Conference Agenda

The demands and expectations placed on school education are growing across Europe. This is putting increasing pressure on the key players in the complex school systems. School principals and teachers have to deal with a dynamic environment and a multitude of challenges relating to educational reforms, school life, collegial cooperation, heterogenity, etc. – and they are under constant scrutiny. Parents expect schools and their staff to provide reliable support for their children – but they are uncertain due to the dynamic environment in which schools find themselves and the intransparency of everyday school life, which they face as “concerned outsiders”. Student teachers must acquire extensive knowledge and action-oriented skills relevant to the future as part of their training – but in a time of high pressure for reform and demands for flexibility, it seems equally important to be able to rely on reliable values. What does all this mean for the development and learning of this educational organisation (Göhlich, 2018)?

All the actors in the school environment reflected upon in this symposium (school principals, teachers, parents) can be considered “vulnerable” (MacKenzie 2014) insofar as they find themselves in an institutional environment in which expectations and requirements are often not met or whose fulfillment places (too) high demands on the actors. Against this background, the contributions to this symposium focus jointly on the question of how the vulnerability of various actors in the school system is empirically represented and how this vulnerability is related to their trust.

On the one hand, it is assumed that vulnerability cannot be determined objectively, but must be assessed in relation to the situation and the individual (Hamm et al. 2024; Schoorman et al. 2025; Bormann et al. 2025; Misztal 2012). This is because actors have different resources and strategies at their disposal and therefore perceive themselves as vulnerable to varying degrees in similar situations.

On the other hand, trust can be seen as a resource associated with vulnerability: the willingness to make oneself vulnerable is considered a central element of trust (Rousseau et al. 1998). So how does subjective situational vulnerability affect trust? And how can this be observed empirically in the interaction between the actors under consideration? How and in what ways do different actors in the school environment (principals, teachers, parents) actually feel vulnerable? To what extent are their trust and (professional) motivation challenged, and how does this affect their (professional) performance and attitudes?

The individual contributions to the symposium are based on these overarching questions and explore them in greater depth from the perspective of school leadership research, research on teacher competence, and research on the relationship between parents and schools. All contributions rely on empirical studies that analyze the relationship between vulnerability and trust. The results of the studies presented here are discussed in terms of their theoretical and empirical implications for a comprehensive model of the situation-specific and dynamic relationship between vulnerability and trust in the school context.

Trust is a cornerstone of school leadership, influencing collaboration, professional learning, and teaching quality. Research indicates that trust between principals and teachers strongly correlates with a positive school climate and improved student learning (Price, 2015; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Trust involves an ethical dimension of openness and responsiveness. Drawing on Løgstrup’s (1994, 2007) theory of the ethical demand, this study examines how vulnerability serves as a precondition for trust in principals’ everyday leadership and how this is perceived by teachers in the Swedish school context. Using a narrative approach, it captures how the relationship of vulnerability and trust in the context of school leadership is perceived by teachers. To show trust is to lay oneself open (Løgstrup, 1994), which entails a willingness to be vulnerable and take risks, believing the other will respond in a trustworthy manner (Rousseau et al., 1998; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2000; Blom, 2022). Positive vulnerability involves honesty, openness to learning, and acceptance of uncertainty, enabling growth and reducing ignorance (Mayer, Le Fevre & Robinson, 2017; Gilson, 2014). Conversely, negative vulnerability may lead to defensiveness and ineffective behavior, undermining trust and collaboration. For principals, modeling vulnerability requires courage to advance often emotionally charged issues such as cooperation, professional development and school improvement. This responsiveness reflects an ethical obligation to caring for others (Løgstrup, 1994) and fosters relationships in which trust can flourish. Related concepts such as interdependence and epistemic vulnerability (Satama et al., 2023; Gilson, 2014) highlight the relational nature of leadership. The purpose of this study is to explore how Swedish principals describe vulnerability and responsiveness in their leadership and how this complies with teachers' perceptions. The study adopts a narrative approach, using semi-structured interviews with 5–10 principals and 5–10 teachers from strategically selected schools facing significant challenges, for example socio-economic disadvantages and consistently low academic results. The participating schools include students aged 13–15. Data will be analyzed through qualitative content analysis to reveal the significance of vulnerability and trust in school leadership in the teachers’ narrations. Theoretically, the study applies Løgstrup’s view of trust and the ethical demand to care for others. In practical terms, it aims to deepen understanding of how vulnerability and trust interact in leadership and to identify aspects that enable or constrain these dynamics. The findings may inform leadership practices that strengthen collaboration, professional learning, and school development—particularly in challenging contexts.

Blom, T. (2022). Tid för tillit: Kritiska ögonblick i rektorers vardagsarbete. [Time for trust: Critical moments in principals' everyday work]. Karlstad University Studies. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1653929/FULLTEXT01.pdf Gilson, E. C. (2014). Beyond Bounded Selves and Places: The Relational Making of Vulnerability and Security. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 49(3), 229–242. Løgstrup, K. E. (1994). Det etiska kravet. Daidalos. (Original 1956) Løgstrup, K. E. (2007). Beyond the Ethical Demand. University of Notre Dame Press. Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D.M. and Robinson, V.M.J. (2017). How leaders communicate their vulnerability: implications for trust building. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 221-235. Price, H. E. (2015). Principals’ social interactions with teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 116-139. Satama, S., & Seeck, H., & Garcia-Lorenzo, L. (2023). Embracing relational vulnerabilities at the top: a study of managerial identity work amidst the insecurities of the self. Culture and Organization, 30(4), 442-461. Stern, R. (2020). Vulnerability, Trust and Overdemandingness: Reflections from Løgstrup. International Journal of Philosophical Stidies, 28(5), 603-623. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.

The educational relationship with parents is one of the central challenges of pedagogical professionalism for teachers (Gartmeier et al., 2017). It is a significant factor influencing the successful development of children (Froiland & Davison 2014). Because in structurally induced power asymmetries parents act as „affected outsiders” in their interactions with schools, they can be considered as vulnerable (Gartmeier et al., 2017). In particular, the transition from primary to secondary school can be seen as a source of parental vulnerability. Although parents must select “preferred schools” for their children, they have not influence on whether their preference is granted – rather, they depend on administrative decisions. Trust as a social mechanism allows them to remain capable of acting in such a complex situation. Based on the concept of situational, subjective vulnerability (Hamm et al., 2024), this article examines the relationship between vulnerability and parental trust in schools and teachers. In the qualitative longitudinal study, 41 parents whose child has to pass over from primary to secondary school were interviewed about their attitudes towards trust to schools and teachers using episodic interviews (Flick, 2011). The interviews took place at the time of the parents’ compulsory school registration (T1) and after the child’s first two months at secondary school (T2). Data from the third survey point (T3, end of the first school year at secondary school) are not included in the article. The interviews, transcribed according to simplified rules, were evaluated using qualitative content analysis with typification (Kelle & Kluge, 2010; Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2024). The results show both different expressions of parents’ subjectively experienced vulnerability and different forms of experienced trust(worthiness). based on the qualitative content analysis, a typology of parental vulnerability in relation to trust-relevant experiences was developed. It comprises five vulnerability-trust-types. The paper discusses the recent results regarding longitudinal trust regulation (van der Werff et al., 2019): To what extent does perceived vulnerability represent a starting point for parents to place new trust (in school and teachers)? Moreover, negatively perceived experiences at secondary school will be discussed concerning mechanisms of dissonance reduction according to the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1978) and in relation to professionalisation discourses of schools and teachers.

Festinger, L. (1978). Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. Verlag Hans Huber. Flick, U. (2011). Das Episodische Interview. In: G. Oelerich, H.-U. Otto (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Soziale Arbeit (273–280). VS. Froiland, J.M., Davison, M.L. (2014). Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 1–17. Gartmeier, M.; Aich, G.; Sauer, D.; Bauer, J. (2017). "Who's afraid of talking to parents?" Professionalism in parent-teacher conversations. Journal for educational research online, 9(3), 5-11. Hamm, J.A.; Möllering, G.; Darcy, K. (2024). Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 14(2), S. 237–255. Kelle, U., Kluge, S. (2010, 2nd ed.). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. VS Verlag. Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa. van der Werff, L., Legood, A., Buckley, F., Weibel, A., Cremer, D. de (2019). Trust motivation: The self-regulatory processes underlying trust decisions. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(2-3), 99-123.

School is seen as an institution that can empower children while also supporting community and the trust required by communities (Lazarová & Pol 2021). At same time, schools make children's diversity visible. When education covers a broad diversity of children, vulnerability (Misztal 2011) is always included. Equality and equity are important values in Finnish society. The Finnish education system also aims to promote equality. The high generalized trust towards education in Finland relies on high autonomy of local municipalities, schools and individual teachers (Tirri 2014; Välimaa 2021). Teachers are expected to be able to build trust in several levels e.g. within child groups and in teacher-student relationships (Lazarová & Pol 2021; Niedlich et al. 2021). Since teachers have been identified as key figures in building trust, this study focuses on student teachers. Finnish teacher education is seen as an ecosystem that builds trust and autonomy (Chung 2022) and yet those who are studying to become teachers report uncertainty when considering heterogeneous student groups (Paju et al. 2016; Takala et al. 2023). This study examines how the values of student teachers and their descriptions of actions based on their values are linked to terms of trust. In addition, vulnerability and trust will be analysed in their descriptions of actions. Data consist of 122 open-ended questions of an electronical questionnaire. Participants were first year teacher students. They were asked about their professional values and how they could promote in practice their values. The descriptions of children's diversity and individual needs were interpreted as being linked to vulnerability. Using qualitative content analysis, the differences in the meaning of values and their links to trust were compared. The preliminary results indicate that students’ values are associated with trust. Trust itself was seen as a guiding value of work. The descriptions of actions according to the values were primarily related to children, but also to parents, work communities and, more broadly, to society. A significant dimension of building trust, keeping promises and acting in accordance with one's words also emerged during the analysis.

Chung, J. (2023). Research-informed teacher education, teacher autonomy and teacher agency: the example of Finland. London Review of Education, 21(1), 13. Lazarová, B. & Pol, M. (2021). Issues of Trust in the Implementation of Inclusion in Czech Schools. European Education, 53(3-4), 231-245. Misztal, B. A. (2012). Trust: Acceptance of, precaution against and cause of vulnerability. In M. Sasaki & R. M. Marsh (Eds.), Trust: Comparative Perspectives (209-236). Brill. Niedlich, S., Kallfass, A., Pohle, S. & Bormann, I. (2021). A Comprehensive View of Trust in Education: Conclusions from a Systematic Literature Review. Review of Education, 9(1), 124-158. Paju, B., Räty, L., Pirttimaa, R. & Kontu, E. (2016). The school staff's perception of their ability to teach special educational needs pupils in inclusive settings in Finland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 801-815. Takala, M., Pihlaja, P. & Viljamaa, E. (2023). “Yes it’s good but…” - student teachers’ inclusion narratives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(7), 1056-1068. Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 600-609. Välimaa, J. (2022). Trust in Finnish Education: A historical perspective. European Education, 53(3-4), 168-180.