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, 21:30:06 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
28 SES 03 A: The Territorialization of Education from a Sociological Perspective
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper The Study of an Elusive Concept: Europeanisation in Education Research 1: University of Glasgow, United Kingdom; 2: Tampere University Presenting Author:This paper presentation aims to engage with the scholarly debates around the relevance and meaning of the interdisciplinary concept of Europeanisation for education research. Emphasised by some as fundamental and by others as negligible in understanding national education systems, Europeanisation remains an elusive concept; attempts to define it in universal terms are bound to fail. Drawing on a constructivist stance and the historical ‘turn’ in Europeanisation research, this paper will discuss (and invite further discussion about) Europeanisation as an inherently plural concept, shaped by historical and political circumstances that extend beyond European Union (EU) politics and policy agendas, as well as European borders themselves. In doing so, the presentation unpacks Europeanisation as a phenomenon which has and continues to emerge in many different forms and settings. For education researchers, this implies the challenge to trace and theorise ‘the multiple, sometimes contradictory ways in which Europe is invoked, contested and reimagined’ (Sivesind and Ydesen 2025: 565) within the wider global context. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This conceptual paper is based on the review and synthesis of selected key literature on Europeanisation in education published since the 2000s, including our previous work on this topic. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In response to and working with key literature on Europeanisation in education, the paper proposes the study of Europeanisation as a messy and ongoing process of re-signification tied to boundaries, relationalities, contestation and externalities. Our argument will be developed in three main sections. First, we will provide an account of the increasing issue salience of education as an area in European policy-making since the late 1950s, discussing learning and socialisation among a widening array of policy actors as a driver for Europeanisation processes, as well as the relevant education literature that has studied these processes in depth. In doing so, our presentation highlights the centrality of learning and education in ‘Europe’ as a political project since the mid-20th century. Examining the ontological dimensions of Europeanisation as a product and process, the second part of our presentation will situate EU education and training policy in the longer trajectory of Europeanisation narratives and will demonstrate the deeply relational nature of Europeanisation processes, driven by the complex interactions and interdependencies between policy actors within ‘Europe’ and beyond. Finally, we will discuss epistemological questions of how we come to know Europeanisation as a dynamic, multifaceted, and multidirectional phenomenon, including theoretical and methodological tools which capture its workings and effects. In putting forward this research agenda, we point towards analytical approaches which go beyond the focus on ‘adaptation’ and ‘usages’ of EU policy that have come to dominate the Europeanisation literatures in education and in the social sciences more generally. References Conway, M., & Patel. K.K. (eds. 2010). Europeanization in the Twentieth Century: Historical Approaches. Palgrave Macmillan. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. (eds. 2009). Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education. Oxford: Symposium. Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640050 Delanty, G. (2015), ‘The making of European society: contesting methodological nationalism’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 29 (1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2015.1051340 Eeva, K., & Kauko, J. (eds. 2025), Analysing Knowledge Networks in Higher Education Policymaking: Uncovering the Power of Networks in the Finland–EU Context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032712024 Flockhart, T. (2010). Europeanization or EU-ization? The transfer of European norms across time and space. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48 (4): 787–810. Greiner, P. Pichler, J., & Vermeiren, J. (eds. 2022). Reconsidering Europeanization: Ideas and Practices of (Dis-)Integrating Europe since the Nineteenth Century. De Gruyter Oldenbourg. Jano, D. (2024). Historical Usage of Europeanization in Academic Discourse. European Review, 32(5–6): 505–523. doi:10.1017/S1062798724000310 Landri, P. (2018). Digital Governance of Education: Technology, Standards and Europeanization of Education. Bloomsbury. Lawn, M., and Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing Education: Governing a New Policy Space. Oxford: Symposium. Sivesind, K., and Ydesen, C. (2025), ‘Editorial: Revitalizing European educational research in times of global change’, European Educational Research Journal, 24 (5): 559-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041251377220 28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Linking Education Decentralisation to Territorial Inequality Conceptually and Empirically 1: Cardiff University, United Kingdom; 2: Freie Universität Berlin; 3: University of Kent Presenting Author:Contemporary democracies are characterised by multiple levels of governance. National and regional entities hold different amounts of power, including over education (Ansell & Lindvall, 2021). Case studies document the fraught debates that have reshaped regional education decentralisation and federalism since the 1990s, showing that they resulted in increased centralisation in some countries and greater decentralisation in others (Erk, 2008; Mueller & Giudici, 2017; Reed, 2014; Vergari, 2010). However, little systematic knowledge exists on how regional power distribution varies across countries and has changed over time (Lastra-Anadón & Mukherjee, 2019). At the same time, despite equality and recognition being key arguments in these debates in the context of Europe, we lack an understanding of how regional decentralisation is linked to inequality, both conceptually and empirically. This paper thus asks: how does regional decentralisation vary across selected Western democracies? And how does this variation relate to territorial inequality? To address the first question, we present two new indices enabling us to systematically trace and compare regional educational decentralisation since 2000 for the first time. The Index of Regional Powers in Education (IRPE) and the Index of Regional Policy Diversity in Education (IRDE). The indices systematically measure the extent of regional power and the extent of regional policy variation across 37 policy decisions relating to the distribution, stratification, and content of education. Using these indices, we compare the evolution of regional educational decentralisation in eight OECD countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) between 2000 and 2024. Second, the paper evaluates what this data reveals about regional educational inequality, considering when and under what conditions, do variations in regional educational powers, policy, or outcomes constitute differences, inequalities, or injustices. To address this question, we draw on the long tradition of theorising (interpersonal) inequality in the sociology of education (e.g., Baker, 2018; Boudon, 1974; Lynch, 2006). We combine this educational insight with political and geographical theories of territorial inequality to create a framework that allows us to distinguish between different types of inequality – of outcome, opportunity, and representation –; to relate them to their territorial dimensions; and to discuss when they become normatively problematic according to different perspectives (Butler & Sinclair, 2020; e.g., Fraser, 2008; Lynch, 2006; Przybylinski, 2023). We then use this framework to evaluate the implications of our data for regional educational inequality in contemporary democracies. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Not all differences are inequalities, nor are all inequalities unjust. To evaluate the relationship between differences, inequalities and injustices, including from a territorial perspective, requires an understanding of such differences that is both empirical and conceptual/normative (Fraser, 2008; Gerring & Yesnowitz, 2006). Consequently, this paper combines an empirical comparative analysis with a critical theoretical evaluation. Empirically, we develop two new indices to measure the extent to which regions have powers in education (IRPE) and the extent to which they use such powers to implement different policy decisions (IRDE), with a focus on compulsory education. The two indices draw on recent multidimensional conceptualisations of education policy (Berg et al., 2023; Busemeyer et al., 2020; Gingrich & Giudici, 2025), to distinguish 37 policy decisions (e.g., hours of schooling) relating to three dimensions of education policy: the distribution, stratification, and content of education. For each policy decisions, we coded the extent of power of each region in the sample and what policy it implemented – thus providing a comprehensive measurement of regional educational decentralisation across eight diverse cases (Gerring, 2007) – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland – between 2000 and 2024. We use correlational analysis to link these indicators to regional academic outcomes in international and national standardised assessments. In order to interpret and evaluate the implications of this variation in power, policy and outcomes for territorial inequality, we draw on discussions of inequality from three relevant disciplines: the sociology of education, politics and geography. We review these discussions to discern understandings of territorial educational inequality in terms of outcomes, opportunities, and representation, and discuss what each approach implies when confronted with our data. This analysis demonstrates that the relationship between decentralisation and inequality is complex, both empirically and normatively. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Territorial inequalities have recently emerged as a key issue in European and national politics. A series of reports and policy initiatives have addressed variations in the provision and outcomes of public services, including education. Regional decentralisation is often touted as a means of addressing concerns about 'left-behind regions' and 'geographies of discontent' (Ceriani et al., 2025; European Commission, 2025). Despite inequality being a key issue in the sociology of education, particularly in Europe, at least since the 1970s (Boudon, 1974; Holsinger, 2015; Lynch, 2006), the debate on this topic has received little input from educational scholars. This paper aims to contribute, both empirically and conceptually, to the development of an educational perspective on the growing agenda of territorial educational inequality. It proposes, and opens up for discussion, an empirical approach to measuring territorial educational inequality. Theoretically, it posits that conceptualising and evaluating territorial educational inequalities requires combining educational insights from the study of interpersonal inequalities with the work of political and geographical scientists on spatial inequality. By demonstrating that empirical territorial variation, regional power, policies and outcomes can be considered as differences, inequalities or injustices, depending on the theoretical perspective adopted, we highlight the importance of an educational debate around the conceptualisation and evaluation of territorial inequalities in education. References Ansell, B., & Lindvall, J. (2021). Inward conquest. Cambridge University Press. Baker, B. D. (2018). Education inequality and school finance. Harvard University Press. Berg, E. A., Jungblut, J., & Jupskås, A. R. (2023). We don’t need no education? Education policies of Western European populist radical right parties. West European Politics, 46(7), 1312–1342. Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality. Wiley. Busemeyer, M. R., Garritzmann, J. L., & Neimanns, E. (2020). A Loud but Noisy Signal? Public Opinion and Education in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. Butler, A., & Sinclair, K. A. (2020). Place Matters: A Critical Review of Place Inquiry and Spatial Methods in Education Research. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 64–96. Ceriani, L., Lopez-Calva, L. F., & Restrepo-Oyola, S. D. (2025). Territorial Inequalities. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 11139. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f78f5367-16f5-40d8-9ba0-bf7c46f45050/content Erk, J. (2008). Explaining federalism. Routledge. European Commission. (2025). Importance of territorial inequalities. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/importance-territorial-inequalities_en Fraser, N. (2008). From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘postsocialist’ age. In J. C. Alexander & S. Seidman (Eds), The New Social Theory Reader (2nd edn, pp. 188–196). Routledge. Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Gerring, J., & Yesnowitz, J. (2006). A normative turn in political science? Polity, 38(1), 101–133. Gingrich, J., & Giudici, A. (2025). Who Polarises? Who Targets? Parties’ Educational Speech over the Long Run. European Journal of Political Research, 64(3), 1276–1303. Holsinger, D. B. (2015). Inequality in the Public Provision of Education: Why it Matters. Comparative Education Review, 49(3), 297–310. Lastra-Anadón, C. X., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). Cross-country evidence on the impact of decentralisation and school autonomy on educational performance. OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism, 26. Lynch, K. (2006). Research and theory on equality in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education (pp. 85–105). Plenum Press. Mueller, S., & Giudici, A. (Eds). (2017). Federalismo svizzero: Attori, strutture, processi. Locarno: Armando Dadò. Przybylinski, S. (2023). Spacial Justice. In J. Ohlsson & S. Przybylinski (Eds), Theorising Justice (pp. 191–204). Bristol University Press. Reed, D. S. (2014). Building the federal schoolhouse: Localism and the American education state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vergari, S. (2010). Safeguarding federalism in education policy in Canada and the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(3), 534–557. 28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Constructing Structures of Teachers’ Work for Remote Teaching in Basic Education University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:Sparse school networks, long school commutes and shortage of qualified teachers have raised concerns about accessibility and quality of basic education (ISCED 1–2) in sparsely populated rural areas across Europe (Lind & Stjernström, 2015; Jahnke, 2019). Remote teaching has been regarded as a possible means of promoting regional equality in the provision of education (Hilli, 2020; Siljebo et al., 2025). In Finland, remote teaching is relatively rare mode of providing basic education. It is occasionally provided alongside contact teaching in individual subjects. Nationwide, only a relatively small number of pupils participate in remote teaching lessons during their school day. According to a general interpretation of the Finnish Basic Education Act pupils must be physically present at school in a classroom during remote teaching lessons, and in addition to the remote teacher responsible for instruction, another teacher must be physically present in the classroom to supervise the pupils. After the period of emergency remote teaching (Barbour, 2022) during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been increasing public and political discussion about establishing the use of remote teaching in basic education to promote regional equality. Regardless of the crucial role teachers play in the enactment of this new mode of teaching, initiatives to support teachers in adapting their work to remote teaching, whether through national steering mechanisms or local educational practices, have so far remained scarce in Finland (Hongisto et al., 2025). The enactment of remote teaching practices in teachers’ work is both a pedagogical issue and a matter of the organizational structures that shape teachers’ work and basic education more broadly. In remote teaching, physical distance from pupils and interaction through ICT change the traditional role of teacher as well as teaching and learning practices. Therefore, the pedagogical competence needed in remote teaching differs, in certain respect, from the competence needed in contact teaching. Previous research, however, shows that neither pre-service teacher education nor in-service teacher training prepares teachers for remote teaching (Hilli, 2020; Barbour & Hodges, 2024). School-level organizational support for teachers to develop their remote teaching skills and practices has also been found to be limited (Stenman & Pettersson, 2020). In addition to novel pedagogical approaches, distance teaching requires negotiations over new structures and ways of organizing teachers' work at both national and local levels. This includes the policies, laws, norms and local practices that guide and frame teachers’ work (Öjefors Stark & From, 2020). This study examines the enactment of remote teaching in Finnish teachers’ work. Drawing from Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and the concept of translation (Callon, 1984; Latour, 1987), the early stage of policy network formation is researched. From an ANT perspective, the policy network is seen as emerging and evolving through the dynamic and often messy process of translation, during which heterogeneous actors (social, material, and metaphysical) come together to form connections (Fenwick & Edwards, 2012, p. xii). ANT challenges the idea that the material world serves merely as a backdrop to human action and instead argues that agency is always coproduced through the interactions of human and non-human actors (Law, 1992). Drawing on interviews with educational stakeholders from Finnish municipalities, the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the multiplicity of the actors in the process of policy network formation and map the tensions and connections within the network that construct the enactment of remote teaching in teachers work. The research questions are: 1. Who or what do municipal stakeholders consider to be the actors in the process of enacting remote teaching in teachers’ work? 2. How do the relations in the network construct the enactment of remote teaching in teachers’ work? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research data consists of 22 group and individual interviews involving leaders of local education departments, principals, teachers and municipal decision-makers (N = 22) from five Finnish municipalities. The data was collected in 2024 as a part of the research project Remote Teaching in Basic Education funded by The Foundation for Municipal Development. The data was collected in two rounds of interviews, meaning that the participants were interviewed twice during the year of data collection. The aim of the first round of interviews was to form an overview of the current state of basic education in the municipalities. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured thematic interview method (Hirsjärvi & Hurme, 2008). The interviews covered wide range of themes related to provision of municipal basic education such as the effects of demographic change, local decision-making processes, remote teaching practices, national steering mechanisms and the forms of co-operation. The second round of interviews was more future oriented, and it was conducted as scenario interviews (Hongisto et al., 2025). Three different scenarios – concise descriptions of conceivable future developments affecting the provision of basic education – were constructed based on the interview data from the first round. The interviewees were then asked to reflect on how the developments described in these scenarios might influence the provision of basic education both in their own municipalities and at the national level. The data will be analyzed with the aim of remaining sensitive to ANT’s principle of symmetry – that human and non-human actors hold equal potential to act and produce change or stability (Law, 1992; Latour, 2005). The analysis will begin with inductive coding of the human and non-human actors present in the data. Once these actors have been identified, the analysis will examine the types of relations that emerge (and those that do not) among them, as well as the kinds of structures and boundaries (if any) that these relations are understood to produce in teachers’ work within the context of remote teaching. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study aims to identify the actors that municipal stakeholders perceive as part of the policymaking network through which remote teaching, a new mode of providing basic education, is negotiated as an element of teachers’ work practices. The aim is to highlight the multiplicity of the actors in the policy network and explore whether the relations between the actors (or their absence) form effects that enable or constrain remote teaching practices to become part of teachers’ work. Such an analysis allows the research to discuss how the effects are reflected in the viability of remote teaching as a mode of providing basic education. The frequently emphasized aspect of enacting remote teaching in teachers’ work is the need to strengthen teachers’ Pedagogical Digital Competence (PDC), a responsibility often left for teachers to manage on their own. However, the argument presented here is that developing a framework for remote teaching practices requires an understanding of how these competences emerge as network effects. Furthermore, it is essential to look beyond individual competences and examine the systems that structure and regulate teachers’ daily practice. Even though the research is conducted in the context of Finland, it can serve as a point of departure for discussion and further research also in a transnational context. Except for Sweden, the European research on remote teaching in basic education outside the period of COVID-19 pandemic is scarce as most studies are conducted in the United States, Canada or Australia. The challenges facing rural education in many European countries, driven by declining birth rates and accelerating urbanization, do not appear to be diminishing. It is likely that varying remote teaching practices will become increasingly common, especially as the digitalization of education systems is being strongly promoted in national curricula and transnational strategies. References Barbour, M. K. (2022). Looking Back to See Ahead: An Analysis of K-12 Distance, Online, and Remote Learning During the Pandemic. Journal of Digital Social Research, 4(2), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v4i2.107 Barbour, M. K., & Hodges, C. B. (2024). Preparing Teachers for Effective K-12 Online Learning in the Age of Disruptions: A Call for Transforming Teacher Education. Open Praxis, 16(4), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.4.727 Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Eds.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp.196–223). Routledge. Fenwick, T. & Edwards, R. (2012). Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory. Wiley-Blackwell. Hilli, C. (2020). Distance teaching in small rural primary schools: A participatory action research project. Educational Action Research, 28(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1526695 Hirsjärvi, S. & Hurme, H. (2008). Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. [Research interview: Theory and practice of thematic interviewing] Yliopistopaino. Hongisto, P., Kalalahti, M. & Varjo, J. (2025). Etäopetus perusopetuksen järjestämisessä. [Remote Teaching in Basic Education]. Research publications of Foundation for Municipal Development 124. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/593998 Jahnke, H. (2019). Territorial Governance of Schooling and Education in Rural Areas: Case Studies from Northern Germany. In H. Jahnke, C. Kramer, & P. Meusburger (Eds.), Geographies of Schooling (pp. 19–33). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18799-6_2 Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830 Lind, T., & Stjernström, O. (2015). Organizational challenges for schools in rural municipalities: Cross-national comparisons in a Nordic context. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30(6), 1–14. Öjefors Stark, K. & From, J. (2020). Regional perspectives on remote teaching in Sweden. Education in the North, 27(2) pp. 7–23. https://doi.org/10.26203/x7t6-fh57 Siljebo, J., Pettersson, F., & Norlin, B. (2025). A Genesis of Remote Teaching in Swedish Rural Compulsory Schooling. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 35(2), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.47381/aijre.v35i2.792 Stenman, S., & Pettersson, F. (2020). Remote teaching for equal and inclusive education in rural areas? An analysis of teachers’ perspectives on remote teaching. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(3), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-10-2019-0096 | ||