Who gets to collaborate? Diversity and inclusion in a decade of research into higher education at ECER

Who gets to collaborate? Diversity and inclusion in a decade of research into higher education at ECER

by | NW 22 Research in Higher Education

At the annual European Conference for Education Research (ECER), the symposia format is one that requires participants from a minimum of three countries. Thus, preparing and participating in a symposium is a promising way to foster both international cooperation in research and deepen knowledge about various educational systems, justifying the prominence of symposia in the annual ECER programme. Typically, symposia enable researchers from different countries to interchange ideas over a certain topic, encouraging inclusiveness by fostering “cooperation and communication between the various educational research communities in Europe” (Deleye et al., 2025), in line with EERA’s goals.

Examining a decade of research – what we studied and how

EERA Network 22 Research into Higher Education recently developed a project to contribute to deepen knowledge about international collaboration within this field of research. We examined research and researchers involved in NW22 symposia held at ECER from 2014 to 2024. It should be highlighted that ECER symposia are self-organised by one or more researchers that invite other colleagues and propose who is presenting as well as a discussant.

The dataset for this study was compiled from publicly available conference program materials on the EERA’s website. The data gathered included details of the institutional and country affiliations of symposia chairs, discussants and presenters. The team also identified key topics, theoretical frameworks, methods, and national contexts being researched in each paper presented within symposia. Data was explored throughout thematic analysis and social network analysis, aimed at characterizing collaboration patterns within the NW22 symposia.

What the data revealed

The project revealed that Network 22 ECER program between 2014 and 2024 included 33 symposia in total and, except for ECER 2022, there were symposia held every year. This exception is likely related to the fact that ECER 2022 was an unusual conference, i.e., the first after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. ECER 2022 was attended by a smaller number of participants – both in person in Yerevan and online – than the yearly conferences before the pandemic and since 2023.

The project results (see figure 1) suggest that :

The UK seems to be a central hub: It serves as an important bridge in the network, with other major actors in the NW22 symposia being the Netherlands and Germany. Despite its geographical distance, the USA also demonstrates a central position in the network, as it collaborates with a wide number of countries, and does so frequently. This pattern aligns with the results of various overviews of the higher education research field (Fu et al., 2022; Akbaritabar & Barbato, 2021; Tight, 2019).

It also highlights the role of linguistic similarity more than of geographical distance in fostering international collaboration in research. However, the Netherlands and Germany also emerged as major actors in the NW22 symposia network, due to their connections to the most influential countries in the network and to other countries. Moreover, the social network analysis results show that Nordic countries tend to collaborate frequently with each other, but much less with other countries and this could serve as another example of the silos tendency described by Tight (2019).

Greece as a bridge: An unexpected finding in the network analysis was Greece’s high betweenness centrality, which highlights that the country acts as bridge between otherwise weakly connected parts of the network (Landherr et al., 2010). Results show that it is part of a tightly-knit group with Portugal, Romania, and Spain, somewhat isolated from the rest of the network. As Fishberg (2022) notes, the production of knowledge rarely stems from a level playing field and this seems to be reflected in symposia as well as within collaborative research projects. Nevertheless, in this case, Greece participated in only one symposium in 2024, leading to infer that despite a limited participation, a country can take a structurally significant position if it links separate clusters or sparsely connected regions.

The periphery: Additionally, social network analysis results suggest that countries such as Croatia, Estonia, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Malta, Romania, Spain, and Turkey occupy peripheral positions in the network. Their limited participation in symposia and their tendency to connect primarily with each other rather than with more centralized actors creates a network structure in which a densely interconnected core is surrounded by a periphery of countries. This might echo the claim that research terrain tends to reflect the hierarchical ordering of global higher education, since studies are disproportionately located in the global centres of higher education (Warren et al., 2021).

An isolated entry: Until 2019 the network expanded in a cohesive way: each new country that appeared in the symposia became integrated into the existing collaboration structure, adding to the same interconnected group of countries. In 2019, however, Mexico appeared in the data through a symposium on graduate employability that included three studies written by authors affiliated with the same Mexican institution. Because this symposium involved only Mexican researchers and no co-participation with authors from other countries, Mexico did not connect to the existing collaboration network. Instead, it appeared as a separate, isolated part of the graph.

What the data reveals – patterns of inclusion and exclusion

Although the limitedness of the data analysed in this project, it is possible to highlight the following key messages:

  • The idea of international collaboration being framed by inequalities and asymmetries is confirmed by our results, even if there are also signs of openness to the emergence of more peripherical countries and establishment of new links between countries.
  • There is room for international collaboration within symposia, but more diversity can be ensured reinforcing ECER NW22 as a collaborative environment with researchers from diverse backgrounds and including more critical matters in higher education research within the organization of symposia.
  • The challenge of ensuring equal value to the diversity of linguistic and epistemological traditions and practices within the research field in HE is reinforced. This stresses the need to think about strategies to face this challenge within ECER NW22.
  • Symposia can be an even more effective tool to present and foster a diverse and inclusive perspective on higher education research in terms of international contexts, topics, issues, and methodologies which inspire NW22 participants and especially early career researchers.

Would you like to find out more about our research, or would you like to get more involved in higher education research? Get in touch with Network 22 directly, or come along to the Network 22 sessions at the upcoming ECER in Tampere.

The Authors

Mariana Gaio Alves

Mariana Gaio Alves

Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa, Portugal

Jani Ursin

Jani Ursin

University of Jyväskylä Finnish Institute for Educational Research

Serap Emil

Serap Emil

Middle East Technical University (METU)

Kaisa Silvennoinen

Kaisa Silvennoinen

Finnish Institute for Educational Research

Anil Ersoz

Anil Ersoz

Middle East Technical University (METU)

Andreia Veiga

Andreia Veiga

Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa

Christine Teelken

Christine Teelken

VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands

Rosemary Deem

Rosemary Deem

Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

Liudvika Leysite

Liudvika Leysite

TU University Dortmund, Germany

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Akbaritabar A, Barbato G. An internationalised Europe and regionally focused Americas: A network analysis of higher education studies. Eur J Educ. 2021; 56: 219–234.https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12446

Deleye, M., Carmona, C., Ciolan, L., Dovigo, F., Figueiredo, M., Grell, P., Schindler, C., &Hoveid, M. H. (2025). Mapping European Educational Research: Insights from topic modelling of ECER abstracts. European Educational Research Journal, 24(5), 614-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041251346817 

Fishberg, R. (2022 ). EU Social Science Collaborations as unequal Europeanisation: an ethnographic study of people and practices in EU funded research  Roskilde]. Denmark ISSN 0909-9174

Fu, Y.C., Marques, M., Tseng, YH. et al. An evolving international research collaboration network: spatial and thematic developments in co-authored higher education research, 1998–2018. Scientometrics 127, 1403–1429 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04200-w

Landherr, A., Friedl, B., & Heidemann, J. (2010). A critical review of centrality measures in social networks. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(6), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0127-3

Tight, M. (2019). Higher Education Research – the developing field, Bloomsbury Academic.

Warren, S.; Starnawski, M.; Tsatsaroni, A.; Vogopoulou, A.;  Zgaga, P. (2021).How does research performativity and selectivity impact on the non-core regions of Europe? The case for a new research agenda, Higher Education (2021) 81:607–622, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00559-6

Introducing a new series: Exploring Physical Education curriculum across European borders

Introducing a new series: Exploring Physical Education curriculum across European borders

by | BERA, NW 18 Research in Sport Pedagogy, SERA

In a world of cultural, economic and social change, physical education (PE) as a curriculum subject has remained something of a constant (e.g., Penney, 2008; Tinning, 2012). That is, at its core, PE remains a subject focused on the development of sports skills and/or an opportunity to engage in physical activity for the development of lifelong physical activity habits. These forms of PE have been criticised by some for being narrow (Gray et al., 2015), neoliberal (Evans, 2014), gendered (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2021) and ableist (Evans and Penney, 2008), working more for the benefit of some than others.

However, such views perhaps do not tell the whole story. For example, our recent work analysing PE curricula, and working with PE teachers from across the four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), demonstrated that whilst recurrent features of PE were evident, there were also notable differences in how PE was conceptualised and enacted across country contexts (Gray et al., 2022).

What we learned from talking across borders

Reflecting on these differences – in conversation with others – afforded opportunities for critical thinking, learning and innovation. Our analyses of the teachers’ discussions revealed that, in sharing and analysing curriculum experiences across jurisdictions, practitioners began to generate critical questions and discussions about the nature and purpose of PE in general, and in their own context specifically (Gray et al., 2022).

Such learning has been valuable within our own contexts, but we were keen to extend this conversation across European borders and therefore sought opportunities for further discussions through which we might learn more with/from European colleagues.

This resulted in the creation of the EERA-funded seminar series – ‘Physical Education Curriculum Learning across European Borders’.

Introducing the EERA Network 18 seminar series

This blog serves as an introduction to the seminar series, which is being led by Dr Shirley Gray and Dr Oliver Hooper (Link Convenor of Network 18 – Research in Sport Pedagogy) and supported by the UKPE Collaborative as well as members of NW18. The aim of the year-long project – commencing in October 2025 and running until August 2026 – is to facilitate cross-border dialogue among PE researchers and practitioners (e.g., teachers and student teachers) from across Europe, to support critical and creative thinking and to allow participants to begin to re-imagine PE for a more socially just future.

The series comprises seven online seminars and covers, in addition to the UK, 12 different country contexts (namely, Austria, Spain, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, Turkey, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands), allowing researchers from across Europe to share their research and/or their critical perspectives on their local PE curricula. During each seminar, presenters and audience members explain and explore the different PE curricula and consider the value of cross-border dialogue to facilitate critical thinking and professional learning. The series culminates at ECER 2026, with a pre-conference, in-person workshop that looks to:

  • Synthesise the issues/discussions raised during the seminar series and consider the implications for PE across European borders,
  • Critically reflect on these issues, identifying key areas of learning around PE curriculum,
  • Co-create new ideas/principles for future PE curricula across Europe, and
  • Reflect on the value(s) of cross-border curriculum dialogue and learning.

After each seminar, speakers are invited to write a short blog post summarising their presentation and reflecting on their cross-border learning. Collectively, these blogs will help sustain and extend the conversations beyond the seminar series, as well as generate ideas for future research in this area.

Key Messages

  • Physical education (PE) as a curriculum subject often remains focused on the development of sport skills and lifelong physical activity habits.
  • PE has therefore been critiqued for being narrow, neoliberal and ableist, working more for the benefit of some than others.
  • Cross-border conversations about curriculum policy and enactment can support critical discussion, facilitate learning and shape more inclusive practice.
  • An EERA-funded seminar series has been established to explore PE curricula across 12 European contexts and facilitate cross-border learning for a more socially just future.
Dr Rachel Sandford

Dr Rachel Sandford

Loughborough University, UK

Dr Rachel Sandford is a Reader in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, UK. She is also the Co-Lead of the UNESCO Chair in Sport, Physical Activity and Education for Development. Her research centres on young people’s attitudes towards, experiences of and development in/through sport and physical activity. She has a particular interest in issues around popular culture, embodied identity and positive youth development. Dr Rachel Sandford | Loughborough University

Dr Oliver Hooper

Dr Oliver Hooper

Loughborough University, UK

Dr Oliver Hooper is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University. Oliver’s research explores young people’s experiences within physical education, health and youth sport contexts with a specific focus on the experiences of marginalised youth. He is particularly interested in youth voice and the use of participatory methods to facilitate young people’s meaningful involvement within research. Dr Oliver Hooper | Loughborough University

Dr Shirley Gray

Dr Shirley Gray

University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr Shirley Gray is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on issues relating to gender and equality, social and emotional learning, pupil motivation and the professional learning of teachers. Dr Shirley Gray | University of Edinburgh 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Camacho-Miñano, M. J., Gray, S., Sandford, R., & MacIsaac, S. (2022). Young women, health and physical activity: Tensions between the gendered fields of Physical Education and Instagram. Sport, Education and Society, 27(7), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1932455

Evans, J. (2014). Neoliberalism and the future for a socio-educative physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(5), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.817010

 

Evans, J., & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical ‘ability’ in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980701345576

 

Gray, S., Hooper, O., Hardley, S., Sandford, R., Aldous, D., Stirrup, J., Carse, N., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A health(y) subject? Examining discourses of health in physical education curricula across the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3820

 

Gray, S., MacIsaac, S., & Jess, M. (2015). Teaching ‘Health’ in Physical Education in a ‘Healthy’ Way. RETOS: Nuevas Tendenies En Educacion Fisica Deportes y Recreacion, 28, 165–172. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/teaching-health-in-physical-education-in-a-healthy-way/

 

Gray, S., Sandford, R., Stirrup, J., Aldous, D., Hardley, S., Carse, N. R., Hooper, O., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211059440

 

Penney, D. (2008). Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 14(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07085708

 

Tinning, R. (2012). The idea of physical education: A memetic perspective. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.582488

 

UKPE Cross-border Learning and Innovation Collaborative – Making space for interdisciplinary research, dialogue, and collaboration in Physical Education and Health and Wellbeing. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2026, from https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/ukpe-collaborative/

 

 

Empowering racialised women in European academia: Collaboration across borders

Empowering racialised women in European academia: Collaboration across borders

by | NW 33 Gender and Education

Foto de Shantanu Kumar en Unsplash

Across Europe, the persistent underrepresentation of racialised women in academia — understood as women positioned within racial categories through historical and social processes of racialisation that produce symbolic and material hierarchies shaping their experiences —  reflects deep-seated structural inequalities rooted in colonial histories, racial hierarchies, and gendered exclusions. The project “Exploring Wellbeing and Progression Experiences among Racialised Women in Postgraduate Education” investigates how early-career researchers (ECRs) who identify as racialised women navigate these complexities within higher education institutions in England, France, Portugal, and Spain.

The project Exploring Wellbeing and Progression Experiences among Racialised Women in Postgraduate Education is supported by EERA Network 33: Gender and Education. It grew out of two related initiatives: the COST Action VOICES (CA20137, Making young researchers’ voices heard for gender equality), and the UCL-funded Global Engagement project examining the lived experiences of Black women in postgraduate education in England and France through an intersectional lens.

Building on these foundations, our project set out not only to analyse these racialised women’s experiences in academia, but also to build capacity among racialised women researchers by creating transnational spaces of exchange, reflection, and empowerment.

The project was carried out by a multidisciplinary and transnational research team, bringing together scholars with extensive expertise in gender, race, and higher education.

  • Professor Victoria Showunmi of University College London, UK (Team Lead)
  • Dr Anne-Sophie Godfroy of École Normale Supérieure – PSL, France
  • Dr Edna Falorca da Costa of University of Minho, Portugal
  • Dr Marian Blanco Ruiz of Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain.

Their collaboration exemplifies the project’s commitment to cross-border learning and to fostering inclusive research practices within European academia.

Politics, power, and post-colonial past

The project is situated within a critical political moment. Across Europe, right-wing populist movements continue to gain ground, often combining anti-gender rhetoric with nativist and xenophobic ideologies. Within this climate, racialised women scholars from former colonies face overlapping challenges – negotiating academic careers while contending with the residual power of colonial structures and the cultural expectations of “belonging” in European higher education.

“The transnational comparison across very different national contexts, more or less sensitive to reflexivity on racial inequalities, allows common patterns of exclusion and shared strategies of resistance to emerge”.

Anne-Sophie Godfroy

Researcher in France

By drawing comparisons across four post-imperial national contexts, the study explores how histories of empire continue to shape institutional cultures. Taking inspiration from Fradera’s (2018) work on the ongoing relationship between former empires and colonies, the project examines how racialised women ECRs relate to colonial/decolonial culture and how they interpret their academic identities through it.

Rethinking identity – Intersectionality as a starting point

Rather than treating race as an afterthought to gender, the study asks: how is gender itself constructed through the lived experiences of racialised women? Intersectionality — understood as an analytic framework that elucidates how multiple dimensions of identity, including but not limited to gender, race, social class, sexual orientation, and disability, intersect and mutually constitute one another — serves as the project’s principal analytical lens, drawing upon Black feminist and postcolonial theoretical traditions.

Women in higher education are not a single story; intersectionality ensures we see the full narrative. Only by acknowledging the complexity of their identities can we create truly inclusive and transformative academic spaces.
Victoria Showunmi

Lead Researcher of the project

 This sentiment encapsulates the project’s central aim of linking personal experience with structural analysis.

The project’s theoretical foundation combines Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, hooks’ Black feminist critique of representation, and Mohanty’s decolonial analysis of feminism (2003), highlighting how race, gender, and history intersect in academic life. These ideas are placed in dialogue with European reflections on universalism and citizenship by Balibar (1997),Diagne (2013), and Fassa, Lepinard, and Roca Escoda (2016). This exchange exposes the gap between Europe’s universal ideals and institutional realities, where “sophisticated racism” (Showunmi & Tomlin, 2022) persists beneath claims of neutrality and meritocracy.

Voice as method – Listening, trust, and shared space

At the heart of the research were focus groups held in each country throughout 2025, bringing together 24 postgraduate participants. These sessions were designed to create safe, reflective spaces where participants could articulate their experiences and develop new ways of discussing race and discrimination. A carousel approach was adopted, where researchers travelled between the four countries and observed how national contexts shaped both academic life and the language of inclusion.

The focus groups encouraged participants to move beyond isolation and build a shared sense of solidarity. Common themes emerged: the burden of “representing diversity,” the invisibility of racialised women in leadership, and the emotional labour of navigating majority-white academic environments. Yet there was also a strong thread of resilience – participants described finding strength through community, mentorship, and shared purpose.

Collaboration as capacity building

One of the project’s most significant achievements lies in its collaborative methodology. The transnational partnership between universities in England, France, Portugal, and Spain created a dynamic platform for knowledge exchange. Each team brought distinct disciplinary perspectives and cultural insights, ensuring that the research was both locally grounded and globally relevant.

This collaborative design became a form of capacity building in itself, as the discussion sessions brought together racialised ECR women who shared a common feeling and space, highlighting their expertise and visibility within their institutions. The script had an iterative design, meaning that interesting findings from one discussion group were implemented in the next, thus developing a model that illustrates how inclusive research practices can foster personal development while promoting collective understanding.

By empowering racialised women ECRs and their allies, the project helped participants develop new tools for addressing racial and gender-based inequalities. These included:

  • Strategies for self-advocacy
  • Ways of confronting microaggressions
  • Approaches to mentoring that centre on empathy and inclusion.

Participants reported that these skills translated into stronger engagement in their academic and professional environments.

Strengthening the European research community

The project’s outcomes extend beyond its participants. By incorporating the lived experiences of racialised ECRs, it enriches the European research landscape with perspectives that have often been marginalised. It challenges established narratives about who “belongs” in academia and what counts as legitimate knowledge.

Moreover, the collaboration strengthens EERA’s Gender Network by expanding its focus to include racial and postcolonial dimensions of gender inequality. Through links with initiatives such as COST Action CA20137 VOICES, the project connects individual empowerment with institutional change. This alignment fosters greater coherence across European research networks committed to diversity and inclusion.

The project also offers valuable insights for policymakers and institutions. By understanding how exclusion operates differently across contexts, universities can design more effective equity measures—ensuring that diversity initiatives move beyond symbolic gestures to produce tangible outcomes.

From research to reflection

This project demonstrates how research can serve as both analysis and intervention. The collaborative process not only generated empirical findings but also built networks of trust, understanding, and shared purpose among scholars across Europe. In doing so, it illustrates how capacity building can begin with listening: by valuing the lived experiences of those at the margins, research becomes a means of collective empowerment.

The findings will continue to inform ongoing dialogue within EERA’s Gender Network and beyond. Plans are underway to develop future projects that build on this foundation, fostering intersectional and transnational approaches to inclusion in European academia.

Ultimately, this study reminds us that collaboration across borders –and across difference – is not just a research strategy, but a necessary step towards transforming academia itself.

Key Messages

– The project examines how racialised women in postgraduate education across England, France, Portugal, and Spain experience wellbeing, academic progression, and structural exclusion within higher education systems shaped by colonial legacies and intersecting inequalities. – Through a transnational comparative approach grounded in Black feminist and postcolonial theory, the study identifies common patterns of invisibility, emotional labour, and “diversity burden,” as well as shared strategies of resistance, solidarity, and identity formation. – By creating collaborative, safe spaces for dialogue, the project strengthens capacity building, amplifies marginalised voices, and provides practical tools for transforming European academic cultures toward greater inclusion and equity.
Prof. Victoria Showunmi

Prof. Victoria Showunmi

Institute of Education, University College London, UK

Prof. Victoria Showunmi is Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Gender, Race and Identity at the Institute of Education (IOE), University College London (UCL). Her interests are gender, identity, and race through the lens of intersectionality, focusing on leadership and the lived experience of Black women and girls.

She develops fresh conceptual frameworks focusing on equity and social justice, especially the interplay between people and the sophistication of behaviours which lead to disengagement with the promotion of equality. Her work shows how culture and cultural background have the potential to disrupt power structures and lead to transformational change. She has an international profile based on the dissemination of her research through publication and teaching and was the recipient of BERA’s inaugural Academic Citizen of the Year award in 2023. This new award was created to honour a member of the wider academic community who has gone above and beyond in supporting colleagues and contributing to the wider discipline.

Prof. Showunmi is a member of the Gender and Education Executive, Past Chair of the British Educational Leadership Management and Administration Society, Chair of the International Studies Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association and co-convenor of the Gender Network of the European Educational Research Association.

Dr. Anne-Sophie Godfroy

Dr. Anne-Sophie Godfroy

University of Paris-Est Créteil, France

Anne-Sophie Godfroy is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris-Est Créteil in France. Her research interests include knowledge production and circulation, the role of science in society, responsible research and innovation, the relationship between gender and science, international comparisons, and the epistemology and methodology of multidisciplinary contexts.

Over the past decade, she has participated in several European-funded research projects on science and society, including the HORIZON structural change projects GEnderTime and ACT.

From 2021 to 2025, she chaired the COST Action VOICES, ‘Making Young Researchers’ Voices Heard for Gender Equality’. She is currently chairing the COST Innovator Grant Next Gender, which aims to build the capacity of the next generation of researchers and evaluators to engage in inclusive sex and gender research.

Dr. Edna Costa

Dr. Edna Costa

University of Minho, Portugal

Dr. Edna Costa is an Assistant Professor at the School of Economics, Management and Political Science at the University of Minho and an integrated researcher at the Research Centre in Political Science (CICP-UM). She holds a PhD in Political Science from NOVA-FCSH (2018), with a thesis on work-family capabilities in Portugal and Spain. Her research interests focus on gender and politics, as well as youth political participation and representation, topics on which she has published nationally and internationally. She has also participated in several projects, among which, the study on “The political participation of Portuguese youth” (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation), the COST Action “VOICES” on gender equality and early career researchers, and the SDSN-Portugal Work Group on “Meaningful Youth Engagement”.

Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2341-6482
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/edna-falorca-da-costa-b5457630

Dr. Marian Blanco-Ruiz

Dr. Marian Blanco-Ruiz

Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain

Dr. Marian Blanco-Ruiz is a Lecturer in Audiovisual Communication and Advertising at Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain). She holds a PhD in Media Research from Carlos III University of Madrid. Her research is grounded in feminist and gender-based approaches to media studies, with a focus on gender representations, digital and symbolic violence, and the impact of emerging technologies on youth, minors, and women’s mental health.
She has also participated in several projects, among which, is the leader of the project “The pressure of the ‘perfect mother’: the influence of digital media on women’s perception and mental health during motherhood and early childhood.” She is a member of the Core Group of the COST Action VOICES (2021–2025) and co-editor of the journal Communication and Gender. 


Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7920-5978 
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianblancoruiz/ 

 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Balibar, É. (1997). Racisme et universalisme. Raison Présente, 122, 63–77. https://www.persee.fr/doc/raipr_0033-9075_1997_num_122_1_3401 

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Diagne, S. B. (2013). On the Postcolonial and the Universal? Rue Descartes, 78(2), 7–18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275877851_On_the_Postcolonial_and_the_Universal 

Fassa, F., Lepinard, E., & Roca Escoda, M. (2016). L’intersectionnalité: enjeux théoriques et politiques. La Dispute. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311577224_Intersectionnalite_enjeux_theoriques_et_politiques 

Fradera, J. (2018). The Imperial Nation. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167459/the-imperial-nation?srsltid=AfmBOopzeD1qDM_CvZu4YYz6yoii8HUGk1d4scxfn559XtdjxgBndK0K 

hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743264 

Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smp7t

Showunmi, V. & Tomlin, C. (2022). Understanding and Managing Sophisticated and Everyday Racism. Rowman & Littlefield.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382720644_Understanding_and_Managing_Sophisticated_and_Everyday_Racism_Implications_for_Education_and_Work 

Positioning universities as conduits for social justice – Charting the way forward

Positioning universities as conduits for social justice – Charting the way forward

by | NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education

From Cape Town to Chemnitz, higher education is shaped by global hierarchies. Institutions in the Global South often feel pressure to emulate those in the Global North—adopting ranking systems, productivity targets, and competitive frameworks that can sideline local needs. Meanwhile, political polarisation and the rise of right-wing movements in many Northern countries feed into neocolonial dynamics, making the pursuit of global educational justice an uphill battle. Moreover, global warming has become an urgent issue for all contexts, as our world is interconnected and interdependent.

In the context of increased globalisation, neoliberalism, stark inequality, factionist behaviours, and the climate crisis, the position of the modern university is once again being questioned.

What is the role, purpose, and function of a public university in the 21st century?

Universities are both products of these forces and shapers of them. That dual role gives them a unique power—and responsibility—to conceptualise and enact alternatives.

Organisational learning for change

Globally, universities are recognized as hubs of knowledge production, innovation, and advancement, benefiting society. More dynamically, they also serve as an ideological mirror reflecting the political and economic realities of their nations, ratifying their positions as extensions of the prevailing political economy.

Universities occupy a unique position in society, serving both as guardians of knowledge and as powerful institutions that produce and perpetuate social inequalities. As sites of education, research, and public discourse, they have the potential to either challenge or reinforce inequalities. In the process of neoliberalisation of higher education, universities have become entrepreneurial organisations, incorporating diversity as a management strategy and presenting themselves as actors for social justice.

At the ECER 2025 conference, our symposium, “Positioning Universities as Conduits for Social Justice,” brought together researchers from Germany, South Africa, and the Netherlands to tackle this question head-on. We explored how higher education institutions (HEIs) could be reimagined—not just as knowledge factories—but as active agents of social justice.
We drew on discourse-analytical and postcolonial perspectives in the context of organisational education—the idea that institutions are not static but can learn, adapt, and transform. This lens pushed us to ask:

• What kind of society should universities help create?
• What kind of citizens should they nurture?

We start from two different pressure points to reflect on the responsibility of universities to chart the way forward for social justice.

Migration, polarisation, and Higher Education

Polarisation and migration are reshaping societies—and universities are right in the middle of it. Insights from a critical analysis of South Africa and the Netherlands reveal how political tensions and demographic shifts challenge the inclusivity and purpose of higher education in these regions. By juxtaposing headline news, NGO reports, official country statistics, and university mouthpieces, the presentation highlights the prevailing narratives and counternarratives of migration debates affecting higher education institutions. It is suggested that if political interference is not curtailed, it will result in erosion of institutional autonomy, instrumentalisation, research constraints, increased silencing and censorship, and the complete evisceration of higher education as a public good.

Climate change and justice in the context of Higher Education

In response to global warming, social movements such as Fridays for Future have emerged within the last five to 10 years (Revsbæk, 2014). In German higher education, we observe an increasing number of study programmes integrating sustainability as a transversal topic, especially but not exclusively in technical study programmes. As part of a BMFTR-funded project involving two higher education institutions in Germany, the study identifies contrasting strategies for addressing gender and sustainability through a comparative case study.

Rather than demonstrating a homogenous picture of how gender and sustainability are discursivied and subjectivised in the context of future and innovation labs, contradictory positions emerge in both cases. This study finds that future and innovation labs have the potential to widen participation for non-traditional students and therefore offer more opportunities for social justice. Simultaneously, they also face the risk of closures, as they may reproduce privileges through self-selection and reinforce institutional power asymmetries.

The specific challenges universities face lead to questions about their role, purpose, and function, and, linked to this, what their societal responsibility is, as further explored below, in the context of the project “Responsible Science?!”funded by the German Research Council.

What is the responsibility of a public university in the 21st century 

Contrasting two different universities in Germany, both reflect broader trends in higher education: social justice is co-opted into managerial strategies, diversity becomes a “resource” for institutional success, and responsibility is depoliticized and individualized. In the first university, the tension between its market-driven self-presentation and its hidden values exposes a fragmented identity, where social responsibility risks becoming a mere afterthought. In the second university, this approach shifts the focus away from institutional accountability, allowing structural and institutional inequalities, such as those tied to race, class, or gender, to persist unchallenged. This raises critical questions: Are universities practising “privileged irresponsibility” by addressing only the inequalities they choose to see? By focusing on global competition or individual behaviour, they risk ignoring their own roles in perpetuating privilege, be it through unexamined traditions, exclusionary practices, or the commodification of social justice.

Charting the way forward

Charting the way forward in a manner that repositions universities as bastions of democratic and inclusive knowledge producers will require strengthening institutional governance, developing legal and financial safeguards, protecting tenure systems and creating systems that can withstand political pressure. To move forward, we need to ask ourselves as universities, what is our responsibility and our response–ability in the current climate? (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2023).

We put forward that universities can be drivers for social change when they:

  • Confront their historical complicity and their Euro-centric standpoint, including the colonial and exclusionary roots of their institutional identities;
  • Shift from individual to structural accountability, ensuring that policies address institutional discrimination and exclusion rather than merely assigning blame;
  • Resist and challenge the neoliberal framing of social justice, where diversity and inclusion are treated as metrics for success rather than ethical imperatives.

Why this matters

In times of climate change, migration, and deepening inequality, universities can either reinforce existing hierarchies or work towards dismantling them. By rethinking their structures, missions, and responsibilities, they can chart a different course—one that’s socially just and globally relevant. At our symposium, we did not just diagnose the problems—we shared possible pathways forward for shaping and transforming the long-term organisational culture of HEIs. Because if universities can learn and change, they can help societies do the same.

Key Messages

  • Universities aren’t neutral spaces. They mirror political and economic realities — and have the power to either challenge or reinforce inequality.
  • From Cape Town to Chemnitz, global hierarchies shape who gets to learn — and how. Researchers are asking: what does a truly just university look like in the 21st century?
  • When “diversity” becomes a management metric and “social justice” a branding tool, universities risk practising privileged irresponsibility. Structural change — not tokenism — is what’s needed.
  • Climate change, migration, polarisation: universities sit at the heart of today’s biggest challenges. They can either reinforce existing hierarchies — or help dismantle them.
  • Universities must confront their colonial roots, shift from individual to structural accountability, and resist treating inclusion as a KPI. Because if institutions can learn and change, so can societies.
Dr Eva Bulgrin

Dr Eva Bulgrin

University of Marburg, Germany

Dr Eva Bulgrin is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Marburg (Germany), where she researches questions of gender, sustainability and responsibility in the context of higher education. Currently, she is also an honorary research fellow in the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex (CIE), where she completed her PhD. Her research interests span from basic to higher education, encompassing postcolonial and discourse-analytical methodologies, as well as various approaches to teaching and learning.

Dr. Marcina Singh

Dr. Marcina Singh

Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Dr.  Marcina Singh is an independent consultant from the Netherlands working with various higher education institutions on topics such as teacher education, teacher professional development, curriculum transformation and decolonisation. She is also a Research Associate in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Johannesburg, where she heads a national baseline study on the effects of Artificial Intelligence on higher education in the Global South. As an interdisciplinary researcher, she has worked with various multinational organisations, including the British Council, VVOB, CODESRIA and Open Society Foundations. She recently published a book on the Experiences of Newly Qualified Teachers in South Africa (SUN Africa Media, 2025).

Dr. Sarah Wieners

Dr. Sarah Wieners

Goethe University Frankfurt and Marburg University, Germany

Dr. Sarah Wieners is a postdoctoral researcher at Goethe University Frankfurt and Marburg University (Germany). Her research focuses on gendered inequalities in higher education institutions, organisational change, and feminist methodologies.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Adler, Annett; Weber, Susanne Maria (2019): Future and Innovation Labs as heterotopic Spaces. In: S. Weber, I. Truschkat, C. Schröder, L. Peters und A. Herz (Hg.): Organisation und Netzwerke. Organisation und Pädagogik, Bd. 26. Wiesbaden: Springer VS (26), S. 375–383. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-20372-6_34

Bhabha, H. K. 1994. The Location of Culture. Routledge classics. London, New York, London: Routledge; Taylor & Francis.

Borgonovi,  F. & Pokropek,  A. (2019) Education and Attitudes Toward Migration in a Cross-Country Perspective. Front. Psychol. 10:2224. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02224

Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M. (2023). Response-Ability. In: Responsibility, privileged irresponsibility and response-ability. Palgrave Critical University Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34996-6_4

Fanon, F. (1961) The Wretched of the Earth. Paris: Éditions Maspero.

Revsbæk, Line (2014): Adjusting to the Emergent. A Process Theory Perspective on Organizational Socialization and Newcomer Innovation. Aalborg University. Denmark. Online verfügbar unter https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/549518070/Line_Revsb_k_EPUB.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 05.01.2025.

Schmidt-Catran, A. W., & Czymara, C. S. (2022). Political elite discourses polarize attitudes toward immigration along ideological lines. A comparative longitudinal analysis of Europe in the twenty-first century. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2132222

Spangenberger, P. (2016): Zum Einfluss eines Nachhaltigkeitsbezugs auf die Wahl technischer Berufe durch Frauen. Eine Analyse am Beispiel des Windenergiesektors. Detmold: Eusl.

Spivak, G.C. (1988) ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, in C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271–313.

How a board game can help future teachers work better with parents

How a board game can help future teachers work better with parents

by | NW 14 Communities, Families, and Schooling in Educational Research, NW 27 Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Working with parents is a central yet often challenging part of teachers’ everyday practice. While teacher education programmes emphasise its importance, many future teachers feel unprepared when they first encounter real-life situations involving parents. This gap between theory and practice raises an important question: how can we better prepare teacher trainees for meaningful home–school collaboration?

Parental involvement is key to student success. Yet, teacher trainees often report that they hear about the importance of working with parents in theory but receive little practical guidance or training. This disconnect between theory and practice inspired us to experiment with game-based learning.

Imagine stepping into the shoes of a trainee teacher who must handle a parent upset about their child’s progress, while also coordinating a school event and supporting students. That’s exactly the kind of scenario our board game lets players experience – without the real-life stress.

Why focus on parental involvement?

Studies across the globe (e.g., Epstein, 2010; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2011; OECD, 2019, 2020) have shown that parental involvement improves student achievement, strengthens school climate, and fosters trust. However, many novice teachers feel unprepared or even reluctant to communicate with parents, especially parents of students from disadvantaged or marginalised backgrounds (see Pusztai et al. 2025).

In many countries, including Hungary, teacher education provides little practical training for future teachers on building strong home–school partnerships (Epstein, 2018; Graham-Clay, 2024, Pedditzi et al., 2021). Recognising this gap, our research group set out to develop an innovative tool: a board game designed to simulate the real‑life challenges of working with families. This board game was developed within a research project led by Prof. Dr. Gabriella Pusztai and a multidisciplinary design team (Dániel Bodnár, Zsolt Csák, Zsófia Miklódi-Simon and Zsófia Kocsis). We tested this board game in with over 110 participants, including both pre‑service teacher trainees and in‑service teachers (Kocsis et al. 2025).

Learning through play: serious board games for serious topics

Board games are more than just entertainment – they can serve as powerful educational tools. Research has shown that games support active learning, motivation, and collaboration (Ezezika et al., 2023, Radzi et al. 2020, Viray 2016). They also help learners approach complex or emotionally charged topics in a less intimidating way.

Our board game was designed by researchers and students together. The game presents realistic school scenarios. Players face communication challenges with parents, plan joint activities, and respond to unexpected events together as a team. Humour, cooperation, and decision-making are key elements of the gameplay (Kocsis et al. 2025).

The board game – set up

The board game invites players to step into the everyday reality of educators and explore the challenges of working with parents in a playful, collaborative way. The game is built on real-life situations, research findings, and educators’ experiences. While cooperation is key, luck also plays a role, occasionally helping or hindering progress. The game is designed for 4–7 players.

The game is fully cooperative: all players form one team representing the school staff. One player takes on the role of the school principal, while the others take on different staff roles. Cooperation means that players discuss each situation together and must agree on a shared solution. There are no individual winners or losers – the team either succeeds or fails collectively.

A green board game with a 10-space path from start to finish, featuring a school and a teacher. The writing is in Hungarian.

The game follows a school year, represented by a 10-space path, each space corresponding to one month. Each round represents one month in the school year, and players move forward together from one space to the next as the game progresses. Each month is associated with a specific challenge: at the beginning of every round, players draw and read aloud a new Challenge card that introduces the situation they must address as a team. In the centre, players find Parent, Action, and Quiz card decks.

At the bottom of the board, three scales track the school’s indicators in achievement, reputation, and community connectedness. These indicators, inspired by a previous theoretical framework, reflect what players must balance and improve by the end of the game. To keep the game replayable, different difficulty levels are available. The starting status of the school is based on data from the Hungarian 2019 National Assessment of Basic Competencies, resulting in four school profiles that combine levels of parental involvement and school effectiveness.

The cards

A green card with a graphic depicting a teacher, whose name is given as Katedra Károly. The English translation reads: Charles Chair, high school mathematics teacher. Communication: 3, Connectivity: 3, Expertise: 4, and Innovation: 1.

Character

Players take on the roles of school staff members, each with a Character card showing their position and four key competencies: Communication, Connectedness, Expertise, and Innovation.

These form the K.Ö.SZ.I. index and determine how effectively players can handle challenges (The ‘K.Ö.SZ.I. Index’ was created through the combination of these skills. K.Ö.SZ.I. is an acronym made up by the initial letters of the skills’ Hungarian names, respectively). One player must always take on the role of the school principal; other roles can be freely chosen.

Note: A school professional character (high school math teacher). This character is a mature and respected teacher who has experienced a lot in his long career. He is respected for his great knowledge and fairness. However, he struggles to understand the problems of the modern school and does not know the latest and most effective solutions. The English translation of the text directly visible on the card reads: Charles Chair, high school mathematics teacher. Communication: 3, Connectivity: 3, Expertise: 4, and Innovation: 1.

A Parent card showing Yvette, a parent influencer

Parent

At the start of the game, each player draws a Parent card. These cards influence characters’ competencies in different ways:

  • Blue cards represent actively involved parents and usually have positive effects.
  • Red cards represent passive parents and typically have negative effects – though in some cases, the right school role can turn this into a positive.
  • Orange cards represent caregivers such as grandparents or siblings, with mixed effects.

 

Note: Meet Yvette, the influencer mom. Her superpower? Hunting for likes!  She is highly active on social media and brings a creative, trend-aware perspective to school life. Her presence boosts your team’s innovation skills by +1—showing how digital engagement can also contribute positively to the school community.

Challenge

Each round begins with a Challenge card that matches the current “month.” Players respond to the situation by choosing from a shared set of solution options. Once a solution is used, it cannot be selected again for the next two rounds, encouraging strategic thinking and variety.

Action

Action cards introduce unexpected events. Problem Action cards reduce one or more school indicators, while Good Practice Action cards increase a chosen indicator and showcase real-world examples worth reading aloud.

Quiz

At the end of each round, players draw a Quiz card and answer the question as a team. Correct answers allow the group to increase one school indicator by one point. The quizzes range from quick multiple-choice questions to short open-ended tasks, and QR codes link to further information for those who want to dive deeper.

The Solution Table

Players collaborate using a shared Solution Table that outlines possible actions for addressing each challenge. The table offers a range of evidence-informed options, such as home visits, workshops, communication tools, and community-based activities, each linked to different aspects of school–family–community partnerships.

The gameplay

Working as a team, players select and combine actions strategically, taking into account their competencies and the current situation, including the effects of Parent cards. Successful choices contribute to improving the school’s indicators, such as achievement, reputation, and community connectedness.

To summarise the game flow, the main steps of gameplay can be described as follows:

Start of game

  • Select school Character (fixed role throughout game)
  • Set initial school indicators (achievement, reputation, community connectedness)

Each round (1 month in the school year)

  • Move forward on the 10-space school-year path
  • Draw & read Challenge card (new situation)
  • Collaborative decision-making and select a strategy from the Solution Table
  • Apply outcome
  • Draw an Action card
  • Draw a Quiz card (team answers together, and possible further improvement of school indicators)

End of round

  • Discard current Parent cards
  • Draw new Parent cards (symbolising the continuously changing nature of school–family interaction)
  • Next round begins


The game starts at the beginning of the school year (first month) and ends after completing all ten rounds. The team’s success depends on how well they manage and improve the school indicators by the end.

Our results

In our first project, 110 teacher education students played the cooperative, scenario‑based game. They appreciated its collaborative structure, realistic situations and humorous tone. Many reported new insights into parental roles and strategies for effective home‑school communication, suggesting deeper reflection and engagement than traditional theory alone could trigger.

The intervention was in spring 2024. Teachers and teacher trainees participated in separate groups. Based on anonymous identifiers, 31 matched responses were analysed, including 17 pre-service and 14 in-service teachers. The pre-test and post-test were conducted using the same self-developed questionnaire consisting of 70 items measured on a 10-point scale related to PI.

The results (analysed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test and effect-size calculations) showed:

  • In‑service teachers demonstrated greater attitudinal change, particularly in commitment to parent engagement, compared with teacher trainees.
  • Participants improved significantly across multiple indicators: partnership orientation, communication with parents, and social sensitivity.
  • Attitudes toward parent involvement with adolescents remained low both before and after the intervention, underscoring a persistent belief that adolescent students require less parental engagement.
  • Teacher trainees showed more limited change, likely due to lack of real-world experience to connect with the game’s scenarios.

These findings indicate the board game is a promising tool for reflexive learning, especially for teachers with some school experience, boosting both professional attitudes and social awareness in evidence‑based ways.

What we learned

The players highlighted three main benefits:  
  • Cooperative learning: The team-based format fostered a sense of shared responsibility and decision making.
  • Realistic scenarios: Players said they could easily imagine facing these situations as teachers, which made the experience feel relevant.
  • New insights: Many participants reported that the game helped them understand the role of families better and offered strategies they had never considered before.

    • What makes this approach valuable? Why it matters

    In many teacher education systems, preparation for engaging with parents is still minimal and inconsistent (Willemse et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2025). Our board game offers one small but practical solution. It helps student teachers move beyond fear or assumptions and encourages them to reflect on how they can build meaningful relationships with families.

    This approach is scalable. The game can be integrated into teacher education courses, adapted for different cultural contexts, or even used in in-service training. More broadly, it demonstrates the value of serious games in bridging the gap between academic learning and the everyday realities of teaching.

    1. Validated outcomes : two empirical studies, including statistical analysis, support claims of attitudinal change.
    2. Relevance across contexts: the game frames challenges that teachers worldwide face, such as collaborating with diverse families or negotiating partnerships for school events.
    3. Reflective, active learning: players explore dilemmas in a safe, teamwork‑based setting, bridging theory and practice.
    4. Versatile application: beyond initial teacher training, the game can be adapted for in‑service training, community workshops or multicultural contexts.

    A call to educators and researchers

    If we want future teachers to succeed, we must support them in learning how to work with families, especially in diverse and challenging environments. Tools like this board game are not replacements for direct experience, but they are a valuable bridge. We encourage colleagues worldwide to explore similar tools, contribute to evidence‑based evaluation, and advocate for experiential pedagogies in teacher education.

    Key Messages

    • Though research shows that parental involvement boosts student achievement, strengthens the school climate, and builds trust, many trainee teachers feel unprepared to work with parents.
    • A new board game lets trainee teachers practice tricky parent conversations without real-life stress, simulating the everyday challenge of home-school collaboration in a fun, cooperative setting.
    • In the study, over 110 student and in-service teachers played the game to improve school-family partnerships, leading to improved attitudes toward parent engagement, better communication skills, and insights that went beyond theoretical teaching.
    • The evidence-based game sees players work as a team to tackle realistic challenges, balance school indicators, and navigate unexpected events.
    • Fun games can have serious potential. The board game shows that playful, scenario-based learning can bridge the gap between theory and practice in teacher education.
    Zsófia Kocsis

    Zsófia Kocsis

    Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Debrecen

    Zsófia Kocsis is an assistant lecturer at the Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Debrecen. Her research focuses on student work and the relationship between work and academic performance. In recent years, she has also expanded her research and teaching activities to include the use of board games in higher education. She led the development of two self-designed board games (K.Ö.SZ.I., Study hard, work hard!), which aim to develop students’ competencies and broaden their knowledge in the given field.

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/Family/Community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326

    Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44, 397–406. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324721985_School_family_and_community_partnerships_in_teachers’_professional_work

    Ezezika, O., Fusaro, M., Rebello, J., & Aslemand, A. (2023). The pedagogical impact of board games in public health biology education: The Bioracer board game. Journal of Biological Education, 57(2), 331–342 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350860649_The_pedagogical_impact_of_board_games_in_public_health_biology_education_the_Bioracer_Board_Game

    Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. UK Department for Education. Available online: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/146139638/DFE_RR156.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2025).

    Graham-Clay, S. (2024). Communicating with parents 2.0: Strategies for teachers. School Community Journal, 34(1), 9–60. https://www.adi.org/journal/SS2024/Graham-Clay1.pdf

    Jones, C., Sideropoulos, V., & Palikara, O. (2025). Do teachers have the knowledge and skills to facilitate effective parental engagement? Findings from a national survey in England. Educational Review, 1–24 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2025.2506802

    Kocsis, Z., Csák, Z., Bodnár, D., & Pusztai, G. (2025). Designing a Board Game to Expand Knowledge About Parental Involvement in Teacher Education. Education Sciences, 15(8), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080986

    OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for student’s lives. OECD Publishing.

    OECD. (2020). Parental involvement in school activities. In PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives.

    Pedditzi, M. L., Nonnis, M., & Nicotra, E. F. (2021). Teacher satisfaction in relationships with students and parents and burnout. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 703130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34659016/

    Pusztai, G., Bacskai, K., Ceglédi, T., Kocsis, Z., & Hine, M. G. (2025). Mission possible? Institutional family-school-community partnership practices and parental involvement in Hungarian majority and minority schools in three central and eastern European countries. Social Sciences, 14(2), 107.  https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/2/107

    Radzi, S. H. M., Ying, T. Y., Abidin, M. Z. Z., & Ahmad, P. A. (2020). The effectiveness of board game towards soft skills development for higher education. Ilkogretim Online—Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 94–106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348213416_The_effectiveness_of_board_game_towards_soft_skills_development_for_higher_education

    Viray, J. S. (2016). Engaging students through board games: Measuring its effectiveness on academic performance. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(10), 5–7.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317032619_Engaging_Students_through_Board_Games_Measuring_Its_Effectiveness_on_Academic_Performance

    Willemse, T. M., Thompson, I., Vanderlinde, R., & Mutton, T. (2018). Family-school partnerships: A challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 252–257. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465545

    Making participation part of everyday childhood: the Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP)

    Making participation part of everyday childhood: the Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP)

    by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

    Children have a right to be heard and to see their voices make a difference. These rights are central to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), yet in early childhood education, they are often inconsistently realised—sometimes limited to tokenistic gestures rather than meaningful engagement (Chicken & Tyrie, 2023). Our research seeks to deepen our understanding of how participation rights can actually be enacted for young children. We propose a new, empirically grounded model that addresses limitations in existing frameworks, particularly for younger children who are often overlooked (Alderson, 2008).

    The Everyday Model of Children’s Participation (EMCP) was developed through the Children’s Participation in Schools Project, a three-year ESRC-funded study involving lower primary classrooms in Wales (Dec 2022–Nov 2025). The Research was undertaken by a team of researchers, Dr Sarah Chicken, Jacqui Lewis, Dr Patrizio De Rossi, Dr Alison Murphy, Dr Jennie Clement, Prof. Jane Williams and Dr Jane Waters-Davies.

    Drawing on interviews with 14 early years educators, the model highlights how participation rights can be integrated into everyday teaching in relational, responsive, and practical ways. It also maps ecological factors – individual, organisational, and cultural – that enable or constrain adults’ ability to support these rights in daily practice.

    The model in brief

    The image shows three dimensions, the first is Children’s Participation Rights which includes; the right to be heard and listened to; the right to influence decisions that affect the child; the right to know about the right to be heard. The second dimension is about Actions for Adults , this Cycle of Meaningful Children’s Participation: a five-step reflective and action-oriented routine for adults. The third dimension of the Ecological Context which includes three tiers of enabling or constraining factors: the individual adult, the school/organisation, and the wider cultural environment.

    The first dimension, (1) Children’s Participation Rights, encompasses the child’s entitlement to be heard, to have their views taken seriously in decisions that affect them, and to be informed about these participatory rights.

    The second dimension, (2) Actions for Adults, is articulated through the Cycle of Meaningful Children’s Participation, a five‑step reflective and action‑oriented process designed to guide adults in creating and sustaining participatory practices.

    The third dimension, (2) Ecological Context, recognises that the realisation of children’s participation is shaped by enabling or constraining factors operating across three interconnected levels: the individual teacher/adult, the organisational environment (such as the school or service), and the wider cultural context.

    Together, these dimensions provide a holistic, multi‑layered framework for understanding and enhancing children’s meaningful participation. Without all three elements being fully understood and enacted, children’s participation rights cannot be effectively realised.

    Dimension 1

    At the heart of the EMCP are three interdependent rights. These rights work together: listening enables influence, action builds understanding, and explanation encourages further participation.

    We define participation as a multidimensional right that extends beyond Article 12 of the UNCRC (1989), recognising children as agentic rights-holders (Olsen, 2023). Informed by key literature,* participation encompasses three interdependent rights: the right to be heard and listened to, the right to influence decisions, and the right to know these rights. This framing views participation as a holistic, inherent right, not something granted by adults. While its realisation is shaped by cultural, structural, and relational factors (explored in our model), these rights are not contingent on adult permission.

    *Lundy, 2007; Lundy et al., 2019; McMellon & Tisdall, 2020; Ree & Emilson, 2020) and additional UNCRC articles, particularly 13, 15, and 17, and General Comments 7 and 12 (CRC/C/GC/7; CRC/C/GC/12)

    Dimension 2

    The model’s second dimension is a call for action to adults to engage in a recurring, iterative cycle that makes children’s participation a sustained part of daily practice. Inspired by Fletcher’s (2005) five-step Cycle of Meaningful Student Involvement; listening, validating, authorising, mobilising, and reflecting, and drawing on work related to listening to young children (Wall et al., 2019) and the principles of the Lundy model (2007). Our adapted model retains the cyclical logic from Fletcher (2005), while the components reflect our definition of participation and the specific needs of early educational setting and the everyday practices of teachers.

    The action points within our cycle align with the conditions for meaningful, everyday child participation by considering the core principles from Lundy’s (2007) model alongside our empirical findings, yielding a coherent, evidence-informed roadmap for practitioners and researchers seeking to embed participation rights in a consistent and responsive way.

    Step 1) Create space and time

    This involves protecting moments where their interests can shape activity, co-constructing environments, and adapting routines around unpredictable, child-led directions. In our data, teachers described carving out dialogue moments and observational windows to attune to each child’s needs, rhythms, interests and modes of expression. It is where participation begins, not with children speaking, but with adults creating the space and time to truly listen. Teachers in the study described co-constructing learning environments to reflect children’s needs and interests, yet they also recognised the challenge of adapting planning around unpredictable child-focused directions.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • Have I made time today to truly listen to each child? 
    • Does the environment invite children to express themselves, including non-verbally? 
    • Am I prepared to act on what I hear from children, even if it challenges my original plans? 

     

    Step 2) Listen and be attentive

    The second step of the cycle is informed by the data which showed that teachers’ sustained, sensitive attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues is central to participation. This step focuses on the adult’s sustained presence and responsiveness while listening and being attentive to children’s diverse “languages” of expression: verbal, non-verbal, gestural, affective, playful, and silent, all of which carry meaning within a relational and rights-respecting framework (Edwards et al., 1998).

    To enact this step, educators should ask themselves:

    • Am I present and open to everyday forms of communication from children? 
    • Am I enabling a range of “languages” through which children can be heard, such as movement, play, gesture, and silence? 
    • Do I actively listen outside of formal or expected moments of expression? 

     

    Step 3) In-the-moment response

    This involves acting on spontaneous cues, adapting learning as it unfolds, and following children’s evolving curiosities. This responsiveness positions children as collaborators and builds ownership. By centring learning around children’s cues, teachers ensure that their in-the-moment adaptations honour children’s agency and reinforce the authenticity of participation.

    Ephgrave (2020) highlights how this responsive approach supports children’s agency, engagement, and participation. As Baker et al. (2023) observe such strategies ‘make space for the child to continue making meaning through their learning… the child is… in the driving seat’ (p. 374). By positioning children as rights-holders whose views directly shape learning, teachers honour the principle that participation is not tokenistic but substantive. In short, immediate response respects children as agentic collaborators in decisions related to their learning, extending engagement and self-directed exploration.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • When a child expresses a view, idea, or feeling, how quickly do I respond in a way that shows I have truly listened? 
    • Do I use children’s spontaneous comments as opportunities to extend or deepen learning in the moment, rather than putting them off until later? 
    • Am I attentive to when a child’s interest shifts, and am I prepared to adjust planned activities accordingly? 

     

    Step 4) Visible action or feedback

    Visible action or feedback enables children to see that their contributions have an effect; whether through a direct change, a class decision reflecting their input, or feedback explaining why an idea can’t be adopted. Teachers suggested that authentic engagement hinges on children seeing their ideas translated into real change. As Karan noted, when children see “some sort of manifestation in change in school,” they know their voices matter, avoiding tokenism and reinforcing trust in the participatory process. When actions are visible or feedback is given, participation becomes a relational experience rather than a performative gesture (Lundy 2018). Thus, this is an essential element of adults’ enactment of participative rights, as when children receive honest feedback, they learn that participation is a meaningful right.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • Have I shown the child that their view has been heard and considered? 
    • Have I taken their idea to a person or place where it can lead to meaningful change? 
    • Have I communicated any actions taken (or not taken) in a way the child can understand? 

     

    Step 5) Intentional reflection

    Both in the moment and afterwards, this means adjusting as events unfold, and using team discussions to evaluate what worked, what was missed, and how power has shaped decisions.

    This stage of the cycle emphasises the value of intentional, retrospective reflection as a key driver of meaningful participation in early childhood settings. Teachers in our research found that regularly engaging in reflective practices—such as discussing children’s voices in planning meetings, evaluating the impact of initiatives like recycling schemes, and critically examining their own professional dispositions—supported participation enactment.

    Fletcher (2005) and Cahill & Dadvand (2018) position reflection as essential for adults to surface power dynamics and biases, while Venninen & Leinonen (2013) argue that without ongoing reflection, participation degrades into a procedural checklist. Hultgren & Johanssen’s (2018) multidirectional models likewise insist that reflection be woven through every stage of the cycle.

    By recognising and structuring these reflective routines, the model supports a dynamic and responsive approach to children’s rights, ensuring that participation remains authentic, equitable, and grounded in lived experience.

    To enact this step, educators could ask themselves:

    • How did I respond, and was that response appropriate, respectful, and empowering? 
    • What can I learn from this interaction to improve future participation opportunities? 
    • Did my own assumptions, routines, or time constraints limit children’s input? 
    • How can I involve colleagues or children in reflecting on this engagement? 

    Dimension 3: The ecological context

    The final dimension if a surrounding layer showing that participation enactment is shaped by the broader ecological context. The wider ecological context encompasses; individual practitioners, organisational structures, and cultural norms.

    Drawing on Gal’s ecological framework (2017), participation is understood as context-sensitive and shaped by dynamic systems. Others have similarly emphasised how power, decision-making, and community dynamics impact children’s voice and agency (Driskell, 2002; Jans & De Backer, 2002). The ecological layer signals that meaningful participation requires more than individual effort; it involves cultivating supportive environments across all levels. It also highlights the often-invisible factors that enable or constrain participation, prompting action across classrooms, schools, and broader systems.

    Key Messages

    Embedding children’s participatory rights is an ongoing commitment. It means listening with genuine curiosity, making space for their ideas, and showing that children’s contributions matter. The EMCP offers one practical route, but sustained effort from teachers, schools, and the wider system is needed to make participation part of the everyday fabric of learning. The takeaway message from this work has been:

    • Children’s participation rights are often tokenistic applied – despite the UNCRC, young children’s voices are inconsistently heard in early childhood education
    • Participation rests on three interdependent rights – children’s rights to be heard, to influence decisions, and to know about these rights
    • Adults can use a five-step reflective cycle – creating space, listening attentively, responding in the moment, providing visible feedback, and reflecting intentionally. Each step requires critical self-questioning – educators must examine their assumptions and be prepared to adapt practice based on what children communicate.
    • Participation needs supportive ecological conditions – meaningful change requires commitment from individual practitioners, schools, and wider education systems
    Dr Jacky Tyrie

    Dr Jacky Tyrie

    Department for Education and Childhood Studies at Swansea University

    Jacky Tyrie is a Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Studies in the Department for Education and Childhood Studies at Swansea University. Her research focuses on young children’s participation, voice in decision‑making, and their human rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

    Lauren Henderson

    Lauren Henderson

    Swansea University, UK

    Lauren Henderson is a PhD researcher at Swansea University, specialising in young children’s (0–5) participation rights in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings in Wales. Prior to her doctoral studies, Lauren spent over ten years teaching in primary schools across England and Wales, where she developed a strong interest in children’s rights and inclusive pedagogies.

    The Project Team

    • Dr Sarah Chicken is the Principal Investigator and an Associate Professor in Childhood and Education at the University of the West of England.
    • Jacqui Lewis is a Research Associate at the University of the West of England.
    • Dr Patrizio De Rossi is a Research Associate at the University of the West of England.
    • Dr Alison Murphy is a Lecturer in the Athrofa: Institute of Education at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
    • Dr Jennie Clement is a Senior Lecturer in Teacher Education and Professional Learning at Cardiff Metropolitan University
    • Dr Jane Waters-Davies is an Associate Professor in Early Education and the Applied Research Lead for Education at University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
    • Jane Williams is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Swansea University’s Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law and a co-founder of the Observatory on Human Rights of Children.

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Alderson, P. (2008). Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Baker, S., Le Courtois, S., & Eberhart, J. (2023). “Making Space for Children’s Agency with Playful Learning”, International Journal of Early Years Education 31(2), 372–384. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2021.1997726

    Cahill, H., & Dadvand, B. (2018). Re‑conceptualising youth participation: A framework to inform action. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 243–253.

    Chicken, S., & Tyrie, J. (2023). Can you Hear me? Problematising the Enactment of UNCRC Article 12 in Welsh Early Years Classrooms: Exploring the Challenges of “Children’s Voice”. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 31(2), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-31010001

    Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for participation. UNESCO.

    Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections. Ablex.

    Ephgrave, A. (2020). Planning in the moment with young children. Routledge.

    Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change (2nd ed.). HumanLinks Foundation.

    Gal, T. (2017). An ecological model of child and youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 57–64.

    Hultgren, F., & Johansson, B. (2018). Including babies and toddlers: a new model of participation. Children’s Geographies, 17(4), 375–387. DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2018.1527016

    Jans, M., & De Backer, K. (2002). Children as citizens. Childhood, 9(1), 5–18.

    Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.

    Lundy, L. (2018). In defence of tokenism? Children’s right to participate in collective decision‑making. Childhood, 25(3), 340.

    Lundy, L., McEvoy, L., & Byrne, B. (2019). Working with young children as co‑researchers. In J. Tobin (Ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary, Oxford University Press.

    McMellon, C., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2020). Children and young people’s participation rights: Looking backwards and moving forwards. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 28(1), 157–182.

    Olsen, R. K. (2023). Key factors for child participation – an empowerment model for active inclusion in participatory processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1247483.

    Ree, M., & Emilson, A. (2020). Participation in communities in ECEC expressed in child–educator interactions. Early Child Development and Care. DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1566230

    United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved 3rd June 2025 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child  

    Venninen, T., & Leinonen, J. (2013). Considering children’s participation. Early Child Development and Care, 183(8), 1083–1095.

    Wall, K., Cassidy, C., Robinson, C., Hall, E., Beaton, M., Kanyal, M., & Mitra, D. (2019). Look who’s talking: Factors for considering the facilitation of very young children’s voices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(4), 263–278.

    Perspectives on intercultural approaches to education and social justice: impressions from an emerging researcher

    Perspectives on intercultural approaches to education and social justice: impressions from an emerging researcher

    by | NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education

    As a Ph.D. student at the beginning of my career, attending the European Conference on Educational Research in Belgrade was a valuable introduction to the global academic community. ECER was an essential opportunity for academics and emerging researchers to discuss topics at the forefront of educational research, alongside the Emerging Researchers’ Conference (ERC) that took place immediately before ECER.

    Overall, the annual event hosted 2,619 scholars, with 1,938 papers presented from 75 different countries, representing a genuinely international community and an amazing array of perspectives. This year’s conference took place amid students’ ongoing mobilisations, which have been continuing for many months already and were focused upon demanding transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights whilst utilising a critical and engaged lens.

    These student demonstrations and occupations hold not only an intrinsic political meaning but also an educational relevance. University public spaces have, indeed, been converted into a platform for dialogue and active and democratic participation. I was particularly caught by the slogan in Serbian language “Nije filozofski ćutati,” which stands for “it is not philosophical to be silent,” a catchphrase also quoted by Prof. Pavel Zgaga during his Keynote Speech on ‘educational research, policy and politics’.

    Intercultural perspectives that emerged during ERC and ECER and how they might be useful for my educational researcher path

    As a listen-only participant, I had the chance to attend several sessions on relevant topics for my research. The latter focuses on on the schooling experiences and integration processes of young people from migrant backgrounds in Italy.

    Pertinent themes that emerged were related to students’ cultural and linguistic diversity, education in marginalized urban contexts, and intercultural early childhood education. Attending presentations on social justice and intercultural education – in which research results from different European contexts were highlighted – has certainly helped me broaden my perspective on various aspects of my research. I also believe it is crucial to attend sessions related to other networks to acquire fundamental notions of educational research, particularly linked to theoretical approaches and methodologies to be used. As such, I have also attended various presentations within networks 04 (Inclusive Education) and 14 (Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research).

    The sessions I attended were marked by a positive exchange of ideas and opinions, with the purpose of finding strategies that can be implemented in educational and pedagogical practices. A feature that emerged from several presentations is that education also presents a sociopolitical dimension (Akkari & Radhouane, 2022). As part of the so-called ‘second generation of migrants in Italy’, I would even push myself to affirm that there is nothing more antithetical to education than neutrality, especially considering the subaltern position of migrant communities in Europe.

    Insights from the ‘Social Justice and Intercultural Education’ Workshop

    A large building with a statue in the middle of a courtyard

    A key activity that has been very supportive for my first experience at an international conference on educational research is represented by the workshop “How to develop a decentralised way of doing research?” led by Professor Lisa Rosen.

    A range of strategies for decentering dominant narratives and strengthening marginalised voices were mentioned. This activity, open to professionals at different stages of their careers and particularly to emerging researchers, was aimed at promoting decentralisation from exclusively Eurocentric models, creating socially and interculturally sensitive knowledge and to question our positions and prejudices as researchers.

    Discussing the issue seems to me fundamental to avoid reinforcing power relations and tokenism by excluding (even inadvertently) marginalised groups. I believe that the positionality of the researcher in the areas of Social Justice and Intercultural Education could put us, as academic researchers, in a vulnerable position. As suggested during this session, it is appropriate to employ it when an analysis is implemented or an in-depth study is conducted. I would like to mention some key points on the positional statement that caught my attention and may be useful to early-career researchers:

    – Be aware that identity, beliefs, and values may influence research work in different ways

    – Consider biases, emotional responses, and transparency in your research efforts

    – Do not ignore the relevant balances and imbalances of power, as well as the institutions involved and political implications

    – Knowledge and analysis of the research context, through a critical approach, holds crucial importance

    Reflections for the future

    ECER provided me with an extraordinary opportunity to outline the prospects for educational research in the European context, particularly in my specific field of investigation.

    My main challenge now is to build on what I have learned, the advice I have received, and the insights gained during the conference to foster dialogue with other emerging researchers and fuel gradual but steady academic growth. In a closing remark, I believe that fostering critical awareness of educational practices, promoting social purpose in research, and strengthening methodological commitment should be central to interculturalism, innovation, and social responsibility.

    Key Messages

    • International conferences accelerate early-career development – ECER/ERC offer essential exposure to global educational research perspectives and networking opportunities for emerging scholars.
    • Education is inherently political, not neutral – Educational research must critically engage with power dynamics, especially when working with marginalised and migrant communities.
    • Researcher positionality shapes research quality – Awareness of your own identity, biases, and values is essential to avoid reinforcing power imbalances in intercultural research.
    • Decentre Eurocentric narratives – Decentralised research approaches that amplify marginalised voices create more socially sensitive and robust knowledge.
    • Critical awareness drives meaningful research – Combining methodological rigour with social purpose is central to impactful intercultural and social justice education research.
    Charaf El Bouhali

    Charaf El Bouhali

    Università di Padova

    Charaf El Bouhali: PhD student in Pedagogy, Education and Instructional at the University of Padua. His research focuses on the schooling experiences and integration processes of young people from migrant backgrounds in Italy.

    Orcid: https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0009-0001-1663-3019 Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charafel

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    References and Further Reading

    Akkari, A. and Radhouane, M. (2022). Intercultural Approaches to Education: From Theory to Practice, Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70825-2 

    Cabiles, Bonita S. (2025). Internalised deficit perspectives: positionality in culturally responsive pedagogical frameworks.Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(4), 1129-1146 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2024.2326004 

    Conti, L. (2025). Intercultural education: recalibrating meanings, objectives, and practices. Intercultural Education, 36(4), 418–436. 

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2025.2484514 

    O’Neil, D. (2025). Complicated shadow: a discussion of positionality within educational research. Oxford Review of Education, 51(4), 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2351445

    Inclusive education – between policy and practice

    Inclusive education – between policy and practice

    by | NERA, NW 4 Inclusive Education

    Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, (NTNU) presented their INCLUSCHOOLproject, funded by the Research Council of Norway, at ECER 2025. The project’s main objective is to gain new knowledge about inclusion and inclusive practices in schools.

    Inclusive education is high on the global agenda and is described by UNESCO (2003) as an ongoing process grounded in the conviction that it is the responsibility of the mainstream school system to educate all children. The UN Sustainable Development Goal on Quality Education (goal no. 4) emphasizes that “Access to inclusive, high-quality education is one of the most important conditions for welfare, health and equality in all societies”.

    Although research on inclusive education has intensified in recent decades, the concept continues to be interpreted and implemented in diverse ways (Keles et al., 2024). What inclusive practice actually entails remains unclear(Nilholm, 2021). Accordingly, understanding how inclusion is experienced by those directly affected, particularly students, can offer critical insights into why such gaps persist and how they might be addressed (Chapman and Ainscow, 2021; Messiou, 2024😉

    The scope and aims of the INCLUSCHOOL project

    By exploring inclusive practices from the bottom up in a super diverse primary school, the INCLUSCHOOL project seeks to contribute new student- and context-sensitive knowledge to the field. The project adopts a user-centered, collaborative approach, in which the students themselves, teachers and other professionals play a key role in shaping both the project design and the research process, step by step. By following their initiative, we explore how they experience, perceive, and practice inclusion in everyday school life.

    Through three sub-studies, the project will gather knowledge about:

    Students' perspectives on inclusion and their participation in the school's inclusion work. Inclusion as an interactional practice in linguistically and culturally complex school environments. Students' participation in interprofessional collaboration, and the process that may potentially lead to a legal entitlement to special education provision and professionals’ perspectives on this.

    A scoping review on students’ perspectives on inclusion

    At this year’s ECER conference, participants learned more about a scoping review carried out as part of the first subproject, which aimed to map existing research on students’ voices on inclusive education.

    The scoping review is intended to provide valuable insights into research on inclusive education through the voices of students, contributing to the field globally. It also aims to inspire further research into which students themselves are placed at the center.

    Likewise, the study offers meaningful contributions to the INCLUSCHOOL project by raising researchers’ awareness of both the opportunities and the potential challenges involved in student-centered research. In particular, the review of 51 research articles focuses on the samples, research methodologies, and themes explored. The majority of the articles involved diverse student populations in their sample. A wide variety of research methodologies have been used in the articles, with qualitative interviews as the most common one.

    The students are able to share their perspectives on many different topics, and the research articles include open-ended questions about students’ school life experiences, their socio-emotional experiences at school, and academic experiences and learning environments. Additionally, some articles included questions about students’ need for resources, access, and adjustments, their self- and other perceptions in diverse learning environments, and their life experiences and prospects of the future.

    Presenting our findings from the review

    Our takeaways include that student voices on inclusive education are multidimensional and complex. For example, students’ experiences of inclusion do not concern solely social-emotional or academic aspects. When schools remain arenas where the majority of students’ time is occupied by learning, their social inclusion depends on whether they are granted equitable access to shared learning activities in the classroom.

    If we interpret the collective ambition of these studies as an effort to understand students inclusion experiences as multidimensional and complex, and to explore what they need to experience inclusion in school, we suggest a holistic approach. This perspective highlights the importance of contextual, processual, and interactional sensitivity in the field of inclusive education. Such an approach may offer new and valuable contributions to the field of inclusive education.

    Key Messages

    • The INCLUSCHOOL project in Norway explores inclusion as an ongoing process focused on students’ presence, participation, and achievement.

    • Despite international commitments, progress towards inclusive education remains slow, with certain student groups at risk of exclusion.

    • The project adopts a user-centred, collaborative approach in a super-diverse primary school setting.

    • Preliminary findings from a scoping review highlight the complexity and multidimensional nature of students’ perceptions of inclusion.
    Professor Marit Uthus

    Professor Marit Uthus

    Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Marit Uthus, professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests fall within the field of special education and educational psychology. Marit is currently leading the INCLUSCHOOL project, which is funded by the Research Council of Norway.

    https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/marit.uthus

    https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1263-1486

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marit-Uthus

    Fenna Verkerk

    Fenna Verkerk

    Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Fenna Verkerk is a PhD candidate at the Department of Teacher Education at NTNU. She is affiliated with the INCLUschool project and her research is about pupils’ voices on inclusion at school. 

    https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/fenna.verkerk 

    Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

    Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

    Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Hanne Kristin Aas, associate professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning , Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Hanne does research in Educational Theory, Special Education and Teacher Education.

    https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/hanne.k.aas

    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-0966

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanne-Aas

    Other blog posts on similar topics:

    References and Further Reading

    Add your list of references here. Use [1], [2], [3]… to mark where they are used in the text above.