Inclusive participation and the importance of subaltern voices. A research in schools and social organisations in Cantabria (Spain)
Author(s):
Ángela Saiz Linares (presenting / submitting) Teresa Susinos Rada (presenting) Noelia Ceballos López
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
04. Inclusive Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

04 SES 05 C, Minority Voices

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-23
13:30-15:00
Room:
W6.21
Chair:
Jo Rose

Contribution

This paper analyses the lines of continuity and points of divergence between two research projects (one already completed and the other ongoing) with the objective of studying how to promote inclusive and democratic participation in different types of social institutions (schools and other social organisations). The first research project, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (Spain)   (“Schools moving towards educational inclusion: working with the local community. The student voice and educational support for promoting change”. Dir.: Teresa Susinos. EDU2011-29928- C03-03), was aimed to encourage, develop and assess the setting-up of student voice experiences in various primary and secondary schools which have implemented ad-hoc student participation projects. Therefore, it can be placed within the framework of the Student Voice Movement which is focused on increasing the subjects’ agency, their capacity to take democratic decisions about their lives in common, their education and the local community (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989; Bragg, 2007; Fielding, 2011; Rudduck, 2006; Thomson, 2007; Susinos & Haya, 2014). The current project (“Innovation networks for social inclusion: co-laboratory of inclusion”. Dir. Teresa Susinos. EDU2015-68617-C4-4-R), is also publicly funded. It aims to continue making progress in the study of deliberative participation processes, not only within the schools, but also in other social groups and organisations. Its objective is to promote and analyse models of inquiry and social change aimed at increasing the participation of silenced groups. To this end, our research takes advantage of innovative social inquiry methodologies and focuses on the leading role of agents themselves.

Thus, participation is the key element which links our research projects. We understand participation to be the right of people to exercise influence over their lives and take decisions on common issues. Participation not only occurs at a material level, where improvements lead to visible changes for the subjects, but also at a symbolic level. In this case, participation affects the transformation of the ways these groups are perceived and named and how their needs, their preferences and their rights are interpreted (Fraser & Honnet, 2004). In particular, we support the development of areas for deliberative democracy as a legitimate way of deciding on the common good using processes of dialogue, discussion, negotiation and choice (Thompson, 2007; Samuelsson and Bøyum, 2015).  

It is also related to the theory of inclusion and school improvement which conceive schools and communities of practices within schools (Wenger, 1998) as main units of educational change, taking as a starting point the analysis of the needs and strengths of each particular school (Stoll y Fink, 1999; Ainscow, 2005).

The ultimate aim of these processes of change is for each group to increase its social presence and its agency in these institutions, promoting reflection on how power is distributed, who possesses it and how it is used (Arnot y Reay, 2007).

It is within this conceptual framework that the following research questions have been formulated.

 

  • What consultation and deliberation strategies are used by each group? What do these strategies allow to listen to and what is silenced?
  • What issues does each group identify as relevant to their lives and which ones do they consider need changing? How is participation and material or symbolic change to their everyday lives verified in each proposal?
  • What are the main differences in the development of these initiatives in a school context compared to other institutions or social organisations?  

 

 

 

Method

The methodology used for our research falls within the tradition of participative research which assumes a democratic vision of the processes of the elaboration of knowledge aimed at the critical transformation of reality (Bourke, 2009; Clark, 2010; Nind, 2014). In addition to the traditional strategies used in the first research project (participant observation (Flick, 2004), semi-structured interviews (Kvale, 2011), document analysis), we have incorporated the use of innovative methodologies and technologies that increase the presence and visibility of the participants such as photographs, video, shadowing, musical or visual elicitation, etc. (Banks, 2010; McDonald, 2005; Rose, 2012) Each of the schools or institutions undertook an “inclusive participation cycle” consisting of four phases or moments which are explained below: — Opening, tunning. The mixed-research group for each institution (consisting of researchers and staff from the institution itself) is set up and a joint analysis of the needs, interests and immediate objectives of the group is carried out. — Process of democratic deliberation. The groups are asked the question “What do we want to investigate, change, communicate or denounce?” followed by dialogue and a deliberative decision making process. — Improvement project. Following the deliberation process the group carries out their own project of social change with the objective of gaining agency and social presence. — Evaluation and dissemination. Each group carries out an evaluation process which will be the starting point for a new cycle. They will also develop imaginative initiatives in order to publicise and disseminate the experience. The sample for the first project consisted of 9 schools covering all the different stages of compulsory education in Spain and two pre-professional or so called “second chance” programmes for those students who have not achieved compulsory secondary education objectives (16-18 years old). We put the above data into dialogue with what we have learnt from the new project under development. Our actual sample consists of two infant and primary schools and two associations (one aimed at social insertion for people with judicial penalties and the other consisting of people with intellectual disabilities).

Expected Outcomes

In this paper we will focus on three main results of these research projects: • Firstly, there will be an analysis of the results related to the consultation and deliberation strategies used in each group. We will look at to what extent these strategies are inclusive, that is, if they allow all the people involved to contribute their ideas, experiences and proposals. In the first project, the consultation strategies most used in schools were essentially those related to oral and written communication: a classroom or school letterbox, assemblies, descriptive texts, surveys, although there was some shy experimentation with visual and digital strategies (participatory photography and blogs). In the second project we tried to continue increasing the use of hybrid languages and some innovative consultation and deliberation strategies were implemented: images, shadowing, musical or visual elicitation, etc. In this paper we will discuss what opportunities the use of these new strategies, offered for inclusion. • The issues raised by each group will be analysed. Among the concerns which commonly become object for deliberation in schools are: curricular aspects (i.e. contents of particular subjects, the grouping of students), improving school facilities (the playground and access) and extracurricular activities. The second project raises new community concerns broadly related to the social image of these groups. • Finally, we will reflect on the main dissimilarities that arise in the development of the democratic participation experiences in schools and other social institutions, taking into account the aims and needs of each group, some relevant organisational aspects of the institution, the role of key figures, the social position of participants, etc.

References

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109-124. Arnot, M., & Reay, D. (2007). A Sociology of Pedagogic Voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 311-325. Banks, M. (2010). Los datos visuales en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Morata. Bragg, S. (2007). It’s not about systems, it´s about relationships: Building a listening culture in a primary school. In D, Thiessen & A. Cook-Shater, International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 659-680). Netherlands:Springer. Bourke, L. (2009). Reflections on doing participatory research in health: participation, method and power. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(5), 457-474. UNICEF (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Clark, A. (2010). Transforming children's spaces: Children's and adults' participation in designing learning environments. London:Routledge. Fielding, M. (2007). On the necessity of Radical State Education: Democracy and the common school. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 539-557. Fielding, M. (2011). Patterns of partnership: student voice, intergenerational learning and democratic fellowship. In N. Mockler & J. Sachs (Eds.). Rethinking educational practice through reflexive inquiry (pp. 61-75). Netherlands: Springer. Flick, U. (2004). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Madrid:Morata. Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2004). Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London. Verso. Kvale, S. (2011). Las entrevistas en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Morata. McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative research, 5(4), 455-473. Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? London: Bloomsbury Academic. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies. An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage. Rudduck, J. (2006). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In A. Cook-Sather & D. Thiessen, International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 587-610). Springer Netherlands. Samuelsson, M. and Bøyum, S. (2015) Education for deliberative democracy: Mapping the field. Utbildning & Demokrati, 24(1), 75–94. Susinos, T., & Haya, I. (2014). Developing student voice and participatory pedagogy: a case study in a Spanish primary school. Cambrigde journal of education, 44(3), 385-399. Thomson, P. (2007). Making it real: engaging students in active citizenship projects. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Shater (2007). International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 775-804). Netherlands:Springer. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press

Author Information

Ángela Saiz Linares (presenting / submitting)
University of Cantabria
Education
Santander
Teresa Susinos Rada (presenting)
University of Cantabria, Spain
Noelia Ceballos López
University of Cantabria
Department of Education
Santander

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.