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, 21:29:21 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
32 SES 07 A: Embodied Ecounters in Time and Space - Organizational Education Research Perspectives
Paper Session | ||
| Session Abstract | ||
|
In this session we adress sensorial and affective aspects and the rhythms of organizing. | ||
    | ||
32. Organisational Education
Paper Sensing the Room: Organizing through Rhythm-work in a School Setting Aarhus Universitet, Denmark Presenting Author:In extending discussions of developing new temporal attentions inspired by process philosophy and feminist new materialism in organization studies and beyond (Calás & Smircich, 2023; Feuls et al., 2022; Hernes, 2022, Manning, 2013), this paper conceptualizes rhythm-work as performative powers organizing with empirical focus on school organizing. Drawing on Henri Lefebvre’s framework on rhythm (Lefebvre, 2004), this paper focuses on the situated, intense, loud or subtle, mundane, and even silent temporal rhythms of daily life as performative, embodied and relational powers shaping organizing processes. Lefebvre’s approach provides a conceptual lens to study the rhythms of daily organizing processes, encompassing continuity, change, repetition, and serendipity. Informed by Lefebvre’s distinction between linear and cyclical rhythms and Erin Manning’s process-oriented framework of relational movement (Manning, 2009), school time organizing is shaped by temporal demands, plans, bodies, opinions, technologies, energies etc. and produce rhythmic work across human and non-human agencies. I introduce the analytical term Rhythm Work as a weaving point across bodies, materials, tasks, institutional rhythms and times that are sometimes invisible and unevenly distributed. The analysis unpacks how rhythm-work enact through three processes: I) ‘planned time', II) ‘emerging time', and III) ‘sequenced time’. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper draws on a case study of time organization in an elementary school, employing methods inspired by sensory-ethnographic approaches, including participant observation, interviews, and document collection (Falkenberg & Sauzet, 2023; Feuls, Plotnikof & Stjerne, 2022; Pink, 2015). The dataset includes management plans, school schedules, interviews, field notes and rhythm cartographic drawings from meetings, planning sessions, and teaching in a local Danish school. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study unfolds its analyses across three vignettes, that traces how rhythm-work takes shape across different educational time settings. The concept of ‘rhythm-work’ offers a lens for understanding how rhythmic organizing is shaped in different corners of organization and sheds light on it's conditions embedded in planned, emerging and sequenced time. References Barad, K. (2013). Ma(r)king time: Material entanglements and re-memberings: Cutting together-apart. In P. R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies (pp. 16–31). Oxford University Press. Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (Eds.). (2023). A research agenda for organization studies, feminisms and new materialisms. Edward Elgar. Falkenberg, H., & Sauzet, S. (Eds.). (2023). Multisensoriske metoder og analyser: til undersøgelser af pædagogiske praksisser. Samfundslitteratur. Feuls, M., Plotnikof, M., & Stjerne, I. S. (2023). Timely methods: A methodological agenda for researching the temporal in organizing. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 18(1), 102–122. Hernes, T. (2022). Organization and time. Oxford University Press. Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time, and everyday life (S. Elden & G. Moore, Trans.). Continuum. Manning, E. (2009). Relationscapes: Movement, art, philosophy. MIT Press. Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography (2nd ed.). Sage. Plotnikof, M., & Mumby, D. K. (2023). Temporal multimodality and performativity: Exploring politics of time in the discursive, communicative constitution of organization. Organization, 31(4), 663–682. 32. Organisational Education
Paper Outdoor Play in Shared EYFS Environments in England: Whose Beliefs Matter? University of Notingham, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Early childhood education widely accepts and values outdoor play, but its implementation in everyday school practice remains under-researched and contested. While the benefits of outdoor play are well recognised and documented, research consistently shows that focusing solely on environmental availability or positive professional attitudes does not ensure meaningful outdoor play experiences (Bilton, 2020; Richard, Turner, Stone, and Mclsaac, 2023). In many school contexts, rich outdoor environments are underutilised or deprioritised, suggesting that the challenge is not the valuing or non-valuing of outdoor play, but rather the implementation of these values in everyday decision-making. Prior research indicates that practitioners' beliefs, values, and previous experiences influence the interpretation and implementation of outdoor play (Bilton, 2020; Cheng, Brussoni, Han, Munday, and Zeni, 2022). However, these accounts often conceptualise beliefs as individually held dispositions, paying little attention to how professional hierarchies, power relations, and organisational routines determine which beliefs become influential in practice, particularly in shared playground contexts. This paper addresses this gap by examining how outdoor play is enacted across three Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) settings in primary schools in England, with a specific focus on role distribution, presence, and decision-making processes in shared outdoor spaces. The study is theoretically informed by Professional Capital Theory (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) and integrated with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) to analyse how practitioners’ beliefs emerged from interactions among human, social, and decisional capital across microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem levels. This blended framework enables a relational analysis of policy enactment that moves beyond individual beliefs to foreground collective practices, collaboration, and authority. Using a qualitative multiple-case study design, the paper presents cross-case findings illustrating how different configurations of professional capital shape outdoor play practices. In one case, hierarchical decision-making resolved conflicts over beliefs due to fragmented collaboration and weak social capital, thereby limiting collective negotiation. In contrast, other cases demonstrate that strong collaboration, shared responsibility, and collective presence in outdoor spaces enabled sustained outdoor play, even where formal outdoor play policies were absent or not widely known. These findings align with research emphasising the importance of trust, communication and teamwork in supporting outdoor play and risk-taking practices (Bilton, 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Richard et al., 2023). Overall, the paper argues that the critical issue is not whether practitioners value outdoor play, but whose beliefs are emerging and visible through social relations and decisional authority within school contexts. By foregrounding social capital as central to the enactment of outdoor play, the study supports Professional Capital Theory. It offers new insights into how outdoor play can be protected and prioritised within performance-based school cultures. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts an interpretive qualitative research paradigm and employs a multiple-case study design to explore how outdoor play is enacted in shared playgrounds across three EYFS settings in England. A multi-case approach was selected to enable an in-depth analysis of similarities and differences across contrasting organisational contexts, particularly with respect to collaboration, leadership, and decision-making structures. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, observations, photographs and document analysis over an extended data-collection period. Observations were conducted in nursery and reception classes across indoor and outdoor environments, focusing on practitioners’ roles, interactions, decision-making and presence during outdoor play. Documentary sources included school policies, health and safety documentation, risk assessments, teachers’ plans, outdoor rules for children, and information published on school websites. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 practitioners, including three headteachers, two forest school leaders, nine early childhood teachers, and 15 teaching assistants. Interviews explored practitioners’ beliefs about outdoor play, perceptions of risk, role distribution, and leadership influence, as well as their experiences of working in shared outdoor spaces. In the third case, planned observations were interrupted by COVID-19-related restrictions. However, this limitation was mitigated through comprehensive interviews and documentary evidence, which yielded analytically robust supplementary data. Data analysis involved thematic analysis followed by cross-case analysis, enabling the examination of patterns of convergence and divergence across the three schools. The analysis was theoretically informed by Professional Capital Theory (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), examining how human, social, and decisional capital interact to shape outdoor play practices. Reflexivity was embedded throughout the research process. The researcher’s professional background in early childhood education and an interest in outdoor play informed the study’s design and interpretation, while reflexive journaling and iterative engagement with the data were used to critically examine assumptions and enhance analytical rigour. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study demonstrates that the enactment of outdoor play in shared playgrounds is shaped less by practitioners' valuing outdoor play and more by how professional capital is configured within school contexts. In particular, the findings foreground social capital as the key mechanism through which beliefs become visible, influential, and sustained in practice (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Firat, Zapata, & Kuby, 2025). Across the three cases, differences in outdoor play enactments were not explained by the strength of individual beliefs but by how decisional authority, presence, and responsibility were distributed within professional relationships. In one case, hierarchical decision-making resolved conflicts over beliefs due to weak collaboration and fragmented social capital. In this context, a Forest School session was cancelled to prioritise rehearsals for a Christmas nativity performance, illustrating how outdoor learning, despite being valued in principle, becomes expendable when competing with performative school priorities. This finding highlights how decisional capital, when concentrated within leadership roles and disconnected from collective deliberation, can override practitioners’ pedagogical commitments. By contrast, in the other cases, strong professional collaboration, shared responsibility and high levels of social capital enabled outdoor play to be sustained, even in the absence of a formal outdoor play policy. Regular communication, equitable role distribution, and a collective presence in outdoor spaces supported shared understandings of risk, routines, and priorities. Overall, the study supports professional capital theory by demonstrating that outdoor play policies function as a mediating mechanism when social capital is weak, but become less critical in contexts characterised by strong collaboration. The findings suggest that the central issue is not whether teachers believe in outdoor play, but whose beliefs are amplified through social relations and decision-making structures, offering important implications for leadership, policy and professional development in early years settings. References Bilton, H. (2020). Values stop play? Teachers’ attitudes to the early years outdoor environment. Early Child Development and Care, 190 (1). pp. 12-20. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cheng, T., Brussoni, M., Han, C., Munday, F., & Zeni, M. (2022). Perceived challenges of early childhood educators in promoting unstructured outdoor play: an ecological systems perspective. Early Years, 43(4–5), 904–920. Firat K, Zapata A, Kuby CR. (2025). Early childhood teachers’ professional capital: a phenomenological study. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 10(4) pp. 424–441. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press. Richard, B., Turner, J., Stone, M. R. and McIsaac, J.-L. D. (2023). How an early learning and childcare program embraced outdoor play: a case study. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society 4(3): pp. 306-321. 32. Organisational Education
Paper Forgiveness to Well-being in Educational Organisations? Understanding Teachers’ Well-Being Through Forgiveness and Workplace Happiness 1: Ministry of National Education Türkiye, Turkey (Türkiye); 2: Eskişehir Osmangazi Universitesi Türkiye; 3: Ministry of National Education Türkiye; 4: Eskişehir Osmangazi Universitesi Türkiye Presenting Author:Educational organizations are workplaces in which intense human interaction, emotional demands and organizational pressures frequently occur. Teachers may encounter negative situations such as conflict, stress and emotional exhaustion in their relationships with students, parents, and colleagues (Nwoko, Emeto, Malau-Aduli & Malau-Aduli, 2023). Such challenges can negatively affect teachers’ well-being, leading to decreased job satisfaction, increased burnout and stress (Herman, Hickmon-Rosa, & Reinke, 2017). In this context, forgiveness stands out as a constructive coping strategy that individuals may develop in response adversity. Kaleta and Mróz (2018) argue that forgiveness increases positive thoughts and helps prevent reactions that damage relationships. The tendency to forgive negative experiences in the workplace can be considered an important personal resource that reduces emotional burden and helps maintain psychological balance. Forgiveness enables individuals to hold perception of goodness, value, innocence, love, and peace in themselves and in others simultaneously (Toussaint & Friedmann, 2009). In this way, forgiveness may be positively associated with happiness and mental health by reducing stress. Research also shows that forgiveness contributes to psychological health by reducing anger and strengthening hope for the future (Kim, Payne & Tracy, 2022). It can reduce chronic negative emotions such as anger, hostility, and rumination, which are well-established inhibitors of happiness. From the perspective of Bono, McCullough and Root (2008) it is indicated that forgiving individuals experience greater psychological well-being and more positive emotions. In organizational and school settings, forgiveness may therefore reduce interpersonal conflict and emotional exhaustion while enhanving workplace happiness and engagament. Forgiving may also help individuals feel reconnected to a vital source of social support, allowing them to once again access the emotional and material benefits provided by close, supportive relationships, which in turn enhances overall well-being (McCullough, 2000). As in school contex, teacher well-being is a personal sense of satisfaction, fulfilment, purpose, and positive emotionality derived from daily positive interactions with students and colleagues (Acton & Glasgow, 2015). Thus, forgiveness may support both emotional regulation and well-being in demanding work environments. Although forgiveness is among the coping strategies individuals may use in response to adversity in educational institutions, there is limited research examining its effects on teachers’ well-being and workplace happiness (Chan, 2013; Kun & Gadanecz, 2022). This gap highlights the need to examine how -and to what extent- forgiveness relates to teachers' well-being and happiness at work. Understanding these relationships can support the development of healthier and more supportive school environments at both individual and organizational levels. Accordingly, the main objective of this research is to examine the mediating role of workplace happiness in the relationship between teachers' forgiveness and well-being. Specifically, the study investigates how teachers' forgiveness is reflected in their psychological well-being and whether workplace happiness strengthens (mediates) this relationship. The findings are expected to inform intervention programmes that strengthen teachers' psychological resources, support policy development that prioritizes teacher well-being, and contribute to a more positive climate in educational organizations. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The sample consisted of 865 teachers working in various school types, including pre-school, primary, secondary, high and special education organizations in Bursa and Adana regions of Türkiye. To examine the relations among forgiveness, workplace happiness and teachers’ well-being, three scales were utilized. Forgiveness was assessed using Tendency to Forgive Scale developed by Brown (2003), which includes 10 items across two dimensions (tendency to forgive and attitudes toward forgiveness). Happiness at the work was measured by Happiness at Work Scale developed by Salas-Vallina and Vidal (2018), comprising three dimensions: work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Well-being was assessed using Pschological Well-Being Scale developed by Diener et al. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the validity of scales. The three scales demonstrated acceptable fit indices. Tendency to Forgive Scale, χ²(27) = 112.321, p < 0.000; RMSEA = 0.060 (90% CI: 0.049–0.072); CFI = 0.948; TLI = 0.913; SRMR = 0.050. Happiness at Work Scale, χ²(18) = 81.645, p < 0.000; RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI: 0.050–0.078); CFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.968; SRMR = 0.032. Well-Being Scale, χ²(16) = 85.779, p < 0.000; RMSEA = 0.071 (90% CI: 0.056–0.086); CFI = 0.976; TLI = 0.875; SRMR = 0.029. The study employed a mediation analysis within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework using Stata 18 to examine the mediating role of workplace happiness in the relationship between teachers' forgiveness and well-being. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including the Chi-square statistic, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), ensuring the adequacy of the proposed mediation model. The model demonstrated acceptable fit indices: χ²(58) = 294.03, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.069 (90% CI: 0.061–0.077); CFI = 0.941; TLI = 0.921; SRMR = 0.041. Direct, indirect, and total effects were estimated to examine the pathway from forgiveness to well-being through happiness at the work. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The structural paths indicated that forgiveness positively predicted workplace happiness (β = 0.43, p < 0.001), and workplace happiness positively predicted well-being (β = 0.52, p < 0.001). Forgiveness also had a direct effect on well-being (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), indicating both direct and indirect influences. Overall, the findings suggest that higher levels of teachers’ tendency to forgive and more positive attitudes toward forgiveness are associated with greater work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, which in turn relate to higher teacher well-being. Both direct and indirect pathways were significant, supporting a mediational role of workplace happiness between forgiveness and well-being of teachers. These results align with research indicating that higher levels of forgiveness are associated with workplace and intra-personal outcomes, such as enhanced psychological and physical well-being (Bono, et al., 2008; Cao, van der Wal & Taris, 2021). Longitudinal evidence in positive psychology and organizational behavior suggests that individuals who engage in forgiveness tend to experience greater job satisfaction, more positive emotions, higher work engagement, and lower burnout over time (Cao, et al., 2021). Therefore, forgiveness may facilitate a more positive emotional and motivational state at work, which contributes to overall psychological well-being and happiness of individuals (Gao, Li & Bai, 2022). In educational environments, forgiveness may function as a critical psychological resource: when teachers are able to forgive students, colleagues, or institutional stressors, they may be better able to maintain positive emotions and high work engagement despite demanding nature of school work. This emotional state may help teachers cope more effectively with classroom challenges, interpersonal conflict, and organizational pressures, thereby enhancing their overall happiness and protecting their psychological well-being. References Acton, R., & Glasgow, P. (2015). Teacher wellbeing in neoliberal contexts: A review of the literature. Australian. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 99–114. Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Sociak Pscychology Bulletin, 29(2), 759-771. Bono G., McCullough M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182–195. Cao, W., van der Wal, R. C., & Taris, T. W. (2021). The benefits of forgiveness at work: A longitudinal investigation of the time-lagged relations between forgiveness and work outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 710984. Chan, D. W. (2013). Subjective well-being of Hong Kong Chinese teachers: The contribution of gratitude, forgiveness, and the orientations to happiness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 22-30. Diener, E., et al. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247–266). Springer. Gao, F., Li, Y., & Bai, X. (2022). Forgiveness and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis review. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, Part B. Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., Reinke, W. M. (2017). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. J. Posit. Behav. Interv., 20, 90–100. Kaleta, K., & Mróz, J. (2018). Forgiveness and life satisfaction across different age groups in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 17-23. Kim, J. J., Payne, E. S., & Tracy, E. L. (2022). Indirect effects of forgiveness on psychological health through anger and hope: a parallel mediation analysis. J. Relig. Health, 61, 3729–3746. Kun, A. & Gadanecz, P. (2022). Workplace happiness, well-being and their relationship with psychological capital: A study of Hungarian teachers. Current Psychology, 41, 185-199. McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 43-55. Nwoko, J. C., Emeto, T., Malau-Aduli, A. E. O., & Malau-Aduli, B. S. (2023). A systematic review of the factors that influence teachers’ occupational wellbeing, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 20(12), 6070. Salas-Vallina, A., & Vidal, J. A. (2018). Happiness at work: Developing a shorter measure. Journal of Management & Organization, 27, 460-480. Toussaint, L., & Friedman, P. (2009). Forgiveness, gratitude, and well-being: The mediating role of affect and beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 10(6), 635–654. | ||