UNITY

from Transforming Trajectories of Vulnerability

Katherine Winpenny

T772 Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP) Bibliotecária responsável: Bruna Heller – CRB 10/2348

Transforming trajectories of vulnerability / Organizadoras: Maria Lucia Teixeira Garcia, Arinola Adefila. – São Paulo: Annablume, 2022.

204 p. 16 x 23 cm

ISBN 978-65-5684-059-8

1. Ciências sociais. 2. Educação. 3. Serviço social. I. Garcia, Maria Lucia Teixeira. II. Adefila, Arinola. III. Título.

Índice para catálogo sistemático: 1. Serviço social, práticas sociais 364 CDU 364

TRANSFORMING TRAJECTORIES OF VULNERABILITY

Diagramação Fernandes Augusto Castro

Projeto e Produção Coletivo Gráfico Annablume

Annablume Editora Conselho Editorial Eugênio Trivinho Gabriele Cornelli Gustavo Bernardo Krause Iram Jácome Rodrigues Pedro Paulo Funari Pedro Roberto Jacobi

1ª edição: março de 2022

SUMMARY

PRESENTATION Vera Maria Ribeiro Nogueira 9

INTRODUCTION Arinola Adefila Maria Lúcia T. Garcia 13

UNITY 1 EDUCATION, VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 23

PUBLIC POLICIES IN BRAZIL: CHALLENGES THAT QUESTION SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES Eliza Bartolozzi Ferreira 25

SHARING EACH OTHER’S SHOES: WALKING AND TALKING INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Gary Spolander 39

ONLINE PEDAGOGIES: BEYOND THE CLASSROOM Katherine Winpenny 59

USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION: A CRITICAL VIEW Marize Lyra Silva Passos 71

CONCERNS FOR EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WORK Fabiola Xavier Leal 85

UNITY 2 EDUCATION, POVERTY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 97

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND SOCIO-EDUCATION IN AN OPEN ENVIRONMENT Luciana Gomes de Lima Jacques Beatriz Gershenson 99

EARLY CHILDHOOD ON THE WORLD AGENDA: IMPACTS ON THE REALITY OF CHILDHOOD Aline Elisa Maretto Lang 111

STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION, FINANCING AND POLITICAL CONSERVATISM Talita Prada 121

ENCCEJA UNDER A PERSPECTIVES OF STUDENTS: OPPORTUNITY AND/OR NAUGHTS? Talita Valadares Edna Castro de Oliveira 135

WORKING AT SOCIO-EDUCATION POLICY: AMONG TENSIONS, CONFLICTS AND POTENTIALITIES Pollyanna Labeta Iack 147

A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF INSTITUTIONS AS BIPARTRATE IN PERPETUATING THE VULNERABILITY OF FEMALE DIGITAL ENTREPRENEURS Efe Imiren 163

THE PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES AND SOCIAL MOBILITY OF FEMALES IN SRI LANKA Pavithra Wickramasuriya 177

FINAL THOUGHTS OR GOING BACKING TO THE BEGINNING Arinola Adefila Maria Lúcia T. Garcia 193

ABOUT AUTHORS 197

PRESENTATION

Introducing a book is not always an easy task, as one rarely finds a production that contains an innovative approach at the academic level and, at the same time, the possibility of strong social influence from the facts and phenomena discussed. That is the case of this work, which I have the honor, and especially the pleasure, to announce. And I will certainly not be able to bring all the aspects that make this book a useful and mandatory reading for professionals, researchers, students and those interested in building fair, egalitarian and democratic societies.

This publication presents the articles and debates carried out in a workshop organized by Arinola Adefila, professor at Coventry University, United Kingdom and Maria Lucia Garcia, professor at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, with the institutional support of the British Council and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo – Fapes (Foundation for Research and Innovation Support in Espírito Santo, Brazil). The main purpose of the event, which marks its importance, was, first of all, the debate on educational possibilities as a strategic resource to change the vulnerability situations existing in countless regions of the planet, including Brazil. It unfortunately is a country where communities and groups in rural and urban areas present vulnerabilities of different dimensions, related to age diversity – including babies with

a high degree of malnutrition, elderly people living in extremely precarious conditions, young people in conflict with the law and under constant threat of death; to cultural diversity – as a result of sexual, religious, ethnic and racial choice; and to economic diversity, expressed in inequalities in access to salary, employment and income, with a high current and future impact on families.

Secondly, I highlight the thematic approach proposed by the organizers, bringing to light a question that is rarely thought about, which is the possibilities of active and critical education – particularized in the different dimensions mentioned above – in order to impact the intersectionalities that accompany the vulnerabilities built in various areas of social life. It is known that for a long time the World Bank has warned of the importance of education as a way of overcoming inequalities; however, the results have not been as encouraging as expected. Perhaps the explanation lies in the type of procedure used, which successfully served other population segments and other global socioeconomic moments. The idea of an innovative, strategic education, which mobilizes young people to overcome the cycle of vulnerability in its multiple dimensions and faces, was the central issue that permeated the presentations and favored the achievement of the foreseen objective.

Another highlight of the event, comprised in this publication, was the rescue of innovative and creative educational experiences with population groups such as landless rural workers, indigenous people from Amazonas and social projects developed in urban areas. Through this strategy, it was possible to recognize approaches not investigated and with the possibility of being known, reflected and replicated in other places with similar characteristics.

In addition to the social impact of the results now released to the public interested in changing vulnerable trajectories, an objective that will have future consequences at the academic and scientific level was the concern to train young researchers. The goal is to train competent young people to produce knowledge and to master the other aspects inherent to this practice, linked to ethical issues, that is, sharing the knowledge produced, management with

national and international funding agencies, collective production of knowledge and involvement in transdisciplinary research. Likewise, the exchange between experienced researchers, young researchers, professionals and representatives of social movements favors a complex and multifaceted view necessary for the construction of knowledge about the social.

A last, and no less important, highlight is in relation to the State as the only possibility to guarantee the enjoyment of social and economic rights, as emphasized in chapters of the book.

The above observations and indications can be seen in the publication, organized into two large units, in addition to the introduction: 1 – Education, vulnerabilities and international perspectives; 2 – Education, poverty and social justice. The first one, of a broader nature, with articles composing the perspective adopted by the organizers of the book. The second, with reflections and debates on challenging experiences that express the conception guiding the entire workshop, apprehending vulnerability as a collective issue, capable of being transformed by an emancipatory educational perspective and as a practice of freedom, as Paulo Freire teaches us.

Certainly, as any good book, its reading will bring questions, discoveries and new contributions to professional action.

Vera Maria Ribeiro Nogueira

Florianópolis, February 2022.

INTRODUCTION

Arinola Adefila Maria Lúcia Teixeira Garcia

The Transforming Trajectories of Vulnerability workshop focussed on academic debate about the future of education in Brazil and the United Kingdom, with a specific focus on access and quality for people living in vulnerable communities. The workshop included robust discussion around Education and Social policy, administration of educational systems, social work, and social development. The workshop was hosted by Arinola Adefila (Coventry University, United Kingdom) and Maria Lucia Garcia (Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo/ Federal University of Espiritu Santo [UFES])

Education and social policy in Brazil have mirrored robust political action aimed at tackling social challenges relating to systemic vulnerabilities. From 2000 – 2010, socioeconomic development in Brazil was momentous, halving poverty levels (World Bank, 2015). However, studies show (World Bank, 2018) that poverty is rising again; the trend tracks educational opportunities, proving that access to quality education has a direct influence on socioeconomic conditions. 1.3 million Brazilians aged 15–17 are out of school; 19% (2 million) are classified as “late” i.e., not in their appropriate study series (IBGE, 2018). Gonçalves (2012) reveals that poverty is associated with key ecological factors that enable structural inequity to persist; particularly, systemic conditions leading to multiple cycles

of vulnerability (Adefila, 2010). Researchers need to understand how cycles of vulnerability trap poor young Brazilians in intractable spaces of social exclusion, deprivation, and illiteracy. Tackling these challenges is pivotal to social transformation. Strategic educational activities are needed to support youth in vulnerable communities and disrupt the cycle of vulnerability. 2T workshop used transdisciplinary expertise to investigate key dimensions of vulnerability and explore educational approaches and policies that support youth empowerment within the Brazilian context. We recognise that empowerment is not considered an individual but collective endeavour (Mészáros, 2005). There was also useful debate about the terminology of vulnerability as the social and political implications of identifying and blaming individuals for their circumstances complicated the lens through which we examine disadvantage. The papers in this book discuss inequalities and social disadvantage extensively, referencing multiple and sometimes complex disadvantages the debate acknowledges how communities and individuals that live in poor and deprived neighbourhoods, experience poor physical and mental health, have limited access to services and amenities and responsible adults often experience difficulties.

This is an important challenge at a time when Brazil is considering its approach to growth and development amidst a marked stagnation in economic metrics as measured by the World Bank (2017). The indices have been exacerbated during the covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic has widened existing substantial inequality, resulting in around 13,9% of the population being unemployed in 2020 (the rate in 2019 was 12,7%) (IBGE, 2021), while the fortunes of Brazilian billionaires in the midst of the same pandemic has grown by 39% between April and July 2020 (UBS and PwC, 2020).

Pandemic responses by the Brazilian government, along with others across the world, have deepened existing inequality and highlighted once again the reliance on capitalism and exacerbated the social reproduction that keep many households living in precarity.

There have been 616 thousand deaths (Brazil, 2021) (around 8.8% of Scotland’s population).

Brazil has deep social and economic inequalities, the pandemic has aggravated these gaps, especially affecting children. The pandemic has impacted on the wages of families, especially those already poor (UNICEF, 2021). The pandemic has affected food and nutritional security, 49% of the population has reported changes in eating habits since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, this increased to 58% for families living with children and adolescents (UNICEF, 2021).

Organizing a workshop during pandemic times was a huge challenge for all involved. We had planned to have a physical workshop in Brazil with opportunities for extended conversation over various formats and in different venues. The plans were adapted as the pandemic began, we built in contingencies for face-toface workshop over several months. This involved several days of planning and reorganisation with vendors and support services as the pandemic deepened. Our plan involved wide engagement with UFES students from various disciplines, local civic organisations, and communities of practice in Vitoria. The uncertainty and constant, complicated conversations to adapt was quite

This book presents 2 sections of the papers that were written by researchers, ECRs and PhD.

The workshop included in-depth discussions with Civic Society Organisations working with communities experiencing cycles of vulnerability. Examining the structural, contextual and policy barriers which limit diverse forms of educational achievement in Brazil. Luciana Jacques’ paper Restorative Justice and in the Open Environment: Challenges and Contributions to Punishment in Brazil focuses on the social justice system, interrogating the restorative justice approach and avenues for young people in the criminal justice system to access better opportunities.

The workshop encouraged ECRs to collaborate with key stakeholders – Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) – who currently provide creative educational resources in the Brazilian educational ecosystem. The Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) of

the municipality of Jaguaré (north of the state of Espírito Santo), the Social Projects of Morro do Quadro and Piedade (districts of the municipality of Vitória-ES) and the indigenous organisation of the Kambeba do Alto Solimões (Amazônia) discuss how they draw on Paolo Freire’s emancipatory practices to support alternative education models.

The aim was to deepen understanding of the multiple dimensions of vulnerability and provide spaces to investigate innovative solutions (e.g., web-based learning technologies or open educational resources) to complement existing CSO provision. 2TV was purposefully transdisciplinary, providing opportunities for researchers, practitioners and ECRs to seek new knowledges supporting transformative practice in education/public policy which directly benefit vulnerable communities.

Eight Post graduate researchers contributed to the discussion on how context-designed educational pedagogies and resources can disrupt cycles of vulnerability internationally. The PGRs came from diverse disciplinary backgrounds in education, health, social policy, political economics, and global development. The book includes chapters from 11 presenters.

The objectives of the workshop were to first and foremost provide a transdisciplinary networking space for 2TV participants to engage in international research focused on transformative practice in education and public policy that enable researchers understand cycles of vulnerability. Secondly, we sought to use the networking space to enable ECRs to develop research skills: understand the funding landscape, knowledge exchange, collaborative international practice, career development, etc. Thirdly, the interactions and dynamics of the workshop enabled us to establish effective research partnerships between 2TV participants to conduct research around conceptualising innovative pathways to disrupt cycles of vulnerability internationally to develop resilience & structural, economic and policy disruptors which support and empower vulnerable young people. Specifically, the 2TV participants now aim to work collaboratively exploring a

wide range of topics such as support for people with a disability in educational institutions.

Key themes of deconstructing systemic cycles of vulnerability and conceptualising factors that maintain cycles of vulnerable e.g., education attainment and inequality within the UK, Brazil and internationally. In the sessions we mapped factors that impact on education attainment and inequality, enabling an exploration of structural, social, and individual dimensions of vulnerability. We also had experienced practitioners and academics providing mentoring to ECRs and discussing transdisciplinary working, ethical research practice, CSO partnerships and best practice of CSOs.

Local CSOs funded by Ufes with good working knowledge of the Brazilian context, creative approaches to developing educational resources, insights into existing best practice and capacity to engage in the robust discourse of research & operationalization. Representatives from each of these CSOs provided presentations and led robust debate

CSOs: Brazilian stakeholders chosen for their valuable, creative work developing educational resources with vulnerable communities:

• The Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST): a social movement fighting against injustice and inequality http:// www.mst.org.br/educacao/ • Social Projects of Morro do Quadro and Piedade (districts of the municipality of Vitória/ES) • Indigenous organisation of the Kambeba do Alto Solimões (Amazônia) • Professor Edna Castro de Oliveira specialist in Paulo Freire.

The collaboration enables us to broaden opportunities for future research with a pipeline of ECRs, utilising artefacts developed by 2TV outcomes to apply for further grant funding exploring factors (macro, meso & micro levels) that instigate and maintain cycles of vulnerability in the Brazilian context leading to social exclusion, deprivation, and illiteracy; and explore the development of new

educational models to improve vulnerable youths’ well-being/welfare and economic development.

The role of the State and the moral its responsibility to secure rights and support development was a key theme of the workshop. The provision of an effective and functional higher education underpinned by Emancipatory Education and Libertarian Pedagogy has been debated in Brazil by Freire and others. The duty of the state is strongly contested especially with respect to ensuring access and permanence. Freire vigorously discussed the purpose of education from a political stance, advocating for critical pedagogy which empowered learners to be activists. Equipped with the capability to critique power structures and examine patterns of inequality – social, ethnic, sexual, territorial diversity etc., learners have more opportunities to disable punitive measures and dismantle processes of colonisation, exploitation and production which keep reproducing inequalities.

Professor Eliza Bartolozzi Ferreira explained the significance of solidarity pathways in Brazil to support and strengthen a collective struggle and resistance to fight for education. This resistance takes place in all spaces and is a form of education, producing knowledge and emancipatory reproduction of social relationships. The civic organisations form their own spaces, taking up non-educational structures to have constructive and transformative learning. The central aim is to raise awareness and create new self-organisational cultures of the working class. Emancipatory education provides life skills and facilitates holistic scholarship. The education is much broader and comprehensive and relevant to learners. It is about education for relationships. Various contributors give credence to this argument and analyse in the papers various education and social policies, exploring means for improving access for those that are disadvantaged.

Prof. Katherine Wimpenny discusses Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) as a pedagogical approach and how collaboration in online spaces, transnational interactions can enhance opportunities for transformative learning. The digital divide and access to infrastructure and competencies for learning in virtual

spaces are discussed as well as the negotiations inherent in developing intercultural and communication skills which are essential life skills.

Prof. Gary Spolander delivered a passionate critique of the pathways of socialisation examining youth in vulnerable contests. Gary’s paper explains in rich detail in the South African context and how vulnerability is perpetuated through poor access to education and support mechanisms. Over again, the papers focus on the intersectional factors which make tackling inequalities challenging and thus reiterate the need to fight for emancipatory education policies and critical pedagogic practice at all levels. The discussion also discusses policy and ethical collaboration with respect to working with CSOs.

Fabíola Xavier Leal discusses the contradictions inherent in social policy and education frameworks that do not consider the disadvantage and living conditions of the poor communities and the vulnerable environments that call for combined social and educational partnerships. She emphasised the need to utilise evidence-based research to illustrate the contradictions in practice. Drawing upon the work of critical pedagogies led by Freire she centralises the necessity of reflective practice.

Marize Lyra Silva Passos highlighted that 21st century learning requires the ability to use technology. In her chapter, she emphasis will be given to the use of technology in education and, in particular, technology associated with the use of digital resources and digital competences, which are fundamental components for the promotion of full education. 2TV celebrated the centenary of Paulo Freire (1986, 1996) argued that critical factors linked to structural oppression and hegemony contribute to social inequality, disempowering and isolating certain groups, for example young people, who can become trapped in cycles of powerlessness (Adefila, 2010). The workshop creatively interrogated the narratives and practices of targeted groups of young people, drawing upon their lived experiences, especially those utilising the power of education to disrupt the exploitative structures diminishing the well-being of the poorest youth groups in Espírito Santo, Brazil.

The workshop inspired transdisciplinary and transitional partnerships, the debate was very passionate and robust as we sought to gain insights into the different contexts and began to develop shared terminologies. The participants focussed on examining lived experiences and drawing thematic comparisons which emphasised how cycles of disadvantage are perpetuated through the precarious living conditions which ultimately lead many to the same pathways of socialisation. A lot of discussion focussed on the intersectionality between race, gender, poverty, and weak socio-educational policies

By mapping educational contexts in Brazil and the UK the discussion highlighted socialization processes. Several speakers outlined the alternative educational models for disrupting vulnerability which have been used in different context to empower communities. There was also a critique of Educational Technology whilst acknowledging its strengths.

References

ADEFILA, A. A. (2010). The Role of Voluntary Organisations in Developing the Capabilities of Vulnerable Young People. PhD thesis, University of Warwick. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3893/

IBGE, 2021. (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) Educação. Panorama por cidade. Available at: <https://cidades.ibge. gov.br/Brazil/mg/ouro-preto/panorama>

IBGE, 2018. (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). Educação. PNAD Contínua (Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua). Available at: <https://biblioteca.ibge.gov. br/visualizacao/livros/liv101736_informativo.pdf >

MÉSZÁROS, I. A educação para além do capital. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2005.

UNICEF. Global Nutrition Report The state of global nutrition, 2021. Available at: file:///Users/marialuciagarcia/Downloads/2021_ Global_Nutrition_Report.pdf

WORLD BANK. Sustaining Employment and Wage Gains in Brazil: A Skills and Jobs Agenda, 2015. Avaiable at: https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22545

WORLD BANK. Brazil – Country partnership framework for the period FY18 - FY23 (English). 2017. Avaiable at: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/148141498229092629/brazil-countrypartnership-framework-for-the-period-fy18-fy23

UNITY 1

EDUCATION, VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

PUBLIC POLICIES IN BRAZIL: CHALLENGES THAT QUESTION SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES

Eliza Bartolozzi Ferreira

This text presents a reflection on Brazilian education and the challenges to overcome the social, racial and gender inequalities that profoundly affect the educational process of the population enrolled at public schools. The argument revolves around the need for policies that are planned and implemented in an integrated way between the social areas (health, social welfare, psychological assistance, urban development etc.) as a mechanism to deal with the diverse problems experienced by the teaching staff and students within the country’s public institutions. It is important to stress that this is a preliminary reflection, based on part of the production developed in the field of educational policy, especially on studies discussing social and educational equity.

It is widely known that the fight against inequalities in Latin America and, particularly, in Brazil, features in our historical agenda. We fight on a daily basis to eradicate poverty, seeking to establish a fairer and more inclusive society. The existing plethora of inequalities in our society is demonstrably a structural problem associated to the dominant model of development in Brazil that has never been tackled properly even during periods of economic and democratic growth. In turn, the expansion of schooling observed since the 1990s in Brazil has not ensured a change in the panorama of educational inequality. Part of the literature in the field of education policy

denounces the massive scale in which the right to education was introduced in Brazil, reducing the education process to the interplay of market forces. This model clearly reinforces unequal treatment at school, portraying mechanisms that operate student discrimination under a rationale based on the equality of results.

School education is currently evoked by narratives of economic nature more aimed at concealing than revealing the complexity of the historical context and meaning of school. These narratives aggrandise the accelerated changes observed in technology and in the world of work, but, as noted by Biesta (2018), they are merely half-truths, as these changes cannot be understood as affecting all aspects of life of all persons on the planet. To the contrary, the issue of democracy, for example, should remain an issue in the future.

In the Brazilian context, we can state that the world of industry 4.0 has brought in enormous challenges for people and for education, where extreme poverty and vulnerability continue to be serious social issues, followed by education and its role in human qualification. Accordingly, the discourse of equality of results as a goal to be pursued by the education system is an excluding policy intention and, likewise, the ever present discourse of equality of chances now masked in other power technologies that seek to weaken the autonomy of the teaching staff and simplify the training process of students transformed into targets of learning and/or essential skills. The current Brazilian curricular policy embodies this approach through the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC).

Therefore, market forces infiltrate deeply into schools, explicitly illustrated in the New Public Management (NGP) that incorporates private sector techniques in teaching work, introducing diverse forms of remuneration according to employee performance while at the same time attempting to standardise (and control) teaching activities by means of external assessments. Added to this economic narrative, with the arrival of Jair Bolsonaro (2019) as president of the country, the Brazilian education system plunged into an ultraconservative wave that seeks to privatise values accentuating patriarchalism, racism, homophobia and all types of prejudice that

affect gender issues. These narratives leave the schools unprepared because they are directed towards an individualising and competitive project under the New Public Management.

What is currently happening is that the crisis brought about by the covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the social and educational inequalities, with the vulnerability cycle being fuelled by a diversity of devices while governments do nothing to dilute the wealth in the hands of a financially and politically powerful minority. The increasingly accentuated precariousness of teaching work and inequalities is a serious risk to democracy, implying that the fight for equal rights is essential for the exercise of citizenship. To this end, it is increasingly more necessary to implement policies that interweave educational issues with all the other social situations experienced by the students and their teachers.

The progressively more encompassing evidence of educational inequalities, combined with the conservative attacks on education work, require the endorsement of intersectoral policies orchestrated by public agents committed to overcoming the different problems that hinder the access, freedom and permanence, with quality, of students from low-income backgrounds in Brazilian schools. For such, the State’s role as coordinator of public policies is crucial. This text seeks to contribute to this debate. In the first session, we will present a brief summary of the education issue and various initiatives of implementation of intersectoral policies; in the second, we will address the severity of the problems that affect the education system during the pandemic scenario added to the historical social and educational inequalities.

Education and policies to address inequality

It is well known that in Brazil equality was never a guiding principle of its social rights when established in the 20th century. Out historical pathway has always been difficult and sinuous, as we emerged in the world as a colony and grew as a country under the grips of a strong social, racial and gender hierarchy. Our scant experience

of democratic governments are marked by what Florestan Fernandes (1979) coined as a restricted democracy. Social inequalities embody material, physical and symbolic violence of all kinds (gender, racial, class) are firmly imprinted in our country’s history.

Since the Federal Constitution of 1988 that pointed to the democratisation of schooling, we have not managed to significantly reduce inequalities either within or outside school. Nonetheless, important progress has certainly been made, such as the reorganisation of budgetary resources, the enlargement of schools and vacancies, the introduction of standard teaching staff remuneration, among others. However, the democratisation trajectory has proved to be much more a quantitative expansion of enrolment in unequal and impoverished school, with undervalued staff as a professional category. A structure to exercise the right to education in an equal manner has not been created (POCHMANN; FERREIRA, 2016).

We know that it is not sufficient to have/create schools in order to achieve more fairness. Everything depends on how the school is organised, what it does, which society the school serves, its underlying civilisational project, and, in turn, the role played by the teaching work and its social value in ensuring the teacher as an agent of social reproduction for an agent aware of contestation and critical thinking. As Mauricio Tragtemberg (1985) wrote about the ambiguity of the teacher’s duty, “the school is a contradictory space: therein, the teacher is a reproducer and exerts pressure as a questioner of the system when claiming”. Since then, these ambiguities present in teaching work have been further sharpened as a result of the centrality of the New Public Management that seeks to depoliticise the educational process, transforming political issues into technical and management issues following the global market perspective, aimed at fostering competitive values among the professionals and between the students. However, this extreme individualisation developed in the education process clearly leaves its mark on the problems experienced by those involved in view of the increased poverty and other iniquities present in the school environment.

The type of conservative modernisation project subordinate to neoliberal globalisation installed in the 1990s imprinted various forms of precarious conditions in teaching work in order to drive the professionals away from public ethics and towards market ethics. Various legal measures were endorsed by the educational systems that seek to move teachers away from their professional collective (such as, for example, the weakening of the position and salary plan, the institution of bonus schemes etc.) based on an education project centred on skills, with an hyper-individual accountability measured by external assessments. Teachers are increasingly held accountable for the students’ low level of performance, naturalising the conditions of inequality and ignoring other factors that interfere in education processes.

In Brazil, 4 out of every 10 teachers do not have a permanent employment contract with rights. What is commonplace throughout all the country’s education networks, to a larger or lesser extent, is the temporary nature of the work, part-time work, work not protected with rights and a series of other forms of work suggesting vulnerable contracts leading to insecure living conditions of those workers. These working conditions hinder their work among students from low-income backgrounds who very often can only count on the public school for access to food, care, physical and emotional security. Moreover, teacher training aims to develop teaching skills, but it is the social problems that are determinant and restrict the development of learning.

It is known that in order to ensure a higher quality of life and offer of basic public services, sector policies must be articulated. However, what is most observes is fragmented and/or isolated political action and, even worse, a lack of policy continuity when governments change. Generally, the disputes of power and knowledge give rise to the creation of impediments for the resolution and/or mitigation of inequalities. Therefore, a striking feature of social policies in Brazil is the absence of coordinated and integrated actions.

These factors are evident since the 1990s, with Brazil having public intervention instruments marked by the concentration of

resources intended for the more vulnerable population, by the transfer of part of public funds to the private sector and by the decentralisation of actions by means of a network of numerous programmes addressing social problems. Nevertheless, education policies have been especially significant, despite being contradictory and financially limited.

Considering the importance of the State in the supply of the right to education, it is important to highlight the experiences undergone during the democratic-popular governments that institutionalised various spaces of participation and exercise of rights for some of the Brazilian population. Among these institutional experiences, we can quote various policies that were implemented with a view to responding to society’s complaints.

Firstly, it is important to highlight the National Conference on Basic Education (2008) and the National Conference on Education (2010 and 2014), held during the democratic-popular governments (2003-2016), entailing the countrywide participation of education staff and the financial support to create that democratic space for discussion of education policies. These experiences confirmed the importance of the democratic State in the organisation of public spaces and the participation of the workers.

Constitutional Amendment 59/2009 embodied a significant education policy that instituted the right to education as mandatory for the population aged four to seventeen years old, and also enlarged the supplementary programmes for all stages of primary education. Not only was the legal aspect of the right to education enhanced during the Lula da Silva government (2003-2010), but also public expenditure, which practically tripled in real terms from 2005 to 2010, with 79% growth in just this five-year period. This was in contrast to what happened during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government (1995-2002), where it is estimated that federal expenditure on primary education was cut by about 10 billion reais because the honour its promise of supplementary funding (FERREIRA, 2020).

In addition to the increased funding of education from 2003, the discussions on education policies and their practical application

involved the participation of broader segments of society, different from period experienced in the 1990s, when that participation was restricted to a number of consultants generally linked to market interests, in addition to international bodies.

The Lula da Silva government created other instances illustrating the drive towards strengthening a series of specific policies for historically deprived social groups: the Secretariat for Continued Education, Literacy, Diversity and Inclusion (Secadi) was created in 2004; the Secretariat for Primary Education and the Department of Secondary School Policies were created in 2004, representing progress towards organising compulsory education as a whole; the National Secretariat of Policies for Women (SNPM) was created in 2003; the Secretariat of Policies for Promotion of Gender Equality was created in 2003. Furthermore, public education institutions played a crucial role in this context, as they cared for a significant population that gained access to education and other social benefits for the first time.

An exemplary experience that followed was the Quotas Law, an instrument created by the Federal Government to cover public school students from low-income backgrounds, black, mixed and indigenous (PPI) and disabled persons (PcD), assisting their enrolment in higher education. Published on 29 August 2012, the Quotas Law (Law 12.711) decreed that all federal higher education institutions should reserve at least 50% of the vacancies of each technical and graduation course to public school students. In the case of technical courses, it is required that the student’s entire primary schooling has been accomplished in the public network. For higher education courses, secondary education must be accomplished in public schools.

The access to higher education policies have managed to increase the participation of youth from low-income backgrounds in higher education. These democratisation policies are associated with affirmative actions, including the quotas and University for All Programme (ProUni), which have become part of the mandatory pathway to offset the poverty installed in the social framework of historically constituted profound inequalities. However, nothing indicates that we have implanted policies for equality of education,

as we observe that the inclusion of young people in basic and higher education is the result of policies constructed on the principle of legitimate inequality rather than on the principle of equal exercise of rights. This practice essentially consists of attempting to include a group of young people with social limitations in educational institutions that are structured in an unequal and excluding manner (POCHMANN; FERREIRA, 2016).

This idea can be identified in the inclusion policies that, in the case of Brazilian education, are implemented with low investment of public funds. This involves a concern centred on the inhibition of further social exclusion or on the recognition of a legitimate inequality, but bereft of policies that are organically planned between the different institutional spheres to ensure equality in the exercise of social rights. This practice is enormously harmful to the population enrolled at schools, as their structure and management has historically developed in an unequal and precarious form. Very often, in the same city, we find public schools operating in good buildings with facilities able to boost learning, but also others lacking the minimum conditions required to maintain and conduct teaching work (POCHMANN; FERREIRA, 2016, p. 1250).

Intersectoral policies were developed during the Lula (2003-2010) and Dilma Roussef (2011-2016) governments that sought to address the population at social risk, such as: “Family Grant”, created by the Lula government in 2004 – Law 10.836/04, is a direct income transfer programme that benefits families in situations of poverty and extreme poverty countrywide; the “More Doctors Programme”, created in 2013 by the Dilma government, aimed at remedying the lack of doctors in municipalities of the interior and outskirts of major cities of Brazil. Other programmes especially directed at education, such as: Programme to Support Federal University Restructuring and Expansion Plans (Reuni) and the quota system mentioned above.

Thus, it can be stated that during the period 2003-2014, Brazil had democratic-popular governments that sought to reduce poverty

and extreme poverty, as well as some social inequality indicators. This process was associated not only to a more favourable economic context, but also to a political atmosphere that was more committed to inclusion and the extension of social rights. Notwithstanding this social progress, an economic and political crisis evolved from 2015, weakening our fragile democracy and triggering regressive measures that were further exacerbated with the arrival of the covid-19 pandemic.

Inequalities in data

Brazilian society faced a major setback with the parliamentarymedia coup that ousted president Dilma Roussef, bringing vicepresident Michel Temer to power. After the coup in 2016, the policy scenario is one of regression; an attempt to privatise social values and the loss of the few rights that had been conquered. Education is subject to various types of attacks targeting teachers, coming from the extreme right that wished to impose the values of the white, heterosexual and patriarchal family, in addition to the slashing of financial resources that threatens the survival of Brazilian science. Many educational systems have progressively adopted programmed inspired by the “Non-partisan school” movement and militarisation of schools.

In this context of extreme inequality, the year of 2020 started with the health crisis due to the appearance of the novel virus causing covid-19, whose origin and impact on world health were as yet unknown. The pandemic continued in 2021, interfering in the social, economic and cultural routines of all populations worldwide, as social isolation was the strategy used to attempt to contain the spreading of the virus. Education was also required to reinvent itself in view of the social isolation. The pandemic imposed the urgency to establish reconfigurations of educational activities in the world.

In the case of education systems, both at the basic and higher level and in the various modalities, social isolation was indispensable. Each administrative sphere – federal, state and municipal – faced challenging times in the organisation of learning. In order to ensure the right to education and learning, teachers reinvented themselves

on a daily basis while constantly experiencing certainties and uncertainties in the teaching process.

The fact is that Brazil was the country that kept preschool and primary education without face-to-face classes for the longest time during the pandemic in 2020 among the nations analysed in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report published in September 2021. Schools were closed for 178 days in the country last year. And those schools were closed because the vast majority do not have structural/physical conditions to ensure the health safety of the workers and students. And the data indicate that little effort was made by the education systems to face this new reality that requires classrooms with a lower number of students and basic sanitation structures, toilets, showers etc. in suitable condition. According to the “Education at a Glance” (OECD, 2021) report, about two thirds of the member countries and partners of the OECD reported increased funding allocated to schools to help them deal with the crisis in 2020. However, compared to the previous year, Brazil did not report any change in the education budget for basic education in 2020 and 2021. To the contrary, many education systems spent less than the mandatory minimum at schools in 2020.

The “Education at a Glance” (OECD, 2021) report also highlighted the serious problem of gender inequality. Although women show a higher probability of having completed higher education than men in the country, they have less chance of being employed. In Brazil, 77% of women aged 25 to 34 years old with higher education were employed in 2018, compared to 85% of men. This difference was also observed for the OECD countries, with the average rates of employment being 80% for young women with higher education and 87% for men.

However, among people with lower schooling levels, the gender disparity in employment is higher. Only 35% of women aged 25 to 34 years old with schooling below secondary school were employed in 2018 in Brazil, compared to 69% of men. Apart from gender, race is another significant factor of division in the higher education sector in Brazil, where the percentage of white women completing

higher education is 2.3 times higher than among black or mixed race women, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics report on “Gender Statistics” (IBGE, 2020).

The OECD also highlights that the pandemic raised concerns about job prospects of young adults, especially at lower levels of education. In Brazil, the unemployment rate among youth aged 25 to 34 years old with schooling below secondary school was 17.8% in 2020, three percentage points higher than in the previous year. The increase was greater than for the OECD on average, in which youth unemployment was 15.1% in 2020, corresponding to an increase of two percentage points in relation to 2019.

Brazil currently has 212 million inhabitants of which about 150 million are adults, where only 33 million people are formally employed in the private sector. Added to the 11 million people employed in the public sector, this means we have 44 million people effectively placed within the system. The informal sector has about 40 million people who “get by”, plus 15 million currently unemployed due to the pandemic, implying that half of the country’s population is marginalised. The underuse of the labour force represents a major problem of Brazil’s development (OECD, 2021).

Among youngsters aged 15 to 19 years old, when many make the transition from school into the labour market, the percentage enrolled at school falls by more than 30% compared to youth aged 6 to 14 years old in Brazil. The percentage of youth aged 15 to 19 years old attending school in the Brazilian population is 69%, while the OECD average is 84%.

Regarding teaching staff working conditions in Brazil, when comparing the Brazilian minimum wage with the instituted initial remuneration for teachers of the final years of basic education of the OECD member and partner countries, we find that Brazil has the lowest legal initial remuneration for teaching careers among these countries. The average of the OECD member countries is 2.5 higher than the national minimum wage in Brazil.

The majority of Brazilian society acknowledges the existence of gender and racial inequalities. For example, research conducted by

Oxfam, between December 2020 and January 2021, reveals that 67% of the respondents agree that the fact of being a woman negatively affects income gained, and 76% believe that skin colour influences company hiring in Brazil.

The policies addressing current education problems in Brazil are often developed by organised social movements and other committed instances/association, but without the organising action of the State, these policies tend to exacerbate the fragmentation and their universalising potential.

Therefore, there is a pressing need for the interaction of social policies as a mechanism to respond to the plethora of inequalities interwoven in all aspects of our society, where school is a fundamental institution to help consolidate a common asset as its work could drive people to participate in the management of community affairs. However, considering the increasing insecurity of working conditions for teachers and the imprinted control based on competition between students, schools need an emancipatory political-teaching approach engaging professionals from other areas, such as health, welfare assistance, urban development, etc. to meet the needs of and care for the most vulnerable population.

Closing comments

In our current days, with the ultraconservative backlash of neoliberal nature (or the new neoliberalism) combined with the pandemic scenario, Brazilian education faces the age-old challenges posed by social and educational inequalities intermeshed with new problems arising from the closing of schools and virtualisation of education on platforms that are generally private, with many teachers and schools without access to equipment or to the internet. Thus, the digital exclusion of thousands of children and youngsters is added to the historical social inequality.

These scenarios are being experienced in the midst of onslaughts across schools and their professionals by a portion of civil and political society that aims to impose new more disciplinarian and

controlling conduct on the minds and bodies of the population. Projects are underway inspired by the non-partisan school movement, militarised schools and a curriculum bereft of the necessary knowledge to educate and train students, as they focus on narrow skills that downplay science and the teaching profession.

In this context of profound inequalities, we are experiencing the industry 4.0 transformations that could affect the most diverse sectors of our society in different ways, where the education debate is deeply implicated in this process. If is necessary to continuously debate this topic in the academic and teaching context, in order to prevent the inexorable progress of technologies from serving an argument to “uberise” and jeopardise education, submitting our teachers, students and workers of education to an order that tends to exacerbate inequalities.

There is a pressing need to strengthen public policies towards the articulation of education communities, based on locally produced knowledge and know-how and, in each area of knowledge, as devices coordinating more integrating goals that seek to assist persons living in the midst of complex web of material and symbolic violence.

Last, but not least, it is always good to voice a message of hope. Hence, nothing better than the champion of Brazilian education, Paulo Freire, who fought for the education of people. In 1979, Freire wrote: “As long as I fight, I am moved by hope; and if I fight with hope, then I can wait. Education does not transform the world. Education changes people. People transform the world” (FREIRE, 1979, p. 84).

References

BIESTA, G. O dever de resistir: sobre escolas, professores e sociedade. Educação. v. 41, n. 1. Porto Alegre, 2018. p. 21-29.

FERNANDES, F. A revolução burguesa no Brasil. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores, 1976.

FERREIRA, E. B. A consolidação do direito à educação como desafio para um Estado de Bem-Estar no Brasil. In: ABRAHÃO, J.; POCHMANN, M. (Orgs.). Brasil: estado de bem-estar social? Limites, possibilidades e desafios. Fundação Perseu Abramo, 2020, p. 501-522. Disponível: https://fpabramo.org.br/publicacoes/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2020/07/Brasil-Estado-Social-contra-aBarb%C3%A1rie-Capa.pdf

FERREIRA, E. B.; LIEVORE, S. E. Atual política neoliberal de militarização da escola pública no Brasil. Revista Temas em Educação, v. 29, n. 3, 2020.

FREIRE, P. Conscientização. São Paulo: Cortez e Moraes, 1979. IBGE. Gender data. Study and research. n. 38, 2020.

OECD. Education at a Glance. 2021. Available at: https://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b35a14e5en.pdf?expires=1638801500 &id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BFBD5DBFDE0C53AB70 AD474DF8080D8B

OXFAM. The inequality virus, 2021 Available at: https://www. oxfam.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/bp-the-inequality-virus POCHMANN, M.; FERREIRA, E. B. Educação & Sociedade. v. 37, n. 137, 2016. p. 1241-1267.

REZENDE, L. F. O que se planta se colhe: os entrelaces da Atlas Network com o movimento Escola sem Partido [What is sown is reaped: the interweaving of the Atlas Network with the NonPartisan School movement]. Dissertation (Master in Education) – Postgraduate Programme in Education, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2021.

SHARING EACH OTHER’S SHOES: WALKING AND TALKING INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Gary Spolander

Introduction

This paper is based on a reflexive autoethnographic approach of exploring my experience of working as a member of a collaborative research team. Within this chapter I have sought to use reflexivity to create descriptions, which are theoretically relevant (see for instance Karra & Phillips, 2008, p. 547), for a research group which has been actively engaged in the delivery of the Transforming Trajectories of Vulnerability Workshop (2TV) project. It is hoped that this reflection and the learning from the experience, as part of the international research project, would support the aims of objectives of 2TV, in which we sought to examine the challenges to transform practice in education and public policy for vulnerable communities in Brazil and the UK.

The process of reflexivity in collaborative research is a reasonably well-trodden path (see for instance Alvesson et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2009). The use of an autoethnographic approach has enabled me to utilise my personal experience and to engage systematic analysis of this experience to critically examine the patterns and rhythm of the research process (see for example Ellis et al., 2011; Hernandez et al., 2017). The combination of my own personal writing (Bruner, 1993; Rothman, 2007) along with my reflections were supportive

of my efforts to understand the values and meaning of cultures (in society and research teams). My focus on this occasion was on international research culture and the values and meaning that arose from the efforts of the team to achieve the promises made in the research bid (Kelly et al., 2020). This reflective experience is therefore informed by autobiography ethnography and autoethnography to enable a theoretically informed introspection. The global pandemic, with all the implications of social distancing, periodic lockdowns, precarious funding (which includes long-term uncertainty due to BREXIT) has challenged efforts to remain self-motivated, engaged with online research along with the struggle to continue being selfreflexive. Despite all of these challenges, this time also represented an important opportunity to continue be research active. While the restrictive research context and environment made collecting outside data enormously difficult, it also expanded opportunities for self-reflection. Consequently, we need to recognise

“... the researcher is as much a part of the social world as anyone else. In an important sense, therefore, the social world is as much “in here” as it is “out there”. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to us that the beginning of social inquiry can be the researcher’s own experiences and activities, and self-reflection upon these. After all, the first and most accessible thing for observation is yourself…” (Francis & Hester, 2012, p. 35).

This chapter has afforded me the opportunity and privilege to write about my self-reflection in order to understand my relationship with my colleagues on and in a research collaborative (Chang et al., 2013), but also required me to collaboratively and methodically gather and analyse systematically collective data on lived experiences. Rather than this reflective process only being linear, it relied on conversations, reflections and negotiations with my colleagues (Chang et al., 2013). Within the context of this work, this reflective process has been over a period of 2 years in duration, in part as we had an extension to the completion deadline due to the

pandemic. Especially as at the start, no one could have foreseen the global pandemic or its duration or toll on humanity.

This chapter therefore emerged from an online presentation made as part of the 2TV presentations at the Federal University of Espirito Santo in Vitoria, Brazil on 9 November 2021. Through the group of researcher presentations, we sought to share our experiences of working together with and for early-stage UK and Brazilian researchers, as part of a broader conversation of supporting their careers in developing future international research and collaborations. It was also clear that both countries participating in this project were also experiencing the impact of austerity, Brexit (the UK) and the COVID-19 pandemic. As a research team, we have collectively had both positive and negative experiences of research collaboration, an experience that we have found to be all too common from anecdotal conversations with colleagues, although rarely discussed in the peer reviewed literature. It is important to acknowledge that the international collaboration was undertaken, at least for the last proportion of its delivery, through the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic has had an inevitable disruption to research globally, given its global nature and that the severity of the public action taken to address the health concerns. These state and policy decisions also impacted on individual’s researchers personal and professional lives, their health, due to social distance requirements, travel restrictions and the institutional pressures to continue to meet student and staff needs, within an increasingly marketised system of higher education. Consequently, despite the enormous challenges, authors such as Cornwall (2020) have proffered that the pandemic also offered a unique opportunity to record people’s experiences and use qualitative frameworks, along with the use of methodologies to collect qualitative data from distance (Taster, 2020).

The collective research process was undertaken as part of the Transforming Trajectories of Vulnerability Workshop (2TV) project, supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) under Capes Print Grant (number 88881.311890/2018-01). Other funding included the

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (project number 408288/2018-3) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e inovação do Espírito Santo [Fapes] (307/2020). This successful bid was the culmination of a long process of research collaboration partnership and working together by the core members of the working group. As a result, this chapter explores the experience of the research process through reflection, recognising that most collaborative research literature when exploring project dynamics often address the relationships with funding organisations (Katz & Martin, 1997), rather than being inwardly focussed. Research teams are mostly often externally focussed on their efforts to understand relationships and interactions of what is being studied, rather than being inwardly focussed on their own collaborative dynamics. The team’s processes and the relationship between the researchers are often therefore deprioritised or completely absent in discussion of research process. So too we should recognise that the inward focus on process and relationships are crucial as it influences how research is framed, shaped along with the results of its production (WrayBliss, 2003). It is therefore surprising that less attention has been given to these aspects of the research process, especially given the tendency for published work to reflect on the indicators of research success rather than process.

International research and context

The context of international research is that it is often linked to the process of educational globalisation and increasingly marketisation, an area that the research team had considerable critical interest (Savaya & Gardner, 2012). For many researchers their employment context and reality is that their higher educational institution may symbolise the spirit of the neoliberal university, with for instance UK practices of workforce casualisation, privatisation, competition and challenging financial environments (Amsler & Canaan, 2008; Ball, 2015a, 2015b; Canaan & Shumar, 2008). Educational marketisation has been a key policy driver for many high income countries, with the

pressure for internationalisation activity being a result of neoliberal policy and market-bordered research rivalry (Kim, 2009). Besides the marketisation drivers, policy makers and academic funders have supported international collaboration, with the belief that the impact of research will improve, advance skills and result in better publications (Jeong et al., 2011). Consequently we need to recognise that neoliberalism is “in here” as well as “out there” (Peck, 2003). So too, many scholars have felt encouraged and cajoled to participate in international collaborative research (Brew et al., 2013), although in our case the core researchers had worked together for some time prior to this project and have been careful to ensure that any early career researcher participants don’t feel pressurised to participate. Participation is therefore voluntary.

There has also been a dramatic increase in academic partnership (Ellis & Zhan, 2011) in recent years. Consequently, most original research published is undertaken by multiple authors (Whitfield, 2008). However, despite this encouragement to undertake international research, there has been little published about what constitutes successful research collaboration. Ball (2015a) highlights that these structural factors also influence how scholars seek to manage personal, professional and employment conflict, recognising that universities constraints are also a result of capitalism, along with inconsistency between regulation, policy and academic remit (Ball, 2012).

Spolander et al., (2016) identify that international research is expensive, time consuming and consequently involves considerable anxiety for both individuals and their employing institutions regarding delivery and reputations. These factors while not always verbalised, often link to the structures and constraints identified through marketisation and the resulting managerialism implemented within higher educational institutions. It was clear within this consortium, that the challenge was of delivering substantial tangible benefits for early-stage career researchers in the UK and in Brazil, but of doing this on a reduced budget, while seeking to ensure principles of equity of access for participants. However, it was clear that international research collaboration was often complex, involved structures which

surround us as researchers, thus creating both opportunities and constraints. So too, as we were exploring of ideas of mutual interest, a common commitment resonated. It goes without saying that the most obvious challenges are often language and cultural differences, which require researchers to continually work on understanding underpinning theory, ideology, culture (national and organisational), research processes and world views. These often required several to long with protracted discussions, questioning common and technical language codes and meanings (Spolander et al., 2016). Our team needed to return to these discussions, time after time, to clarify, debate and challenge models and ideas. This should not be seen as problematic, but rather the process of international collaborative research. Within our team, while we only had only two key languages, Brazilian Portuguese and English, the team also comprised researchers whose birth origins also went beyond the Brazil and the UK to include several countries in Africa, and Europe. As a team, we recognised the constant challenge and temptation to revert to comparative models of analysis to address complexity, rather than exploring and managing the complexity of different theoretical models.

International collaboration: institutional vs professional interest

At the institutional level, scholars often face pressure to engage in academic partnerships, to meet promotion and tenure requirements of their employers (Petry & Kerr, 1982). International research is also seen, by some, as a method to develop innovative solutions at a high standard through academic partnerships (Mohrman & Lawler, 2011; Peterson, 2001) as well as to attract established and high calibre researchers (Rynes, 2011). The importance of research collaboration for academics and higher education institutions has been underlined by institutional strategic plans, as well as professional initiatives to expand international collaboration (Nadkarni, 2013; Yunong & Xiong, 2012). Rambur (2009, p. 82) highlights that literature on research collaboration identifies three categories namely: conceptual

work, use of case studies to develop models and thematic partnerships. Additionally, five types of collaboration were identified by Rambur (2009) along a scale of increasing academic risk, growing human factors and the corresponding costs of collaboration along with time required to generate research outputs. All of types in turn aids in mapping the ‘asymmetrical’ factors which contribute to increased complexity and time to research outputs. This framework is mapped on a graph of two axis’s, which highlights that as the complexity of the interface increases, so the time to produce academic outputs increases, with the five collaboration types requiring increased levels of negotiation between institutions and researchers (Rambur, 2009). Within Rambur’s model as complexity increased, so did the potential for human psychological and physiological challenges and strains (Angela Brew et al., 2013). Thus, Brew et al., (2013) proposed that use of Rambur’s (2009) model enabled their research collaborative group to map their development and structure. They then also used the work of Archer (2007) on reflexivity, to identify and map the opportunities for personal growth, noting that individual researchers also sought to mediate the structures of the project process. Our inter-disciplinary team comprised the disciplines of social work, education, economics and business, requiring inter-disciplinary dialogue, with the process of supportive challenge enabling a useful and safe space for discussions, the sharing of ideas, along with the challenging of those ideas and ontological perspectives.

Facing both ways: towards teaching and research

Teaching loads and administrative pressure increases have both stimulated and constrained research collaborations (Belanger & Bockman, 1994), while others have also identified this type of collaboration to be more intellectually stimulating (Thomas et al., 2009). So too all members of our collaborative also undertook teaching in addition to work on this and other projects. Others, (see for instance Lee & Bozeman, 2005), have argued that when author numbers on papers are considered, collaboration doesn’t

always equate to high levels of productivity and therefore suggest it is important to conceptualise individual and environmental factors which support the achievements of this collaboration. However, as already outlined the complexity of the ideas being discussed are also an important and often poorly recognised factor. For our collaboration we have to date produced 13 papers which have either been published or are under review, six of which include early career researchers. The aspiration is that all papers would be submitted to high-ranking journals. We have one paper that we have spent two years writing and rewriting following reviews and once again is now nearing a revised completion submission, but it deals with sociopolitical sensitivities, mirroring Rambur’s model.

English language journals often predominate in rankings or international universities strategic consideration of high-profile dissemination opportunities (Lillis & Curry, 2010). It has been estimated that the prevalence of English in academic journals was between 75-90%, depending on discipline (Deng, 2015; van Weijen, 2012) which mirrors the global migration of students and scholars. For colleagues whose first language is not English, or even if their first language is English, the competitive nature of these journals and the different international requirements make this process difficult. This often requires new skills in writing for this audience, along with needing to write shorter papers than are the norm for instance in Latin America. So too, the tradition of limited word length in English language journals of 4-6,000 words may sit at odds with the tradition in some Latin American journals where papers may be 10-20,000 words in length. Writing shorter pieces in a language which is not your mother tongue provides a substantial challenge, along with confidence. Not publishing in English, may also for some scholars, come at the cost of those publications not being recognised for promotion or being unable to receive research funding (Queiroz de Barros, 2014). So too English provides an important role in the creation of bibliometrics, which is used to evaluate knowledge production of scholars (Bardi & Muresan, 2014).

Reality bites

Once project funding is awarded and the initial euphoria has ended, the need to establish the partnership commences, with our project being no different. The excitement of the creative bid process is almost immediately replaced with the anxiety of project organisation, operationalisation, and delivery. The successful bid has normally already resulted in the institutional agreement to undertake the project as a consortium, but crucial is the human element and the importance of a shared vision. It is important to recognise that this partnership was initially imagined as a collaboration, which was seeking to achieve something that we are as partners either could not do alone or that we believed would be strengthened by a collective approach (see for instance Long & Arnold, 1995). Initiation, despite the core members having worked together previously, was undertaken through the start of multiple shared conversations which started this new collaboration in which it helped to set initial expectations, an opportunity to share values and goals, and seek group and individual commitments. However, this crucial element of the process of walking together needs constant reaffirmation. Engelbrecht et al., (2014) noted that project groups often transition through five stages (forming, norming, storing, performing, and adjourning) and while these do not always work in sequence, they often comprised necessary stages of collaboration, even though we as a team did not always acknowledge them at the time.

Team Processes

Once the project commenced, the hard work of sustaining the progress of the project, along with skills sharing sought to encourage one another and sustain the partnership. This sustaining process (storming and performing) extended beyond ensuring that the project tasks are being delivered, but also reaffirming commitment to the collective, the aims of the project and our personal commitment to the overall aims of the project, each other and our initial aims.

This included supportive challenge throughout the life of the team to members of the collective regarding their commitment and obligations to the group, and at the extreme perhaps consideration of whether the partnership should be widened or changed to engage new skills and address challenges. As part of my reflection, I recognised that for some colleagues the institutional prestige of participating in an international collaboration may be personally challenged by their own institutional pressures. This was especially once individuals leave the immediacy of the collaborative team space or the collective place of project meetings to the return to the reality of their day jobs, along with its pressures for delivery and institutional life. This proved to be a testing time for both individuals and for the international research collective, amplifying the challenges and importance of communication, culture, language, and personal experience. Furthermore, should the challenge of nonperformance or poor performance of colleagues arise, the teams trusting relationship and openness of communication could be severely challenged, requiring a reaffirmation of collective values through personal responsibility, open communication and shared decision making. The challenge being that successful collegiate working, requires considerable personal commitment, along with at times testing levels of trust within and between the team and employers, and managing anxiety related to potential reputational loss through individual, team or institutional failure. It was equally important to recognise that partnerships also change over time, with partnership evaluation offering a mechanism to re-evaluate the opportunities for team sustainability beyond the project.

Conflict resolution is never a simple process, but the challenge of culture, language, distance and communication often make this more difficult, with challenges regarding the binary positions of individual accord and group conformity, which might involve difficult challenges about personal interests. Given our geographical spread and lack of opportunity for sustained meeting before the pandemic, as a team we were already extensively working online before the full impact of social distancing and enforced travel restrictions made an impact.

Consequently, we are unaware of any performance change between the pre-pandemic and pandemic reality of research collaboration as identified in some other teams (see for instance Klonek et al., 2021).

Important was also a collective approach to self and team management, which was negotiated on an equal basis between team members based on workloads, skills required often through a combination of formal and informal discussion, with team members volunteering and being supported by colleagues. Therefore, our approach was based on mutual trust and commitment meant that as a collective the group addressed opportunities and challenges collectively, with little interpersonal conflict. Academic collaboration traditionally often differs from the experience of corporate teamwork in that sector, due to the tendency in academic teams for researchers to be independent self-governing thinkers (Busse & Mansfield, 1984), although they may also be problematic to manage (Stephan & Levin, 1992) unless team styles recognise and ensure that attention is given to both interpersonal and team dynamics, as well as the tasks at hand.

Qualitative vs quantitative research

As a team we have been able to undertake both qualitative and quantitative research throughout our collaboration. Work was undertaken with local partners commissioned to collect primary data, the analysis of secondary data as part of our challenge to address the aims of the project.

The use of qualitative methodology was also important given the emphasis, importance and range of research processes which vary globally. In this regard, quantitative techniques are often more highly valued in some lower- and middle-income countries, while as a team we also used qualitative research. The importance of qualitative being that it offers the opportunity to enable those without voice i.e. those in precarious living conditions, to amplify their voice (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007, p. 10; Rothman, 2007, p. 12).

Walking with colleagues

An important consideration in working together was the level of professional and personal trust with was developed and maintained between researchers. In this regard a trusting relationship has described as

“one into which actor enter in order to realize benefits which would otherwise not be available to them. They do so in the knowledge that this increases their vulnerability to other actors whose behavior they do not control, with potentially negative consequences to themselves” (Ruzicka & Wheeler, 2010, p. 70).

In retrospect, while we as a team frequently shared and talked about the experience and impact of working as academics throughout the pandemic on ourselves, colleagues, families and institutions, the team largely appeared to manage the demands and additional pressure placed on individuals remarkably well. Indeed authors such as Roy & Uekusa (2020) have highlighted the challenge within extreme contexts, for instance the current global pandemic has resulted in many mental health concerns including that of anxiety, stress, depression, loneliness and disconnection. It should be noted that this was widespread in the population, including academia. It was therefore important for us as researchers to be aware of which of our colleagues require help and what additional coping supports might be used to support them. However, the collective and shared network arrangement of leadership and trust within the team, seemed to offer a form of protection, along with a safe space for individual team members to reflect collectively on our experiences and challenges. This provided space for us to challenge, explore and recognise the differences in socio-economic, political and historical context and resulting difficulties between Brazil and the UK and how this might help us to support one another. This underlined the importance of personal relationships as being an essential part of any partnership (Breslin et al., 2011), although insufficient acknowledgement is often given to this important

factor. As outlined earlier, communication and the exploration of ideas, ontology, language, culture and perspectives was an important factor in collaboration, with miscommunication being a persistent potential challenge for partnership failure (Ross, 2012).

Dissemination

Our experience as core researchers has been that any international collaborative research project requires the selection of the “right” collaborators. However, what is “right” depends on achievement of project requirements and which included support and creating opportunities for early career researchers. Consequently, there are several aspects of what might result in failure or success in any collaboration, some of which may relate to members perceptions of other members contributions in areas such as time.

The sharing of knowledge and understanding is often best undertaken through the development of artefacts which support the sharing of knowledge (Engelbrecht et al., 2014). These comprise co-created individual & team understanding, knowledge and perspectives which find form in some form of repository artefact. This can be shared through writing, presentations or creative tools which can then be shared and disseminated both within and with a wider audience and this highlights importance of successful writing team as part of a dissemination strategy.

The future

We will continue to work together both as a core group of researchers, seeking opportunities to work alongside early-stage career researchers to develop capacity, capability, and legacy. However, as discussed earlier the involvement of new members is a challenging process requiring the consideration of team dynamics, skill mix, career development opportunities, and mentoring capacity. For the core members, we have developed a community of practice which transcends our individual professional disciplines, and which provides us with an opportunity

to reflect of social challenges and seek to undertake novel research to enable change and debate with policy makers and society.

Almost inevitably this also requires the continued application for and receipt of research funds to enable travel and time to meet, explore and evaluate. Within these opportunities we can create opportunities to strengthen and maintain commitment to each other and undertake further work to develop critical models of international research.

We are committed to the on-going challenge of seeking funding, most often to include countries which are sometimes not the focus on mainstream funding sources i.e., Cuba. We have sought less formally to include Cuban colleagues but have found for political & economic reasons their formal inclusion has more challenging, despite the uniqueness and importance of its voice in international research collaboration regarding human and social development.

References

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C. & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480–501.

Amsler, S., & Canaan, J. (2008). Whither critical education in the neoliberal university? Two practitioners’ reflections on constraints and possibilities. 1(2), 1–31. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/ detail/subjects/csap/eliss/1-2-Whither_critical_pedagogy

Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge University Press.

Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, Commodification and Commitment: An I-Spy Guide to the Neoliberal University. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/000710 05.2011.650940

Ball, S. J. (2015a). Living the Neo-liberal University. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12132

Ball, S. J. (2015b). Subjectivity as a site of struggle: refusing neoliberalism? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5692(July), 1–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01425692.2015.1044072

Bardi, M., & Muresan, L. (2014). Changing research writing practices in Romania: Perceptions and attitudes . In K. Bennett (Ed.), The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourse, Communities and Practices (pp. 121–147). Palgrave Macmillan.

Belanger, K., & Bockman, E. B. (1994). Writing our way into a discourse community. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 57(1), 55–57.

Breslin, E., Stefl, M., Yarbrough, S., Frazor, D., Bullard, K., Light, K. & Lowe, A. (2011). Creating and sustaining academic-practice partnerships: Lessons learned. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.08.008

Brew, A., Boud, D., Lucas, L., & Crawford, K. (2013). Reflexive deliberation in international research collaboration: Minimising risk and maximising opportunity. Higher Education, 66(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9592-6

Bruner, J. (1993). No Title. In R. Folkenflik (Ed.), The culture of autobiography: Constructions of self- representation (pp. 38–56). Stanford University Press.

Busse, T. V. & Mansfield, R. S. (1984). Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists. Journal of Psychology, 116, 117–131.

Canaan, J. E. & Shumar, W. (Eds.). (2008). Structure and agency in the neoliberal university. Routledge.

Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. & Hernandez, K. C. (2013). Collaborative Autoethnography. Left Coast Press.

Deng, B. (2015). English is the language of science. http://www.slate. com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/english_is_the_ language_of_ science_u_s_dominance_means_other_scientists.html

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E. & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Forum: Qualitative Collaborative Social Research, 12(1), 10.

Ellis, P. D. & Zhan, G. (2011). How international are the international business journals? International Business Review, 20, 100–112.

Engelbrecht, L., Spolander, G., Martin, L., Strydom, M., Adaikalam, F., Marjanen, P., Pervova, I., Sicora, a. & Tani, P. (2014). Reflections on a process model for international research collaboration in social work. International Social Work, 1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020872814531305

Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2012). An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Social Interaction. Sage Publications.

Hernandez, K. C., Chang, H., & Ngunjiri, F. W. (2017). Collaborative autoethnography as multivocal, relational, and democratic research: opportunities, challenges, and aspirations. A/b Auto/ Biography Studies, 32(2), 251–254.

Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89, 967–983.

Karra, N. & Phillips, N. (2008). Researching “Back Home”: Inter- national management research as autoethnography. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 541–561.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00487333%2896%2900917-1

Kelly, N., Doyle, J., & Parker, M. (2020). Methods for assessing higher education research team collaboration: comparing research outputs and participant perceptions across four collaborative research teams. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1676199

Kim, T. (2009). Transnational academic mobility, internationalization and interculturality in higher education. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903371241

Klonek, F. E., Kanse, L., Wee, S., Runneboom, C., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Did the COVID-19 Lock-Down Make Us Better at Working in Virtual Teams? Small Group Research, 1–22. https://doi. org/10.1177/10464964211008991

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact ofresearch collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/25046667

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. Routledge.

Long, F., & Arnold, M. (1995). The power of environmental partnerships. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Mohrman, S. A. & Lawler, E. E. (2011). No Title. In S. A. Mohrman & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful Research (pp. 407–418). Berett-Koehler Publishers.

Nadkarni, V. V. (2013). International Social Work achievement. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020872812473061

Peck, J. (2003). Geography and public policy: Mapping the penal state. Progress in Human Geography, 27(2), 222–32.

Peterson, M. F. (2001). International collaboration in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 59–81.

Petry, G. H. & Kerr, H. S. (1982). Pressure to publish increases the incidence of co-authorship. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 495.

Queiroz de Barros, R. (2014). No Title. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourse, Communities and Practices (pp. 105–147). Palgrave Macmillan.

Rambur, B. (2009). No Title. In A. Brew & L. Lucas (Eds.), In Academic research and researchers (pp. 80–95). Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.

Ross, S. R. (2012). Expanding the pie. Stylus.

Rothman, B. K. (2007). Writing ourselves in sociology. Methodological Innovations, 2(1), 11–16.

Roy, R. & Uekusa, S. (2020). Collaborative autoethnography: “selfreflection” as a timely alternative research approach during the global pandemic. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(4), 383–392. https://doi. org/10.1108/QRJ-06-2020-0054

Ruzicka, J. & Wheeler, N. (2010). The puzzle of trusting relationships in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. International Affairs, 86(1), 69–85.

Rynes, S. L. (2011). No Title. In S. A. Mohrman & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful Research (pp. 351–364). Berett-Koehler Publishers.

Savaya, R. & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection to identify gaps between espoused theory and theory-in-use. Social Work (United States), 57(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws037

Spolander, G., Garcia Teixeira, M. L. & Penalva, C. (2016). Reflections and challenges of international social work research. Critical and Radical Social Work, 4(2), 169–183.

Stephan, P. & Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place and time. Oxford University Press.

Taster, M. (2020). No Title. Editorial: Social Science in a Time of Social Distancing. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/03/ 23/editorial-social-science-in-a-time-of-social-distancing/

Thomas, R., Tienari, J., Davies, A. & Meriläinen, S. (2009). Let’s talk about ‘us’. A reflexive account of a cross-cultural research collaboration. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 313–324.

van Weijen, D. (2012). The language of (future) scientific communication. Research Trends 31. https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31november-2012/thelanguage-of-future-scientific-communication/

Whitfield, J. (2008). Collaboration: Group theory. Nature, 455, 720–723.

Wray-Bliss, E. (2003). Research subjects/research subjections: Exploring the ethics and politics of critical research. Organization, 10(2), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508403010002007

Yunong, H. & Xiong, Z. (2012). Further discussion of indigenization in social work: A response to Gray and Coates. International Social Work, 55(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872811406893

Next Article

Katherine Winpenny

More articles from this publication:

Katherine Winpenny

Talita Prada

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND SOCIO-EDUCATION IN AN OPEN ENVIRONMENT Luciana Gomes de Lima Jacques Beatriz Gershenson

Marize Lyra Silva Passos

ABOUT AUTHORS

Maria Lúcia T. Garcia

Pavithra Wickramasuriya

Efe Imiren

Pollyanna Labeta Iack

This article is from:

Transforming Trajectories of Vulnerability