Conference Agenda

ECER 2026 attends to the conditions that produce educational knowledge, and how such knowledge is able to make sense of, and react to, the global ‘poly-crisis’. A starting point for our symposium is the assumption that, in the face of the poly-crisis, Western (educational) knowledge is increasingly confronted with its own limitations, which often leads to an interest in other types of knowledge, especially Indigenous knowledges, and a desire to learn from them.

Indigenous theorists are wary of this desire and, along with postcolonial theorists, remind that modern/Western systems of knowledge are rooted in hegemonic and universalist assumptions that can make ‘learning from’ other knowledges politically and epistemologically problematic (e.g. Smith 2021; Spivak 1988).

In the realm of European educational studies, a legitimate desire to learn from Indigenous knowledges always carries the danger of “academic exploitation” (Owen 2008) One may ask whether it makes sense to attempt to transfer specifically local (i.e. Indigenous) knowledge to completely different contexts, and whether this is possible without repeating a colonial gesture—the ‘taking’ of others’ knowledge for the benefit of the takers.

The question of the (Western) desire for Indigenous knowleges poses several problems for Western educators interested in teaching (about) Indigenous knowledges. Do we learn from them? About them? Can we teach others’ knowledges? Some have pointed to the danger posed by non-Indigenous educators romanticising Indigenous theories, or ‘including’ them, or mis-understanding their ontological roots, or employing them to overcome feelings of guilt (e.g. Jones & Jenkins 2008; Hoskins & Jones, 2022, 2024).

The challenges associated with the relationship between Indigenous knowledge and non-Indigenous scholars, teachers and learners, are linked to questions of relationships, identity and solidarity. The challenges are always ontological, and relational and political. With these in mind, we consider the positive possibilities in the relationship.

In this symposium, the problematic and potentially productive aspects of a desire to learn from Indigenous knowledge will be discussed from different viewpoints. Te Kawehau Hoskins, an Indigenous Māori scholar and university leader from Aotearoa New Zealand, asks what it might take for non-Indigenous teachers and scholars to engage properly with Indigenous knowledges. Alison Jones, a New Zealand non-Indigenous (‘Pākehā’) educator and scholar with a long history in engagement with Indigenous students and researchers reflects on building relationships with oneself and with others in the context of a settler colonial country struggling with its history. Ingvill Bjørnstad Åberg and Bettina Fritzsche, education scholars from Norway and Germany respectively, discuss the consequences of a desire to learn from Indigenous knowledge and to build fruitful relationships in the context of European educational studies. Torjer Olsen, who teaches in the Master's degree program in Indigenous studies at the Arctic University of Norway will be the discussant.

Central questions discussed in the symposium will be:

• What does the relevance of establishing relationships (between people, ancestors, places, ideas, events, objects, culture and language) in Indigenous ontologies mean for a desire to establish connections between Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and what are conditions for productive collective educational, social and theoretical projects in this context?
• What is the significance of relationality and place for European educators looking to engage authentically with Indigenous knowledges?
• How can a desire to learn from Indigenous knowledge in the context of European educational studies be described and legitimated?
• What are problematic aspects of this desire, to what extent is such learning possible and what are its ethical conditions?

What does an indigenous-Māori scholar and university leader from Aotearoa New Zealand want to say to European educationists and leaders interested in indigenous thinking and knowledges? Indigenous-Māori ontological approaches always begin with establishing relationships, with tracing/making connections between people, ancestors, places, ideas, events, objects, culture and language. These entanglements may have been forged by encounters, war, colonisation, marriage or the place of a grave (Jones & Hoskins, 2016). Re/establishing connections works to catalyse commitments and enliven relationships. A genuine and respectful interest in indigenous knowledges requires relationships with our own social identities, with indigenous knowledge holders and scholars, and must involve commitments to indigenous contexts and priorities (Hoskins & Jones, 2022; 2024). We are helped in relationship building by asking two simple questions: Who are we, and why do we matter to each other? These questions, asked iteratively, can open possibilities for shared and productive educational, social and theoretical projects.

Jones, A., & Hoskins, T. K. (2016). A mark on paper: The matter of indigenous-settler history. In C. Hughes & C. A. Taylor (Eds.), Post-human Research practices in education (pp. 75-92). London, England: Palgrave MacMillan. Hoskins, T. K., & Jones, A. (2024). What is ‘indigenising the academy’ and why attempt it?  Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2363349 Hoskins, T. K., & Jones, A. (2022). Indigenous inclusion and indigenising the university. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40841-022-00264-1

What might a ‘European New Zealander’ have to say to European educationists in Europe about their interest in Indigenous knowledges? Using autoethnography as method, I interrogate my tricky role as a non-Indigenous teacher of Indigenous knowledge and language to non-Indigenous people (Jones, 2012; 2020). My starting point is the New Zealand identity ‘Pākehā’, an ancient Indigenous Māori name for fair-skinned folk. This identity is deeply relational and located in place—two essential characteristics of Indigenous knowledges. My autoethnographic method makes use of philosophical concepts of ontology (logic of reality) and teleology (logic of purpose) to speak about the significance of relationality and place for European educators looking to engage authentically with Indigenous knowledges (Mead, 2025; Salmond, 2012). My 40-year experience as a Pākehā teacher and researcher in New Zealand provides a position from which to talk about two ontological worlds, and the complexity as well as necessity of a teleological understanding. Grounded in examples from my own experience, I argue that commonly-used terms like ‘different perspectives’, ‘inclusion’, ‘equity’ and ‘diversity’ can be antithetical to a proper engagement with indigenous knowledges (Hoskins and Jones, 2024).

Hoskins, T. K., & Jones, A. (2024). What is ‘indigenising the academy’ and why attempt it? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2363349 Jones, A. (2012). Dangerous Liaisons: Pākehā, kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47 (2), 101-113. Jones, A. (2020). This Pākehā Life: An Unsettled Memoir. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 240pp. Mead, H.M (2025). Mātauranga Māori. Huia Publishers Wellington, New Zealand Salmond, A. (2012). Ontological Quarrels: Indigeneity, exclusion and citizenship in a relational world. Anthropological Theory, 12: 115 http://ant.sagepub.com/content/12/2/115 DOI: 10.1177/1463499612454119

In the wake of the Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Commission report (2023), there is an upsurge of “reconciliation talk” among Norwegian authorities, from ministries to municipalities. However, both the TRC and my own research (Åberg et al., 2024) point to a gap in ambition between public authorities and Saami communities, leading to the question of whether the ambitions of the public sector may be limited to “inclusion” (Hoskins and Jones, 2022): superficial, tokenistic and not challenging majority self-understandings. Norwegian self-understandings have been described as characterized by exceptionalism and ideas of colonial and racial innocence (Loftsdóttir & Jensen, 2016). The premise for both Saami and other minority topics in education has been described as othering (Eriksen, 2018). While the TRC calls for a massive raise of general knowledge about the presence, history, culture and historical assimilation of Saami communities in Norway, what happens when “everyone” suddenly wants to “learn about the Saami” in the name of reconciliation – if the ambition is mostly limited to inclusion? This question is epistemological and ethical (as my symposium colleagues will also touch upon), and speaks to dangers of repeating colonial knowledge patterns and exploitative relations between academia and the Saami. The dangers are far from theoretical: In sheer numbers, Saami are in extreme minority in most parts of Norway, and knowledge-bearers are now facing a growing overabundance of requests to act as de facto teachers, stakeholder alibis and last-minute reference group members. This calls for allies to find their role in lessening the burden: how to teach about Saami issues without overstepping in terms of what questions to engage with.

Eriksen, K. G. (2018). Teaching about the Other in primary level social studies: The Sami in Norwegian textbooks. Journal of Social Science Education, 17(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-875 Hoskins, T. K., & Jones, A. (2022). Indigenous Inclusion and Indigenising the University. New Zealand journal of educational studies, 57(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-022-00264-1 Loftsdóttir, K. n., & Jensen, L. (2016). Whiteness and postcolonialism in the Nordic Region: exceptionalism, migrant others and national identities. Routledge. Sannhets- og forsoningskommisjonen. (2023). Sannhet og forsoning - grunnlag for et oppgjør med fornorskingspolitikk og urett mot samer, kvener/norskfinner og skogfinner (Dokument 19 (2022-2023)). Åberg, I. B., Dankertsen, A., & Paulsen, M. (2024). Samisk medvirkning i en norsk fylkeskommune etter 40 år med rettighetskamp. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 42(3-4), 207–229. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18261/nnt.41.3-4.2

As a non-Indigenous scholar in educational studies, who teaches at a German university and who is deeply interested in Indigenous theory, in my talk I want to analyse the reasons for such a desire. Referring to criticism in relation to a romanticisation (Jones & Jenkins 2008) and an exploitation (Owen 2008; Todd 2016) of Indigenous knowledge in the academic context I want to explore the explicit and implicit hopes associated with this desire and hint at its problematic aspects. Hereby I will especially refer to the poly-crisis and the limitations of Western thinking it made clear and will reflect on my own hopes as well as hopes connected with references to Indigenous knowledge in the context of discussions on education for sustainable development (e.g. Manns et al. 2025). On this basis I will work out, which of these hopes can be fulfilled and which cannot be fulfilled by an attempt to learn from Indigenous knowledge. In the end I will present some thoughts on the consequences of my analysis for the building of fruitful relationships and on the question, under which (ethical) conditions such a learning can be possible and fruitful.

Jones, A., Jenkins, K. (2008): Rethinking collaboration: Working the Indigene-Colonizer hyphen. In: N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.) Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 471-486. Manns, M., Heiss, J., Morohashi, J., & Loupis, L. (2025). Harnessing Indigenous Knowledge for Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 19(2), 157-167 Owen, S. (2008): The Appropriation of Native American Spirituality. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. Todd, Zoe (2016): ‘An Indigenous Feminist’s Take on the Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ is just another word for colonialism’. Journal of Historical Sociology 29(1): 4-22.