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, 21:30:05 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
15 SES 14 B
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Centering Indigenous Voices, Knowledge Systems and Reciprocity in Educational Research Partnerships. 1: Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia; 2: Ninti One Limited Presenting Author:Research partnerships in Indigenous education have historically begun from power-imbalanced arrangements and epistemological hierarchies that have traditionally undermined Indigenous self-determination. These approaches have been known to be narrowly transactional, exemplified with consultations or as communities to be studied and reported on, with knowledges to be extracted.
Recent research models show a move towards frameworks which are grounded in the “Four R’s” of Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991), OCAP® principles of data sovereignty (Schnarch, 2004), and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly, 2007). These frameworks now guide such partnerships, emphasizing relational accountability and community rights in knowledge creation.
Knowledges filtered through Western theories and perspectives, lead to a loss in meaning, “research through imperial eyes with views of colonisation, power imbalance and epistemic dominance” (Smith, 1999). Over the past few decades, Indigenous scholars and allies have worked to invert this dynamic through a reconceptualisation of partnerships by foregrounding relationships of trust, respect and shared responsibility rather than transactions.
Using Bourdieu’s (1989; 1986) concepts of habitus, field and cultural capital, and evidence from Australia and internationally, this session explores how theoretical influences can be a lens to examine the progression from transactional research approaches to relational, collaborative and co-designed approaches which disrupt the “field” of educational research by redistributing capital and authority, thereby elevating Indigenous cultural capital, shifting institutional habitus, and redefining the doxa (norms) of what counts as valid knowledge.
This session presents an evolving framework illustrating how to build long-term, responsible, relational and transformational educational research practice for non-Indigenous researchers and allies working in Indigenous education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The paper will employ a critical analysis of published scholarship and recent practice examples to examine how partnerships between Indigenous organisations and educational researchers are shifting from transactional, extractive arrangements toward relational and responsibility‑based models. The methodological approach draws on two intersecting traditions: (1) critical analysis of power, informed by Bourdieu’s notion of uneven fields of influence, and (2) Indigenous methodologies emphasising relationality, reciprocity, and accountability, which challenge extractive norms within Western research paradigms. To illuminate how shifts in practice manifest in real-world settings, the session will incorporated recent examples of Indigenous–researcher partnerships drawn from applied research contexts. These contemporary examples of work undertaken by Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), a not-for-profit independent educational research organisation and Ninti One Limited, an Aboriginal-owned and led organisation, working with and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia serve as empirical illustrations of methodological evolution, showing how principles identified in the literature are enacted or resisted in practice. By synthesising conceptual scholarship with practice‑based examples, this methodological approach allows us to trace shifts in the field and to examine how relational, Indigenous-informed paradigms are reshaping partnership norms in educational research. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This session shares the journey of an on-going research partnership that seeks to iteratively reframe, reconceptualise and recalibrate the ways in which impactful research in Indigenous education is undertaken. It represents a shift from viewing educational partnerships as transactional, founded on the exchange of resource and information, to one that is relational, founded on the principles of trust, respect and shared responsibility, moving towards the effective co-creation, co-design, co-ownership and reciprocity in Indigenous education research and practice. More importantly, it adds to evidence that solutions to tackle educational inequalities needs to focus on the design with, and not for, Indigenous communities (e.g. Bishop & Berryman, 2012; Shay et al., 2024). Evidence from this paper shows that applying Bourdieu’s social justice theory, and his concepts of habitus, field and cultural capital, can contribute towards thinking critically of how research partnerships in the field of Indigenous education can be undertaken and illuminate pathways towards more equitable and relational research practices, as seen in the works of Castleden et al. (2012) and Lewis et al., (2025). Furthermore, fostering robust and ethical collaborations within research partnerships which have the potential to empower community, build and integrate knowledges can benefit the ways in which research in Indigenous education policy and practice are implemented. References Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., Peter, M., & Clapham, S. (2014). Te Kotahitanga: A case study of a repositioning approach to teacher professional development for culturally responsive pedagogy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 277–290. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory, 7(1), 14-25. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012). “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four R’s – Respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15. Lewis, D., Castleden, H., et al. (2025). From community-based participatory research (CBPR) involving Indigenous Peoples to Indigenous-led CBPR: It is more than just drinking tea. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 29(1), 199–228. Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 80-95. UN General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/61/295 Shay, M., Sarra, G., Lampert, J., Jeong, D., Thomson, A., & Miller, J. (2024). Codesign in Indigenous education policy and practice – A systematic literature review. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 844–863. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books. 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Conditions and Potentials of Education Research in Adult Basic Education German Institute for Adult Education, Germany Presenting Author:A decade ago, the Council of the European Union released a recommendation to EU-member states to create access to upskilling pathways for adults with basic educational needs, providing them the opportunity to acquire basic literacy, numeracy, or digital competencies, or other skills necessary for participating in the labor market and wider society (Council of the European Union, 2016). Considering the latest results from the latest PIAAC-Survey, that suggests that more than 20 % of adults across 31 participating countries lack basic competencies in the domains of literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem solving respectively (OECD, 2024), providing access to basic education and upskilling pathways appears to be as relevant as it was ten years ago. In line with the council’s recommendation and the Basic Education Pathways funding guideline of the German Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, ten joint networks, based in different regions of Germany are currently working on building basic education and upskilling pathways for various target groups. The project aims to increase participation in continuing education among adults with basic education needs, and to ensure inclusive and equitable quality adult learning and lifelong learning opportunities for all. Target populations include adults with low literacy skills, young adults transitioning from school to the labor market, adults with a migration background, unemployed adults, workers with low formal qualifications, and workers in precarious employment. The project requires collaboration among diverse stakeholders from academia, policy, public administration, and educational practice to develop sustainable adult basic education programs in Germany. An important aspect of the Basic Education Pathways is the scientific monitoring and support of the joint networks. For this purpose, the meta-project Competence Center Basic Education Pathways (CCBEP) has been established. Meta-projects in educational research aim to systematize scientific findings, identify research gaps, and strengthen the links between research and practice. To do so, the CCBEP supports the ten regional projects in developing and implementing basic education pathways. The meta-project conducts research and evaluates the work within the funding guideline. Moreover, the meta-project facilitates knowledge transfer among different stakeholders from academia, policy, and practice, including the transfer of results from the research conducted. However, establishing a meta-project presents specific challenges, such as organizing and networking various actors with sometimes differing interests and objectives, including funding bodies, organizations of public administration, and educational institutions. Unlike individual research projects, meta-projects operate within the tension between acquiring knowledge relevant to research, predetermined research assignments, and the acceptance of research results by respective project partners. As the CCBEP conducts research on both the stakeholders of basic education networks and the target groups, i.e., adults with basic educational needs, instead of following a pre-defined research plan, the work of the meta-projects only develops through and in cooperation with others. This includes considering diverse interests and areas of expertise, utilizing diverse resources, and obtaining feedback from project partners. Considering these unique conditions, the aim of this presentation is therefore to discuss the opportunities and challenges faced by a meta-project researching the establishment of basic education networks. The focus will be on the following two research topics:
Potentials, limitations, and particular challenges of this type of research will be reflected upon at the meta-level in terms of collaboration with common or competing interests, possible biases, the recruitment of survey participants with various backgrounds, and strategies for knowledge transfer between stakeholders. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The contribution is based on research experiences from a meta-project. In line with co-constructive research processes, needs analyses, instrument design, data collection, and transfer activities between research and practice are coordinated in order to generate added value for research in the field. This constellation will be demonstrated in two of the meta-project's research priorities. Firstly, annual surveys on the development of the networks are conducted over a period of three years in the network analyses. Regular exchange between researchers and practitioners ensures that the survey instrument is optimized in a need-based and valid manner. This allows the interests of practitioners to be taken into account and increases their participation in the network analyses. Secondly, the participant survey is tailored to a wide variety of groups with basic education needs and addresses experiences gained during the initial design of the online survey. To this end, preliminary discussions and workshops are being held with the ten regional projects to develop a co-constructed instrument that meets the requirements of multiple target groups. In both cases, the co-constructive approach is used to build on the practical experience of those researching hard-to-reach and hard-to-research target groups and other relevant parties. At the same time, this form of collaborative research can encourage practitioners to participate in research processes and open up areas that have received little research attention to date. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conducting research within meta-projects in basic education, such as the meta-project CCBEP, involves a range of challenges. These challenges arise because such projects straddle the boundaries between policy, practice, and science, where divergent interests coexist. Tensions develop between acquiring scientific knowledge and predetermined research assignments, as well as the need for acceptance by policymakers and practitioners. Additional challenges emerge when focusing on stakeholders within basic education networks and the educational decision-making of vulnerable groups. However, meta-projects also offer significant opportunities. If stakeholders succeed in co-constructing research processes through sustained collaboration, research can be conducted in a practical and valid manner. This can open a methodologically challenging field of research and generate knowledge relevant to governance of educational policy and educational practice. A key objective of educational policy in this context is to increase the involvement of adults with basic educational needs in educational provision. Greater participation in education enhances individuals’ opportunities for social and everyday engagement, as well as integration into employment (OECD, 2024, 2025). Against the backdrop of ongoing technological and structural transformations in the economy and society, and an accelerating flow of information, literacy and basic education constitute essential prerequisites for a self-determined and inclusive life (Peter, 2025). This, in turn, has broader social consequences, including impacts on the labor market, economy, education and health care systems, and societal cohesion (e.g. Grotlüschen et al., 2016; Hanushek et al., 2015). In line with the objectives of the Recommendation on Upskilling Pathways, the National Decade for Literacy and Basic Education, and the German National Skills Strategy, basic education contributes to reducing unemployment, social exclusion, and poverty (Council of the European Union, 2016), and research constitutes an important pillar in this regard (Federal Ministry of Education and Research & The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs, 2016) References Council of the European Union (2016). Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults (2016/C 484/01). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=OJ:JOC_2016_484_R_0001 Federal Ministry of Education and Research, & The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (Eds.). (2016). Grundsatzpapier zur Nationalen Dekade für Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung 2016-2026: Den funktionalen Analphabetismus in Deutschland verringern und das Grundbildungsniveau erhöhen. https://www.alphadekade.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/weitere_dokumente/grundsatzpapier_alphadekade.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Grotlüschen, A., Mallows, D., Reder, S., & Sabatini, J. (2016). Adults with Low Proficiency in Literacy or Numeracy. OECD Education Working Papers, 131. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm0v44bnmnx-en Hanushek, E. A., Schwerdt, G., Wiederhold, S., & Woessmann, L. (2015). Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC. European Economic Review, 73, 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.10.006 OECD. (2024). Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? Survey of Adult Skills 2023. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/do-adults-have-the-skills-they-need-to-thrive-in-a-changing-world_b263dc5d-en.html https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en OECD. (2025). Skills that Matter for Success and Well-being in Adulthood: Evidence on Adults’ Social and Emotional Skills from the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/skills-that-matter-for-success-and-well-being-in-adulthood_6e318286-en.html https://doi.org/10.1787/6e318286-en Peter, R. (2025). Grundbildung zum Ende der AlphaDekade - Bilanz und Perspektiven. Hessische Blätter Für Volksbildung, 75, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.3278/HBV2504W002 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Towards a Typology of Collaborative Innovation Formats in the Context of School Improvement: A Scoping Review 1: University of Southampton, England; 2: Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany; 3: University of Calgary, Canada Presenting Author:The educational research landscape shows a multitude of collaborative approaches to innovation in schools. These approaches have been proven to be more effective than those developed only by a single leader or organisation, as creative ideas arise from bringing together diverse knowledge resources (Chesbrough et al., 2013, Pietsch, Cramer et al., 2023). Such collaborative innovation approaches are well-suited to solving complex and crucial problems (Kharazmi & Dartoomi, 2023), for example in school improvement attempts, and can impact learning and teaching methods as well as student outcome (Azorín, 2022; Muijs et al., 2011). These innovation and transformation processes in schools are inevitable and often long overdue (Pietsch et al., 2023) in a time schools face multiple challenges as the ongoing digital transformation, the general shift into information age as well as the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Educational institutions worldwide are in need to adapt and overcome long-established routines and cultures in order to educate young people to navigate today’s economy, life and society effectively (Khan et al., 2025; Serdyukov, 2017). However, with a growing number of collaborative innovation formats it becomes increasingly difficult to understand and distinguish each of them, as the terms are often not clearly rendered or definitions are overlapping (Aastvedt & Higdem, 2022). Consequently, it is difficult for school leaders and other change agents who want to participate in transformation processes to pick the innovation instrument or approach that matches the individual needs of one school. This paper provides an overview on existing collaborative innovation instruments in school. The aim is to develop a typology of the different collaborative innovation formats currently used in school improvement processes. On the one hand, this helps schools to pick the most suitable instrument for their innovation process to face profound challenges now and in the future. On the other hand, a typology of the innovation instruments can be used in educational research to identify potential for new innovation tools. By this means, this paper is intended to addresse researchers as well as practitioners, bridging the gap between these two realms. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A preliminary literature search was undertaken and showed no current overview of the existing innovation instruments in the educational sector, although there are numerous studies analysing individual innovation approaches. Subsequently, a scoping review is conducted to examine the existing knowledge and approaches on collaborative innovation formats in schools. Other than a systematic review, scoping reviews can help to cover broad research questions, identify research gaps, summarise definitions or give an overview to a certain concept (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018). Following research question guided our search: What kind of collaborative innovation formats are there to facilitate school improvement processes? The review applies a structured, three-phase search process. For methodological verification, the PRISMA-ScR is used (Tricco et al., 2018). 1) Firstly, exploratory searches were conducted in SCOPUS and Web of Science to gain an initial overview of the existing literature. From these findings, relevant terminology was identified and used to construct a refined search string. collaborat* OR cooperat* OR network* OR partnership OR co-* AND "school innovat*" OR "school transformat*" OR "school develop*" OR "school improv*" AND Creat* Since one of the last encompassing overviews was given in 2011 by Muijs et al., the review includes resources from the last 15 years to cover the gap. To ensure the quality of research, only peer reviewed articles from scientific journals are included. As the review follows the discourse in the international scientific community, only documents in English language are included. 2) This search strategy was applied within the two databases, generating an output of 264 studies (without duplicates). Via abstract screening 124 studies could be excluded. Currently, full-texts are being screened to identify suitable sources for full-text analysis. 3) Thirdly, experts in this field will be asked for relevant literature on the topic. In full-text analysis, reported innovation tools will be categorised with a framework based on Lynn et al. (1996). For a typology of the tools we rely on the work of Damanpour and Aravind (2012, p. 488) to the locus and order of creativity, innovation and change and on the relation of innovation radicalness and heterogeneity defined by Tidd & Bessant (2011). We will cluster the innovation tools regarding their degree of change as well as the collaboration modus of people involved (number, heterogeneity, density). Furthermore, we will provide a classification regarding the degree of institutionalisation of the collaborative innovation format. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings of the currently ongoing research process will be presented on ECER 2026. The overall objective of this scoping review is to understand the different variations and relations of collaborative innovation formats in school improvement. With structuring the findings in the academic discourse and offering a typology of the different tools, we expect to provide an incremental contribution in the educational open innovation discourse, while sharpening the call for open innovation approaches in school transformation processes. By this, schools can rely on scientific knowledge while stepping into innovation processes, applying evidence-informed practices in school improvement for more sustainable innovation (Brown et al., 2017). References Aastvedt, A., & Higdem, U. (2022). Co-creation, Collaborative Innovation and Open Innovation in the Public Sector: A Perspective on Distinctions and the Convergence of Definitions. Nordic Journal of Innovation in the Public Sector, 1(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.18261/njips.1.1.4 Azorín, C. (2022). Collaborative Networking in Education: Learning Across International Contexts. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2022.20.3.004 Brown, C., Schildkamp, K., & Hubers, M. D. (2017). Combining the best of two worlds: A conceptual proposal for evidence-informed school improvement. Educational Research, 59(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1304327 Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Hrsg.). (2013). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (Reprinted). Oxford University Press. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Organizational Structure and Innovation Revisited. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity (S. 483–513). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00019-7 Khan, S., Ramsey, P., & Khan, M. (2025). Embracing educational transformation: Exploring personalised, collaborative and contextualised education through dilemma theory. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(1), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2283614 Kharazmi, O. A., & Dartoomi, S. (2023). A systematic literature review on collaborative innovation in the public sector. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 36(4), 602–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2023.2266580 Lynn, L. H., Mohan Reddy, N., & Aram, J. D. (1996). Linking technology and institutions: The innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00817-5 Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., & West, M. (2011). Collaboration and Networking in Education. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0283-7 Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. Pietsch, M., Cramer, C., Brown, C., Aydin, B., & Witthöft, J. (2023). Open Innovation in Schools: A New Imperative for Organising Innovation in Education? Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09705-2 Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007 Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2011). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (4. ed., reprinted). Wiley. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 | ||