Sport participation has been associated with positive outcomes beyond physical health, such as increased social capital and mental wellbeing. Unfortunately, groups at risk of exclusion from society are typically also excluded from sports participation and hence are unlikely to benefit from these positive outcomes. Community sport programmes and “sport social work practices” aim to combat social exclusion by offering activities tailored to the needs and wishes of people in socially disadvantaged positions. However, the body of knowledge on the impact evaluation of these programmes and practices is not very extensive.

Better knowledge of the impact of community sport programs and sport social work practices would not only benefit the design of these programs and practices but also render long-term funding legitimate as policymakers and other investors prefer to invest in programs and practices that have been proven effective. Yet, conducting an impact evaluation is challenging. A randomised controlled trial, the golden standard in evidence-based medicine, does not suit the real-life context of what can be considered a “complex social intervention.” So what then is the best research design to use? Furthermore, given the wide range of possible outcomes at the individual as well as community level, what outcome indicator(s) should we choose? Finally, considering capacity constraints in community work, there is a need for pragmatic approaches in evaluating impact.

For this thematic issue, we invite scholars and sport/social workers around the world to submit papers that increase our insight into the impact of community sport programs and sport social work practices as well as research papers that contribute to the practice of conducting an impact evaluation within this context.

Social contexts highly structure individual chances for favorable outcomes in education and employment. For young people, such contexts can facilitate or complicate their educational pathways and achievements, transitions from school to work, or early career outcomes. Thus, the trajectories of some school leavers may not always be linear but also involve interruptions. This finding is even more significant because early (dis)continuities can yield cumulative (dis)advantages for employment trajectories and are thus pertinent for individual social positioning across the life course. Therefore, it is important for researchers and policymakers to examine the process of young people’s access to and placement in the education and employment system and identify the contextual factors that promote, impede, or prevent successful transitions and pathways.

The main theme of the thematic issue is the importance of contextual characteristics for the transition and pathways of adolescents and young adults to education and employment, and thus for the role of context in the reproduction of social inequalities at career entry. Contextual characteristics can be manifold and relevant at different levels, e.g., national, spatial, organizational, institutional, or social, and their influence can be channeled through different social processes. Our aim is to bring together researchers from different disciplines and research areas to study contextual social processes and their consequences for transitions and pathways into and through education and employment.

The editors invite (interdisciplinary) qualitative and quantitative empirical contributions focusing on the role of spatial (e.g., countries, regions, infrastructure), organizational (e.g., companies, associations), or institutional (e.g., schools, education systems, policies) contexts, or social groups and networks (e.g., family, peers) for one or more of the following themes:

• Educational transitions
• School-to-work transitions
• Inclusion and integration in the education and employment system
• Transitions and pathways at career entry
• Social positioning in the labor market

Accessibility as a policy objective can be considered both the “cornerstone” and “Achilles heel” of current welfare services. It also causes challenges for various vulnerable groups in Western societies. The proposed thematic issue aims to study and reflect critically upon accessibility intertwined with integration and human rights in the contexts of welfare systems, services, practices, and communities, such as self-help groups, social clubs, and food aid organizations. It invites contributions of system-level analysis as well as examinations of everyday encounters and experiences, both from professionals’ and service users’ perspectives. Furthermore, theoretical, policy-oriented, and historical papers on the topic are welcomed.

Accessibility means that services should be easily accessible to all the people who need them regarding the physical environment, transportation, information, and public facilities and services (United Nations, 2007). The services, their contents, and aims should be understandable, acceptable, easy-to-find, and available to everyone so that individuals are treated equally and human rights are respected. Accessibility is often associated with digital services, but it is relevant to all services and information regarding, for example, opening hours, geographical distances, service fees, and the time frame for getting an appointment. Service users’ previous experiences of treatment play a major role in help-seeking and engagement with services. Accessibility is in practice negotiated and constructed at the grassroots level in practitioner–service user interaction. Access is negotiated, accepted, or denied at the intersection of institutional intake criteria and resources as well as personal needs, wants, and problem formulations. Partly due to the multidimensionality of the concepts, the research is quite fragmented and spread across different fields of research. Accessibility has been studied by focusing on many parallel and closely related discussions, such as help-seeking and service choices (Fargion et al., 2019), which are also relevant to this thematic issue. The overlap between help-seeking, service choices, and accessibility is indicated, for example, when a person recognizes that they need help but decides not to apply for any services or help and, as a result, is consequently excluded from services and communities.

The integration of services and multi-professional collaboration is closely connected to accessibility. The relation between accessibility and integration is multifaceted: Service integration may advance accessibility, but it can also be approached as a result of the successful entry process of service systems, professional practices, and communities. Thus, the concept of accessibility includes the idea of integration with services, communities, and access to citizenship with rights.

Accessibility is also strongly intertwined with the protection of human rights and equality and their actualization among people in vulnerable life situations. Nonetheless, access is often negotiated according to expectations of who is seen as eligible and acknowledged for social support, benefits, and aid (see, e.g., Casas, 2007; Clarke, 2004; Fargion et al., 2019). The requirement of accessibility is complicated because of the different “gatekeeping” and “exclusion mechanisms,” which can be purposely built into service systems to curb and control demand. In that case, the goal of welfare systems is that the “right” and “eligible” service users find the services. Hence, various ethical considerations are embedded in managing and enabling accessibility. Endeavours to advance accessibility are often realized, for instance, in low-threshold services and outreach and mobile work that aims to reach “hard-to-reach,” isolated people and build a relationship of trust with them (Clarke, 2004; Cortis, 2012; Grymonprez et al., 2017).

This thematic issue welcomes studies that address accessibility, for instance, in various population groups interpreted as vulnerable, such as immigrants (Fauk et al., 2021), sexual and gender minorities (McIntyre et al., 2011), people experiencing mental health and substance use challenges (Neale et al., 2008), elderly people (Zechner & Valokivi, 2012), people with disabilities (Casas, 2007), or people experiencing homelessness (McWilliams et al., 2022). Difficulties related to accessibility make visible and acknowledge the diversity, special needs, different statuses, and power relations among people and groups. Instead of accessibility, inaccessibility is often perceived, which is associated with “gatekeeping,” abuse, social exclusion, and turning people away from services, benefits, and communities.

References

Casas, I. (2007). Social exclusion and the disabled: An accessibility approach. The Professional Geographer, 59(4), 463–477.

Clarke, J. (2004). Access for all? The promise and problems of universalism. Social Work and Society, 2(2), 216–224.

Cortis, N. (2012). Overlooked and under‐served? Promoting service use and engagement among “hard‐to‐reach” populations. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(4), 351–360.

Fargion, S., Nagy, A., & Berger, E. (2019). Access to social services as a rite of integration: Power, rights, and identity. Social Policy & Administration, 53(5), 627–640.

Fauk, N. K., Ziersch, A., Gesesew, H., Ward, P., Green, E., Oudih, E., Tahir, R., & Mwanri, L. (2021). Migrants and service providers’ perspectives of barriers to accessing mental health services in South Australia: A case of African migrants with a refugee background in South Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178906

Grymonprez, H., Roose, R., & Roets, G. (2017). Outreach social work: From managing access to practices of accessibility. European Journal of Social Work, 20(4), 461–471.

McIntyre, J., Daley, A., Rutherford, K., & Ross, L. E. (2011). Systems-level barriers in accessing supportive mental health services for sexual and gender minorities: Insights from the provider’s perspective. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 30(2), 173–186.

McWilliams, L., Paisi, M., Middleton, S., Shawe, J., Thornton, A., Larkin, M., Taylor, J., & Currie, J. (2022). Scoping review: Scope of practice of nurse-led services access to care for people experiencing homelessness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(11), 3587–3606.

Neale, J., Tompkins, C., & Sheard, L. (2008). Barriers to accessing generic health and social care services: A qualitative study of injecting drug users. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(2), 147–154.

United Nations. (2007). Accessibility: A guiding principle of the Convention 2007. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disacc.htm

Zechner, M., & Valokivi, Heli (2012). Negotiating care in the context of Finnish and Italian elder care policies. European Journal of Ageing, 9(2), 131–140.

Over the last few decades, polarization has been increasing in numerous societies worldwide (McCoy et al., 2018; Phillips, 2022; Reiljan, 2019), particularly in those with high unemployment and income equality (Gidron et al., 2019). These divides have increased hostility and distance among groups defined by partisanship, political identities, or religious beliefs (Balcells & Kuo, 2022; Hobolt et al., 2021). However, as cultural issues are increasingly aligned with these identities (“culture wars”; DellaPosta et al., 2015), polarization does not only stay in the political realm but spills over to social groups more generally, defined by ethnicity, social class, religion, gender, and sexual identities (Castle, 2018). Consequently, polarization may lead to lower mutual understanding, tolerance, intergroup contact, and cooperation. Polarization raises serious societal and political challenges such as hate speech and violence (Suarez Estrada et al., 2022), the ineffective addressing of societal challenges, and democratic backsliding (Orhan, 2021).

Despite extensive research on polarization, intergroup conflict, intolerance (Verkuyten, 2023), and interventions aimed at decreasing affective polarization (Huddy & Yair, 2021; Levendusky, 2018; Voelkel et al., 2022), there has been limited examination of the role of social norms in regulating negative sentiment among social groups (Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; Meleady, 2021), stimulating the willingness to interact with people one disagrees with, potentially mitigating the harmful effects of polarization. This thematic issue aims to bridge this gap by investigating how the transmission of—and conformity to—social norms can help increase tolerance, foster willingness to interact and collaborate with other social groups in polarized contexts, and if and how they can decrease polarization.

We invite authors worldwide to contribute with articles that analyze the significance of norms in stimulating respectful intergroup contact and fostering depolarization. Questions authors may address include, but are not limited to:

• Which social norms do individuals adhere to when interacting or collaborating with people from different social groups or of opposing partisanship or ideas?
• Which social norms can be identified that can effectively depolarize communities, regulate negative intergroup sentiment, or stimulate respectful interaction and collaboration among opposing or different social groups?
• What are the boundary conditions under which these norms are adopted, contested, or enforced?
• How can such norms be strengthened, in general or for specific groups?
• Does the adoption of these norms vary across countries or social groups?
• How are they transmitted, enforced, or contested via social networks, and what network features lead to more efficient norm transmission?
• How is youth socialized (e.g., by their parents, in school classes) in adopting social norms that enhance or weaken intergroup contact?
• How are these norms transmitted via social media and/or what makes social media users conform to these norms?
• How do norms change over time?

Contributions can focus on different types of polarization (e.g., partisan-, opinion-, or identity-related polarization) or related divisions. Articles can be theoretical, methodological, or empirical, and the latter can use diverse methodologies, including surveys, qualitative interviews, experiments, data mining, social network analysis, agent-based models and simulation, and intervention studies. Contributions from all disciplines are welcome.

By exploring the impact of norms on (de-)polarization, this thematic issue aims to gain insights into creating a more cohesive and inclusive society.

References

Balcells, L., & Kuo, A. (2022). Secessionist conflict and affective polarization: Evidence from Catalonia. Journal of Peace Research, 60(4), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221088112

Castle, J. (2018). New fronts in the culture wars? Religion, partisanship, and polarization on religious liberty and transgender rights in the United States. American Politics Research, 47(3), 650–679.

DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y., & Macy, M. (2015). Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1473–1511. https://doi.org/10.1086/681254

Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2019, August 29–September 1). How ideology, economics, and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association. https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/events/GAH-Affective-Polarization-in-Democratic-Polities.pdf

Hobolt, S. B., Leeper, T. J., & Tilley, J. (2021). Divided by the vote: Affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. British Journal of Political Science, 51, 1476–1493.

Huddy, L., & Yair, O. (2021). Reducing affective polarization: Warm group relations or policy compromise? Political Psychology, 42, 291–309.

Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.

Levendusky, M. S. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? Journal of Politics, 80, 59–70.

McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. S. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62, 16–42.

Meleady, R. (2021). “Nudging” intergroup contact: Normative social influences on intergroup contact engagement. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1180–1199.

Orhan, Y. E. (2021). The relationship between affective polarization and democratic backsliding: Comparative evidence. Democratization, 29(4), 714–735.

Phillips, J. (2022). Affective polarization: Over time, through the generations, and during the lifespan. Political Behavior, 44, 1483–1508.

Reiljan, A. (2019). ‘Fear and loathing across party lines’ (also) in Europe: Affective polarization in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 59(2), 376–396.

Suarez Estrada, M., Juarez, Y., & Piña-García, C. A. (2022). Toxic social media: Affective polarization after feminist protests. Social Media + Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221098343

Verkuyten, M. (2023). The social psychology of tolerance. Routledge.

Voelkel, J. G., Chu, J., Stagnaro, M., Mernyk, J., Redekopp, C., Pink, S., Druckman, J., Rand, D., & Willer, R. (2022). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nature Human Behavior, 7, 55–64.

In the last few decades, solidarity has stood out as an important mechanism for mobilising support to address societal challenges. For example, the abolition of the slave trade, colonial rule, apartheid, and numerous acts of support to people are some of the indications of the significant role of solidarity in fostering social cohesion. It can thus be argued that solidarity is experiencing a resurgence, especially in addressing major societal challenges such as racism, migration, and the plight of indigenous groups, amongst others.

Solidarity is broadly conceived as a unifying bond between individuals with a common interest or mutual support with or within a group (see Jones, 2001; Miller, 1996). It is “a rich network of social ties, beyond the kinship network, that are freely entered into and developed by social actors; such social ties are both pleasurable and are also sources of obligations voluntarily accepted” (Tiryakian, 2005, p. 307). Solidarity has been the theme of scholarship for decades, yet the need for further exploration and analysis in our society today is accentuated. This is due to the ongoing marginalisation, oppression, and suppression of people, especially minorities. Moreover, there are debates about whom to support, what to support, and whether choosing one or the other defeats the very purpose of solidarity. The question that may arise is: Shouldn’t it be obvious who or which ideas to support? Shouldn’t it be those who are marginalised and suppressed by the structures of society or societies? Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple and obvious, thus the increasing debate on the subject.

Against this backdrop, this thematic issue seeks to bring together a series of articles to examine the theme of solidarity in diversity as debated in academic platforms or public policy and community forums that rarely engage in a mutual manner. Given the increasing salience of the need to engage multiple stakeholders in a single forum, there is a renewed need for innovative platforms to convene and foster these debates. In addition, there is a need to engage scholars, practitioners, and community members in these deliberations, especially from areas/countries where these issues are prevalent.

Contributions to this thematic issue will be organized around two key concepts: solidarity and diversity. Previous works on “solidarity” have manifested in other social spheres, such as academia, policy framing and practice. Intensifying contestations over the shaping and production of knowledge, as underscored by the push to decolonise the academy, for instance, highlight these debates. In response, public discussions have repeatedly called for the inclusion of minority voices in mainstream activities and paid attention to their plight, but the impact of the voices represented or heard remains uncertain. Debates on these issues have revolved around those supporting and opposing the various notions of integration. What is instructive herein is the dialectical nature of the debates, which remain under-examined.

The second concept which underpins this thematic issue is “diversity.” To be clear, diversity has always been an inherent aspect of societies. We will argue that difference is not a problem, and it is high time we started underscoring the benefits of diversity or difference in society. When we consciously do so, we can appreciate and reap its gains. Solidarity is weakened once the debates are reduced to what separates us as humanity, epitomised in the mantra of us versus them. It may even defeat the very purpose for which the theory and practice of solidarity over the past decades. Thus, when we tie the two concepts together and view our engagement in that light, solidarity acknowledges that not every individual or group supporting communities do so because they share their views despite having different experiences. Instead, their support is based on the moral conviction that doing so is the right thing and the only way to minimise marginalisation. Solidarity can create awareness and initiate structural changes that could transform the lives of the marginalised and as well limit marginalisation. Although solidarity is highly contested, with some claims that solidarity is eroding due to increasing inequality and support for groups that scapegoat minorities, it has primarily served as the glue that holds together the various facets of diversity.

This thematic issue seeks to unite work exploring “solidarity in diversity” amongst marginalised and oppressed people at the local and global levels. We argue that regardless of the varied opinions about solidarity, it is still the glue that binds people together and has the potential to minimise the negative experiences of those who are vulnerable. Contributions are encouraged to explore the following research questions, among others:

• How do we understand solidarity and diversity?
• How are solidarity and diversity interrelated?
• How can solidarity and diversity address social challenges?

References

Jones, S. S. (2001). Durkheim reconsidered. Polity Press.

Miller, W. W. (1996). Durkheim, morals and modernity (1st ed.). Routledge.

Tiryakian, E. A. (2005). Durkheim, solidarity, and September 11. In J. C. Alexander & P. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Durkheim (pp. 305–321). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-durkheim/durkheim-solidarity-and-september-11/B2B837CEF72C935DAD651ECF0510287C

Recommended Reading

Bauböck, R., & Scholten, P. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: “Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism.” Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0025-z

Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organization, 54(1) 60–69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44126573

Çağatay, S., Liinason, M., & Sasunkevich, O. (2022). Solidarities across: Borders, belongings, movements. In S. Çağatay, M. Liinason, & O. Sasunkevich (Eds.), Feminist and LGBTI+ activism across Russia, Scandinavia and Turkey: Transnationalizing spaces of resistance (pp. 143–190). Springer.

Gofman, A. (2014). Durkheim’s theory of social solidarity and social rules. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of altruism, morality, and social solidarity: Formulating a field of study (pp. 45–69). Palgrave Macmillan.

Harell, A., Banting, K., Kymlicka, W., & Wallace, R. (2021). Shared membership beyond national identity: Deservingness and solidarity in diverse societies. Political Studies, 70(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321721996939

Kymlicka, W. (2015). Solidarity in diverse societies: Beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0017-4

Schiller, N. G. (2016). The question of solidarity and society: Comment on Will Kymlicka’s article: “Solidarity in diverse societies.” Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0027-x

Thijssen, P., & Verheyen, P. (2022). “It’s all about solidarity, stupid!” How solidarity frames structure the party political sphere. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 128–145.

Wilde, L. (2007). The concept of solidarity: Emerging from the theoretical shadows? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9(1), 171–181.

Despite the vast scale of initiatives and good practices, gender equality has been only slowly improving in research & innovation (R&I) sectors. Moreover, opposite tendencies can also be captured. Women and other intersecting minority groups still often face social and professional exclusion and vertical segregation in the scientific arena due to persisting gender-based negative stereotypes and discrimination.

Though the different governmental and organisational affirmative actions like diversity management practices, quota systems, gender equality, and diversity plans all aim for better gender equality, they often fail to reach all their goals. The recent introduction of such mandatory actions, i.e., gender equality plans (GEPs) in research performing organisations (RPOs) in EU member states may accelerate further challenges both at the organisational and individual level.

Highly gendered organisations featuring strong hegemonic masculinity, and/or organisations embedded in national contexts characterised by traditional gender norms, are particularly exposed to organisational resistance. A wide scale of positive and negative experiences could be possessed by experts regarding the implementation of GEPs in the public sector. By sharing these experiences, this thematic issue aims to promote and advance the implementation of gender diversity, inclusion, and equality strategies in the R&I sector—including intersectional approaches—and offer intervention points to stakeholders.

We welcome contributions that highlight how GEPs affect the inclusion of women and other intersecting minority groups in RPOs by exploring barriers, experiences, and good practices related to GEP implementation (including their effects at the individual and organisational level); challenges associated with GEPs (elements that cannot or can hardly be implemented); the relationship between GEPs and diversity and inclusion practices; and the interpretation of gender+ within GEPs. Recent empirical studies using qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods are all welcome. Papers focusing on male-dominated fields (STEM), Central and Eastern Europe, and comparative studies are particularly encouraged.

To be accepted, abstracts need to include the three following key elements/dimensions: GEPs; exclusion and/or inclusion of genders; universities and/or research performing organisations.

The post-pandemic period, associated with the war in Ukraine and persisting high inflation rates, has created the perfect storm for stretching inequalities across Europe. Since the 2008 economic turmoil, the consequences of systemic and successive crises have been asymmetric, and in this polycrisis context, Southern and Eastern European countries have been affected by negative social and economic effects most of all (Henig & Knight, 2023), increasing pre-existing structural inequalities. In the meantime, Northern and Central European countries seem to have adjusted faster to these challenges, although their recovery pathways—if any—remain uncertain.

The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) is a beacon for assessing the social and economic conditions of the European people. We consider that the EPSR can also constitute a charter for assessing how the gap between countries and distinct areas of the continent (North/South, East/West) is currently evolving using each of its dimensions. For instance, at the equal opportunities level, for the past decade, the share of early school leavers and young people not in employment not in education or training (NEET) has declined across the European Union, while tertiary education attainment has broken records despite the socioeconomic turbulence (Simões, 2022). However, NEET rates as well as the share of early school leavers from education and training are persistently higher in the South and the East of the continent, with collateral negative effects over other indicators of the EPSR such as income disparities or gender inequalities in accessing the labor market. Moreover, the increase in tertiary education attainment brings new challenges such as risks of overqualification or the mismatch between job supply and demand (Rodrigues et al., 2022).

Several European countries also struggle to ensure fair working conditions, a second dimension of the EPSR. In general, unemployment rates in Southern and Eastern countries are higher, including among young people. Longer and more uncertain school-to-work transitions (Pastore et al., 2021), widespread precariousness (Carmo & D’Avelar, 2021; Carmo & Matias, 2020), and consequently a higher share of workers at risk of being poor are widespread concerns in these parts of Europe. These social problems directly question the role of States and policies, in terms of social protection and inclusion, the third dimension of the EPSR. Citizens in Southern and Eastern countries, compared to their counterparts living in Northern and Western parts of the continent, struggle more to avoid poverty, especially among children and youth, or access a decent house, with the role of social transfers being more pivotal for ensuring minimum standards of living and dignity in these areas of the continent. However, the dismantling of public support systems in Northern European countries is also worrisome and can potentially affect the capacity of these states to address the EPSR vision (Jørgensen et al., 2019).

European Union ambitions for the next decades associated with sustainable development and digitalization—the so-called dual transition—add layers of complexity to how ESPR targets can be met while raising several questions (ISCTE-IUL, n.d.). How are the education and training systems being shaped by these megatrends? How are European countries equipping workers with new skills in the green and digital sectors and still meeting employment and activity rates proposed by the ESPR? Are under-skilled and underqualified citizens being left behind in these countries? How exactly are new economies emerging from the green and digital transformations and creating new opportunities for people in more peripherical countries?

This thematic issue aims to showcase how ESPR goals and indicators are (not) being met across European countries in the aftermath of the pandemic period and the context of the dual transition. This thematic issue constitutes, thus, a forum for discussing how European states are addressing each of the dimensions of the ESPR as they adjust to the European vision for 2050. To be aligned with the special issue’s goal, articles must comply with all the following criteria:

• Address at least one of the ESPR dimensions or one of its headline or secondary indicators (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/european-pillar-of-social-rights/indicators/social-scoreboard-indicators);
• Focus on one or multiple European countries;
• Clearly reflect on the impact or consequences of one of the pillars of the dual transition to the topic of interest.

We are giving priority to the contributions focusing on the second (fair working conditions) and third (social protection and inclusion) dimensions of the ESPR. Topics such as (un)employment, particularly among adults, income distribution, poverty, and social exclusion or social protection across the lifespan are especially welcome.

Multiple types of contributions, from scoping or systematic reviews to position papers or empirical studies, are admissible. We especially welcome reports on policies and best practices. The accepted papers are expected to come from and are not limited to disciplines such as sociology, economics, social psychology, political sciences, geography, social work, or information sciences. While we particularly welcome papers from both Southern and Eastern European countries, including from countries that are not EU member states, we also expect contributions from scholars from other countries comparing East/West or North/South dimensions of the ESPR.

References

Carmo, R. M., & d’Avelar, M. M. (2021). The weight of time and the unemployment experience: Daily life and future prospects. Current Sociology, 69(5), 742–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120986222

Carmo, R. M., & Matias, A. R. (2020). Precarious futures: From non-standard jobs to an uncertain tomorrow. In R. M. Carmo & J. A. V. Simões (Eds.), Protest, youth and precariousness: The unfinished fight against austerity in Portugal (pp. 13–32). Berghahn Books.

Henig, D., & Knight, D. M. (2023). Polycrisis: Prompts for an emerging worldview. Antropology Today, 39(2), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12793

ISCTE-IUL. (n.d.). InCITIES project: Trailblazing inclusive, sustainable and resilient cities. https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/projects/trailblazing-inclusive-sustainable-and-resilient-cities/1813

Jørgensen, C. H., Järvinen, T., & Lundahl, L. (2019). A Nordic transition regime? Policies for school-to-work transitions in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. European Educational Research Journal, 18(3), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119830037

Pastore, F., Quintano, C., & Rocca, A. (2021). Some young people have all the luck! The duration dependence of the school-to-work transition in Europe. Journal of Labour Economics, 70, Article 101902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.101982

Rodrigues, F., Suleman, F., Marques, P., Videira, P., Pereira, M., & Guimarães, R. (2022). Mais e melhores empregos para os jovens. Fundação José Neves; Observatório Do Emprego Jovem. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads-7e3kk3/48133/livro_branco_compressed.4ce24c0c7a48.pdf

Simões, F. (2022). School to work transition in the resilience and recovery facility framework: Youth oriented active labour market policies under Pillar 6. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/699552/IPOL_STU(2022)699552_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0NNtOseIA9zRcYH0JOVtfqvp0T3_w0ElimJmaeSWNlD1WKrYZyrj85ER0

The vulnerability of Chinese women is in great measure the result of structural factors: among others, their subordinate position in the family and the entire compound of the Chinese educational system and labor market. However, by focusing on Chinese women’s structural disadvantages and struggles alone, we underestimate an equally important component that has, historically, contributed to undermining these women’s chances of overcoming their vulnerable position. This is the construction of “gendered meanings” in all spheres and “walks of life” available to women, that sustain a well-known traditionally patriarchal culture in Greater China.

How Chinese culture defines a sense of what is “clean” or “dirty,” a “failure” or a “success,” “normal” or “abnormal,” and how these beliefs are used to judge or validate the everyday behavior of women and men separately, is overtly different from Western or more Westernized cultures; certain choices and conducts in one’s past can mean entirely different things depending on one’s gender. Social connections and interpersonal interactions depend greatly on these constructed gendered meanings, generating labels, markers, and stigmas that can lead to the social exclusion of female populations.

In contemporary society, the idea of “bodily vulnerability” extends the discussion of vulnerability beyond one’s body or physical limitation (that is, physical ability or strength): “We experience vulnerability differently and that is allocated differently across the globe” (Williams, 2005, pp. 99–100). In this thematic issue, we challenge authors to explore what it feels like to be a woman in vulnerability in China, also in the hopes of making sense of the depth and power of gendered constructions in Chinese culture and their real impact on contemporary life in Greater China.

Ways of taking part in formulating and addressing matters of shared concern are diverse. The practices people employ to engage in shaping societal orders go far beyond organized formats such as citizen juries or co-production sessions, where questions and tasks are, to a large extent, pre-set. Particularly creative practices emerge in situations when participation is not invited, or discouraged, or even met with hostility. Such situations are not exceptional because even in established democracies pockets of exclusion exist.

Practices of participation under adverse circumstances deserve more attention. Besides known and highly visible protest movements, there are also numerous mundane and non-heroic practices undertaken without any overt political motivation. Nonetheless, these practices feed into maintaining, transforming, or disrupting governance arrangements. Yet, these everyday practices are often not recognized as participation because of an established analytical focus on more dialogical and explicit participatory formats.

Furthermore, participation under adverse circumstances may involve working around formal procedures and public spaces and depend on remaining hidden. Yet, since public participation tends to be conceptualised as dependent on making issues visible and debatable, these hidden practices often escape scholarly scrutiny.

For this thematic issue, we challenge scholars and researchers to consider, among others, how is participation made possible in situations of hostility to participation: What are the consequences of participatory practices under adverse circumstances? How can we understand and theorize the diversity of forms of participation in contemporary societies? How can we make studies of public participation relevant to the multiple settings where exclusion and animosity to public input exist?

We encourage all interested authors to provide inspiration for novel ways of equipping actors globally to deal with mounting uncertainties and instabilities. Authors of accepted abstracts will be invited to join a workshop led by the editors in the months between the submission of abstracts and full papers.

Since, in 1978, the first baby conceived by in vitro fertilization was born, further technological advances, like egg freezing, preimplantation diagnostics, and gene editing (CRISPR) have revolutionized the conditions for human fertility. This thematic issue focuses on how the social context, in particular social inequalities and social norms, shapes attitudes towards these technologies, their use, and their impact. We are interested in articles that explore how attitudes and public discourse on these technologies are shaped by prevailing gender norms and moral orientations in societies. Furthermore, the research presented in this issue should cover how such attitudes, but also the opportunities for the uptake and the actual use of these technologies, are shaped by social inequalities, not only along class and education, but also gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

We are open to studies from different methodological backgrounds, using, e.g., survey data, qualitative interviews, content/text analysis, and case studies. We particularly welcome studies that take a cross-country or longitudinal approach, focusing on the German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland).

Digitalisation of societies and welfare systems is often touted as a driver of increased efficiency and service quality, enabling flexibility for service users and a possibility to save on costs. Big data, data analysis tools, and artificial intelligence (AI) are argued to bring opportunities for managers and decision-makers to lead better with knowledge derived from so-called real-time data. Yet, in practice, data pose numerous challenges to interpretation and simultaneous utilisation for multiple purposes (e.g., Hoeyer, 2023). The European Commission (2022) has presented ambitious aims for digital targets for 2030. However, insufficient attention has been given to how digitalisation supports or contradicts social and ecological sustainability. In other words, policies often overlook the broader ramifications of digitalisation for environmental and social justice.

We argue that neglecting ecological and social sustainability is short-sighted, particularly considering the pressing need for welfare states to address environmental crises alongside rapidly ageing populations. In practice, this means that the reform of welfare systems cannot afford to overlook social and ecological sustainability (Saikkonen & Ilmakunnas, 2023). Sustainability and digitalisation are frequently addressed as separate concerns, digitalisation often being regarded primarily as a technological matter. Only a limited number of reports have emphasised the ecologically unsustainable aspects of digitalisation, whereas social sustainability is predominantly acknowledged within the discussions on “decent work,” the platform economy, datafication, and surveillance, rather than focusing on the social sustainability of digitalised welfare systems.

We argue that social and ecological sustainability should be considered essential parts of the digitalisation processes of welfare systems. Without policy coherence, it is impossible to achieve the advantages of digitalisation. The socially sustainable digitalisation of welfare systems requires that all stakeholders (citizens, frontline workers /street-level bureaucrats, managers, decision-makers, and consultants, to name a few) be involved in the process and that practices be planned based on the careful consideration of wherein and how digitalisation, automatic decision-making, or AI bring betterments to all groups of citizens and their welfare. Furthermore, welfare services and benefits should specifically support citizens in challenging life circumstances (e.g., sickness, unemployment, loss of loved ones/bereavement, or lack of safety net during life crises) when immediate access to the welfare system is essential for citizens in these life situations to mitigate their situations from deteriorating further.

All citizens should get access to necessary benefits and services, regardless of their varying levels of skills or ability to use digital services (Saikkonen & Ylikännö, 2020). Therefore, the relation between online and on-site services should be carefully investigated when digitalising welfare systems, with special emphasis placed on providing adequate support to citizens during the transition periods from in-person to online services, and potentially even afterward. Currently, there is a lack of research knowledge to show how to ideally combine online and on-site services now or in the future.

Ecological sustainability demands policy coherence as well. Welfare systems may have a direct impact on ecological sustainability (e.g., energy efficiency, an ecological footprint of the ICT system), but more importantly, welfare systems modify institutional trust and protect from social risks. The digitalisation of the welfare system does not happen in a vacuum: The existing system and its earlier development have an impact on the processes whereas political decision-making steers the aims of digitalisation (e.g., cost-efficiency, public or private system supplier, data collection, and use of data). (Digitalised) welfare systems, with their novel technologies, reformulate the relationships between citizens and welfare state institutions by strengthening social inclusion for some citizens and amplifying old—or creating new—disadvantages for others (see, e.g., Alston, 2019; Buchert et al., 2022; Choroszewicz & Mäihaniemi, 2020). If policy coherence is taken seriously, the digitalisation of welfare systems could increase discussion on individual and collective responsibilities and redirect attention away from the individualisation of social problems and towards improving welfare systems to mitigate structural causes of actual individual problems.

In this thematic issue, we invite methodological and empirical contributions that address the above-mentioned aspects as well as the following questions:

• What kind of digitalisation in welfare systems may strengthen social or ecological sustainability and how?
• How is social and/or ecological sustainability already being (directly or implicitly) addressed in the current processes of digitalisation of welfare systems?
• When is digitalisation advancing client work and who benefits from it in the welfare systems? What are the implications for social justice or social sustainability?
• How is the digital divide among citizens present or non-existent in current digitalisation processes of welfare systems? How are different groups of citizens currently included in the digitalisation processes?
• What are the differences and similarities between countries in the digitalisation of welfare systems and how might those be connected to earlier developments of the welfare systems?
• How do we create welfare imagination, i.e., a capacity to see and understand novel ways to blend in-person and online services? Are there any good examples?

References

Alston, P. (2019). Report of the special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights (A/74/48037). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25156

Buchert, U., Kemppainen, L., Olakivi, A., Wrede, S., & Kouvonen, A. (2022). Is digitalisation of public health and social welfare services reinforcing social exclusion? The case of Russian-speaking older migrants in Finland. Critical Social Policy, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221105035

Choroszewicz, M., & Mäihäniemi, B. (2020). Developing a digital welfare state: Data protection legislation and the use of automated decision-making across six EU countries. Global Perspectives, 1(1), Article 12910. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12910

European Commission. (2022). Europe’s digital decade: Digital targets for 2030. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital-targets-2030_en#digital-rights-and-principles

Hoeyer, K. (2023). Data paradoxes: The politics of intensified data sourcing in contemporary healthcare. MIT Press.

Saikkonen, P., & Ilmakunnas, I. (2023). Reconciling welfare policy and sustainability transition—A case study of the Finnish welfare state. Environmental Policy and Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2055

Saikkonen, P., & Ylikännö, M. (2020). Is there room for targeting within universalism? Finnish social assistance recipients as social citizens. Social Inclusion, 8(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i1.2521

The new millennium higher education expansion in Europe was accompanied by educational reforms aiming at adjusting upper secondary education to an increasingly diversified higher education system. An important part of the European policy agenda today is to make access to higher education (HE) more inclusive, and permeability between vocational education and training (VET) and HE is considered key to enhancing HE access. Likewise, as there is a royal road to HE in every country, the upgrading of VET has evolved in country-specific ways and created specific alternative and “second chance” routes via vocational schools into HE, which today are taken by significant proportions of students of new social groups.

Access to HE is restricted in different ways in different countries, and opportunity structures for disadvantaged youth therefore also vary by national contexts. This thematic issue asks how vocational schools improve access to HE for youth from less advantaged backgrounds (due to social origin, migration experience, or age), how they select and prepare their students for trajectories into HE (e.g., through counseling strategies and rising their aspirations), and how effective they are. Finally, we are interested in the ways educational trajectories through VET schools are governed at an organizational and institutional level.

VET schools differ in their degree of vocational specificity and in whether they offer school-leaving qualifications and/or labor market-relevant certificates. We are interested in contributions on vocational schools of different kinds, which are, however, united in their institutional and social function to feed HE. This thematic issue aims to highlight international research on this important but under-researched topic and make its international relevance visible, inciting further, international comparative research in the future.

The growth of Internet access, ICTs, and social media have contributed in a blatant and well-documented way to how people communicate and relate to one another in contemporary society. The general perception of “the public sphere” is changing: How relationships between individuals are established and maintained, and—more importantly—how they influence processes of social inclusion and exclusion are, increasingly, at the mercy of an amorphous, often unrestrained, and ever-changing digital environment. This thematic issue proposes to address some of the most prominent risks and repercussions of this transformation to social cohesion and individual well-being.

By navigating the realities and experiences of users (and especially young users) from a myriad of online platforms/digital spaces, we want to tackle how the proliferation of hate speech and identity/gender biases is increasingly made easier in the “virtual world” (see, e.g., Paz et al., 2021; Piñeiro-Otero & Martínez-Rolán, 2021), fueling tensions and conflicts that transpire into “non-digital reality,” inciting real violent behaviours and, ultimately, endangering worldly accepted values of social cohesion and inclusion.

The adaptability of young users to online platforms is notorious, if not sometimes taken for granted. Even more “sheltered” spaces like online video games emphasise and capitalize, more and more, on their “social character” (see the case of multiplayer online games, or MMOs). But what are the social implications and impacts of a hostile digital environment on childhood/adolescence and youth? Digital experiences are a flourishing industry; yet what is being made to challenge and face the rising cases of bullying, harassment, and violence that such experiences instil? What mechanisms are at society’s disposal to mitigate these problems? What tools are being/could be used in shaping a more inclusive society in the virtual sphere and how can we promote more positive narratives from within the digital world?

Foster care is often described as socially inclusive compared to institutional care. It serves as a way to avoid children’s institutionalization and provide a more family-like upbringing and care for children who, for various reasons, cannot live with their biological parents.

In many countries, there has been a vivid discussion about whether and, if so, how much reimbursement should be granted to foster parents, although all systems involve some compensation for expenses. Yet, money is a sensitive subject, and monetary motives for taking care of children are looked upon as morally questionable. Foster care seems to occupy a liminal position between “work” and “family,” which constitutes a problem as well as a resource for actors in this field.

This thematic issue calls for articles on foster care with pecuniary considerations, aiming at illuminating the different meanings of “money” in foster care practice. We welcome contributions from a broad variety of theoretical perspectives, grounded on various types of data.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Professionals’ perspectives on fostering as a paid activity in terms of recruitment and support
• Foster families’ experiences and accounts concerning being paid and reimbursed
• Fostering framed as family and/or work
• The professionalization of the foster family
• The social categorization (earmarking) of monies within the foster care context
• Historical changes in discourses and practices
• Economic and institutional conditions of foster care
• Media scandals on foster care and money
• Money as sensitive or taboo in foster care contexts
• Marketization of foster care
• Comparative analyses of foster care systems from a pecuniary perspective

Social ties have long been recognised as a crucial factor in mobility decision-making and facilitation of everyday life. Moreover, the era of digital media has expanded novel forms of social ties significantly. However, whilst social ties have been more associated with medium-educated migrants landing lower-paid jobs, the role of social ties, especially fragile and novel digitally created ties in the case of the highly skilled, remains less understood.

This thematic issue examines the dynamics between social ties and forms of social connectedness in the context of the transnational mobility of the highly skilled—the so-called middling migrants. Under this umbrella, articles should analyse, both empirically and theoretically, the dynamics between various kinds of strong, weak, dormant ties as well as their ruptures and renewals in the context of work-related mobility policies and digital platforms that mediate human relationships. Authors are invited to unpack how institutional actors brand and manage social ties, examining the usage of digital social media platforms and inquiring how and to what extent relationships and networks facilitated by—and embedded in—digital platforms shape work-related movements across borders.

We also encourage the examination of regional, national, municipal, and industrial policies aimed at facilitating the movement of highly skilled workers into specific places, companies, universities, and regions. The thematic issue aims to critically address both the positive enabling of mobility for individuals and their families and the dark side of such management and branding, engendered by prohibitive and limiting visa regimes, housing arrangements, embedded social life, and precarious temporary contracts.

The overarching goal of this thematic issue is to enhance our understanding of the evolving spatial structures of inequality within digitally transforming societies. To achieve this objective, we are seeking contributions that specifically address the changes occurring in housing and labor markets as a result of digital transformation. We invite submissions that explore how housing, residential segregation, mobility, and activity spaces are evolving among social and ethnic groups differentially impacted by digital transition, such as the varied effects of the ability to work remotely. These studies should capture residential and mobility-related decision-making processes at the national or urban scales, under different institutional and welfare contexts, as well as within the families.

We are particularly interested in contributions that focus, from the perspective of digital transition, on:

• segregation and housing outcome of specific population groups, such as IT workers or ethnic minorities;
• particular aspects of digital transition affecting labor and housing markets, and processes in physical spaces, such as remote working and multilocal living arrangements;
• changes in mobility, social interaction, and consumption behavior shaped by the shift of some of the activities from physical to digital space.

We are particularly interested in understanding how these changes manifest across different social and ethnic groups, allowing us to uncover the nuanced ways in which digital transition shapes and reshapes spatial opportunities and inequalities in cities and regions. Additionally, we welcome submissions that employ a variety of quantitative and qualitative data sources. Diverse data sources are crucial for providing new insights into the mechanisms through which digital transformation and the consequent shift of numerous activities to the digital space interact with opportunities and inequalities in physical space. By focusing on these themes, the thematic issue helps to deepen our empirical as well conceptual understanding of how digital technologies are reshaping social and spatial structures of opportunity and inequality in contemporary societies.

In an increasingly unequal world, the concept of “compassionate futures” offers a new paradigm to address the pressing challenges of social inclusion. Compassionate futures recognize vulnerability, interdependency, and mutual responsibility as fundamental features of social relations, and emphasize care and empathy as fundamental principles in designing socio-cultural, economic, and political systems where the collective well-being of diverse actors, human and other-than-human, can flourish.

The global challenges of our time—climate crisis, forced migration, and political polarization—highlight the urgent need to move beyond traditional approaches to inclusion. We invite authors to work with the idea of homo curans (the caring person) in re-imagining the future of society, focusing on long-term, holistic, and progressive solutions or responses rather than short-term fixes. Standing in opposition to the prevalent figure of homo economicus, homo curans foregrounds dependency (rather than self-interest and self-sufficiency) as the default human condition. It positions care as an ontological a priori and suggests that care ought to be, and in fact is, an organizing principle of social life.

We encourage contributions that engage in an interdisciplinary dialogue among scholars, practitioners, and policymakers about what it means to create a caring society in the face of persistent inequalities. In addition, we welcome papers that demonstrate where and how humans take up the responsibility to conceptualize compassionate futures from a multispecies perspective, as well as those that focus on what hinders or supports the idea and the project of compassionate futures.

Contributions to this thematic issue should focus on how systems can be reimagined to prioritize care and collective well-being, what it takes to move towards socio-cultural, economic, and/or political systems that emphasize vulnerability, interdependency, and mutual responsibility, how different cultures conceptualize the figure of the “caring person” and compassionate futures, how it can address the environmental crisis in ways that promote climate justice, how those most affected by environmental harm might be centered in the process of developing new narratives on compassionate futures and/or how the very idea of compassionate futures can be nurtured from an inquiry-by-method or an inquiry-by-theory perspective.

We accept theoretical papers presenting frameworks on compassionate futures, prospective policy analyses, cases featuring the use of futures studies and co-creative approaches that promote compassion and care as central principles in re-imagining the future, and reflection papers focusing on global cooperation for fostering compassionate futures. Authors should connect to the general idea of how humans could or should relate to other agents with whom they share the planet or illustrate how the new narratives they developed support collective well-being.

Recent studies suggest that higher education (HE) is experiencing massive transformations throughout the globe as technologies, markets, and government policies on university management produce significant changes in the daily operations of universities (Dee et al., 2023; Deem et al., 2007; Geiger, 2004; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Change agents, aligned to leadership, have become an established part of HE systems, just as in other public services (Wallace et al., 2023). By contrast, other analyses note that HE is a highly institutionalized field where the pace of change is often slow, norms and traditions support the status quo, and decoupled organizational structures forestall new initiatives (Dill, 1999; Krücken, 2003; Leišytė et al., 2017). At present, we are witnessing collective action by staff as well as students (Klemenčič, 2024) and a polarization of beliefs and values on campuses in many countries. HE institutions are seen as “catalysts” in the creation of a sustainable future, urging higher education institutions (HEIs) to change both their syllabuses and their culture (Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021). Matters of diversity, inclusion, and belonging on campuses are also significantly contributing to the process of organizational transformation.

Transformation of/in the HE sector has been addressed through several angles from different streams of literature: Warnings have been put forward about the effects of managerial transformation on diversity and inclusion in HE (Leišytė et al., 2021); praise has been raised for the potential of disruptive innovations and events such as Covid-19 (Treve, 2021) in improving quality of and access to HE; concerns that the transformation of HE has merely exacerbated the stratification and inequalities that have long characterized the sector have been addressed (Dee et al., 2023, Leisyte et al., 2021). Nevertheless, many studies overlook the agency and roles that diversity and intersectionality play in bringing about organizational transformation in HE institutions. This thematic issue aims to shed light on the role of academic and administrative staff, including students, in fostering change in organizational practices, academic norms, and routines in HE towards diverse and inclusive organizations, especially focusing on the characteristics of individual and collective agents of change.

To understand the role of diverse actors in transformation, we draw on Wheatley (2006), who postulates that transformational change occurs through processes encompassing complex and constant interactions among stakeholders in HE institutions. In HE, transformation is often the result of planned and emergent changes. The web of intertwined interests and interactions offers possibilities for fostering collaboration between stakeholders at multiple levels who seek to transform HE. Another possibility, however, is that these intertwined interests simply reflect a convergence in the priorities of elite actors. Transformations occur under those conditions, but residual effects only deepen issues of stratification, hierarchical power relations, and inequalities found in HE (Dee et al., 2023).

Transformation towards an inclusive university could be perceived as a move from narrow notions of inclusivity focusing on students with disabilities, for instance, to wider concepts (Mora et al., 2021). Intersectional approaches towards teaching and learning are experimented with and may also bring transformational change in teaching practices and organizational routines (Mense & Sera, 2019). New dimensions of diversity have been developed that are closely linked to inclusion practices and initiatives for both staff and students in university programs (Leišytė et al., 2021). Diversity is also increasingly associated with the decolonization of curricula—following violent student protests in countries like South Africa (Jansen, 2019)—and the questioning of “potential for change” promoted in special programs for newly appointed black academics (Belluigi & Thondhlana, 2019). At the same time, transformation is continually challenged by managerialism (Grummell & Lynch, 2016), neo-liberalism (Neumann, 2020), and cultures of precarity (Courtois & O’Keefe, 2015). The role of digital disruptive innovations, such as AI, can turn out to mediate these processes of transformation and bring forward various biases when it comes to diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality (Ulnicane, 2024; Williamson, & Komljenovic, 2023).

We invite authors to consider and explore any of the following questions and topics, among others:

• The role of responsible transformation vis-à-vis neoliberalist regimes and managerialism, and how resulting tensions can be resolved in inclusive ways.
• Academic-led initiatives and policy actions that have been institutionalized into new study programs or services oriented to promote diversity and inclusion in HE institutions.
• Research about academic staff or students from a variety of backgrounds and their role and agency in fostering change on campus via collective action or academic self-governance.
• The role of academics in fostering participation, action, and organizational change when it comes to transforming HE institutions or the working conditions of academics.

References

Belluigi, D. Z., & Thondhlana, G. (2019). “Why mouth all the pieties?” Black and women academics’ revelations about discourses of “transformation” at an historically white South African university. Higher Education, 78(6), 947–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00380-w

Courtois, A. D. M., & O’Keefe, T. (2015). Precarity in the ivory cage: Neoliberalism and casualisation of work in the Irish higher education sector. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(1), 43–66.

Dee, J. R., Leišytė, L., & van der Meulen, B. J. (2023). Conceptualizing higher education transformation: Introduction to the Research Handbook on the Transformation of Higher Education. In L. Leišytė, J. R. Dee, & B. J. van der Meulen (Eds.), Research handbook on the transformation of higher education (pp. 2–23). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800378216.00006

Deem, R., Hillyard, S., Reed, M., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265909.001.0001

Dill, D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture of an academic learning organization. Higher Education, 38(2), 127–154.

Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford University Press.

Grummell, B., & Lynch, K. (2016). New managerialism: A political project in Irish education. In M. P. Murphy & F. Dukelow (Eds.), The Irish welfare state in the twenty-first century: Challenges and change (pp. 215–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137007230_1

Jansen, J. D. (2023). Corrupted: A study of chronic dysfunction in South African universities. Wits University Press.

Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the “new, new thing”: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46, 315–339.

Leišytė, L., Dee, J. R., & van der Meulen, B. J. (2023). Unpacking transformation in higher education and framing a future research agenda. In L. Leišytė, J. R. Dee, & B. J. van der Meulen (Eds.), Research handbook on the transformation of higher education (pp. 417–430). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800378216.00038

Leišytė, L., Deem, R., & Tzanakou, C. (2021). Inclusive universities in a globalized world. Social Inclusion, 9(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4632

Leišytė, L., Vilkas, M., Staniskiene, E., & Zostautiene, D. (2017). Balancing countervailing processes at a Lithuanian university. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 327–339.

Mense, L., & Sera, S. (2019). Diversity in der Hochschullehre: Gender als intersektionale Kategorie in der Handlungspraxis. In H. Angenent, B. Heidkamp, & D. Kergel (Eds.), Digital diversity: Bildung und Lernen im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Transformationen (pp. 197–214). Springer.

Mora, A. M. M., Chiva, I., & Lloret‐Catala, C. (2021). Faculty perception of inclusion in the university: Concept, policies and educational practices, Social Inclusion, 9(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4114

Neumann, E. (2023). The populist radical right and public education. In C. J. Chennattuserry, M. Deshpande, & P. Hong (Eds.), Encyclopedia of new populism and responses in the 21st century (pp. 1–4). Springer Nature.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Jhu press.

Treve, M. (2021). What COVID-19 has introduced into education: Challenges facing higher education institutions (HEIs). Higher Education Pedagogies, 6(1), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2021.1951616

Ulnicane, I. (2024). Intersectionality in artificial intelligence: Framing concerns and recommendations for action. Social Inclusion, 12, Article 7543. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7543

Wallace, M., Reed, M., O’Reilly, D., Tomlinson, M., & Deem, R. (2023). Developing public service leaders. Oxford University Press.

Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Williamson, B., & Komljenovic, J. (2023). Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-financial “futuring” of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 64(3), 234–249.

Žalėnienė, I., & Pereira, P. (2021). Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geography and Sustainability, 2(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.001

“Every child has the right to quality education and learning” (UNICEF, 2018). Schools play a vital role in providing students with knowledge and instruments that shape children’s social inclusion throughout their life course. All children have the right to an education, and schools must guarantee that all students are present, participating, and advancing, as well as being offered equal opportunities. Indeed, the concept of equal opportunity has been championed as a great pillar of sustainable development and inclusive education worldwide, as identified by several SDGs. Yet, to this day, not all children have equal access to school: Despite great efforts to achieve the envisioned “inclusive city,” societal norms and attitudes still pose the strongest barriers to school inclusion and integration.

To create a cohesive narrative, this thematic issue will zoom in on the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area (GHKM GBA), a recent enterprise (2019) set out to create a “world-class” city cluster, and compare it with other parts of the world. Why China’s GBA? GBAs are characterized by wide and pervasive urban expansion and a rapid increase in population; notable examples include the San Francisco, New York, and Tokyo Bay Areas. That said, “as a result of historical and geographical factors, [China’s] GBA is uniquely characterised by being subject to ‘one country, two systems,’ ‘three customs territories,’ and ‘three legal systems’” (Xie et al., 2023), rendering it one of the most challenging settings for education equity and sustainable development.

The goal of this thematic issue is twofold: First, we want to provide a critical understanding of the barriers to school inclusion where the trials of speedy and all-encompassing urbanization are felt more thoroughly and are strongly aligned with social phenomena like marginalization. The issue will focus on all levels of education (early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary education). Second, by contextualizing educational equity, social inclusion, and sustainable development in the GHKM, we propose that an important comparison be drawn with the world’s three major bay areas (San Francisco, New York, and Tokyo) and other parts of the world, including Europe.

With this in mind, we invite authors to use multi-methods (e.g., policy analysis, case studies, systematic review) in their approach to such topics as:

• The integrated development of teachers in GBAs
• The construction of professional learning communities
• Teacher leadership and professional development
• Education leadership and school principalship
• Inclusive education and special educational needs
• Developmental needs of students from various backgrounds
• Educational provision for ethnic or sexual minorities
• Stigmatization and urban marginalization
• Ingroup bias and social norms
• Underprivileged students and families
• Changes in China’s teacher rationing policy.

References

UNICEF. (2018). Quality of education. https://www.unicef.org/rosa/what-we-do/quality-education

Xie, X., Liu, X., & McNay, I. (2023). One country with two systems: The characteristics and development of higher education in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01483-z

During the last decades, fathers have taken up an increasingly prominent role in childrearing in Europe. Active fathers are now increasingly committed to nurturing and being involved with their children emotionally as well as practically. However, the extent to which fathers are involved in their children’s lives is not only a function of individual factors but is also culturally dependent and embedded in the relevant social and family policy contexts.

At the individual level, age and education matters, as well as gender role attitudes. Previous research shows that fathers with more egalitarian gender role attitudes demonstrate more involvement with their children than fathers with more traditional attitudes. At the country level, cultural norms and social policies can also influence father practices.

The “fatherhood revolution” started in 1993, when Norway introduced the father’s quota, leading to a substantial increase in Norwegian fathers’ use of parental leave. Since then, several European countries implemented the Nordic father’s quota model, such as Sweden, Iceland, Germany, and Portugal. However, this has not been the case in most post-socialist countries, even though in many of these countries the main aim of family policy is to increase the number of births, and studies have shown that fathers’ increased involvement in family life, including household chores and childcare, has the potential of increasing both fertility and maternal employment.

The limited involvement of fathers in most post-socialist societies can be explained by several, often interrelated factors such as family policies that do not support gender equality, workplace cultures that discourage men from taking on parenting responsibilities, the gender gap in earnings and earnings potential, and persistent social expectations that fathers have greater responsibility for breadwinning and mothers for caregiving. Furthermore, in the region, we can observe that some family constellations, such as those including ethnic minority fathers, gay fathers, or non-resident fathers are frequently excluded from the local versions of the normative fatherhood concept. Thus, we are interested in studies that examine the involved fatherhood in these minority groups too. It should also be noted that post-socialist countries are not to be seen as representing a unified category, as there are certainly cultural, social, political, etc., differences making the phenomenon of actively involved fatherhood unique in each of them.

In this thematic issue, we welcome articles with a focus on examining involved fatherhood practices that highlight specific aspects of involved fatherhood in post-socialist societies. We are also interested in those comparative empirical analyses that can highlight the different features of fatherhood involvement in this region and other parts of Europe.

We live and research in societies that are characterised by multilingualism. Hence, working with a large number of research questions also implies reaching people who do not necessarily speak the official or local language(s) at a level required for study participation. Additionally, multilingualism matters when adopting a transnational research perspective as well as in international and cross-country comparative research projects; for example, collaborating with interpreters or translating questionnaires play a major role. How this multilingualism is dealt with varies in practice and depends, among other things, on the research question, research approach, the (financial) framework conditions of a project and the linguistic skills of both the researchers and those being researched. However, the literature has not yet adequately addressed several ensuing methodological challenges in the multilingual research context.

This thematic issue aims to help bridge this gap by focusing on, inter alia, the following questions: What methodological demands does multilingualism pose for researchers in both quantitative and qualitative designs? What challenges arise across the phases of the research process—from access to the field, data collection, field work and interpretation to presenting and publishing the results, as well as with regard to quality assurance and research ethics? How do power relations and language hierarchies impact the research process and, consequently, the produced knowledge?

Based on these questions, this thematic issue addresses the distinct features of empirical social research in the context of multilingual migration societies and examines approaches to managing associated difficulties and strategies for quality assurance. Contributions should provide insights into methodological approaches, interdisciplinary collaborations, research practice and therefore also emphasise the potentials of multilingual research.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, a gendered, transnational labour market for senior care has emerged and expanded rapidly in response to the increasing demand in Western and Southern Europe. This market provides transnational care arrangements in which migrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) carry out care work in the West while their families remain behind, thereby creating care gaps in the sending countries (Lutz, in print; Solari, 2018). Consequently, the CEE region is becoming an area of destination and transit for migrants from other countries, including Ukraine, Serbia, and Moldova (Katona & Melegh, 2020).

The significance of care migration for Western and Southern European countries is well documented; however, its effects on the sending countries remain poorly understood. Over the past decade, there has been a shift in the organization of transnational care migration: While care work was previously conducted on an informal basis, it is now increasingly marketized and regularized (Aulenbacher et al., 2024; Farris & Marchetti, 2017). The processes of corporatisation and digitalisation accompanying this are slowly beginning to be studied by researchers; however, existing analyses tend to focus on receiving regions, while neglecting sending and transit regions.

In response to the scarcity of academic and policy discourse on care workers’ mobility to and from CEE, this thematic issue represents a timely initiative to bring together authors to stimulate debate at the intersection of research on intra-EU mobility and migration, and care drain, care gain and care circulation in the region.

The editors welcome contributions that explore issues, empirical research, and methodological approaches including policy responses to transnational migration, recruitment, and retention of care workers; emerging care markets in CEE; the role of transnational actors in long-term care systems in Europe; and research and methodological (ethical) challenges of co-producing knowledge with non-academic partners in relevant areas/countries.

References

Aulenbacher, B., Lutz, H., Palenga-Möllenbeck, E., & Schwiter, K. (Eds.). (2024). Home care for sale: The transnational brokering of senior care in Europe. Sage.

Farris, S. R., & Marchetti, S. (2017). From the commodification to the corporatization of care: European perspectives and debates. Social Politics, 24(2), 109–131.

Katona, N., & Melegh, A. (Eds.). (2020). Towards a scarcity of care? Tensions and contradictions in transnational elderly care systems in Central and Eastern Europe. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Lutz, H. (in print). The backstage of the care economy: Care-drain, transnational parenthood and emotional inequality. Pluto Press.

Solari, C. (2018). On the shoulders of grandmothers: Gender, migration, and post-Soviet nation-state building. Routledge.

Contemporary societies are increasingly digitalized and the use of digital technologies is spreading across all sectors. Digitalization refers to the “complex and heterogeneous process leading to increased relevance of digital technology and digital data in contemporary society” (Büchner et al., 2022).

Digitalization influences people’s social lives and connectedness, with particular inherent implications for migrants. Many studies indicate that digital technologies have a direct impact on migrants by affecting their decision to migrate, their migration trajectories, their life in the country of destination, and their continued relationships beyond this new physical residence.

In addressing digitalization and migration, this thematic issue explores how digital technologies influence the social inclusion of migrants in the country of destination, a matter that is receiving particular attention in the current academic and public debate. The issue seeks to tackle some of the challenges that such a heterogeneous process presents. In particular, it explores the inclusions and exclusions of evolving digitalized phenomena or processes in both the implementation of policy schemes and practices and in the everyday experience of migrants.

Proposed articles should fall within two of the three paradigms that Leurs and Prabhakar (2018) identify in digital migration studies: (a) research into migrants in cyber-space (digital-media-centric cyberculture) or (b) non-digital media-centric ethnographic approaches (i.e., exploring quotidian digital migrant life or online–offline relationships). Given the inherent interdisciplinarity of these themes, the issue will gather contributions from the fields of political and social sciences, economics, communications, and law. In doing so, it aims to wholistically explore to what extent digitalization phenomena manifest as simple reconfiguration of pre-existing socioeconomic inequalities, or whether there are any newly created dynamics (including empowerment) facilitated by digitalized processes. It also seeks to present the relevance of these observations for various multilevel stakeholders.

References

Büchner, S., Hergesell, J., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Digital transformation(s): On the entanglement of long-term processes and digital social change: An introduction. Historical Social Research, 47(3), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.47.2022.25

Leurs, K., & Prabhakar, M. (2018). Doing digital migration studies: Methodological considerations for an emerging research focus. In R. Zapata-Barrero & E. Yalaz (Eds.), Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies (pp. 247–266). Springer.