Ireland has experienced significant changes in its socio-cultural make-up in the past 30 years. Consequently, it is important to understand how students in Ireland are negotiating this change and to what extent schools are preparing young people to respond to cultural and religious diversity. This study will focus on individuals from non-Catholic backgrounds. Given the highly denominational primary school sector and relatively homogenous teaching body in Ireland, an exploration regarding how students from minority culture backgrounds exercise agency to develop a sense of belonging helps to inform policy and practice in schools. 

The research questions are: 1) How are students from diverse backgrounds negotiating belonging within the Irish educational system? 2) How are students drawing on their agency to develop a sense of belonging and counteracting feelings of “otherness”? 3) How are Irish primary schools helping young people develop the tools to interact with cultural and religious diversity?

The conceptual ambiguity attached to the concept of school belonging has made it difficult to measure. In one sense, school belonging is a “multidimensional concept, encompassing psychological, behavioural, and community perspectives” (Alink et al. 2023, 9). However, at its heart, it is a sense of being “somewhere you can be confident that you will fit in, a feeling of being safe in your identity and at home in a place” (Riley 2022, 1). Nevertheless, regardless of how one conceptualises school belonging, it is important to reflect on the political dimension of belonging (Kuttner 2023). Here, one may question ‘what exactly do students belong to?’. For example, in a highly denominational educational landscape, to belong, to some extent, requires operating under the assumption that an individual from a minority background is expected to assimilate to the social norms, values, and customs of the majority population - White, Irish Catholics. 

Drawing on Bourdieusian theory, we begin to understand how students who sit outside the hegemonic culture may be at a disadvantage in schools. The analogy of the ‘fish in water’, deployed by Bourdieu to illustrate how certain groups gain advantage in a specific setting, is particularly helpful in this regard (Bourdieu 1991, p. 127). This demonstrates the manner in which personal habitus interact with the class, as students who know the ‘rules of the game’ gain ascendancy, while other pupils, often from migrant backgrounds, feel like a fish out of water. Therefore, growing attention has been placed on understanding institutional habitus, which was first coined by Reay (1998). Institutional habitus posits that the particular institutions a child attends can have a profound impact on that child's habitus, choices, and practices. 

Of course, the understanding that students possess agency, does not foreclose investigations into power and the systemic barriers that obstruct an individual from developing a sense of belonging (Kuttner 2023). Indeed, an exploration concerning the role of agency in school belonging would not be complete without analysing the concept of bounded agency. Bounded agency suggests that despite the individual having the capacity to demonstrate agency “they are also bounded by the structures and contexts and by the features of the self that constrains choice” (Reubenson and Desjardins 2009, 192). Drawing on this definition, not only is an individual’s agency bounded by the structures in which they operate but also may impact their perception of their “opportunity structure” (Reubenson and Desjardins 2009). 

While this study is situated in the Irish context, it is of interest to the international audience as it highlights the role agency plays in negotiating belonging for both the individual student and their peers.

This study adopted a multiple-method, comparative case study design. For the purpose of this project, 8 primary schools were sampled. These included Catholic, Church of Ireland, CNS and ET primary schools. Each school type was sampled in both an urban and rural location in Ireland to analyse the differences and similarities in ethos within different locations. Gaelscoileanna were excluded from the sample due to their variability in religious ethos and smaller religious ethos schools were also excluded due to their size. This study drew on data from a larger research project that sampled students, teachers, school principals and parents. However, for the purpose of this project, the data from students and teachers was utilised. Overall, 60 students were sampled using focus groups and 16 teachers were sampled using semi-structured interviews. For the focus groups, where possible, efforts were made to have two focus groups in each school. The first group consisted of 5 students from a native Irish catholic background and the second group consisted of 5 students from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. This, however, was not possible in all schools due to several factors, such as class size, time pressures and not having enough pupils that met the criteria. This was particularly true of rural denominational schools. The questions in each focus group focused on areas such as how schools are responding to cultural and religious diversity, how schools enhance the voice of students and how intercultural friendships are nurtured. Concurrent to the focus groups, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers. Two teachers were interviewed from each school, one teacher from 5th class and one other teacher from the school. 5th class teachers were selected as it was felt that due to the age of the students they are teaching (10-11 years old) they would have experience of having discussions regarding cultural and religious diversity. The second teacher was selected to triangulate the findings. Each interview explored questions, such as, how are students learning about the different cultures and religions in Ireland, how are teachers accommodating diversity, and how are teachers creating environments in which children’s agency is being empowered. Once all the data was collected, it was analysed under the Braun and Clarke thematic analysis framework (2006). The study obtained ethical approval through the established ethics review boards where the researchers are based.

From the findings, it is evident that students are engaged in a continuous process of negotiating how they belong within the school they attend. However, students are not only attempting to navigate their own sense of belonging but also that of their peers. The findings suggest that students demonstrate agency in responding to the diversity within the classroom and make efforts to create a more culturally responsive environment for their classmates. However, the responsiveness and example the teacher sets provide a platform for students to emulate. It was also found that teachers, too, are confronted with questions regarding their belonging, as it can be argued that the Irish educational landscape, although diversifying, has not quite kept pace with the changes occurring in Irish society. However, the extent to which teachers can exercise their agency to be responsive to the diverse needs within the classroom may be bounded by the ethos of the school. Consequently, this study echoes previous research by suggesting context does matter. Considering Riley’s (2019) assertion that agency goes beyond the individual’s action, but rather is the extent to which they have been given the tools to act, we begin to see the importance of institutional context. Therefore, this study draws attention to how the different primary school types in Ireland are providing students with the tools to exercise their agency. In light of these findings, this study proposes a number of policy recommendations including: more training is required as teachers are encountering increasingly diverse classrooms. It is also important for young people to learn about the different cultural and religious backgrounds of people living in Ireland during their formative years.

Alink, K., E. Denessen, G.J. Veerman, and S. Severiens. 2023. “Exploring the concept of school belonging: A study with expert ratings”. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2235979 Ansell, N. 2005. Children, Youth and Development. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. 1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006 “Using thematic analysis in psychology”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. Dineen, F., and D. Lundie. 2017. “Does religious education matter to teachers in Catholic primary schools? Concerns and Challenges”, edited by Shanahan. M,101-113. London: Routledge. Dinham, A., and M. Shaw. 2015. “RE for REal the Future of Teaching and Learning about Religion and Belief.” Accessed August 2024 https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/documents-by-section/depart ments/research-centres-and-units/research-units/faiths-and-civil-society/REforREal-web-b.pdf Graham, S., K. Kogachi, and J. Morales-Chicas. 2022. “Do I Fit In: Race/Ethnicity and Feelings of Belonging in School”. Educational Psychology Review 34(4): 2015–2042. Hatchel, T, G. Merrin, and D. Espelage. 2018. “Peer victimization and suicidality among LGBTQ youth: the roles of school belonging, self-compassion, and parental support. Journal of LGBT Youth 16(2): 134-156. Heinz, M., K. Davison, and E. Keane. 2018. “‘I will do it but religion is a very personal thing’: teacher education applicants’ attitudes towards teaching religion in Ireland”. European Journal of Teacher Education 41(2): 232–245. Kumpulainen, K., L. Lipponen, J. Hilppö, and A. Mikkola. 2013. “Building on the positive in children’s lives: a co-participatory study on the social construction of children’s sense of agency”. Early Child Development and Care 184(2): 211–229. Nind, M., A. Köpfer, and K. Lemmer. 2022. “Children’s spaces of belonging in schools: bringing theories and stakeholder perspectives into dialogue”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2073061 Reay, D. 1998. “‘Always knowing’ and ‘never being sure’: institutional and familial habituses and higher education choice”, Journal of Education Policy 13(1): 519–529. Riley, K. 2019. “Agency and belonging: What transformative actions can schools take to help create a sense of place and belonging?” Educational & Child Psychology 36(4): 91-104. Riley, K. 2017. Place, Belonging and School Leadership: Researching to Make the Difference. London: Bloomsbury. Riley, K. 2022. Compassionate Leadership for School Belonging. London: UCL Press. Rubenson, K., and R. Desjardins. 2009. “The Impact of Welfare State Regimes on Barriers to Participation in Adult Education: A Bounded Agency Model”. Adult Education Quarterly 59(3): 187–207. Slaten, C.D., J.K. Ferguson, K.A. Allen, D.V. Brodrick, and L. Waters. 2016. “School Belonging: A Review of History, Current Trends, and Future Directions.” The Educational and Developmental Psychologist 33(1): 1-15.