Conference Agenda

While democracy is under pressure worldwide, losing ground to some extent even on the European continent, European institutions have increasingly strived to promote citizenship education (Abs, 2021). The leading concept used in this context by the European Union (EU) is “active citizenship”. Active citizenship can be defined as “participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-violence in accordance with human rights and democracy” (Hoskins et al., 2006, p.10). In its main educational programme, Erasmus+, the EU has dedicated one of four priorities to “Participation in democratic life, common values and civic engagement”. In the field of adult education, a recent study examined to what extent and how Erasmus+ projects involving Spanish partners addressed this priority (Fernández-Corbacho & Cores-Bilbao, 2023). The study, however, was based only on project documents. The perspective of adult education staff and learners involved in such projects as not been extensively studied yet.

Since 2021, the European Union has broadened the scope of the Erasmus+ programme by opening the Key Action 1 (KA1) to facilitate both individual and group mobility for learners in adult education. With this new opportunity, the programme reaches out to learners in adult education, especially those with fewer opportunities, who have not yet had the opportunity to participate in learning mobility programmes. Compared to higher education and vocational education and training, mobility activities for adult learners usually have a shorter duration and comprise mainly non-formal and informal learning arrangements. Due to their recent introduction in the programme, there is little known about the impact of such international experiences on adult learners´ social, professional, and civic lives (Buiskool et al., 2024). The paper therefore seeks to answer the following research questions:

- How is Erasmus+ conceived as a programme to contribute to active citizenship in the field of adult education?

- How are adult education organisations in Germany using Erasmus+ to foster active citizenship?

- What are the effects of international mobility in Erasmus+ that contribute to active citizenship among learners in adult education?

This paper is based on empirical data collected within the framework of the RIA-AE (Research-based Impact Analysis of Erasmus+ Adult Education Programmes) Network, which brings together national agencies and research institutions from 21 European countries to strengthen the evidence base on adult learning within Erasmus+.

Based on an analysis of academic literature and programme documents, a first step will explore how Erasmus+ intends to contribute to citizenship education and active citizenship.

A second step will focus at the meso level of adult education providers in Germany, in order to better understand how organisations address relevant concepts in their project, what target groups they reach, and how they assess the impacts of Erasmus+ on their educational provision and staff.

The third step focuses on learners and their perceived learnings and benefits in relation to their participation in Erasmus+ mobilities, based on qualitative interviews conducted with adult learners in Germany, Austria, Slovenia and Latvia.

Active citizenship is defined following Hoskins et al. (2006) as encompassing a behavioural component (“participation”) and an attitudinal component (“values”). The research design is further conceptually framed by transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2018). Taking part in an Erasmus+ mobility activity is understood as a potentially transformative experience, that encourages critical reflection and may have an impact on all life domains (Kristensen, 2004; Lyon, 2002; Nada & Legutko, 2022; Perry et al., 2012).

During a turbulent time in international and European politics, it is vital to educate young people about human rights. It would be also valuable, if at least some of them would be ready and willing to defend their close ones and the international and European values which human rights stand for. Previous research has shown that good-quality human rights education may support students to undertake actions for human rights (Kylänpää, 2022). However, less is known about the relationships between students’ individual backgrounds and the concrete actions they consider valuable and useful.

First, it is difficult to teach action-related knowledge which would be useful for the students after the class in their different concrete circumstances (Celermajer, 2017). Second, in contrast to professional education, in more general citizenship education it is challenging for the teachers to know beforehand which actions for human rights could be valuable for the particular students in class (Tibbitts, 2017). Third, young adults may consider different actions for human rights valuable than their teachers (Celermajer, 2017; Kylänpää, 2022). Also, the fact that many teachers, student teachers and youth workers do not have sufficient knowledge about concrete ways to promote human rights in their work, has been pointed out in various studies (e.g. Kasa et. al. 2021; Sinisalo-Juha 2024; Struthers, 2021) The aim of this student voice study was to find which concrete actions and related skills should – according to students viz. non-military servicepersons – be covered in human rights education, and to investigate, whether there were connections between their views and their diverse backgrounds.

Conceptually the study was based primarily on deliberative understanding of human rights (Dembour, 2010). According to the deliberative understanding, human rights are understood as a common agreement, which can be found enshrined in various international treaties and national laws. In the European context international covenants, like United Nations human rights covenants and European Council covenants are especially important. In addition, because the study was primarily interested in concrete actions for human rights, previous research of civic engagement was utilized during this study. According to the previous research, it seemed sensible to study the relationships of informants’ answers and social class indicators (Bourdieu & Passeron 2000; Lahtinen, 2019), here their previous education and the economic situation of their legal guardians during their childhood and if they belong to minorities (Stepick et al. 2008; Osler 2015).

Because the views students had were considered especially important, the study utilized student voice approach which can be characterized with “the following convictions: that young people have unique perspectives on learning, teaching, and schooling; that their insights warrant not only the attention but also the responses of adults; and that they should be afforded opportunities to actively shape their education.” (Cook-Sather, 2006)

In the contemporary era, citizenship education is increasingly urgent due to a perceived crisis in democratic participation and the rise of neoliberal rationalities. The neoliberal “logos” tends to produce a “subject-citizen” focused on individual performance, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness, often reducing citizenship to a functional status or a set of soft skills for employability (Brown, 2015; Laval et al., 2011). Within this context, the university faces a critical choice: to act as a factory for human capital (Fleming, 2021) or to reclaim its role as a “public space” for the development of an ethos of democratic citizenship (Dewey, 1916). This challenges the assumption that research is the exclusive domain of specialists or academics. As argued by Appadurai (2006), research primarily involves the ability to formulate meaningful questions, identify pathways for exploring them, and place one’s inquiries in dialogue with other viewpoints, without the expectation of reaching definitive answers. Research thus becomes a practice of interpreting reality and engaging with others, encompassing the public sharing of the knowledge produced. This leads to the recognition of a fundamental right: the right to be educated in and through research, enabling individuals to shape their life projects and contribute to the communities to which they belong.

In this direction, this study is also grounded in the theoretical perspective of Gert Biesta (2014), distinguishing between qualification, socialization, and subjectification. The latter is central to the present research: it represents the educational aim of enabling individuals to exist as autonomous agents, capable of critical thinking and independent action, rather than simply conforming to existing social orders. We frame citizenship not as a predefined set of lessons to be taught, but as an “act” (Larkins, 2014) and a “practice” that requires participatory spheres where young people can exercise their voice.

To operationalize this framework, the research focuses on the B-YOUth Forum, an initiative developed within the MUSA (Multilayered Urban Sustainability Action, 2022–2025) ecosystem, a large-scale project funded by the Italian NRRP aimed at promoting urban regeneration and social inclusion through collaboration between universities and territories. The B-YOUth Forum is conceptualized as a model of interdisciplinary and intergenerational research in which young people become co-authors of knowledge rather than passive subjects of study (Montà, Ratotti, Biffi, 2026, in press). In the project, young people meet and work with researchers and are invited to critically interrogate the realities they inhabit. However, they need to be accompanied in their encounter with the university and research. Therefore, central to this model is the role of the pedagogical facilitator (Kennedy, 2004; Aldana, 2016), understood not merely as a moderator of activities, but as a pedagogical and epistemological positioning. The facilitator sustains spaces of speech in which young people’s experiences, knowledge, and embodied narratives emerge as legitimate forms of meaning-making, fundamental for social and civic practices. Facilitation thus functions as a mediating device that translates institutional logics into accessible frameworks, while rendering young participants’ perspectives and agency visible to institutions.

Within this framework, the central research question is: How can research, through pedagogical facilitation, foster citizenship competences? This question moves beyond research as data collection and frames it as a formative space in which participants actively practise citizenship (Biffi, Montà, Ratotti, 2025, in press). Pedagogical facilitation becomes crucial to support dialogue, reflexivity, and the negotiation of meanings within group processes. The study therefore investigates how facilitated research settings enable young people to exercise voice, recognise differences, and build shared responsibility, strengthening citizenship competences as lived and relational educational experiences.