It is often assumed that rural youth experience less severe problems with various kinds of social exclusion than do urban youth. However, recent Nordic research shows that they more often express a lack of involvement in society and a lack of conficence in governments than others (Ungdomsstyrelsen, 2010). This project analyses young people’s social inclusion and participation in rural (and urban) schools. We chose to include both sparsely populated areas, tourist municipalities and small industrial villages. Previous research points to some potentially significant differences between such rural areas. Connell’s (1996; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) concepts of masculinities and femininities and Massey’s (1994) understanding of place as continously in process through socio-spatial and material practices have been important. Five weeks of compressed mode ethnographic fieldwork (Jeffrey & Troman, 2004) has been conducted in one class in each of five rural schools. Observations of classroom interactions and teaching content, field conversations and formal student interviews (with about 140 students), have been used supplemented by observations in the neighbourhood and interviews with school staff. Presentations of place, participation, influence, conflicts and views of inclusion and fellowship were attended to. The fieldwork started in 2014 and ends in early 2016. The analyses have been both case-specific and collective. The research group have engaged in continuous joint discussions to identify tentative themes and further questions. The analyses tentatively point to considerable differences between the researched schools’ relations to the surrounding communities. Some explicitly connect to local characteristics, whereas others don't and instead have almost no visible signs of the local neighbourhood. The schools that more explicitly linked to the local neighbourhood were from more sparsely populated areas. The stronger local contextualization and connection in the sparsely populated areas coincides with students in these areas also tending to refer to some of the locally important adult activities when explaining their leisure time preferences. One such example is hunting, which is put forward especially by boys, but also by girls. Hunting, like some of the other activities mentioned, is typically historically connected to men and might appear valuable for boys’ positioning and gendered identity work, but it also appears as generally important for students’ understandings of their positions and relations to the neighbourhood.

- Connell, R.W. (1996). Teaching the boys: new research on masculinity, and gender strategies for school. Teachers College Records, 98(2), 206-235. - Connell, R. & Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity. Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859. - Jeffrey, B. & Troman, G. (2004). Time for ethnography. British Journal of Educational Research, 30(4), 535-548. - Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. - Ungdomsstyrelsen (2010). Fokus 10. En analys av ungas inflytande. [Focus 10. An analysis of young people’s influence]. Stockholm: Ungdomsstyrelsen.