Conference Agenda

We live in difficult times. Knowing and Acting becomes a complicated relationship, where political repression globally is on the rise, people are threatened, when expressing their democratic opinions or when they try to protect their neighbours. In times of fascism rising, in times of socio-political polarization, ecological crisis, and rapid technological transformation, this symposia trilogy brings together scholars to reflect on the potentials of knowing and acting in the setting of education for democracy, democracy learning and democratic experience as well as cultural democracy.

In our triple symposia, democracy and organisational democracy is understood as an embodied, contested, and continuously unfolding social practice (Butler 2015; Dewey 1916; hooks 1994; Negt 1971, 2004; Papadopoulos 2013) integrating knowing and acting. Emphasizing becoming over being means that actors like youth, educators, policymakers, and researchers, participate in democratic becoming, co-produce knowledge and transform educational settings and institutions into a space of resistance, possibility, and hope.

Like this, our symposia trilogy intends to reimagine how democracy can be cultivated as a lived, relational, and continuously evolving practice—one that actively shapes the complex challenges of our era. Centered on the concept of democracy-as-becoming, the contributions explore how the organization of education can function both as a site and a process for co-creating democratic futures. Drawing from the three Horizon Europe sister projects—AECED, CCLAB and DEMOCRAT—the triple symposia examine and analyse how democracy-as-becoming can be analysed, understood and fostered across institutional levels.

Examining how citizenship education is organized and provided, the governance structures and national curricula to school and classroom practices are discussed and the multiple relationships between knowing and Acting will be reflected here: As described in the special call of organisational education, we will ask, whether we identify the relational patterns outlined there: Is knowing and acting in a productive relation in the organisational settings and institutional strategies, we try to open and support culture change? In which way organisations and governance shape and organize the potential transformation by democratic approaches and citizenship education?

The papers of the first symposium reflect on the contextual embeddings, on the ways, how organisations, regional networks and multilayer governance systems refer to the intention to live democratically and educate towards democracy-as-becoming. This first symposium reflects on the ways of learning in, of and between organization becoming relevant here.

We ask: Is knowing and acting in a productive relation in the organisational settings and institutional strategies, we try to open and support culture change? In which way organisations and governance shape and organize the potential transformation by democratic approaches and citizenship education? The papers of the first symposium reflect on the contextual embeddings, on the ways, how organisations, regional networks and multilayer governance systems refer to the intention to live democratically and educate towards democracy-as-becoming.

This first symposium addresses the organisational dimensions of democracy-as-becoming. The presenters discuss (re-)imagining relational futures in organizing education toward the entangledness and dynamics to be observed here. The key issue is in which ways to organize, govern and arrange citizenship education in terms of ideations, policies, institutions, actors and practices.

The presentations cover different aspects of it. More conceptual and policy-oriented contributions are complemented by discussions discussing the governance, organization, actors and strategies in citizenship education, showing, in which ways the institutional structures shape citizenship education based on empirical insights. Also, the approaches and methodologies in organizing citizenship education are discussed, with a focus on the living labs as dynamic spaces for experimenting with co-creation and democratic practices in education. Cocreating with teachers and students allows educational innovations to emerge and school communities to be cultivated.

This presentation conceptualizes democracy as a dynamic and continuously co-created practice shaped by the interplay of ideations, citizen competences, organizational arrangements, and agency. Drawing on contemporary challenges facing Western democracies—including mediatization, technocratization, fragmentation, securitization, and digitalisation—the chapter argues that renewing democratic citizenship requires both a clarified ideational foundation and realistic pathways for practice. Ideations, understood as the normative, cognitive, and symbolic constructions that guide policy and institutional behaviour, structure how democratic citizenship is imagined, justified, and contested. They generate the parameters within which citizens, policymakers, educators, and institutions interpret their roles and possibilities for action. At the same time, democratic citizenship is enacted through practices that emerge in personal agency, interpersonal interactions, and political-institutional settings. Citizenship as lived practice is characterized by tensions—between autonomy and community, rights and obligations, horizontality and verticality—which citizens must navigate in their daily engagements. The chapter highlights a competence-based model of responsible democratic citizenship that includes participation, deliberation, judgement, and democratic resilience, arguing that these competences form the basis for constructive civic agency amid digital information noise, polarization, and societal uncertainty. Linking ideations and practices also requires attention to organizational and governance arrangements. Citizenship education—and democratic governance more broadly—cannot rely solely on hierarchical control; instead, they evolve through multi-level collaboration, co-creation, frontline implementation, and iterative feedback between citizens and institutions. Policies and governance structures signal societal expectations, shape opportunity spaces, and influence whether citizens perceive democratic engagement as meaningful and feasible. By integrating ideational analysis with practice-level insights, the chapter demonstrates how democratic citizenship can be renewed through balanced normative orientations, strengthened civic competences, and collaborative governance models. Democracy endures and develops not as a fixed institutional design but as an evolving ecosystem sustained by reflective ideas, empowered citizens, and adaptive organizational forms.

Dewey, J. (2011). Democracy and Education. Simon & Brown. Göhlich, M.; Novotný, P.: Revsbæk, L.; Schröer, A.; Weber, S. M.; Yi, B. J. (2018). Research Memorandum Organizational Education. Studia Paedagogica, 23(2), pp. 205–215. Hytti, M., Sandström, N., Mallon, B., Eren, E., Kalev L. (2024). Outline of a European Curriculum for Education for Democracy. DEMOCRAT_Deliverable.4.1, https://democrat-horizon.eu/deliverables/. Kalev, L, Surová, S and Vahter, M (2023). Editorial: Ideational aspects of migration and integration policy, politics and governance. Front. Hum. Dyn. 5:1222788. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2023.1222788 Kalev, L., Hytti, M., Hallik, M., & Sandström, N. (2025). Citizenship Education for Contemporary Democracy: Challenges and Gaps in Six European Countries. Societies, 15(12), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15120355 Krüger, K.; Hallik, M.; Kalev, L.; Kostakos, G.; Toscano, B. & Virchow, F. (2024) Conceptual Framework and Vision: Responsible Democratic Citizenship and Education for Democracy. DEMOCRAT_Deliverable.2.1, https://democrat-horizon.eu/deliverables/. Lührmann, A.; Merkel, W. (2023, eds.). Resilience of Democracy: Responses to Illiberal and Authoritarian Challenges. London, New York: Routledge. Mathews-Schultz, A. L., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2024). Teaching American Government and Politics: Centering Democratic Citizenship and Engagement in the Introductory Classroom. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar. Scharmer, O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

This paper offers a conceptual analysis of the evolving relationship between education and democracy, tracing how the field has expanded beyond traditional civic education toward broader understandings of democratic competence. It examines the conceptual network formed by Education for Democracy and related approaches, considering how major educational policy frameworks and shifting societal conditions, such as polarisation, digitalisation and democratic fragility, shape current debates. The paper then outlines key historical and theoretical developments in democratic education, showing how changing notions of democracy, citizenship and participation, including the emergence of global and digital citizenship and the move toward competence-based education, have reconfigured expectations for what and how learners should understand, experience and enact in democratic contexts. These developments make visible some ongoing tensions concerning the purposes and processes of learning for democracy and the need for more transformative approaches. Building on insights from the learning sciences and social and political theory, the paper conceptualises democratic competence as a developmental and situated process grounded in cognitive, emotional, social, ethical and reflective forms of meaning-making. This perspective underscores that while building on basic political and civic knowledge, democratic learning involves qualitative transformation, particularly in contexts characterised by diversity, uncertainty and disagreement. This is also related to interactive pedagogies and practice-related experiences. The paper further considers how democratic competence can be supported pedagogically and structurally, examining approaches that integrate deliberative, dialogical and collaborative practices with broader democratic learning ecologies across schools, communities and digital environments. It ultimately offers a refined conceptual foundation for interpreting the democracy–education nexus and for understanding the conditions under which democratic learning can take shape.

Dewey, J. (1916). Nationalizing education. Journal of Education, 84(16), 425-428. Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard educational review, 40(2), 205-225. Formenti, L., & Hoggan‐Kloubert, T. (2023). Transformative learning as societal learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2023(177), 105-118. Hoggan-Kloubert, T., & Mabrey III, P. E. (2022). Civic education as transformative education. Journal of Transformative Education, 20(3), 167-175. Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and education, 1(1), 3-10. Mälkki, K., Mäkinen, M., & Forsell, J. (2022). Revitalizing reflection in teacher education: A digital tool for reflection as a gentle trigger for transformation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Learning for Transformation (pp. 301-331). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Mälkki, K. (2019). Coming to grips with edge-emotions: The gateway to critical reflection and transformative learning. European perspectives on transformation theory, 59-73.

This presentation explores how democracy is increasingly conceptualised in European curriculum policy as a dynamic, relational process of becoming, rather than a fixed set of civic competencies. Drawing on comparative curriculum analysis and on Irish policy frameworks including Aistear, the Primary Curriculum Framework, Junior Cycle reform, Politics & Society, ESD to 2030, and Ireland’s Global Citizenship Education Strategy, the chapter argues that democratic agency emerges through learning pathways, pedagogical practices, and school cultures rather than through discrete instructional content. Across Europe, democratic themes appear not as isolated subjects but as distributed curricular thread, participation, critical thinking, dialogue, sustainability and human right, that invite learners to actively construct their democratic identities. This positioning reflects a broader shift towards understanding democracy as a lifelong, situated, participatory process shaped within educational ecosystems. The analysis also identifies key tensions, including assessment structures that privilege recall over relational learning and rhetorical commitments to democracy not always matched in pedagogical practice. The chapter concludes by proposing curriculum as a crucial ecosystem of democratic becoming, where policy, pedagogy and lived experience converge to shape emerging democratic subjectivities across diverse European contexts.

Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., & Ten Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship education. Educational research review, 9, 158-173. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined–A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170-183. Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., & Villalba, E. (2012). Learning citizenship through social participation outside and inside school: An international, multilevel study of young people’s learning of citizenship. British educational research journal, 38(3), 419-446. Jerome, L., Hyder, F., Hilal, Y., & Kisby, B. (2024). A systematic literature review of research examining the impact of citizenship education on active citizenship outcomes. Review of Education, 12(2), e3472. Lin, A. (2015). Citizenship education in American schools and its role in developing civic engagement: A review of the research. Educational Review, 67(1), 35-63. Teegelbeckers, J. Y., Nieuwelink, H., & Oostdam, R. J. (2023). School-based teaching for democracy: A systematic review of teaching methods in quantitative intervention studies. Educational Research Review, 39, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100511 Tonge, J., Mycock, A., & Jeffery, B. (2012). Does citizenship education make young people better-engaged citizens?. Political studies, 60(3), 578-602.

Almost without exception, student councils are part of democratic education in schools in many Western European countries, but it seems that the role of student councils in everyday school life may remain superficial. A Nordic study published in 2025 highlighted the need to develop structures for participation and support the growth of students into active citizens at a time when democracy is increasingly facing new challenges. In several countries, such as Finland, school student councils are a central and statutory mechanism for implementing democratic education and increasing participation, but their activities have previously been relatively little studied. In this paper, we examine how the educational policy guidance documents of the three countries participating in the I-CIVIC project, i.e. Finland, Estonia and France, have provided for democratic education and student participation as part of teaching and upbringing in basic education, and the different ways in which students are guided towards participation and adopting democratic values as part of everyday school life. The research questions we will answer in this paper are as follows: RQ1: How do legislation and educational documents, such as curricula oblige comprehensive schools to promote democratic education and student participation? RQ2: How are democratic values and participation implemented as part of student council activities in schools, according to students? For the first research question, our research data consists of educational policy documents from the three countries mentioned above. They are analyzed qualitatively using document analysis. To answer the second research question, we collect data from approximately 1,000 students (approximately 300 comprehensive school students from all three countries) using a questionnaire, in which we map how student councils function as part of democratic education and the implementation of participation in the country in question. The collected data is analyzed using abductive content analysis. According to our preliminary results, there are differences between countries in how student participation and democratic education are regulated. In addition, there are differences within the country in how student participation and growth in democratic values are guided as part of student council activities. At the end of the paper, we consider what could be the next practices that could be used to guide student participation and commitment to democratic values. We also considered how these next practices could be addressed in teacher education so that democratic values would be implemented as an integral part of the everyday operations of schools.

Neary, A. (2020). Critical imaginaries of empathy in teaching and learning about diversity in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(4), 444-458. Silke, C., Davitt, E., Flynn, N., Shaw, A., and Dolan, P. (2021). The Activating Social Empathy School Evaluation 2021. Galway: UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway. Correia, N., Camilo, C., Aguiar, C., & Amaro, F. (2019). Children's right to participate in early childhood education settings: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 76-88. Lister, R. (2008). Inclusive citizenship, gender and poverty: Some implications for education for citizenship. Citizenship teaching and learning, 4(1), 3-19. Griebler, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Student councils: a tool for health promoting schools? Characteristics and effects. Health education, 112(2), 105-132. Pontes, A. I., Henn, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Youth political (dis) engagement and the need for citizenship education: Encouraging young people’s civic and political participation through the curriculum. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 14(1), 3-21. Whiteley, P. (2014). Does citizenship education work? Evidence from a decade of citizenship education in secondary schools in England. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(3), 513-535.