Research that looks at practices of discrimination that produce inequalities in Physical Education (PE) has seemingly led to little sustainable change. PE teachers continue to struggle with social inclusion, and in particular, with contradictory discourses about gender, health, ability, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality. In this paper we argue for a shift in focus that expands understandings of these complex issues. Instead of focusing on the practices that (re)produce discrimination, research needs to ask other questions based on the ubiquity of discriminatory practices in the PE context. Discriminatory practices occur via mechanisms that need to be understood if change is to occur. To understand possibilities for change, this research focuses on discriminatory mechanisms and explores how the educational context of PE may contribute to this.

1.         What is the role of discriminatory mechanisms and conditions in the persistence of inequalities in PE?

Inclusion studies in education and other domains often frame the notion of practices of inclusion as the answer to the ensuring of equitable outcomes for all (e.g., Adamson et al. 2021; Penney et al., 2018) and of it being a moral obligation to soften the current increase in social inequalities and precarity (Tyler, 2019). The term inclusion seems to have replaced an emphasis on notions of discrimination (Adamson, et al. 2021). How conditions of life are described or captured by words matter, however (Butler, 2021). Doing inclusion is presumed to be a good and positive concept (Adamson et al., 2021; Butler, 2021); consequently, inclusion has become an important project in education, while persistent social inequalities remain unchallenged (Van Doodewaard, 2022). We argue that research needs to explore these constructs of inclusion and how their use may contribute to a culture that implicitly condones discriminatory practices using denial and inaction. Various studies also suggest some teachers engage in discriminatory practices by drawing on hegemonic sport, health and citizenship discourses and/or on managerial professionalism discourses to resist change (Sachs, 2016). More needs to be known about the reasons for doing so.

2.         Is the PE context a unique field?

PE is a unique field in education, as it is one of the few subjects that centers on public bodily performances (Aartun et al, 2022). Its uniqueness is also based on its close ties with the sport context. Sport participation is shaped along formal hierarchical binaries based on gender and ableism that, for instance, tend to value men and men’s sport more than women and women’s sport (Metcalfe, 2018), and abled sport and abled athletes, more than para sport and differently abled athletes (Grenier & Giese, 2022). Little is known about how these connections between school and societal practices sustain or shape discriminatory mechanisms in PE. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore how hierarchical binaries in sport and in education may infiltrate and shape discriminatory dynamics of PE.

We subsequently, briefly discuss several possibilities as well as their limitations for dismantling discriminatory mechanisms through transformative practices (Biesta (2019), Lynch et al., 2022; Quennerstedt, 2019). These possibilities include disrupting the use of critical performativity (Blackshear, 2022; Grenier & Giese, 2022) and the use of third space (Forgasz, et al. Soja, 2009).

To explore the experiences of PE teachers and PETE students with discriminatory mechanisms in secondary schools, we draw on Foucauldian notions of discourse and discursive practices using a third space lens (Bhabha, 1994). This trialectical thinking challenges all modes of thought and taken-for-granted epistemologies through an intrusive disruption that explicitly spatializes dialectical reasoning (Soja, 2009). Participants and data The study design was based on a qualitative secondary data analysis (SDA) of data, obtained during a doctoral study (van Doodewaard, 2022), which studied the discursive practices of PE teachers in their articulation of inclusive teaching practices. All of the individual interviews (n= 28) were included in the SDA. Two of the SDA researchers were involved with the initial studies. The third researcher was new to the study. We protected the participants of the studies by anonymizing all transcripts and then working with uncoded transcripts to increase rigor in the secondary analysis (Ruggiano & Perry, 2019). Data analysis SDA involved a more in-depth focus on dialectical reasoning than was used in the original study. Each transcript was re-read several times by all researchers to obtain a sense of the whole. Using an inductive, iterative process, we created initial codes and then condensed and categorized them until patterns and final themes emerged. The identification of codes and final themes as well as discrepancies were discussed and reviewed during several research team meetings until consensus was achieved. Trustworthiness was determined through an audit trail and transcripts of reflective meetings and memos.

In January 2023 we prepared the data while and we will begin our analysis in February to identify possible discriminatory mechanisms and dualistic reasonings. We will draw on notions of discursive practices and of third space to possibly explain the embeddedness of discriminatory mechanisms in discursive teaching practices.

Aartun, I., Walseth, K., Standal, Ø, & Kirk, D. (2022). Pedagogies of embodiment in physical education – A literature review. Sport, Education and Society, 27, 1–13. Adamson, M., Kelan, E., Lewis, P., Śliwa, M. & Rumens, N. (2021). Introduction: Critically interrogating inclusion in organisations. Organization, 28, 211-227. Biesta, G. (2019). Obstinate education: Reconnecting school and society. Brill NV. Blackshear, T. (2022). Moving beyond performance: Advocacy for racial equity in health and physical education. Strategies 35, 50-53. Butler, J. (2021). Bodies that still matter. In A. Halsema, K. Kwastek & R. Oever (Eds.), Bodies that still matter: Resonances of the work of Judith Butler (pp.177-193). University Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Pantheon Books. Forgasz, R., Heck, D., Williams, J., Ambrosetti, A., & Willis, L. D. (2018). Theorising the third space of professional experience partnerships. In: J. Kriewaldt, A. Ambrosetti, D. Rorrison & R. Capeness (Eds.), Educating future teachers: Innovative perspectives in professional experience (pp. 33-47). Springer. Grenier, M., & Giese, M. (2022). Ableism within adapted/physical education teacher education: Implications for practice. In: D. Goodwin & M. Connolly (Eds.), Reflexivity and change in adaptive physical activity (pp. 151-162). Routledge. Lynch, S., Walton-Fisette, J. L., & Luguetti, C. (2021). Pedagogies of social justice in physical education and youth sport. Routledge. Metcalfe, S. (2018). Adolescent constructions of gendered identities: The role of sport and (physical) education. Sport, Education and Society 23, 681-693. Penney, D., Jeanes, R., O’Connor, J. & Alfrey, L. (2018). Re-theorising inclusion and reframing inclusive practice in physical education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22, 1062-1077. Quennerstedt, M. (2019). Physical education and the art of teaching: Transformative learning and teaching in physical education and sports pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society, 24, 611–623. Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work, 18, 81-97. Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching, 22, 413-425. Soja, E. W. (2008). Thirdspace: Toward a new consciousness of space and spatiality. In: K. Ikas & G. Wagner (Eds.), Communicating in the third space (pp. 63-75). Routledge. Tyler, M. (2019). Reassembling difference? Rethinking inclusion through/as embodied ethics. Human Relations, 72, 48-68. Van Doodewaard (2022). Paradoxes of inclusive teaching practices and the beautiful between. Utrecht University.