Conference Agenda

In the staff room, in the school corridors, in the classroom, in the playgrounds or in the digital team chat, teachers are almost constantly surrounded by colleagues, school management, pupils and other school stakeholders. Despite these dense social interactions, teachers report experiences of loneliness in their profession (Alonzo et al., 2025). This apparent paradox indicates that loneliness is not synonymous with being alone (Alonzo et al., 2025, p. 8). Even with a high density of contact, loneliness can occur as a subjective feeling of not belonging or of unsatisfactory relationship quality (Ernst, 2024, p. 17). Structural characteristics of the teaching profession, such as the largely isolated teaching situation, forced cooperation in asymmetrical relationships (Rothland, 2013, p. 25) and the division of the workplace between school and home, which leads to a blurring of working hours and an insufficient separation of work and private life (Rothland, 2013, p. 220), are factors that promote work-related loneliness in the teaching profession. The aim of this study is to create a topography of work-related loneliness among teachers in the formal education system in Austria by mapping specific spaces, time slots, situations and constellations of actors and analysing the conditions and processes in formal education.

In educational institutions, loneliness in the workplace was initially often associated with head teachers. Yılmaz & Altınok (2009) investigated the loneliness of head teachers and their life satisfaction, while Izgar (2009) conducted a study on the connection between loneliness and depression among head teachers. Although studies are available for teachers, evidence on specifically work-related loneliness in German-speaking countries is limited to date. Uğurlu (2021) investigated whether the extent of loneliness among teachers is due to personal circumstances or organisational factors. The quantitative analyses indicate higher loneliness scores among male teachers and no significant differences according to subject, length of service or income, while the interviews highlight deficient collegial relationships and communication problems as causes and suggest organisational prevention approaches (e.g. social activities, cooperative leadership) (Uğurlu, 2021). The study by Chen et al. (2025) found that a supportive school climate reduces teachers' experiences of loneliness and thus reduces burnout.

Similarly, empirical studies report a negative correlation between organisational climate and loneliness in schools (Ertosun & Erdil, 2012). These findings are conceptually consistent with the notion that a positive school climate should be characterised by respect, connectedness and support in order to reduce loneliness in the school system (Jefferson et al., 2023, p. 428).

The PRISMA-based review (Alonzo et al., 2025) serves as a central current frame of reference for work-related loneliness among teachers. Building on Lortie (1975), the authors define ‘teacher isolation’ as an unpleasant feeling of loneliness in the school setting, which is associated with limited opportunities for interaction with colleagues and promotes an autonomous way of working (Alonzo et al., 2025, p. 1). The study synthesises 23 peer-reviewed studies (publication years 1991–2021) in order to systematically classify the definition, dimensions, causes, effects and counterstrategies of teacher isolation (Alonzo et al., 2025, p. 1). It identifies classic forms such as physical, adaptive and psychological isolation, as well as specific forms such as strategic isolation, school management-induced isolation (e.g. leadership style, lack of communication) and resource-induced isolation (e.g. lone wolf, lack of peer groups) (Alonzo et al., 2025, p. 9). These manifestations sharpen the understanding that loneliness should be understood not only as an individual phenomenon, but also as a structurally conditioned one.

The aim of my study is to examine how school spaces that enhance wellbeing can be designed together with young people. Spatial approaches to wellbeing, grounded in humanistic geography, emphasise the importance of spatial connectedness in children’s and young people’s daily lives (Atkinsson et al., 2016; Fuller et al., 2016). School is interpreted as a key everyday environment that affects their wellbeing (Bond et al., 2007). Spatial approaches seek to prevent wellbeing challenges produced by environments and to strengthen spatial attachment, which is closely linked to belonging, learning, and school engagement (Huang, 2022). Positive school climate, supportive social relations, participation, meaning, and autonomy are strongly associated with learning and school wellbeing (Aldridge, 2016).

The factors shaping school wellbeing are both concrete and abstract, and development work has been hindered by the absence of a framework that bridges these dimensions (Franz, 2019). Research on subjective school wellbeing therefore calls for school‑level intervention studies, as earlier relationship‑based interventions have yielded promising results (Aldridge et al., 2016).

My interpretation of designing the school as a space for wellbeing builds on Franz’s (2019) conceptualisation of school as a place that strengthens children’s and young people’s capabilities, meaning-making, and opportunities to flourish. Wellbeing‑supportive learning environments are characterised by freedom, agency, and autonomy. Everyday environments offer young people opportunities to connect with their strengths and transform experiences into personal resources. This perspective assumes that children and young people should have opportunities to choose meaningful ways of living and activities that make daily life worth living (cf. Sen, 1993).

This study draws on wellbeing design research (Casais et al., 2018; Keinonen, 2010), where participation is a key determinant of wellbeing (Derr et al., 2018). Participation in design can profoundly transform young people’s positions and even school cultures (Franz, 2019). Research should therefore foreground children’s and young people’s capabilities, positioning them as experts in their own lives and as agents whose voices matter in decisions that affect them (Vaird et al., 2021).

The study is grounded in the view of young people as capable co‑designers of the school as an everyday living environment. The design approach comprises three dimensions:

• End‑user centrality: Young people are regarded as the primary end‑user group, and their wellbeing is placed at the centre of school development.
• Process as wellbeing: The design process incorporates wellbeing‑enhancing qualities and thus strengthens young people’s wellbeing in itself.
• Spatial innovation: Design processes produce innovative spatial solutions grounded in young people’s age‑appropriate wellbeing needs. When integrated into the school’s space–time practices, these solutions form nurturing, protective structures that respond to their daily wellbeing requirements.

A central method in wellbeing design is co‑design based on interaction among stakeholders. Continuous collaboration with users ensures meaningful and need‑responsive outcomes (Mattelmäki & Sleeswijk Visser, 2011; Manzini, 2011). Positivity is a core premise of design work: its goal is to open horizons of hope and possibility among participants. Participation in design can support individuals’ efforts toward goals oriented to a fulfilling life (Casais et al., 2018; Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013).

Practice‑oriented scholars highlight the need to bridge abstract wellbeing concepts with practical, material, and experiential forms of design. Todres and Galvin (2010) emphasise the embodied and experiential nature of school wellbeing and advocate for more holistic and atmosphere‑enhancing learning environments. Research further suggests that wellbeing can be designed through everyday actions that help meet people’s deeper needs (Hassenzahl et al., 2013; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Klapperich et al., 2020).