Empathy, despite being a contested concept (Batson, 2009; Lanzoni, 2018), is widely recognized as a vital trait in education (Zhou, 2022). It contributes to better academic performance, stronger peer relationships, and greater overall student well-being (Cooper, 2011; Zhou, 2022). Empathy supports positive interactions with teachers and peers, promotes adaptation to institutional environments, and enriches collaborative learning experiences (López-Mondéjar & Pastor, 2017; Mella et al., 2021). Moreover, empathy is foundational to prosocial behavior, encouraging supportive and protective actions (Niezink et al., 2012). Empathy is integral to social interactions and aligns with the Social Awareness domain of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (Jones & Doolittle, 2017).

The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) categorizes empathy as a core socio-emotional competence within SEL, encompassing practices such as cooperative and project-based learning, embedding SEL into curricular content, and fostering school cultures that prioritize emotional development (Ross & Tolan, 2018; CASEL, 2020, as cited in Kovačević, Popović & Bukvić, 2021). However, the development of socio-emotional competencies, including empathy, requires institutional support and structured policies (Kovačević et al., 2021). Despite these frameworks, many studies fail to account for the broader educational contexts in which SEL policies are enacted (Dimitrijević, 2020).

Recent policy studies emphasize the term “enactment” over “implementation,” reflecting the nuanced processes of educational policy application. Implementation traditionally implies a top-down approach where policies are applied uniformly across contexts. Conversely, enactment involves iterative processes of negotiation, translation, and adaptation, highlighting the interplay of top-down and bottom-up dynamics (Ball, Maguire & Braun, 2011). This perspective underscores that policy enactment is context-dependent, shaped by local conditions and stakeholder interactions (Clarke & Bainton, 2015; Hay, 2024).

Studying enactment necessitates focusing on processes rather than outcomes, emphasizing how policies are interpreted, translated, and implemented in specific settings (Ureta, 2014). This approach resists treating policy as static and instead views it as an evolving phenomenon shaped by emerging educational realities (Ball et al., 2011). A concretist methodology prioritizes actual practices and actions of individuals involved in policy processes over prescriptive norms or theoretical frameworks (Ball et al., 2011).

This study explores the enactment of SEL policies through the “Let’s Open the Conversation” project, a 2023 initiative by Praxum, an organization supporting psychology students in bridging theory and practice. The project aimed to enhance adolescents' communication, emotional regulation, and conflict resolution skills, fostering empathy and emotional literacy to strengthen SEL competencies.

The project was structured into three components: (1) developing training programs and educational materials, (2) training volunteers to work with adolescents, and (3) implementing emotional literacy workshops in schools. The organizational team conducted training programs in Novi Sad and Belgrade. These workshops were later conducted with high school students in Niš and Novi Sad.

This study examines the enactment process within the “Let’s Open the Conversation” project, focusing on how SEL policies were defined, translated, and interpreted. By analyzing the roles and contributions of the organizational team and volunteers, the study provides insights into the concrete practices and processes underlying the project’s realization. Furthermore, the research explores how the project’s enactment could inform future SEL policy developments and highlight innovative approaches to socio-emotional education.

In short, the study contributes to understanding how SEL policies are enacted in diverse educational contexts. It highlights the importance of a process-oriented approach to policy enactment and underscores the dynamic interplay between institutional structures, individual agency, and local conditions. By analyzing the “Let’s Open the Conversation” project, this research offers a detailed examination of SEL policy enactment and its potential to inform broader educational frameworks.

This study employs a qualitative research approach to analyze the enactment of policies aimed at developing SEL competencies. Focus groups (Bešić, 2019; Willig, 2008) were selected for their ability to foster interactive discussions and collective reflection, enabling participants to share perspectives and build on each other’s insights. This method allows for an exploration of how the core team and volunteers functioned as a group, the priorities they set during planning and implementation, and how they navigated challenges (Popadić, Pavlović & Žeželj, 2018). Additionally, it provides insights into group dynamics and the collective construction of meaning, essential for understanding educational policy enactment. By capturing these dynamics, focus groups offer a comprehensive view of how SEL policies were implemented within this educational context. The study will conduct two voluntary focus group sessions: one with the core team of workshop designers and the other with volunteers who facilitated the workshops. Building on the outlined project structure (design, training, and workshop implementation), the focus groups will be oriented towards elaborating the processes relevant to their enactment. Discussions with the core team will encompass all project phases, while conversations with volunteers will focus solely on training and workshop implementation. Additionally, relevant topic of influence that the project has on developing new SEL policies will be discussed. All focus group discussions will be audio-recorded with participants' consent and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Ethical approval for the study will be obtained from relevant institutional review boards. Participants will be informed about the purpose of the research, their rights to confidentiality, and their option to withdraw at any stage without consequences. NVivo software will be used to facilitate the coding process, ensuring systematic and comprehensive data analysis. Thematic analysis will be employed to identify recurring patterns and themes within the data that are relevant to the process of enactment. This approach is particularly suitable for examining policy enactment as it allows for an in-depth exploration of how meaning is co-constructed within social interactions (Willig, 2008). The themes are assumed to be contingent on group interactions, aligning with the fluid and negotiated nature of enacting educational policies. The analysis will be conducted in a comprehensive, iterative, and reflexive manner. By employing focus groups as the primary research method, this study aims to provide a rich, contextualized understanding of how empathy-building workshops are developed and enacted within the Serbian educational landscape when taking into account the perspectives of relevant stakeholders.

This study examines the enactment of SEL policies through the case of the “Let’s Open the Conversation” project. Given the inherently idiosyncratic nature of policy enactment, our expectations—shaped by prior research—will likely evolve toward a more concretist analysis. We aim to complete focus group transcription, systematically organizing notes to capture nonverbal and extralinguistic expressions in the following months. Researchers will then independently analyze themes over one month, followed by a comparative discussion to refine a coherent analytical framework. This framework will offer insights into SEL policy implementation, addressing the study’s research question in time for the ECER conference. In developing the training program and educational materials key themes will likely include how the team defines project goals, sustains motivation, and negotiates a shared vision. Expected challenges involve communicating the importance of empathy to adolescents, designing engaging materials, and establishing effective collaboration with schools. In training volunteers, we anticipate themes related to relational dynamics during the training phase. These may include collaboration and trust-building within the team, strategies for aligning individual values with project objectives, and approaches for managing emotional and logistical challenges. Volunteer feedback is expected to provide insights into the effectiveness of training and their perceived readiness for their roles. When examining how the core team and volunteers perceive the project’s broader implications for SEL policies, we expect themes related to raising adolescent awareness of empathy while acknowledging limitations in achieving systemic change. Participants will likely emphasize the need for stronger institutional support, particularly from the Ministry of Education, and the importance of clear frameworks for volunteer selection and support. Reflections on team dynamics and the challenges of scaling similar initiatives will further contribute to understanding the project’s situated nature. Through these thematic explorations, the study provides a rich, contextually grounded understanding of how empathy is enacted.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactment in secondary schools. Routledge. Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. J. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–16). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002 Bešić, M. (2019). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Akademska knjiga. Clarke, J., & Bainton, D. (2015). Making policy move: Towards a politics of translation and assemblage. Policy Press. Cooper, B. (2011). Empathy in education: Engagement, values and achievement. Continuum. Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466 Dimitrijević, D. (2020). Radioničarski rad u nastavi u kontekstu podsticanja empatije. Godišnjak za pedagogiju, 5(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.46630/gped.1.2020.07 Hay, A. (2024). What may be: Policy enactment in education, a new conceptual framework with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2024.2411989 Kovačević, L. M. M., Popović, Ć. B. B., & Bukvić, B. L. S. (2021). Preispitivanje odnosa pozitivnog razvoja mladih i socioemocionalnog učenja – sistematski pregled. Inovacije u nastavi: časopis za savremenu nastavu, 34(3), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije2103110K Lanzoni, S. (2018). Empathy: A history. Yale University Press. Mella, N., Pansu, P., Batruch, A., Bressan, M., Bressoux, P., Brown, G., & Desrichard, O. (2021). Socio-emotional competencies and school performance in adolescence: What role for school adjustment? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 640661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640661 Popadić, D., Pavlović, Z., & Žeželj, I. (2018). Alatke istraživača: Metodi i tehnike istraživanja u društvenim naukama. Clio. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). University of California Press. Ross, K. M., & Tolan, P. (2018). Social and emotional learning in adolescence: Testing the CASEL model in a normative sample. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617725198 Ureta, S. (2014). Policy assemblages: Proposing an alternative conceptual framework to study public action. Policy Studies, 35(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.875150 Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Open University Press. Zhou, Z. (2022). Empathy in education: A critical review. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2022.160302