In the Swedish curriculum one can read that the students shall have influence and be active participants in their stay at school (Lgr 11, Lgy 11). It became evident in our study that students wanted to be active participants in their schools gender equality and diversity work. Still, their wishes are to large extent ignored. Principals within Swedish compulsory schools have the responsibility of designing and implementing policies of gender equality and diversity within their organizations that align with the discrimination and education acts (SFS, 2008; SFS, 2010). In Sweden, as in all Nordic countries, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, these policies are now increasingly formulated within a broader equality and antidiscrimination framework that covers sex, ethnicity, religious or other beliefs, disability, sexuality, gender identity and age (Skjeie & Langvasbråten, 2009). The purpose of this article is to explore how discourses of participation and power are practiced, not practiced and materialized by focusing on student representations of gender equality and diversity work within Swedish compulsory and secondary schools.

Among the most fundamental concerns of a welfare state, such as Sweden, is to provide equal education for its citizens for the purpose of achieving both social and academic objectives within a safe and secure environment. Nevertheless, schools are an arena where students are exposed to different types of harassment and bullying where action is required by principals (SFS, 2008; SFS, 2010). Research on harassment and discrimination in Swedish schools is limited (Johansson, 2012). While the knowledge of sexual harassment and other aspects related to gender have increased, particularly within upper secondary schools (grades 1012), the knowledge is still limited in compulsory schools (grades P9) (GillanderGådin, 2012).

The societal norms of inequality related to gender or diversity are interwoven in schools. There are also inequalities between adults and students which have an influence on how discrimination, harassment, and insulting behaviour are recognised and addressed (Martinsson & Reimers, 2008). Several studies have shown that adults tend to trivialise these types of phenomenon (Ahlström, 2009; Card, 2002; Hägglund, 2007). Further, research on bullying and harassment is commonly based on an individual perspective, with focus on the perpetrator and victim or the group they belong to (Bliding 2004). Therefore, knowledge related to the impact organisational factors have is limited. Hence, the contexts in which harassment or discrimination actually occurs is therefore ignored.

Principals also have responsibility for promotional and preventive work in relation to gender equality and diversity. Yet structures of inequality remain part of the school context. For example, in Sweden, only half of the population of students with an immigrant background leave the compulsory school system qualified for upper secondary school (Bunar et al., 2015). This may, over time, be an even bigger challenge due to the increased migration to Sweden and the rest of Europe. Another example, according to the Swedish department of education, is that girls have poorer mental health compared to boys, and boys receive lower grades than girls. Furthermore, there are major grading differences among students depending on the caregiver’s educational background. These types of inequalities have become a part of everyday reality, even perceived as something natural.

This study is based on 10 focus group interviews with 43 students (53% boys and 47% girls) from four different schools, two compulsory and two secondary. These schools were selected on the basis of an analysis of plans for gender equality and diversity work and the selected schools was interpreted as interesting due to their norm critical perspective (Keisu 2018). The questions for the interviews were formulated from an organisational theoretical perspective. What we aim to capture is thus the ways in which governing discourses operate though rational, individual students in schools by asking question formulated from an organisational theoretical perspective. We wanted to get the student experiences of how gender equality and diversity work were organized (structure) how they worked with these questions through concrete actions (culture) and how it was led (leadership). Data collection was conducted during fall of 2017 and spring 2018. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and MAXQDA11 software was used to facilitate the qualitative analysis. The analysis utilizes a gender perspective anchored in a critical policy analysis approach – the “What’s the problem represented to be? Approach” (WPR) developed by Carol Bacchi (2009). The policy problem itself is taken for granted in more traditional approaches to policy analyses and the research focuses on how to solve it. The WPR approach questions the underlying notions of policy through asking “How is the problem represented?” Thus, it is a useful tool in analyzing how a political area or group of questions is produced and becomes filled with meaning within the interviewee data. We are hence able to formulate the issues of student participation launched in the gender equality and diversity work within the schools and but also as part of a globalized discourse. In the qualitative analysis, the data were read and reread exploratory. Analytical questions from the WPR approach were related to the data with focus on the following research questions; 1. How are the problems of gender equality and diversity work represented? 2. What are the assumptions and presumptions underlying these representations? 3. What is not included? 4. What are the effects produced by the problem representations described? In the data several representations were found. However, in this article the three main representations were chosen in order to illustrate the dominant pattern. Besides being the three largest representation these were also present at the four schools included in the study.

Analysis illustrate three sub-discourse of the discourse participation and power. The first, structural barriers for participation refers to a discourse where teachers are reluctant to change the power relation between the teacher, as the leader, and the student, as the follower. The individual power invested in the teacher as a professional and an adult on the one hand, and the student as a learner and juvenile on the other is perceived as the norm. This norm acts as a boundary and a vanguard for student participation. The second sub-discourse, normative barriers for participation, refers to a collective loyalty among teachers. This loyalty comes at a cost and that is the loyalty towards the students. It manifests itself in practice when student’s experiences are trivialized and the teachers come together as a group against the students. Hence, student voices might get silenced and the students will be hesitant to reach out to the adults. The third sub-discourse, openings in the barriers for participation, illustrates how students only can participate in this work through key actors within the organization. These key actors are often teachers that are devoted to gender equality and diversity work. At these schools, these devoted teachers act as, and are perceived as, an alibi for students, yet the schools do not deal with these topics on a larger scale. However, this way of organizing the gender equality and diversity work might lead to a passive and fragmented culture. Unfortunately, the unequal power relations might therefore not be challenged. Keeping that in mind it is the practitioners and researchers task to highlight students participation in order to give sound to this silent voice. Not only because this is expected through the curriculum but because it is crucial when fostering young adults to become active citizens within a democratic society.

Ahlström, B. (2009) Bullying and Social Objectives - A Study of Prerequisites for Success in Swedish Schools. Diss. Umeå: Umeå universitet Bacchi, Carol (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage. Bacchi, C. (2009), Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be?, Pearson Education, Adelaide. Bliding, M. (2004) Inneslutandets och uteslutandets praktik – En studie i barns relationsarbete i skolan. Göteborg: Acta universitatis gothoburgensis Bunar, N. (2015) Introduktion. I Nyanlända och lärande, Bunar, N (red). Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Card, C. (2002) The Atrocity Paradigm - A Theory of Evil, New York: Oxford University Press. Gillander-Gådin, K. (2012) Sexual harassment of girls in elementary school – a concealed phenomenon within a heterosexual romantic discourse, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 27, No 9, P -1762-1779. Hägglund, S. (2007) Banal mobbning – en vardagsföreteelse i förskola och skola i Thors, C. (Ed.), Utstött – en bok om mobbning, Stockholm: Lärarförbundets förlag. Johansson, E. (2012) Forskningsöversikt om trakasserier i arbetsliv och utbildning. Forskning publicerad vid svenska universitet och högskolor sedan år 2000, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen (DO). Stockholm: Oxford Research. Keisu, B. (2018) Sammanvävda praktiker? En studie av likabehandlingsarbete och vetenskapligt förhållningssätt i grundskolan, [Interwoven practises? A study of equality and diversity work and scientific approach in compulsory schools] In; Rönnström, N. & Johansson, O. (red) Att leda skolor med stöd i forskning: exempel, analyser och utmaningar, [Leading schools with support of research: case, analysis and challenges] Stockholm: Natur och kultur 2018: 417-447. Lgr 11 (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. [Curriculum for Compulsory School, Pre-school and After School Center]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet. Lgy 11 (2011) Läroplan för gymnasieskolan. [Curriculum for Upper Secondary School] Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet. Martinsson, L. & Reimers, E. (red.) (2008) Skola i normer Gleerups, Malmö. SFS (2008) Svensk författningssamling, [Swedish Codes of Statutes], Diskrimineringslag, 2008:567. SFS (2010) Svensk författningssamling [Swedish Codes of Statutes], Skollagen, 2010:800. Skjeie, Hege and Langvasbråten, Trude (2009) Intersectionality in Practice? Anti-discrimination reforms in Norway, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), pp. 513–529.