Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
14 SES 11 B: Inclusion, Minorities, Communities and Schools.
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper From Outsiders to Insiders: The Complex Role of Support Families in the Icelandic Refugee Resettlement Process 1: University of Iceland; 2: Williams College; 3: University of Akureyri Presenting Author:In the last 10 years, Iceland has welcomed an increasing number of refugees from Syria and Iraq through a formal resettlement program. While state agencies and municipalities provide critical structural and institutional support, Icelandic families have emerged as central actors in navigating everyday life. These families were known as "Support Families" and became involved through volunteer programs initiated and organized by the Icelandic Red Cross. The “support families” have often played a key role and offered an important presence as the refugees were navigating trauma and loss and the challenge of rebuilding life in an unfamiliar society, culturally, linguistically, and religiously. Though they have been very central in the overall experience of the resettlement process, their role is often overlooked and understudied. In often fragile situations, these volunteers could have a defining impact on the overall experience. This paper forms part of the broader research project A Part and Apart? Education and Social Inclusion of Refugee Children and Youth in Iceland (ESRCI), which examines the inclusion of refugee children and youth from Syria and Iraq and the institutional, social, and educational structures that shape their learning, wellbeing, and everyday experiences in Iceland. ESRCI is an interdisciplinary, multi‑year initiative and was one of four projects awarded an Icelandic Research Council “Grant of Excellence” in 2023. Within this wider context, the present paper investigates the multifaceted role of Icelandic support families in the resettlement process. It analyses how relationships between support families and newly arrived refugees are formed, how support families understand and enact their roles, and how these roles become emotionally, socially, and ethically complex as participants navigate expectations, cultural differences, and the asymmetries embedded in newcomer host relations. Drawing on 6–8 in‑depth interviews, earlier research on refugee inclusion in Iceland, and theoretical perspectives on social support, belonging, and relational dynamics, the analysis highlights the tensions, transformations, and opportunities that emerge as host society families shift from being unfamiliar community members to acting as supporters, mentors, and in some cases quasi family for resettled refugees. These findings resonate with previous Icelandic scholarship on refugee families, children, and youth particularly the work of Hanna Ragnarsdóttir, Susan Rafik Hama, which underscores the centrality of relational support systems for participation, wellbeing, and educational inclusion (Ragnarsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir & Hama, 2018).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopted a qualitative research design, prioritizing experiential accounts and meaning making processes over numerical measurement. Data were generated through semi structured, in depth interviews with eight Icelandic support families, supplemented by interviews with NGO professionals working in both rural and urban resettlement contexts. Semi structured interviewing was chosen because it enables researchers to elicit rich, detailed narratives while maintaining sufficient flexibility to follow participants’ meanings and clarify emerging themes (Flick, 2006). This approach aligns with broader qualitative principles that foreground participants’ subjective experiences, situating knowledge within social, cultural, and relational contexts (Lichtman, 2023). Such a design is particularly well suited to examining the nuanced dynamics, expectations, and everyday practices that shape the relationships between support families and newly arrived refugee families within the Icelandic resettlement system. In addition, this methodological orientation acknowledges the co constructed nature of knowledge in interview settings, where participants and researchers jointly produce accounts that reflect situated interpretations rather than fixed truths. The study therefore paid close attention to the interactional dimensions of the interviews, including how trust was negotiated, how participants framed their involvement as support families, and how narratives were shaped by broader public discourses about refugee reception in Iceland. The small, purposive sample enabled depth rather than breadth, allowing for careful tracing of variations across contexts for instance, how geographical isolation, local service availability, and community size intersected with families’ capacities to offer different forms of support. Reflexive field notes were used to document these contextual features and to monitor the researcher’s positionality throughout the data production process. The theoretical background of the study draws on theories of bonding and bridging social support theory that contribute to individuals’ well being and inclusion (Bourdieu, 1991; Putnam, 2000; Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). These forms of social capital are closely linked to social support theory, which identifies emotional, informational, and practical support as key components of helping relationship dimensions that are particularly pertinent to volunteer support families who assist refugee families in navigating unfamiliar social, cultural, and institutional contexts (Thoits, 2011). We also draw on theories of transnational and expanded notions of family, which recognise that familyhood can be created through emotional closeness rather than biological ties (Budginaitė Mačkinė et al., 2025). These frameworks help illuminate how Icelandic refugee relationships shift between formal mentorship, friendship, and familial closeness. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings shows that support families often serve as advocates, cultural mediators, and linguistic coaches. Our findings also show the diverse backgrounds of support families: Most were Icelandic but some families with a refugee background also signed up to support other families moving to Iceland. Meanwhile refugee families must navigate gratitude, vulnerability and the desire to maintain autonomy and cultural identity. The article argues that these relationships, while rewarding, require structured support and systems to prevent burnout and to ensure mutual respect, reciprocity and cultural safety. The volunteers, by the very nature of their positionality, had received limited training and some had little of the cultural background of the refugees. Ultimately, support families were able to create pathways from initial strangeness to deep social bonds, contributing to long -term inclusion and social cohesion. During this experience, notions of family expanded greatly and contributed to mutually enriching understanding of what it means to belong, who is an insider and outsider, and ultimately what it means to be an Icelander.The analysis uncovers differences in norms and parenting practices between refugee families and support families, while also highlighting care networks, friendships, and community cohesion. Challenges such as volunteer burnout and health issues posed difficulties on the bonds between the families and the care networks. We reflect on the broader politics of migrant parents resettled in rural areas, as well as the intersections of parenting, nationhood, and the welfare state. References Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 46–58). Oxford University Press. Budginaitė-Mačkinė, I., Albert, I., Schrooten, M., Stanojević, D., & Wojtyńska, A. (2025). Defining transnational families across countries and time: An analysis of academic discourse on the phenomenon between 2003 and 2023. Journal of Family Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2024.2449103 Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage. Lichtman, M. (2023). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (1st ed.). Routledge. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. Harvard University Press. Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2020). Refugee families in Iceland: Opportunities and challenges in schools and society. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 15(sup2), 1764294. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1764294 Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Hama, S. R. (2018). Flóttabörn í íslenskum skólum: Móttaka, skólastarf og samstarf við fjölskyldur [Refugee children in Icelandic schools: Reception, school practices, and cooperation with families]. Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013 Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395592 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper Reframing Resilience Across Distance: Left Behind Children and Migrant Mothers in Transnational Family Life University of Southampton, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Introduction Two persistent gaps shape scholarship on children in migration contexts. First, children’s own voices remain underrepresented in migration discourse. Second, resilience is too often treated as an individual, output‑oriented endpoint rather than a relational, situated process. As de los Reyes and Yue (2025) argue, children occupy a tense position—simultaneously the motivation for family migration and, when projects falter, facilitators of migration regimes despite minimal involvement in decision‑making. This paper addresses these gaps through a lens with direct consequences for Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. A share of participating mothers work in the UK—especially in health and care sectors—and many of their children anticipate family reunification in the near term. The resilience that left‑behind children (LBCs) cultivate during separation will shape their educational transitions, wellbeing, and participation on entry to British schools and services. By centring LBCs’ perspectives before reunification, this paper contributes evidence relevant to European priorities on inclusive education, safeguarding, and child participation. The study forms part of the Narrating Intergenerational Voices Project (Research England, International Science Partnership Fund, ODA), which examined LBCs’ inclusion in decisions about migration and education. LBCs are “children raised in their home countries or countries of habitual residence, who have been left behind by adult migrants responsible for them” (UNICEF Working Paper, n.d.). In the Philippines—where participating families originate—an estimated 1.5–9 million children are left behind by a migrant parent (Dominguez & Hall, 2022), underscoring both the scale and urgency of centring children’s voices in migration governance that may extend to Europe through reunification. Objectives This paper examines how transnational families’ cultures of inclusion shape migrant children’s capacities to navigate adversity, and how children themselves conceptualise, experience, and embody resilience. Bringing together family decision‑making (on migration and education) and caregiving practices, the paper treats resilience as relational, situated, and multi‑sensory, rather than an individual trait. By centring children’s and mothers’ narratives, it seeks to illuminate mechanisms through which inclusive practices enable (or constrain) coping, belonging, and continuity across borders, while foregrounding affective and sensory dimensions often overlooked in resilience research. Research Questions
Conceptual Framework The analysis is informed by the New Mobilities Paradigm (NMP), which conceptualises mobility as relational—emerging from networks of social, material, and institutional interdependencies—and differential, insofar as capacities to move (and to be moved) are unevenly distributed across people, places, and bodies (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Adey, 2006). Adey’s (2006) relational politics of (im)mobilities foregrounds how movement is produced through power‑laden arrangements—family organisation, infrastructures, border regimes, and moral economies—rather than held as an individual attribute. This paper extend these insights to resilience, not only because resilience is often cast as a mobile capacity (e.g., “bouncing back/forward”) but because it emerges within mobilities. Accordingly, resilience is treated here not as a personality trait or static outcome but as a relational, situated, and unequal process: the capacity to navigate and overcome adversity by pooling personal, social, material, and institutional resources within specific power geometries (Cresswell, 2010; Masten, 2001). In transnational families, such processes unfold through distributed caregiving, affective labour, and the infrastructures that sustain “transnational mothering” (de los Reyes & Yue, 2025; Baldassar & Merla, 2014; Madianou & Miller, 2012). For LBCs, resilience is co‑produced across space and time, shaped by gendered care chains, age hierarchies, recognition and stigma, and access to communication and support systems (Hochschild, 2000; Parreñas, 2005; Asis, 2006). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper draws on qualitative data from the Narrating Intergenerational Voices project. The research team conducted 32 narrative interviews with: 19 Filipina migrant mothers—nurses in the United Kingdom (n = 4) and in Australia (n = 1), and domestic workers in Hong Kong (n = 9) and Singapore (n = 5)—and their 12 left behind children (ages 12–18) residing in the Philippines. A narrative inquiry approach (Punch & Oancea, 2014) guided data generation. Participants provided spoken, written, and visual accounts focused on key milestones such as parental departure, caregiving arrangements, schooling experiences, and prospective mobility decisions. Analysis was inductive and iterative, attending to how children described agency, affect, and the pooling of social and material resources within transnational family networks. Ethical approval was obtained from the author’s university. Informed consent was sought from all migrant mothers, while assent was obtained from participants under 18, alongside parental consent. Given that interviews were conducted online, safeguarding protocols were rigorously followed. This included ensuring that children participated in safe, private environments; providing options to pause or withdraw; and maintaining secure digital procedures for confidentiality and data protection throughout the study. The primary analytic focus remained on children’s meaning making and participation in decision making. References to possible family reunification—whether to the UK, Australia, or in the Philippines—were treated as contextual background, not evaluative endpoints. The aim was to understand how resilience is articulated and negotiated while children remain in the Philippines, without presuming uniform trajectories or making claims about outcomes in any specific education system. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Analysis found that resilience among LBCs is simultaneously relational and embodied or affective. First, resilience arises from the social organisation of transnational family life rather than from individuals alone. Mothers recognised LBCs’ emotional and material labour in sustaining households, acknowledging migration as part of the cause of the adversity their children are facing, signalling ongoing negotiations of responsibility consistent with care circulation and transnational family reflexivity (Hochschild, 2000; Baldassar & Merla, 2014). Resilience was supported by collective solidarities—siblings “looking after each other” – co producing coping capacities within kin and peer networks. These practices operated within power relations, as children followed older siblings’ lead in navigating responsibilities. Care also flowed bidirectionally, with children offering emotional reassurance to migrant mothers through digital communication (de los Reyes & Yue, 2025). At the same time, resilience took embodied and affective forms, grounded in the corporeal and emotional consequences of parental absence. LBCs described adversity through the mother’s missing presence, showing how maternal absence is felt through the body and everyday routines (Baldassar, 2008). For many, resilience began with survival and self care, reflecting the embodied labour of growing up amid stretched care systems. LBCs narrated a difficult emotional trajectory—“I have to accept that my mom is not here” and “it wasn’t easy”—highlighting the emotion work required. Overall, viewed through the New Mobilities Paradigm, children’s capacities to “carry on” are relational and differential, situated and unequal, shaped by recognition, resources, positionality, and access to communication, kin support, schooling, and services (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Adey, 2006). Resilience thus emerges as a co produced process across relationships, bodies, and infrastructures. References Adey, P. (2006). If mobility is everything then it is nothing: Towards a relational politics of (im)mobilities. Mobilities, 1(1), 75–94. Asis, M. M. B. (2006). Living with migration: Experiences of left‑behind children in the Philippines. Asian Population Studies, 2(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730600700556 Baldassar, L. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the emplacement of long‑distance relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860802169196 Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (Eds.). (2014). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care. Routledge. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1068/d11407 de los Reyes, E. J., & Yue, A. (2025). Transnational mothering and the complexities of childhood among migrant Filipina domestic workers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2594844 Dominguez, G. B., & Hall, B. J. (2022). The health status and related interventions for children left behind due to parental migration in the Philippines: A scoping review. The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific, 28, 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100566 Hochschild, A. (2000, January 3). The nanny chain. The American Prospect, 11(4), 32-36. Available in online form from https://prospect.org/features/nanny-chain/ Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia. Routledge. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Parreñas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford University Press. Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education (2nd ed.). SAGE. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268 Skelton, T. (2008). Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280701791976 UNICEF. (n.d.). Children “Left Behind” (UNICEF Working Paper). https://www.unicef.org/media/83581/file/Children-Left-Behind.pdf 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper Students’ Well-being and Agency in Collaboration Between Multilingual Families and Schools University of Iceland, Iceland Presenting Author:Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a great increase in the number of multilingual students in Icelandic compulsory schools. Over one hundred heritage languages are represented among students in Icelandic schools where Icelandic is both the majority language and the sole official language (Íslensk málnefnd, 2021; Móðurmál, 2025; Statistics Iceland, 2025). Families raising multilingual children have multiple tasks going on at the same time, especially when parents have immigrated to Iceland as adults. They might be learning Icelandic, sometimes also English, and navigating an educational system that might differ from the one they previously knew. Children in these families may encounter different expectations and assume roles or responsibilities that diverge from those of their peers born to predominantly Icelandic speaking parents. Inclusion, equity, equality and social justice are some of the ground principals of the Icelandic School system, which is similar to the systems of other Nordic Countries. Icelandic legislation has a distinct focus on systemic collaboration between schools and homes, stressing the importance of organizing education to correspond to the circumstances and needs of pupils. The collaboration’s purpose is to promote each student’s all-round development, academic achievement and well-being. Supervisory teachers are mainly responsible for the collaboration with parents but in many cases, students also play a significant role, for example in schools where student led parent-teacher conferences are being implemented (Compulsory School Act, no. 91/2008; Mikander et al., 2018). This research’s analysis draws on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Epstein’s framework of school, family and community partnerships along with theories on student agency as partners in their education and quality of school life (Bandura, 2018; Bronfenbrenner, 1996; Epstein, 2016; Tangen 2022; Warming, 2011). The research’s aim is to explore how multilingual students, their parents, and teachers describe students’ educational experiences and well-being in school and their collaboration to enhance that well-being. The research question is: How do parents, teachers and multilingual students describe their collaboration to support the students’ well-being in compulsory schools? This article prioritizes the concepts of student agency and well-being, placing them at the centre of the analysis rather than academic achievement or other factors. The focus is on how students articulate their social and emotional experiences in school, their sense of agency, and their involvement in the collaboration between home and school. Additionally, the article examines how parents and teachers describe their roles and interactions in supporting student well-being. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This research draws on semi structured interviews conducted in 2022-2023 as part of the qualitative research project Language policies and practices of diverse immigrant families in Iceland and their implications for education (Ragnarsdóttir, n.d.). The project involved sixteen families of multilingual children in Icelandic compulsory schools along with their teachers and principals and employed a multiple case study design. Purposive and snowball sampling strategies were used to ensure diversity in language background, migration history, length of residence in Iceland, and socio-economic status (Braun & Clarke, 2013). School principals in four demographically diverse municipalities recruited the participating families. To gain insight into the perspectives and practices of parents and teachers’, the research team conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews, using interview guides developed for the study. There were seventeen individual interviews with teachers and three group interviews taken about six months later. Parental interviews were sixteen in the first round and thirteen in the second one. Children aged eleven years and older were also invited to participate in individual interviews conducted at school or at home, resulting in thirteen interviews. As part of these interviews, they drew language portraits, which served as visual discussion points and provided additional opportunities for discussion. This flexible, multimodal approach supported the generation of rich, reflective accounts from participants. All interviews were conducted in Icelandic or English and transcribed verbatim. An informed consent letter was prepared, presented to, and signed by all participants. After anonymizing the interview transcripts, they were uploaded to an offline version of the Atlas.ti software, for secure qualitative analysis. All data were stored electronically on a secure server and access restricted to members of the research team. Primary coding and analysis were conducted collaboratively by researchers that met regularly to merge and review their work. In this research, I employed Braun & Clark’s six step procedure of thematic analysis. It involves familiarization with data, generating initial codes, then themes and patterns, reviewing them, defining and naming the themes and reporting findings (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Braun & Clarke, 2021). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The theoretical basis for this research highlights that home-school collaboration involves more complexity than the exchange of information between parents and teachers. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory positions the student at the centre of interconnected systems with the mesosystem capturing interactions between key microsystems such as family and school (Bronfenbrenner 1996). Similarly, Epstein’s (2016) framework emphasizes how the intersecting spheres of family, school and community shape students’ development, learning and well-being. Icelandic legislation further affirms childrens agency by ensuring their right to express their views on matters affecting them (Stjórnarráðið, 2018). The findings indicate that parents and teachers actively seek to support and enhance student’s well-being. Nonetheless, both teachers and parents acknowledged that multilingual students sometimes assume responsibilities related to linguistic or cultural brokering, even at a young age. Such responsibilities can complicate students’ educational experiences while also providing them with a degree of agency, influencing how collaboration between school and home unfolds. Examples include children, both younger students and teenagers, being expected to interpret and explain school-related information to their parents. Some children also described deliberately using Icelandic to limit their parents’ understanding in certain situations. Students emphasized the importance of a positive school climate and of feeling genuinely cared for by teachers. Such relational aspects seemed to be linked to academic engagement and their physical and psychological well-being. Teachers and parents agreed with this but some teachers also connected students’ sense of belonging with their participation in extracurricular and community activities including after school programs and sports or music practices. Overall, collaboration to support the well-being of multilingual students in Icelandic compulsory schools emerges as a multifaceted process shaped by dynamics within schools, families, communities and students own active participation. References Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a Psychology of Human Agency: Pathways and Reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). The ecology of human development experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Compulsory School Act. Pub. L. No 91 (2008). https://www.government.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/frettatengt2016/91_2008-Compulsory-School-Act-ENGLISH-Uppfaert-Jan-2017.pdf Epstein, J. L. (2016). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429493133 Stjórnarráðið (2018). Fimmta og sjötta skýrsla Íslands um samning Sameinuðu þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins. (2018). [útgefanda ekki getið]. https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/03-Verkefni/Felags--og-fjolskyldumal/Malefni-barna/Skýrsla%20um%20barnasáttmálann%20-%20íslenska.pdf Íslensk málnefnd. (2021). Íslensk málstefna 2021 - 2030 [e. Icelandic Language Policy 2021-2030]. https://islenskan.is/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Islensk_malstefna_sept_2021.pdf Mikander, P., Zilliacus, H., & Holm, G. (2018). Intercultural education in transition: Nordic perspectives. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1433432 Móðurmál (2025). Language Map 2025 – The Search for Linguistic Resources in Iceland. https://www.modurmal.com/language-map-2025-the-search-for-linguistic-resources-in-iceland/ Ragnarsdóttir, H. (n.d). Language policies and practices of diverse immigrant families in Iceland and their implications for education (LPP). Application for Rannís grant 2022. Statistics Iceland. (2025). Hlutfall nemenda með erlent móðurmál og erlent ríkisfang 2006–2024 [Percentage of students with a foreign mother tongue and foreign citizenship 2006–2024]. https://hagstofa.is/talnaefni/samfelag/menntun/grunnskolastig/ Tangen, R. (2022). Elevens stemmer i skolen: elevkunnskap og skolelivskvalitet. Cappellen Damm Akademisk. Warming, H. (2011). Børneperspektiver : børn som ligeværdige medspillere i socialt og pædagogisk arbejde. (1. udgave.). Akademisk Forlag. | ||