, over time, I came to understand the depth of their advice.

Predatory publishing and Soviet legacies

Recent scholarship on post-Soviet academic systems highlights the persistence of Soviet-era evaluation practices that prioritise quantitative output over research quality (Chankseliani, Lovakov & Pislyakov, 2021). This study examines how such legacies shape publishing behaviours and contribute to the growth of predatory publishing in post-Soviet educational research. How many conferences? How many articles? How many citations? This system rewards quantity rather than quality, perpetuating a cycle of superficial productivity.

Predatory publishers – organisations that charge fees for publishing work without proper peer review – and “fast-track” conferences thrive under such conditions. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and beyond, early-career researchers are often lured into prestigious-sounding “Global Innovations in Science” events hosted in Paris or Dubai, high fees, impressive certificates, but minimal academic substance (Hajiyeva, 2023). The pursuit of legitimacy can make researchers vulnerable to academic exploitation.

Scholars such as Kulczycki (2017) and Chankseliani et al. (2021) have demonstrated that bibliometric inflation is widespread across the region. Academic worth is frequently reduced to numbers, a lingering legacy of Soviet-era evaluation frameworks, where scientific labour was planned, counted, and reported for administrative purposes rather than genuine inquiry. Although policy language has evolved, institutional cultures often remain unchanged. Weak research infrastructure, limited funding, insufficient training in empirical methods, and minimal collaboration all contribute to a cycle of formality without substantive innovation (Kuzhabekova & Mukhamejanova, 2017; Ruziev & Mamasolieva, 2022).

Insights from ECER

Unlike the so-called “international” conferences I had previously encountered, often held in tourist capitals with grand titles but little academic value, ECER offered a genuine academic community. My presentation was peer-reviewed, the audience posed thoughtful questions, and the true value lay in the scholarly exchange rather than the certificate.

One notable aspect I observed, rarely discussed openly before, was the element of care. ECER made deliberate efforts to support researchers with children. Although childcare remained costly compared to my experience at the ESA 2024 conference in Porto, the recognition of this issue was an important step. Inclusion, I realised, is not merely a research topic; it must also be a lived academic practice.

Through these experiences, I learned that conference participation should not be treated as a numerical pursuit. It is a long-term dialogue, a slow process of building academic identity. Attending one or two high-quality conferences per year, combined with collaborative projects and research visits, can be far more valuable than accumulating numerous certificates.

My advice to early-career researchers, particularly those from post-Soviet contexts, is this: do not chase appearances, seek scholarly communities.

Conclusion

To truly support researcher development, academic systems should:

  • Shift evaluation criteria from quantity to depth.
  • Reward collaboration and intellectual contribution, not mere output.
  • Strengthen research literacy to resist predatory academic practices.

Until academic value is redefined in this way, research systems will continue to produce numbers instead of knowledge.

Conferences, when grounded in genuine scholarly exchange rather than numeric performance indicators, can serve as spaces of both personal and systemic transformation. For post-Soviet researchers, embracing this perspective may be crucial in redefining academic success and fostering authentic research cultures.

Key Messages

  • Conference participation is not just about certificates or CV lines—it is a meaningful journey of professional and personal growth.
  • Academic systems in post-Soviet countries often prioritise quantity over quality, which can lead to superficial productivity and vulnerability to predatory publishing and conferences.
  • Genuine scholarly communities, such as those fostered at ECER, offer opportunities for peer review, intellectual exchange, and inclusion—far beyond what “fast-track” conferences provide.
  • Researcher development benefits most from attending a few high-quality conferences, engaging in collaborative projects, and building authentic academic networks, rather than chasing appearances or numbers.
Turan Abdullayeva

Turan Abdullayeva

University of Sheffield

Turana Abdullayeva is a PhD researcher in Education at the University of Sheffield and an Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA). Her research focuses on inclusive education, decolonial disability studies, and teacher education in post-Soviet contexts, with a particular emphasis on Azerbaijan.

Alongside her doctoral work, Turana teaches and supervises postgraduate students, contributes to international research projects on accessibility and anti-ableist research cultures, and works in student support and inclusion. She has published in leading international journals, including Disability & Society and the International Journal of Inclusive Education, and regularly writes reflective blog posts on academia, access, and belonging.

Linkedn: www.linkedin.com/in/dr-turana-abdullayeva-9456961a1

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/turush.abdullayeva

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Chankseliani, M., Lovakov, A., & Pislyakov, V. (2021). A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701-8730. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353979277_A_big_picture_bibliometric_study_of_academic_publications_from_post-Soviet_countries  

Hajiyeva, N. U. (2025, August 31). Facebook post. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AAbrdwv68/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Kosaretsky, S., Mikayilova, U. And Ivanov, I. (2024). Soviet, Global and Local: Inclusion Policies in School Education in Azerbaijan And Russia. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 30, p.e0103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384702057_Soviet_Global_and_Local_inclusion_Policies_in_School_education_in_Azerbaijan_and_Russia

Kulczycki, E. (2017). Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Research Evaluation, 26(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw023

Kuzhabekova, A., & Mukhamejanova, D. (2017). Productive researchers in countries with limited research capacity: Researchers as agents in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 8(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-08-2016-0018

Mamerkhanova, Z., Sakayeva, A., Akhmetkarimova, K., Assakayeva, D., & Bobrova, V. (2025). Development of inclusive education in the Republic of Kazakhstan: An inside view (case of the Karaganda region). Frontiers in Education, 10, 1630225. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1630225

Ruziev, K., & Mamasolieva, M. (2022). Building university research capacity in Uzbekistan. In Building research capacity at universities: Insights from post-soviet countries (pp. 285-303). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-12141-8_15 

ERC TAMPERE 2026 – upcoming submission deadline for emerging researchers’ conference in finland

ERC TAMPERE 2026 – upcoming submission deadline for emerging researchers’ conference in finland

by | Emerging Researchers' Group

After the ECER conference in Belgrade, we – the organising committee of ECER 2026 in Tampere – found ourselves reflecting on what makes conferences so special. Although important, we guess that for most, it is not just the panels or the presentations. For us, it is also the atmosphere of intellectual generosity, meeting the friends we have made in the academic community, and making new ones.

In addition, what made the experience in Belgrade so special was that the place itself reminded us of the power of collective action. Walking through the city, hearing about the student protests driven by a deep concern for justice, transparency, and democracy, we couldn’t help but think about the questions of what it means to act on knowledge ethically, collectively, and with purpose. What does it mean for a research community to know in ways that matter? And how do we transform the knowing into action? These questions they stay with us as we look toward Tampere and our upcoming theme: “Knowing and Acting”.

ECER 2026

Collective knowing and acting requires a community. For EERA community it means creating spaces where emerging voices are heard and valued. That’s why the Emerging Researchers Conference feels so important for us as the organisers of ECER Tampere 2026. ERC is not only an event for junior members of an academic community, it’s EERA’s collective effort to build up a community that is welcoming, supportive, intellectually stimulating and rigorous, and ethical. We would like the ERC to be a place where early career scholars can connect, share ideas, and build friendships that sustain them in the often-challenging academic world. This is a prerequisite of collective knowing and acting. Thus, we warmly encourage the members of EERA community to support early career researchers’ participation in ERC in Tampere.

Emerging Researchers’ Conference 2026

The Emerging Researchers’ Conference programme consists of two days of conference activities. In various sessions, the ERC participants can engage with paper and poster presentations, ignite talks, posters, and workshops. The participants can also enjoy a keynote lecture by Richard Budd (Lancaster University) and an interactive session themed “For slow reading and criticality in accelerating academia” by Zsuzsa Millei (Tampere University) and Antti Saari (Tampere University). To network and discuss with colleagues further, ERC in Tampere has interactive lunch breaks and a City Reception Event.

Conference information

Read more about the programme of the Emerging Researcher Conference in Tampere and how to submit your proposal by 31 Jan 2026: Emerging Researchers’ Conference | EERA

We wish that ECER Tampere 2026 will bring us opportunities to imagine together what education research can be and do, and to act on that imagination.

Associate Professor Maiju Paananen

Associate Professor Maiju Paananen

Chair, Organising Committee, ECER Tampere 2026

Associate Professor Maiju Paananen is the chair of the Local organising committee of Emerging Researchers’ Conference in Tampere 2026. Paananen leads Child politics and Early Childhood research group at Tampere University, Faculty of Education and Culture.

Dr Iida Kiesi

Dr Iida Kiesi

Conference coordinator of ECER Tampere

Dr Iida Kiesi is the coordinator for the ECER 2026 in Tampere. Kiesi defended her doctoral thesis in 2024, in which she researched privatization of Education in Finland.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

ERG Webinars: Tips for academic publishing and grant application for early career researchers

ERG Webinars: Tips for academic publishing and grant application for early career researchers

by | Emerging Researchers' Group, NW 28 Sociologies of Education

Between March and May 2025, EERA Sociology of Education Research Network and the Emerging Researchers’ Group, hosted a three-part webinar series aimed at supporting emerging scholars in navigating key stages of academic life. Each session opened a window into different aspects of early academic careers. Featuring tips on academic publishing and grant application writing, the webinars offered both practical strategies and personal reflections from experienced researchers.

Webinar 1: Meet the editors – Advice from journal editors on academic publishing

There’s a moment right after the PhD ends, when many early career researchers suddenly find themselves standing alone. No longer students, not yet fully established scholars, they’re now expected to publish, write grant applications, and shape an academic identity. But where do you learn how to do any of that? How do you figure out where to submit your article, or why one paper gets accepted while another is rejected? These are not just technical questions. For many of us, they’re questions about belonging, confidence, and finding our voice in a world that often assumes we already know the rules.

That’s why our recent “Meet the Editors” webinar felt so meaningful. It wasn’t just about insider tips on academic publishing, it was about opening the black box of publishing and hearing directly from those who sit on the other side. We had the privilege of hosting two generous and thoughtful editors, Prof. Rachel Brooks, University of Oxford, Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology of Education and Prof. Antonio (Ono) Olmedo, University of Exeter, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Education Policy. They spoke about the differences between their journals, what kinds of scholarship each is looking for, and how editorial decisions are made.

Building on the spirit of the conversation, the webinar offered more than just practical tips, it opened a window into how experienced editors think about publishing, not only as gatekeepers but as mentors and scholars themselves. They reminded us that before submitting an article, it’s essential to read recent issues of the journal we’re aiming for. What topics are being discussed? What theoretical frameworks and styles of argumentation are common? A strong paper doesn’t just present something new; it actively engages with the existing conversation and signals why its contribution matters in that space and moment.

The editors also emphasized the importance of timing. Don’t rush to submit; ask yourself whether this is truly the best version of your paper, and whether you’re ready for it to be read critically. Too often, early-career researchers focus on showcasing their data or findings without thinking carefully enough about where the paper belongs and why now. Editors are not only looking for originality; they’re also looking for relevance: why this paper, in this journal, at this time?

More than anything, the conversation reminded us that finding your way into academic publishing isn’t just about following rules. It’s about developing a sense of voice, confidence, and connection. And that’s not something you have to figure out alone.

Webinar 2: Publishing your first journal article

This second webinar featured Barbara Gross from the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, who shared reflections and practical tips on publishing a first academic article. With a particular focus on selecting an appropriate journal, the session offered insights drawn from Prof. Gross’s own experience as a researcher and author. Aimed at emerging researchers, the webinar provided concrete strategies to navigate the complexities of academic publishing and addressed key considerations involved in taking the first steps toward publication.

The session moved from big-picture ideas to practical steps, outlining different publishing options such as book chapters, conference proceedings, and most importantly, peer-reviewed journal articles. Participants explored the differences between national and international publishing cultures, the growing role of English for global visibility, and the ongoing value of publishing in national languages to reach local audiences.

A key focus was on selecting the right journal. Our guest lecturer explained how to evaluate a journal’s scope, audience, mission, and ranking – including impact factors and quartiles – and how to balance national and international outlets. She also touched on open access and the institutional support available to cover related costs.

When it came to writing, Prof. Gross highlighted the importance of identifying a clear research gap, building a well-structured article, and following journal guidelines closely. Ethics were stressed, from transparency in data use to participant privacy and disclosure of AI tools.

Prof. Gross then guided participants through the submission and peer-review process, noting that revisions are a normal and constructive part of publishing. She offered tips on responding to reviewer feedback, even when disagreeing, and reminded attendees to submit to only one journal at a time. Rejection, she said, can be an opportunity to improve and resubmit.

Finally, the webinar closed with strategies to increase the visibility and impact of published work, including conference presentations, networking on platforms, and tracking citations and metrics. By the end, participants had a clear sense of the steps involved in moving from research to publication, along with the confidence to start their own publishing journeys.

Webinar 3: Writing a successful ERC grant application

Our final webinar sought an insider view on how to write a successful European Research Council (ERC) grant application. While numerous webinars address the technical details of the application process, since education research is rather underrepresented amongst the successful applications, we were curious to invite colleagues who can speak from the particular perspective of education researchers.

To our great excitement, two distinguished scholars from the critical education field, Prof. Sotiria Grek and Prof. Miri Yemini accepted our invitation to share their reflections and experiences about the exceptionally competitive application process. Prof. Yemini is leading an ERC Consolidator Grant project exploring youth activism in diverse contexts, including climate crisis and human rights between 2023 and 2028 (See the project website here).

Prof. Grek led an ERC Starting Grant (2017-2022) on the ‘International Organisations and the Rise of a Global Metrological Field’ (METRO), researching the role of international organisations in the quantification of global governance, with a focus on the fields of education and sustainable development. Since 2024, she has been working on an ERC Consolidator Grant entitled ‘Art and Policy in the Global Contemporary: Examining the Role of the Arts in the Production of Public Policy’ (POLART, 2024-2029).

We had a rich and insightful conversation with the two scholars who shared details about their personal journey of developing the project proposal and their experiences about the interview phase in an informal yet right-to-the-point manner. The conversation had three key messages[1].

Grant proposal writing is a specific kind of writing
This can be learnt and should be practised. The best ideas need time and care to hatch. One needs to dedicate time to sit on them, talk about them, cook them, and dream about them.

Timing is key
This helps to successfully get the project together. One needs to block time to read and write, and to schedule a generous amount of time to receive feedback. A strong proposal gives the feeling to the reviewer that the idea is ‘timely’, and the time to do the research is now.

Balance and focus
Being centred and focused from the beginning to the end of the proposal leads to success. One needs to demonstrate a good balance between the project’s feasibility and ambition. From family and friends to mentors and colleagues; the more diverse audience the better. All of this provides a safety harness. Mock interviews with mentors and professional providers prove extremely helpful in the preparation for the interview, because they could accurately predict the reviewers’ questions and allow space to rehearse for them.

On a final note, both scholars emphasised that they realized how important the people they have been working with became for them. Project leadership is about building and valuing the team one creates and co-create researches with.

[1] The key points follow Prof. Grek’s presentation

Unfortunately, due to a technical issue, we do not have a recording of this webinar.

Together, these three webinars offered an insight into the journey of the challenges faced by early-career researchers. From finding one’s voice in publishing, to submitting that very first article, to preparing for ambitious grant applications, the series reflected our commitment as a community to supporting the next generation of scholars. We are grateful to all our speakers and participants, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Key Messages

  • Early-career researchers must learn to navigate academic publishing, journal selection, and grant writing to build their academic identity.
  • Engaging with journal editors provides essential insights into publishing expectations, peer review, and developing scholarly voice and confidence.
  • Selecting the right journal, understanding publishing cultures, and responding to feedback are vital steps in publishing your first article.
  • Successful grant writing requires dedicated time, clear focus, and learning from mentors, with strong project leadership and teamwork.
  • Community support, mentorship, and sharing experiences are crucial for emerging researchers facing the challenges of early academic careers.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Teacher burnout: Lessons from the aftermath and what helps teachers thrive again

Teacher burnout: Lessons from the aftermath and what helps teachers thrive again

by | NW 11 Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance, NW 8 Health and Wellbeing Education

Teaching is one of the most rewarding professions, but also one of the most demanding. Across Europe, nearly half of teachers report experiencing high levels of work-related stress (European Commission, 2021). For some, this stress escalates into teacher burnout, a psychological syndrome marked by exhaustion, emotional detachment, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment (Schaufeli et al., 2020).

Much of the existing research has focused on the causes of burnout before teachers leave the classroom, and on its consequences once they have dropped out (Ahola et al., 2017). But what happens after burnout, when teachers return to work? Too often, the story ends at the point of absence. Yet the period of reintegration can be just as challenging. Understanding this ‘teacher burnout aftermath’ is essential if schools want not only to support teachers effectively but also to retain them in the profession.

Our study into reintegration after teacher burnout

An illustration of a woman under a stormy cloud. She looks worried. An arrow points to a woman in front of a white board, indicating that this image references teacher burnout.

To address this gap, our study explored the experiences of ten teachers who returned to the classroom after burnout. Using semi-structured interviews, we investigated the challenges they faced and the factors that helped them reintegrate successfully. Although the teachers’ experiences varied, several recurring themes emerged.

Barriers teachers encounter

Many participants described workload as the most pressing obstacle to recovery. Administrative and bureaucratic tasks consumed precious energy that could otherwise have been invested in teaching. In some cases, schools placed teachers straight back into full schedules, leaving little room to rebuild their confidence.

Relationships also proved decisive. Strained interactions with colleagues or a lack of understanding from school leaders created additional stress. Some teachers reported feeling they had to “prove” themselves all over again, rather than being welcomed back with empathy. This sense of scrutiny often made the return heavier than expected.

Supportive factors that made a difference

Despite these barriers, teachers also pointed to a range of supportive factors that facilitated their reintegration after teacher burnout.

Positive collaboration with colleagues and school leaders created a sense of safety and belonging. Teachers highlighted the importance of professional support, such as therapy, counselling, or coaching, to help them process their experiences. As one participant explained, counselling helped her set clearer boundaries and avoid slipping back into old patterns.

For many, a genuine passion for teaching was a crucial source of motivation: the classroom itself gave them energy and meaning, even if it sometimes carried the risk of overcommitment. Finally, self-care practices such as adjusting workloads, saying “no” more often, or prioritising rest were described as essential in maintaining balance.

Together, these elements created the conditions for teachers to regain stability and gradually rebuild confidence in the classroom.

A complex balance

One of the most striking findings was the dual role of certain factors. Passion for teaching, for instance, could be both a protective resource and a risk. While it inspired teachers to return, it also tempted some to take on too much too soon, undermining recovery.

This highlights the complexity of teacher burnout aftermath: resources and risks are not separate, but deeply intertwined. A factor that enables reintegration in one context can easily become constraining in another. Successful support, therefore, requires continuous adjustment and awareness, rather than one-off measures.

Personal context matters

The barriers and supportive factors of teacher burnout. Barriers include workload and bureaucracy, full schedules, strained relationships, lack of empathy, and pressure to 'prove'. Supportive factors include collaboration and belonging, professional support, passion for teaching, and self-care – including rest, boundaries, and saying no. A set of arrows is between the columns of Barriers and Supportive Factors, pointing in both directions, to denote the complex balance between these.

The study also revealed the decisive role of personal circumstances. Teachers with supportive families or flexible private responsibilities generally found reintegration smoother. Those facing additional stressors, such as caring duties or financial pressures, often experienced a heavier burden.

This underlines that reintegration after burnout is not a one-size-fits-all process but highly context-dependent. Any support strategy must take account of both the professional and personal dimensions of teachers’ lives.

What schools can do

Our findings point to the critical role of school leadership in enabling successful reintegration. Support cannot rely on individual goodwill alone; it requires both organisation-wide frameworks and tailored measures.

At the organisational level, schools should:

  • Ensure a realistic workload for returning teachers.
  • Provide accessible professional support such as counselling.
  • Develop clear reintegration guidelines across the institution, so teachers know what to expect.

At the individual level, reintegration must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. Effective measures include:

  • Phased returns, where responsibilities are built up gradually.
  • Flexible scheduling and the reduction of non-core tasks.
  • Access to psychological support.

According to the teachers we spoke to, these personalised adjustments often made the difference between a sustainable return and a renewed risk of burnout.

Moving forward

Reintegration after burnout should not be seen as a private matter for the teacher to “manage better”.

It is a shared responsibility between the individual, the school, and the wider education system.

Addressing both structural and personal dimensions of the burnout aftermath is essential to protect teachers’ well-being and ensure their long-term retention in the profession.

A graphic showing the support needed on an organisational level vs individual level for a reintegration after teacher burnout. On an organisational level: Realistic workload, professional support, and clear guidelines. On an individual level: phased return, flexible scheduling, and psychological support.

Conclusion

Teacher burnout does not end when a teacher leaves the classroom; in many ways, the story begins there. Returning to work presents its own set of challenges, requiring careful attention, supportive structures, and flexibility. By acknowledging the complexity of the “burnout aftermath” and implementing tailored strategies, schools can help teachers return stronger, healthier, and ready to thrive.

During the ECER conference in Belgrade, we had the chance to connect with fellow researchers and discuss the pressing challenges of teacher burnout. In particular, we explored the gaps in both research and practical strategies for supporting teachers as they return to work after burnout. Hearing their perspectives was incredibly enlightening and highlighted a shared commitment to promoting teacher well-being across diverse educational contexts

Key Messages

  • Returning to the classroom after burnout is just as challenging as the burnout itself; it’s a critical but often overlooked phase.
  • Workload, strained relationships, and lack of leadership support are major barriers to reintegration.
  • Supportive colleagues, counselling, and self-care practices help teachers to return.
  • Passion for teaching is both a motivator and a risk, highlighting the complexity of recovery.
  • Successful reintegration requires tailored, school-wide strategies that address both personal and professional contexts.
Aron Decuyper

Aron Decuyper

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

Aron Decuyper is a doctoral researcher at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University (Belgium). In his PhD, he focuses on effective teaching behaviour in the context of team teaching. Furthermore, he conducts research on teacher educators and teacher well-being

Laura Thomas

Laura Thomas

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

Laura Thomas is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University (Belgium). Her research focuses on social networks and teacher wellbeing, spanning student teachers, early career teachers, and experienced teachers.

Maxime Moens

Maxime Moens

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

Maxime Moens is a doctoral researcher at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University (Belgium). Her research focuses on school wellbeing policies, with a particular emphasis on teacher wellbeing.

Melissa Tuytens

Melissa Tuytens

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

Melissa Tuytens is a professor at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University (Belgium). Her research and teaching focuses on policy, leadership, and people management in education.

Ruben Vanderlinde

Ruben Vanderlinde

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

Ruben Vanderlinde is a professor at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University (Belgium). He focuses on educational innovation, teacher training and professionalisation and the integration of Information and Communication Technologies in education.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-being. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/teachers_in_europe_2020_chapter_1.pdf

Schaufeli, W., Desart, S., & De Witte, H. (2020). The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) – Development, validity and reliability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249495

Ahola, K., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Seppänen, J. (2017). Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Burnout Research, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.02.001

Why we must listen to migrant children: School belonging in a hostile environment

Why we must listen to migrant children: School belonging in a hostile environment

by | BERA, Emerging Researchers' Group, NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

It seemed like a regular school room, with colourful posters on the walls, a small table with pencils and books, and two blue chairs tucked behind a large desk – but for hydrous [1], a 9-year-old boy from Poland, it meant belonging. It was a space where he felt secure, where he could get help with his English, and where staff showed him care and attention that made him feel seen. In a world that often felt confusing and unwelcoming, this room became a quiet anchor, a place where he could just be a child, not “the foreign kid”.

My research showed that schools can act as powerful spaces of inclusion and belonging for migrant children – what I describe as an oasis within wider hostile political environments. In a time when migration and diversity are increasingly politicised, recognising and supporting these inclusive spaces is more urgent than ever.

An image taken by a child showing a room in a schoool with bright images on the walls.

Image by hydrous

A hostile environment

Image of a small wooden pavillon in a school playground.

Image by Luna

Across the UK and Europe, migration is being framed as a problem. From intensified border controls in Germany to stricter citizenship requirements in Italy through securitised language and policy in the UK, the environment has become deeply challenging for migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, and their families. Anti-immigration rhetoric is no longer confined to the far right; even centrist and liberal parties have adopted exclusionary discourses and policies in an effort to appeal to nationalist sentiments.

Children are not immune to these dynamics. Migrant children, in particular, are caught in the tensions between their lived experiences and the public narratives about who belongs and who doesn’t (Richey, 2023). While politicians and media outlets often discuss migration in abstract terms, real children are navigating these social currents daily, in classrooms, in playgrounds, and in their journeys to and from school.

This development is especially significant given that, across the European Union, children with a migrant background represent a growing proportion of the population. While around 10% of the general EU population was born outside the EU, among children, the proportion with at least one foreign-born parent is closer to one in four. This generational shift underscores the growing importance of fostering belonging, inclusion, and identity in schools. As classrooms become increasingly diverse, education systems must adapt to ensure that all children, regardless of background, feel recognised, valued, and supported.

The role of schools

A coloured pencil drawing by a child showing children playing under a rainbow

Children often talked about the importance of playing and being with friends
Drawing by Mistral

In this context, the role of schools becomes critical. For children, schools sit at the intersection of family and society and are often the first space where migrant children socialise with members from outside their ethnic group. Educational institutions have the potential to buffer against hostile discourses by fostering empathy, inclusion, and intercultural understanding, offering opportunities for children to anchor their belonging in formal, social, emotional and symbolic dimensions (Popyk, 2023). Multi-ethnic school environments, in particular, allow migrant children to experience their backgrounds as ordinary (Tajic and Lund, 2023), rather than exceptional. 

My PhD thesis explored how children with a migrant background in post-Brexit England perceived their school environment. Conducted at a multi-ethnic primary school about 30 miles from London, the ethnographic study involved 15 Polish children aged 9–11, using participant observation and creative, child-centred methods, including drawings, photo voice, and Persona Dolls. It revealed that while broader society was increasingly hostile to immigrants, schools can provide safe, inclusive spaces that nurture children’s sense of belonging and support their identity development. 

Through my research, I found that children place deep value on small, everyday gestures that acknowledge and respect their cultural backgrounds – whether it’s a teacher learning a few words in their native language or seeing their national flags proudly displayed on classroom walls and learning materials. The children praised the school’s ethos of inclusivity and identified racism as something more commonly encountered in other educational settings. They also spoke about the importance of friendship as a way to counter hostility and discrimination. Of course, not all schools succeed in creating such environments, and some can even reproduce marginalisation and inequalities (Tereschenko et al., 2019), but my research highlights how, in some cases, schools can provide much-needed spaces of safety, recognition, and support.

The missing voices of children

What is often missing from public debates is the perspective of migrant children themselves. We talk about them but rarely listen to them. And yet, their insights are vital, not only for creating inclusive school environments but also for informing broader conversations on migration, education, and children’s rights. Schools, as everyday sites of encounter and negotiation, offer valuable lessons for society on how to foster tolerance, challenge xenophobia, and better understand the lived realities of migration.

Final thoughts

Schools can serve as spaces of belonging in the context of increasingly exclusionary politics, offering migrant children recognition and inclusion. To strengthen this role, further research is needed on how education systems can meaningfully engage with and reflect migrant children’s voices, ensuring their experiences inform policies and practices.

Key Messages

  • Migration has become increasingly politicised across Europe, with anti-immigration attitudes, discourses, and policies creating a hostile environment for migrant children.
  • Schools can act as buffers of resistance, fostering belonging through inclusive pedagogies and practices.
  • Listening to migrant children’s voices is essential for shaping inclusive education policies and practices. Their perspectives can inform wider efforts to build more tolerant and cohesive societies.
Dr Thi Bogossian

Dr Thi Bogossian

University of Warwick, UK

Thi Bogossian (they/them) recently completed a PhD in Sociology at the University of Surrey (UK) and is currently based at the University of Warwick. With research interests in childhood and youth, education, migration, and gender, they bring previous experience as a school teacher and are now building a research and teaching profile in higher education.

Thi is actively engaged in international and comparative research and has contributed to global policy initiatives in the field of education

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

[1] I gave children the opportunity to choose their pseudonyms. In the assent form, hydrous did not capitalise his name and I decided to respect his decision.

Bogossian, T. (2024). Polish schoolchildren in post-Brexit England: Performativities, identities, and sense of belonging. [PhD]. University of Surrey. DOI: 10.15126/thesis.901242 

Eurostat, Statistics Explained. (2025) EU population diversity by citizenship and country of birth. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_population_diversity_by_citizenship_and_country_of_birth. Accessed on 05-Aug-2025. 

Gaál, F. (2025). Germany ramps up border checks. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/tighter-borders-germany-ramps-up-checks/video-72606467. Accessed on 05-Aug-2025. 

Moench, M. (2025). Italy tightens rules for Italian descendants to become citizens. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxkk0z9y05o. Accessed on 05-Aug-2025. 

 Orav, A. (2023). Integration of migrant children. [Briefing]. European Parliamentary ResearchService. PE754.601. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754601/EPRS_BRI(2023)754601_EN.pdf. Accessed on 05-Aug-2025. 

Popyk, A. (2022). Anchors and thresholds in the formation of a transnational sense of belonging of migrant children in Poland. Children’s Geographies, 21(3), 459–472. DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2022.2075693 

Richey, S. (2023). Collateral Damage: The Influence of Political Rhetoric on the Incorporation of Second-Generation Americans. University of Michigan Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11691056 

Syal, R. (2025). Starmer accused of echoing far right with ‘island of strangers’ speech. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/12/keir-starmer-defends-plans-to-curb-net-migration. Accessed on 05-Aug-2025. 

Tajic, D., Lund, A. (2023). The call of ordinariness: peer interaction and superdiversity within the civil sphere. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 11, 337–364. DOI: 10.1057/s41290-022-00154-5 

 Tereshchenko, A., Bradbury, A., & Archer, L. (2019). Eastern European migrants’ experiences of racism in English schools: positions of marginal whiteness and linguistic otherness. Whiteness and Education, 4(1), 53–71. DOI: 10.1080/23793406.2019.1584048

The radical democratic imperative in educational policy research

The radical democratic imperative in educational policy research

by | NW 3 Curriculum Innovation

This blog post is both inspired by, and intended as a rejoinder to, a symposium on educational policy research for which I acted as a discussant within the Curriculum Network during the ECER 2025 conference.

The symposium: ‘Policy-Making for Plural Education Publics in Europe’, involved three quite diverse papers, which I must admit pressed me to conceptualise a coherence among them. Briefly, Lousie O’ Reilly and Majella Dempsey presented an analysis of the partnership model of curriculum-making in Ireland, charting both the overt and covert forces influencing a national curricular reform. Stavroula Philippou discussed the curriculum changes over time in home economics and health education in Cyprus, covering the last century, focusing on the way the ‘child’ is represented in official discourse, and in the process revealing the intersection of gendered and neoliberal vectors that have shaped this representation. Lastly, Nienke Niveen presented on a transdisciplinary approach for transformative learning in higher education, with a special emphasis on the necessity to blur the boundaries between the university and wider communities when tackling societal challenges.   

Naturally, I cannot do justice to the complexity of work undertaken in each of these symposium presentations here, but my intent in penning this piece is to draw attention to some of the critical discussion points raised in both my own elaborations during the symposium and the ensuing discussion which emerged in the closing moments. My intent is to signal some of the critical arguments for democratic education made by scholars during ECER 2025 and surmise, a necessarily incomplete, set of provocations for educational policy and curriculum in our troubled European and global landscape.

Exclusive inclusion

If education is to fulfil its transformative potential and contribute to the resistance of democratic backsliding observable across Europe, then policy and curriculum-making play important roles.

O’ Reilly and Dempsey’s (2025) work give us insight into current practices of curriculum reform in the Irish context, particularly focusing on the long history of the ‘partnership model’ where a horizontal form allows recognised educational bodies to participate in deliberations on official curricula. Problematically, and as pointed out by the authors, this ostensibly inclusive practice also works to exclude certain voices from the process thereby representing more of a selective horizontal form of partnership. This resonates with the various politics that underpin acts of ‘inclusion’ which always simultaneously exclude certain others in the act of achieving a consensus (Mouffe, 2005).

Moreover, in the context of this apparent democratic approach to curriculum reform, the inclusion of certain stakeholders works to influence a politics of consensualism where the aim of ‘buy in’ works to smooth over any conflictual views within the system. Power is conceptualised here as something overtly possessed by state bodies and as something contingent for those teachers that the authors interviewed in their research — captured succinctly by O’Reilly that participants viewed ‘curriculum as something done to people’. Clearly power is more complex than the hierarchical way many view it, but it is nonetheless striking that this is how key stakeholders, such as teachers, view this supposedly democratic process.

The asymmetry in power between these stakeholders and state bodies is also tied to historical conditions. Ireland occupies a post-colonial perspective, where O’Reilly and Dempsey argue there is a tendency as a nation to look outwards at international rankings and the construction of a national uniqueness or difference.

The changing child of policy

This consideration of both contextual and historical elements is another important point to consider in aspiring to democratic practices in curriculum.

Stavroula Philippou (2025) addresses this in her conference presentation, focusing on the way the child figures as a locus of curricular discourse across time. Of course, one could argue that it is obvious this should be the case, but this neglects the varied ways in which figures of the child have been constructed across different sociopolitical and material vectors, and inordinately privileges a depoliticised, psychologised, Eurocentric, white, and neoliberal representation (Burman, 2012, 2019; Delahunty, 2024a, 2024b). Philippou shows how, within the context of Cyprus, the image of the child has evolved across different sociopolitical and economic epochs, transitioning from past humanistic to contemporary neoliberal conceptualisations.

The flexible curricular autonomy under the humanistic era is contrasted to the voluminous textual guidance provided within neoliberal policy governance. Accordingly, a tension is present where children are constructed as self-governing autonomous ‘future citizens’ while at the same time captured within a neoliberal dispositif of learning (Biesta, 2010) that demands a state prescribed curriculum as intervention. These contradictions are not new to the politics of neoliberalism and are perpetuated further through intergovernmental organisations such as the OECD and UNESCO, entities that act as key players in defining the ‘ideal child’ of education.

This work by Philippou adds further complexity to the workings of power and its interaction with different vertical layers and temporalities of social and political forces. At this point, rather than delving further into the critique of these notions of inclusion and governance, I’d like to signal some potentials, some actions and provocations, in the remaining sections of this post.

Needing more than critique

Moving towards an actionable curriculum intervention, Nienke Niveen (Nieveen et al., 2025) charts a way forward based on the findings of a large collaborative project that sought to explore and develop transdisciplinary and community-situated pedagogical approaches in higher education.

The project in question is Connects and the findings presented during the seminar by Niveen charts how under-researched an area transdisciplinary pedagogy truly is, which I must admit surprised me. Being immersed in critical analysis and research on policy, I sometimes do fear I miss the chance to point to alternatives, so it is enriching to hear about these practices in others’ work. Interestingly, in searching for definitions of this form of learning, the project researchers came across multiple variations on the theme of transdisciplinarity, which although may be frustrated in a technopolitical/social worldview of neoliberalism (Jasanoff, 2015), is adopted by Niveen and colleagues as a promissory aspect for democratic educational transformation.

However, it is not all straightforward, as learnings from the project itself highlight the core need to focus on relationality and co-learning between teachers, students and others. Within a heavily regulated landscape of policy and curricula, as highlighted in the previous seminar papers, the question turns to encouraging perspective taking among teachers, as well as other stakeholders. And this involves considering the purposes of education, and the role, and construction of teaching in a plural worldview. This is certainly not simple when governance simultaneously seeks to restrict subjectivities within the purview of educational accountability, global testing regimes, and capitalist desires.

Plural provocations

It is important to acknowledge my discussion here is unfolding during the first live televised genocide in human history, the invasion of Ukraine, the rise of right-wing political parties to power, and in an era when values for democracy across European populaces are at their lowest since the introduction of the Global Democracy Index in 2006 (Delahunty et al., 2024). I think it is fair to say that many of us in education pin our hopes that through various curricular insertions, we can turn this tide.

The papers in this seminar raised several important conclusions and as I hope the account here has shown, also represent a plurality of approaches and concepts. Acting as a discussant requires one to think — on the spot I might add — of coherences and synergies between the works. Once I got over the initial panic of this task, it was clear to me that this idea of plurality is a critical component of each. Arguing from a lack of plurality in curricular partnerships, as O’ Reilly and Dempsey did, towards a plural, shifting conception of the child across policy, as shown by Philippou, and concluding in the plurality of pedagogies and disciplines required for education transformation discussed by Niveen, captures this notion. And this is exactly the point for democratic curricula; there shouldn’t necessarily be coherence — at least on the surface. We must forefront the necessity of disagreement and pluralism for democracy.

Chantal Mouffe, critiquing the liberalist dilutions of democracy and championing a radical democracy, argues for the necessity of an underpinning agonistic pluralism (Mouffe, 1999). This agonism must be what we reorient ourselves to in policy and curriculum-making, in order to challenge the liberalist occupations with individualism, rationality, destruction of community and erosion of the public commons (Mouffe, 2005).  

For educational researchers, this provocation comes at a moment when these tenets of liberalism have mutated, bolstered by advances in digital and psy-technologies (e.g., big data, machine learning, neural networks, precision governance) within the sociotechnical imaginary of surveillance capitalism. Ben Williamson’s keynote at ECER 2025, for example, sketched the data harmonising practices that are at present combining knowledges of genetics, IQ testing, big data, and economics through ‘inventive sciences’ that mark a bio-edu-data turn in the field. This has the potential to sketch a new image of the ideal child, as well as teachers, parents, policymakers and more, within a system of prediction and control made intelligible through a bioinformatic ordinalisation of individuals.  Nudging practices are not new to the politics of late neoliberalism, but these new technologies signal the potential of ‘casting’ educational subjectivities, even prior to birth, through genetic selection and manipulation.

The danger, therefore, is more than the risk of consensualism and homogenising curricula and education, and we must reclaim a politics of agonism in our educative and scholarly endeavours. Importantly, this involves, necessitates even, both critique and action in complementary ways. For this author, an emergent example of such dispositions are represented in the collection of papers from this symposium on ‘Policy-Making for Plural Education Publics in Europe’, which charts hopeful future for educational policy and curriculum research.

Key messages

  • A radical democratic conceptualisation and approach is required to stem the democratic backsliding emergent across Europe and the world
  • While ostensibly inclusive practices of curriculum-making occur in different contexts, critical examination of these reveals certain exclusions that threaten democratic plurality
  • We must be attentive and critical of the representation of ‘the child’ in policy discourses which invariably contain a complex set of politics legitimating and delegitimating certain practices and peoples
  • Research needs to privilege critical scholarship and interrogation while at the same time considering actions which can point the way forwards, such as transcisciplary pedagogies
  • With the anti-democratic potentials of certain forces within educational research today, curriculum and policy researchers need to reorient to a radical democratic outlook, premised upon an agonistic pluralism
Thomas Delahunty

Thomas Delahunty

Department of Education, Maynooth University, Ireland

Thomas is an Assistant Prof. in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. His current research interests are in at the areas of education policy and the politics of education. He is a critical psychologist and uses a variety of critical, postructural, posthumanist, and decolonial methods to interrogate issues relating to equality, gender, race, and curriculum. He also engages in research in STEM education with colleagues and leads the RAISE research group (www.raise-stem.ie). Tom is also a co-editor of Irish Educational Studies.

References and Further Reading

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319

Burman, E. (2012). Deconstructing neoliberal childhood: Towards a feminist antipsychological approach. Childhood, 19(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568211430767

Burman, E. (2019). Child as method: implications for decolonising educational research. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 28(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2017.1412266

Delahunty, T. (2024a). The convergence of late neoliberalism and post-pandemic scientific optimism in the configuration of scientistic learnification. Educational Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2307509

Delahunty, T. (2024b). ‘Datafied dividuals and learnified potentials’: The coloniality of datafication in an era of learnification. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2435333

Delahunty, T., Dempsey, M., Alvunger, D., Bergnehr, D., Hussain, S., Kitching, K., Kontovourki, S., Nieveen, N., Philippou, S., Ventura-Medina, E., & Dvořák, D. (2024). Citizen education curriculum making for troubled times. Orbis scholae, 18(3), 11–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2025.6

Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity (pp. 1–33). The University of Chicacgo Press.

Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social research, 66(3), 745–758.

Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political (Vol. 8). Verso. https://monoskop.org/images/c/cb/Mouffe_Chantal_The_Return_of_the_Political.pdf

Nieveen, N., Gulikers, J., Visscher-Voerman, I., & den Hertog, J. (2025, September 10th). Transdisciplinary Learning for Societal Transformations ECER 2025, Belgrade.

O’ Reilly, L., & Dempsey, M. (2025, September 10th). Problematising Democratic Decision Making in Curriculum Development ECER 2025, Belgrade.

Philippou, S. (2025, September 10th). Tracing the Ideal Child in Primary Teachers’ Life Histories in Cyprus (mid-1950s to mid-2010s): Self-governable Subjects in/through Home Economics/Health EducationECER 2025, Belgrade.

Calling for AI-informed student activism in K-12 schools beyond learnification

Calling for AI-informed student activism in K-12 schools beyond learnification

by | NW 16 ICT in Education and Training, NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education, NW 26 Educational Leadership

The global education landscape is witnessing promising strides in the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into policy frameworks. Across borders, education policymakers, aware of AI’s growing impact on world societies and global economies, are calling for robust, trustworthy measures to understand its digital capabilities more fully. For example, the European Union’s (2024) Artificial Intelligence Act, a regulatory framework, mandates the monitoring of AI systems. The OECD (2025) has made recommendations on generative AI aimed at increasing innovation, fostering international cooperation, and sustaining democracy. The AI Action Summit (2025), hosted in Paris in February 2025, brought together leaders from different countries for AI dialogue on such topics as innovation, trustworthiness, and investment. These and other organizational entities have been underscoring the urgency of grasping AI’s transformative impact on the labor market and international community.

Current education policy and research on AI integration in schools

Education policy and research’s convergence on the frontier of AI integration in schools signals something more than a wave of classroom innovation. At this moment, systemic recalibration is reaching into the infrastructural and legislative foundations of education and across borders. AI implementation demands vision, infrastructure, and, crucially, investment. As nations race to harness AI’s potential in education, major actors have been stepping forward with bold commitments and strategic funding (European Parliamentary, 2024). China’s Ministry of Education (2024) and the White House (2025)—joined by the United Arab Emirates—are presently at the forefront of the global AI-in-schools movement. All such highly influential actors have extended the scope of AI, encompassing primary and middle schools (Amir, 2025). 

AI’s role in education is recognized by such countries, with convergence around not just its potential for economic investment but also democratic investment. Perhaps underlying this thinking is the belief that AI should not be limited to a technocratic, efficiency focus geared around political influence and agendas, instead promulgating a depoliticized version of simulated human-like intelligence (Mullen & Eadens, 2026; Sætra, 2020).

We are reminded of Biesta’s (2020) critical appraisal of education as “learnification”—the concern is that this dominant paradigm (learnification) is overly narrow in its focus on learning as individualistic (sidestepping relationships) and learning as a process (omitting content and the purpose of learning).

Scholars are busy examining AI’s transformative potential in education and associated challenges whilst confronting conventional barriers to being educated (Banoğlu et al., 2025; Mullen & Eadens, 2026; Zhong & Zhao, 2025). This line of inquiry supports the use of AI in public education for guiding students’ interests, passions, and strengths in addition to cultivating their own voice, agency, and leadership, in effect transcending schooling’s traditional “grammar” (Tyack &Tobin, 1994).

Mishra (2025), an expert in technology integration in teaching, cautioned policymakers that when human “needs” are reduced to technological capabilities, risks ensue. Of great concern is that educational goals could be reshaped around machine capability without accounting for students’ and teachers’ genuine needs. This thinking has also been articulated for digital learning and instruction. On an up note, theory-informed models and actionable strategies that contribute to the evolving discourse on AI ethics are available (see Mullen & Eadens, 2026).

What do student leaders think about AI?

While politics are in motion and policies are being formulated, some areas of academia support these initiatives even though critical perspectives may not be included or attention on the student voice. Banoğlu et al. (2025) critiqued the prevailing narrative that overlooks AI’s untapped potential. This international research team from Hong Kong, Canada, and the US reframed AI as a catalyst for democratic renewal in schools. AI-informed student activism was introduced. Generative AI (which creates text/images using large language models) and agentic AI (which can act on behalf of users) were interrogated for their potential to amplify student voices, protect rights, and support well-being, as well as to tackle problems like cyberbullying.

The research draws upon student experiences, specifically of three former K-12 student leaders—then in their early 20s—from the US, Japan, and Türkiye. Their stories provoke thinking about how AI can be an ally. The student leader from Japan emphasized the role of feedback in democratic processes by enhancing feedback mechanisms within K-12 schools, noting, “If we could use AI-enhanced feedback systems, it would help us improve our system continuously” (p.103). The US student leader suggested that AI could reduce mundane tasks that consume time, explaining, “AI actually removes that friction for you and does boring things most of the time” (p. 102).

Healthy debate around point–counterpoint is necessary when it comes to AI’s role in education and the future. Pasi Sahlberg, faculty at the University of Melbourne, alluded to a growing disconnect from authentic human interaction and relationships due to AI (as cited in Rubin, 2025): “Whereas a lot can be learned through digital media, there is a lot that can’t…. One of those things is the power of human relationships, face-to-face.” Sahlberg warned that systems overly focused on content delivery risk missing the heart of education: “Making first-class humans requires a different understanding of what human interaction can do.”

In this spirit, albeit acknowledging AI’s technical capabilities, two student leaders from Türkiye and the US underscored human interaction’s irreplaceable role in student leadership, to quote: “If you have wise friends or wise family members, I …ask them about a topic that involves leadership ethics [or] that involves emotions” (see Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 100).

As such, scholars (e.g., Banoğlu et al.,2025; Mullen & Eadens, 2026) suggest the AI’s multifaceted potential and natural limitations enrich student voice, agency, autonomy, and leadership. Priority areas are outlined in research. These include empowering learners to develop more autonomously as leaders, dismantling barriers to information access, emphasizing ethical considerations, and promoting cultural sensitivity.

Key implications of AI-informed student activism are:

Empowering Informed Dialogue: AI can foster student engagement in informed dialogue and meaningful decision-making, enhancing their agency and participation in student-led governance. In some countries, K-12 students are not authorized to organize independently or pursue their own agendas without approval, they often do not know how to establish autonomous organizations without the involvement of adult allies. As voiced by a former student leader: “These are high schoolers who are defending their rights and autonomy, and they lack most knowledge to fully gather the tools to build a student organization or fight against … the administration for their own autonomy” (Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 103).

AI can help bridge the student activism gap by (a) informing young people about their rights and (b) encouraging them to support and build their own organizations. This engagement could enhance agency and participation in student-led governance structures, potentially leading to more democratic and responsive environments in which younger and older learners alike are capable of leading for impact.

Streamlining Communication: AI can facilitate seamless communication among students, enabling large groups to effectively collaborate on projects. Unlike feedback methods that may favor more vocal or dominant voices, AI can be trained to highlight marginalized and minority perspectives, ensuring that diverse ideas—particularly those advocating for child rights and democratic participation—are both recognized and valued. Feedback can be shared en masse, and AI can distill this information into comprehensible reports that reflect a broad range of peers’ ideas, rather than prioritizing the most common or median views.

This inclusive approach to student leadership and consultation promotes an equitable platform where all students are acknowledged, helping to prevent marginalization of less-heard perspectives. Such comprehensive feedback can assist in discerning next steps in leadership activities, fostering a greater sense of community, collaboration, and ownership of learning.

Bridge-Building: AI’s ability to connect learners cannot be understated. By sharing insights about student leadership initiatives, AI can help to level the playing field. Enhanced knowledge capabilities can empower students to rely less on others, fostering autonomy while reducing the risk of vulnerability to disempowerment and isolation.

This democratizing function of AI is highlighted by a former K-12 school leader: “AI could … provide a legal, equitable way [for] young students who don’t have enough experience … who are trying to initiate an organization or who already are in a student body but don’t like how it’s ruled or their relationship with the school; they can use AI … to [help] compensate [for their] lack of knowledge” (Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 103).

Cultivating Student Leadership: An expectation is for AI to be grounded in ethical principles and approaches to guide its proper use as well as to monitor misuses. To cultivate student leadership, it is vital that a more complete understanding of AI, together with appropriate uses of applications, inform instruction, apprenticeship, and mentorship.

Further research could put AI’s potential for student leadership to the test, observing its integration with youth leadership to discern the extent to which young people might be empowered with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to take initiative, make decisions, and enact agency in their communities. From this standpoint, AI would be encompassing various youth activities and programs designed to foster cognitive awareness, leadership skills, civic engagement, and personal development.

Charting a path toward AI-informed student activism

Interest groups influence school knowledge, reducing teachers and students alike to curriculum conduits (Mullen, 2022). Viewing AI as a top-down policy initiative for technology integration in schools circumvents the rich learning shaped by student agency and relationships, echoing previous waves of computerization that have generated millions in technology investments, absent learner voices and input. The AI paradigm poses a significant threat to school and student agency, calling for activism from education stakeholders in schools and higher education.

While optimism about AI’s vast transformative potential is warranted, national politics and policies have been known to fall short of effectively involving school actors and more fully supporting them. By fostering trust and encouraging children’s AI-informed activism, steps can be taken to create a more democratic, equitable, and peaceful world. Empowering students to utilize AI to advocate for their rights, development, and well-being promotes educational equity, globally.

This leads us to say what we envision, which is an AI-informed student leadership “frontline” dedicated to child rights, activism, and democratic participation. Given the tide of AI-driven, profit-oriented ventures in public education systems, creative thinking and resistive efforts are needed. Narrowly focused AI initiatives interfere with or even halt equity in schooling, especially for children from low-income homes or rural communities lacking reliable access to computers, internet connectivity, and/or digital tools, especially in remotely delivered online learning contexts. By prioritizing student voices and learning communities and by integrating AI thoughtfully and ethically into schools, ethical technological advancement can support democratic values and a collective humanity.

Quite possibly, every reader of this blog has an important role to play in shaping the digital landscape in ways that are favorable to the healthy development and leadership of future generations of children and youth.

Key Messages

A global AI-in-schools movement is emerging, collectively portraying AI’s role in education as technocratic and depoliticized, echoing the long-critiqued concept of “learnification.”

An empirical study by Banoğlu et al. (2025) critically challenges this dominant narrative, offering a critical counter-narrative, showcasing AI’s potential to democratize education through insights from K-12 student leaders in the U.S., Japan, and Türkiye.

AI can empower students to amplify their agency, safeguard rights, support well-being, and enhance student leadership, fostering democratic renewal in schools.

AI can enable informed dialogue, streamline communication, and bridge gaps, enhancing collaboration, autonomy, and equity in student-led initiatives.

Encouraging AI-informed student activism can create a more democratic, equitable, and peaceful world, ensuring education aligns with genuine student needs.

Dr Köksal Banoğlu

Dr Köksal Banoğlu

Education University of Hong Kong

Köksal Banoğlu, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Education University of Hong Kong. His research focuses on the intersection of technology leadership, inferential social network analysis and AI-informed student action, exploring how these interconnections strengthen school leadership, organisational learning and student agency. His recent work has appeared in Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Leading & Managing, Journal of Professional Capital & Community, School Leadership & Management, Journal of School Leadership, and Professional Development in Education. He is the recipient of the 2025 BELMAS Best Blog Runner-up Award. He serves as Chief Editor of Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, and as Assistant Editor of the International Journal of Leadership in Education. He also sits on the editorial boards of Review of Education, Methodological Innovations, and International Studies in Sociology of Education.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3314-1032

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Koeksal-Banoglu

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/koksalbanoglu

 

Dr Carol A. Mullen

Dr Carol A. Mullen

Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA

Carol A. Mullen, Ph.D., is a Canadian–American Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA and a Fulbright Senior Scholar alumnus. She is an internationally acclaimed, award-winning mentoring researcher who uses equity/justice and policy lenses. Her research also examines the impact of creativity in different testing cultures through Fulbright-sponsored scholarships to China and Canada, with related study in Australia. Her authored and edited books include Equity in School Mentoring and Induction (2025), Handbook of Social Justice Interventions in Education (2021, edited), and The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education (2012, coedited). She is Editor Emerita of the Mentoring & Tutoring journal (Routledge) and past-president of the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership (ICPEL), Society of Professors of Education, and University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA).

Dr Mullen has received over 30 awards in leadership, research, and mentorship in the social sciences, specifically educational leadership and administration and related fields. These honors include UCEA’s Master Professor Award and Jay D. Scribner Mentoring Award, in addition to ICPEL’s Living Legend Award and the University of Toronto’s Leaders and Legends Excellence Award. She has published 29 books, over 250 journal articles and chapters in others’ books, and 18 guest-edited special issues. Forthcoming is Improving Your College Courses: A Guide for Engaging In Digital Learning, a book coedited with Dr. Daniel Eadens (Myers Education Press). Formerly, she served as school director, associate dean for the college, and department chair at a previous university.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4732-338X;

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_A._Mullen;

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol-Mullen-2 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Amir, K. A. (2025, May 4). Sheikh Mohammed announces AI as mandatory subject in UAE schools. Gulf News. https://gulfnews.com/uae/government/sheikh-mohammed-announces-ai-as-mandatory-subject-in-uae-schools-1.500115349

AI Action Summit.(2025).https://www.elysee.fr/admin/upload/default/0001/17/786758b38da7b4c16f26dc56e51884b3346684aa.pdf

Banoğlu, K., Patrick, J., & Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. (2025). Promises of artificial intelligence (AI) in reframing student agency and democratic participation in K-12 Schools: Perspectives from student leaders. Leading & Managing, 31(1), 90-111.

Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411

China’s Ministry of Education. (2024, December 2). MOE issues guidance on how to teach AI in primary and middle schools. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202412/t20241210_1166454.html

European Parliament. (2024). AI investment: EU and global indicators. European Parliament Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/760392/EPRS_ATA(2024)760392_EN.pdf

European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Future-of-Life-InstituteAI-Act-overview-30-May-2024.pdf

Mishra, P. (2025, April 23). Who ordered that? On AI, education, and the illusion of necessity. https://punyamishra.com/2025/04/23/who-ordered-that-on-ai-education-and-the-illusion-of-necessity

Mullen, C. A. (2022). Corporate networks’ grip on the public school sector and education policy. In C. H. Tienken & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The risky business of education policy (pp. 1-22). Routledge.

Mullen, C. A. (2025). Guest editor of special issue, “Creative Responses to Leadership Challenges and Constraints.” Leading &Managing, 31(1). https://journals.flvc.org/leading-and-managing/issue/view/6509/403

Mullen, C. A., & Eadens, D. W. (Eds.). (2026). Improving your college courses: A guide for engaging in digital learning. Myers Education Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). OECD Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449 

Rubin, C. M. (2025,July 4). Are schools ready for the next shutdown? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyrubin/2025/07/04/are-schools-ready-for-the-next-shutdown

Sætra, H. K. (2020). A shallow defense of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: Examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government. Technology in Society, 62, 101283, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101283

Schleicher, A., & Mitchell, S. (2025, June 3,). From PISA to AI: How the OECD is measuring what AI can do. OECD. https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/from-pisa-to-ai-how-the-oecd-is-measuring-what-ai-can-do

Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453

White House, The. (2025, April 23). Advancing artificial intelligence education for American youth.https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth

Zhong, R., & Zhao, Y. (2025). Education paradigm shifts in the age of AI: A spatiotemporal analysis of learning. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531125131 5204

Challenging the rise of transactional language in educational policy

Challenging the rise of transactional language in educational policy

by | BERA, ESAI, NW 1 Professional Learning and Development

For some time now, I have been eager to share my thoughts on how transactional language has infiltrated the discourse of educational reform and associated continuing teacher education. I refer specifically here to how the terminology of related policy has adopted a rather corporate flavour, mimicking patterns of the economic and business world. In the Teaching and Learning International Survey ( OECD, 2018) this ‘resignification of educational language’ (Flubacher & Del Percio, 2017, p. 7) was difficult to ignore. Populated by phrases such as ‘cost effective mechanisms to deliver professional training ‘( p.160) and ‘individual teacher performance in the workplace’ (p. 156), the word ‘indicators’ appears no less than 69 times.

Here in Ireland, recent policy to guide ambitious reform efforts which are aimed at upper secondary education (Department of Education and Youth, 2025) uses the term ‘delivery’ when describing the teacher professional development and learning to support the reforms. The same document is peppered with the term ‘tranche’ in reference to an incremental “roll out” of revised subjects. Notably the Oxford dictionary defines tranche as ‘a financial instalment’ with Investopedia describing tranches as ‘segments of a whole divided up to be more marketable to investors’.

Neoliberalism made us do it!

We should not be surprised that this transactional tenor has infiltrated education policy speak. Since the 1990s, Europe, like much of the western world, has succumbed to the marketisation of education as a competitiveness resource (Sahlberg, 2012) wherein education policy is frequently characterised by successive action plans, target setting and frantic timelines. Cue a distinct catalogue of what Hood (1995, p. 105) once described as ‘new managerial catchwords’ enshrined in a ‘new global vocabulary’ for education. An analogous critique below of three such catchwords often used in the context of education reform and continuing teacher development, attempts to highlight their unsuitability for the sphere of education.

DELIVERY – Quality professional development and learning for teachers during periods of reform is not a ready- made product that travels by courier from some warehouse of ‘packages’ for recipient teachers to unwrap on its arrival. The corpus of research ( Timperley et al., 2007) and direct experience has long shown that knowledge and learning is constructed by the self-identified needs of teachers informed by those of their young learners. Skilful facilitation and dynamic exchange realises this potent process where teachers become the knowledge constructors and shapers of policy, as opposed to mere consumers of that created by others.

ROLL-OUT – Quality professional development and learning is not a vaccine injected en masse into our teacher population during periods of reform ‘…to pep them up, calm them down, or ease their pain’ (Hargreaves, 1994, p.430). Framing it in this way suggests a national marshalling of ‘one shot’ remedies to protect them against the next wave of ‘viral’ reform.

TRAINING – With no disrespect to the process of training in its appropriate context, teacher professional development and learning is not a technical endeavour operated by PowerPoint saturation and rehearsed scripts. The purpose of continuing teacher education is not to ‘indoctrinate’ teachers (Gibbons et al., p.1994) using standard slideshows, but to craft an environment where teachers as thinking professionals navigate complex dilemmas and make sense of reforms according to their unique schools and classrooms.

Deeply pervasive yet unnoticed

I’d like to emphasise here that there is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of terminology. However, it becomes problematic when crudely applied to the messy nature of educational reform and the equally uneven but richly reflective process of teacher development and learning. The voice afforded to this ‘uneducational’ terminology has been amplified with the advent of unprecedented reform associated with the aforementioned subordinance to neoliberal doctrine policy.

Ironically, the big idea of teacher agency is presented as a rationale across many of these current reforms. In this case however , we see teacher agency manifesting at the level of discourse where it is arguably restricted through an uncontested lexicon of reductive terms. Research into teacher agency (Priestley, Biesta & Robinson, 2015) shows that many teachers already overwhelmed by the volume of change simply adopt the language of the latest policy without critically questioning what that language suggests, or how it colours perceptions  of who teachers are, what they do and how they learn best.

At a time of so many other pressing issues in education, I appreciate that this argument may appear somewhat trivial or pedantic. One might even argue that we could just ignore the prevalence of these terms and tolerate them as well-intended policy wording. But what is tolerated gets accepted before eventually penetrating our culture as the taken-for-granted order of things. Indeed, so pervasive has this register become, that it is barely noticed let alone questioned while unwittingly rolling off the tongue (mea culpa also!).

 ‘Be kind to our language while alert to how we use particular words and to how words use us’ 

Timothy Snyder

Snyder (2016, p.59) reminds us that the language we adopt constructs and constrains the meaning applied to reality. It is, therefore, more than just a matter of words which themselves ‘are not some kind of decorative wrapping paper in which meaning is delivered’(Collini 2017, p. 3), but of powerful neoliberal undercurrents steering our thinking and behaviours with important implications for how our professional development and learning is perceived, enacted, and valued.

Call to action

Given that ‘the fault lines are always in danger of becoming visible when language is looked at critically’ (Gray et al., 2018, p. 474), I do believe it is time to disturb the rhetorical structure of language that has found a cosy home in the discourse of educational reform and continuing teacher education. More profoundly, we need to challenge the slavishness to neoliberal ideas and economic persuasion that is helping it to thrive when its very connotations are antithetical to what we value about meaningful reform and the complexities of teacher growth.

There is no room for transactional language in the transformational space we occupy as educators .

There is an alternative and we as a profession have an option to critically deconstruct these blindly accepted terms towards welcoming a glossary that respects our highly skilled work and honours the deeply sophisticated nature of how we develop and learn .

Key messages

  • A certain body of terminology synonymous with corporate doctrine has gained a foothold in the discourse of teacher continuing professional development .
  • Largely rooted in a deference to the marketisation and consumerism of education, it features regularly in the discourse of education reform and associated teacher learning and development efforts
  • An affront to teacher agency, the use of such language promotes a perception of teachers’ work and learning as technical, linear and unproblematic while fundamentally misrepresenting its complex nature particularly during times of reform.
  • A universal blind acceptance of this business-like language register renders it largely unchallenged despite its incompatibility with all things educational.
  • It is time to open the conversation about the legitimacy of such terms in the education context and explore more suitable alternatives
Dr. Ciara O' Donnell

Dr. Ciara O' Donnell

Dr. Ciara O’Donnell has worked in the area of Continuing Professional Development for teachers for over 20 years. From 2013 to 2022 she was the National Director of the Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST), Ireland’s first multi- disciplinary and cross-sectoral national CPD support service for teachers and school leaders.

Commencing her career as a primary school teacher, she has held a number of leadership positions in Irish teacher education in the areas of school leadership, educational disadvantage, curriculum development , CPD policy, design and research. Ciara now works as an independent education consultant and speaker specialising in teacher education, curriculum and school leadership while also working as a tutor with Maynooth University. Her published research explores the experiences and learning of teachers seconded to continuing teacher education and its impact on their future careers.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and further reading

Collini, S. (2017). Speaking of universities. London: Verso.

Del Percio, A. &  Flubacher, M. ( 2017) Language, Education and Neoliberalism.  In M. Flubacher, M. & A. Percio ( Eds) Language, Education and Neoliberalism.  Bristol: Multilingual Matters

Department of Education and Youth (2025) Senior Cycle Redevelopment Implementation Support Measures. Dublin: The Department of Education and Youth. https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/publications/senior-cycle-redevelopment-implementation-support-measures/

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994) The new production of knowledge. London: Sage Publications. https://ia801409.us.archive.org/30/items/mode1_2/mode1_2.pdf

Gray, J.  O’Regan, P.  &  Wallace, C . (2018) Education and the discourse of global neoliberalism, Language and Intercultural Communication, 18:5, 471-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1501842

Hood, C. (1995) Contemporary Public Management: a new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration, 10, 104-117.https://doi.org/10.1177/095207679501000208

Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. London: Cassell . https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1385110

Priestley, M., Biesta, G.J.J. & Robinson, S. (2015) Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Sahlberg, P. (2012). How GERM is infecting schools around the world? Retrieved from https://pasisahlberg.com/text-test/

Synder, T. (2017) On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century : New York , Crown Publishing.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007) Teacher professional learning and development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12365/17384/154%20Teacher%20professional%20learning%20and%20development.%20best%20evidence%20synthesis%20iteration.pdf?sequence=1