27 SES 02 B JS, Working Across Disciplines and Differences for Gender Justice: Methodological, theoretical and practical challenges for feminist educators Part 2
Joint Symposium NW 27 and NW 33 continued from 27 SES 01 B JS
A framework is needed so that economically richer countries with more developed, historically better resourced and higher status research cultures can collaboratively develop knowledge in equal partnership with countries with historically less well funded and renowned research cultures. International collaborative projects are increasingly funded to help to adjust policies, practices and concepts from richer countries to alleviate the effects of poverty and enhance economic outputs for poorer countries. Our three-year research and development project, which focuses on inclusive education (funded by ERASMUS+ Capacity Building in Higher Education see www.inclute.eu) is an example of this practice. Ostensibly it involves an equal partnership between four Chinese and four European universities: South West University, Guangxi University, Sichuan University, Tibetan University for Nationalities, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Autonomous University of Lisbon, Trinity College Dublin and the University of Bath. The goal is to co-produce knowledge for four masters in inclusive education for educators and researchers studying at the four Chinese universities. However, there is a well-known tendency for the intellectual ideas and research practices of Europe to dominate and 'colonise the minds' and cultures of non-western researchers and potentially their wider society (Chen, 2013; Harding, 2008). Unequal and unjust power permeates practices and interactions between researchers leading to a failure to develop context relevant knowledge and practices and cementing western malestream dominance (Carrington et al, 2017; Harding, 2008; Pant-Robinson and Singal, 2014). We focus on the work we have undertaken to try to generate knowledge regarding gender and inclusive education to illustrate the difficulty of having the epistemologically, politically, socially and culturally engaged debate and exchange between researchers that is needed to coproduce knowledge. Language barriers, different expectations, different gender cultures, intellectual cultures, limited meetings, cultural, social and political difference, along with project targets and timeframes all intervene. Our survey of over 6000 teachers, interviews with teachers and representatives from NGO's and Local Education Authorities and the workshop led by the UK for 40 Chinese colleagues all include colonising tendencies and gendered inequalities. However, by developing a concept of socially just knowledge and a method for achieving it we have started to tackle these difficulties. Drawing upon theorists of knowledge such as Bernstein (2000), Chen (2010), Fricker (2007), Harding (2008, 2011) and Young (2008), we argue that an underpinning notion of socially just knowledge that distinguishes the type of knowledge building that needs to take place is critical to such an endeavour.
Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory Research, Critique, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefields Publishers. Carrington, S., Pillay, H., Tones, M., Nickerson, J., Duke, J., Esibaea, B., Malefoasi, A. and Fa'asala, C. J. (2017) A case study of culturally informed disability-inclusive education policy development in the Solomon Islands, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (5) 495-506. Chen, K.S. (2010) Asia as Method: Towards Deimperialization, Durham and London: Duke University Press. Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pant-Robinson, A. and Singal, N. (2013). Guest Editors for the Special Issue: Researching ethically across cultures: issues of knowledge, power and voice. Compare, 43 (4). Michael F. D. Young (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. London and New York: Routledge.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.