Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:20 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 11 A: Navigating Inclusion in Higher Education and VET
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper “Tell Me What My Job Is”: Autistic Academic Staff Experiences of Belonging and Institutional Support in Irish Higher Education 1: Dublin City University, Ireland; 2: Caerus Education Services; 3: University College Cork; 4: Independent Researcher Presenting Author:While there is a growing body of research exploring the experiences of autistic students in higher education, the perspectives of autistic academic staff remain largely absent from educational research. Existing studies that do address autistic academics are limited in number, geographically concentrated, and often framed through deficit-oriented or individualised lenses (Gormley, Feeney, & McNally, 2023). As a result, little is known about how autistic academics navigate their professional roles, experience belonging, or encounter institutional structures that shape academic work. This absence reflects broader patterns of epistemic exclusion, in which autistic people are underrepresented not only as research participants but also as knowers within education research (Fricker, 2007). This co-produced qualitative study explores the lived experiences of autistic academic staff working in higher education in Ireland. It focuses on how participants describe their work, their sense of belonging within academic environments, and the institutional conditions that support or constrain their participation. Particular attention is given to role clarity, social expectations, workload, disclosure, and the emotional and cognitive labour involved in navigating academic cultures largely structured around neurotypical norms. The study addresses a significant gap in both Irish and international literature (Gormley et al., 2023). While Irish higher education has made advances in disability inclusion for students, institutional policies and supports for disabled and autistic staff remain comparatively underdeveloped, and national data on autistic employment in higher education are notably absent. By centring autistic academics’ accounts, this study contributes to understanding how higher education institutions shape working lives, and how inclusion is enacted within everyday academic practice. The study is informed by the neurodiversity paradigm (Walker, 2021), which understands autism as a natural form of human variation rather than a deficit requiring remediation. From this perspective, challenges experienced by autistic academics are located not within individual neurology but within environments, systems, and institutional norms. This perspective views feelings of belonging and well-being among autistic academics as shaped by the workplace environments in which they work (Wong, 2023). This perspective supports attention to how academic spaces, expectations, and cultures shape autistic academics’ experiences of inclusion, recognition, and agency. The study also draws on the Autistic SPACE framework (Doherty, Cowan, & Shaw, 2023) as an analytic and interpretive lens. While originally developed in healthcare contexts, the Autistic SPACE Framework provides a useful framework for examining how environmental and relational conditions within higher education influence autistic academics’ working lives. Together, these frameworks support an analysis that foregrounds institutional responsibility and examines how knowledge about inclusion is produced, taken up, or resisted within academic systems. The study addressed the following research questions:
By centring autistic academics’ accounts through a co-produced, neurodiversity-affirming approach, this study offers insight into how higher education institutions shape working lives, belonging, and participation. The findings highlight the gap between what institutions know about inclusion and how that knowledge is enacted in practice, drawing attention to the limits of individualised accommodations in the absence of structural change. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A co-produced research approach underpinned all stages of the study, with autistic and non-autistic researchers collaborating across research design, data collection, analysis, and dissemination (Kenny, et al., 2024). Co-production was understood not simply as a methodological choice, but as an epistemic stance that shaped what could be known, how knowledge was generated, and whose interpretations carried authority within the research process (Stark, et al., 2021). This approach sought to address power imbalances in knowledge production and ensure that autistic perspectives meaningfully informed the study. Eleven autistic academic staff participated in the study. Participants were employed in Irish higher education institutions in teaching and/or research roles and included individuals with a formal autism diagnosis as well as those who self-identified as autistic, recognising barriers to diagnosis and disclosure. Participants were recruited through academic networks, autistic-led networks, and institutional contacts. Data were generated through flexible semi-structured interviews, conducted online and adapted to participants’ communication preferences. Interviews explored experiences of academic work, role expectations, teaching and research responsibilities, disclosure, social interactions, stress and burnout, and perceived strengths. Flexibility in interview format supported accessibility and allowed participants to engage in ways that reduced participation barriers. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Analysis was undertaken collaboratively by a mixed-neurotype research team, with initial coding led by one researcher and subsequent theme development, refinement, and interpretation conducted through collective discussion. Reflexivity was foregrounded throughout, with attention to how researchers’ positionalities and lived experiences shaped analytic decisions. Credibility was supported through peer debriefing, shared analytic memos, and the maintenance of an audit trail documenting analytic development. Ethical approval was granted by the relevant institutional research ethics committee, and all participants provided informed consent. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Participants’ accounts revealed a complex interplay of strengths, challenges, and institutional constraints, organised around four overarching themes. Discovering Being Autistic. For many participants, recognising their autistic identity was described as a transformative process that reshaped understandings of past and present experiences. Diagnosis or self-recognition enabled participants to reframe difficulties previously attributed to personal failure and to recognise environmental and institutional factors. While this process often reduced internalised stigma, it also illuminated the extent to which academic environments had been navigated through sustained masking. Role Ambiguity and Institutional Invisibility. Academic roles were consistently described as diffuse, poorly defined, and reliant on implicit expectations. Unclear boundaries between teaching, research, administration, and service work were experienced as particularly challenging. Participants described difficulty requesting accommodations for role clarity, captured in the recurring refrain, “tell me what my job is.” Role ambiguity functioned as a form of institutional invisibility, rendering autistic needs difficult to articulate or legitimise. Social Challenges, Stress, and Burnout. Academic cultures characterised by constant availability, informal networking, and unspoken social expectations contributed to significant stress and exhaustion. Participants described cumulative sensory overload and sustained masking, often resulting in burnout and withdrawal. Decisions around disclosure were shaped by fears of stigma and professional repercussions, revealing a gap between inclusion rhetoric and practice. Autistic Strengths and Commitment to Teaching. Alongside challenges, participants articulated strengths associated with autistic ways of working, including hyper-focus, pattern recognition, ethical commitment, and deep engagement with teaching and research. Many described strong alignment with values of fairness and care in teaching, though these strengths were often under-recognised within institutional cultures prioritising speed and social performance. While situated in Irish higher education, the findings resonate across European contexts marked by precarity and performance pressures. Implications for policy and practice related to role clarity, workload design, disclosure, and recognition of autistic contributions. References Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage, London. Doherty, M., McCowan, S., & Shaw, S. C. (2023). Autistic SPACE: a novel framework for meeting the needs of autistic people in healthcare settings. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 84(4), 1-9. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 Gormley, L., Feeney, A., & McNally, S. (2024). A scoping review of research trends and future directions for research on the experiences of autistic students and staff in post-secondary education. European Journal of Higher Education, 14(4), 554-573. Kenny, N., Neilson, S., O'Kelly, J., Doyle, J.K. and McDonald, J. (2024), "Exploring the Paradigm of Co-Produced Research Within the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic", Rose, R. and Shevlin, M. (Ed.) Including Voices (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 23), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620240000023012 Walker, N. (2021), Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities; Autonomous Press. Wong, B. (2024). Exploring the spatial belonging of students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 546-558. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Discomfort, Power, and Learning: When Inclusion Feels Unsettling in Higher Education 1: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands, The; 2: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 3: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 4: Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 5: Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Presenting Author:Across European higher education, commitments to inclusion have expanded rapidly, yet the everyday enactment of these commitments remains uneven. A recurring dynamic in teaching, supervision, assessment, and collegial interaction is the emergence of diversity discomfort, the felt and often tacit unease that accompanies encounters with difference, contested knowledge, and unequal social positioning. This discomfort is frequently treated as noise to be managed away (through silence, proceduralism, or “neutrality”), or alternatively as evidence of individual intolerance. We propose a different starting point: diversity discomfort is an educational and organizational phenomenon that is patterned by power relations and epistemic norms, and it can either consolidate exclusion or open pathways for inclusive transformation. This conceptual and agenda setting paper asks: Under what conditions does diversity discomfort in higher education operate as an exclusionary mechanism, and under what conditions can it be pedagogically and institutionally mobilised to support inclusion? We pursue three objectives. First, we clarify diversity discomfort as a multi level construct that spans affect (emotion), cognition (meaning making), and relational positioning (recognition and credibility). Second, we map key theoretical traditions that illuminate how discomfort is produced and distributed across institutional life. Third, we develop a forward looking research agenda and set of conceptual propositions to guide empirical work and professional practice. We conceptualise diversity discomfort as exclusionary when it becomes attached to routinised defensive practices, including avoidance of “difficult” content, discrediting of minority testimony, depoliticised appeals to academic objectivity, and the normalization of microaggressions through institutional inaction. These dynamics connect to scholarship on epistemic injustice and willful ignorance (Pohlhaus, 2012), and to accounts of how institutional norms protect historically dominant groups, often through seemingly benign procedures (Ahmed, 2017; DiAngelo, 2018; Wang, 2005). Simultaneously, a distinct body of scholarship suggests that discomfort can function as a productive educational condition when it is accompanied by pedagogical structure, ethical safeguards, and reflective attention. We bring four strands into dialogue. First, feminist and poststructural accounts treat discomfort as a signal that habitual modes of perception are being interrupted, creating an opening for critical self interrogation and responsibility (Foucault, 1994; Haraway, 2016; Chadwick, 2021; Ahmed, 2017). Second, learning theories conceptualise stretch as intrinsic to development, while cautioning that challenge can tip into panic without appropriate scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978; Senninger, 2000). Third, work on safe and brave spaces reframes the goal as neither comfort nor confrontation, but conditions for engaged disagreement alongside protection of dignity (Arao and Clemens, 2013; Callan, 2020). Fourth, pedagogy of discomfort foregrounds emotions as central to social justice learning, while insisting that educators must navigate the ethical risk of harm, including the possibility of ethical violence in the name of transformation (Boler, 1999; Berlak, 2004; Boler and Zembylas, 2003; Zembylas and McGlynn, 2012; Zembylas, 2015). By reframing diversity discomfort as a site where inclusion is negotiated, not merely a hindrance to be removed, the paper outlines conceptual propositions and a research agenda aimed at understanding how European HEIs can cultivate practices that convert defensive discomfort into reflective engagement, without normalising harm or offloading emotional costs onto minoritised participants. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This is a conceptual paper that draws on a narrative review and iterative expert sensemaking to develop a differentiated framework for analysing diversity discomfort in European higher education. We conducted a narrative review using search terms spanning diversity and inclusion, discomfort, epistemic injustice, safe and brave spaces, learning zones, and pedagogy of discomfort. Rather than aiming for exhaustive coverage, we focused on identifying conceptual mechanisms, points of tension, and recurring explanatory patterns across literatures. The review was organised in iterative cycles of mapping, clustering, and theorising. First, we mapped how discomfort is defined, located (individual, relational, institutional), and morally evaluated (problem, signal, necessity) across distinct traditions. Second, we clustered insights into four analytic strands (politics of discomfort, learning zone accounts, safe and brave space scholarship, pedagogy of discomfort) and examined how each strand treats power, vulnerability, agency, and pedagogical responsibility. Third, through a series of expert meetings, we tested the coherence and portability of the emerging framework across European institutional contexts, including universities and universities of applied sciences. The outcome of this approach is a set of conceptual propositions and an empirically tractable research agenda. In particular, we specify how discomfort is shaped by institutional norms of neutrality and merit, by epistemic hierarchies concerning whose knowledge is credited, and by pedagogical designs that either contain uncertainty or use it as a resource. These propositions are intended to guide qualitative and mixed method studies on classroom interaction, curriculum choices, staff development, and institutional policy enactment. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper contributes (1) a reframed conceptualisation of diversity discomfort as a multi level phenomenon shaped by power and epistemic norms, (2) a set of propositions to help distinguish exclusionary discomfort (defensive, displacing, silencing) from generative discomfort (structured, dialogic, accountable), and (3) a research agenda for European higher education. The research agenda is organised around four questions: How is diversity discomfort produced and normalised through everyday pedagogical and institutional practices? What conditions enable discomfort to support learning, dialogue, and inclusion rather than avoidance or harm? What forms of scaffolding, facilitation, and institutional accountability are required to prevent the offloading of emotional labour onto minoritised participants? How do these dynamics vary across European contexts, disciplines, and institutional types? We also foreground three dilemmas. First, educators must calibrate challenge so that learners and teachers remain within a viable learning zone. Second, efforts to “stay with discomfort” must address the ethical risk of harm and the possibility of ethical violence (Butler, 2005; Zembylas, 2015). Third, the current organisational climate of efficiency and constraint can push inclusion work toward procedural compliance, undermining the slow practices of reflexivity and relational repair required for meaningful change (Ghorashi, 2014). References Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press. Arao, B., and Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation (pp. 135–150). Routledge. Berlak, A. (2004). Confrontation and pedagogy: cultural secrets and emotion in anti oppressive pedagogies. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogue in education: troubling speech, disturbing silence (pp. 123–144). Peter Lang. Boler, M. (1999). Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. Routledge. Boler, M., and Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: the emotional terrain of understanding differences. In P. Tryfonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: rethinking education for social justice (pp. 110–136). Routledge. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an Account of Oneself. Fordham University Press. Callan, E. (2020). Education in safe and unsafe spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), 64–78. Chadwick, R. (2021). On the politics of discomfort. Feminist Theory, 22(4), 556–574. DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility. Beacon Press. Foucault, M. (1994). For an ethic of discomfort. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Vol. 3, pp. 443–448). The New Press. Ghorashi, H. (2014). Routed connections in late modern times. In U. M. Vieten (Ed.), Revisiting Iris Marion Young on normalisation, inclusion and democracy (pp. 49–67). Palgrave Pivot. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. Keddie, A. (2022). Engaging boys in gender transformative pedagogy: navigating discomfort, vulnerability and empathy. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 30(3), 401–414. Pohlhaus, G. (2012). Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: towards a theory of willful hermeneutic ignorance. Hypatia, 27(4), 715–735. Senninger, T. (2000). Abenteuer leiten, in Abenteuern lernen. Ökotopia. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, H. (2005). Aporias, responsibility, and the im possibility of teaching multicultural education. Educational Theory, 55, 45–59. Zembylas, M. (2015). Pedagogy of discomfort and its ethical implications: the tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163–174. Zembylas, M., and McGlynn, C. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 41–59. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Feedback for Inclusion in VET: A Study of Teacher and Trainer Practices Amidst Finnish Learning Support Reform University of Eastern Finland, Finland Presenting Author:Feedback for Inclusion in VET: A Study of Teacher Practices Amidst Finnish Learning Support Reform Feedback plays a central role in vocational education and training (VET), supporting learning, motivation, competence development, and inclusion. In Finland, students’ right to receive feedback is explicitly stated in the Act on Vocational Education and Training (531/2017), positioning feedback as both a pedagogical and a legal responsibility. At the same time, Finland is undergoing a major reform of learning support, with changes extending to vocational education from 2026. This reform aims to strengthen inclusive practices and early support. Despite these developments, limited empirical research has examined how feedback is enacted in everyday VET practices from the perspective of those primarily responsible for providing it: teachers in educational institutions. This paper addresses this gap by examining how VET teachers experience, interpret, and enact feedback practices in relation to learning support and inclusion, drawing on a complete dataset of 39 teachers across five Finnish colleges. The study is guided by the following research questions: 1. How do VET teachers conceptualise their role in providing feedback, and what challenges and constraints shape their feedback practices in school‑based learning contexts? 2. How do teachers’ experiences of feedback relate to the objectives of the Finnish learning support reform and the statutory right to feedback? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and teaching observations with 39 VET teachers purposively sampled from five Finnish colleges representing three institutional types: a general VET college, an inclusive VET college, and a foundation-based specialist provider. Participants came from nine vocational fields (construction, IT, logistics, boat-making, catering, business, healthcare, mathematics, and electrical/automotive). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis with a hybrid inductive-deductive coding approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Laari, 2025), supported by NVivo software. Ethical procedures followed GDPR and TENK (2019) guidelines. Interviews explored experiences of providing feedback, challenges in inclusive practice, and perceptions of the alignment between feedback practice and legal/structural requirements. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis supported by NVivo software, allowing systematic coding, identification of themes, and comparison across teacher and trainer perspectives. The analysis examined both role-specific patterns and shared themes, including practical constraints, ethical and legal considerations, and professional development needs. This approach enabled a nuanced understanding of how teachers and trainers operationalise feedback practices and how these practices relate to students’ learning support rights. All research procedures followed ethical guidelines in accordance with GDPR and national ethical norms (European Union, 2016; Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, 2019). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings reveal four interconnected themes. First, written feedback via the Päivä Kirja (daily task book) and platforms (Wilma, Moodle) is largely inaccessible to students with learning difficulties, while oral, face-to-face feedback is universally preferred but time-intensive. Second, teachers face a persistent dilemma between honesty and constructiveness, compounded by a lack of formal training in feedback pedagogy. Third, structural inequalities affect students with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia, ADHD, central auditory processing disorder), immigrant-background (S2) learners (including safety risks in workshop settings), and those in workplace training because a non-disclosure gap prevents supervisors from being informed of students’ needs. Fourth, teachers urgently demand training in feedback for diverse learners, protected time for individualized feedback, multimodal tools (audio, video), and institutional trust that prioritizes support intensity over performance metrics. The study argues that achieving inclusive VET requires coherent support structures that enable teachers to deliver feedback that genuinely supports diverse learners, and that the 2026 learning support reform must address these systemic constraints to uphold students’ statutory right to feedback. References Karkkulainen, E. A., Pihlainen, K., & Kärnä, E. (2025). Students’ perceptions of school-based feedback in vocational education and training in Finland: The case of students with learning difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.52291/ijse.2025.40.7 Karkkulainen, E. A., Pihlainen, K., & Kärnä, E. (2023). Feedback methods in vocational education and training for supporting students with learning disabilities and/or difficulties in learning: A literature review. European Journal of Special Education Research, 9(3), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejse.v9i3.5095 Act on Vocational Education and Training (531/2017). (2017). Finlex. https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2017/en20170531_20170531.pdf Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933551 European Commission. (2021). European Pillar of Social Rights. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. | ||