GLOBAL EDUCATION IS PART OF SCHOOLS’ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN FINLAND, BUT HOW AND HOW MUCH?

Leave a comment September 11, 2025 merihaara

Author: Paula Mattila, PhD researcher, University of Jyväskylä, CALS

paula.k.mattila@student.jyu.fi

As a doctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä Centre for Applied Linguistics, I currently focus on the internationalisation / internationality of Finnish basic and upper secondary general education. Based on my research and experience, I am writing this blog post to contend that schools’ internationalisation is closely related to global education, and the two phenomena are quite entangled in schools’ realities. Hence, I wish to draw global education researchers’ attention to a related research gap which I will be outlining below.

A significant portion of my working life has revolved around the internationalisation of education, first at an emerging university of applied sciences (UAS) in the Helsinki region, and later, at the Finnish National Agency for Education (FNBE). This meant that I first came to examine internationalisation from the angle of higher education, and later through the lens of basic and secondary education. In both positions, I wanted to develop and better understand internationalisation as a multi-faceted tool in educational development. Perhaps more importantly, I tried to lure teachers and education leaders to take on such practical and intellectual efforts. I even wrote my licentiate thesis about the conceptualisation of internationalisation at my UAS (Mattila, 2006). Now a retiree, I delve into the internationalisation of school level and K-12 education.

In my PhD work, my overarching research question is: what is school level internationalisation all about? What definitions can be found in the Finnish context, more specifically in the respective core curricula? I utilize qualitative data analysis with epistemic governance (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014) and methodological nationalism (Shahjahan & Kezar, 2013) as my key theoretical tools. I also draw insights from my decades long autoethnographic data. With epistemic governance theory I can unveil how several elements in schools’ internationalisation, while they have been accepted as facts or business-as-usual by many, have been born out of strategic and tactical turns, even rivalries, between actors who can wield epistemic, i.e. knowledge related power. Theory on methodological nationalism informs me of how definitions of nationality and cultural traits based on national borders are problematic, in so much as they exclude critical approaches and knowledges. An autoethnographic lens in turn provides me with detailed information about spaces (and struggles) where schools’ internationalisation has been in the making.

Next, I’d like to call your attention to an observation I’ve made through my career, namely, that there are several commonalities in internationalisation at all levels of education. Technically, internationalisation in all education encompasses remotely look-alike approaches and activities, including teaching international subject content, organizing international mobility of students and staff, running collaboration projects with foreign schools or other entities, and providing for the large variety of functions that pertain to IaH, internationalisation at home. IaH offers ways in which students can engage in international issues and develop related competences without leaving their local contexts (Opetushallitus, 2019; Tamtik & James, 2025).

Content-wise, a key observation stemming from my licentiate study, and further corroborated in my work with schools, is that those in charge of developing education internationalisation aim to enhance students’ global competences. That is, education at all levels has converged in attempts to provide students with such competences as will help them “not only to expand intellectual horizons but also to nurture a collective sense of responsibility toward humanity and the planet” (Bosio & de Wit, 2024, 9). In the 1990s such endeavours were called international education and later, global education (for the conceptual transformation, see e.g. Jääskeläinen, 2016).

Research is where commonalities seem to dwindle. While the internationalisation of higher education is the perennial object and source of copious research, school-level internationalisation is under-researched and largely untheorized (Bosio & de Wit, 2024; Medvedeva, 2018). It has even been postulated that schools’ internationalisation lacks the kind of intellectual attention that it has garnered in higher education (Waters & Brooks, 2024). Globally (sic), the situation is changing as more, and more diverse research is devoted to K-12 internationalisation (Tamtik & James, 2025). Keeping a watchful eye on what is studied in this arena, I know there is this still much space for research in Finland.

While global education is increasingly understood and practiced as a cornerstone of higher education internationalisation (e.g., Bosio & de Wit, 2024; Leask, 2015), it is also part of its research agenda. There is also a growing body of research concerning school education, encompassing such themes as education for sustainable development, multiculturalism, interculturality, etc., which all come close to how global education is defined. A tiny selection of research from Finland could comprise; Hahl, 2020 (interculturality, languages); Henriksson, 2022 (organisations and global education); Riitaoja, 2013 (multiculturality, othering); Rokka, 2011 (political dimension in internationalisation); Saloranta, 2017 (sustainability education). Their research investigates, among other data, Finnish core curricula, which is meaningful because the core curricula are norms in their respective educations. These researchers don’t, however, address schools’ international activities thus omitting a wealth of material. Namely, schools regularly claim that their international activities are ways to carry out what has been encoded in the curricula as global education, or intercultural and language education (autoethnographic data).

The core curricula comprise a key portion of my research data as well; I endeavour to find out what the high school curricula stipulate about internationalisation. I recently wrote with colleagues about transversal competences aka cross-curricular skills in high school curricula. We concluded that elements of global education have been an enduring part of these documents’ depictions of transversal competence (Mattila et al., 2025; also, Mattila, 2025).

Outside curricula, where there is literature on schools’ internationalisation (including reports, guidebooks, internet portals), the emphasis is mostly on solutions and outcomes that may support schools and their providers of education to further develop these activities (cf. Tamtik & James, 2025). My specific interest resides in what has been written as guidelines and reports concerning state level financing for schools’ internationalisation.

Unlike in higher education, the literature is scarce on the ontologies and epistemologies of schools’ internationalisation. Elsewhere I’ve written about some attempts to definitions authored between CIMO and the FNBE in 2008 – 2014 (Mattila, 2025). But basically, not much attention has been paid to what could be understood as schools’ internationalisation and why, or how the knowledges related to internationalisation are shaped, by whom, and why. This is where I’ve found Shahjahan and Kezar’s (2013) insights about methodological nationalism invaluable and will write about my findings in my next article-in-spe.

In Europe, with Finland as a strong case in point, education internationalisation is largely channelled via the EU Erasmus+ Progamme (Tamtik & James, 2025). A specific agency (“CIMO”, 2025) was established in Finland in 1991 under the Ministry of Education and Culture to govern and implement the growing number of predominantly EU-financed educational programs for all education sectors. Today, under a specific administrative structure at the FNBE, there are units responsible for the implementation of the EU and other international educational programs including programs associated with K-12 education.

An overview of what schools in Finland consider or wish to represent as their international activities is provided by the statistics that are collected by the FNBE annually. The data collection originated in 2009 with CIMO as a sideline of its reporting functions to the EU. The aim was and is to gather broad-based information on schools’ international activities (Mattila, 2025). However, over the years, the survey’s focus has been on transnational mobility and projects – see the headline emphasizing mobility in the 2024 survey report (Opetushallitus, n.d.-a). Employing epistemic governance theory I’d like to make a point here about statistics: they can be used to persuade actors to see certain entities (data, knowledge) as more valuable than others. If a survey to collect data on a variety of activities is titled with the name of one activity only, the surveyor obviously wants to invite the informants to set their focus on the named activity (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014; Mattila, 2025).

To the reader I suggest a closer look at a recent survey report by the FNBE (Opetushallitus, n.d.-b.). It discloses that global education accounts for a significant proportion of schools’ international activities. Moreover, schools often claim that their foreign mobility activities primarily function as students’ and teachers’ first-hand experiences about global education. What this global education encompasses, is not explained in the survey report while its focus is on mobility.

On a different note, and somewhat contradictory as regards the concept of global education, is how the survey also illustrates the nearly exclusively Europe-orientated distribution of schools’ internationality (Opetushallitus, n.d.-c). I hope this might also be of interest to researchers of global education.

So, I’m coming back to my wish to make GERIF colleagues interested in schools’ internationalisation. Despite the lively research on global education in school education, so richly attested in ANGEL’s Digests and Conferences, I find that it is not illuminated by looking into the diverse actions schools dub as their international activities. Yes, I have been actively browsing the Digests to find out. I also carefully looked at the Berlin 2025 Conference abstracts and could not spot a presentation about this topic.

Do contact me at paula.k.mattila@student.jyu.fi in case anything in this blog post made you wish to ask for clarifications, to make a comment or even suggest collaboration.

References

Alasuutari, P. & Qadir, A. (2014.) Epistemic governance: an approach to the politics of policy-making. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 67-84. https//:doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2014.887986

Bosio, E. & de Wit, H. (2024). Fostering service to society, inclusion, and equity through Global Citizenship Education: A conversation with Hans de Wit. Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-024-09695-8

CIMO. (2025, August 28). In Wikipedia. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIMO

Hahl, K. (2020). Kulttuurin muuttunut olemus opetussuunnitelmissa ja vieraiden kielten oppikirjoissa. In Hildén, R. & Hahl, K. (Eds.) Kielididaktiikan katse tulevaisuuteen: Haasteita, mahdollisuuksia ja uusia avauksia kielten opetukseen. Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia: 17. (pp. 173-202). http://hdl.handle.net/10138/312321

Henriksson, H. (2022). Educating global citizens: a study of interaction between NGOs and schools in Finland. (Doctoral dissertation). University Åbo Akademi. https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/91680

Jääskeläinen, L. (2016). The curriculum reform of basic education gives strong mandate to global educators in Finland. Sinergias – diálogos educativos para a transformação social, Setembro 2015 – n.º 2, 2-20. https://sinergiased.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/revista_final2.pdf#page=12

Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716954

Mattila, P. (2006). Under a bright Star. Conceptualisation of polytechnic internationalisation. (Licentiate Thesis). University of Tampere. http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76433/lisuri00049.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Mattila, P. (2025). How Has K-12 Internationalization Evolved in Finland? Mapping Intentions, Unveiling Epistemic Insecurities. In: Tamtik, M. & James, C., eds. International Education in the K-12 Sector: Topics, Trends and Tensions. Springer Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-89677-4_2

Mattila, P., Inha, K., & Hildén, R. (2025). Laaja-alaisen osaamisen kuvaukset lukion opetussuunnitelmien perusteissa: Jotain uutta, jotain vanhaa, jotain lainattua. Kasvatus & Aika, 19(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.33350/ka.142679

Medvedeva, A. (2018). University Internationalization and International Master’s Programs. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/235249/Universi.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Opetushallitus (EDUFI). (n.d.-a). International mobility of pupils and students as well as teachers and other staff. https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics/international-mobility-pupils-and-students-well-teachers-and-other-staff

Opetushallitus (EDUFI). (n.d.-b). Kansainvälisyyden muotoja English. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/Kansainv%C3%A4lisyyden%20muotoja%20English_0.pdf

Opetushallitus (EDUFI). (n.d.-c). The origin and destination of countries… https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/Top10%20maat%20in%20English_0.pdf

Opetushallitus (EDUFI). (2019). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2019. Helsinki: National Board of Education. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2019.pdf

Riitaoja, A. (2013). Toiseuksien rakentuminen koulussa: Tutkimus opetussuunnitelmista ja kahden helsinkiläisen alakoulun arjesta. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7876-7

Rokka, P. (2011). Peruskoulun ja perusopetuksen vuosien 1985, 1994 ja 2004 opetussuunnitelmien perusteet poliittisen opetussuunnitelman teksteinä. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tampere. https://urn.fi/urn:isbn:978-951-44-8456-8

Saloranta, S. (2017). Koulun toimintakulttuurin merkitys kestävän kehityksen kasvatuksen toteuttamisessa perusopetuksen vuosiluokkien 1-6 kouluissa. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/items/0f0c1b15-4f41-4f9e-bed7-f2b59c28409f/full

Shahjahan, R. & Kezar, A. (2013). Beyond the ”National Container’‘: Addressing Methodological Nationalism in Higher Education Research. Educational Researcher: 42(20). DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12463050

Tamtik, M. & James, C. (2025). Introduction. Introducing the Global Landscape of K–12 International Education. In: Tamtik, M. & James, C., eds. International Education in the K-12 Sector: Topics, Trends and Tensions. Springer Publishing.

Waters, J. & Brooks, (2024). The art of internationalisation: ‘unstrategic’ dialogical cosmopolitanism within secondary schools in England. Social and Cultural Geography. 10.1080/14649365.2022.2143880

Ignorance about Indigenous Peoples Through the Lens of Transnational Educational Research

Leave a comment January 24, 2025 merihaara

Author: Ella Mattila

In this blog post, I will discuss the phenomenon of a widespread ignorance about Indigenous peoples and colonial histories, especially from the perspective of education and educational research. The text is based on my doctoral research, in particular on its second sub-study article, which was published at the end of 2024.

Indigenous issues have gained media attention in Finland in the past week, particularly following Sámi activist and writer Petra Laiti’s in-depth essay on the problematic use of the term “Lapland” to refer to the northernmost regions of the Nordic countries. Laiti critiques how the term, especially in English, carries stereotypical and “mythical” connotations amplified by the tourism industry, obscuring the realities and presence of the Sámi, the Indigenous people of the lands. The Sámi are spread across the borders of Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Russia, and their Indigenous status and rights are protected under the Finnish constitution. In both the original essay and follow-up posts, Laiti highlights how the discussions in and around her essay reflects widespread ignorance about Sámi matters:

“[I]t’s my experience that hearing about Saami rights can be difficult for Nordic people to digest. I try my best to give my audience grace – most Nordic people don’t know enough about us Saami to fully understand. That is one major effect of the colonization my people face.” (petralaiti Instagram-post, 16.1.2025)

This is not the first time the issue of ignorance about Sámi matters has been raised in Finland. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has given notice to Finland about the majority’s worrisome lack of knowledge in two successive reports. Sámi advocacy groups have repeatedly warned Finland about the consequences of such ignorance, noting its impact on Sámi livelihoods, self-determination, and the hate speech and racism the Sámi face in daily life.

Ignorance about Sámi and other minority issues is a core concern in my ongoing doctoral research. Through my work, it has become emergingly clear that the issue is not uniquely Finnish. Across the globe, there is increasing recognition of similar ignorance concerning Indigenous peoples, prompting to ask: What kind of ignorance are we dealing with if it spans across continents? Moreover, as education systems play a central role in shaping societal knowledge, what can be done to address this ignorance, both in Finland and globally?

Ignorance comes in many forms, some of which are a natural consequence of limited resources and capacity for learning – I, for example, know very little about different dog breeds or the UK parliament system, but the reasons for that don’t go much deeper than lack of time and specialization in the topics. Sullivan and Tuana (2007), however, note how some forms of ignorance may be tied to preserving privilege and the interests of the powerful. In Finland, as in many countries, the dynamics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations are shaped by settler colonialism – a unique form of colonialism where settlers “come to stay”, causing a process of erasure, displacement, and replacement of the original Indigenous inhabitants (see Wolfe, 2006). The history and forms of settler colonialism remain poorly understood in Finland, often dismissed with the argument that there has been “no colonial history” in Finland.

In response to this context, my supervisors and I began to view ignorance about Indigenous peoples not as mere “lack of knowledge,” but as something tied to broader social forces. In spring 2024, we set up to review 51 articles and book chapters on “settler ignorance” from six settler-colonial contexts – Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We found it relevant to explore how such ignorance is conceptualized across national borders to increase understanding of the possible means to address it (also Cook, 2020).

Our review revealed that settler ignorance operates on multiple levels. The lack of knowledge is often linked to how learning about Indigenous peoples is hindered by prevailing stereotypes and the emotional sensitivity of the topic. Difficult conversations about colonial violence and trauma can provoke feelings of anxiety, guilt, fear, and grief in learners, leading also to (semi-)willful avoidance or denial. However, the literature also highlighted the importance of understanding the phenomenon’s long entanglement with structural silencing and history that extends beyond individual interests: across contexts, people expressed surprise and shock at having never learned about Indigenous issues, often articulating the motivation to engage further with the subject. This receptivity seems promising for any future educational interventions.

So, what could this mean for education and educational research? While increasing the presence of Indigenous content and teaching in different levels of education is a self-evident step, our review suggests that it is also one that should not be underestimated. Based on the review, we cannot expect most students to know basic facts about colonialism, for example, and the systemic silences around Indigenous matters make it uncertain whether students will be exposed to such knowledge outside of formal education. However, teaching “about” Indigenous peoples and their experiences is not enough on its own. Education should be led and informed by Indigenous peoples themselves to ensure that it is relevant and fosters authentic relationship-building.

Furthermore, our findings highlight the need to address not only the cognitive but also the emotional and social dimensions of ignorance. Support for emotional struggles and self-reflection may be crucial for learners (un)learning their previous assumptions and confronting issues of colonial accountability. Education, therefore, requires a delicate balance: acknowledging the very real vulnerability surrounding the topics while simultaneously creating spaces to challenge deeply ingrained ignorance and address ongoing injustice, which may inevitably entail discomfort.

Tackling ignorance about Indigenous peoples is not only about general awareness but also a matter of social justice, human rights, and anti-racism in education. We must be cautious about assuming that educational knowledge alone will be sufficient to overcome such a powerful colonial phenomenon. Educational initiatives are often contested by entrenched attitudes and assumptions that have become part of the majority’s “common sense” and national identity (Cook, 2020). Nonetheless, while education may not be the sole cause of settler ignorance, it plays a key role in its continuation (Godlewska et al., 2010; 2020). Therefore, education systems can and should be expected to engage with the Indigenous peoples and to present little tolerance for willful ignorance that harms Indigenous communities. As one of our reviewed articles aptly put it, “awareness alone can lead to the kinds of changes we are seeking, or at the very least offer a first step” (Augustus, 2015, p. 6).

The full review paper can be found here:

Mattila, E., Lindén, J., & Annala, J. (2024). Reviewing educational conceptualisations of transnational settler ignorance. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2437405

Ella Mattila is a doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University. Her research interests include Indigenous and minority education, critical whiteness studies, and anti-colonial and anti-racist teacher education.

References:

Augustus, C. (2015). Knowledge liaisons: Negotiating multiple pedagogies in global indigenous studies courses. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v45i4.184894

Cook, A. (2018). Recognizing settler ignorance in the truth and reconciliation commission. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 4(4), 6. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2018.4.6229

Godlewska, A., Moore, J., & Bednasek, C. D. (2010). Cultivating ignorance of aboriginal realities. The Canadian Geographer, 54(4), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00297.x

Godlewska, A. M. C., Schaefli, L. M., Forcione, M., Lamb, C., Nelson, E., & Talan, B. (2020). Canadian colonialism, ignorance and education. A study of graduating students at Queen’s University. Journal of Pedagogy, 11(1), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2020-0008

Sullivan, S. & Tuana, N. (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. Suny Press.

Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240

GERIF Network Members at the ‘Reimagining Teachers and Teacher Education for Our Futures’ Conference

Leave a comment January 7, 2025 merihaara

Authors: Andreas Rogler, Vihtori Kylänpää, Tuija Kasa, Selja Koponen, and Riikka Suhonen

Between the 18^th and 20^th of June 2024, GERIF had the great opportunity to join the “The Reimagining Teachers and Teacher Education for Our Futures conference” in Helsinki.

https://www.helsinki.fi/en/conferences/reimagining-teachers-and-teacher-education-our-futures

The conference highlighted the crucial role of teachers in providing quality instruction and shaping the critical, transversal skills necessary for our futures.

Education has become a mission and transformative force through which global ideologies and ideas such as the SDG 4 are to be realized. Today, however, socially, culturally and ethnically diverse communities are more apparent than ever before and teachers must balance expectations of parents and politicians, manage large and diverse classrooms, provide personalized instruction and deal with the impact of emergencies and crises while building hope for the future.

During the conference, we joined discussions on several questions that educators all around the world are facing, including:

How can teachers and education systems address tensions between the global and the local?

Whose voices matter in defining what is important in education?

Can our sites of education be inclusive of all or just inclusive of some? What should teacher education do in order to prepare and support current and future teachers?

The conference was divided into 3 different sub themes:

Access
Equality and equity
Emergencies and crises

GERIF members at the conference

Several GERIF members contributed to the discussion on these subthemes and the crucial role teachers have in shaping the critical, transversal skills necessary for creating a more sustainable and inclusive future.

Andreas Rogler from the University of Oulu for example explored in his presentation how virtual exchanges can be used to create informal intercultural learning opportunities to make internationalization of higher education more equitable and accessible.

Tuija Kasa from University of Helsinki co-chaired with Eva Harðardóttir from University of Iceland a symposium on Transformative human rights, democracy and global citizenship education: Pedagogical and philosophical insights. Presenters introduced their research from Iceland, South Africa and Finland. The symposium was organised together with Sue Gollifer from University of Iceland and Janet Gbam from the University of Pretoria. The aim was to critically discuss the purpose(s) of education amid global crises.

Selja Koponen from the University of Helsinki presented her PhD article on reimagining democratic education with care ethics. The article is co-written with Tuija Kasa. This philosophical research suggests a more care-full democratic education and draws on Selja’s field work in upper comprehensive school.

Vihtori Kylänpää from the Non-Military Service Centre presented an ongoing post-doctoral study “Student viewpoints on actions for human rights that young adults consider valuable”. The aim of the study is to find ways to educate young adult students with diverse backgrounds to undertake actions for human rights, and to investigate whether young adult students’ answers and their diverse backgrounds are related. During the first phase of the study in 2023, five students were interviewed to find actions for human rights that are both relevant to the students but at the same time ones that are not necessarily easily found in the literature. During the second phase in 2024, other students answer a survey which includes both choices that can be found in the literature and those that students told the author during the interviews.

GERIF and ANGEL pre-conference “Reimagining our futures together through global education”

In addition to the individual presentations by GERIF members, we organized a pre-conference together with the ANGEL (Academic Network for Global Education and Learning) sub-network for Early Career Researchers on the 17^th of June.

After some opening remarks from the conference organizer and UNESCO chair Prof. Arto Kallioniemi, we had a small introduction about GERIF and ANGEL networks. The main focus during the first part of the event was on networking and we had various different activities in which participants could introduce themselves, their research and try to reimagine education. This was a great learning opportunity for everyone involved since we were a very diverse group with educators, scholars and students coming from all over the world including countries such as Japan, Finland, Germany, India, Malaysia and Namibia.

After the networking part, we had lunch at the University before heading out to a Helsinki walking tour with a small twist. Instead of visiting different tourist locations, the walking tour included places related to themes such as human rights, decoloniality or the climate crisis. For example, we visited the urban garden “Galleria Kasvihuone” at the Faculty of Educational Sciences and ended the tour at the Global Centre in Helsinki. There, we were able to take a peek behind the curtain and learn how global education NGOs in Finland operate. After a very interesting presentation, we were divided into groups and joined workshops organized by Amnesty International Finnish Section, Peace Union of Finland and Taksvärkki, Operation a Day’s Work. The workshops tackled issues such as sex education, peace education, and drama education.

After the event, we exchanged contact information with everyone in the hope for continuous collaboration. We are grateful to all the speakers, participants who made both the conference and the pre-conference a success. We look forward to continuing this important dialogue in the future.

Authors: Andreas Rogler, Vihtori Kylänpää, Tuija Kasa, Selja Koponen, and Riikka Suhonen

Peace education and interfaith dialogue – building understanding together

The Finnish Social Pedagogical Society organized the annual social pedagogy conference on March 14^th-15^thin Espoo. The conference was co-organized with the Peace Education Institute and other cooperators, including three Universities of Applied Sciences (Laurea, Haaga-Helia, Metropolia). The authors (Selja Koponen and Heidi Rautionmaa) participated in the conference as workshop organizers, in-service teacher trainers as well as PhD researchers. In the following blog text, we reflect our insights from the conference; how peace education was portrayed and how does interfaith dialogue contribute to peace building.

Peace pedagogy, peace education or education for peace?

The theme of the conference was Peace Pedagogy in a World of Conflicts. Peace pedagogy was framed by the organizers as “education that seeks to foster the capacity for peaceful coexistence, the ability and willingness to resolve conflicts without violence, and a commitment to working together to build a better world”. These definitions of peace pedagogy are consistent with the concept of peace education or education for peace that has traditionally been a part of global education even though the definitions of peace education are not always unambiguous (e.g., Basman-Mor, 2021; UNESCO, 2005). Respect for life, human rights and democracy are indispensable to peace education, but other themes are also stressed, such as conflict resolution skills, well-being, compassion, trust, justice, and cooperation (Mishra et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2017). Additionally, peace education can be described as the underlying impetus in teacher’s or educator’s work which means continuous professional growth and learning (Gursel-Bilging & Flinders, 2020). Peace education could therefore be described also as a holistic and contextual pedagogy, both a process and a goal (UNESCO, 2017; Dutta et al., 2016).

Fostering peace in an unjust world

The keynote speaker of the conference was Dr. Sara Clarke-Habibi, who specializes in peacebuilding through education. She began her insightful speech, based on her long experience as a practitioner, researcher, and curriculum developer, by addressing the current challenges educators have. There is an ongoing struggle with rising xenophobia and conservatism, for example, that pose a threat to human rights, democracy, and peace. Peace builders are truly needed in every section of society.

Photo: Dr. Clarke-Habibi

Dr. Clarke-Habibi emphasized that peace pedagogies are always plural; the context and the people you are working and interacting with have a significant role when choosing appropriate educational approaches and methods. The objectives should not only be knowledge-related, for educators must combine, contextualize, and adapt pedagogies that are trauma-sensitive, culturally sensitive, multiperspective, self-reflexive and/or action-oriented, for instance. She stated that emotional and psychological sides of peace education should always be taken into consideration, as well as inner peace. For her, inner peace is a complex phenomenon, which has a temporal, relational, intra-, and inter-relational, as well as ethical dimension.

For us, a particularly poignant thought was the idea of inner peace as “a mature understanding”. According to Dr. Clarke-Habibi a mature understanding relates to universal ethics and is grounded on equality and equity. She argued that concepts such as positive and negative peace are important sociological concepts, but they are not enough. She highlighted the meaning of love and care, which create and maintain hope in an unjust world. These themes align with care ethics in which human relationality and co-dependency are acknowledged.

Interfaith dialogue as a peace pedagogy

The conference demonstrated to us, how education for peace is still overlooked in Finnish context. Even though the keynote speech as well as the panel discussion were focused on peace and peace pedagogies, the scientific presentations covered the theme of the conference only subtly. One reason might be the historical baggage peace education has as a part of the process known as “Finlandization” where peace education was considered as a part of Soviet Union’s attempts to affect Finland’s policies (Savolainen, 2011). What also became evident to us during the conference was that the different worldviews, religious, secular, or political, were not discussed nor considered as a part of education for peace.

This caught us by surprise because a previous survey shows how teachers perceive religious diversity and different worldviews as challenging issues in teaching and education (KUPERA, 2021). In addition, the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture published a study (OKM 2024:3) showing that subject teachers consider constructive interaction with other people to be a key objective of democracy education in lower secondary schools. The study suggests that an open and conversational classroom atmosphere is conducive to democracy education, but that building openness is challenged by the diversity of opinions and divergent views of pupils from different backgrounds (e.g., cultural, ethnic, religious, etc.). We, however, consider everyday interfaith dialogue essential to education for peace.

With interfaith dialogue educators can address the challenging and difficult issues that religions and secular worldviews and their interactions may raise in mundane situations in classrooms. Constructive encounters that promote understanding and cooperation can play a pivotal role in preventing and resolving conflicts, achieving equality, and promoting democracy. The key issue is how to engage in constructive and sustainable interfaith and intercultural dialogue to promote well-being for all.

A hands-on workshop

As a part of the conference program, we organized an interfaith dialogue workshop in which participants got to know a Hindu temple in Leppävaara. This workshop was also a part of our upcoming in-service teacher training called Everyday Interfaith Dialogue in School, which starts on September 2024 and is funded by Finnish National Agency for Education. As in-service teacher trainers, we have already organized courses focusing on diversity skills and peace education in the University of Helsinki (Centre for Educational Assessment, CEA). With Heidi being an interfaith dialogue specialist with almost 30 years of experience, as well as a grass root peace activist, the natural next step was to organize a training focusing on interfaith dialogue as education for peace.

The workshop explored how to engage in dialogue with surrounding faith communities. This kind of cooperation will reduce prejudices and open new possibilities for peace education. At the temple which is dedicated to Shirdi Sai Baba (1838 – 1918), one of the best known and most respected gurus of Hinduism, we met law student Hitesh Bhaskar, upper secondary school student Purvi Bhaskhar, Saipriya Bhaskar and Marko Näätänen, a Hindu expert from Faith Without Borders. Hitesh, Purvi and Saipiriya told us about Hinduism, how it affects their daily lives and what kind of prejudices they have encountered in Finland. The dialogue between our hosts and participants was generative and we got to enjoy their delightful hospitality.

Photo: An altar dedicated to Shirdi Sai Baba. A Hindu temple in Leppävaara, Espoo

Even though religions and different worldviews play their part in conflicts, they can be a resource to reconciliation and peace (Neufeldt, 2011). Through mundane interfaith dialogue, respect and understanding can be fostered and cultivated. It is seen that people attending sustainable interfaith dialogue experience communicative, instrumental, relational, personal, and transformative learning. One field trip can serve as an initial step towards the process for deeper learning, but it is a crucial step that is sometimes the needed boost.

Concluding remarks

During her talk, Dr. Clarke-Habibi suggested that education for peace should be considered as an art. She continued by saying that, for example, co-creation, listening to others, and ceding control are some of the key components of peace pedagogies. To address and tackle the vicious global problems of today, we need the art of understanding. This entails curiosity and compassion toward the “other” and deeper understanding of humanity – and interfaith dialogue skills so that different world views, religious and secular, can be discussed constructively to cultivate peaceful coexistence and build a better world for all.

Selja Koponen & Heidi Rautionmaa

Selja Koponen is a doctoral researcher in educational sciences from the University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on democratic education and social sustainability. She is also a subject teacher in religious education.

Heidi Rautionmaa is a vocational teacher and a doctoral researcher from the University of Helsinki. Heidi provides training on inter-worldview issues mainly for teachers, people of religious communities and youth.

References:

Basman-Mor, Nurit (2021). Saving Peace Education: The Case of Israel. Higher Education Studies; Vol. 11, No. 1; 2021. p. 18-27.

Dutta, U. & Andzenge, A. & Walkling, K. (2016). The Everyday Peace Project: An Innovative Approach to Peace Pedagogy. Journal of Peace Education. 13. 1-26.

Gursel-Bilgin, G., & Flinders, D. (2020). Anatomy of a Peace Educator: Her Work and Workplace. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(10).

KUPERA (2021). Kulttuuri-, katsomus- ja kielitietoinen perusopetus: KUPERA-tutkimus- ja arviointiraportti.

Mishra, L., Gupta, T. & Shree, A. (2020). Guiding Principles and Practices of Peace Education Followed in Secondary Schools of Mizoram. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2020, pp. 1096-1101.

Neufeldt, R. C. (2011). Interfaith Dialogue: Assessing Theories of Change. Peace and Change, 36(3), 344–372.

OKM (2024:3). Yläkoulun opettajat ja demokratiakasvatus: Käsitykset, resurssit ja toteuttamismahdollisuudet.

Savolainen, K. (2011). Kasvatus maailmanrauhan välineenä: tapaustutkimus UNESCO:n 1974 hyväksymästä suosituksesta. Psykologia 46 1 (4): 30-34.

UNESCO (2005). Peace Education: Framework for Teacher Education.

UNESCO (2017). A Long Walk of Peace. Towards a Culture of Prevention.

The CCC-CATAPULT project: Reflections on co-production

Leading the co-production group of young people

One of my main tasks was to lead the YAP group in Tampere. We recruited young people aged 15 to 18 years old from the city of Tampere upper secondary and vocational schools, as well as from hobbies such as scouts or religious communities. Primarily we had ten young people however, due to life circumstances, many of them left the study. Some participants moved to another city after their studies while some had many hobbies and interests, and therefore did not have time for the research for two and a half years. We also got two new participants during the study, and last year we spent with an active group of four young people.

YAP members met once a month at least. Young people got to comment on the survey, focus group and interview questions. In Tampere they obtained funding for, organised, and ran an academic panel event for young people and their educators. They analysed and told their perspectives on researchers’ first stage analysis of the data.

Since leading the YAP group alone raised many questions, we gathered to reflect our experiences with other YAP group leaders. Based on our reflections and YAP’s interviews, we wrote an article on co-production. (Portus et al. 2024). I will share some insights based on the article and our reflections. We will also have a tool for researchers to design a co-production research with young people in our web page ccc-catapult.org this spring.

Project Toolkit

The principles of co-production

Hickley et al. (2018) conducted five principles for co-production: sharing of power, including all perspectives and skills, respecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research, reciprocity and building and maintaining relationships. As we worked with young people, we saw it was necessary to add three more principles to that list: empowerment and capacity building, extended opportunities (for skills development, engagement and international connections), and ongoing reflection and evaluation. I will discuss a few of the principles in more detail next, especially from the point of view of what we learned.

Sharing of power

It is essential to be aware of the power dynamics, especially in co-production. Working with young people brings another nuance to the power dynamics: Young people are most likely to view the adult researchers as automatically being in a role of authority. And because of their experiences at school, they might be used to giving answers, which the teacher wants to hear. In research, however, it is important to hear all sorts of opinions, so the power dynamics must be addressed.

At the beginning of the project, I tried to level myself with young people. I tried not to use power on them. I tried to make space for them to decide what we should do. Quickly I learned that young people are not ready for the power I gave them. We had to train taking power with little projects, and that is why we decided with the Tampere group to arrange a panel discussion, and the Bristol group decided to design a climate cafe.

At the end of the project, our YAP members told us they would have wanted more strict frameworks for the project. They also struggled with the unknown process of research. They were expecting that we would have had a clear research design, which would be known already at the beginning. We should have told them that research is messy, and we will be wiser at the end of the project. Consequently, YAP’s also said that they learned a lot of research, as things aren’t always carried out like schools’ science books tell them.

Including all perspectives and skills

When the group is conscious of the power dynamics, and there are structures which support the ones who has less power, all perspectives and opinions are more likely to be shared in the process.

We considered inclusion already in the recruitment process, when we tried to reach young people from different backgrounds. Sadly, in Finland we reached only upper secondary school female students to the group. Maybe it was too high of an aim for people from different backgrounds. Many young people are busy with their everyday life, maybe only few have the courage to participate in a research process, and maybe this kind of a research interests only people who are already familiar with such a topic.

If I could have a chance to redesign the recruitment process, I would take time to visit schools and different kind of places where young people are spending their free time, to make my face familiar to them. I would also contact more teachers, since almost all our YAP members were encouraged by their teacher to participate. I think it would be really important to take time for the recruit process, to visit schools.

Respecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research

In co-production, it is important to make space for team members to share their knowledge. In our survey, YAP members commented on our unfinished survey and noted that it did not include questions on environmental emotions, which were then added to the survey. YAP members saw how their knowledge was relevant to the survey, and they felt that their voice was heard. However, this needs to be kept in focus, as it became clear in the final interviews that YAP members did not always know where their comments ended up and whether they influenced the research. As a researcher, it was easy to ask them for their views and forget to tell them about the implications because the processes are so complex and long term.

Reciprocity

I believe that paying a payment would increase the chances of many people participating in a research project. Many young people are involved in hobbies in their free time and work hard on schoolwork, and some of them even have jobs. Participation in the study often required them to make efforts similar to school work, and it seemed unfair to assume that they would do it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, participating in the study gave young people many opportunities that they were very happy with. For example, the international meetings between young people were popular and in high demand. In addition, the study gave them opportunities to contribute to society, and one young person said that she understood that she benefited from the study because it benefited society. They learned from doing the research and said that they were proud of the knowledge that the research produced and what they learned from being involved. We gave them job certificates and recommendations for job search, which we hope will be useful. Many of the young people involved became even more interested in climate change during the project and applied for related studies.

Building and maintaining relationships

Building trust is key to enabling members to share and reflect on the knowledge, assumptions, preconceptions, and prejudices they bring to the research project. And perhaps more importantly, trust and relationships are often the main reason why members want to be involved. For young people in particular, peer relationships are really important and it was a pleasure to see how they enjoyed each other’s company. However, for such a development, certain activities had to be planned, such as trust exercises and nice get-togethers: picnics and films. If I were to start a co-production now, I would put a lot of effort into team building at the beginning and only include the study a little later. We built in space for personal reflection, either during meetings or by encouraging both YAP members and researchers to write a reflective diary. Reflection stops are an important part of checking if everybody is feeling alright in the team and with their role.

From doubt to flourishing

The reason why co-productive research methods were developed was discussion and research from developmental psychology. Young people were not seen anymore as incapable. The view of children and young people as immature and in need of adult guidance was questioned (Matthews 1984). This led to a perspective in which young people were studied with rather than on young people (Ansell, 2005; Wyn, Lantz & Harris, 2012). At the beginning of the project, I wanted to see young people as capable, but I approached them as if they already knew a lot. Soon I was faced with kind of disappointment. Are they not capable of doing research? I questioned the co-production: could it even be done with young people if they needed so much guidance? But as the project progressed, I learned that the young people just needed practice in research skills. They were learning and developing and were much more capable at the end of the project than at the beginning. The project had given them many lessons and several of them told us how they felt they had grown as a person because of their involvement. This is already such a significant result of the research that I want to continue to get involved in projects using co-production.

References

Portus, P., Williams, S. J., Mansikka-aho, A., Reilly, K., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., de Vito, L., Dillon, B., Fahy, F., Gnecco, I., Palla, A., Sposito, S. & McEwen, L. (2024). Reflections on co-productive research in a youth-focused climate education project. Geographical Research.

Hickey, G., Brearley, S., Coldham, T., Denegri, S., Green, G., Staniszewska, S., Tembo, D., Torok, K., & Turner, K. (2018). Guidance on co-producing a research project. INVOLVE. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Copro_Guidance_Feb19.pdf

Ansell, N. (2005). Children, Youth and Development. London: Routledge.

Matthews, M. H. (1984). Environmental cognition of young children: images of journey to school and home area. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 89-105.

Wyn, J., Lantz, S., & Harris, A. (2012). Beyond the ‘Transitions’ Metaphor: Family Relations and Young People in Late Modernity. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 3–22.

Anette Mansikka-aho is a doctoral researcher at the University of Tampere who studies young people’s experiences of climate change in her dissertation. She is interested in environmental emotions, communication and education. Her main area of research is the pedagogical relationships in the era of climate crisis.

Check out the CCC-Catapult project here: https://ccc-catapult.org/