Relative to most European contexts, diversity is seen to be a recent phenomenon in Irish society. Traditionally, Ireland had higher outward than inward migration rates and the Catholic Church was culturally and socially dominant. Both these factors meant that Irish society was perceived (somewhat erroneously) to be culturally and ethnically homogeneous (Bryan, 2009). However, since migration rates and religious attitudes began to shift in the mid-1990s, the growth in both visible and less visible forms of diversity has been rapid (Ní Dhuinn & Keane, 2021; McGinnity et al., 2020). This swift growth in diversity means that, like its European neighbours, the Irish education system must ensure that young people are supported in developing the skills and dispositions necessary for living in diverse societies. These are often referred to under the umbrella term of intercultural competence, a longstanding priority of the Council of Europe (Barrett, 2020; Barrett et al., 2014).

 One element of intercultural competence that has been attracting attention in recent years is empathy (as seen, for example, in the EU Digital Citizenship Education programme). Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share others’ thoughts and emotions (Weisz & Cikara, 2021). However, it is not limited to intercultural competence alone. Regarded more broadly as a powerful predictor of adaptive intra- and inter-personal outcomes (Konrath & Grynberg, 2013), empathy can be positioned as a key element of social and individual wellbeing. Higher empathy has consistently been linked to enhanced social relationships (e.g., Dekovic & Gerris, 1994), increased prosocial behavour (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2010), reduced prejudice (e.g., Miklikowska, 2018), and increased civic responsibility (e.g., Hope & Jagers, 2014). These outcomes align well with the WHO’s Health Promoting Schools Framework (1991), which emphasises how healthy relationships are important for individual wellbeing and can, in turn, lead to healthier communities. 

Research indicates that empathy is malleable and dynamic (e.g., Main et al., 2017). One of the putative pathways towards enhanced empathy is empathy education, often conducted as part of school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programmes (Davis & Begovich, 2014). This paper introduces an empathy education programme called Activating Social Empathy (ASE), which was designed to be facilitated by second-level teachers, with the aims of increasing empathy, improving interpersonal skills, promoting prosocial behaviour, and increasing social responsibility among students aged between 12-15 years. The ASE programme previously underwent feasibility testing followed by more rigorous randomised control trial (RCT) testing. Findings from the RCT study were promising in that increases in empathy, social responsibility values, emotional self-confidence, and helping and defending behaviour were found among students who had engaged in the programme, compared to students on a wait-list. 

However, it has been recognised that after RCT evaluation, monitoring of programme implementation in the real world is needed due to the effects of a variety of factors at the individual, school, and macro-educational system levels (Domotrovich et al., 2008). Thus, a study was developed with the aim of exploring how the ASE programme was being implemented in schools, to identify factors that may be influencing quality implementation and enactment, and to better understand teacher and student interpretations of and perspectives on the programme. The objectives of this study were to explore: 1) how the programme was being implemented; 2) how acceptable it was to teachers and students; and 3) teachers’ and students’ perceptions of how effective it is in terms of influencing both empathic motivations and skills, and prosocial intentions and behaviours. 

This paper will present a brief overview of the study’s overall results before focusing in particular on the findings related to the participants’ perceptions of the programme’s effectiveness. 

This predominantly qualitative study involves two phases of data collection: Phase 1 data collection involving all the teachers who delivered the programme during the 2022/2023 academic year; followed by more in-depth data collection with a smaller non-probability quota sample from the Phase 1 population. Phase 1 involves the completion of a one-shot online teacher survey exploring the implementation quality and enactment factors of dosage, adherence, quality of delivery, teacher and student agency, perceived student responsiveness (focusing on the whole class rather than individual students), and programme differentiation. For Phase 2, twelve schools will be sampled using non-probability quota sampling (based on disadvantaged status, school gender profile, and ethos) from the cohort of 40 second-level schools who have committed to delivering the ASE programme during the 2022-2023 academic year. One teacher and 4-6 students will be recruited from each of the selected schools. If non-probability quota sampling is unsuccessful, which can be quite common in educational research (due to lack of availability and capacity issues etc. for schools), convenience sampling will be activated. As part of Phase 2, a semi-structured teacher interview will be conducted with the participating teacher who facilitated the ASE programme in their school. In addition, an student focus group involving 4-6 students who participated in the programme, and who will be recruited by their teacher, will be facilitated. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis will be carried out on the Phase 1 survey data using the SPSS package for statistical analysis. The analysis of the Phase 2 qualitative data will follow a two-part approach, consisting first of a narrative reading of the interview and focus group transcripts to immerse the researcher in each participant’s contribution, and then a thematic analysis involving inductive coding, carried out with the aid of NVivo qualitative data analysis software. The research was granted ethical approval by the relevant institution’s Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent procedures will be followed in both phases of the research. As Phase 2 of the research involves young people, particular attention will be given to ensuring accessibility and age-appropriateness in the development of consent and assent documentation and focus group schedules. The Phase 2 interviews and focus groups will be transcribed verbatim and, following participant validation, will be anonymised. The recordings will be deleted as soon as transcription has taken place. All data, recordings and transcripts will be stored securely in accordance with EU GDPR policy.

As this study is currently ongoing, no findings have been developed as of yet. It is anticipated that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the research will be complete before the end of the academic year 2022/23, with analysis to be carried out over the summer months. This paper will present overall findings from the study with particular emphasis on the teacher and student perceptions of the programme’s effectiveness in influencing empathic skills and prosocial behaviours. Given the conference’s theme, the discussion will explore the potential of empathy education for meeting some of the challenges posed by diversity and will examine any barriers to empathy that are highlighted by participants. It is anticipated that the study findings will point to ways in which the programme can be refined and adapted by teachers to suit their school contexts. The researchers will draw on these findings to make some recommendations for adapting the programme to other European contexts.

Barrett, M. (2020). The Council of Europe’s Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture: Policy context, content and impact. London Review of Education, 18 (1): 1–17. Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P. & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing Intercultural Competence through Education (Pestalozzi Series No. 3). Ed. Huber, J. and Reynolds, C. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Bryan, A. (2009). The intersectionality of nationalism and multiculturalism in the Irish curriculum: Teaching against racism? Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(3), 297–317. Davis, M. H., & Begovic, E. (2014). Empathy‐related interventions. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions, 111-134. Deković, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 367–386. Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Poduska JM, Hoagwood K, Buckley JA, Olin S, Romanelli LH, Leaf PJ, Greenberg MT & Ialongo NS. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: a conceptual framework. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot. Jul 1(3):6-28. Eisenberg N, Eggum ND & Di Giunta L. (2010). Empathy-related responding: associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Soc Issues Policy Rev. Dec 1;4(1):143-180. Hope, E. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of Black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 460–470. Konrath, S. H., & Grynberg, D. (2013). The positive (and negative) psychology of empathy. In D. Watt & J. Panksepp (Eds.), The Neurobiology and Psychology of Empathy. Nova Science Publishers Incorporated. Main, A., Walle, E., Kho, C., & Halpern, J. (2017). The interpersonal functions of empathy: a relational perspective. Emotion Review, 9(4), 358-366. McGinnity, F., Privalko, I., Fahey, E., Enright, S., & O’Brien, D. (2020). Origin and integration: A study of Migrants in the 2016 Irish census. ESRI. Miklikowska M. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Dev Psychol. Apr;54(4):703-717. Ní Dhuinn, M. & Keane, E. (2021). ‘But you don’t look Irish’: identity constructions of minority ethnic students as ‘non-Irish’ and deficient learners at school in Ireland. International Studies in Sociology of Education. Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227. World Health Organisation. (1991). Background, development and strategy outline of the health promoting schools project. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe