Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
07 SES 05 B: Professional Learning and Educational Research for Equity and Inclusion
Paper Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Teachers' Attributions of Students' Positive Peer Experiences: Socio-Demographic Characteristics and the Mediating Roles of Student’s Social behavior and Teacher–Student Relationships PH FHNW, Switzerland Presenting Author:In inclusive and culturally diverse educational settings, teachers play a key role in fostering academic learning and social inclusion among diverse groups of students (Farmer, 2019). For instance, teachers' attributions influence teacher feedback that affects students’ behavior and achievement (Reyna, 2000). Attributions are made on two dimensions: location (internal vs. external) and stability (stable vs. unstable; Weiner, 1976). These attributions reflect relatively stable tendencies based on repeated observations but allow for situational variation depending on context and evaluation demand. Consequently, teachers’ attributional patterns tend to be stable over time (Reyna, 2000), yet are influenced by socio-demographic characteristics of students (Espinoza et al., 2014; Reyna, 2000). For example, teachers tend to explain boys’ successes and failures to internal and stable causes, whereas girls’ outcomes are more often attributed to internal and variable causes (Espinoza et al., 2014). Teachers also tend to attribute academic success in students with migration backgrounds (MB) and/or low socio-economic status (SES) to external (stable or variable) or internal-variable causes (Wiley & Eskilson, 1978). Previous research on teachers’ attributions has predominantly addressed academic performance and student behavior (Reyna, 2000), with limited attention to attributions on students’ social inclusion, which includes social interactions, acceptance, and friendships in class (Koster et al., 2009). This study addresses this gap by examining teachers’ attributions of students’ positive peer experiences, such as inclusion, acceptance, and friendships. Student social behavior (SSB), as a consistent and observable pattern over time (Reyna, 2000, Perren et al., 2012), is particularly relevant for teachers’ attributions along the stability dimension, indicating whether the causes for positive peer experiences are assessed as stable or unstable over time (Weiner, 1976). Teacher-student relationships (TSR) also play a crucial role in shaping teachers' attributions by acting as a relational filter shaping how teachers perceive and interpret these experiences, especially affecting the locus of causality dimension (internal vs. external) through emotional and relational context (Pianta, 2001). As SSB influences the quality of TSR (Magro et al., 2025), it is reasonable to assume that teachers’ attributions are likely shaped first by observable social behaviors of the students and subsequently by TSR. Socio-demographic variables are associated with SSB and TSR. For example, boys with a MB and low SES show lower levels of social behavior (Luo et al., 2022) and are more likely to have a conflictual TSR (Li et al., 2020). Furthermore, social behavior and TSR have been found to correlate with teachers’ attributions (Fleming et al., 2025). The different mechanisms by which SSB and TSR influence teachers’ attributions, and their possible mediating role between socio-demographic variables and teachers’ attributions, remain insufficiently studied. In particular, it remains unclear whether and how TSR and SSB translate students’ socio-demographic characteristics into teachers’ attributions of peer experiences. Our analysis aims to close these gaps by examining the following research questions: To what extent do students’ socio-demographic variables predict teachers’ attributions of positive peer experiences and are these effects mediated by SSB and TSR? Additionally, how do these relationships vary across the dimensions of stability (stable vs. unstable) and locus of causality (internal vs. external)? Drawing on the reviewed literature and theoretical background, we hypothesize (1) that students’ socio-demographic variables (i.e., gender, MB, and SES) predict teachers’ attributions of positive peer experiences, and (2) that the effects are mediated by SSB and TSR. We further explore whether these mediation effects differ between the dimensions of stability and locus of causality. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The hypotheses were tested using a sample of N = 955 Students from 60 classes (mean age =8.2, 44.6% female, 30.4% have MB, mean HISEI = 61.2,), attending Grades 1 to 6, predominantly Grades 2 to 4 (1st class: N = 100, 2nd class: N = 268, 3rd class: N = 291: 4th class: N = 255, 5th class: N = 13, 6th class: N = 2). 58 teachers (mean age = 37.1, 89.9% female) provided ratings for the students. Schools and classes were randomly selected from the seven preselected German speaking Swiss cantons and contacted. Data was collected from students, parents, and teachers at the beginning of the school year (t1). Teachers additionally completed a questionnaire at the end of the school year (t2). Teachers’ attributions of positive peer experiences were rated for each student along the dimensions locus of causality (1 = external – 6 = internal) and stability (1 = unstable – 5 = stable) using 3 items each for acceptance, inclusion, and friendship (Ωloc_t1=.97, Ωstab_t1=.93, Ωloc_t2=.92, Ωstab_t2=.92). TSR was measured at t1 using three items from the Conflict subscale of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001; Ω = .81). SSB was assessed with peer ratings. Students rated four classmates on their helpfulness and cooperation based on the SOCOMP instrument (Perren et al., 2012). Individual social behavior scores reflect the mean of received peer ratings. Students’ gender was reported by students themselves and by their parents (0 = female, 1 = male). MB was defined according to OECD standards as having at least one parent born abroad. Students’ SES was assessed via parents’ occupations using the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status 2008 (ISEI-08; Ganzeboom & Treiman, 2010). The higher ISEI score of either parent was used to represent the family SES. To reduce teacher time, missing data of teacher attribution was deliberately introduced (planned missing) and subsequently imputed using multiple Imputation in R (jomo, mitml; m = 50), pooled following Rubin’s rules (1987). Structural equation models (SEM) with robust maximum likelihood estimation were estimated separately for locus of causality and stability. The multilevel structure (Level 1 = students, Level 2 = classes) was accounted in Mplus using TYPE=COMPLEX. Data were assumed to be missing at random (Graham, 2009) and treated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The SEM examined the effects of students’ gender, MB, and SES on teachers’ attributions, mediated by SSB and TSR. One SEM included the attributional dimension stability, the other locus of causality as dependent variable. Both models had a good fit. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, both SEMs showed significant effects from gender, MB, and SES to attributions. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the SEM for stability showed significant negative indirect effects from gender and MB and positive indirect effect from SES to attributions, mediated by SSB. Boys and students with MB showed less, students with higher SES showed more SSB, linked to more stable attributions. The SEM for locus of causality showed significant negative indirect effects from gender and MB on attributions serially mediated by SSB and conflictual TSR. Boys and students with MB showed less SSB, leading to more conflictual TSR and consequently to more external attributions. Additionally, there was a significant negative indirect effect from gender mediated by conflictual TSR. Boys had a more conflictual TSR and consequently more external attributions. SES showed a significant positive indirect effect mediated by the same variables. Students with higher SES, showed more SSB, leading to less conflictual TSR and consequently to more internal attributions. Additionally, both SEMs showed a significant negative direct effect from MB to attributions, indicating positive peer experiences of students with MB were attributed as less stable and more external. Thus, mediation effects differed between stability and locus of causality dimensions, emphasizing that teacher attributions are shaped by socio-demographics, social behavior, and TSR. We find evidence for inequalities in teacher attributions students’ positive peer experiences based on their gender, MB, and SES, disadvantaging boys, students with MB, and with low SES. Fostering social behavior and strengthening TSR may reduce these inequalities and promote inclusion in culturally diverse educational settings. References Espinoza, P., Arêas da Luz Fontes, A. B., and Arms-Chavez, C. J. (2014). Attributional gender bias:teachers’ ability and effort explanations for students’ math performance. Soc.Psychol. Educ. Int. J. 17, 105–126. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9226-6 Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko-Alva, K., & Cross, J. R. (2019). Promoting inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: Teacher attunement and social dynamics management. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020 Fleming, G. E., Boulton, A. L., Kershaw, K. A., Prasad, A. H., & Kimonis, E. R. (2025). “The student will always be a problem”: Callous-unemotional traits are associated with specific dimensions of teacher attributions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 155, 104912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104912 Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (2010). International stratification and mobility file: Conversion Tools. Department of Social Research Methodology. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group:A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284680 Li, J., Wang, J., Li, J., Qian, S., Jia, R., Wang, Y., Liang, J., & Xu, Y. (2020). How do socioeconomic status relate to social relationships among adolescents:A school-based study in East China. BMC Pediatrics, 20(1), 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02175-w Luo, J., Grieken, A. van, Yang-Huang, J., Toren, S. J. van den, & Raat, H. (2022). Psychosocial health disparities in early childhood: Socioeconomic status and parent migration background. SSM-Population Health, 19,101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101137 Magro, S., Berry, D., Palmer, A., & Roisman, G. (2025). Teacher-Student Relationship Quality and Social, Academic, and Behavioral Adjustment Are Associated Within and Between Persons From Kindergarten to Grade 6. Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0002030 Perren, S., Forrester-Knauss, C., & Alsaker, F. D. (2012). Self- and other-oriented social skills: Differential associations with children’s mental health and bullying roles. Journal for Educational Research Online, 4,99–123. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:7053 Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale-Short Form. Psychological Assessment Resources. Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, Dumb, or Industrious: When Stereotypes Convey Attribution Information in the Classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1),85–110. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys (1. Aufl.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 Weiner, B. (1976). An Attributional Approach for Educational Psychology. Review of Research in Education, 4,179–209. Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1978). Why did you learn in school today? Teachers perceptions of causality. Sociology of Education, 51, 261–269. 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Case Study on the Effects of a Research-development Program on Teachers’ Professional Development 1: University of Pécs, Hungary; 2: Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary Presenting Author:Policies of the European Union, focusing on developing programs aimed at reducing early school leaving, highlight the role of education. Educational policies that intervene in the system can be categorised into three main types: prevention, intervention, and compensation (Eurydice, 2014). Research has shown that practices in various European countries aim to decrease the ratio of early school leavers (Tomaszewska-Pękała, 2017). In the context of this paper, young Roma people are the most affected (Bocsi et al., 2023), as early school leaving is not only dependent on school performance but also linked to structural oppression (Boros, Bogdán & Durst, 2021), which intersects with living in rural areas (Eurostat, 2023). This presentation focuses on a research-development programme that designed a preventive intervention (ISCED2 level), with the help of 10 primary schools and 10 mentor teachers, who were also developers of the programme. The research-development was implemented in the academic years 2021/2022 and 2024/2025 (four-year-long development). Mentoring is a tool for providing equity. Mentoring in this development is youth mentoring carried out by adults, teachers (Raposa, Rhodes & Herrera, 2016; Keller, 2007) in a location-based, school-based format (Sipe, 2007). Besides the primary aim of the development, promoting students’ success and career guidance, a secondary focus of the development was enhancing teachers’ professional development. Teachers in the programme joined voluntarily and engaged in monthly workshops and regular mentoring sessions with the students. The development aimed at promoting horizontal learning between the 10 mentor teachers, creating a professional learning community (PLC) (Dzieciatko-Szendrei et al., 2024; Handayani, Ciptaningrum & Triastuti, 2025; Huyen, Nga & Thao, 2024). Professional learning communities of teachers are analysed in school-based contexts (Thomas, 2009, 2022) and in non-formal learning environments (Dzieciatko-Szendrei et al., 2024). Findings of literature highlight that the professional development of teachers has a positive impact on students’ performance (Ventista & Brown, 2023) and can contribute to teachers’ success. The PLC met monthly online (Jin et al., 2024), and in-person learning was also provided in the development. The PLC developed and presented in this paper is based on the findings of inclusive developments (Varga, 2015), with a two-fold approach. Firstly, creating an inclusive community essentially determines the involvement of participants in development (Varga, 2015). Secondly, being part of an inclusive community and experiencing structures created in such an environment can model the expected inclusive approach for the mentor teachers. Applying the process-based model of inclusion (Varga, 2015), this paper aims to reveal mentor teachers’ perceptions on the development of the programme and participation in the PLC. We intend to address the following research questions: 1) What motivated teachers to join and engage in the programme, and how do they characterise themselves at the beginning of the programme? 2) What were the characteristics of the professional learning community that enhanced their developers’ role and helped their professional development? 3) How do teachers evaluate their professional development? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research is based on longitudinal, mixed-method data collection (2021-2025). This paper addresses an aspect of a complex research development programme, supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences between 2021/2022 and 2024/2025. 10 schools have participated in the research development. The primary aim of the development was to prevent early school leaving; data collection also targeted peer mentors, university mentors and mentor teachers, relying on the mutual nature of inclusion (Varga, 2015), namely that mentors also benefit from their roles. This paper exclusively focuses on mentor teachers. During the four-year-long development, a total of 14 mentor teachers worked in the programme; in each semester, 10 mentor teachers were involved. 7 of the mentor teachers were in the programme for its entire duration; mentor changes were based on external factors (change of workplace, childbirth). The vast majority of the mentor teachers had decades of experience in teaching, 6 of them were leaders of the involved school. The research consisted of three data collection phases. First, the input aspect was analysed in 2021/2022, which was based on a focus-group interview with the mentor teachers (n=1); and revealing research focusing on the sociocultural context of the involved institutions (relying on classroom observation (n=20), interviews with the leaders of the school (n=10) and societal observation (n=1)). Secondly, the process of the research-development was monitored continuously in the form of group discussions during the monthly meetings (n=35) and reflected mentoring plans (n=14). Lastly, to evaluate the perceived output of the programme, a semi-structured interview focusing on mentors’ self-reflection (n=10) and a programme closing semi-structured interview (n=10) was conducted with all participants. In this paper, we conclude the findings of the documentations of the monthly meeting and the two summative interviews, which reflected on the aspects of the input and process retrospectively, besides indirectly addressing the output of the research-development programme. The documentation of the monthly meetings was content analysed, revealing the documented topics of the development and mentor teachers’ perceptions on the process of the development (its success and challenges). The evaluative interviews were coded using an abductive approach. This paper relies on a qualitative approach. In the presentation, we focus on the frequency of mentions in the sample and nuance our findings with illustrative examples. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results of the research highlight the impact of the application of an inclusive professional learning community on teachers. The document analysis applied provides a clear understanding of the developmental process, highlighting the factors that contribute to teachers’ professional development and the challenges faced by teachers. These results are understood as a framework in which the research-development programme was implemented. Secondly, the analysis of the interviews provides an insight into the inclusive nature of the programme. The coding process evaluated the interview based on three aspects (themes) and subordinate subthemes following the process-based model of inclusion. Results regarding the “input”, 1. equitable access and support, 2. voluntary participation and agency, 3. recognition of prior knowledge, and 4. co-designing the programme emerged as essential subthemes. Secondly, the “process” is described by 1. a safe environment, 2. structured cooperation, 3. differentiation, and 4. practical implementation. Lastly, the interviewees have reported that the “output” was characterised by 1. satisfaction, 2. knowledge acquisition, 3. praxis-transformation, and 4. the growth of social capital. The findings highlight that teachers participating in a professional learning community perceive themselves as empowered to face challenges in their contexts. Based on the longitudinal research and empirical findings, a model was developed to describe the framework of the research-development programme. The paper presents the INSPIRE (Inclusive Networks for Supporting Professional Innovation, Reflection, and Equity) model, which is based on the process-based model of inclusion (INPUT: Inclusive Participation and Agency, PROCESS: Supportive and Cooperative Learning Environment, OUTPUT: Measurable Outcomes and Impact). The results of the development contribute to the applicability of the programme in other contexts and internationally. The paper aims at addressing inclusive development, which contributes to solving societal challenges of intercultural and inclusive education. References Bocsi, V., Varga, A., & Fehérvári, A. (2024). A korai iskolaelhagyás vizsgálata interszekcionális megközelítésben. Különleges Bánásmód, 10(1), 19-33. Boros, J., Bogdán, P., & Durst, J. (2021). Accumulating Roma cultural capital: First-in-family graduates and the role of educational talent support programs in Hungary in mitigating the price of social mobility. Szociológiai szemle, 31(3), 74–102. Dzieciatko-Szendrei, B., Pantić, N., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Viry, G. (2024). Systematic review of the operational definitions and indicators of teacher communities. Educational Research Review, 45, art. no. 100640. Eurostat (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Early_leavers_from_education_and_training Eurydice (2014). Early childhood education and care 2014. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/25c63f11-c2cb-4c4c-a3cb-85d9b1eab93b/language-en Handayani, A., Ciptaningrum, D.S., & Triastuti, A. (2025). Research on professional learning communities (PLCs) in English language education: A systematic review. Issues in Educational Research, 35 (3), 970-986. Huyen, N.T.T., Nga, D.T., & Thao, D.T.P. (2024). A Comprehensive Analysis of Teacher Professional Learning Communities: A Scopus-Based Review (2019–2024). International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23 (8), 158-179. Jin, F., Song, Z., Cheung, W.M., Lin, C.-H., & Liu, T. (2024). Technological affordances in teachers' online professional learning communities: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40 (3), 1019-1039. Keller, T. E. (2007). Youth Mentoring: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. In Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (Eds.). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, (pp. 21-47). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J. E., & Herrara, C. (2016). The Impact of Youth Risk on Mentoring Relationship Quality: The Mentor Characteristics Matter? American Journal of Community Psychology 57, 320–329. Sipe, C. L. (2005). Toward a typology of mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring, (pp. 65–79). New York, NY: Sage. Thomas, S.M. (2009). Evaluating Schools as Learning Communities. International Encyclopedia of Education, Third Edition, pp. 539-547. Thomas, S.M. (2022). Evaluating schools as professional learning communities. International Encyclopedia of Education: Fourth Edition, pp. 275-286. Tomaszewska-Pękała, H., Marchlik, P. & Wrona, A. (2017). RESL Publication 6 Finding Inspiring Practices on How to Prevent ESL and School Disengagement. Lessons from the Educational Trajectories of Youth at Risk from Nine EU Countries. Faculty of Education, University of Warsaw. Varga, A. (2015). The Theory and Practice of Inclusion. Institute of Education, University of Pécs: Pécs. Ventista, O.M., & Brown, C. (2023). Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: Findings from a systematic review. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 8 (1), art. no. 100565. 07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper Political Process-oriented Research Needed when Discriminatory Pressure is Growing University of Vienna (Austria), Austria Presenting Author:The conference asks how education research can know and act amid shifting political-ideological conditions, datafication, and crises of credibility. Our paper responds via a dialogical/narrative autoethnography (Cann/DeMeulenaere 2020) that traces practice under pressure across two participatory projects located in different parts of the education ecosystem. Project “H” is a cumulative dissertation on narratives of discrimination and their relation to educational processes, combining feminist Collective Memory Work (Haug 1999; Doblmair/Hackl/Vogler forthcoming) with students at the University of Vienna and biographical materials from prior studies (e.g. participatory co-inquiries). It explores how barriers and discriminatory experiences shape, enable, and block educational trajectories, drawing on intersectional analysis (Riegel 2010, Hackl/Märker/Doblmair 2024) and abductive, grounded-theory logics (Dausien 1996). Project “D” is participatory action research with an austrian group for teacher protests, emerging in autumn 2022 through the campaign against acute teacher shortages and growing later when racist school policies added to the trouble. It interrogates how competing political claims on education enable or constrain concepts of Bildung, analyzing difference patterns between state-intended education processes and those articulated within protest.
Argument framing: We advance a political process-oriented conception of education research. Drawing on process oriented, feminist and participatory epistemologies, and a hegemony-informed view of empowerment, we treat methodological choices—timing, sequencing, authorship, visibility—as strategic acts in volatile fields. To resist the depoliticization of activist concepts, we frame empowerment not as a deliverable but as an open horizon that orients practice. Three tension fields organize our analysis: (1) levels of empowerment (individual, collective, institutional); (2) recognition and addressing within participatory spaces; and (3) reflection, (re)distribution of resources, and transforming conditions (Märker/Hackl/Strasser 2026).
Empirical focus: In project H, discrimination is examined as structurally embedded yet biographically processed: educational credentials promise participation, yet opportunities are unequally distributed (Miethe et al. 2017, Ahmed 2012 & 2017). Following Heinemann and Mecheril (2017), discrimination research becomes educational research when it probes how learning and Bildung are mediated or prevented by discriminatory relations. Combining biographical narratives with collective memory work (Haug 1999), the study seeks both understanding and emancipatory potential in co-researching experiences of discrimination. In project D Bildung is explored as both an object of political contention and a process within protest, mapping how protest-generated educational practices confront policy framings.
We trace in our research experiences how we articulate political process-oriented, hegemony-aware research that orients toward empowerment while holding contradiction. Articulating these thoughts in dialogical autoethnography helps us to grasp our entangled practices of knowing and acting. Institutionally, we propose recalibrations aligned with quality of education and the public good. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The design is a dialogical/narrative autoethnography across two participatory/action sites. The performed dialogue is both method and data, foregrounding how knowing and acting co-evolve through situated negotiation under pressure. The data sources are: reflexive journals and fieldnotes; anonymized memory scenes; biographical interviews and group discussions; protest artifacts (statements, placards, meeting minutes, media posts); ethics correspondence and risk memos; co-authored analytic notes; and recorded researcher dialogues. Procedures: - Stage 1 (Narrative curation): Each researcher assembles “pressure point” vignettes where discriminatory pressures and institutional constraints redirected research/action. - Stage 2 (Dialogic inquiry): Recorded conversations probe contrasts/resonances in tactics. - Stage 3 (Co-analysis): Situational/relational mapping identifies opportunity windows, countermobilization, brokerage ties, and shifting risk profiles; coding attends to the three empowerment tension fields (levels; recognition/address; reflection/resources/conditions) within a grounded, abductive logic. For an analytic stance, narrative analysis (voice, temporality, positionality) integrates with process coding (opportunities, challenges, transformations) and a hegemony-informed reading of empowerment (stabilizing vs. resistant effects). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings First conclusions can be teasered as follows: To strengthen education research’s authority and public-good orientation in poly-crisis conditions, institutions should recalibrate expectations around visibility, timelines, metrics, and authorship, and resource the often-invisible labor of care and safety. Political process-oriented, hegemony-aware participatory research can meet policy relevance not by scaling metrics but by deepening methodological sincerity, responsiveness to political temporality, and solidaristic infrastructures that hold ambiguity without reproducing harm. Project/paper is still developing. References Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press. Cann, Colette N. & DeMeulenaere (2020). The activist academic. Engaged scholarship for resistance, hope and social change. Myers Education Press. Dausien, B. (1996). Bildung und Geschlecht. Bremen: Donat. Doblmair, M., Hackl, J. & Vogler, T. (2026). Collective Memory Work. In Engel et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Beltz Juventa. Forthcoming. Hackl, J., Märker, M. & Doblmair, M. (2024). Interpretation With/Through/Toward Intersectionality: Difficulties and Opportunities. International Review of Qualitative Research, 17(2), 134-148. Haug, F. (1999). Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Erinnerungsarbeit. Argument. Heinemann, A., & Mecheril, P. (2017). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskriminierungsforschung. In A. Scherr, A. El-Mafaalani, & G. Yüksel (Eds.), Handbuch Diskriminierung (pp. 117–132). Springer VS. Märker, M. T. S., Hackl, J., & Strasser, M. (2026). Empowerment in partizipativer Forschung – eine (Un-) Möglichkeit? Blicke auf ein umkämpftes Konzept in widersprüchlichen Verhältnissen. In Berner et al. (Eds.), Partizipative Forschung und Empowerment. Beltz Juventa. Miethe, I.; Tervooren, A. & Ricken, N. (Eds.) (2017): Bildung und Teilhabe. Zwischen Inklusionsforderung und Exklusionsdrohung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Riegel, C. (2010). Intersektionalit¨at als transdisziplin¨ares Projekt: Methodologische Perspektiven für die Jugendforschung. In C. Riegel, A. Scherr, & B. Stauber (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Jugendforschung (pp. 65–89). Springer VS. | ||