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, 20:19:00 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
07 SES 12 C: Education for Social Justice in Contexts of Conflict
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Education under Constraint: Prisoners’ Experiences of Studying in Correctional Settings Stockholm University, Sweden Presenting Author:In many Western democracies, education in prison is considered vital for the rehabilitation and societal reintegration of incarcerated individuals (Behan, 2014; Halimi et al., 2017; Novek, 2019; Roth et al., 2017). Participation in education is linked to lower recidivism rates, better employment prospects, and enhanced public safety. Previous research has also shown that it can improve prisoners’ well-being by providing a sense of purpose and agency, as well as mitigating the emotional strain of imprisonment (Behan, 2014; Bhatti, 2010; Bovill & Anderson, 2020; Brosens et al., 2020; Costelloe, 2003; Panitsides & Moussiou, 2019; Roth et al., 2017; Tewksbury & Stengel, 2006). Despite education’s positive impact on the individual and society, the provision of education for prisoners has become subject to changing political climates and ideologies. This is also visible in Sweden, which is the country under investigation in this presentation. In recent years, Sweden has adopted a more punitive approach to crime by implementing harsher criminal policies with longer prison sentences and by restricting the range and content of educational opportunities for inmates (Kriminalvården, 2019, 2023). This underscores a commitment to punishment rather than rehabilitation, reflecting a turn away from democracy and social justice seen elsewhere in Europe. A perspective largely absent in public debate and academic research on education in prison is the voices of prisoners, despite being at the center of all educational efforts. I argue that it is crucial to include prisoners’ perspectives and experiences in order to generate academic knowledge that can truly benefit both prisoners and society, as well as promote social justice. My presentation, therefore, explores education in prison from the perspective of prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals through interviews and questionnaires. I will provide insights into how (former) inmates experience this unique environment for education and the challenges and possibilities they encounter. In addition, I explore why inmates choose to participate in education while incarcerated and the value they ascribe to it. The research questions are as follow:
Studying while incarcerated is strictly regulated, as it must adhere to the prison’s overarching rules and security protocols. To analyze how prison conditions shape inmates’ participation in education, the theory of practice architecture (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2023; Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017) is applied as theoretical framework. It provides the analytical tools to examine how correctional arrangements can both constrain and enable educational experiences. Through the analysis, we can gain insights into prison as a complex and multifaceted setting for education. This study, although focused on Sweden, has broader international relevance, as the provision of education is framed by prison regulations and security considerations that are inherent to the prison as an institution, regardless of country. It stimulates reflection on how to create meaningful learning experiences that provide prisoners with the knowledge and skills to lead an independent and law-abiding life. This, in turn, can contribute to more democratic, just, and safe societies – an aim pursued by many countries, yet increasingly challenged by polycrises. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The empirical material consists of 15 semi-structured interviews with former inmates who had studied high school courses, vocational education, or higher education during their incarceration. The interviews lasted on average around 35 minutes and were conducted via phone or video call. A semi-structured interview guide was used, covering questions relating to the reasons for participating in education and the study experiences while incarcerated. As personal semi-structured interviews with current inmates were not possible due to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s strained situation with overcrowding, open-ended questionnaires were distributed instead. In total, 108 open-ended questionnaires were collected from current inmates studying high school courses. The questionnaires covered the reasons for participating, what the students liked and disliked about the studies, what support they received, and how studying in prison differs from studying outside prisons. The analysis of the data is inspired by qualitative content analysis, as described by Elo and Kyngäs (2008), which includes coding, creating categories, and abstraction. I coded all material with the help of the NVivo software and created categories that were iteratively refined by collapsing, renaming, and creating new categories. After generating categories, the theory of practice architecture was applied to understand how the correctional setting shapes inmates’ reasoning around education and their study experiences. My research is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and follows the guidelines on good research practice by the Swedish Research Council (2007) and the All European Academies (2017). During the research process, continuous moral and ethical reflections were made in order to protect the research participants’ integrity. This is especially important in prison-related research, as research participants can be considered a vulnerable group. Although my interview participants were no longer incarcerated, some of them were in a halfway house (i.e. still serving part of their sentence within the prison system) and individuals with a criminal record, which oftentimes is stigmatized. It was therefore important to ensure that participation was fully voluntary and that all data were handled with care and confidentiality in order to prevent any additional social harm. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings For some interviewees, being in prison was the driving force for participating in education, as they would not have started studying if they had not been incarcerated. They shared how they were unable or unwilling to participate in education outside prison due to familial and work obligations or engagement in destructive lifestyles. Some respondents participated in education without personal interest, as prison administration mandated participation, or because other activities, such as prison work, were considered a worse alternative than education. Other research participants actively chose education, as they had an interest in education even prior to the conviction. Another common reason to participate was the wish to improve employment prospects and to show future employers that the time in prison was used for something meaningful. The study experiences were affected by the specific prisons the research participants were located at, their security class, attitudes of the staff, length of the sentence, as well as the type of education and the specific subject. One limitation mentioned by several research participants was security considerations, as they, for example, could not get permission to visit the library or to participate in study activities other than lectures. Access to the internet was also restricted, which made it difficult to search for information or to contact their teachers when needed. Prison-related issues, such as conflicts between inmates, searches, and lockdowns, could also frequently disrupt the studies. At the same time, for some students, studying in prison was experienced as easier due to fewer distractions. Many research participants also shared that it was fun and interesting to study and that their teachers were engaged and supportive. Studying while incarcerated made the participants feel good and accomplished, highlighting the positive effect that education has on inmates’ well-being. References Behan, C. (2014). Learning to Escape: Prison Education, Rehabilitation and the Potential for Transformation. Journal of Prison Education & Reentry, 1(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.25771/8039 Bhatti, G. (2010). Learning behind bars: Education in prisons. Teaching and Teacher Education, Anthropological Perspectives on Learning and Teaching: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Revisited, 26(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.020 Bovill, M., & Anderson, C. (2020). Changing the Subject: A Community of Philosophical Inquiry in Prisons. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 11(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.ojs981 Brosens, D., Croux, F., Claes, B., Vandevelde, S., & De Donder, L. (2020). An Organizational Analysis of Foreign National Prisoners’ Participation Possibilities in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Prison Education Reentry, 6(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.25771/mh4f-0996 Costelloe, A. (2003). Third level education in Irish prisons: Who participates and why? https://oro.open.ac.uk/63999/1/27532740.pdf Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Grootenboer, P., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2023). The Theory of Practice Architectures. Researching Practices. SpringerBriefs in Education. Halimi, M., Brosens, D., De Donder, L., & Engels, N. (2017). Learning during Imprisonment: Prisoners’ Motives to Educational Participation within a Remand Prison in Belgium. Journal of Correctional Education, 68(1), 3–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26508015 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer Science+Business Media. Kriminalvården. (2019). Beslut avseende avveckling av högskolestudier i anstalt (KV 2019-23133). Kriminalvården. (2023). Kriminalvårdens kapacitetsbehov till följd av Tidöavtalet. Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice Theory and the Theory of Practice Architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring Education and Professional Practice (pp. 1–30). Springer. Novek, E. (2019). Making meaning: Reflections on the act of teaching in prison. Review of Communication, 19(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1554824 Panitsides, E. A., & Moussiou, E. (2019). What does it take to motivate inmates to participate in prison education? An exploratory study in a Greek prison. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714198406 Roth, B. B., Westrheim, K., Jones, L., & Manger, T. (2017). Academic Self-Efficacy, Educational Motives and Aspects of the Prison Sentence as Predictors for Participation in Prison Education. Journal of Correctional Education, 68(3), 19–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.15845/jper.v3i2.1040 Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Assessing Correctional Education Programs: The Students’ Perspective. Journal of Correctional Education, 57(1), 13–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23282685 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Navigating the Recognition Gap: Intergroup Dialogue, Agency, and Social Justice under Conditions of War Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel Presenting Author:In recent decades, intergroup dialogue initiatives have been adopted in higher education as tools for promoting intercultural understanding, inclusion, and social cohesion in divided societies (Bekerman & Maoz, 2005; Zembylas, 2018). Much of this work rests on normative assumptions about dialogue as a space for mutual recognition, and conflict mitigation. Critical scholarship, however, has questioned these assumptions, highlighting how intercultural and peace-oriented educational practices may obscure asymmetrical power relations, structural inequality, and contested political histories (Ahmed, 2012). These tensions become particularly pronounced under conditions of active war, when pedagogical aspirations for dialogue collide with fear, trauma, and heightened political constraint that reshapes what can be said, acknowledged, or withheld. This paper examines how social justice–oriented intergroup dialogue operates under such conditions. Empirically, it draws on a qualitative study of an intergroup dialogue initiative involving Jewish and Palestinian students at an Israeli university during the Gaza war. The program brought together students positioned within unequal regimes of citizenship, exposure to violence, and political legitimacy. Rather than evaluating the initiative in terms of pedagogical effectiveness or reconciliatory success, the paper approaches intergroup dialogue as a social arena in which struggles over recognition, moral boundary-making, and ethically constrained forms of agency are enacted. Following Lamont (2012), these struggles are understood as embedded in broader social and institutional hierarchies rather than reducible to interpersonal misunderstanding. The analysis identifies a three-stage process through which these struggles unfolded: In the first stage, structured avoidance, facilitators and participants relied on depoliticized interaction to sustain interpersonal contact while suspending direct engagement with the war. While this strategy enabled the continuation of dialogue, it produced patterned silences that constrained the articulation of inequality, harm, and political responsibility, echoing critical accounts of “safe space” pedagogies in conflict-affected contexts (Zembylas & Papamichael, 2017). In the second stage, collision, attempts to introduce political narratives exposed a recognition gap rooted in competing and asymmetrical claims. Jewish students sought recognition of vulnerability, and the trauma of October 7, while Palestinian students sought recognition of collective identity, political presence, and the structural conditions shaping their marginalization. Under wartime conditions, affirming one set of claims was frequently experienced as carrying political risk for the other, rendering mutual recognition increasingly precarious. In the third stage, navigation through internalization, the erosion of collective dialogue gave rise to reflexive forms of agency, as participants oriented toward ethical self-positioning and self-protection rather than mutual understanding. Drawing on Lamont’s work on moral boundaries and recognition as processes of valuation and exclusion (Lamont, 2012), the recognition gap identified in the dialogue does not merely reflect interpersonal misunderstanding, but points to deeper asymmetries in civic status, political legitimacy, and differential exposure to violence. Under conditions of war, claims for recognition are not only moral or affective, but embedded in unequal relations of citizenship, security, and public belonging. Intercultural educational spaces are thus less tasked with reconciling difference than with sustaining engagement amid its irreducibility. Conceptually, the paper reframes the recognition gap not as a communicative failure or deficit to be resolved through improved dialogue, but as a socially and institutionally structured terrain produced by unequal relations of power, vulnerability, and legitimacy (Fraser, 2000; Lamont, 2012). It argues that, under conditions of war, intergroup dialogue functions less as a mechanism of reconciliation and more as a site where the tensions and limits of intercultural education and social justice projects become visible. By centering participants’ situated navigation rather than dialogic resolution, the study contributes to debates in social justice and intercultural education on how agency, recognition, and inequality are negotiated when democratic and pedagogical ideals are profoundly unsettled. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodological Approach This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive design grounded in a reflexive constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014), suited to examining social processes under uncertainty, risk, and moral constraint. The analysis treats war as a constitutive condition shaping both the encounter and the research process. Knowledge production is thus understood as situated and constrained, structured by power relations that delimit what can be expressed, observed, or documented. Research Context The study was conducted within a year-long, DEI-led dialogue program (pseudonym: Leaders of Change) at an Israeli university during the Gaza war. The program brought together Jewish and Palestinian students and was institutionally framed as a space for coexistence and student leadership development. Its design combined, in the first semester, interpersonal activities and joint campus-based initiatives, followed in the second semester by facilitated engagement with political identity, the conflict, and the war. As hostilities intensified, the program unfolded amid heightened security, polarization, and institutional scrutiny. Eighteen students participated in the program, evenly divided between Jewish and Palestinian students. Data Collection Data were collected between January and June 2025 and included three primary sources: (1) twenty-six in-depth, semi-structured interviews in two waves; (2) non-participant observations of eleven bi-weekly sessions; and (3) participant-generated materials, including reflective texts. The researcher adopted a non-participant stance, documenting interactional dynamics, silences, and tensions in a detailed journal. Several Palestinian students objected to audio recording, citing concerns related to surveillance and potential repercussions for their academic standing in the wartime context. Interviews were therefore documented via participant-informed methods, including detailed notes, prioritizing safety over standardized recording. Analysis and Reflexivity Data analysis followed grounded theory procedures of open, focused, and theoretical coding, using constant comparison across data sources and time points. Analytic attention was directed to both articulated narratives and patterned silences. Through this process, the analysis developed a three-stage process—structured avoidance, collision, and navigation through internalization—capturing how participants navigated the recognition gap under war. Reflexivity was maintained regarding researcher positionality and the effects of war on access, trust, and knowledge production. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This analysis invites a reconsideration of how intergroup dialogue is conceptualized within social justice and intercultural education under conditions of active war. Rather than assuming dialogue as a stable pedagogical space oriented toward mutual recognition or reconciliation, the findings foreground dialogue as a fragile and contested social arena in which recognition claims, moral boundaries, and agency are differentially constrained. War does not simply intensify existing tensions within dialogue initiatives; it transforms the very conditions under which recognition can be sought, granted, or ethically risked. Tracing a three-stage process—structured avoidance, collision, and internalization—the study demonstrates how participants respond to the erosion of collective dialogue by recalibrating expectations, boundaries, and modes of participation. Agency does not primarily take the form of persuasion or consensus-building. Instead, it emerges as a reflexive practice of ethical self-positioning, self-protection, and managing vulnerability. These forms of agency are cautious and situational, yet analytically significant, revealing how individuals act meaningfully when reciprocity is unattainable. Conceptually, the study advances an understanding of the recognition gap as a socially and institutionally structured condition, not a communicative deficit. Claims for recognition during war are embedded in unequal relations of citizenship, security, and public legitimacy, shaping what can be said or withheld. Intergroup dialogue thus functions less as a mechanism for reconciliation and more as a site where the limits of intercultural education and social justice projects become visible. For social justice and intercultural education, these findings call for more reflexive, modest expectations of what dialogue can accomplish in protracted violence. Rather than measuring dialogue by harmony or consensus, attention should focus on how educational spaces enable participants to navigate irreducible tensions and sustain ethical agency amid structural inequality and conflict. References Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press. Bekerman, Z., & Maoz, I. (2005). Troubles with identity: Obstacles to coexistence education in conflict-ridden societies. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 5(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0504_5 Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 Zembylas, M. (2018). Affect and emotions in peace education: The view from critical pedagogy. Peacebuilding, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2017.1372309 Zembylas, M., & Papamichael, E. (2017). Pedagogies of discomfort and empathy in intercultural teacher education. Intercultural Education, 28(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1288444 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Responding the Societal Needs in Post-Conflict Europe: New Tasks for Modern Higher Education and Research Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, Ukraine Presenting Author:The modern world consistently demonstrates megatrends towards polarization, increasing geopolitical tension and shift to isolation and individualism in international relations with the far-reaching implications for migration, social transformations, labor markets and educational strategies. Such realities require total adaptation and diversification, new tasks for education and research and identifying the outputs and outcomes. The war in Ukraine has put under revision Universities’ roles and tasks, they’re now shelters, numbers in the lists of losses, host institutions for forcibly migrated students and academics. To keep responding the societal needs there is an obvious necessity to amend curricula to give the humanities (in particular teaching political science and difficult history), media literacy, critical thinking the same relevance as ICT, STEM, AI etc. This will contribute to bringing up conscious citizens, understanding political regimes, technologies of (deep)fakes and PSYOPs, interstate relations trends, slowing down the mounting polarization and inequality but the most - for democratic culture and participation, which involves having a say. Thus, the biggest urgent task for the tertiary education is to overcome apathy of in-conflict societies with the help of interuniversity cross-border cooperation and mentoring for sustainability of post-conflict Europe. This context actualizes the continuous democratization of educational content to promote resilience, cohesion and respect to other people’s opinions to unable future conflicts. It derives from Magna Charta values but nowadays demonstrates a potentially difficult trade-off between the pedagogy of patriotism and the pedagogy of democracy. And in a contextual setting of invasion and war this dichotomy is even more difficult to overcome as then patriotism gains ground and more extreme forms. In this regard the task is to adapt educational and research strategies to societal needs combining patriotism with pluralism. On the other hand, migration of Ukrainian academics amended R&I content, outcomes and tendences, highlighted methodological gaps, shook the rigid and regulated European system of knowledge production by the need to integrate “less rated” academic refugees to preserve intellectual and social capital for sustainable development of host societies. Thus, a major requirement for European higher education and research in the conditions of “poly-crisis” is no longer consider it in terms of “frameworks”, “standards” and idealistic development strategies. It should be flexible and adaptive to prioritize the subject fields situationally not for decades, scan emerging needs, challenges and incoming resources, especially during conflicts (for example, migration as intellectual and social capital not only like social and economic burden for host countries), and align the focus of research by uniting in think tanks, generating fruitful networking and bridging academia to develop relevant coping strategies, new curricula and special learning opportunities (MOOCs) for cohesion and reduction of polarization. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The methodology is based on the Theory of Change (ToC) and Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO). ToC includes the following stages: input (the «intervention», the initial activities) → output (the immediate results, «deliveries») → outcome (what the deliveries lead to, make project participants and target groups do as a result of the activities) → impact (on society). As a structuring and analytical tool ToC is useful because it helps to avoid concentration on output practicalities and engenders good discussions about what works and what does not work. CMO is another analytical tool which helps combining a focus on the program as such with a focus on the pre-existing context in which the program intervenes with its activities, as well as to identify how the program activates structural, agential and relational mechanisms to produce the planned outcomes. Put differently, this is about helping outputs lead to outcomes by identifying contextual obstacles. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We stand for launching a new European Program for Sustainable Democratization of Higher Education and Research in Post-conflict Societies which will bridge progressive in implementing democracy into educational content (like it is largely done in school education) European universities, specialized agencies and NGOs. Consortium must foster to: • Grow the skills for evidence-based strategic leadership • Gain best practices and hands-on tools for strategic planning and evaluation • Gain an in-depth understanding of current and future trends in internationalization and forced migration flows • Build a strong network of international leaders across the EU to exchange ideas and experiences • Develop evidence-based plans to address challenges in a concrete society at a concrete time. We have started an approbation of this idea in joint applications with our partner institutions (European Wergeland Center, Oslo Metropolitan University, Queen's University Belfast), we’re going to invite to discussion ECER-2026 participants to have a tailor made effect and jointly draft the Chart, WPs and KPIs. References 1.Deineko O., Holm-Hansen J. (2024). Strengthening Ukraine’s Democracy through Education During the War: Second Mid-Term Evaluation of the European Wergeland Centre’s Schools for Democracy Programme. ISBN: 9788283094220. 39 p. URL: https://nva.sikt.no/registration/0198cc4e7098-ff9a8413-b8c5-4966-ac10-21860c36900f 2.Holm-Hansen J., Rabinovych M. Democracy promotion through schools in Ukraine - Mid-term evaluation, NIBR Report 2021:3 3.Info Sapiens research project “We dream and act: nationwide survey of Ukrainian youth”, URL : https://iri.org.ua/sites/default/files/surveys/Public%202023%20UNITY%20Youth%20Survey_Ukraine_fin_UKR.pdf 4.OECD (2017). Reviews of Integrity in Education: Ukraine 2017. URL : https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-reviews-of-integrity-in-education-ukraine_9789264270664-en 5.OECD (2023). Learning during Crisis - Insights for Ukraine from across the Globe. URL : https://www.oecd.org/education/Lessons-during-Crisis.pdf 6.Nansenprogrammet for Ukraina, Utenriksdepartementet, 2024. URL : https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/da41c8b998e946c7bcb85d2a99f671c5/no/pdfs/stm202320240008000dddpdfs.pdf 7.UNHCR (2024). Operational Data Portal – Ukraine Refugee Situation. URL : https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine 8.V-Dem Institute (2022). Democracy Report 2022 - Autocratization Changing Nature? URL : https://www.vdem.net/documents/19/dr_2022_ipyOpLP.pdf 9.V-Dem Institute (2024). Democracy Report 2024 - Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot. URL : https://v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf. 10.Vision of the Future of Education and Science of Ukraine for the period 2024-2029. URL : https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/Viziya.maybutnoho.osvity.i.nauky.Ukrayiny/12.07.2023/Viziya.maybutnoho.osvity.i.nauky.Ukrayiny-12.07.2023-2.1.pdf. 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Integrating Global Citizenship Education into Teacher Education: Collaborative Curriculum Reform in Liberia as a Case Study 1: Jyväskylä University, Finland; 2: Turku University, Finland; 3: Education Partner Integrated Consortium (EPIC), Liberia Presenting Author:This study uses Liberia as a case study to explore curriculum reform through the lens of global citizenship education (GCED). Drawing on a qualitative process analysis, it examines how collaborative forms of curriculum reform shaped the content and process of integrating GCED themes into Liberian teacher education. Co-authored by contributors from Liberia and Finland, the article provides an insider's view of how global pedagogical ideals are negotiated in local reform processes. A central goal of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Primary-level curriculum reform was to strengthen global citizenship content within teacher education. This included integrating contents of inclusion, mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), gender equity and School-Related Gender-Based Violence prevention (SRGBV), digital literature, and green skills into the revised new curriculum. The article examines how collaboration in curriculum reform took shape across different phases, and the forms of collaboration that emerged. By 'collaborative forms', we mean negotiation, co-creation, contextualisation, and dialogue. We explore how diverse stakeholders contributed to shaping the reform process, and how participatory practices evolved within a donor- funded context. This study demonstrates how Global Citizenship Education can become contextually relevant when curriculum reform is carried out through collaborative, dialogic and locally grounded processes. In doing so, it responds to international calls to reimagine teacher education and curriculum reform as a collaborative and transformative process. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a qualitative process analysis (Bingham, 2025; Dumas et al., 2018) to trace how decisions related to Global Citizenship Education (GCED) emerged and evolved throughout the curriculum reform. Rather than treating the curriculum as a fixed product, the analysis focused on the temporal sequence of events, interactions and negotiations that shaped its development. The analysis will answer the question: How did collaborative approaches to curriculum reform shape the integration of global citizenship education themes in Liberian teacher education? The data consists of documents produced during the reform process, such as daily field notes written by international team, curriculum drafts, inception reports, workshop summaries and validation documents. We followed the analytical sequence outlined by Bingham (2025), in which the process is structured into distinct phases and each phase is examined in relation to its contribution to the outcome. Using this framework, we reconstructed the key stages of the curriculum reform and analysed the daily notes and decisions made at each stage. We also examined how various forms of collaboration shaped the integration of GCED content. By “collaborative forms,” we refer to dialogue, negotiation, co‑creation and contextualisation. We selected these as the analytical categories because these forms of collaboration are well‑established in prior research on participatory curriculum reform and critical global education. Dialogue is understood as a reciprocal and reflective exchange in which participants listen, question assumptions and co‑construct meaning (Freire, 1970; Andreotti, 2011). Negotiation refers to the process through which participants interpret diverse perspectives and collaboratively construct shared meanings (Rose and Myers, 2024). Contextualisation describes the adaptation of ideas and learning experiences to participants’ cultural, linguistic and social realities (Niles, 2025). Co‑creation refers to collaborative processes in which participants jointly shape learning experiences and knowledge (Omland et al., 2025; Kaminskienė et al., 2020). The collaborative nature of the methodology was integral to the analysis. Researchers and practitioners from Liberia and Finland jointly interpreted the documentary data through iterative analytical exchanges and by sharing drafts. This dialogical analytical approach enhanced the credibility of the findings by incorporating multiple perspectives and anchoring interpretations in contextual knowledge (Ansell and Gash, 2008). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings show that the integration of GCED emerged through a combination of agenda setting by the ministry, dialogue, negotiation, co- creation and contextualisation. Rather than representing a linear transfer of global educational frameworks into a national curriculum, the reform process was characterised by a collaborative process involving stakeholders, with an updated, contextualised curriculum emerging from this. Negotiation played a central role in translating global GCED frameworks into curriculum content that was locally accepted and validated. Through these negotiations, participants were able to reconcile global pedagogical ideals with national legislation, cultural norms, and institutional capacities. Dialogical interaction was a defining feature of the reform process. Structured workshops and validation meetings created spaces in which multiple forms of expertise were recognised and engaged with. The findings suggest that dialogue was constitutive of the reform itself, enabling iterative refinement of curriculum content across phases, rather than merely instrumental. From a theoretical perspective, these findings support dialogic approaches to educational change that emphasise the coexistence of multiple voices and perspectives (Stewart and Boggs, 2016). Rather than resolving differences through hierarchical decision-making alone, dialogicity enabled tensions to be recognised and addressed through ongoing interaction. Overall, the findings suggest that the effective integration of GCED into teacher education depends less on adopting predefined content and more on designing collaborative processes that allow for negotiation, dialogue and contextual judgement. The reform process shows that, when combined with participatory practices, institutional authority can support shared ownership of curriculum change without relinquishing national control. These insights emphasise the importance of investing in process design, such as inclusive workshops, validation mechanisms and iterative feedback loops. This study contributes to research on Global Citizenship Education and curriculum reform by demonstrating that GCED integration is shaped by collaborative, processual dynamics rather than by the implementation of policies in a linear manner. References Kaminskienė, L., Žydžiūnaitė, V., and Žilinskaitė‑Vytienė, V. (2020). Co‑creation of learning: A concept analysis. Journal of Contemporary Education, 5(1), 45–58. Kennedy, G. M. (2025). Rethinking teacher education in Liberia’s rural teacher training institutes: key challenges and strategic solutions. Discover Education, 4(1), Article 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00621-4 Omland, M., Hontvedt, M., Siddiq, F., Amundrud, A., Hermansen, H., Mathisen, M., Rudningen, G. and Reiersen, F. (2025). Co-creation in higher education: a conceptual systematic review. Higher Education. 90. 1017-1047. 10.1007/s10734-024-01364-1. Shabalala, N. P. (2025). Global citizenship education as a strategy for social, justice and identity: achieving balance for meaningful social impact. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–13. Shabalala, N. P. and Photo, P. (2025) Global Citizenship Education: a strategic framework for G20 solutions to economic challenges and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Global Responsibility. DOI 10.1108/JGR-03-2025-0054 UNESCO (2015). Global Citizenship Education: Topics and learning objectives. UNESCO. | ||