Conference Agenda

The innovations proposed by educational organisation staff are a specific case of so-called "bottom-up" or grassroots innovations, which arise from the initiative of individuals, as opposed to the "top-down" reform of the educational system.. An important characteristic of grassroots innovations is their orientation towards local needs and context [Gupta, 2020]. According to previous research, compared to "top-down" innovations, grassroots innovations are less constrained by institutional frameworks, are more responsive to emerging demands and opportunities, thus enabling the system to incorporate fresher and more creative solutions to existing problems [Koroleva and Khavenson, 2015; Seyfang and Smith, 2007]. In this context, innovations are understood to encompass both radically new approaches and methods, as well as existing practices adapted to the specific school context [Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019].

The emergence of grassroots innovations has been described in previous studies as a complex and risky process [Glor, 2002]. Innovations, even if they have proven their effectiveness, encounter numerous obstacles during their implementation and dissemination, especially in conservative systems such as the education system [Halasz, 2018]. Barriers associated with the dissemination of innovations and modernisation of the school environment have been addressed in previous research [Sucha et al., 2021; Koroleva and Naushirvanov, 2020]. Key barriers include funding shortages, staffing needs, and a low willingness to adopt innovations, absence of motivation among teachers, administrators, families, and society. The next logical step would involve considering ways to overcome the identified barriers, as they are currently described only fragmentarily in the literature.

In some studies focusing on barriers and drivers within organisations similar to schools, levels at which certain barriers and drivers operate have been emphasised. For example, Sucha et al. [2021] examine the barriers and drivers of innovations in Czech libraries at four different levels: personal, local, organisational, and structural. We hypothesise that such an approach could be beneficial for studying the emergence and diffusion of innovations in the field of education. Furthermore, an in-depth understanding of these results would involve a transition from a linear correspondence between barriers and levels (according to the methodology of the Czech study, a barrier cannot occur at different levels simultaneously, which seems to be an oversimplification) to an exploration of the connections between barriers and opportunities at different levels. Thus, our research questions are:

How do innovators navigate between opportunities and barriers at different levels? What happens if a barrier arises at one level while opportunities exist at other levels?

We study these issues based on the case of one region. It allows for a detailed understanding of the barriers and strategies to overcome them. Although the local specificity is important, we believe that the result might be relevant to other regions and countries as meta-analyses show that teachers from different countries face similar challenges that might affect innovation processes in schools: high workload, insufficient funding, well-being and burnout, conservative views on the education system, and so on.

Mentoring is implemented in several educational contexts as a tool for equitable intervention. The presentation focuses on university students who as mentors, participate in a mentor program situated in Hungary, that provides mentoring as an equitable service for mostly rural primary school pupils in Hungary in which pupils of low socioeconomic status (SES) and the largest Hungarian minority, the Roma minority is also overrepresented (Andl et al., 2020) leading people in the area to have intersectional difficulties (Varga, 2017). Mentoring began in the Autumn 2019 with the inclusion of Hungarian universities. All university students are free to join the mentor-training course and after its completion, they can become mentors of pupils aged c. 12-15 (Godó, 2021, Horváth, 2022). Pupils in the program are mostly at-risk youth as they face obstacles due to their SES, and racial prejudices, thus they are in an intersectional position (Varga, 2017). Mentoring aims at the manifestation of career guidance that pupils of low SES generally lack (Bereményi, 2020). Mentoring can be understood as prevention as it is to prevent early-school leaving (Bocsi, Varga & Fehérvári, 2023; Fehérvári & Varga, 2023). The presentation focuses on mentors, who also benefit from joining mentoring programs (Beltman, Herker & Fischer, 2019). Based on the literature, mentors’ success and development are based on various factors, for instance professional background (Berei, 2020), personality (Lakind, Eddy & Zell, 2014), experience in mentoring (Beltman, Herker & Fischer, 2019; Jones & Blankenship, 2020) and psycho-sociological background (Nagy, 2014). In this presentation the latest is given special attention: as primary school pupils’ primary socialization differs from the institutional secondary school socialization sphere; they are thought to undergo bicultural socialization (LaFromboise, Coleman & Gerton, 1993; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Stogianni et al, 2021). Mentors, who are of similar socialization patterns as mentees are expected to be found in the program – even though they are underrepresented at universities (Varga et al., 2021). Thus, inquiring about participating mentors’ SES is essential as it allows us to reveal the benefits of their bicultural selves in the process of mentoring pupils of similar backgrounds. Considering SES as an independent variable, the research aimed to answer the following three research questions. What are mentors’ motivations to join and their expectations about themselves? What do mentors highlight as successes and obstacles in their work? How do mentors evaluate their emotional, social, and professional development? The introduced data collection involved mentors at a Hungarian university (P=180; S=50). The applied questionnaire inquired about mentors’ perceptions and assumptions about mentoring and their success as mentors. Items included in the research have followed the patterns of the process-based model of inclusivity (Varga & Trendl, 2022), respondents have reflected (retrospectively) on their joining to the program (input), their participation (process) and expected outcomes (output). Based on SES data two subsamples have been created: 1) students of similar SES as the pupils (S^LowSES=15) and 2) students of higher SES than the other group (S^HigherSES=35). Data from the research shows tendencies that are to describe the sample and its subcategories. Socio-economic status influenced mentors’ demands towards their work and the evaluation of their results as mentors. Respondents in both sample groups have set out high expectations towards themselves as mentors that they could not achieve as planned in their mentoring outcomes. Participants of low SES have been more determined than their peers and set even higher mentoring goals. Data show that mentors perceived their participation in the program as beneficial, yet summarized hardships. Results of the research send lessons to learn in mentor training, as they reveal the main advantages and challenges of participation in the program.