This study investigates how teacher educators conceptualize/operationalize teacher-educating for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in university-based teacher preparation programs in different geographical and institutional contexts. It speaks to the value—and challenge—of diversity in educational research (ECER 2023) to understand teacher educators’ professional knowledge for teacher preparation in/for an evolving world.

While DEI is not a new concept, it is visible in contemporary education goals. A scan of websites of European universities reveals commitment to DEI. For example, “Inclusivity as a core value” (University of Helsinki https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/university-helsinki); “diversity is celebrated and everyone is treated fairly regardless of gender, age, race, disability, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, civil status, family status, or membership of the travelling community” (University College Dublin https://www.ucd.ie/equality/about); “nurturing an inclusive culture…strength lies in diversity” (Maastrich University https://www.maastrichuniverisyt.nl/about-um/diversity-inclusivity).

These commitments undoubtedly guide teacher preparation in these and other higher education institutions across Europe, especially since the European Commission has “established ‘inclusive education, equality, equity, non-discrimination and the promotion of civic competences’ as priority areas for European cooperation in the field of education and training” (https://education.ec.europa.eu/, para.4). This commitment is also reflected in U.S. institutions where preparing teachers for equitable education is an “animating force” (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005, p.45). Yet, such commitments are fast becoming imperative given significant global-level events (Author, 2021). Chief among them is unprecedented global migration resulting from war, adverse climate events, and persecution. 2021 saw 89.3 million people forcibly displaced; that number burgeoned to 101+ million in 2022 stemming from the Russian-Ukrainian war. Alarmingly, children account for 41% of migrants (UNHCR, 2022). This massive movement of young people has dramatically increased the presence of culturally and linguistically distinct newcomers in classrooms across Europe (Bryant et al., 2022) and the U.S. (UNHCR, 2022), urgently requiring teachers to become more responsive to changing social conditions and diverse student populations (Author, 2021; European Commission, 2017). Global social movements (#BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, the Schools Strike movement…) amidst growing intolerance, political malfeasance, white supremacy, and nationalism, ignited demands for justice, sharpening the need for social justice-oriented teachers/teaching. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated endemic educational inequities, disproportionately affecting children of color (Bryant et al., 2022). International attention to preparing teachers to serve the educational needs of all children has never been more urgent, even as teachers continue to express a lack of preparedness to do this critical work (European Commission, 2017; OECD, 2018; 2019).

This reveals a gap between teacher educators’ DEI commitments and the capabilities of the teachers they prepare. Research on teacher educators internationally has shown that “rhetoric surrounding this issue is much more robust than actual practice” (Author, 2019, p.64), and “there are multiple discourses that educators draw upon” (Hytten & Bettez, 2011, p.8). Thus, despite embrace of the concept, a common understanding of what DEI means remains unclear. Our study examines these multiple discourses surrounding DEI teacher preparation and seeks to gain insight into teacher educators’ enactments—barriers, practices and affordances—by learning from teacher educators across different contexts. We report on a pre-pilot study in preparation for a large-scale study of international teacher educators. We drew upon North’s Social Justice Education Spheres—Redistribution/Recognition; Macro/Micro Levels of Power; Knowledge/Action (2008), to theoretically ground our thinking and inform our research questions:

 1.    Numerous terms are used in thinking about teacher preparation for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion/DEI: social justice, equity, multiculturalism, anti-racist, decolonizing, emancipatory, etc. Which term(s) do teacher educators choose/use? Why? 

2.     In varied institutional/geographical contexts, how is DEI teacher preparation operationalized? What supports/structures are(not) in place to forward articulated goals?

3.     What are some key practices teacher educators have implemented in DEI work with teacher candidates?

This is a qualitative study of how teacher educators conceptualize and operationalize teacher preparation for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), using a phenomenographic approach (Marton, 1986). Phenomenography is a research orientation characterized by “the [focusing] on and describing of conceptions,” (Svensson, 1997, pp. 161) and the “assumption…that knowledge and conceptions have a relational nature” (p. 165) such that “knowledge fundamentally is a question of meaning in a social and cultural context” (p. 163). Thus, it is a relevant framework to explore how teacher educators define, experience and apply their individual understandings of DEI teacher preparation because phenomenography “allows the (respondents) to account for their actions within their own frame of reference, rather than one imposed by the researcher views” (Entwistle, 1997, p. 132). Consequently, “[k]nowledge is seen as dependent upon context and perspective” (Svensson, 1997, p. 165) and affords rich and varied interpretations according to “the individual's understanding of something in terms of the meaning that something has to the individual” (Svensson, 1997, p. 163). We have completed phase one of our study—a pre-pilot for the purpose of refining our research questions, testing our research design and engaging in open-ended exploration of concepts in relation to DEI work in teacher preparation. Given a phenomenographic approach, our research team engaged in a focus group interview which supports dialogic exchange across participants as they freely speak to the research questions from their position, perspective and experience. Five of the team, all of whom have substantive experience with university-based educator preparation programs and represent distinct geographic and institutional contexts, participated as respondents in the focus group. One member of the team unfamiliar with teacher preparation but experienced in research, facilitated the focus group interview; a seventh member took notes. The focus group interview took place online to accommodate the different locations and time zones of team members. This was intentional since we aim to recruit widely for the larger study across the U.S. as well as from different countries across Europe and Asia. The interview lasted about an hour and began with a brief survey of some of the various terms related to DEI. Each respondent anonymously selected their top term from the list; these selections were used to initiate discussion around our research questions which began with definitions of DEI concepts. The interview was recorded and transcribed. Post interview, the team debriefed the discussion in terms of methods and findings.

Our pre-pilot study allowed us to reach some conclusions about research design/methods, and to gather some data and initial findings. Design/methods: 1) Focus groups are appropriate for our aims, but for an hour, no more. While the discussion could have gone on for longer, we felt an hour suits busy academic schedules and 20 minutes per research question would ensure sufficient coverage. 2) The initial survey as well as forced choice of one term helped to focus the discussion. 3) Five in a group seemed optimal—enough diversity to be generative, but contained enough for every respondent to have sufficient air time. 4) RQ3 will be revised to ask respondents to bring one concrete practice/activity/material versus leaving it open-ended. This will heighten the likelihood that our study will gather specific implementation ideas. Findings: Initial findings were interesting, even provocative. Regarding preferred terminology, social justice was selected by 3 respondents; 2 selected equity. The discussion revealed that neither term was considered satisfactory, but was selected for reasons of accessibility—they are terms familiar to most teacher educators; and practicality—they are terms most frequently referenced by educator preparation programs and literature. As expected, context matters, but the contextual differences we found were often unexpected. For instance, politics and polices undoubtedly influence DEI discourse and implementation, but surprisingly, we found that conservative state policies seemed to galvanize teacher educators, motivating them to collaborate and explicitly articulate ways to subvert oppressive mandates. More progressive state policies supposedly supported DEI work without fear of sanction, yet the openness seemingly encouraged laissez faire attitudes with little coordination among teacher educators or programs. Finally, institutional contexts shaped how DEI commitments were realized. For instance, public institutions seemed more likely to acquiesce to public policies in order to retain (often minimal) public funding.

Bryant, J.,…Woord, B. (2022, April 4). How COVID-19 caused a global learning crisis. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-covid-19-caused-a-global-learning-crisis Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). The AERA panel on research and teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 37-68). Lawrence Erlbaum. European Commission. European Education Area; Quality education and training for all. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2023 from https://education.ec.europa.eu/ European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2017). Preparing teachers for diversity: the role of initial teacher education : executive summary in English. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/061474 Forghani-Arani, N., Cerna, L., & Bannon M. (2019, March 20). The lives of teachers in diverse classrooms. OECD Education Working Papers #198. OECD. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8c26fee5-en Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. (2011). Understanding Education for Social Justice. Educational Foundations, 25(1), 7–24. North, C. (2008). What Is All This Talk About “Social Justice”? Mapping the Terrain of Education’s Latest Catchphrase. Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1182–1206. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2019). TALIS 2018 results: Vol. I. Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. UNHCR. (2022 June). Global trends report 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2023 https://www.unhcr.org/62a9d1494/global-trends-report-2021