Introduction
Relational approaches to education forward belonging, care and hope as values that can contribute to holistic development in children and youth (Dania and Farias, 2024). Through deliberate attention to connections and support, relational approaches draw on individual strengths, community needs and shared concerns, fostering critical consciousness, collective action and participatory agency (Kitooke and Mahon, 2024). As such, the learner is recognised as a main actor of change, whose well-being and holistic engagement are co-constructed through continuous interactions with educators, peers and the wider community (Dania and Farias, 2024). Relational approaches consider social, cultural and material landscapes as interwoven spaces of learning, affording multiple possibilities for change and transformation based on the complexity and the situatedness of lived experiences (Barad, 2007; Shalaby, 2017). The main idea is to affirm diversity and ensure a polyphony of voices, perspectives and incentives in the creation of learning environments that foreground egalitarian practice and relational accountability (Dembele et al., 2024). Overall, inclusion or differentiation of instruction are not conceptualised as formal or tokenistic gestures, but instead as dynamic conditions of learning that need to remain responsive and supportive of socially just processes of educational change (Ko et al., 2023).
As a relationally orientated approach (Dania and Farias, 2024), social pedagogy provides a unique focus on the joint action and shared perspectives that are needed for developing educational practices that will enhance the holistic growth of young people. Informed by the principles of asset-based pedagogies (López, 2017), social pedagogy works with ‘young people as whole versus broken when they enter schools’ (Paris and Alim, 2017, p. 14), affirming and including diverse identities and needs. In practice, this may involve creating spaces where learners’ cultural, linguistic and experiential knowledge is positioned as a resource for collective learning, embedding everyday relational practices or activities (that is, shared meals, collaborative work, community projects) as opportunities for people to interact with head, heart and hands and collectively create circumstances for critical reflexivity, creativity and change (Dania, 2024a; Dania and Farias, 2024). This is particularly salient, not only for students/youth, but also for their families and communities, encouraging practices that are informed by a theory and politics of socio-pedagogical transformation (Gale et al., 2017).
However, in the face of increasing educational reforms and austerity measures in contemporary societies, social pedagogy may struggle to establish its unique educational contribution as socially oriented work (Paris and Alim, 2017). Dominant policy paradigms (for example, models of governance, rankings, internationalisation) seem to overly structure education reforms (Singh and Harreveld, 2014), representing children/youth as vulnerable and ‘in need of saving’ (Josefsson and Wall, 2020). Discourses of this kind usually construct young people’s nature as incomplete or as non-adult (that is, irrational, immature, dependent, impulsive) and advocate for top-down forms of educational practice where power remains in the hands of the professional who ‘knows best’ (that is, teacher, policymaker). This aspect seems to emphasise a moral imperative for educators to ‘right the wrongs’ of education through pedagogies that reinforce global solutions and perspectives (Giroux, 2019).
Since meanings are never neutral but instead situated within the broader socio-linguistic context, critical perspectives on teaching and pedagogy may be useful in unpacking the logic of colonial ideologies that imply certain categorisations and distinctions for learners based on variations of personal characteristics and abilities, such as gender, culture, skills and motivation (Giroux, 2019). From a socio-critical perspective, childhood and youth are fluid categories, so much so that being a young person differs across time and place (Wyn, 2024). Thus, generalised assumptions about young people’s interests and needs may reduce their potential to certain identities (for example, girls are seen as more vulnerable than boys, adolescents as inherently prone to addiction, or students with disabilities as needing ‘treatment’ defined solely by their condition), reinforcing in this way deficit-based views of personhood. On that premise, critical interrogations of what counts as educationally just social practice need to understand education as a contested and plural space, where tensions between institutional structures and human agency may either open or constrain possibilities for progress and change. Given that pedagogy aims to address social problems (Dania and Farias, 2024), ethical concerns emerge when socio-critical initiatives/solutions assume that children and youth require prescribed forms of empowerment or support, without recognising their capacities, along with the material-discursive conditions that shape their educational experiences. In practice, this requires pedagogical approaches that remain sensitive to context, and responsive to the affective dimensions of learning, so that young people are acknowledged as active participants of change rather than as passive recipients of expert or adult support (Dania and Impedovo, 2025).
As academic teachers and pedagogues, we believe that ideologies, theories, frameworks and/or narratives on child and youth development need to be critically interrogated so that discriminations and/or misconceptions are reiterated. To further support this, we propose a decolonising (social) pedagogy perspective, one that remains responsive to local contexts and centred on the knowledge and experiences of the young people and communities it serves. Rather than applying universal solutions to perceived ‘youth crises’, our approach encourages reflection on questions such as: What role can pedagogy play in advancing the core principles of social justice within contemporary educational settings? Since we recognise that the language used in academic writing can reproduce power hierarchies and pedagogical injustice, we advocate for re-conceptualisations of pedagogy, which, when applied to education, can help establish counter-hegemonic care systems that emphasise social justice while resisting the reproduction of epistemic domination (Brunette-Debassige, 2023).
Based on the above, the aim of this article is to explore the potential of an emergent notion of pedagogy with a focus on advancing social justice. We introduce social justice as an educational concept that is linked to the foundations of pedagogy, acknowledging that misconceptions about young people may become forms of injustice (physical, emotional, social), when educational concepts are normalised by dominant narratives without critical interrogation. Our central argument is that educators and pedagogues need to move beyond universalised solutions and deficit-based assumptions (on what justice may mean in education), towards fluid, counter-hegemonic and deterritorialised understandings that foreground pedagogy as relationality, collaboration and ethical engagement. More specifically, we propose the concept of a decolonising social pedagogy, positioning it at the intersections and divergences between social pedagogy and critical pedagogy and the material, social and cultural contexts in which learning occurs. In the following sections, we outline our understanding(s) of a decolonising social pedagogy and the theoretical frameworks that may inform its conceptualisation, as well as the practical implications of our suggestions for teaching and learning in contemporary educational settings. We conclude with a discussion on the need to deterritorialise what is communicated as socially just education showing how it can move beyond corporatised ideals and prescriptive models towards pedagogical practices that are inclusive, responsive and socially transformative.
Schools as sites for socialisation
Schools have traditionally been positioned as central sites for maintaining democratic societies, often encouraging young people to internalise cultural norms (Bloomfield et al., 2020; Hickey and Pauli-Myler, 2017). In recent years, however, the increasing commodification of education, where young people are viewed as ‘human capital’ to be prepared for future employment, has emerged as a concerning trend (McGregor et al., 2017). Functionalist perspectives continue to frame schools as spaces of conformity to the values and beliefs of the dominant social groups (Hope, 2019) and expect educators and learners to think and act like ‘neo-performative beings’ (Wilkins et al., 2020), who pursue opportunities and progress based on accountability measures (that is, performance standards). With an overemphasis on productivity and skill development, the discourse behind this situation foregrounds the importance of national changes in alignment with global incentives (McGregor et al., 2018).
Consequently, a competitive and managerial approach is promoted in schools, expecting students to effectively navigate within the complexities of high-stakes rankings. As a response, schools seek to reinforce dominant cultural norms and existing social hierarchies, usually under the guise of soft skill development. By prioritising these norms, schools contribute to constructing some students as ‘needy’ of educational interventions, often focusing on pedagogical interventions that will help them meet key performance indicators (Giroux, 2019). The above school-socialisation practices negate education’s civic and ethical purposes (Chatelier, 2015), reinforcing oppression (McGregor et al., 2018) and limited access to a variety of educational opportunities and services.
Given that educational processes are closely shaped by the prevailing political and economic contexts (Levitas, 1974), it is expected that dominant social groups may seek to embed their culture and ideologies within educational institutions to maintain power (Bourdieu, 1984). This situation often transforms schools into socio-political arenas where power and hierarchy are enforced, rewarding students for adherence to monotony or expected behavioural norms (Shipman, 1968). For Gramsci (1975/2011), when people accept or uncritically adopt conditions and/norms, they may experience a decrease in their levels of self or social efficacy, a dynamic frequently observed among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bloomfield et al., 2022; hooks, 2003; Willis, 1977). In a similar vein, the commodification of the schooling experience also undermines teachers’ work as a market-driven enterprise (Saltman, 2012; te Riele et al., 2016) and creates barriers for social justice in educational systems due to an over-emphasis on individualism and inculcated ignorance (Bauman, 2011; McGregor et al., 2018). The above dynamics underscore the need for transformative approaches to pedagogy, ones that can challenge utilitarian priorities, resist hegemonic structures and foreground contextual responsiveness as attributes of decolonised pedagogical praxis (Bloomfield, 2024; Dania, 2024a).
Standing at the nexus of social and critical pedagogy
Until today, calling out the influences of neoliberal ideologies has proven to be insufficient in changing the socialising purpose of schooling (Ertas and McKnight, 2019; Rowe et al., 2019). As Biesta (2021) highlights, meaningful pedagogical change requires critical praxis that is enacted as an ongoing process of reflective engagement that interrogates not only dominant structures but also the relational, material and contextual conditions of education. Within the ‘monitory democracy’ processes of contemporary educational systems (Keane, 2018; Singh and Harreveld, 2014), critical praxis is crucial for safeguarding the protection and support of socially just experiences in relation to the specificities of each pedagogical context.
Both social and critical pedagogy each contribute to advancing social justice agendas and priorities within education. Drawing from social work disciplines, social pedagogy emphasises conviviality (Illich, 1973), as individual freedom is realised in personal interdependence. By using non-institutional, and relationship-centred approaches (Higham, 2017), social pedagogy aims at fostering critical reflection in both educators and learners by examining power structures to elicit change (Biesta, 2021; Illich, 1973). Such an approach is crucial in ensuring that relational practices are grounded in shared experiences and afford multiple opportunities for critically interrogating established practices while fostering egalitarian values (Hope, 2019). Yet critical pedagogy, often beginning within schools, encourages educators and learners to interrogate established norms and challenge hegemonic structures that may inhibit equity and social justice (Biesta and Stengel, 2016; Kincheloe et al., 2011; McGregor et al., 2017; McInerney, 2009). The goal is to foster free thought, creativity and active citizenship (Hope, 2019; Thomson-Bunn, 2014) and enable learners and educators to co-construct knowledge and challenge standardised, instrumentalist practices that limit equity, agency and transformative engagement.
However, when social and critical pedagogy are applied in isolation they risk overlooking the complex intersections of relational care, systemic inequities and contextualised knowledge (Edwards, 2023; Higham, 2017). By jointly addressing issues of educational justice, social and critical pedagogy can offer a transformative alternative to the commodified and prescriptive models that dominate contemporary education. By integrating social and critical pedagogical perspectives in their instruction, teachers can create learning spaces that foreground lived experiences, relational agency and contributions to knowledge-making. In practice, this might mean co-designing curricula with students, facilitating participatory projects or embedding critical reflection on issues related to power, inequality and social structures into everyday learning activities. Such approaches not only enhance engagement and motivation (Hickey and Pauli-Myler, 2017) but also empower students to actively shape their educational journeys, by fostering critical consciousness, ethical reasoning and capacities for collective action (Biesta, 2021; Hickey and Pauli-Myler, 2017).
The nexus where social and critical pedagogy meet (see Figure 1) has the potential to create a space for fostering social justice in education where young people, educators and pedagogues can work together to cultivate common understandings and action for overcoming social or structural obstacles (Higham, 2017). The transformative potential of this nexus presents a shift beyond outcome-focused education towards relational modes of agency (O’Toole, 2015). This shift is vital for prioritising shared spaces of experience and fostering learning environments that value free thought and response-able forms of participation (Haraway, 2016). Our goal in the next paragraphs is to rigorously engage with the conditions that could facilitate this shift, particularly in terms of envisioning how relationality, systemic critique and material-discursive entanglements can be interrogated and unpacked via and within the socio-critical nexus. To achieve our goal, we employ the concepts of decolonisation and deterritorialisation (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987; Haraway, 2016), as concepts that can provide openings for reimagining pedagogy as socially just praxis.
The socio-critical nexus: fostering social justice through education
Decolonising pedagogy in corporatised education systems
Until today, Eurocentric pedagogical epistemologies and humanitarian perspectives have privileged dominant educational narratives, while marginalising alternative ways of knowing and being (Hajir and Kester, 2020). As part of these narratives, social justice has been framed around discussions on inclusion (Tarisayi, 2020), access to rights (Ndofirepi and Gwaravanda, 2018) and knowledge (Raina, 2025), as well as theoretical frameworks that suggest changes to the content, methodologies and/or assessment practice of educational systems. The main idea of such narratives is that the individual who suffers is a pathetic figure to whom opportunities are denied and thus solidarity, compassion and responsibility become moral imperatives and personal choices for those who are privileged (Rancière, 1999). These narratives often lack historical grounding and meaningful connections to justice, as they reduce the idea of shared humanity to ‘us versus other’ distinctions and narrow, selective ways of enacting justice (Ivanovic, 2019; Quijano, 2008). Educational research has shown that the enactment of pedagogy under a socially just perspective cannot be conceived as a straightforward task based on individual responsibility or compassion towards vulnerability (Hajir and Kester, 2020). Instead, such work requires critical reflection and a thorough interrogation of the historical and current processes, as well as the epistemic foundations, that may sustain unjust conditions of praxis. Since oppression and/or exclusion are not only ideological but also embodied in cultural and political practices (Sasaki and Baba, 2024), we argue that decolonising pedagogy is essential for dismantling hegemonic structures and advancing social justice in education (Brady and Kennedy, 2018).
Decolonising pedagogy refers to educational approaches or processes that seek to challenge the dominance of universalised frameworks or knowledge systems, while validating diverse epistemologies, lived experiences and local knowledge (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987; Haraway, 2016). In practice, that could mean that the teacher invites students to critically compare Western texts or national curricula with immigrant voices or oral histories from local communities, and collaboratively interrogate whether/how power, identity or history may shape what counts as legitimate knowledge. Such a perspective could further be used to challenge the neoliberal imperatives within curriculum documents, so that shared understandings are developed as resistance to oppressive asymmetries. These forms of pedagogical practice could enable students to see themselves as knowledge-makers, while also challenging the hierarchies that privilege some histories and voices over others. That is the reason why decolonising pedagogy necessitates an active engagement with diverse epistemologies, valuing Indigenous knowledge systems and fostering culturally responsive teaching methodologies (Raina, 2025).
Decolonisation cannot be treated as merely an additive process to existing pedagogical praxis. Rather, it needs to be understood as an ongoing, contested and often discomforting form of educational transformation, one that requires critical reflexivity, social accountability and a willingness to unlearn dominant paradigms (Dania and Impedovo, 2025). In practice that could imply combining the systemic focus of critical pedagogy with the care-orientated and practice-focused ethos of social pedagogy (Dania and Farias, 2024) to generate spaces where educators and learners jointly imagine and enact more just, inclusive and responsive educational experiences (Onyebuchi Eze, 2024).
Until today, research has shown that efforts to decolonise the deeply entrenched nature of dominant educational epistemologies may encounter resistance, as they threaten established structures of authority, privilege and expertise (Ndofirepi and Gwaravanda, 2018; Tarisayi, 2020). In many cases, even well-intentioned attempts to decolonise dominant concepts or paradigms (that is, childhood education) can risk either reproducing established forms of knowledge and understanding (Giroux, 2019) or appropriating non-Western perspectives without genuinely shifting power dynamics or adequately appropriating culturally relevant forms of knowledge and transformative praxis (Biesta and Stengel, 2016; Kunst et al., 2024).
This is why we believe that deterritorialisation of established pedagogical concepts and understandings (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987) becomes crucial. According to Deleuze and Guattari (1987), deterritorialisation refers to moving thought beyond simply recognising existing epistemologies and structures towards critically unpacking their meanings and reconfiguring how they shape pedagogical practice. It can be envisaged as a process of destabilising taken-for-granted norms, categories and/or binaries within pedagogy (that is, teacher–student, nature–culture, theory–practice), so that new connections, possibilities and forms of knowledge can emerge. The goal is not to reject or oppose established understandings, but primarily to open spaces where emergent potential and possibilities are recognised, allowing pedagogy to unfold as a responsive and interconnected process of relational learning and transformation (Dania and Impedovo, 2025).
Deterritorialisation of established pedagogical understandings would not simply replace one concept with another (that is, reflection with reflexivity) or introduce one approach instead of another (that is, socio-critical instead of critical pedagogy). Instead, it would entail a contextually sensitive reconfiguration of pedagogical spaces, curricula and interactions, so that knowledge production remains responsive to multiple socio-material and cultural influences (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994). In practice, that would mean that teachers design learning environments that align with students’ lived experiences (such as connecting a unit on geography to local issues like urban green spaces or migration), while also extending learning beyond the classroom (such as community collaborations), so that rigid hierarchies of knowledge production are unsettled and diverse ways of knowing are affirmed.
Since deterritorialisation embraces multiplicity, relationality and openness, it enables pedagogical practice that moves beyond inclusion towards transformation, fostering generative and non-hierarchical ways of co-existing and interacting. Within such forms of practice, social justice would not simply be interrogated as a theoretical ideal or a moral imperative for the privileged others. Instead, it would be experienced as an embodied and relational event that would produce conditions for thought-opening and instructional adaptations with practical value (that is, participatory action research projects that investigate local community issues or storytelling and counter-narrative activities that amplify marginalised voices). This move would also employ interconnected modes of pedagogical practice (such as peer-led workshops, collaborative arts projects, interdisciplinary problem-solving) that would disrupt rigid binaries (for example, ability/disability, knowledge/ignorance, self/other) and emphasise more nuanced and decolonial understandings and modes of existence (that is, using case studies that foreground non-Western epistemologies to explore historical, cultural or social phenomena).
Decolonisation and deterritorialisation need to work in tandem for pedagogy to achieve its social justice potential. While decolonisation would challenge the historical injustices and exclusions of colonial educational practice, deterritorialisation would ensure that the process does not become a re-imposition of static, essentialised alternatives but remains an open, evolving field of possibilities. Together, these two concepts could offer a framework that not only affords opportunities for social justice but also links theory to actionable pedagogical strategies; strategies that are relational, contextually responsive and effective in terms of disrupting entrenched norms. Such links between theory and practice are rather important for supporting educators and learners to actively experiment with new forms of teaching and learning and respond to the diverse realities and needs of their contexts and communities.
Emerging conceptualisations of social justice within modern education contexts
Building on the concepts of decolonisation and deterritorialisation outlined above, we understand that deterritorialising pedagogy for social justice within contemporary educational contexts requires a shift from fixed theoretical models or standardised processes towards adaptive, contextually responsive and collaboratively generated practices (Dania, 2024b). Working at the nexus between social pedagogy and critical pedagogy, a potential deterritorialisation of pedagogy would seek to dissolve established boundaries between knowledge, power and agency, allowing pedagogy to be understood not merely as the transmission of information/knowledge, but mainly as an intra-active field where students, teachers and material-discursive forces co-create transformative educational potential (Barad, 2007). In practice, this would involve a move towards collective meaning-making encounters. By integrating social pedagogy’s emphasis on care, community and relationality with critical pedagogy’s focus on power, resistance and systemic transformation, educators can create learning spaces where both students and teachers are considered as active agents of knowledge and are facilitated to engage critically with the broader socio-cultural and institutional structures that shape their relational experiences (Lamsal, 2024). Practically, this could include participatory action research initiatives (Dancis et al., 2023), community-based projects (Stevens et al., 2025) or multimodal forms of expression (Beltrán-Palanques and Bernad-Mechó, 2024), that could enable students to both critique existing hierarchies and co-design alternative practices, while remaining attuned to the constraints and possibilities of contemporary educational systems (Lamsal, 2024). By making the processes and outcomes of transformation explicit, this approach links aspirational social justice aims to actionable pedagogical strategies that can be realistically enacted within schools (Stevens et al., 2025).
One key challenge of deteritorialising pedagogy for social justice would be to envision pedagogical strategies that can realistically be enacted within the systemic limitations and opportunities of contemporary school systems. Thus, the integration of opportunities for dialogue and critical reflexivity, through which students and teachers could interrogate their own positionalities and biases, would be a fundamental starting point. Such dialogue would help bridge the interpersonal (social pedagogy) with the systemic (critical pedagogy), situating justice not only in caring discussions/opinion sharing (ideas on cultural, sexual, racial, gender and other kinds of difference), but also in collective discourse and action that respects diversity while avoiding bias and tokenism (Dania and Farias, 2024) As part of this effort, practices such as storytelling, autoethnography and counter-narratives could become central tools for amplifying marginalised voices and fostering social justice (Dania and Impedovo, 2025). By foregrounding students as active producers of knowledge, these creative modalities could create spaces for educators and learners to express complex emotions, resist dominant narratives and envision alternative possibilities for liberation within a curriculum that ‘folds’ democratic practice into everyday learning (Nigar et al., 2024).
Overall, a deterritorialised version of pedagogy for social justice would mean expanding the concept of the classroom itself. Learning would not be confined to institutional walls but would take place through community-based collaborations, transdisciplinary engagements and digital platforms that facilitate global solidarities. For example, connecting students with activist organisations, Indigenous-knowledge keepers or alternative media sources could create opportunities for learning that is directly linked to social action (Dania and Impedovo, 2025). Ultimately, what would be experienced as a deterritorialising pedagogy in the realities of contemporary education systems would not imply a wholesale rejection of existing frameworks. Instead, it would involve a continuous and dynamic working within and alongside educational structures to create openings for participatory practices. Such an approach would seek to empower students not only to critique the present but to actively co-create more just and equitably shared futures, even within the limitations of mass education systems.
Conclusions
Social pedagogy and critical pedagogy, while distinct in their approaches, share a common commitment to advancing social justice through education. As this article has argued, their nexus can have tangible implications for how we – as educators – enact pedagogical praxis by foregrounding collective agency, ethical responsibility and radical imagination. Our intention when writing this article was to critically examine how these two pedagogical traditions intersect, diverge and, most importantly, how they can be reimagined through deterritorialisation. Thus, rather than presenting deterritorialisation as an abstract concept, we have attempted to show how it could offer educators and learners multiple opportunities for unsettling pedagogical assumptions and opening spaces of negotiation within existing educational structures. By shifting away from static notions of teaching and learning, deterritorialisation was proposed as a way to unpack the onto-epistemological boundaries that constrain the transformative potential of both social and critical pedagogy, while still acknowledging the realities of accountability and standardisation of contemporary school systems.
Our intention was not simply to critique or dismiss essentialised approaches to knowledge production in favour of more fluid, relational and community-driven ones. Instead, we sought to foreground the need for a continual interrogation of the structures that shape contemporary educational systems and reconceptualise the relational dynamics that underpin and sustain them. We believe that by staying responsive to the ever-evolving nature of pedagogy, the task of reconfiguring social justice through education cannot be a matter of foregrounding educational paradigms without recognising how these frameworks can be reworked and mobilised in practice, beyond homogeneous ideologies or corporate interests. This ongoing process challenges us as academic teachers and social pedagogues to rethink our own onto-epistemological positions and disclose those ideological tendencies that promote moral selectivism by rendering its socio-political groundings invisible. We believe that by doing so, we will start to communicate social justice as an emerging and concrete form of intellectual activist practice and not as an aspirational but abstract academic ideal.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
Not applicable to this article.
Consent for publication statement
Not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article
References
Barad,K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Bauman,Z. (2011). Collateral damage: Social inequalities in a global age. Polity Press.
Beltrán-Palanques,V, Bernad-Mechó,EE(ed s .), . (2024). Current trends in EMI and multimodality in higher education. Routledge, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003205517
Biesta,G. (2021). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.
Biesta,G; Stengel,B S. (2016). Thinking philosophically about teaching. AERA handbook of research on teaching. 5th ed. Gittomer,D, Bell,CC(ed s .), AERA, pp.7–67.
Bloomfield,C. (2024). Perspectives on inclusion beyond the school gates. Learning inclusion in a digital age: Belonging and finding a voice with the Disadvantaged. Dobson,S, Svoen,B;Band Agrusti,G;G, Hardy,PP(ed s .), Springer Nature, pp.ix–xv, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7196-1
Bloomfield,C; Harreveld,B; Fisher,R. (2020). Hesitant hopes: How a comprehensive approach to learning impacts on the transition hopes of marginalised young people in an alternative learning program in regional Australia. British Educational Research Journal 46 (1) :75–91, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3568
Bloomfield,C; Harreveld,B; Fisher,R. (2022). ‘You don’t have to feel trapped’: Architectural discourses of youth engagement in a community-based learning environment. Smart Learning Environments 9 (1) :27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00208-8
Bourdieu,P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Brady,L; Kennedy,K. (2018). Curriculum construction. 6th ed. Pearson Australia.
Brunette-Debassige (Mushkego-ininew Cree),C. (2023). Indigenous refusals in educational leadership practices in Canadian universities. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 19 (2) :377–386, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11771801231167876
Chatelier,S. (2015). Towards a renewed flourishing of humanistic education?. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 36 (1) :81–94, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.834635
Dancis,J S; Coleman,B R; Ellison,E R. (2023). Participatory action research as pedagogy: Stay messy. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 4 (2) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35844/001c.75174
Dania,A. (2024a). Dania,A, Farias,CC(ed s .), What is social pedagogy: Connections between theory and practice. Social Pedagogy in Physical Education. Routledge, pp.7–17, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003411536-3
Dania,A. (2024b). Dwelling in matter: Flows of affect in teachers’ professional becoming-with-technology. Professional Development in Education 51 :405–417, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2404899
Dania,A; Farias,C. (2024). Social pedagogy in physical education. Human-centred practice. Routledge.
Dania,A, Impedovo,MM(ed s .), . (2025). Affectivity as pedagogy in the classroom: Interdisciplinary approaches to relationship-based practice in education. Routledge, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003567943
Deleuze,G; Guattari,F. (1987). Massumi,B(trans.), A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze,G; Guattari,F. (1994). Tomlinson,H, Burchell,G(trans.), What is philosophy?. Columbia University Press.
Dembele,L; Nathan,S; Carter,A; Costello,J; Hodgins,M; Singh,R; Martin,B; Cullen,P. (2024). Researching with lived experience: A shared critical reflection between co-researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 23 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/16094069241257945
Edwards,S. (2023). Freire for twenty-first-century, austerity-driven schools: Creating positive educational relations with and among students at the margins. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.006
Ertas,N; McKnight,A N. (2019). Clarifying and reframing the neoliberal critique of educational policy using policy process theories. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40 (2) :234–247, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569881
Gale,T; Mills,C; Cross,R. (2017). Socially inclusive teaching: belief, design, action as pedagogic work. Journal of Teacher Education 68 (3) :345–356, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487116685754
Giroux,H A. (2019). Neoliberalism and the weaponising of language and education. Race & Class 61 (1) :26–45, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306396819847945
Gramsci,A. (1975/2011). Prison notebooks, volumes 1–3. Columbia University Press.
Hajir,B; Kester,K. (2020). Toward a decolonial praxis in critical peace education: Postcolonial insights and pedagogic possibilities. Studies in Philosophy of Education 39 :515–532, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09707-y
Haraway,D J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the chthulucene. Duke University Press.
Hickey,A; Pauli-Myler,T. (2017). The constraints of youth: Young people, active citizenship and the experience of marginalisation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40 (3) :372–385, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1351920
Higham,P. (2017). Social pedagogy: An invitation. European Journal of Social Work 21 (1) :161–2, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1341079
hooks,b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Psychology Press. Vol. 36
Hope,M A. (2019). Reclaiming freedom in education: Theories and practices of radical free school education. Routledge.
Illich,I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Harper & Row.
Ivanovic,M. (2019). Zeiny,E(ed.), Echoes of the past: Colonial legacy and Eurocentric humanitarianism. The rest write back: Discourse and decolonization. Brill, pp.82–102.
Josefsson,J; Wall,J. (2020). Empowered inclusion: Theorizing global justice for children and youth. Globalizations 17 (6) :1043–1060, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1736853
Keane,J. (2018). Power and humility: The future of monitory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Kincheloe,J; McLaren,P; Steinberg,S. (2011). Denzin,K, Lincoln,YY(ed s .), Critical pedagogy and qualitative research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Sage Publications, pp.163–177.
Kitooke,A; Mahon,K. (2024). Affordances of community-oriented praxis in teacher education: A configurative review. Frontiers in Education October2024 9 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1456310
Ko,D; Mawene,D; Krichevsky,B; Lim,S. (2023). Organizing possible futures: A systematic review on dis/ability justice frameworks to design equity-oriented inclusive teacher education programs. Review of Educational Research 94 (6) :883–926, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543231212927
Kunst,J R; Lefringhausen,K; Zagefka,H. (2024). Delineating the boundaries between genuine cultural change and cultural appropriation in majority-group acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 98 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101911
Lamsal,H L. (2024). Critical pedagogy in addressing social inequality and promoting social justice in education. Advances 5 (3) :77–83, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.advances.20240503.12
Levitas,M. (1974). Marxist perspectives in the sociology of education. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
López,F. (2017). Altering the trajectory of the self-fulfilling prophesy: Asset-based pedagogy and classroom dynamics. Journal of Teacher Education 68 (2) :193–212, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487116685751
McGregor,G; Mills,M; Te Riele,K; Baroutsis,A; Hayes,D. (2017). Re-imagining schooling for education. Palgrave Macmillan.
McGregor,G; Mills,M; Thomson,P; Pennacchia,J. (2018). Alternative educational programs, schools and social justice. Taylor & Francis.
McInerney,P. (2009). Toward a critical pedagogy of engagement for alienated youth: Insights from Freire and school-based research. Critical Studies in Education 50 (1) :23–35, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508480802526637
Ndofirepi,A P; Gwaravanda,E T. (2018). Epistemic (in)justice in African universities: A perspective of the politics of knowledge. Educational Review 71 (5) :581–594, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1459477
Nigar,N; Kostogriz,A; Mhilli,O; Yu,X. (2024). Curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice: Integrating Deleuzian and Deweyan philosophies with the lived experiences of English teachers. Curriculum Perspectives 44 :411–424, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41297-024-00258-7
Onyebuchi Eze,M. (2024). Decolonizing ‘decolonization’ and knowledge production beyond Eurocentrism. The Monist 107 (3) :264–278, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/monist/onae013
O’Toole,L. (2015). Student-centred teaching in initial teacher education. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 6 (1) :2111–2119, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2015.0293
Paris,D; Alim,H S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Quijano,A. (2008). Moraña,M, Dussel,E;Eand Jáuregui,CC(ed s .), Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Coloniality at large: Latin America and the postcolonial debate. Duke University Press, pp.182–224.
Raina,D. (2025). Postcolonial theory of science and other knowledge forms: The engagement with cognitive and epistemic justice. The Journal of Transcultural Studies 15 (1–2) :112–134, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17885/heiup.jts.2024.1-2.25088
Rancière,J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press.
Rowe,E; Lubienski,C; Skourdoumbis,A; Gerrard,J; Hursh,D. (2019). Templates, typologies and typifications: Neoliberalism as keyword. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40 (2) :150–161, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569875
Saltman,K. (2012). The failure of corporate school reform. Paradigm Publishers.
Sasaki,I; Baba,S. (2024). Shades of cultural marginalization: Cultural survival and autonomy processes. Organization Theory 5 (1) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26317877231221552
Shalaby,C. (2017). Troublemakers: Lessons in freedom from young children at school. The New Press.
Shipman,M D. (1968). The sociology of the school. Longmans.
Singh,M; Harreveld,B. (2014). Deschooling L’earning: Young adults and the new spirit of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Stevens,A A; Michael,N A; Radvansky,G A. (2025). Long-term learning gains in students using community based learning. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education: JUNE: A Publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience 23 (2) :A66–A72, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.59390/NKAY3491 40655175
Tarisayi,K S. (2020). Integrating indigenous knowledge in South African geography education curricula for social justice and decolonization. Research & Development 39 (1) :26–38, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.38159/ehass.20245711
te Riele,K; Wilson,K; Wallace,V; McGinty,S; Lewthwaite,B. (2016). Outcomes from flexible learning options for disenfranchised youth: What counts?. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (2) :117–130, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1168878
Thomson-Bunn,H. (2014). Are they empowered yet? Opening up definitions of critical pedagogy. Composition Forum 29
Wilkins,C; Gobby,B; Keddie,A. (2020). The neo-performative teacher: School reform, entrepreneurialism and the pursuit of educational equity. British Journal of Educational Studies 69 (1) :27–45, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1739621
Willis,P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working-class kids get working class jobs. Saxon House.
Wyn,J. (2024). Handbook of children and youth studies. Springer Nature Singapore.