Is Brussels (Belgium), a small world city characterised by (super)diversity and division, a laboratory for (dealing with) multiculturalism in Europe? The intense philosophical-religious and politico-linguistic (between French speakers and Dutch speakers) struggles made Brussels a politically divided city with a high degree of instability kept in check by a series of pacification techniques (Witte & Van Velthoven, 2011). In recent decades, sweeping globalisation ensured that more than three in four of its inhabitants have roots abroad (STATBEL, 2022). In such a combined context of a divided past with contemporary diversity of backgrounds, how is it possible to achieve social cohesion, a shared identity and bridges that connect? 

Despite strong needs for learning how to deal with (super)diversity (Driezen, Clycq, & Verschraegen, 2023), people of a diverse background hardly find each other (Costa & de Valk, 2018). In the Brussels’ educational landscape, these walls are figuratively reflected in the gap between school, city and home environments. Certain topics, especially concerning the past and identity(s) such as colonisation, the Shoah or conflicts in the Middle East, are sensitive and treated as a taboo by teachers in some schools (Maréchal et al., 2015), if only because many teachers feel inadequately prepared to address them (Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2019; more generally: Savenije & Goldberg, 2019). Yet, in their living environment youngsters come daily into contact with identity-laden artefacts. Indeed, public space is packed with memory markers, which are carriers of (imaginary) identities (Halbwachs cited in Grandhomme & Jalabert, 2022). Even more, in many cities both in Belgium and abroad, the question of how to deal with (contested) commemorative objects in public space is high on the political and societal agendas (Rigney, 2022).  

The latter question offers unique learning opportunities in terms of critical thinking on societal issues (Veugelers, 2017). To achieve this, students need both an open and reflective stance (competences of citizenship), as well as knowledge and skills to understand society (competences of historical awareness) (Gelinck, 2020, 99). A multiperspective approach holds the potential to intertwine both domains and appears effective for dealing with controversial issues (e.g., Goldberg and Savenije, 2018). Multiperspectivity is considered as a critical and interpretational approach in which local historical controversies or tensions are approached from different viewpoints (based on Abbey & Wansink, 2022). Although multiperspectivity has been promoted for several decades, it appears a concept that has not yet been sufficiently operationalised or translated into educational practice (Wansink et al., 2018). In this exploratory study, we therefore explore the challenges and opportunities that teachers experience when preparing for a multiperspective approach. Accordingly, the following research question is at the focus: what challenges and opportunities do teachers in two Brussels' secondary schools experience for guiding their students towards the creation of new historical artefacts on topics that are polarising or sensitive among youngsters?  

In this contribution, we focus on a Brussels double case study. The former is pinned to one of the great icons of recent Brussels political life: former mayor Roger Nols (cf. Jaumain & Vaesen, 2022), a public figure who already in his own reign received virulent criticism because of his discourse and policy actions featuring overtones of discrimination and racism. The latter has to do with traces of colonisation and, in particular, the role of the then Belgian monarch in a process characterized by ‘violence and cruelty’ (cf. Stanard, 2019). By starting from an authentic societal phenomenon or issue, students create (new) solutions and narratives that start from or connect to their background and thus become meaningful (van Boxtel et al. 2016). Moreover, when their voices are heard and acted upon, it has the potential to have an empowering effect (Mitra, 2018).

The research is set up as a multiple case study design. Two Brussels secondary state schools, purposefully selected, constitute the cases. Both cases are situated in Brussels, a metropolitan region characterized by a super-diverse population (in terms of socioeconomic status, cultural, religious and linguistic background). This context of heterogeneity poses specific challenges in terms of multiperspectivism and social cohesion, and thus constitutes an outstanding setting for exploring the virtues of the creative design process. Next, in both cases, contested statues are part of the public space in the surrounding school environment. In consultation with both their local government, it has been agreed that young local residents may propose an alternative to these statues. The teacher teams of both schools are committed to having their students create a valid and substantiated alternative. In both cases, an intervention is initiated, i.e., a workshop that prepares teachers to guide this creative process, comprising several elements: 1. Providing context information regarding the importance of memorial objects in public space, their contestation and strategies used by local policy makers to deal with the contested objects; 2. Mapping existing knowledge used by teachers regarding the selected theme and their emotions about it; 3. Creating a new, more unifying (?) memorial object (immersive experience); 4. Reflecting on that immersive experience. This intervention will be led by the researchers (authors). The participants of this research are the history and citizenship teachers who will supervise the students' creative process in both participating schools (three to five participants per case). In each case a broad set of qualitative data will be collected: (1) (the prototype/ design/ sketch) of the new objects, (2) oral group discussion in which participants explain their new objects (audio recorded) and (3) oral reflective group discussion by the participants on the (added) value, challenges, opportunities and conditions of such participatory visual method (audio recorded). In preparation for the analysis, the group discussions for each case are transcribed, and linked to the objects. The data analysis consists of two phases: a within-case analysis, followed by a cross-case analysis (Miles et al., 2014). The within-case analysis consists of a software-assisted thematic analysis (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018) of all qualitative data, resulting in a schematic outline for each of the two cases. The cross-case analysis compares the two diagrams in terms of similarities and differences to discover patterns (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

his study aims to gain a better understanding of the conditions for inducing an informed, multi-perspectival dialogue on controversial issues among students. History and citizenship teachers from two Brussels schools, who were invited to create with their students an alternative to a contested statue in the school environment, were immersively prepared to guide this process of creation. Their experiences and reflections were captured in group discussions and compared cross-cases. The findings of this exploratory multiple case study are compiled in a checklist of conditions for the process of creating new history-related artefacts, that will be detailed in the paper presentation. Consistent with the findings of Abbey and Wansink (2022), this checklist addresses the different systems that place cognitive, emotional, and environmental demands on teachers and that may hinder them from approaching contested themes from multiple perspectives. The solution-oriented conditions in the checklist consequently contribute to the lack of research on the operationalisation of multiperspectivity (Wansink et al., 2018). Furthermore, this study parallels other studies on participatory visual methods. Like, for example, photovoice, this creation process proves highly suitable for discussing personal or sensitive topics in various learning environments. This is explained by the fact that (1) students decide for themselves what they will and will not bring to the discussion, allowing them to engage safely, (2) it allows students to incorporate their own perspective into a creative output, rendering self-reveal indirectly, and (3) students are invited to consider a theme through an open lens, thus taking a broader approach to a topic (Chio & Fandt, 2007).

Abbey, D. & Wansink, B. (2022). Brokers of multiperspectivity in history education in post-conflict societies, In: Journal of Peace Education, vol. 19:1, 67-90. Chio, V.C.M., & Fandt, P.M. (2007). Photovoice in the diversity classroom: engagement, voice, and the “Eye/I” of the camera. Journal of Management Education, 31(4), 484-504. Costa, R. & de Valk, H. (2018). Ethnic and Socioeconomic Segregation in Belgium: A Multiscalar Approach Using Individualised Neighbourhoods. In: European Journal of Population, 34(2):225-250. Driezen, A., Clycq, N., & Verschraegen, G. (2023). In search of a cool identity: how young people negotiate religious and ethnic boundaries in a superdiverse context. In: Ethnicities, 23(1), 3-25. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. Gelinck, C. (2020). Waar geven we burgerschapsonderwijs een plek in het curriculum? In: Eidhof, Bram, Gelinck, Coen & Nieuwelink, Hessel: Handboek Burgerschapsonderwijs. Utrecht/Amsterdam/Den Haag, VO, Bureau Common Ground & ProDemos. Goldberg, T.& Savenije, G. (2018). Teaching Controversial Historical Issues. In: Metzger, Scott Alan & McArthur Harris, Lauren eds.: The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning. Hoboken, Wiley, pp. 503-526. Grandhomme, J.-N. & Jalabert, L., eds. (2022). Les marqueurs mémoriels de la guerre et de l’armée. Villeneuve d’Ascq, Septentrion. Jaumain, S. & Vaesen, J. (2022). Roger Nols: a mayor to be forgotten? In: Brussels Studies, nr. 168. Mitra, D.L. (2018). Student voice in secondary schools: the possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 473–487. Rigney, A. (2022): Toxic Monuments and Mnemonic Regime Change. In: Studies on National Movements, vol. 9:1. Stanard, M.G. (2019). The Leopard, the Lion and the Cock: Colonial Memories and Monuments in Belgium. Leuven, Leuven University Press. van Boxtel, C., Grever, M., & Klein, S. (2016). Sensitive Pasts. Questioning Heritage Education. New York / Oxford, Berghahn Books. Van Droogenbroeck, F. et al. (2019). TALIS 2018 Vlaanderen - Volume I. Brussels, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, research report. Veugelers, W. (2017). Education for Critical-democratic Citizenship: Autonomy and Social Justice in a Multicultural Society. In N. Aloni, & L. Weintrob; eds., Beyond Bystanders. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, pp. 47-60. Wansink, B., Akkerman, S., Zuiker, I. & Wubbels, T. (2018). Where Does Teaching Multiperspectivity in History Education Begin and End? An Analysis of the Uses of Temporality, In: Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 46:4, 495-527. Witte, E. & Van Velthoven, H. (2011). Languages in contact and in conflict: The Belgian case. Kapellen, Pelckmans.