JavaScript is Disabled
Your browser's JavaScript functionality is disabled. It has to be enabled to use this function of ConfTool.
Here you can find information on how to enable JavaScript
If you have any problems, please contact the organisers at ecer2026@eera.eu.

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, 21:28:48 EET

Daily Overview

Session

04 SES 01 A: Agency and Support Across the Life Span

Time:

Tuesday, 18/Aug/2026:

13:30 - 15:00

Session Chair: Elizabeth Done

Location: A1 | Main building A | 2 Fl.

cap: 318

Paper Session

Presentations

04. Inclusive Education
Paper

Between Safeguarding and Agency: Assemblages of Online Privacy in the Lives of Young People with Intellectual Disabilities

Cansu Bolat Dinc, Elizabeth J. Done

University of Plymouth, United Kingdom

Presenting Author: Bolat Dinc, Cansu; Done, Elizabeth J.

Contemporary discussions of intellectual disability increasingly challenge medicalised, deficit-based frames in favour of social, cultural, and ethical accounts (Shakespeare, 2016). The terminological shift from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability” is indicative of socio-political change, situating disability within relationships, institutions, and value systems rather than focusing on impairment alone (Schalock et al., 2007; Salvador-Carulla et al., 2011). The social model redirected attention to environmental and structural barriers (Oliver, 1990), yet critiques note that embodied and relational experiences can remain less visible within policy and practice (Shakespeare, 2004, 2015). Accordingly, Critical Disability Studies links disability to power, identity, and ethics within struggles for social justice (Goodley, 2013; Goodley et al., 2021), while the affirmation model frames disability as meaningful identity and inclusion as cultural transformation amid persistent exclusionary pressures in schools (Swain & French, 2000; Connor, 2024).

Privacy becomes an ethically charged dimension of inclusive education as support extends into ICT-mediated spaces. International human rights frameworks position privacy as fundamental to autonomy, dignity, and self-determination (United Nations, 2006; OECD, 2022). For young people with intellectual disabilities, privacy is entangled with sexuality, participation, and schooling, yet dominant discourses may frame their sexuality as risky or inappropriate, legitimising surveillance and restriction in the name of protection while potentially narrowing agency (Shakespeare et al., 1996; Caffo, 2021).

Foucault’s analyses of power, governmentality, and biopolitics illuminate how privacy can operate as a field of governance and not only the personal right of humanist discourses (Foucault, 1977, 1978); protective discourses produce norms of “appropriate” behaviour and marginalise alternative embodiments and desires. Deleuze’s (1994) philosophy of difference challenges such normalising logics by treating difference as generative and relational. Through assemblage, privacy can be understood as continuously produced across relations among young people, families, educational institutions, and digital technologies (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980; DeLanda, 2006).

Digital environments intensify these dynamics by expanding opportunities for belonging while exposing young people with intellectual disabilities to risks including exploitation, surveillance, and boundary violations. Evidence suggests that overprotective responses may also lead to exclusion and reduced participation (Chadwick, 2022). Educational discourses, particularly Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), sit at the centre of this balance; yet RSE appears inconsistently implemented for students with special educational needs and often prioritises risk management over autonomy, participation, and ethical reflection (Dring-Turner, 2019; McCann et al., 2018). The purpose of the presented study is to explore the perspectives of parents, teachers, and students regarding the online privacy and security needs of young people with intellectual disabilities aged 14–19 in England. The research aims to answer the following questions:

What are the perspectives of teachers and parents regarding the online privacy and security needs of young people with intellectual disabilities?
What information sources do parents and teachers use regarding online privacy and security, and what are their opinions about the reliability of these sources?
What are parents' perceptions of the risks their children may face in online environments, and what measures do they take to address these risks?
How are teachers involved in designing educational programmes that address online privacy and security?
What are teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of online privacy and security issues in the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) curriculum?
To what extent do current educational programmes meet the online privacy and security needs of young people with intellectual disabilities?

Findings will inform discussion of the gaps and enabling conditions through which online privacy and security are assembled within RSE, supporting rights-based inclusive practice in European and wider international policy and practice debates.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
A pragmatic mixed-methods design was employed within an instrumental case study at a single site (Kuhn, 1962; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018). Criterion-based sampling (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018; Patton, 2015) was applied and participants included 30+ parents, 8–12 teachers, and students aged 14–19 with intellectual disabilities in two observed classrooms, alongside IEPs for participating students. Sampling criteria required parents having a child (14–19) diagnosed with intellectual disability, teachers teaching students (14–19) diagnosed with intellectual disability, and participation proceeded through voluntary adult consent, and parental consent plus student assent for student observations (Cohen et al., 2018). Data was generated through a parent survey administered via JISC online to capture perceived online privacy and security needs, risk perceptions, and supervision practices, allowing descriptive and correlational analysis (Fowler, 2008; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Semi-structured interviews with teachers examined how online privacy and security is conceptualised and addressed through school practices and curriculum, while remaining sufficiently flexible to follow participants’ accounts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Cohen et al., 2018). Participant observation with students during RSE-related lessons documented naturally occurring interactions and meaning-making around privacy, safety, and boundaries (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). IEP document analysis was used to contextualise and triangulate reported and observed practices within formal educational planning (Bowen, 2009; Prior, 2003). A four-stage pilot enabled the refining of instruments and procedures (two hours of observation, one IEP review, one teacher interview, and feedback from two parents on the online questionnaire) (Bell & Waters, 2018; Yin, 2018). Survey content validity was supported through expert review and CVI procedures (Polit & Beck, 2006), and internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Qualitative trustworthiness was strengthened through methodological triangulation, detailed field notes and an audit trail, prolonged engagement and persistent observation, thick description, and intercoder agreement on 30% of transcripts (Denzin, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019; Bowen, 2009). All procedures align with BERA ethical guidelines (BERA, 2024). Data collection took place in a school in southwest England, selected due to established collaboration and the school’s implementation of a So SAFE! Programme which aligned closely with the study focus (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Fisher, Bauer, & Richards, 2016; Richards, Fisher, & Dyer, 2019).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
This study is expected to generate a nuanced account of how online privacy and security are understood and enacted around young people with intellectual disabilities in a contemporary school context, and how “protection” may be experienced as both enabling and limiting for participation and agency (Shakespeare et al., 1996; Chadwick, 2022; Caffo, 2021). Bringing together parent survey responses, teacher interviews, student-focused participant observation, and IEP document analysis, the findings are anticipated to illuminate convergences and tensions between home and school priorities, including how risk perceptions shape everyday digital boundaries and supervision practices (Bowen, 2009; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019). In line with Critical Disability Studies and the affirmation model, the study may point to moments where privacy is negotiated as a relational and ethical practice, not a purely technical issue, while also showing how institutional routines can reproduce exclusionary pressures within inclusive education (Goodley, 2013; Swain & French, 2000; Connor, 2024).
Theoretically, the analysis will contribute to understanding privacy as a site of governance and subject formation, where safeguarding discourses can normalise particular forms of “appropriate” digital behaviour (Foucault, 1977, 1978), and where privacy is assembled through the shifting relations among students, families, school practices, and technologies (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980; DeLanda, 2006). Practically, the study is likely to identify gaps between policy intentions and enacted provision, particularly regarding how online privacy and security are addressed within RSE for students with special educational needs (DfE, 2019; Dring-Turner, 2019; McCann et al., 2018).
These outcomes may inform more context-sensitive, rights-based approaches to digital safety education that balance protection with participation, and they will be of relevance to wider European and international debates on inclusion, children’s rights, and privacy in digital learning environments (United Nations, 2006; OECD, 2022).

References
British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). London: BERA.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books: New York Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume I: An introduction. Pantheon Books: New York.
Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631 644.
Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2021). Key concerns for critical disability studies. International Journal of Disability and Social Justice, 1(1), 5–25.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice (4th ed.). Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shakespeare, T. (2004). Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 8–21.
Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society, 15(4), 569–582.

04. Inclusive Education
Paper

Co-Creating Knowledge for Action: Disabled Students’ Experiences of Academic and Personal Support in UK Higher Education

Francesca Peruzzo¹, Suanne Gibson², Zeta Williams-Brown³, Kathrin Paal²

1: University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; 2: University of Plymouth; 3: University of Wolverhampton

Presenting Author: Gibson, Suanne; Williams-Brown, Zeta

This paper presents new empirical findings from the OfS-funded project Addressing Disparity of Support: Co-creating Continued Professional Development and Guidelines on Reasonable Adjustments with Disabled Students. The project responds to persistent structural inequalities in UK higher education, where disabled students continue to experience gaps in academic support, personal support, progression and belonging. Evidence from national datasets and sector analyses (DSUK, 2024; OfS, 2024) highlights inconsistent implementation of Reasonable Adjustment Plans (RAPs) and uneven institutional cultures of practice. These challenges mirror wider European concerns about equity of participation and accessibility in higher education, reinforcing the project’s relevance to international debates.

Against this backdrop, the project adopts an explicitly user-led, participatory research design, working in partnership with undergraduate disabled students across three universities. The research addresses three core questions:

How do disabled students experience academic and personal support and how do these experiences vary across institutions and disciplines?
What forms of knowledge emerge when disabled students are positioned as co-researchers, and how does this challenge institutional assumptions about Reasonable Adjustments?
How can co-produced survey and workshop data inform new professional learning frameworks and guidelines that transform institutional ‘knowing’ into ‘acting’?

These questions align directly with ECER 2026’s thematic concern with the changing conditions and potentials of education research. By foregrounding lived experience as a form of analytical knowledge, the project also speaks to long-standing European intellectual traditions of participatory, democratic and justice-oriented education research (May, 2024).

The project is grounded in critical disability studies, inclusive education theory, and participatory epistemologies (Peruzzo and Raaper, 2024; Goodley et al, 2025). These theoretical traditions centre lived experience as a legitimate and essential form of knowledge, problematise normative assumptions underpinning HE policy and practice, and call for relational forms of evidence-making. Further, the project explicitly draws on ‘inclusion by design’ and user-informed/user-led methodologies, which challenge the deficit-based framing historically embedded in HE structures.

ECER 2026’s theme is directly relevant to our project as it shows how conventional institutional knowledge practices (surveys, policy enactment, staff training) are insufficient when they are not co-produced with the people most affected by them. By adopting a collaborative and distributed epistemology, the study reveals the epistemic labour disabled students perform to navigate systems that are not designed for them, and highlights how this labour becomes a resource for institutional transformation when formally recognised within research processes.

The survey and workshop phases generated rich data not only on disabled students’ experiences but also on their analysis of institutional structures, as the fragmentation between academic and personal support, misinterpretation of RAPs, poor communication pathways, and emotional labour required to continuously advocate for reasonable conditions. These insights demonstrate how educational research can shift from extracting knowledge about disabled people to co-constructing knowledge with disabled people for the purposes of practical action.

In doing so, the project advances an ecological approach (Gibson et al, 2025), calling for joined-up practices and centring ‘disabled leadership, qualifying disabled students and staff as co-leaders, users and evaluators throughout, not just consultees’. The findings illustrate that institutional capacity to act is enhanced when research methodologies themselves are re-designed to redistribute authority, meaning that epistemic change becomes inseparable from structural change. The findings therefore offer transferrable insights for European higher education systems seeking to address inequality through structural rather than compensatory reforms.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The project applies a mixed-methods, participatory research design implemented across three UK universities. The methodology combines i) quantitative survey analysis (pre- and post-attitudinal surveys); ii) qualitative workshops (co-designed and co-facilitated with disabled student co-researchers); iii) iterative thematic analysis; iv) co-analysis sessions with disabled students, academic staff and student-services staff.
i) Quantitative survey analysis
A cross-institutional survey captured: experiences of academic support, effectiveness of personal support systems, satisfaction with RAP implementation, sense of belonging, confidence navigating institutional processes. The instrument was co-developed with student co-researchers to ensure relevance and accessibility. Quantitative items used Likert-scale measures of perceived adequacy of support and institutional responsiveness, while open-ended items elicited critical reflections. The survey achieved strong engagement across all three institutions, generating a robust dataset for comparative analysis.
ii) Qualitative workshops
Workshops were designed according to inclusive research principles: flexible participation formats (group discussion, written input, audio submissions), sensory-considerate environments, and co-facilitation by disabled students. Workshops examined lived experiences of RAPs, barriers to academic and personal support, and ideas for redesigning staff development. Importantly, the workshops did not treat students as subjects of study but as knowledge-producers who identify misalignments between policy and practice.
iii) Iterative co-analysis
Analysis proceeded through an iterative, participatory process. Disabled student co-researchers coded transcripts, identified thematic clusters, and challenged interpretations that reproduced deficit assumptions. Triangulation across survey datasets, workshop outputs and institutional documentation enabled cross-validation and exposure of contradictions between formal policy claims and lived experience realities.
The methodology is shaped by the project's commitment to epistemic justice, distributed expertise, and practical actionability. Research procedures were designed to directly influence the CPD programmes and institutional guidelines being developed. The approach therefore bridges ‘knowing’ and ‘acting’ by embedding research participation in mechanisms of organisational change, aligning with the ECER theme.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Across the survey and workshop phases, a coherent narrative emerged of disabled students navigating support systems marked by inconsistency, fragmentation and avoidable labour. Survey data revealed substantial variation in how effectively academic and personal support was experienced, particularly in the timeliness and clarity of RAP implementation. Many students described having to ‘project-manage’ their own adjustments, coordinating between departments. This pattern exposed gaps between institutional commitments to inclusion and day-to-day realities students encountered.
Workshop discussions expanded these findings, difficulties were rooted less in individual circumstances and more in structural design. Students highlighted misalignment between academic and personal support systems, where responsibility for adjustments was dispersed and poorly coordinated. The outcome was an over-reliance on staff goodwill rather than embedded processes, producing uneven experiences. Participants described the emotional and administrative labour required to repeatedly explain needs, chase communication, and interpret opaque decisions about adjustments. Despite mandatory training, staff knowledge remained inconsistent, contributing to misunderstandings of disability-related needs and variable implementation of reasonable adjustments. These insights echoed sector critiques that higher education still lacks a joined-up, co-created approach to disability equality.
Students articulated criteria for what meaningful and effective Reasonable Adjustments should entail, including anticipatory design, proactive communication, relational consistency, and recognition of fluctuating needs. These principles challenged the dominant compliance-driven framing, positioning support as a pedagogical and relational practice.
Importantly, these findings are shaping development of a national CPD programme for academic and student-services staff built around student-generated scenarios, indicators of effective support, and evaluation tools. Participants reported that workshops enabled collective sense-making and fostered institutional readiness for change, illustrating how participatory research can generate conditions for acting differently.
Because these structural challenges and principles of effective support resonate across European higher education systems, the findings have strong international transferability and contribute to a pan-European dialogue on inclusive academic and personal support.
References
Disabled Students UK, (2024). The 2024 Access Insight Report. Available at https://disabledstudents.co.uk/2024-access-insights-report-3/ [Last Accessed 23/01/2026]
Gibson, S., Williams-Brown, Z., Shute, J. and Westander, M., (2023) Not hearing, not engaging, and not happening: Elusive Inclusive Higher Education, it is time to reconsider sector practices in partnership with disabled student expertise. The Journal of Inclusive Practice in Further and Higher Education, 15(1), p.48.
Gibson, S., Peruzzo, F. and Williams‑Brown, Z. (2025) ‘Disability equality in higher education requires a joined‑up and co‑created approach’, Wonkhe, 16 December. Available at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/disability-equality-in-higher-education-requires-a-joined-up-and-co-created-approach/ Last Accessed 23/01/2026].
Goodley, Dan, Kirsty Liddiard and Rebecca Lawthom. 2025. “The Depathologising University.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 27(1): 120–133. https://doi. org/10.16993/sjdr.1240
May, E. (2024), Critical pedagogy and disability in participatory research: a review. Information and Learning Sciences 5 June 2024; 125 (7-8): 437–455.
Office for Students (OfS), (2024). Disabled Students. Retrievable at https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/equality-of-opportunity/equality-of-opportunity-risk-register-eorr/student-characteristics/disabled-students/ [Last Accessed 23/01/2026]
Peruzzo, F. and Raaper, R. (2024). The making of the activist disabled subject: disability and political activism in English higher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 45(2), pp.173-186.

04. Inclusive Education
Paper

Zombie Inclusion, Smart Exclusion: A Systematic Review (2015–2025) of Exclusion Mechanisms in Emerging EdTech

Fabio Dovigo

University of L’Aquila, Italy

Presenting Author: Dovigo, Fabio

Across 2015-2025, educational technology has shifted from peripheral classroom “tools” to infrastructures that classify, predict, monitor, and intervene in learning at scale (Williamson, Komljenovic, & Gulson, 2024). This includes learning analytics and datafication; generative AI, tutoring and recommender systems; platformization and cloud “stacks”; brokered procurement and “evidence” infrastructures; and, increasingly, technologies oriented to minds and bodies, emotion/attention sensing, neurotechnologies, and educational genomics. These developments are routinely framed as inclusion-enhancing, promising personalization, early identification, efficient support, and “evidence-based” decision-making. However, they may also reproduce exclusion through automated categorization, surveillance and psychodatafication, market dependency, and bio-determinist imaginaries of ability (Perrotta & Selwyn, 2020).

This proposal investigates how exclusion is produced by new trends in educational technology even when framed as inclusion, through a systematic review of empirical research published between 2015 and 2025. The review is theoretically anchored in the conceptual framework of “zombie education” (Dovigo, 2024), which approaches inclusive education as a contested “boundary object” stabilized by institutional routines and classificatory infrastructures that can become normalized, black-boxed, and politically resilient. Within this framework, exclusion is not merely a failure of inclusion; it is often generated through inclusion itself via two intertwined processes:

Immunization (managed inclusion): difference is “welcomed” by being broken into administratively manageable “dividuals” through labels, diagnostics, screening, and risk apparatuses, protecting institutional norms while performing inclusion (Esposito, 2011).
Burnout (over-inclusion): inclusion is amplified through incessant measurement, optimization, ranking, and repetition until difference becomes devalued and the system exhausts learners and educators (Han, 2015).

We extend these concepts from SEN policy analysis to contemporary edtech by treating technologies as apparatuses/assemblages creating configurations of platforms, data practices, policies, procurement routines, markets, and discourses that actively shape educational subjectivities and possibilities. This includes “nudge” logics and micro-interventions that subtly steer conduct through data-driven personalization (Braidotti, 2019), as well as algorithmic governance aligned with broader “societies of control” (Deleuze, 1992).

Research questions:
- RQ1: Which edtech trends (2015-2025) are most frequently linked to inclusion/equity claims, and how is “inclusion” defined and operationalized?
- RQ2: Through what sociotechnical mechanisms do these trends produce exclusionary pressures (immunization and/or burnout), and for whom (e.g., SEN/disability, minoritized learners, low-income communities)?
- RQ3: What inclusion-enhancing opportunities are evidenced, and what enabling conditions (design, pedagogy, governance, resourcing) recur?

The objective is a critical synthesis showing how “inclusive” edtech can become zombie inclusion, whit inclusion animated in language and policy, while exclusion is reproduced through infrastructures of classification, evidence-making, and political economy.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
We conducted a systematic review of literature published 2015–2025, reported using PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). Searches were conducted in ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and PubMed (to capture neurotechnology/genomics-related educational research). We included peer-reviewed empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods) and high-relevance review studies. In addition, we included selected grey literature and policy-facing reports where integral to understanding edtech trends (e.g., platform governance, brokerage/evidence infrastructures, neuro/genomics governance).
Inclusion criteria: (a) educational setting (K-12, higher education, adult/vocational); (b) a defined edtech trend (AI/generative AI; learning analytics; platform/cloud infrastructures; brokered procurement/evidence systems; surveillance/SEL/psychodata; neurotechnology; educational genomics); and (c) explicit engagement with inclusion/exclusion, equity, SEN/disability, marginalization, or distributive effects, informed by intersectional framings of inclusion (Thomas & Macnab, 2022). Exclusion criteria: purely technical papers without educational implications; studies outside 2015–2025; items lacking sufficient methodological detail.
Screening and reliability: two-stage screening (title/abstract; full text). A subset was dual-screened; disagreements were resolved through documented decision rules; a PRISMA flow diagram was produced.
Quality appraisal: MMAT (2018) for heterogeneous evidence, supplemented by CASP for qualitative studies when appropriate (Hong et al., 2018; CASP, 2018).
Data extraction: technology type; educational sector; governance/business model (platform/cloud; vendor; brokerage); populations and learner groups; operational definition of inclusion; outcomes/claims; risks/harms; and forms of classification/measurement (screening, prediction, profiling, ranking), including “nudge” mechanisms where present (Decuypere & Harttong, 2023).
Synthesis: thematic synthesis structured by immunization and burnout mechanisms, with an additional mapping of assemblage features (discourses, institutions, laws, platforms, data flows, markets) to show how exclusion is co-produced across sociotechnical configurations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The review produced an evidence-informed risk-opportunity map indicating when edtech supports inclusion and when it generates zombie inclusion, with inclusive intent and discourse sustained while exclusion is operationally reproduced.
Inclusion-enhancing opportunities (conditional rather than automatic) cluster around accessibility and assistive supports; translation and multimodal scaffolds; targeted supports embedded in inclusive pedagogy and relational classroom practices; and participatory governance/design practices that de-black-box systems and redistribute decision-making power.
Exclusion-producing risks cluster around two main dynamics:
Immunization via datafied classification: AI and analytics, SEL/psychodata, attention/emotion sensing, neuro-measures, and educational genomics may intensify labeling, prediction, and sorting, reframing inequality as individual (or biological) deficit and legitimizing differential expectations and allocations (Morris et al., 2024).
Burnout via infrastructural optimization: platform/cloud stacks, brokered evidence regimes, and investor-driven scaling may amplify metric saturation and “evidence” performativity, increase compliance/data labor, narrow educational aims to measurable proxies, and divert resources from relational and structural inclusion work, especially under austerity conditions (Mau, 2019). The “hype–uncertainty” dynamics of algorithmic surveillance can further accelerate adoption while muting contestability (Mackenzie, 2024), deepening the conditions for burnout and democratic deficit (Foucault, 2008).
The principal contribution is a conceptual model of smart exclusion, showing how emerging edtech extends immunization and burnout through sociotechnical assemblages, aligned with critical perspectives on what counts as “critical” in edtech research (Selwyn et al., 2021).
References
Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press.
Decuypere, M., Harttong, S. (2023) Edunudge. Learning, Media and Technology 48(1): 138–152.
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. Pourparlers. Editions Minuit.
Dovigo, F. (2024). Towards a Zombie Theory of Inclusive Education: A Discourse Analysis of Special Educational Needs Policies in Five European Countries. European Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(2).
Esposito, R. (2011). Immunitas: the protection and negation of life. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (2008). The courage of truth: The government of self and others II. Lectures at the College de France, 1983–1984. Palgrave MacMillan.
Han, B. C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.
Hong, Q. N., et al. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), Version 2018: User guide. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2018). CASP qualitative checklist. Mackenzie, A. (2024). The secret life of data: Navigating Hype and Uncertainty in the Age of Algorithmic Surveillance. The MIT Press.
Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social. Polity Press. Morris, T. T., von Hinke, S., Pike, L., Ingram, N. R., Davey Smith, G., Munafò, M. R., & Davies, N. M. (2024). Implications of the genomic revolution for education research and policy. British Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 923–943.
Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Perrotta, C., & Selwyn, N. (2020). Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational understanding of AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 251–269.
Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A., & Perrotta, C. (2021). What is ‘critical’ in critical studies of edtech? Three responses. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 243–249.
Thomas, G., & Macnab, N. (2022). Intersectionality, diversity, community and inclusion: untangling the knots. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(3), 227-244.
Williamson, B., Komljenovic, J., & Gulson, K. N. (Eds.). (2024). World yearbook of education 2024: Digitalisation of education in the era of algorithms, automation and artificial intelligence. Routledge.