Social Justice Archives - Page 2 of 3

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

by Dr Köksal Banoğlu, Dr Carol. A Mullen | NW 16 ICT in Education and Training, NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education, NW 26 Educational Leadership

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

Current education policy and research on AI integration in schools

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

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

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

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

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

What do student leaders think about AI?

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

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

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

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

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

Key implications of AI-informed student activism are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charting a path toward AI-informed student activism

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

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

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

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

Key Messages

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Köksal Banoğlu

Education University of Hong Kong

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

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

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

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

Dr Carol A. Mullen

Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA

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

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

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

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

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

References and Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Are the Storytellers: Co-Creating Counternarratives with Black Caribbean Boys

by Keisha-Ann Stewart | NW 33 Gender and Education, NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education

This blog previews the project I will present at ECER 2025, titled ‘Literature as Identity Work: Exploring Self-Discovery Through Texts’. It examines Black Caribbean male students’ experiences with the GCSE English literature curriculum in the UK, positioning literature as a space where identities are negotiated, challenged and reshaped. Through participants’ encounters with canonical texts, the study highlights literature’s dual role as a platform for personal growth, and a mechanism through which cultural exclusion is perpetuated. Rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J., 2023; Gillborn, 2024; Ladson-Billings, 2021) and narrative inquiry (Frank, 2012), the project uses storytelling – both textual and sonic – as a method for disseminating research, amplifying representation and showcasing resistance.

Image 1 - Infographic on Critical Race Theory

Representation, identity, and the limits of the literature curriculum

Although literature is often hailed as a window or door into other worlds and a mirror reflecting the self (Bishop, 1990), these metaphors take on new significance when curriculum texts fail to reflect the identities, cultures or lived experiences of its readers. For many Black Caribbean male students in England, the GCSE literature curriculum offers few mirrors since the reforms implemented by then Education Secretary, Michael Gove (Institute for Government, 2022; Chandler-Grevatt, 2021) have cemented a syllabus dominated by Eurocentric canonical texts, largely written by White men from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries. Despite their historical and literary value, the stories and contexts frequently fail to reflect the identities, realities and voices of Black Caribbean male students, leaving many to experience the literature curriculum as something to be gazed at from the outside rather than lived from within (Elliott et al., 2021). As one participant observes, “There are other people as good as Shakespeare, with different skin colours but no one knows about them”. Such reflections reveal that, for the participants, literature transcends its status as an academic subject to become an opaque mirror, a battleground and a site for self-definition, resistance and critical identity work.

Heterotopic spaces enable open reflection on race, masculinity and belonging

Viewed through the lenses of CRT and narrative inquiry, the participants’ counter-narratives uncover the personal stakes of curriculum design suggesting that questions of literature and identity are inseparable from questions of method. In this light, my research explores how participants’ engagement with canonical works and selected twentieth- and twenty-first-century texts shapes their navigation of masculinity, race, emotion and belonging.

The study facilitates one-to-one participatory narrative interviews, situated within Foucault’s (1986) conceptualisation of heterotopic spaces — cultural, dialogic environments designed to foster open, identity-affirming reflection. In these spaces, participants are empowered to move beyond the constraints of school-based discussions to critically engage with both the texts and their evolving sense of self.

To support emotional processing and deepen participant engagement, I employ a range of multimodal activities including text rating, visual mapping and character reflection (Kress, 2010; Woolhouse, 2017).

One notable strategy involves employing emojis to enable students’ articulation of their emotional responses to texts and characters.

These methodological tools prove effective because they provide a familiar and accessible medium through which to explore affective interpretation.

Student's representations of reading journey

Sonic dissemination invites audiences to listen and engage with counter-narratives

Most significantly, the power of this study lies in the dissemination of research data. Rather than summarising student responses in researcher-authored prose, narratives are co-created using the boys’ own words as dialogue. Their speech — unpolished, reflective and often emotionally charged — remains intact. This approach allows for narrative framing without distorting the participants’ words, tone or rhythm. Also, by giving sonic life to the participants’ counter-narratives through AI voice simulation, audiences are invited not only to read the data but to listen – to hear counter-narratives in voices that echo their resonance and resistance.

Through this method of dissemination, audiences encounter young Black men speaking on their own terms, articulating nuanced understandings of masculinity, justice, diasporic belonging and the politics of hope (Freire, 2021). Sonic dissemination preserves the emotional texture of participants’ words, enacts the ethics of co-creation (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2017), and disrupts normative expectations of data sharing. It also reimagines dissemination as relational listening, a mode that centres empathy, embodiment and presence.

Serving as a commentary to remind us that voice is not only a methodological tool but also a political act — one that challenges the silences imposed by dominant narratives and affirms lived experience as legitimate knowledge — John, a participant, states: ‘I don’t mind people hearing what I said. I just want them to actually listen”. Consequently, my methodological choices do not merely generate data; they open space for new stories to emerge, stories that resonate within academia but also hold the potential to connect with wider audiences through accessible forms of storytelling and voice.

A co-created composite counter-narrative

In this co-created composite counter-narrative, ‘Unmasking Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’, the boys reflect on themes of identity, duality and the pressures of navigating stereotypes, connecting The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde to their social reality. Co-created using the participant’s direct quotes from interviews this voiced composite counter-narrative brings their perspectives and experiences to life.

Unmasking Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Students’ counter-narratives explore masculinity, identity and belonging

The composite counternarratives co-created through my research illustrate the students’ reflections on masculinity, identity, justice, racism and diasporic belonging, articulated through their negotiations with literature and wider society. The participants construct masculinity as a fluid, often contested identity, shaped by social context, cultural pressure and lived experience.

While several boys reject emotional vulnerability, critiquing characters such as Romeo (Shakespeare, 1993) as “simpish” and “unstable”, others value traits such as loyalty, self-awareness and quiet strength. Tybalt and Mercutio (Shakespeare, 1993) emerge as models of decisiveness and honour, even when their actions are rooted in violence. By contrast, texts such as Boys Don’t Cry (Blackman, 2024) enable a redefinition of masculinity grounded in emotional growth, caregiving and moral accountability.

Crucially, the students do not engage with masculinity in one uniform way; they actively interrogate what it means to be a man across diverse social and literary contexts (Connell, 1995). Through their counter-storytelling, the boys challenge hegemonic masculine norms (Connell, 1995) which positions certain performances of manhood — particularly those marked by dominance, emotional restraint and heterosexuality as ideal. Their counter-narratives (Solórzano and Yosso, 2002) therefore resist static, deficit-laden constructions of Black masculinity, providing instead complex and situated accounts of identity.

In a system that frequently frames Black Caribbean boys as disengaged or underachieving, this work foregrounds their criticality, emotional intelligence, cultural literacy and capacity for reflective resistance. The participants demonstrate cultural awareness, an understanding of their position in society as well as how they navigate and negotiate its demands. They are not disengaged; they are resisting performance of the self that feels untrue.

At its heart, this project asks educators and researchers to do something very simple but radical: listen. Because when we truly listen to marginalised students, they do more than answer our questions.

They tell us a story.

And sometimes, they rewrite it.

Key Messages

The GCSE English literature curriculum, shaped by Govian reforms, offers few mirrors for Black Caribbean boys as it prioritises Eurocentric canonical texts.
The participant’s counter-narratives reveal how literature becomes a site of struggle, identity work, and resistance against deficit views of Black masculinity.
Using multimodal and narrative methods, the study creates heterotopic spaces for boys to reflect on masculinity, race, belonging and justice.
Data is disseminated through AI-voiced sonic counter-narratives which preserve emotional texture and extend conventional research outputs by introducing new possibilities for sharing and experiencing participant voices. This approach offers a relational and participatory approach to dissemination.
The project foregrounds students’ voices as acts of resistance and hope, creating spaces where marginalised young people exercise their agency and transform narrative sites into spaces for reimagining justice, education, identity and belonging.

ECER 2025 –

As part of my ECER 2025 presentation, I will be sharing the composite counter-narrative “We Weren’t Just Reading: Reflection, Resistance, Becoming”, a co-created narrative built from the boys’ direct quotes voiced during interviews. The story explores how literature functions as a critical space for young Black men to reflect on masculinity, identity, representation and belonging whilst developing critical consciousness about the systems that shape their lives.

Through their reflections on texts such as Boys Don’t Cry, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and An Inspector Calls, the participants interrogate stereotypes, power and exclusion — questioning whose stories are centred and whose are silenced. Their voices challenge dominant narratives of disinterest and underachievement, foregrounding themes that are central to CRT. The composite counter-narrative ‘We Weren’t Just Reading: Reflection, Resistance, Becoming’ reveals that the Black Caribbean male students in my research are not merely analysing literature; they, instead, use it as a tool for self-discovery, resistance and critical reflection to create new understandings of identity, power and belonging.

Network: 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Contribution ID: 1195
Title: Literature as Identity Work: Exploring Self-Discovery Through Texts
Session Title: 07 SES 02 A: Engaging Families and Alternative Educational Practices
Date & Time: 09 September 2025, 15:15 – 16:45 (CET)
Location: Room 001 | Eduka College | Ground Floor

Keisha-Ann Stewart

Edge Hill University

Keisha-Ann Stewart is a PhD researcher at Edge Hill University. Her doctoral research explores Black Caribbean male students’ experiences of literature texts studied at Key Stage 4, examining how these experiences shape their engagement, interpretation and academic responses within English classrooms in England. With a multidisciplinary background in applied linguistics, literature, publishing studies and education, Keisha-Ann’s academic interests include literacy development, anti-racist education, decolonising the curriculum, teacher education, the ethical use of artificial intelligence in education, and the integration of technology to enhance learning and pedagogy. Her work is grounded in a strong commitment to equity, inclusion and culturally responsive teaching.

ECER Belgrade 2025

Since the first ECER in 1992, the conference has grown into one of the largest annual educational research conferences in Europe. In 2025, the EERA family heads to Serbia for ECER and ERC.

08 - 09 September 2025 - Emerging Researchers' Conference
09 - 12 September 2025 - European Conference on Educational Research

Find out about fees and registration here.

Since the first ECER in 1992, the conference has grown into one of the largest annual educational research conferences in Europe. In 2025, the EERA family heads to Serbia for ECER and ERC.

In Belgrade, the conference theme is Charting the Way Forward: Education, Research, Potentials and Perspectives

No doubt that education has a central role in society, but what it is destined to do is contested politically as well as scientifically. Yet more debate is had concerning the question of the way in which educational research should shape the future of educational practice. The important, but sensitive role educational research occupies in that regard should be the promotion of a better understanding of the contemporary and future world of education, as is expressed in EERA’s aim.

Emerging Researchers' Conference - Belgrade 2025

The Emerging Researchers' Conference (ERC) precedes ECER and is organised by EERA's Emerging Researchers' Group. Emerging researchers are uniquely supported to discuss and debate topical and thought-provoking research projects in relation to the ECER themes, trends and current practices in educational research year after year. The high-quality academic presentations during the ERC are evidence of the significant participation and contributions of emerging researchers to the European educational research community.

By participating in the ERC, emerging researchers have the opportunity to engage with world class educational research and to learn the priorities and developments from notable regional and international researchers and academics. The ERC is purposefully organised to include special activities and workshops that provide emerging researchers varied opportunities for networking, creating global connections and knowledge exchange, sharing the latest groundbreaking insights on topics of their interest. Submissions to the ERC are handed in via the standard submission procedure.

Prepare yourself to be challenged, excited and inspired.

References

Bishop, R.S. 1990. ‘Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors’, Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom, 6(3), pp. ix–xi.
Available at: https://scenicregional.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mirrors-Windows-and-Sliding-Glass-Doors.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Blackman, M. 2024. Boys don’t cry. London: Penguin

Chandler-Grevatt, A. 2021. ‘The wilderness years: An analysis of Gove’s education reforms on teacher assessment literacy’, The Buckingham Journal of Education, 2(2), pp. 149–164.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.5750/tbje.v2i1.1935 (Accessed: 18 August 2025).

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2017. Research methods in education. 8th edn. Abingdon: Routledge.

Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. 2023. Critical race theory: An introduction. 4th edn. New York: New York University Press.

Elliott, V., Nelson-Addy, L., Chantiluke, R. and Courtney, M. 2021. Lit in Colour: Diversity in Literature in English Schools. London: Penguin Books UK and The Runnymede Trust.
Available at: https://litincolour.penguin.co.uk/assets/Lit-in-Colour-research-report.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Foucault, M. 1986. ‘Of other spaces’, Diacritics, 16(1), pp. 22–27.

Freire, P. 2021. Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.

Frank, A. 2012. “Practicing Dialogical Narrative Analysis,” in Varieties of Narrative Analysis, pp. 33–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117.n3 (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Gillborn, D. 2024. White lies: Racism, education and critical race theory. London: Routledge.

Institute for Government. 2022. The Gove reforms a decade on. London: Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/gove-reforms-decade-on.pdf (Accessed: 18 August 2025).

Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

Ladson-Billings, G. 2021. A scholar’s journey: Critical race theory and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shakespeare, W. 1993. The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg. Available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1777

(Accessed: August 20, 2025).

Solórzano, D.G. and Yosso, T.J. 2002. ‘Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), pp. 23–44.
Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/107780040200800103 (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Stewart, K. 2025. Beyond the page: Literature as a catalyst for identity and resistance. Edge Hill University. Poster.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.25416/edgehill.29616704.v1.

Woolhouse, C. 2017. ‘Multimodal life history narrative: Embodied identity, discursive transitions and uncomfortable silences’, Narrative Inquiry, 27(1), pp. 109–131.
Available at: https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/en/publications/multimodal-life-history-narrative-embodied-identity-discursive-tr (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Children’s rights and the importance of research into school disciplinary practices

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

Childhood experiences, both at home and in school, play a fundamental role in shaping an individual’s life trajectory. Educational experts emphasize that parents and teachers significantly influence children’s well-being, with teachers playing a particularly crucial role in shaping young minds. Since children spend a substantial amount of time in schools and afterschool learning centers, understanding the dynamics within these environments is essential. Studying teachers’ behavior management strategies offers an opportunity to foster safe, nurturing, and positive learning environments for students.

According to UNICEF (2023), nearly one billion children globally, aged 2-17, experience some form of violence, including within schools. This violence encompasses both physical and emotional abuse inflicted by teachers and school staff (Scharpf et al., 2022). Therefore, violence against children in schools is a pressing concern, as it negatively impacts children’s well-being worldwide (Durrant & Ensom, 2012 ; WHO, 2020). Addressing this issue requires urgent attention from policymakers, as well as the implementation of effective intervention strategies (End Violence Against Children, 2021).

The link between child maltreatment and violent discipline methods

What does it mean to discipline?

The term “discipline” often carries negative connotations. Derived from the Latin words discipulus (pupil) and disciplina (teaching), discipline refers to the imparting of knowledge or skills, often within the context of adherence to a specific code of conduct. In a typical classroom setting, students are expected to pay attention, follow the teacher’s instructions, complete their homework, and respect their peers, among other things.

Wilson (1982) argued that discipline and punishment are not synonymous. Similarly, Friedman and Friedman (1977) also clearly distinguished between corporal punishment and discipline. However, these terms are often mistaken or misunderstood as being the same.

Child discipline is a crucial aspect of teaching and is universally recognized as essential for teaching self-control and acceptable behavior (Gershoff, 2017). Schools are similarly expected to shape the behavior of children. However, inflicting pain through physical and psychological punishments is not an acceptable form of discipline. Such practices not only violate children’s rights but also cause significant harm to their growth and development (UNICEF, 2010 ). While debates surrounding the use of physical and psychological disciplinary practices continue, there is a growing need for actionable policies that can be effectively implemented in schools worldwide.

Numerous studies indicate that “violent disciplinary” practices are the most common form of violence against children, perpetrated by both caregivers and teachers (Krug et al., 2002). In some cases, these practices escalate into child abuse, highlighting the connection between disciplinary methods and violence. As a result, violent child discipline is recognized as a form of child maltreatment, which not only affects the child’s well-being but also carries long-term socio-economic consequences for society (Meadows et al., 2011). Thus, child discipline practices are a critical component of any education system and are also aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): Quality Education (SDG:4) and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG:16).

Psychological punishment – why it deserves attention

While the discussion surrounding disciplinary practices often focuses on physical punishment, psychological and verbal punishment has garnered less attention in academic literature (Ferrara et al., 2019). Although this form of discipline is pervasive, it remains underreported, unrecognized, and consequently less researched in various contexts (Bellis et al., 2023; Theoklitou et al., 2012).

Examples of harsh verbal punishment or psychologically aggressive discipline include screaming, yelling, swearing at a child, or labeling them as “stupid,” “deaf,” or “lazy.” These behaviors are intended to inflict emotional distress, either actively or passively. While such actions may sometimes be unintentional, they are typically employed in an attempt to correct or manage a child’s misbehavior. The long-term emotional and psychological consequences of these practices are far-reaching, yet they remain underexplored in many studies (Wang & Kenny, 2014 ; Witt et al., 2017). Child verbal abuse is even more overlooked in the school context (Bellis et al., 2023 ; Slep et al., 2022). It is crucial to recognize that these practices also violate children’s human rights, as defined by the UNCRC, and need focus and attention from researchers and policymakers.

Consequences of violent school disciplinary practices

The effects of violent disciplinary practices are profound and far-reaching, impacting children’s growth, development, and well-being (Abbasi et al., 2015; Durrant, 2005; Greydanus et al., 2003). Research consistently shows that children who experience violence or humiliation are more likely to develop negative character traits, engage in antisocial behaviors, and struggle academically (Straus, 1994). The detrimental effects of such practices extend beyond childhood, manifesting in long-term consequences such as alcohol and substance abuse, low self-esteem, impaired cognitive abilities, poor self-regulation, and increased aggression (Gershoff, 2002).

Children who are frequently subjected to school violence are more vulnerable to bullying. In some tragic cases, children who endure humiliation and shaming from violent school disciplinary practices have been pushed to suicide, driven by the physical and psychological pain inflicted on them. Additionally, violence is often learned and passed down across generations, perpetuating a cycle of abuse (Holden et al., 2014; Straus & Field, 2003).

Key insights from literature

Through a literature review conducted as part of my Ph.D. research project, which included an international comparative analysis of violence against children with a focus on child discipline practices in schools, several key insights about violence against children in schools emerged:

Children’s voices are missing

There has been minimal attention given to understanding how children, as victims, perceive disciplinary practices in schools, and the extent to which violent punishment continues to be employed (Plan International, 2006). While physical abuse has declined in some regions, emotional abuse has increased and is often normalized as an alternative form of discipline (Dube et al., 2023).

Teacher awareness and legal compliance
Although teachers have largely moved away from corporal punishment due to legal bans, this may not be a result of increased awareness of the long-term adverse effects of corporal punishment), but rather it is more associated with the fear of legal consequences (Gershoff, 2017 , Krug et al., 2002).

The role of environment in learning
Decades of research have shown that children learn from their environment, influenced by factors such as family, school, and society (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Bandura, 2005; Baumrind, 1966). Teachers, after parents, play a critical role in shaping children’s lives. Therefore, involving all these stakeholders—parents, teachers, and children—in research studies concerning child discipline is essential for a holistic understanding and the formulation of effective policies (Hegde in Beckel et al., 2024).

Need for rigorous research
Despite the severe effects of violent disciplinary practices, there is still insufficient empirical research on the methods used in school contexts (Pinheiro, 2006 ). Additionally, there remains a lack of open dialogue between teachers, parents, and students, and a need for more methodologically sound research (WHO, 2020). The sensitive nature of this topic continues to make it a taboo subject, further hindering comprehensive study.

Prohibiting and eliminating corporal punishment is a human rights imperative; from a human rights perspective, the suggestion that children from non-European cultures should be afforded less protection than their European counterparts is of course entirely unacceptable. No culture owns corporal punishment but all have a responsibility to disown it.

End Violence Against Children

Working Paper, End Corporal Punishment, 2021

Reflections and Conclusion

As we reflect on this issue, several critical questions arise:

Are we doing enough to protect children’s rights in schools?
How effective has the abolition of corporal punishment been?
What efforts are being made to implement and enforce policies that protect children from violence at school level?
Are we doing enough towards evidence-based policy interventions that protect children by providing alternative classroom behavior management strategies, and a safe learning atmosphere?

To conclude, the use of corporal punishment and other violent disciplinary methods, including psychological abuse and aggressive verbal discipline, constitutes a violation of children’s rights. International human rights law emphasizes that children have a right to legal protection against corporal punishment in all contexts of their lives. Despite the widespread legal bans on corporal punishment, violence against children continues globally, regardless of a country’s development status (End Violence Against Children, 2021; UNCRC, 2006).

Protecting children from violence is a global responsibility, and more must be done to ensure that children’s rights are upheld in schools.

Key Messages

We need to do more to prevent violence against children in schools
There is a need to focus more on psychological punishments and effective implementation of alternative positive disciplinary practices in schools.
Providing a safe learning environment and protecting children’s rights in schools should be the priority and collective responsibility of all stakeholders.
Research should focus on studying all key stakeholders including children—to gain a holistic understanding of violence against children in the school context, since children are surrounded by various factors.
Research should be conducted globally, without being limited by the economic or arbitrary developmental status of countries because violence against children occurs across the world.

Shweta Hegde

Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Shweta Hegde is a PhD candidate in the Educational Psychology department at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.

Her research focuses on “Violence Against Children,” specifically examining child disciplinary practices in school and home contexts an international study. With decades of experience in the social sector at both national and international levels, Shweta has a deep commitment to addressing child and women’s issues. She is also a founding member of the non-profit initiative Pragyam Foundation in Bangalore, India. Her passion for education and social justice drives her research and advocacy efforts.

References and Further Reading

Abbasi, M. A., Saeidi, M., Khademi, G., Hoseini, B. L., & Moghadam, Z. E. (2015). Child maltreatment in the worldwide: A review article. International Journal of Pediatrics, 3(1.1), 353–365.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269988368_Child_Maltreatment_in_the_Worldwide_A_Review_Article

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-25733-001

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://d37djvu3ytnwxt.cloudfront.net/assets/courseware/v1/e57a5dfc0367fe26ee4ff80c9433e74e/asset-v1:USMx+LDT100x+2T2017_2+type@asset+block/Bandura2005.pdf

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-35030-000

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Cresswell, K., & Ford, K. (2023). Comparing relationships between single types of adverse childhood experiences and health-related outcomes: A combined primary data study of eight cross-sectional surveys in England and Wales. BMJ Open, 13(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072916

Dube, S. R., Li, E. T., Fiorini, G., Lin, C., Singh, N., Khamisa, K., McGowan, J., & Fonagy, P. (2023). Childhood verbal abuse as a child maltreatment subtype: A systematic review of the current evidence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 144,106394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106394

Durrant, J. E. (2005). Distinguishing physical punishment from physical abuse: Implications for professionals. Envision: The Manitoba Journal of Child Welfare, 4(1), 86-92.

Durrant, J., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: Lessons from 20 years of research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(12), 1373-1377. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101314

End Violence Against Children. (2021). Corporal punishment of children: Review of research on its impact and associations. September, 1-35. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Research-effects-full-working-paper-2021.pdf

Ferrara, P., Franceschini, G., Villani, A., & Corsello, G. (2019). Physical, psychological and social impact of school violence on children. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 45(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0669-z

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 31-56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8386132/

Gershoff, E. T. (2017). School corporal punishment in global perspective: Prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22, 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1271955

Greydanus, D. E., Pratt, H. D., Spates, C. R., Blake-Dreher, A. E., Greydanus-Gearhart, M. A., & Patel, D. R. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(5), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00042-9

Hegde, S. (2024). Violence against children: A theoretical perspective. In L. Beckel, T. Maschke & F. Stein (Eds.), BILDUNGSGERECHTIGKEIT: Transformation – Empowerment – Sustainability (pp. 267-279). Residenz Verlag.

Holden, G. W., Brown, A. S., Baldwin, A. S., & Caderao, K. C. (2014). Research findings can change attitudes about corporal punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(5), 902-908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.013

Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0

Lansford, J. E., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2012). Childrearing discipline and violence in developing countries. Child Development, 83(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01676.x

Meadows, P., Tunstill, J., George, A., Dhudwar, A., & Kurtz, Z. (2011). The costs and consequences of child maltreatment: Literature review for the NSPCC. National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

Morrow, V., & Singh, R. (2014). Corporal punishment in schools in Andhra Pradesh, India: Children’s and parents’ views. Young Lives. ISBN: 978-1-909403-37-6 https://www.younglives.org.uk/sites/www.younglives.org.uk/files/YL-WP123_Morrow-and-Singh_School%20Violence.pdf

Pinheiro, P. S. (2006). World report on violence against children. Geneva: United Nations.

Plan International. (2006). Impact of corporal punishment on school children: A research study. https://www.planindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Plan-Repo-Corporal-Punishment-compressed.pdf

Scharpf, F., Kızıltepe, R., Kirika, A., & Hecker, T. (2023). A systematic review of the prevalence and correlates of emotional violence by teachers. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2581-2597. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15248380221102559

Shawar, Y. R., & Shiffman, J. (2021). A global priority: Addressing violence against children. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(6), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.247874

Slep, A. M. S., Glaser, D., & Manly, J. T. (2022). Psychological maltreatment: An operationalized definition and path toward application. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134, 105882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105882

Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29(115), 543–561. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7832020/

Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J. (2003). Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 795–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00795.x

Theoklitou, D., Kabitsis, N., & Kabitsi, A. (2012). Physical and emotional abuse of primary school children by teachers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.007

United Nations Children’s Fund (2010). Child disciplinary practices at home: evidence from a range of low- and middle-income countries. New York: UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-disciplinary-practices-at-home-evidence-from-a-range-of-low-and-middle-income-countries/

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2017). A familiar face: Violence in the lives of children and adolescents. New York: UNICEF.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2006). General comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8(8), 15.

Wang, M. T., & Kenny, S. (2014). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 85(3), 908-923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12143

Witt, A., Brown, R. C., Plener, P. L., et al. (2017). Child maltreatment in Germany: Prevalence rates in the general population. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-017-0185-0

World Health Organization. (2020). Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240004191

Experiences and benefits from collaborating in the international ethnography network

by Dr Clemens Wieser, Dr Gisela Unterweger, Dr Begoña Vigo, Professor Carl Bagely | 30 Years of EERA, NW 19 Ethnography

EERA is celebrating 30 years in 2024, and as part of our anniversary celebrations, we have invited people who have been at the heart of the association to share their memories and reflections. In a series of blog posts, which will run throughout 2024, we will share those precious memories, from the people who helped foster the global EERA community.

In this blog post, long-term members of the ethnography network, who are currently serving as network convenors reflect on their time with EERA and Network 19.

Throughout the last 25 years, the ethnography network, formally EERA Network 19, has been an important meeting point for educational ethnographers from all over Europe. As the only network with a dedicated methodological focus, we aim at enabling and linking method and content-related discussions, at creating a space that inspires through experiences of difference, and at facilitating exchange amongst network members. Exchanges generated through our network have resulted in friendships that lasted for decades, alongside many other project-based collaborations, and yielded important impulses for current research in educational ethnography. In the following sections, three long-term network members, currently serving as network convenors, share their stories and insights into what the network means to them.

Challenging common-sense conceptions of educational processes and policies through ethnography

Begoña Vigo

My participation in this network has been through individual papers, symposia, and as a discussant, reviewer, and convenor. The interaction and exchanges with participants from Europe and other countries has made this process one of continuous learning.

It initially reinforced a view of ethnography very close to its original meaning – writing about people and culture – and as a way to generate a detailed approach to the content, processes, and experiences of educational life through close observation, listening, and recording of what happens in specific times and places.

However, my concern was also to open possibilities for thinking differently about people’s lives, actions, and experiences by analysing them in my role as an educational researcher from a critical perspective. My new interest became one of challenging common-sense conceptions of educational processes, policies, and outcomes, and contributing to identifying, unravelling, and transforming/reconstructing the important social mechanisms that may underlie and shape current phenomena in everyday life.

These things have been a major part of my journey over the last twelve years, related to the ideas of Paulo Freire, Antonio Gramsci, and Pattie Lather, among others. They have led me to materialise the meaning of research in education for social justice throughout these years.

“Are you sure they are getting this ethnoballet stuff, Carl?”

Carl Bagley

In terms of the cartoon and the portrayal of myself with a dance partner, any resemblance to Bob Jeffrey, one of the ethnography network co-founders, is purely coincidental!

What isn’t coincidental is how the network, under the initial guidance of Bob and subsequent friends and colleagues, has provided a platform (and perhaps a dance floor) for ensuring ethnographic debates remain pertinent and alive. Freire (1997) observed that “the historical, political, cultural, and economic conditions of each context present new methodological and tactical requirements, so that it is always necessary to search for their actualisation’’. In such a search, the network and its associated journal, Ethnography and Education, continue to play an important part.

In 2024, two satellite conferences are looking at Re-Writing (Against) Culture and Ethnography and Transformation in Educational Contexts. Like the network, the conferences signal a commitment to engage ethnographically with a rapidly changing social world, still ingrained with inequality and discrimination.

Of course, traditional ethnographic craft remains important, but this cannot preclude critique of how ethnographic data should be generated, analysed, and portrayed. Network 19, in providing a safe space for those who metaphorically, or even quite literally, wish to dance their data, is an important one.

A safe space to recollect how we attend to education

Clemens Wieser

Educational ethnography is an exciting way of thinking about education because it prompts you to hang out in a field over a longer period, observing and listening to what participants say, and attending to impressions, atmospheres, relations, and patterns. Granting yourself time to organise your attention around what is going on is, in my opinion, at the heart of ethnography. These characteristics are cherished and passionately articulated by many in the ethnography network – yet, there is no strong convention for how this attending-to is done (Tummons & Beach, 2020). Pondering this issue, I believe this is with good reason, as ethnography has always recognised researchers as the “main research instrument” (Walford, 2018), making their subjectivity and truth-telling (Ball, 2017) paramount to all ethnographic enterprises.

After 13 years in the network, I am continually fascinated by fellow ethnographers and their various personal styles of attending to what is going on, influenced by their life histories, political or intellectual convictions, and local academic power regimes. ECER provides a relatively safe space for talking about ethnography, and I believe this is due to the international atmosphere at ECER, which suspends local power regimes, enabling us to recollect how and why we are doing educational ethnography.

Summing up: Some reasons for doing ethnography in education

In the last 25 years, EERA Network 19 has provided participants with an opportunity to leave the safe zone of their familiar, local ways of doing ethnographic educational research, while at the same time, providing an open space for discussions with critical friends on a European scale.

At times, ethnography is mistaken to be a methodology that implies unobjective anecdotes and point-of-view stories. What it potentially offers, though, is a set of analytical strategies to comprehend ongoing educational practices, firmly grounded in everyday life and its contexts. Programmatic ideas for educational change and political reforms of educational institutions, but also established pedagogical approaches, show their practical complications, unintended consequences, and challenges under implementation, only in the messy situations of everyday life.

Educational research in Europe can benefit considerably by attending to such messy situations, and the analyses of educational practice with an everyday-life perspective that ethnography provides. Studying educational practice closely and extendedly, while staying reflexive (Yon, 2003), fighting familiarity (Delamont et al., 2010), and broadening the scale of research through meta-ethnography (Beach et al. 2014), is what enables ethnographers to see the familiar with a new perspective, and contribute innovative perspectives to educational research in Europe.

The EERA Office – The view from within the spaceship

Angelika Wegscheider explains what it is like to steer the ‘spaceship’ of the EERA office, the changes she has seen over the years, and the lessons she’s learned from her time with the organisation.

A European Space for Educational Research and Dialogue

Past Secretary General of EERA, Professor Lisbeth Lundahl on the importance of EERA as an open and welcoming space for educational research and discourse.

20 Years a-going – Reflecting on two decades with EERA

Past President, Professor Joe O’Hara takes a walk down memory lane to celebrate EERA’s 30th anniversary, and reflects on the developments and achievements of the organisation.

Twenty years of participating in EERA’s 30 years

In this blog post, Professor Emeritus of Educational Sciences at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and previous EERA president, Dr Theo Wubbels reflects on his involvement in EERA over the years, and where the organisation’s future lies.

My EERA story – from novice doctoral researcher to ERG Link Convenor

ERG Link Convenor Dr Saneeya Qureshi looks back on her journey, from her first conference, to her professional and personal growth with EERA, and the friendships made along the way.

Establishing Network 27 – and trends in didactics of learning and teaching over the past decades

Professor Emeritus Brian Hudson on the establishment and development of Network 27, and the associated trends in didactics of learning and teaching over the past few decades.

EERA’s unique buzz – and the lessons I’ve learned

Professor Emeritus Terri Seddon explains why the European Conference on Educational Research became her ‘first-choice’ academic conference, and worth the long-haul flights from her home in Melbourne.

Experiences and benefits from collaborating in the international ethnography network

Four long-term Network 19 members, currently serving as network convenors, share their stories and insights into what the network means to them.

Developing an EERA Network Identity – NW 20 through the years

As part of our 30th anniversary celebration, Professor Raimonda Brunevičiūtė reflects on her EERA journey, and the development of Network 20, Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environment.

Past reflections and future horizons

Growing (with) EERA Network 14

As part of our 30 years of EERA celebrations, Dr Joana Lúcio reflects on her time as Link Convenor of Network 14, and her professional and personal growth.

Pleasure, confusion, and friendship – 30 years of EERA

EERA’s first Secretary General and founding editor of the EERJ, Professor Martin Lawn, looks back at the sometimes rocky road of EERA, the developments into the organisation it is today, and considers where the journey should go next.

Improving the quality of education – EERA Network 11 through the years

To celebrate EERA’s 30th anniversary, Dr Gento takes a look at the activities of Network 11 to improve the quality of education, within EERA and in the wider educational research community.

Serendipity in Action: Being a link convenor for the ERG was a vibrant thread in the vast tapestry of my academic life

For the 30th anniversary celebrations of EERA, Dr Patricia Fidalgo reflects on her time as Link Convenor of the Emerging Researchers’ Group, and the joy this fulfilling role brought her.

A Transformative Journey: Nurturing Emerging Researchers at the European Conference for Educational Research.

In our blog series celebrating 30 years of EERA, Professor Fiona Hallett reflects on the sense of belonging within a supportive community of scholars.