Conference Agenda

Africa is widely considered as a cradle of mathematics and many other fields that are now taught in schools of industrialized countries. On the other hand, Africa is following the standards that are imported from what might be understood as better educated parts of the world. Probably Africa can regain its pioneering role in education by going back to the immense resources and diversity in its native languages, indigenous expressions, original arts, forms of nature, and most of all, its young demographics and talented people.

We propose a garner approach to education—natural learning that organically integrates creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration by gathering contextually relevant ingredients for the educational process. Rather than importing culturally foreign elements or dividing learning by artificial disciplinary borders (resembling the educational equivalent of the Scramble for Africa), natural learning boldly integrates available assets—from ancient cultural artifacts to emerging technologies. This represents Africanization par excellence, enriching educational content through the surrounding environment, whether real or virtual. With AI capabilities, learning can simultaneously engage local contexts and global perspectives, flourishing particularly in Africa's diverse local milieu.

In our paper, rather than building education on the limitations set by colonization or the demanding mental efforts to get over its legacy, we design an alternative approach for the born-frees. This study introduces the steps required for designing the garner approach to education, to be pioneered in Africa. The approach is well aligned to the design science research paradigm, applied widely for developing functional solutions, based on rigorous investigation in but not limited to computing and information systems. Garner refers to the era of collecting and gathering, but also those of information and imagination. This is more distant to the fading industrialization era that is the economical and ideological basis for what most of education nowadays is.

African countries gained independence over six decades ago, yet imported Western educational systems have failed to address fundamental African challenges. There are clear differences between a "university in Africa" (Euro-centric) and an "African university" (Afro-centric), where the latter generates knowledge from African reality (Masenya, 2021). The colonial setup of education systems viewed African culture, environment, and resources not as contributions but as burdens requiring correction. UNESCO (2016) recognizes that education can transform lives by eradicating poverty and driving sustainable development, yet the copy-paste Western model in Africa has failed this promise.a burden, problems and challenges that need to be identified and sorted out.

Evidence of this failure manifests in brain drain patterns. Well-educated Africans often serve Western environments better than African ones (Capuano & Marfouk, 2013; Ngwé, n.d.). This is exemplified by countless African youths crossing the Mediterranean, even illegally, to enter Europe. It demonstrates that African education predominantly prepares graduates for Western rather than African challenges.

Unlike most contemporary educational research on Africa, our agenda is to focus on the potential, resources and strengths of Africa and especially her born-frees and break away from the bondage of colonial history towards the future. Our study is based on the findings and narratives of the authors in their various consulting, academic and teaching assignments in various African countries, especially Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa and Namibia, since 1995.

Our paper eschews building education on colonial limitations or demanding mental gymnastics to overcome that legacy. Thus our research questions are:

1. Why does Western education fail to solve African challenges?

2. How did Africans contextualize education systems after independence?

3. What changes or transformations are necessary for current African education systems to address fundamental challenges?

Topic: Cross-Sector Collaboration in ′MellomRommet′
Research Question: How are cross-sectoral models in ′MellomRommet′ structured, what challenges arise for the future development of the partnerships, and how can these models be situated within a theoretical partnership model?

Background: ′MellomRommet′ is a Norwegian after-school program providing inclusive, play-based physical activity spaces for children by strengthening the collaboration between public, private, and voluntary sectors. Participating local projects are challenged to develop their own model through cross-sectoral partnerships. The program is supposed to be low-threshold, free of charge and aims at all children (5^th to 7^th grade), specifically those who did not find their place in organized sport activities and lack structured opportunities or safe places to spend time after school.

Objective: Cross-sectoral partnerships are widely recognized as a strategy for promoting physical activity among children. Cooperations between schools, local authorities, sports clubs, and non-profit organizations are crucial for the successful implementation of activity programs for children (Martin et al., 2016).

International research demonstrates that such collaborations enable broader reach, more inclusive participation, and better use of resources. However, despite this growing body of evidence, most studies focus primarily on program outcomes, such as changes in physical activity levels, rather than on the partnership structures that underpin these initiatives or on how responsibilities, power, autonomy, and organizational identities are negotiated among actors from different sectors (Foley et al., 2020; Ostermeier et al., 2023).

There are few studies on such partnerships within physical activity programs in a Norwegian context. Existing research has largely been conducted outside Europe. According to current literature research, there is no after-school exercise program for children in Norway where the underlying partnership-structures have been scientifically examined. This underscores the importance of investigating the underlying models in ′MellomRommet′.

By applying the partnership model by Brinkerhoff (2002), this paper aims to find out more about the structure of cross-sectoral models in ′MellomRommet′, what challenges and opportunities for the future development of the partnerships arise, and how these relationships can be situated within the model.

Theoretical Framework:

Brinkerhoff (2002) defines the “ideal type of partnership” as a dynamic relationship among multiple actors, based on jointly agreed objectives and a shared understanding of how tasks should be distributed according to each partner’s comparative advantages. Such partnerships balance synergy and autonomy and are characterized by mutual respect, equal participation in decision-making, shared accountability, and transparency. However, these normative definitions are difficult to operationalize, not universally applicable, and rooted in subjective values.

To address this challenge, Brinkerhoff (2002) proposes analyzing partnerships through two key dimensions: mutuality and organizational identity. Mutuality refers to the degree of interdependence, shared rights and responsibilities, and equality in decision-making among partners. Partnerships are more sustainable when all actors benefit and can influence goals, processes, and outcomes. Mutuality is understood as a horizontal rather than hierarchical relationship.

Organizational identity refers to the unique and enduring characteristics of an organization, such as its mission, values, and constituencies. Preserving organizational identity is essential for long-term collaboration, as partners remain committed when their roles and values are clearly defined. Brinkerhoff (2002) distinguishes between identity at the level of individual organizations and at the institutional or sectoral level. Maintaining organizational identity contributes to partnership stability and sustainability.

Based on the presence or absence of mutuality and organizational identity, Brinkerhoff (2002) identifies four types of inter-organizational relationships: partnership, contracting, extension, and co-optation or absorption. These forms are dynamic and may change over time. In the context of ′MellomRommet′, various relationship types exist between the regional confederation and the local projects. This will be investigated more closely.

The aim of this research is to analyse the results of two workshops on future educational scenarios organised from an eco-social perspective. This proposal develops a co-inquiry process that has been jointly promoted by a Spanish university and various socio-educational entities (31 entities) as part of a broader research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (R&D Project: Inclusive dialogues: building collaborative narratives for education in Cantabria and the Basque Country. Project reference: PID2023-146966OB-C31). The paper focuses on examining the potential of this methodology as a space for inter-institutional collaboration, the dynamics of shared work and the collective learning generated throughout the experience.

The proposal makes sense in a social context characterised by major ecological, social and humanitarian challenges, which project a highly uncertain socio-educational horizon (Bansal et al., 2025). This scenario calls for multifaceted and non-linear research frameworks that integrate the collaboration of various actors (Hale et al., 2026). In this sense, Futures studies have emerged as a tool of great interest for mentally anticipating plausible and preferable scenarios, as well as for deploying collective processes for individual and collective reflection on the interpretations, values and ideologies that shape our conceptions of the future (Kazemier et al., 2021; Kupferman, 2022).

Similarly, there is a growing demand to promote educational research that fosters partnership and dialogue between different fields of knowledge in order to address complex and multidimensional challenges (Korsgaard et al., 2018). In this sense, collaborative research approaches based on relational symmetry between different agents and on the co-construction of knowledge (Naidorf and Alonso, 2018) promote greater appropriation and use of research results by socio-educational agents (Joram et al., 2019).

As we have pointed out, future scenarios constitute a concrete strategy for facilitating processes of anticipation and collective deliberation (Engeler, 2017) which, in our case, is oriented towards eco-social challenges (Pérez-Munguía and Susinos, 2024). Furthermore, they encourage the participation of various agents, creative ideation, the joint construction of meanings from diverse perspectives, and the management of uncertainty (Hafezi et al, 2024; Poskitt, 2018). This collaborative and collective learning quality leads us to adopt the knowledge mobilisation approach, which has a dimension oriented towards participation and democratisation of the knowledge-building process and its possible benefits. On the other hand, it promotes interaction between multiple agents from an epistemological perspective based on the social construction of knowledge (Pérez-Mora et al., 2016; Parrilla et al., 2017; Sales et al., 2021; Naidorf, 2014).

The research questions we propose to analyse are:

• What elements of the design and development of this research demonstrate the qualities of this collaborative and dialogical model of knowledge construction?
• What lessons can be verified in the participating groups based on their involvement in the process
• How does this model contribute to the achievement of more applied, inclusive and transferable research results in different contexts?

The topic of reciprocity has a long tradition in anthropology, where a wide range of evidence characterising humankind as a ‘cooperative species’ has been gathered and continues to be evaluated against aspects of group collaboration in the present day (Bowles and Gintis, 2013). The concept of reciprocity has become central to understanding socially just and morally preferable ways of working together; however, this can sit uncomfortably with other theorisations of humans as essentially self-centred and self-interested (Bacevic, 2025). These contradictory conceptualisations are evident in the competing discourses of social justice and individual self-interest that frame many educational endeavours in a neoliberal age and extend to professionals trying to understand how to work together (Keddie and Mills, 2019; Edwards, 2011). Much of the work in this area, especially when framed by social exchange theory and investigating discretionary work effort (e.g. Frenkel and Bednall, 2016), often focuses on harnessing both cooperation and self-interest to further the organisation’s goals, rather than considering individual well-being. Bacevic is challenging the dualism of social justice and self-interest and argues for everyday acts of nonreciprocity to be ‘seen as both ordinary and not necessarily destructive’ to social interaction, proposing instead a socio-political theory that ‘does not rest on principles of equivalence’ (Bacevic, 2025). In recognition of the difficulties experienced by many educators with workload, wellbeing and sustainable working practices, we have taken up Bacevic’s challenge to explore nonreciprocity in educational partnerships.

Our interest in nonreciprocity originated among outlier analytic categories in three separate research projects involving collaboration in different kinds of partnership. We agree with Baumfield’s definition of partnership as ‘working together to find an agreed solution to a common problem or problematic situation’ but have framed this within cultural historical activity theory informed by Edwards’ concept of relational agency, and Dreier’s work on individuals moving between different kinds of social practice (Dreier 1999, 2008; Edwards, 2011; Engeström, 2015, 2000). There were incidents in each project where a mismatch over individuals’ expectations of effort towards the shared activity led to disquiet, discomfort and sometimes anger. Each project included accounts when a tipping point was reached – ‘and then I got cross’ - and which surfaced contradictions between explicit and implicit values carried into the shared project from other spheres of activity and leading to questions about the overall purpose of work in that particular context (Engeström, 2015, 2000). While such mismatches were not a core finding of any of the three research projects, nonreciprocity nonetheless merited further exploration, given its connections to wellbeing, retention and job satisfaction.

This presentation draws on data from two international projects collected through interviews and focus groups with educators at different stages of their careers that separately explored collaboration between and within organisations, and a third project, a duoethnography of volunteering to promote sustainable practices. In the first two projects, reciprocity had been identified as an important theme with a mainly positive valence; however, disputes had arisen about unequal contributions between partners in a Erasmus+ collaboration project during COVID and in the mentoring project over differences in teachers’ attitudes to students’ level of commitment on placement. In the third project, despite a definition of volunteering as ‘an act of free will that results in benefits to others’ (UN, 2000) and a shared goal (of minimising landfill), there were continuing tensions over roles, rules and responsibilities and uncertainty over the object of the activity. We therefore decided to engage in further analysis of instances of both reciprocity and nonreciprocity across the three studies.