Conference Agenda

In contemporary European educational discourse, forms of participatory action research (PAR) such as Community-Led Research (CLRA) and Arts-Based Methods (ABM) are frequently marked as transformative tools for citizenship education. They promise to empower youth, foster social justice, and bridge the gap between marginalized communities and policy-makers. However, this optimistic narrative often clashes with the reality of the neoliberal society and the projectification of civil society. This paper critically examines how the structural constraints of grant-funded projects reshape and potentially undermine the democratic potential of PAR and CLRA methods.

Based on a master's thesis research, this study addresses the following objective: To analyze how young researchers (age 15-26) in the Czech republic perceive the process of CLRA and how they view the potential of their outputs to contribute to social justice. The paper specifically answers two research questions derived from the study:

RQ1: "How do young researchers reflect on the course and meaning of the participatory research they participated in?"

RQ2: "How do they perceive arts-based methods as a tool for reflection and enforcing change?"

The study is grounded in a critical sociological framework emphasizing that contextual fit must precede methodological implementation of evidence-based methods such as PAR and its forms. We conceptualize community through Tönnies’ distinction between Gemeinschaft (organic community) and Gesellschaft (contractual society). While community is essential for resilience in liquid modern times, we draw on critical theorists - such as Barrett, to highlight the inherent duality of community. Community can be a nurturing space of support, but equally a toxic and exclusionary force if unexamined.

We further posit an East-West dichotomy in Citizenship Education. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon tradition of active citizenship via communities, the post-socialist Czech context views community and politics with historical skepticism. This friction influences the adoption of PAR traditions: the tension between the Northern tradition - Lewinian which is focused on organizational efficiency and consensus, and the Southern tradition - Freirean, which is focused on emancipation and conflict. The paper investigates if European youth projects in Czechia, despite claiming emancipatory goals, slip into Lewinian functionalism due to project pressures and neoliberal mindset.

Finally, we utilize Henri Lefebvre’s production of space to analyze how youth create differential spaces within the dominant neoliberal abstract space. Arts-Based Methods are analyzed through Deleuze’s concept of desiring-production, questioning whether art serves as a rhizomatic tool for political connection or is reduced to a therapeutic commodity.

Methodology

The research employs a qualitative strategy using Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Braun & Clarke (2022). The dataset comprises 14 semi-structured interviews with young researchers involved in CLRA cycle. The analysis moves beyond semantic description to identify latent constructs and myths of participation.

Findings and European Dimension

Preliminary findings reveal a projectificatiom effect of CLRA,

Regarding RQ1: The analysis reveals how projectification imposes a rigid hierarchy, where the Young Researcher becomes a manager, sidelining the 'constructed' community. Consequently, the CLRA method acts as a mirror of learned helplessness: rather than overcoming barriers, it reflects the participants' lack of institutional know-how, stalling progress without specific training, comparing their situation to "Hunger games"

Regarding RQ2 (Art): Art functions paradoxically. While intended as a tool for political advocacy, it primarily serves an internal, therapeutic function for self or community expression. It acts as a shield against a hostile political and societal reality rather than a tool for structural change, revealing a form of learned helplessness.

This paper contributes to the European debate on Citizenship Education by arguing that without addressing the harming potential of projectified communities, we risk teaching youth merely how to perform within projects, rather than how to transform society.

In a historical moment marked by democratic fragility, social polarisation, and intersecting ecological, economic and cultural crises (Brand, 2016; McCoy et al., 2018), education is increasingly called upon to play a central role in renewing democratic life and citizenship at multiple levels. Within this scenario, the paradigm of Learning Cities, promoted internationally by UNESCO (2013) and widely adopted across Europe, has emerged as a promising framework for fostering lifelong learning, social innovation and participatory governance (Morgan, 2009; Osborne et al., 2013). From a pedagogical perspective, Learning Cities can be understood not merely as policy instruments or urban strategies, but as educational ecosystems in which learning becomes a civic practice and citizenship is continuously negotiated, enacted and transformed (Cole & Low, 2023; Sintos Coloma, 2020).

This paper situates Learning Cities within the broader field of citizenship education, understood as an ongoing, situated and relational process that extends beyond formal schooling and unfolds throughout the urban fabric (McFarlane, 2011; Williams, 2021). In this sense, citizenship education is not limited to the transmission of civic knowledge or values, but involves the cultivation of democratic dispositions, critical imagination, intercultural dialogue and collective responsibility. Learning Cities offer fertile ground for such an approach, as they embed learning opportunities within everyday urban life and promote the co-construction of knowledge among diverse actors, institutions and communities (Friedmann, 2000; Hoskyns, 2013).

To deepen the educational and symbolic understanding of Learning Cities, the paper draws on Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities (1974) as a theoretical and interpretative lens. Calvino’s work, situated between literary imagination and philosophical reflection on urban life, provides powerful metaphors for rethinking cities as spaces of meaning-making, memory, desire and relational complexity. The “invisible” dimension of cities, composed of emotions, perceptions, narratives and symbolic structures, resonates strongly with pedagogical approaches that view education as a transformative practice rooted in experience and interpretation.

By bringing together the Learning Cities paradigm and Calvino’s urban imagination, the paper proposes to conceptualise Learning Cities as laboratories of democracy, where citizenship education takes place through participation, interpretation and shared narration of the urban space (Halpin, 2002). Five thematic cores, derived from a dialogical reading of Invisible Cities and the Learning Cities framework, structure the analysis: boundless knowledge; adaptation and development; immateriality and symbolism; individual and collective dimensions; emotion, perception and interpretation. These themes illuminate how learning, citizenship and democracy are intertwined within urban contexts.

The relevance of this paper extends beyond a national framework and speaks directly to European and international debates on education, democracy and social cohesion. European cities, characterised by cultural diversity, mobility and growing inequalities, increasingly require educational approaches capable of fostering intercultural citizenship, democratic participation and sustainable futures (Hoggan-Kloubert et al., 2024; Longworth, 2006). The Learning Cities model, interpreted pedagogically and symbolically, offers transferable insights for policy-makers, educators and researchers engaged in citizenship education across different cultural and geopolitical contexts.

Against this background, the paper aims to address the following research questions:

• How can Learning Cities be theoretically reframed as pedagogical spaces for citizenship education and democratic renewal?
• In what ways does Calvino’s Invisible Cities contribute to a deeper understanding of the educational, symbolic and relational dimensions of Learning Cities?
• How can the proposed thematic cores inform European and international debates on intercultural citizenship, lifelong learning and democratic education?

Civic engagement is widely considered essential to the functioning of democratic societies (Sherrod et al., 2002), especially as it is assumed to counteract “signs of public weariness, scepticism, cynicism and lack of trust [in politics and society]” (Ekman & Amnå, 2012, p. 283). At the same time, it is a complex and multilayered construct as it refers to individuals’ prosocial orientations and actions aimed at contributing to and improving their community or society (Ekman & Amnå, 2012; Lerner, 2004). In response to concerns about declining public trust and participation, governments have increasingly invested in promoting civic engagement, primarily through compulsory education that reaches a broad segment of the population (Bîrzéa et al., 2004; Joris et al., 2022). However, scholars have questioned whether education alone can be held responsible for fostering civic engagement, emphasizing that citizenship learning also takes place across multiple life contexts (Biesta, 2008). This contribution focuses precisely on one of these intersections.

Previous research namely demonstrates that “different contexts provide different opportunities for acting and being, and thus different opportunities for citizenship learning” (Biesta et al., 2009, p. 17). Young people encounter opportunities for civic engagement not only at school, but also within families, peer groups, leisure activities, media, and public spaces (Biesta et al., 2009). This is also evident in the study by Korventausta et al. (2025), examining which opportunities for the development of civic engagement early adolescents at the end of primary school experience in their lives, where these occur, and with whom. Based on the interview data, the researchers identified four categories of civic-oriented activities (i.e., awareness and education, communication, community involvement, and formal participation), seven spaces in which these activities take place (e.g., home, leisure activity facilities, social media), and seven social contexts in which they occur (e.g., family, friends, school community, public audience). This indicates that leisure contexts, despite being understudied, may serve as voluntary spaces in which young people exercise agency, negotiate social relationships, and engage in everyday forms of participation.

Yet, access to leisure activities that offer meaningful learning opportunities is uneven, particularly as such activities become increasingly commercialised, privatised, digitised, or formalised (e.g., after-school care, sports centres, art academies), with participation strongly shaped by socioeconomic conditions (Arlinkasari, 2023). As a result, young people from low-SES or minority backgrounds often have fewer opportunities to engage in traditional forms of civic engagement. Yet, existing literature largely overlooks both the structural barriers these young people face and the alternative ways in which civic engagement may manifest in their lives (Phan & Kloos, 2023; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). In response to this gap in the literature, our present study addresses the following research questions:

1. What types of leisure activities do children growing up in low-SES urban neighborhoods engage in, and what meanings do they attribute to these activities?
2. In what ways do leisure activities, beyond home and school contexts, contribute to the development of civic engagement among children in low-SES urban environments?

Young people’s political participation and knowledge has, in the recent years, been a concern for political elites and elected officials, especially in the UK (Uberoi and Johnston, 2022). This concern has led to education policies and further research into ways formal spaces such as schools and national elections could encourage young people’s engagement (Uberoi and Johnston, 2022). Their knowledge and political capabilities have been brought into further examination and question according to public opinion research since the UK voting age has been lowered to sixteen years old (Zenkyo et al., 2025). Thus, leading to formal schooling policies implementing curricula targeted at developing young people’s knowledge surrounding formal political processes. However, Wood (2017) argues young people are in constant learning about politics that impact their everyday lives through their life transitions beyond formally structured spaces. Wood (2017) states young people are constantly learning through experiences, interactions with one another about the sociopolitical climate surrounding their lives. Therefore, drawing on an ontoepistomological lens of intersubjectivity, this research explores how non-formal (e.g., youth councils) and informal spaces (e.g., social media, demonstrations) of political participation presents learning and educative experiences that may present different perspectives to how young people come to understand political and social issues. Through this lens, I examine how these experiences and reflections in different spaces permeate and interconnect with each other whilst being attuned to their political imaginings, responses, and relational experiences. Through a mix of focus groups, creative methods, and solo interviews, this research attempts to answer, “What do young people learn through their informal and non-formal participation in politics?”. In doing so, I explore how the young people craft their own political participation both in and outside of the organisation, what they learn from such interactions, and how their experiences in various spaces beyond the youth council shape their interactions within the youth council. The presentation will discuss the ways young people reflect on the everchanging political climate/ zeitgeist they experience, their understanding of agency/ resilience, how they relate these reflections to what they learn, and imagine of political futures, and finally draw some further questions and implications.