Nick: Through SUCCEED I've recognised that I do not only have an opportunity to be committed to a better future in research, but an obligation—ethically, epistemologically and ontologically. We are making our reality whether we like it or not, and as researchers we can stand for the status quo and uphold hegemony, or we can act insurgently, transgressively. We can accept the world as it is, or we can come to know it as it is changing, and become part of that change. I have come to understand my role as one—always in collaboration and solidarity with others—of discovering the cultural tools of agency already in use, developing new ones, and reshaping practice architectures so they become more equitably available

We thus imagine research as a form of critical praxis, co-creating a world worth living in by interrogating the status quo, seeking inequality and injustice and the means to rectify them (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008; Kemmis, 2019). Theory, including the theory of practice architectures and the transformative activist stance, play a crucial role, but only if we work with them "dangerously", that is "useful in the struggle for a better world" (Stetsenko, 2020c, p. 7). In terms of tube-feeding, the world that ought to be requires looking outwards, to society, for the change that is needed, for it is there where the challenges to living well are born. A group of students from UTS called the Neu Collective collaborated with SUCCEED and parents, developing this expression, which captures this crucial but often forgotten point, now our axiom, to be put to use dangerously in the struggle for the world in which all children who tube-feed can live well:

The tube fills stomachs But sharing a meal fills hearts.

And finally, as an expression of Henry's agentic contribution, making his world, his future, and the worlds and futures of others, we offer his recipe for the meal he made with Nick. This is our contribution to and extension of his critical praxis. The recipe represents the sayings, doings, and relatings that Henry employs in his own emancipation. When Henry, Rosie, and Nick sat and ate the pudding, Nick explained the intention to write about the cooking lesson and to publish his recipe. At which point, while chewing slowly on his own creation, and with sprinkles beautifully scattered on his lips (Fig. 11.4), he made the following comment, asserting in his own words how, for him, food can be part of his contribution to the world, his refusal to accept the given future, and his charting of a path towards a future of his own making, with others:

Henry: Oh that would be wonderful! Now I can be famous for my recipe!

#### **Chef Henry's Choc Pudding**

Scored 1,000,000 out of 10 by Chef Henry (later revised to 7.94/10, then 8.57, finalised at 9.24/10).

#### *Instructions*:

Mix the flour and sugar in a bowl, and add the egg. Add the almond milk and stir. Sprinkle the cinnamon and nutmeg, then pour chocolate syrup into the mixture and stir until evenly mixed in. Scoop the mixture into pre-greased ramekins (two for a larger portion, four for a smaller portion). Microwave individually on high for two and a half minutes. Allow to cool.

While the puddings are cooling, mix the icing sugar with the caramel syrup. Use the handle of a teaspoon to drill a hole down the middle of the pudding, then syringe 20 ml of the caramel mix to fill the hole, allowing extra to spread over the top. Decorate with sprinkles, and use spare caramel mix as glue for the smiley faces.

**Acknowledgements** We wish to thank the Neu Collective (Amy Ryan, Maria Zhong, Emma Sammut, Jasmine Jauw, and Denis Hrncic, supervised by Ryan Curtis) for their incredible work. Their collaboration with the SUCCEED team and Lucy Kaldor from the UTS Design Innovation Research Centre was funded by a grant from the UTS Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion. The SUCCEED team's research has been funded by an Early Life Determinants of Health Seed Grant through Maridulu Budyari Gumal/Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE), and a South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Multicultural Health Grant. The founding group members were Chris Elliot, Kady Moraby, Ann Dadich, and Nick Hopwood.

#### **References**

**Nick Hopwood** (University of Technology Sydney; University of Stellenbosch) is interested in how people become able to effect positive change in their lives and the lives of people around them. He tackles this through concepts of learning, agency, and practice. In addition to his work with the SUCCEED Child Feeding Alliance, Nick's recent studies have focused on services for parents with young children, and how school teachers can change their practices in ways that have significant beneficial outcomes for young people.

**Henry Gowans** is passionate about food and cooking. Inspired by many people including his grandma, he loves cooking for others, experimenting, and developing new recipes.

**Jessica Gowans** is mother of Henry and his younger sister Rosie. Jess is a passionate advocate in the community around issues relating to feeding difficulties and genetic conditions.

**Kate Disher-Quill** is a Melbourne-based interdisciplinary artist working across photography, moving image, research, publication, and multimedia. As a visual communicator she is drawn to weaving stories into art and is continually fascinated by the transformative power of the creative process.

**Chris Elliot** (St George Hospital; Sydney Children's Hospital) is a paediatrician with particular interest in feeding difficulties. He is also a father and photographer. He believes communities based on shared values, stories, and data are the best way to change the world we have into the one that ought to be.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 12 Facing the Climate Crisis, Acting Together: Young Climate Activists on Building a Sustainable Future**

**Tomi Kiilakoski and Mikko Piispa**

**Abstract** In this article, we examine the constructive democratic practices of young climate activists and their views on how democracy should be improved. We study how the youth climate movement is expressing utopias of democracy. Utopias are thought to be central to imagining more just societies. Furthermore, they enable critical analysis of existing social structures and have a special function in surpassing dystopian reality. For young activists, living well refers to preserving a planet that can sustain decent and eco-socially just conditions for all. These conditions are endangered by the current way of life. According to our results, acting together is a source of hope. Besides criticising the current status quo, young people have combined everyday activism with efforts to influence decision-makers. Furthermore, they argue that while democracy is the best platform to approach the eco-crisis in a just manner, democracy needs improvement. The analysis is based on multi-sited ethnography and 18 interviews, gathered during 2020. Our emphasis is on the young as agents, not as recipients or objects of education. Analysis combines theoretical educational perspectives, which emphasise the significance of utopian thinking, with empirical youth research.

**Keywords** Climate activism · Youth · Youth studies · Environment · Future · Democracy

# **Something Happened**

Although it might be a common conception that young people are the future, they are often downplayed and not accepted as full participants in political debates and decision-making about the future. The contemporary climate movement of the young has been—at least to an extent—an exception. The movement has mobilised young

M. Piispa e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
T. Kiilakoski (B) · M. Piispa

Finnish Youth Research Network, Helsinki University, Oulu, Finland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
people around the world. It has inspired and encompassed various collective ways of acting and thinking. The protests of the young have challenged the current socioecological state of contemporary societies, and these concerns and criticisms have been widely heard. Despite various, and perhaps inevitable, efforts to downplay the agency of the young, as when arguing that they are still too immature (e.g., Bergmann & Ossewaarde, 2020; Jacobsson, 2020), several participants in the movement have been given opportunities to address national and global leaders and influencers at political meetings.

Greta Thunberg has been a key figure in the movement. She started a *school strike for climate* and refused to go to school on Fridays to draw attention to the climate emergency and the lack of a means to address it. Consequently, she inspired a whole movement. She has been invited to speak to various international forums, such as Davos, in 2019, for the business elites of the world. Her message was expressed in clear terms: "We can create transformational action that will safeguard the living conditions for future generations. Or we can continue with our business as usual and fail" (Thunberg, 2019).

Greta Thunberg's speech is an example of the messages and strategies of the climate movement of the young. It emphasised the need to take seriously the warnings of climate scientists about the urgency of the matter. She refused to be an expert with expertise only. She presented herself as a proponent of science. Most importantly, she did not demand that the young be given more environmental education, nor did she call for the transformation of institutions offered for the young. Instead, she called for political and transformative action to change the harmful practices of current societies and to take seriously the ecological crisis facing us. Besides the transformation of unjust environmental practices, she challenged a mindset that favours short-term economic benefits over long-term environmental concerns.

Greta Thunberg was 16 at the time of the Davos meeting. The fact that the young Swedish activist was given a chance to speak at the World Economic Forum highlighted that the message of the climate movement was heard by all of society, from the grassroots level to the corridors of power. Although the reactions varied—it could be argued that the message was heard only partially, as the climate policies still lag behind the goals set by the Paris agreement—at least the climate movement of the young captured the attention of the public. They voiced their views at "a historical juncture when the cultural environmental critique has merged with scientific concerns" (Szolucha, 2020, p. 93). The climate movement was able to articulate concerns shared by many adults too and managed to seize what researchers have referred to as a current "planetary moment" brought about by the rapidly rising general consciousness of environmental and climatic dangers (Millsten et al., 2020). In a way, it seemed that the young were given the role of educators of the wider society, as they formulated their sentiments and anxiety about the fate of the planet and emphasised the need to act. Moreover, the movement of the young adopted strategies and ways of relating, which prefigured what a good life would look like for them in the future.

In this article, we examine the constructive democratic practices of young climate activists and their views on how democracy should be improved. In doing this, we utilise ethnographic data and interviews collected from young climate activists in Finland during 2020. All of the quotes in this article are from our interviews. We regard the young as actors in their own right, not mere *victims* of the climate crisis, and we focus on their collective action. Second, we study how the young want to contribute to society, what kind of improved forms of democracy they imagine, and how they think the necessary steps towards eco-socially just societies can be created. This contributes to the fundamental question of what living well in a world worth living in might be like during the eco-crisis and ecological transformation.

#### **New Forms of Self-expression**

The climate movement of the young does not seem to accept the readily available routes to adulthood offered to them by contemporary societies as fully unproblematic. The movement adopted non-violent strategies that managed to disrupt the existing social order. One visible demonstration has been the *Fridays for Future*-movement, where young people have refused to attend schools on Fridays and instead demonstrated on the streets and in social media and demanded change. By doing this, the activists contradict the central generational narrative of modern societies by claiming that there are more important issues for children and the young than schooling if we want to ensure a good and just future for all. This effectively questioned the social contract, in which formal education was seen as the most useful way to secure a good future.

In Finland, a country in northern Europe with 5.5 million inhabitants that traditionally favoured formal education as an individual and societal way forward, the school strikes gathered significant momentum during the spring of 2019. They, along with other major demonstrations organised by young people, left the educational community perplexed. Finnish activism has generally been described as consensus-driven and rarely adopting strategies that radically challenge the normal state of affairs (Luhtakalllio, 2019). Compared to their European counterparts, Finnish youth have been less interested in demonstrations or other forms of what Pierre Rosanvallon (2008) has called counter-democracy (Myllyniemi & Kiilakoski, 2019).

The refusal to go to school was met with different responses. Some educators supported the demands of the young, while others adopted legalistic perspectives and suggested different forms of punishment (Kettunen, 2020). The new climate movement was seen as a surprising phenomenon by the general public. Nevertheless, it should not have come as such a surprise, since the importance of environmental issues for children was noted during the 2010s (Holmberg & Alvinius, 2020). Millennials, in general, have been described as a generation interested in politics, affected by the economic and ecological crises of our times and ready to adopt new ways to engage politically (della Porta, 2019). Ecological concerns play a strong role for the majority of the young, although not all. In Finland, a national youth barometer found that, already in 2018, climate change caused by human activity was the greatest concern or a source of uncertainty for young people aged 15–29. Those who are more concerned about the environment are also more likely to be active politically (Myllyniemi & Kiilakoski, 2019).

The novel climate movement adopted anti-hierarchical, bottom-up strategies and was successful in utilising social media and other digital platforms to achieve the political goals of the movement. What was perhaps less visible were the calls to revise our societies so that they would be based less on consumerism and economic growth and the calls to address current socio-ecological injustices. Our study is based on analysing the prefigurative and critical aspects of the climate movement, echoing the imperative which sociologist Alan Touraine described as follows: "Today we must start with the conviction that the study of social relations, conceived as primarily created by social movements, is linked with the permanent fight for freedom and against non-social explanations and legitimisations of social order" (Touraine, 1980, p. 14).

In our earlier work, we have analysed socio-ecological disappointment as a motivational basis for the new climate movement (Piispa et al., 2021), dimensions of ecological injustices argued by activists (Piispa & Kiilakoski, 2021), and calls to democratise political debate on the future (Piispa et al., 2020). The movement has created descriptions of a good future and practices for how to cooperate democratically. In our analysis, we use the concept of utopia to point out how *the world worth living in* is pictured.

#### **Utopia as a Method of Imagining a World Worth Living In**

According to philosopher Bloch (1986), humans tend to yearn for something better. A better shared social world can be imagined if the current reality can be seen as something that can be changed. Utopias are a way to imagine alternative social realities where present injustices can be overcome. Originally, utopia referred to an ideal place in Greek—eu topos—or to a place that does not exist—ou topos. Utopias have been thought to exist in the mind of an individual, in a mythical place or in a concrete geographical place (Portolano, 2012). They may be concrete or abstract, idealistic or realistic, short-term or far in the future. Utopia has a distinctive social function. Utopia serves as a tool for social critique and change. Utopias require social imagination and are connected to hope. For many scholars, "utopia's importance lies in its capacity to embody hope rather than simply desire and to inspire the pursuit of a world transformed" (Levitas, 2013, p. 108). Utopia requires both a language of hope and a language of criticism.

The climate crisis is an urgent concern that affects the very basis of human societies. Levitas (2013) emphasises that the utopias of today have to be ecologically sound; they cannot be founded on societal architecture that is damaging to the climate. Bloch (1986) argued for "concrete utopias", where a good life and a better future are outlined through the analysis of historical and social realities. Given the need to come up with rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2018), climate change requires immediate global action. Thus, climate utopias are relatively short-term utopias. In addition, they do not have to be future-oriented: some utopias can already be here. The concept of everyday utopia emphasises that utopias exist in life as we experience it when new practices are formed. These practices challenge mainstream ideas, enable thinking about life differently, and show that new social patterns can be formed today. For instance, some (youth) cultural environments might already represent one kind of utopia (Cooper, 2014). To use a different language game, utopian ideas about the future can be brought to concrete existence today by prefigurative politics. Social movements, non-bureaucratic groups or networks create practices that try to challenge mainstream activities and create new solidarities (Yates, 2020). In our understanding, prefiguring what the world worth living in looks like is an important part of the future orientation of the climate movement. The utopias of the new climate movement are formed within the peer group that utilises digital tools and connects the global discussion to local activities (Piispa et al., 2020).

In our interpretation, ideas about a better future serve as cognitive and emotional resources that generate political activity and provide hope for the situation seen as threatening the basis of human life on this planet. But utopias do not exist only at the cultural-discursive level. They can inform new practices and practice architectures on which sustainable solutions are based.

#### **Methods and Research Questions**

The writers of this article are youth researchers. Our approach is influenced by youth studies on the participation and political activities of the young. This research field examines everyday activism and participation, concerns how young people cope in changing eco-social conditions and how they react to the changing eco-social order, and examines sites and agoras where young people *do* democracy. As Gharabaghi and Anderson-Nathe (2019) emphasise, when studying youth and climate, we must ask what young people themselves do in the face of climate change and what we can do here and now to listen to their voices.

In our analysis, we combine theoretical educational perspectives with empirical youth research. While there is a rich array of theoretical discussions on utopias, empirical examples of what the utopias of the young might look like are harder to find. In our article, we analyse democratic utopias and how the political agency of young climate activists points out a way for societies to get there. Our analysis is based on ethnographic data that includes 18 interviews gathered during 2020 as part of a research project called *Nutopia*—Youth Utopias in the Era of Climate Change. By activism, we mean collective action in the public sphere that aims to create social change and renew existing practices. Our emphasis is on the young as agents, not as recipients or objects of education.

Multi-sited ethnography was done by participating in forums where young climate activists were *in action*, such as demonstrations and various other kinds of events. Political activities and discussions were observed, as well as how young activists were received in debates concerning climate; in other words, what role young people have in different forums and settings pertaining to climate action. After the coronavirus pandemic hit Finland in early March 2020, the data were largely gathered using *netnography* (Kozinets, 2015), that is, observation of climate activism online.

The interviewees were from various cultural backgrounds. A majority were from, or lived in, the Helsinki capital area, but some interviewees also lived in other locations at the time of the interviews. Approximately two-thirds (N = 12) of the interviewees were assumed to be female based on appearances. At the time of the interviews, the average age was around 23 years. The interviews were mostly carried out via video phone calls due to the coronavirus pandemic. The interviewees were given detailed explanations of the aims, implementation, background and funding of the study to ensure informed consent (see also Piispa & Kiilakoski, 2021).

Our research questions are categorised into two groups, first one dealing with political practices of the young, and the second one on the future of democracy.

#### **Acting Together**

Young activists shared a fear that unless our societies manage to rectify the current practices that are causing the eco-crisis, there is a possibility that human life and social order, as we know it, is in grave danger in the foreseeable future. Different scientific reports, such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC, 2018) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, were often referred to as offering a knowledge basis for action. The report indicated the need to act rapidly, since "avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030" (IPCC, 2018, p. 18). However, despite the scientific evidence, actual political efforts to renew the practices have been insufficient and the requirements of the report have not been met. In our interpretation, the eco-social disappointment towards the inability of the older generations to act quickly enough has been one of the key motivations for the new climate movement (Piispa et al., 2021).

The public reception of the climate movement has often been concerned with environmental anxiety and other individual reactions of the young to the climate crisis. Some, although not all, of our respondents said that they felt powerless and suffered from environmental anxiety. However, the collective power of the movement itself was a remedy for individual action. Acting together was seen as a way out of negative feelings, even if some of the informants thought that we humans had destroyed the planet so much that we could not repair all the damage.

What was perhaps most meaningful to me was that I had such a huge environmental anxiety, and I got rid of it through acting. I had a lot of feedback from others that they had gotten rid of the anxiety the same way. It boiled down to this: It is not only about saving the planet—which is a rhetoric I do not prefer to use, since man cannot save the planet. [The] planet is beyond saving and we should concentrate on saving our species. It [acting] becomes the enabler or guardian of the individual's wellbeing. Like, if you are depressed and have anxiety, don't dwell on it, since you cannot act if you are depressed. Even the tiniest form of activity, even if it is just minimising your personal waste amount, has been an empowering factor for many.

The above quote describes the necessity of doing something at the individual and collective levels. The individual ecological burden is easier to bear when one has a feeling of doing something towards saving the human species. This feeling is echoed when significant others share the same sentiments. Social movements share engagements, familiarity, mutual feelings of ease, shared memories, and common traditions (Luhtakallio & Tavory, 2018). Previous research has noted that participating in social movements has a long-term impact on the personal and political lives of the people involved. The power of a social movement lies in the fact that social movements articulate common concerns, offer a way to do something to find a solution to these problems, and create relationships. Participation in social movements can be empowering and may change not only the lives of the young people involved but also bring about sustainable practices within the family and even grandparents (Nissen et al., 2020). In this way, young activists involved in social movements may change what is happening in the private sphere in their daily surroundings.

Everyday activism encompasses both individual and collective efforts. Youth activism can mean influencing the political sphere through different mechanisms, but it can also involve changing immediate surroundings. For the everyday activism of the young

climate-relevant routine behaviours and social practices are the direct target of change, with a perhaps less direct impact on larger-scale public policies. Moreover, youths' everyday activism takes place within young people's personal spheres of influence (e.g., family and peer networks), rather than in the public sphere. (Trott, 2021, p. 3)

Through transforming the practices they engage in, the young aim at creating a more just and sustainable world.

A key goal for young climate activists was to change the way society reacts to the eco-crisis change while, at the same time, to change how one engages in consumption (see also Kettunen, 2020). For many of them, finding ways to practice the virtue of moderation was important: on an individual level, this meant looking for ways to reduce waste or lowering individual carbon dioxide footprint, as when choosing a vegetarian diet. These practices are examples of everyday activism based on ideals about the future. While these practices are based on individual choices, they are debated together and are socially shared.

The emphasis on disobedience is seen as one of the features of the new climate movement, which is stronger than in earlier social movements (de Moor et al., 2020). There is an inherent countercultural element in the new climate movement. Firstly, the young question some elements of the present practices, such as materialism and extensive consumption. They are trying to find ways to create a better life for their generation and generations to come. Secondly, they actively question the dominant narratives about the role of the young in society. The young refuse to accept the role of learners and listeners and instead see themselves as agents of change (Trott, 2021). The young do not want to sign a social contract and accept the consequent place in society that is offered to them as *not-yet-adults*; they are instead, as active agents, trying to convince society that current practices are not sustainable and need to be reversed quickly. By creating alternative forms of democratic engagement and social interaction, the young experiment in a more socially and ecologically just future.

For many of the activists, engaging in politics was an important goal. On a personal level, many activists interviewed stated that their activist practices today are something that they want to continue. They want to engage in processes of deliberative democracy that they regard as valuable and meaningful. In other words, their political practices of today can often be interpreted as prefigurative to their visions of better democracy.

Despite the promise of the more democratic future, various interviewees reported that, at times, they experienced fatigue related to climate activism. Many expressed the hope that some decades from now, in their full adult years, they would no longer have to be *climate* activists. Nevertheless, they typically expressed that they would like to utilise their skills and knowledge in other fields of society. In this way, while the topics of their activities might change, they feel that activist practices themselves will be with them in the future.

Informant: I really hope that I don't have to do this [in the future]. I don't do this for fun but because I have to and this is needed… And I don't have other hobbies. I can imagine other things to do too instead of using my time in this, but now it's simply obligatory. [...]

Interviewer: What about some other political activity, like working in some organisation, can you see it as your future profession or…

Informant: Absolutely. I have ended up on this road and there is no way to get me out of it anymore.

Prefigurative politics "links the particular, local and present moment to alternative worlds and the future via imagination and practice" (Yates, 2020, p. 9). New social movements such as the climate movement of the young use innovative and often everyday forms of activism. Through experimenting and developing new social practices, these movements and people involved in them examine new political identities and concepts, new ways of interacting in a just manner and creating new socioecological relations (Blühdorn & Deflorian, 2021). While it would be easy to overemphasise the critical components in the new climate movement, it is worth acknowledging that by creating new practices, the young and others are prefiguring what just society and eco-socially sustainable practices could look like. For this reason, the road they have "ended up on" has the potential to change not only individual life courses but also our shared social world.

#### **Democratising Democracy**

The political styles and ways of influencing society within the climate movement are varied. Some proponents of the movement opt for influencing the political system from within, some use social media to shed light on ecological issues and others use the tools of counter-democracy such as demonstrations or civil disobedience. What all activists share, more or less, is eco-social disappointment. This has been taken to mean that a lot of adults—such as educators, researchers, and politicians—have failed them, inside and, more importantly, outside the classroom (Trott, 2021). The young are also critical of the existing state of democracy, which emphasises electoral political participation and downplays various other forms of democratic participation. Young activists also do not see consumer democracy and individual lifestyle choices as being enough (Pickard et al., 2020). Despite their criticisms, young activists do not call for abandoning all the intellectual heritage that our societies have to offer: instead of replacing democracy with something else, they seek to improve it.

Young activists are committed to the principles of democracy although they are critical of the current state of democracy. The political system that has been destructive and has caused an eco-social disappointment, is still partly inevitable in imagining what a better world would look like in the future. Young activists value *the promise* of democracy. A truly democratic society is an integral element of the ecosocial utopias of the young. When they are building better practices, the way forward is to democratise democracy and help citizens become more engaged in matters affecting them. However, in order for humanity to sustainably face the climate crisis, democratic principles should be preserved, cultivated, and renewed.

Despite everything I still in a way believe in democracy. It is, after all, the best we have, in light of what we know. But then again, democracy is not something designated, it can be in bad shape or good shape. At the moment it is not in very good shape, thus [I hope] it could evolve and improve.

When a better society is imagined, implicit images of the good society and views of how people are and should be are presented (Levitas, 2013). The democratic principles are shared by young activists. There are calls to make democracy more inclusive and to ensure that all voices in society can be heard. These call to create grassroots democratic practices are shared by many social movements and are often contrasted with the existing (party) political culture. The social organisation of the movement prefigures what a better society might look like. The dynamics between the way the group organises itself and the way society is thought to operate are one of the motivational bases for activities (Luhtakallio & Tavory, 2018). One of the activists we interviewed offered a vision for the future using immanent critique (i.e., the form of criticism that contrasts the promise of our political system to the realities young people are facing).

Of course I hope that [politics] would transform to more dialogical activity and that it would take into account everyone, that it would be more equal and that certain kind of toughness would disappear from it. But then I also just hope that all the young people [...] don't give way to the old practices, but rather just bravely… I hope all the young people would renew and contest the practices and conventions that don't serve the purpose that everyone could be well.

The *old practices* that prevent citizens from engaging in political activities and contribute to preserving ecologically harmful ways of life are criticised. The explicated ideas about how the new democratic practices could look like may, at first, seem rather general and devoid of concrete content. This, too, can be seen in a different light if we look at the way the practices of the young prefigure how democratic decision-making should be. They are anti-hierarchical, inclusive and react rapidly to whatever is going on. Young activists are also aware that they need to engage with the adult society. The call to listen to science is paramount for the movement, but utopias of the young are about enabling citizens to participate in the world of politics.

I think decision-makers should strongly rely on expert knowledge and bring experts in to help make the decisions and to make preparations. And then we need to offer citizens possibilities to take part in the decision-making as widely as possible, and also utilise tools of direct democracy where possible.

The democratic ethos of activists is about maximising the freedom of everyone and supporting engagement with the world, which are seen as key elements in education for democracy (Biesta, 2013). Central elements of the utopias expressed by the young are creating more spaces to debate and discuss how we could tackle the challenges facing us. Seven out of eighteen interviewees emphasised that we need more dialogue between people and different groups in our society for everyone willing to be able to express their opinions and participate in democratic processes. In other words, democracy should be more accessible, understandable, and open to all.

We really need to get people to meet in various ways and frame the issue in a way that we try to solve these problems together, and not compete with who gets to decide. [...] And we should create places for discussion, and teach people to discuss, and negotiate how to do it and how to keep it going.

On a personal level, many saw that their activist practices pertaining to the new climate movement were something that they wanted to continue. They wanted to engage in processes of deliberative democracy that they regarded as valuable and meaningful. In other words, their political practices of today can often be interpreted as prefigurative to their visions of better democracy. While they felt the need to renew ecological practices, there were calls to do so in a socially sustainable manner. These problems about a just ecological transformation cannot be solved without asking questions that are educational in the deepest sense of the word and creating sustainable—in all of its meanings—democratic practices. Also, the activism itself needs to be sustainable, and if it can currently create sustainable practices, they can also prefigure future changes.

But now, especially at the grassroots level they have taken into account this sustainable activism, regenerative culture, mental wellbeing, sharing the positions of power, decentralisation and all these elements, they are included in the activities better than before. [...] And it is also less hierarchical, more reciprocal, than what we are used to in society in general.

For the activists themselves, democratic principles, inclusion, and deliberation are important. Yet this is something that is currently not easy to realise in society. Some expressed a wish that their political agency would become better embedded and more natural in their own lives, emphasising the view that the ideal of democratic citizenship is still in the making. This might be more feasible if decision-making were more accessible to all. Currently, activism is a moral duty that is not always easy or enjoyable. Not only is climate activism often seen as a *must* rather than a source of enjoyment, it can, as pointed out by multiple interviewees, be time-consuming and exhausting and may result in burnout. This, intrinsically, is far from the ideal of social activism or democracy at large.

For the young activists interviewed and observed, living well is connected to a lively democratic culture. In this kind of culture, active citizens would be supported. The utopias of climate activists are about creating a participatory culture in which different people have the capacity and motivation to act. There is optimism that creating a democratic culture would encourage citizens to be active and interested. To achieve this, democracy and education should be connected.

I would start to think about our educational system from a whole new perspective. I would change it so that it would provide more broad education, and that it would encourage being active, and that people [...] would become active citizens. [...] And I believe that this process would feed on itself, and it would produce the healthy change needed within the political system. I believe that if the climate movement becomes more radical or creates a shake-up of the political system, that it is certainly fine and interesting and all, but what I'm afraid of is that it is just an eruption of a volcano. Whereas sustained and farsighted creation of a political citizen is something that feeds itself and keeps itself alive.

One thing the interviewees widely agreed upon was that democracy should form the platform to reach the climate goals. Five interviewees acknowledged that the climate crisis could, in principle, be tackled by non-democratic, inhumane means, but *climate totalitarianism* was rejected as a solution. Climate activists share the idea that the climate crisis should be tackled democratically. Most seem to agree that democracy requires fixing, but in principle, it is the best imaginable framework to debate the contents of and to implement a socio-ecologically just transition.

#### **Conclusion**

One central tenet is shared by the activists: various current practices need to change. By voicing that our societies' current track is not sustainable, the climate movement has challenged the moral and cognitive authority of adults and instead has sought to influence society at large. In this way, the climate movement can be seen as an example of how reacting to the needs of young people may require "resetting and rearming the intergenerational contract" and acknowledging that the "approaches deriving from consumerism are completely obsolete", to quote French philosopher Stiegler (2015, p. 207). The demands of the young include resetting current ecological and political arrangements. This requires creating sustainable practices, some of which are prefigured in the way the new climate movement operates, fostering a dialogue that takes young people seriously as societal agents and aims to create inclusive spaces for democracy.

Living well in a world worth living in for young activists is connected to being able to achieve ecological transformation. Achieving transformation, in turn, is connected to creating democratic processes where citizens can discuss and participate in matters that are important to them. Young climate activists often argue that the eco-crisis is fundamentally a crisis of democracy, as the current political system has not been able to address the situation sufficiently. Creating democratic structures requires building new platforms and supporting dialogue. Climate activism itself is participating in democratic processes in a myriad of ways, and the ideals of active citizenship and so-called sustainable activism demonstrate a way forward: towards just forms of politics and citizenship that constitute what lives worth living are about.

Furthermore, climate activists demand that political decision-making should not be tied primarily to economic interests; rather, it should serve the purpose of creating an eco-socially just society (Piispa et al., 2020). This may well require completely new frameworks for how we understand a life worth living. These requirements show the interconnectedness of the ecological and the social. By picturing both points of criticism through the lenses of the present status quo and an alternative and better state of affairs, young activists are in effect simultaneously educating themselves, through their interactions, and society at large by exploring processes of extinction, survival and human suffering and flourishing (Kemmis & Edwards-Groves, 2018). Seen in this light, the young feel that they are the ones who are in charge of educating the elderly, not the other way around. This task of educating societies and previous generations is described as follows.

When future researchers and historians look at this era, they are like 'how can it be that there were so many adults and decision-makers around, who were so badly in the dark, and they always managed to prioritise something else, whereas these kids just pressed on and pressed on and pressed on, and passionately fought together for a better tomorrow…' like we were not the hooligans, but we were the ones who stood for the right cause.

Young climate activists have emphasised that whatever a *world worth living in*  might look like, it certainly is not what they see around them. They have taken agency in both criticising current practices and imagining what a better world might look like. Living well for all requires meeting these demands in a sustainable, democratic and inclusive manner. In addition, they are prefiguring what sustainable practices look like. Perhaps more than anything, the new climate movement shows how important it is to combine understanding about the eco-social condition, the values that should guide finding solutions and the need to create new practices that combine the present with ideals and hopes about the future.

#### **References**

Piispa, M., Kiilakoski, T., & Ojajärvi, A. (2021). Mikä ilmastoliike? *Nuorisotutkimus, 39*(2), 8–26.

**Tomi Kiilakoski** Ph.D., is the Leading Senior Researcher in the Finnish Youth Research Network and Adjunct Professor at Tampere University. His areas of expertise include youth work, youth participation, educational policy, school violence and its prevention, cultural philosophy, and critical pedagogy. He actively engages in promoting participation and in the development of youth work and educational policy at the local and state levels in Finland.

**Mikko Piispa** Ph.D., is a youth researcher. His recent works include research on youth climate activism, and his Ph.D. thesis on young people's mobilities and utopias during the era of climate crisis. Piispa has worked at the Finnish Youth Research Network on various research projects, relating to topics such as life course research on elite athletes and young artists, lifestyle sports, recreational doping use and smoking among young people.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 13 Finding Worlds Worth Living in**

**Stephen Kemmis and Kathleen Mahon**

**Abstract** This chapter discusses diverse views of worlds worth living in, as described by different groups of students, young people, and adults. It also highlights how the project of research and writing that produced this volume is an example of critical praxis: history making action directed towards realising the good for humankind. Perhaps, in this, it is an example of what Anna Stetsenko calls a 'transformative activist stance'. In researching and articulating views of worlds worth living in, the contributors to the volume, and the participants with whom they spoke, not only began to imagine worlds worth living in, they also began to realise them.

**Keywords** World worth living in · Deep listening · Transformative activist stance · Critical praxis · Social justice

## **Diverse Views of Worlds Worth Living In**

From their deep listening, contributors to this volume have articulated diverse views about what constitutes a world worth living in. Some chapters have identified the views of students or refugees or young people about the kinds of worlds *they* think would be worth living in. Some chapters have also identified the kinds of processes needed to help people articulate their views about worlds worth living in. In some chapters, educators have articulated what they think a world worth living in might be like. And some chapters give researchers' views about the kind of research needed to bring into being worlds worth living in.

S. Kemmis (B)

K. Mahon University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### **The Views of Participants**

In many chapters of this volume, authors have listened to and reported the voices of different kinds of young people and adults about worlds *they* think are worth living in. As participants in these investigations of worlds worth living in, students and others are not only envisaging futures in which injustices and obstacles to better worlds are overcome, they are also showing ways in which they *can be* overcome. Through their collective efforts, they are already realising, or beginning to realise, more just, inclusive, and sustainable futures.

In Chap. 3, for example, Susan Groundwater-Smith advocates research that captures and amplifies students' voices; the students she talked to said they wanted to be agentic so they can successfully construct the futures they want to realise. Gunilla Karlberg-Granlund (Chap. 4) reports that small village schools give students "roots", a sense of safety and of belonging to a place with its own local culture and history, and also "wings", a sense of their own growth. Virginia Moller (Chap. 5) explains that students in Steiner schools develop a sense of agency that reveals a deep understanding of the processes of life; a caring love for people, plants, and animals; and a subtle understanding of the forces at work in the world at large. In Chap. 6, Christine Edwards-Groves echoes the voices of young Australian Aboriginal men who hope for a world in which they are heard, valued, and trusted, and in which they can lead fulfilling lives that embrace their Aboriginal identities, communities, cultures, and knowledge. Catherine Burgess, Christine Grice, and Julian Wood (Chap. 7) call for strenuous efforts to ensure that the voices and perspectives of Aboriginal people are recognised and responded to in deliberations about education, especially Aboriginal education. Sally Windsor and Master of Educational Research student Amoni Kitooke (Chap. 8) report on projects undertaken by participants in this Master's degree course. They explore aspects of a world worth living in and conclude that such a world offers people opportunities for (1) civic political engagement; (2) both interdependence and dependence in terms of connections with others and meeting everyone's basic needs; (3) both "flow and slow" paces in life in terms of having meaningful work to accomplish valued ends while also doing it at a sustainable pace that preserves their mental health; and (4) equitable access for all to sufficient resources necessary for living a reasonable life. Sally Morgan (Chap. 9) shares the views of asylum-seeking tertiary students whose opportunities to live well are impeded by a range of practical, political, and legal obstacles; they want worlds in which they can act transformatively together, "conjuring up" relational and collective agency, to overcome the disempowering discourses of governments. Nick Haswell, Mervi Kaukko, Marte Knag Fylkesnes and Paul Sullivan (Chap. 10) share voices of young people in Finland, Norway, and Scotland, who have arrived in those countries as unaccompanied minors and as refugees. They want a world in which they are cared for and can care for others, where they are listened to and can listen to others, where they feel safe and can help others feel safe. Nick Hopwood, Chris Elliot, Jessica Gowans, and Kate Disher-Quill (Chap. 11) report the story of seven-year-old Henry, who feeds by tube. Henry and his family have broken through the deficit discourses that usually attend tube feeding (e.g., focussed on concerns about the adequacy of nutrition and weight gain) to the transformative extent that cooking and food have become sources of joy in Henry's life. He says the kitchen is his "favrote place". And in Chap. 12, Tomi Kiilakoski and Mikko Piispa call for an ecological transformation to address the pressing climate emergency and to build sustainable futures locally and globally. They also want a world that fosters and renews hope in young people.

# **Processes to Help Articulate People's Views About Worlds Worth Living In**

A strong communitarian theme runs through these advocacies: a sense that building a world worth living in is a collective enterprise, which must be participatory, inclusive, and democratic. On this view, part of what 'a world worth living in' means is that it engages people reflexively (as both subjects and objects) in participatory and collective processes of self-realisation, through collective self-expression, self-development, and self-determination.

In Chap. 6, Edwards-Groves, like Burgess, Grice and Wood in Chap. 7, reminds us of the importance of centring Aboriginal voices and respecting and embracing Aboriginal knowledge, especially in endeavouring to understand how best to support Aboriginal youth in appropriately leading learning in schools and Aboriginal communities. Both chapters stress the importance of deep listening with respect to the voices of Indigenous people. Gunilla Karlberg-Granlund (Chap. 4) describes the experiences of freedom and relatedness that give students "wings" to grow, and the experiences of safety, proximity, and connections to their own culture and history that give students "roots" in their communities. Sally Windsor and Amoni Kitooke (Chap. 8) describe how a course created a community of practice to conduct research in which students could study aspects of what a world worth living in might be. Sally Morgan (Chap. 9) reports initiatives with asylum-seeking tertiary students who also advocate forming connections and networks to build collective agency for building more equitable life conditions for everyone. Youth researchers Tomi Kiilakoski and Mikko Piispa (Chap. 12) call for participatory, inclusive, and democratic processes of transformation that engage young people in working to build what they describe as "everyday utopias", informed both by critique and by hope. These processes should be realised as hopeful, sustainable forms of life that will continue to contribute to global transformation. In Chap. 11, Nick Hopwood, Henry and Jessica Gowans, Kate Disher-Quill, and Chris Elliot advocate for research that takes a *transformative activist stance*  (Stetsenko, 2017) and promotes people's agency in overcoming deficit discourses and creating discursive, material, and social conditions that realise worlds worth living in.

These views of the kinds of processes that help to realise worlds worth living in demonstrate that the authors contributing to this volume are already working in ways that give life to those processes. Processes of articulating people's ideas about worlds worth living in are not just a preparation for a distant future, but bring that future into being.

#### **Research to Realise Worlds Worth Living In**

As already suggested, several contributors to this volume have advocated establishing sustainable processes of research that investigate and articulate what different groups of people think constitutes a world worth living in. Susan Groundwater-Smith (Chap. 3) echoes this view, drawing on her experience of research articulating student voice. Christine Edwards-Groves (Chap. 6) suggests that a central aim for researchers is to help bring into being worlds worth living in, both by listening to marginalised and subaltern groups, and by giving voice to their hopes and aspirations. The young people interviewed by Tomi Kiilakoski and Mikko Piispa (Chap. 12) also call for research that gives young people a voice, including research like their own, which was conducted by (and with) young people. This message also reverberates through Sally Morgan's Chap. 9 about asylum-seeking tertiary students who also want to build research networks to help them realise better lives for themselves—and for all. In Chap. 8, Sally Windsor and Amoni Kitooke advocate for building communities of practice that conduct research to bring better worlds into existence for everyone. Significantly, the participants in the research reported are co-authors, which not only challenges the power imbalance we usually see between author/researcher and research participant, but also lifts their voices to another level as they represent themselves. Nick Hopwood, Henry and Jessica Gowans, Kate Disher-Quill, and Chris Elliot (Chap. 11) push beyond *hope* for a better world, by making better worlds *happen* through research that takes a transformative activist stance.

These contributing authors show that they are already conducting the kinds of research that they believe can help to create worlds worth living in.

#### **Educators' Views About Worlds Worth Living In**

Education, as the contributors to this volume see it, is not a process of preparing children, young people, and adults with knowledge, capabilities, and values for *future*  participation in their communities' and societies' cultures, economies, environments, and social and political life; it is a process of bringing about good for each person and the good for humankind in the *present* everyday life and practices of schools and other educational institutions. The volume reveals a variety of ways in which educators and educational researchers think about education as a process that brings into being worlds worth living in (although the consequences of educational processes sometimes turn out to be otherwise).

In Chap. 2, Stephen Kemmis argues that education has a double purpose: the good for each person, and the good for humankind (and for the community of life). He thinks that education should foster individual and collective self-expression, to realise a culture based on reason; individual and collective self-development, to realise productive and sustainable economies and environments; and individual and collective self-determination, to realise just and democratic societies. In Chap. 4, Gunilla Karlberg-Granlund discusses the accomplishments of small village schools that do not just teach about, but model and embody living well in a world worth living in their communities. Virginia Moller (Chap. 5) presents a view of Steiner education, which employs a "pedagogy of love", "of life", and "of wisdom", which, she argues, is evident in students' developing understandings, capabilities, and values, including in their hope for the ecological future of the planet, and their deep understandings of the processes of life; their caring love of people, plants, and animal life; and their wise understanding of the forces at work in the world at large. In Chap. 12, Tomi Kiilakoski and Mikko Piispa argue for education for ecological transformation to address the climate emergency and bring into being sustainable futures.

#### **Realising the Vision(s)**

As this brief review of the content of this volume suggests, the contributors are not merely imagining some future, some better world, and inviting others to imagine such things, they are already taking steps towards realising worlds worth living in. With the help of those they have been listening to, they see the untoward consequences of the ways people now live and work; they conduct critiques to identify the conditions that generate these untoward consequences; they imagine the "everyday utopias" (Kiilakoski & Piispa) that make possible alternative ways of being; and they begin to realise those ways of being in order to see what it means to live well in these worlds worth living in. In their different ways, they are thus, with others, living *critical praxis*, and giving life and breath to the "transformative activist stance" advocated by Stetsenko (2017).

#### **Critical Praxis and the Transformative Activist Stance**

For some years, the authors of this chapter, along with other contributors to this volume, have engaged with the notion of critical praxis to draw attention to and understand the moral-political dimensions of education and research (e.g., Kemmis & Smith, 2008; Mahon et al., 2020). The stories shared in this volume personify critical praxis in the senses of

engagement in/with communities (Freire, 1970); deep listening becomes a way of being/staying informed, and is part of the deliberative process in deciding how best to act;

. responsive action (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2015; Mahon et al., 2020): the story tellers (both authors and participants/communities involved) act in ways that are sensitive to context, culture, and circumstances; the stories reflect deep respect for, and valuing of, their partners in the research.

The commitment to critical praxis permeates this volume: it does not rest content with critique, but searches for, envisages, and strives to bring into being transformative possibilities to make the world a better place. As we have seen, the research that led to the preparation of this volume created a space in which diverse voices could be heard and shared, and in which participants' views of worlds worth living in could be nudged towards reality.

Drawing on a long tradition of Vygotskian scholarship, developmental psychologist Stetsenko (2017, 2019) shares similar convictions. She also discusses how this dialectic of the actual and the possible happens through our agency as individuals and as participants in shared cultures, material circumstances, and societies, through human action in history. She rejects the view that our action in the world is isolated and idiosyncratic; it is always fed by, and contributes to, shared cultures, shared material circumstances, and shared social conditions. Despite our occasional feeling that changing the world is beyond us, she assures us that we change the world every time we act. In fact, we can't help doing it. She describes her perspective in terms of a "transformative worldview", of which she says (2019, p. 2):

In the transformative worldview, reality is reconceived as that which is being constantly transformed and realized (literally made real) by people themselves—and, importantly, by people not as isolated, autonomous entities but as agentive actors or active agents of social practices. At the same time, human development is posited to be not only fully immersed in collaborative practices but, more to the point, co-constituted by each individual's active contributions to these practices, whereby the dynamics of what exists is changed as a whole every time a person acts. The emphasis is thus on the nexus of people changing the world and being changed in this very process of them changing the world—as two poles of one and the same, bi-directional, and recursive co-constitution of people and the world in a process of a simultaneous self- and world-realization. This approach implies that people never merely react, nor respond, to what exists but agentively act in co-creating both the world and themselves beyond 'the givenness' of the present. Agency in this account is accorded with a central, formative (or constitutive) role in the processes of human development, the overall sociohistorical dynamics, and the very materiality of the world.

On this transformative view, talking about worlds worth living in is not just wishing; it is giving a living voice to those worlds; it not only anticipates them, but it also conjures them up as forms of life to be inhabited. Doing this has been the driving force behind the project that has produced this volume.

## **A Final Word**

Since 2006, the Pedagogy, Education and Praxis (PEP) international research network has been investigating the nature of, and the conditions for, education and critical praxis in places including Australia, Colombia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. In 2019, in Lübeck, Germany, participants in the network agreed to collaborate in the *World Worth Living In* project to listen to, and give voice to, diverse children, young people, and adults in the countries in which we are based. We have been inspired by their views of worlds worth living in, and humbled to recognise that gathering, listening deeply to, and communicating their views has also been a process of communicative action. Habermas (1987) describes communicative action as what we do when we stop to ask, "what are we doing?" and sincerely commit ourselves to (1) intersubjective agreement about the language we use, (2) mutual understanding of one another's points of view (without necessarily agreeing with others' perspectives) and (3) striving for unforced consensus about what to do under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Now we see the fruits of the first phase of the *World Worth Living In* project in this volume, we also recognise that the project has unleashed communicative action on a large scale. People have done it locally, in their own local settings, and they have done it together, communicating across borders with others who also want to discover and realise worlds worth living in.

At the time of writing (November 2021), the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP 26) on Climate Change is drawing to a close. It has not produced national commitments to action sufficient to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius by the end of the century. Despite the pleas of representatives like those of the low-lying island nations already experiencing the destruction wrought by rising oceans and changing climate, official delegates of the parties (mostly nations) were unable to reach a consensus on action to avert the urgent existential threat to humanity and to the community of life on Earth. Outside the conference, activists, protesters, representatives of non-government organisations, and—especially—young people and students urged the parties to commit to more urgent, ambitious, and effective action. The waves of this vast social movement crashed on the rocks of the established self-interests of industries like the fossil fuel industry, and governments reluctant to jeopardise their existing economic interests. Yet those self-interests *will* crumble. They are crumbling now. Disinvestment from the fossil fuel industry proceeds apace; decarbonisation is under way as the world harnesses renewable energy. The contributors to this volume, and the children, young people, and adults they consulted, are on the side of social movement in this dialectic; they point the way out of the cul-de-sac into which our existing social orders have led us. They have allies in progressive nations and organisations, of course. They are not alone in wanting worlds that are more just and democratic in practice—not just in fine (greenwashing) rhetoric worlds in which they can live healthy, interesting, and satisfying lives, and worlds in which their views and perspectives are listened to. There could hardly be a clearer message in this book for educators: those who inhabit the future have somehow been disenfranchised in the process of shaping it, including in their own education, and there are significant ways in which this can be turned around. Deep listening is just the beginning. For showing that, and how, transformation is possible, we owe the authors and those whose voices resound in the chapters, a profound debt of gratitude.

#### **References**

**Stephen Kemmis** Stephen Kemmis is Professor Emeritus of Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, and Federation University, Victoria, in Australia. He is interested in education, practice theory, action research, education for sustainable practice, and the development of higher education. Among other works, he is co-author, with Wilfred Carr, of *Becoming Critical: Education, knowledge and action research* (Falmer, 1986); with Robin McTaggart and Rhonda Nixon, of *The Action Research Planner: Doing critical participatory action research* (Springer, 2014); and with Jane Wilkinson, Christine Edxwards-Groves, Ian Hardy, Peter Grootenbor and Laurette Bristol, of *Changing Practices, Changing Education* (Springer, 2014).

**Kathleen Mahon** is an Associate Professor in Pedagogical Work in the Department of Educational Work at the University of Borås, Sweden, and a Senior Lecturer (Higher Education) in the Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, University of Queensland. Her research areas are educational praxis, higher education pedagogy, teacher professional learning, and outdoor education. Kathleen is co-editor of the Springer books *Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures* (2017) and *Pedagogy, education and praxis in critical times* (2020). She is also a Senior Editor of the *Journal of Praxis in Higher Education*. Kathleen has a professional background as a secondary school and outdoor education teacher in Australia. **Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

#### **A**

Aboriginal, 105, 115 aboriginal elders, 105 aboriginal identity/ies, 110 aboriginal knowledge, 90 aboriginal learners, 89 aboriginal perspectives, 119 aboriginal spirituality, 130 aboriginal voices, 89 aboriginal youth voices, 87, 90, 101 leading practices, 115 young Aboriginal men at risk, 226 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, 87, 89, 120 Aboriginal voices project, 115 Access to education, 126 to tertiary education, 155 Action research, 24, 29, 31, 40, 153, 155, 162 transformation, 212 Activism, 193 Adulthood, 178, 186, 187, 213 Afghanistan, 156, 178 Agency human, 155, 159, 160, 163, 169 relationally conditioned, 169 self, 167 temporally embedded, 153 world-making, 159 Algozzine, B., 144 Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, 87, 89 Allsop, J., 178 Ambition, 28 Anthropology, 175 Anthroposophical, 72

Anthroposophy, 72 Árbediehtu, 2 Aristotle, 1 Arnstein, 32 Arrangements, 18, 19, 22, 72 cultural-discursive, 91, 107 material-economic, 91, 107 social-political, 91, 107 Ashley, M., 78 Assemblages, 27 Asylum claim, 156 seekers, 7, 153, 154, 156, 159, 167, 168, 170, 178 unaccompanied minors, 156, 178 Atkinson, J., 128, 130 Australian Institute of Teaching Standards and Leadership (AITSL), 120, 122 Australian Professional Standard for Principals, 120 Authentic, 30 interaction, 32 relationship, 54 Autoethnographic research, enquiry, 141

#### **B**

Barney, K., 90, 93 Bartlett, R.C., 21 Basso, K., 109 Bat, M, 32, 95 Belarus, 141 Belonging (sense of), 49 Bernstein, R.J., 14, 15 Berryman, M., 127 Bierria, 204 Biesta, G., 4–6, 20

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2023 K. E. Reimer et al. (eds.), *Living Well in a World Worth Living in for All*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7985-9

Bildung, 5 Bitterman, N., 143 Blackmore, C., 145 Bloch, Ernst, 214 Blue, L., 123 Bodkin-Andrews, G., 127 Bohm, D., 4 Bora ground, 88, 100 'Both-ways' leadership, 124 Bourdieu, P., 19 Boyle, T., 3, 70, 74, 75, 150, 159, 229, 230 Bragg, S., 90 Brice Heath, S., 91, 93, 105 Brimble, M., 123 Bristol, L., 2, 120, 132 Bruner, 61 Bunda, T., 130 Burbules, N., 20 Burgess, C., 7, 117, 120–123, 130, 227 Burnett, B., 106 Burris, M.A., 98 Buxton, L., 122

#### **C**

Caldwell, S., 75 Cambodia, 141 Cameroon, 141 Canadian First Nation communities, 98 'Candle for the people' (kansankynttilä), 58 Capra, F., 74 Care to be cared for, 179, 181 to care for, 179, 181 Carlson, B., 127 Case study, 117, 137 Castelton, H., 98 Catherine Burgess, 226 Charles Sturt University, 2 Chase, E., 178 Childhood, 195 Chisholm, J., 106 Christine Grice, 226 Civic action, 143 Civics and citizenship, 139 Clifford, J., 91 'Closing the Gap' policy, 121 failure of, 121 Collaborative conversations, 106 Collective meaning making, 147 Collective practice, 121 collective activism, 110 Collective responsibility, 81

Collectividual, 14, 15, 23 College of teachers, 71, 72 Collins, S.D., 21 Colonisation, 126 colonial mind, 120 Communicative action, 107, 231 Communicative space(s), 100, 108 Communitarian theme, 227 Communities of practice, 5, 137 situated learning, 144, 145 Community community relations, 53, 124, 125 school-community, 53 Compton-Lilly, C., 106 Conditions of possibility, 17, 21 Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC), 32 Connection and basic needs, 137 Conscientisation, 127 Consumption, 217 vegetarianism, 217 waste, 217 Contemplation, 128 Contestation, 79 Conversation, 2, 4, 8, 17, 30, 33, 83, 88, 90, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104, 106, 124, 130, 132, 139, 153, 155, 157, 161–163, 165–169 Cook-Sather, A., 90 Co-operation, 60 Coronavirus, 216 Country, 129 country-centred relationships, 127 COVID-19, 7 pandemic, 137 Creagh, S., 120, 122 Creation stories, 105 Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR), 153, 155, 157, 162 Critical pedagogy, 127 critical pedagogy of place, 127 Critical praxis, 225 Critical reflection, 75, 80, 138, 144 Critical theory, 195 Crosnoe, R., 175 Cultural-discursive arrangements, 16, 91 Culturally inclusive school environments, 89 Culturally Nourishing Schooling Project four pillars of, 132 Culturally responsive research methods, 90, 107 Cultural reductionism, 89 Culture, 87, 91, 102

cultural bias, 88, 131 cultural capital, 127 cultural humility, 88 cultural interface, 32, 130 cultural recognition, 89, 105 cultural sensibility, 53 cultural sensitivity, 100, 101, 106 cultural voice, 89 culture-as-verb, 91 culture of education, 61 indigenous, 118, 122, 127 Cyberbullying, 94

#### **D**

Dadirri, 128 Dahlin, B., 82 Decolonisation, 125 Decolonising schooling, 124 Deep listening, 128 Deficit discourses, 108, 121, 122, 127, 130, 159, 226, 227 Democracy, 212 anti-hierarchical, 214 bottom-up strategies, 214 consumer democracy, 219 counter-democracy, 219 decision-making, 211 democratic engagement, 218 electoral political participation, 219 immanent critique of, 219 prefigurative politics, 218 principles, 219 Dempster, N., 124 De Souza, M., 74 Developed countries, 141 Developing countries, 141 Dialectical materialism, 15 Dialectic of the actual and the possible, 230 Dialogue, 4–8, 29, 59, 70, 72, 77, 80–83, 107, 131, 187, 191–193, 196, 198, 220, 222 Difference, 103, 104 Differentiation, 55 Digital storytelling, 98 Disadvantage "super-disadvantaged", 160 Disconnection, 142 Disher-Quill, K., 8, 226–228 Dispositions, 19 Distance learning, 139 digital community, 140 Dixon, R., 117, 120, 122

Doings, 16 Domination, 21 Double function (of schools) cultural function, 49, 62 educational function, 49, 62 Douglas, S., 117 Dyson, A.H., 108

#### **E**

Eacott, S., 83 Ecological justice, 218 Ecological systems, 74 Ecologies of practices, 74 Ecology carbon dioxide footprint, 217 eco-crisis, 217 eco-social conditions, 215 eco-social disappointment, 219 eco-socially sustainable practices, 218 eco-social order, 215 Economic, 212 Economy, 51 economic interests, 222 Education, 13, 14, 22 Educational governance, 61 Educational leadership, 118, 120, 124, 125, 133 Educational movements, 74 Educational policy and administration, 74 Educational praxis, 72 Educational reform, 116 Educational sciences, 138 Education, educate, 1, 3 double purpose of, 6, 13 educational practice(s), 1 Education for love, life, wisdom, and voice, 69 Education for Sustainability (EfS), 17, 18, 140 Education policy, 74 Edwards-Groves, C., 3, 7, 14, 21, 61, 90, 96, 99, 101, 120, 123, 125, 126, 130–132, 226–228, 230 Eickelkamp, U., 105 Eide, K., 187 Eley, E., 127 Elliot, C., 8, 226–228 Ellis, A.M., 174 Emancipation, 205 Emirbayer, M., 5 Emirbayer & Mische, 5 Emmanouil, N., 126, 127

English, A., 4 Environment climate, 91, 212–214, 216, 217 climate change, 215 climate movement, 212–214, 216 environmental anxiety, 216 environmental critique, 212 global warming, 216 planetary movement, 212 Equality/access, 141 Equitable distribution of resources, 143 Eritrea, 178 Ethics ethical responsibility, 53, 106 ethics of care, 176, 177 Ethnographic, 213 Ethnography netnography, 216 Eudaimonia, 3

#### **F**

Family, 32, 92, 93, 103, 105, 119, 125, 126, 155, 156, 163, 180, 184, 186, 192, 195, 197, 199–201, 203, 204, 217, 226 Feuerbach, L., 13, 14 Field-based research, 140 Fielding, M., 90 fieldwork, 139 Finland, 48, 213 Finland's Ombudsman for Children, 49 Finnish education evaluation system, 49 Finnish education system, 48 Island Policy Council, 49 Rural Policy Council, 49 Swedish-speaking minority, 50 Swedish-speaking schools, 50 Fluckiger, B., 124 Food, 197 cooking, 199 eating, 192 feeding, 191, 192 recipe, 199 Forms of knowledge, 20 Foster, K., 128 Francisco, S., 3, 150 Franck, O., 4 Freedom of action, 52 Freire, P., 127, 230 Fylkesnes, M.K., 226

#### **G**

Galloway, L., 72 Gambia, The, 141 Gergen, K.J, 177 Gerwin, D., 77 Ghana, 141 Gidley, J., 74–77, 81, 82 Global crises, 71 Good (life) for humankind, 1, 3, 225 Gothenburg University, 138 Gowans, H., 8, 226 Gowans, J., 8, 227, 228 Grant Sr AM, Dr. Uncle Stan, 109 Greece, 141 Grice, C., 7, 227 Grootenboer, P., 2, 5, 16, 106, 107, 120, 123, 132, 230 Groundwater-Smith, S., 5, 6, 27, 90, 93, 105–108, 226, 228 Gruenewald, D.A., 127 Guenther, J., 117, 120, 122 Gustavsson, B., 5

#### **H**

Habermas, J., 17, 70, 231 Habitus, 19 Hancock, D.R., 144 Happeningness, 116 Haralambous, B., 73 Hardy, I., 2, 120, 131, 132 Hargreaves, 50 Harrison, N., 90, 110, 117, 122, 123, 144 Hart, R., 6 Hart's ladder of participation, 32 Harvey, P., 117 Haswell, N., 3, 7, 226 Hayes, D., 74 Hayton, S., 90, 94, 105 Healing, 130 Healing Foundation, 128 Hegel, G.W.F, 13, 14 Young Hegelians, 13, 14 Heikkinen, H.L.T., 3 Henry, 227, 228 Heterogeneity, 57 Hierarchy, 69, 81, 82, 119 Historical materialism, 14, 73 History making action, 14, 15, 225 Hobbes, T., 140 Hofstede, 48 Honneth, A. recognition, 61

Honneth's, 61 Hope, 1 Hope Cooperative (Co-op), 153, 154 Hopwood, N., 8, 226–228 Hospitality, 35, 182, 184 Host countries, 173, 174, 177, 178, 186, 187 Human geography, 175 Human spirit, 73 Hutchins, E., 106 Huttunen, R., 232

#### **I**

Identity, 87, 94, 101, 105, 109 aboriginal identity, 89, 91, 106 Imagination, 73, 75, 76, 82, 141, 214, 218 Indigeneity, 89 Inclusive decision-making practices, 79 Indigenous, 1, 32 culture, 118, 122, 127 indigenous forms of knowledge production, 126 indigenous leading practices, 117 indigenous methodology, 123 indigenous practices, 118 indigenous students, 89 indigenous ways of leading, 123 Individual-collective dialectic, 13, 14, 21, 22 Individualism, 143 Infinity symbol, 15 Injustice, 21 systemic, 156 Interdependence, 143 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC, 2018), 216 International Masters students, 137 Intersubjective space(s), 3, 15–17, 22, 117 Iraq, 178

#### **J**

Jantzi, D., 116 Jardine, D.W., 75 Jeannie Herbert, 106, 109 Jha, S., 174, 177, 180, 182, 185–187, Julian Wood, 226 Juvenile justice system, 89

#### **K**

Kamara, M.S., 124 Karlberg-Granlund, G., 6, 226, 227, 229 Kaukko, M., 3, 7, 71, 123, 226 Keddie, A., 89, 90, 94, 124, 125 Kemmis, S., 2, 52, 71, 73, 74, 91, 107, 108, 120, 130–132, 145, 150, 228, 229 Kiilakoski, T., 3, 8, 227–229 King, S., 124 Kitooke, A., 7, 137, 227, 228 Knag Fylkesnes, M., 7 Knutsson, B., 4 Kohli, R. K., 187 Kral, I., 105, 106 Kuschminder, K., 175

#### **L**

Lambek, M., 176, 177 Lamb, G., 73 Language, 8 Lave, J., 19, 20, 141 Leadership, 69, 70, 116 aboriginal notions of, 116 aboriginal voices, 116 collaborative, 81, 124 collective, 81 educational leadership, 74, 116 positional, 80 praxis-led, 80 team, 81, 82 western notions of, 116 Leading as a practice, 116 by leading, 115 by listening, 118, 120, 122, 126, 133 democratic forms of, 123 for love, life, wisdom and voice, 70, 74, 75, 80 leading practices, 117 praxis-led, 80, 81 Leading as a collective practice, 124 Leading by Listening, 131 Leading practices, 69, 74 Learnification of education, 20 Learning, 74 Learning from Country, 132 Legacy caseload, 154, 155, 157, 161, 163 Legitimate peripheral participation, 20 Leithwood, K., 116 Lemniscate, 15, 17, 82 Levitas, R., 214 Lewis, S., 84 Lexico, 4 Life-enabling, 197 Life-saving, 197

Lifeworld, 17 Lingard, B., 71, 120, 122 Listening, 1, 31 as an educative practice, 4, 27, 28, 30, 32 deep listening, 1 listening project, 1 Lived experiences, 142 Living slow and in 'flow', 137 Living well in a world worth living in, 1, 13, 23, 222 Lloyd, A., 150 Lovett & Fluckiger, 125 Lovett, S., 124 Lowe, K., 117, 120–123 Lumby, J., 81 Lupton, R., 74

#### **M**

Macfarlane, A., 90 MacIntyre, A., 3, 14 Maguire, M., 90 Mahon, K., 3, 19, 70, 72, 74, 150, 229, 230 Major, J., 98 Malawi, 141 Mansikka, J.E., 74 Ma Rhea, Z., 119, 120 Martinko, M., 117 Marx, Karl, 13–17 dialectical materialism, 15 historical materialism, 14, 73 individual-collective dialectic, 13–15, 195 third thesis on Feuerbach, 13–17, 21 Marxist dialectics, 195 Material-economic arrangements, 16 Mattingly, C., 177 McCarthy, T., 70 McKnight, A., 129 McKnight, L., 129, 131 McMahon, M., 131 McQuaid, K., 175 Mechanisms of difference, 56 similarity, 56 Medical conditions, 192 feeding, 205 feeding disorder, 192 metabolic disease, 192 tube feeding, 192 Metaphor, 6, 33, 34, 57, 129, 173–175, 177, 180

Method of enquiry descriptive correlational research design, 142 group interviews, 141 online self-administered questionnaires, 142 photo elicitation, 142 qualitative thematic analysis, 142 survey research, 143 Miedema, S., 4 Migration studies, 175 Miller, J.P., 75 Mindell, A., 80 Mixed-methods approach, 33 Mobilisation, 3 Mockler, N., 29, 90, 107 Moje, E., 104 Moller, V., 6, 69, 226, 229 Monograde teaching, 54 Montessori, 55 Moodie, N., 121, 122 Mower, D., 174 Moral and ethical ties, 73, 186, 187 Morgan, A., 76 Morgan, S., 7, 226, 227 Movement movement with others, 177, 180, 182, 183 movement for others, 180 movement in relation to others, 180, 184 Multigrade teaching common timetable, 54 multi-age groups, 54, 55, 57 spiral curriculum, 54 Multimodality, 90, 105, 106 Multimodal research methods, 87, 90, 94, 105, 106, 108 Murray, C., 89, 90, 96, 99, 108 Mutual support, 145, 182

#### **N**

Nangala, I., 124 Nangala, M., 124 Narrative vignettes, 138 National curriculum, 71 National testing, 71 National youth barometer, 213 Nature, 143 Navigation maritime context, 174 destination, 173, 177 social navigation, 175–177, 179, 187

moral navigation, 175–179, 182, 185, 186 relational navigation, 178 Negotiation, 147 Neill, A.S., 31 Neoliberalism, 72 Netherlands, 141 Ng, I., 175 Niche, 21 Nicolini, D., 18, 19 Nielsen, T., 75 Nigeria, 141 Non-human world, 186 NORDFORSK, 173, 174 Norway, 7, 56, 173, 174, 178, 179, 181, 184, 186, 187, 226, 231 Nungurrayi Brown, W., 124 Nunn, C., 175, 187

#### **O**

Obamehinti, F., 90, 95, 106 Ober, R., 95 Oberski, I., 73 Olinger, 106 Olsson, P., 175 On-Country approach, 87, 95, 106, 108 Ontological approach, 117 indigenous ontological approach, 117 Oppression, 21, 126 Osberg, D., 76 Ownership, 49

#### **P**

Pace of life, 142 Participation/participative, 147 inquiry, 27, 28, 32, 33 Participatory research, 98 participatory action research, 31 Partnering for Hope, 155–158, 161–163, 165 Pascal, B., 23 Patrick, R., 122 Pedagogical intentions, 51 Pedagogical love, 126 Pedagogical practice, 19, 32, 78, 79, 83, 117 Pedagogical value, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75 love, life, wisdom, voice, 69, 70, 74 Pedagogy, 55 Pedagogy, Education and Praxis (PEP) international research network, 3, 139

Pedagogy / pedagogical, 6, 19, 27, 28, 31, 32, 39, 42, 47, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 69–72, 74–79, 83, 115, 117, 126, 132, 150 Pedersen, H., 4 Perre, N., 178 Petäjäniemi, M., 178 Petrie, K., 9, 63, 65, 85, 232 Phillips, L., 130 Photo-elicitation interviews, 95, 98 Photointerviews, 95, 96, 101, 104, 108 Photo novella, 97 Photovoice, 95, 97 Phronesis, 51 pedagogical phronesis, 51 practical knowledge, 55 practical wisdom, 51 Physical space-time, 16 Piispa, M., 8, 227–229 Policy asylum seeking, 7 policy-practice gaps, 130 Political engagement, 137 Post-displacement lives, 178 Porter, S.D., 74 Post-formal pedagogy, 74 Power, 2 power over, 125 power sharing, 129 power with, 125 Practice architectures, 17–19, 21, 29, 137, 193 cultural-discursive, 194 cultural-discursive arrangements, 17, 19, 29, 146 environmental practices, 212 material-economic, 194 material-economic arrangements, 17, 19, 29, 146 social-political arrangements, 17, 19, 29, 146, 194 Practice histories, 79 Practice landscapes, 80 Practice research conditions which enable or constrain, 175 intersubjective spaces, 15, 175 Practice/s, 1, 16, 19, 146 democratic practices, 212 initiation into, 20 philosophy of, 195 practice perspective, 116 Practices of decision making, 80

Practice theory/ies, 18, 19, 128 Practice traditions, 19, 71, 123 Praxis, 2, 15, 51, 93, 106, 107, 150, 193 critical praxis, 204, 225 praxis-based ontology, 128 praxis-oriented stance, 89 praxis stance, 106, 107 Praxis-orientation, 88 Praxis-oriented research, 106 Precarity, 154, 184 Prefigure, prefigurement, 119 Presence, 4, 120, 183, 201 Priest, K., 124 Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) project, 122 Principals, principalship, 69, 71, 75 role of, 70 Professional learning, 74, 75 Project (of a practice), 16, 149 Protection, 126, 154, 155, 157, 178 Protest, 212 civil disobedience, 219 climate activism, 218 climate movement, 211, 218 climate totalitarianism, 221 demonstration, 213 everyday activism, 218 Fridays for Future, 213 school strike, 212 social movements, 218 Punishment, 213

#### **Q**

Quality of life and well-being, 142 Quintero, E., 130

#### **R**

Racism, 87, 101, 103, 110 Rainford, J., 94 Rawson, M., 74 Reciprocal leading practices, 69, 70, 129 reciprocal learning relationship, 83 Reflection, 128 Refugee refugee crisis, 174, 178 unaccompanied minors, 156, 226 Reid, A., 120 Reimer, K.E., i–vi, xii, 1, 10 Reification, 147 Reinhabitation, 127 Relatings, 16

Relational architectures, 91, 105 Relationality, 168, 177, 182, 184 Relational wellbeing, 5 Relationships and Respect, 124 Research as Transformative Practice, 107 Research practices, 149 Research praxis, 106 Research training, 137 Resilience, 87, 110, 126 Resistance, 126 Reyers, B., 175 Riley, T., 122 Roberts, A., 81, 83 Rönnerman, K., 80 Rudduck, J., 93 Rural rural perspectives, 54 rural schools, 48 Russell, D., 95, 100 Rwanda, 141

#### **S**

Safety, 6, 55, 154, 155, 179, 181, 226, 227 Safit, I., 77 Sahlberg, P., 71 Sally Morgan, 228 Sámi, 2 Sanders, D., 4 Sand Through My Fingers, 89 Sardar, Z., 76 Sayings, 16 Sayings, doings, and relatings, 16, 17, 19, 91, 107 Schatzki, T., 15, 16 School leaving, 34 School closure, 56 School size neighbourhood schools, 48 small schools, 48 village schools, 49 Scotland, 7, 173, 174, 178, 179, 181, 184, 186, 187, 226 Self-awareness, 87, 89, 91 Self-determination, 21, 22 Self-development, 21, 22 Self-expression, 21, 22 Self-transformation, 80 Self-worth, 87, 89, 91 Sellar, S., 84 Semantic space, 16 Shared experience, 155, 169, 181

Shillingsworth, D., 126, 129, 130 Siljander, P., 5 Simonov, E., 143 Site-based research, 123 Situated knowledge, 19 Size of the school, 48 Sjølie, E., 232 Skoda, U., 174 Skrebneva, I., 123 Small village schools, 226 Smeyers, P., 20 Smith, T.J., 3, 73, 131, 229 Social contract theory, 140 Social engagement, 159–161, 167 Social justice, 141 Social movement, 231 Social networks, 173–181, 184 Social order, 214, 231 Social-political arrangements, 16 Social practice, 15, 23, 196, 203, 217 Social space, 16 Social stratification and access, 137 Socioeconomic status, 141 Sociology, 61, 175 Solidarity, 16, 125 connections, 155, 164 networks, 163 relationships, 119, 159, 164, 167, 169 Special needs, 57 Stacey, M., 120 Steiner Education Australia, 69 Steiner education, schools, 69, 70, 73–75, 226 Australian Steiner curriculum, 70, 75 epistemology, 70 of Steiner education, 69 pedagogy, 74 philosophy, 72 purposes of, 69 Steiner Education Australia, 75 Steiner educators, 72–74 Steiner, R., 5, 73 Sternberg, R.J., 74 Stetsenko, A., 5, 14, 15, 23, 74, 193, 225, 227, 229, 230 Stewart, L., 128 Strack, R.W., 98 Strand, T., 5 Street, B., 91, 93, 105 Strength-based commitments, 132 Strong materiality, 195 Student social and academic practice, 74 Sullivan, B., 110

Sullivan, P., 7, 226 Summerhill, 31 Sustainability, 61 Sustainable, 217 Syria, 178 Systems, 17, 29, 32, 37, 42, 70, 74, 83, 116, 124, 125, 127, 131, 167, 178, 192 Sweden, 141

#### **T**

Talk talking-up, 163, 167–169, Taylor, C., 5 Teachers, 4, 6, 14, 19, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35–37, 39–41, 47, 48, 50–62, 69–72, 75–83, 88, 92, 95, 97, 101, 110, 116–119, 123, 124, 131, 132, 137, 138, 144, 146, 148–150, 154, 164 Teaching, teaching practices, 74 pedagogical intentions, 28 pedagogical thinking, 51, 52, 57, 58 purposes, 51 values, 51, 58, 60 Temporarily embedded agency, 5 Tennent, C., 122 Theory of practice architectures, 6, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 69, 70, 72–74, 91, 137 doings, sayings and relatings, 145 stirred in, 149 Think-me-a-poem, 96, 101, 104, 108 Thomson, P., 105 Thornton, R., 91 Thunberg, Greta, 212 Timespace of human activity, 16 Tjärnstig, L., 74 Tokenism, 93, 105 Touraine, 214 Tradition(s), 3, 60 academic and intellectual, 3 conversation of traditions, 4 Transformation, 150, 196 Transformational leadership, 115 Transformative activist stance, 5, 28, 193 Transformative worldview, 230 Transparency, 71 Trimmer, K., 117, 120, 122 Trudgett, M., 90, 93, 105 Truth telling, 130

#### **U**

Uganda, 141 Uluru statement from the heart, 88 Uncle Stan Grant, 109 UN Declaration of Children's Rights, 31, 49 UNESCO, 142 Ungunmerr-Baumann, M.-R., 128 United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP 26) on Climate Change, 231 United States of America, 141 Usher, K., 128 Utopia, 214 concrete utopia, 214 democratic utopia, 215 everyday utopia, 215

#### **V**

Value, 51 Vandenberg, A., 71 Vass, G., 117, 120–123 Vigh, H., 174–176, 185 Virtue(s), 3 Voice, 28, 94, 104, 105, 109 aboriginal youth voices, 89, 90, 106, 108 cultural voice, 110 youth voice, 105 Vygotsky, 55, 193 Zone of proximal development, 55

#### **W**

Waks, L.J., 4 Walby, K., 83 Waldorf education/schools, 71 Walk and talk, 88, 95, 99–101, 104, 107, 108 Wals, A., 4 Wang, C., 98 Warburton, N., 3 Webster, A., 122 Welcome, 36, 174, 179, 180, 187 Welfare systems, 178 Wellbeing, 87, 89, 107 Wernesjö, U., 187 Welsh, J., 130 Wenger, E., 5, 19, 20, 138, 141 Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD), 32 Western schooling, 95, 126 West, R., 128 Wheatley, M., 75

White privilege, 88 White, S., 5 Wilber, K., 76 Wilkinson & Kaukko, 126 Wilkinson, J., 2, 116, 120, 130–132 Windsor, S., 4, 7, 137, 226–228 Wing Jan, L., 101 Wiradjuri, 2 Wittgenstein, L., 20 Wolfson, J., 73 Wood, J., 7, 227 Woods, P., 74 World Bank, 141 World Economic Forum, 212 World Health Organisation, 142 World(s) worth living in, 2 asylum-seeking tertiary students, 226–228 diverse views of, 225 education as a process that brings into being, 228 educators' views about, 228 Master of Educational Research students, 137, 226 processes that help to realise, 227 realising the vision(s), 229 research to realise, 228 students' voices, 226 tube feeding, 227 unaccompanied minors and refugees, 226 views of participants, 226 young people and adults, 226, 227 Wulia, T., 139

#### **Y**

Yarning, 127, 130 Yindyamarra Winhanganha, 2 Yindyamarra, 109 Yindyamarra Yambuwan, 110 Young Hegelians, 13, 14 Young, I.M., 21 Youth-centered research, 93, 94, 106, 108 Yunkaporta, T., 126, 129, 130

#### **Z**

Zhang, H., 175


**7. Conclusion**

In conclusion, technology is known to create opportunities for students to learn online and collaborate through the exchange of ideas and experiences. However, technology has its challenges, particularly when it comes to human resources, resources and implementations. There are four network infrastructure solutions that institutions of learning should use to meet that need for connection and coverage today and tomorrow. Utilising technology for teaching and learning allows instructors to take advantage of online resources that provide students with the tools they need to finish assignments while continuing to interact with technology or their devices. AI can offer recommendations and feedback that are specific to each student, making learning more engaging and productive. The research done by Doctor JS Dirane in 2022 indicates that the averages, standard deviation, mark type mark and full period mark of all the practical and theory tests written by the students from January to December 2022 confirmed that the use of technology can improve the performance of our students in our classes. By establishing blended learning environments, utilising digital tools for formative and summative evaluations, and introducing cutting-edge approaches to teaching and learning with technology into classrooms, technology can greatly benefit educators.


**2.2 Metal-based nanobiosensors**

Metal-based structures at the nanoscale are used in many fields due to their functionability, catalytic and electrical properties, surface plasmon resonance behavior, charge conduction, and sensing properties, and these properties provide unique advantages, especially for biosensor applications. Core@shell nanomaterials have been successfully synthesized by different methods, such as the hydrothermal method [31], sonochemical method [32], microwave irradiation [33], laser ablation [34] etc. In 2022, Mallick et al. highlighted the requirement of metal@metal oxide (M@MO) core@shell nanoparticles (NPs) with chemical, physical properties, and unique morphologies at the nanoscale in high-performance biosensor applications [35]. Various characterization methods such as photoluminescence (PL), UV-visible spectrophotometer, dynamic light scattering (DLS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), wet-scanning electron microscopy (wet-SEM), field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Raman spectrometer, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) are used to characterize nanostructures. However, thanks to new studies demonstrating advancements in nanotechnology, it is proven that the sensing performance of chemosensors and biosensors improves depending on the size and shape of nanostructures, including TiO2, SnO2, CuO, ZnO, WO3, and Fe2O3 nanoparticles with different morphologies.

Metals (Au, Ag, Pt, etc.) and metal oxides (ZnO, ZrO2, CuO, Fe2O3, TiO2, etc.) were investigated in metal-based biosensor studies. Among metal nanoparticles, noble metal nanoparticles (such as silver (Ag) and gold (Au) NPs) have been widely studied for use in biosensor applications [21, 36]. In particular, Ag NPs and Au NPs have been used for the detection of heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic, mercury, etc. [21]. Santhosh et al. [37] synthesized novel plant-derived Ag NPs and tested them for the detection of heavy metals. In this study, waste *Allium cepa L* peels were prepared as a plant extract and then Ag NPs were synthesized in a greener way by chemical precipitation via using the plant extract.

#### *Nanostructures in Biosensors: Development and Applications DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108508*

The synthesized Ag NPs were tested in the solution of various heavy metal salts and a significant color change was observed in the HgCl2 solution. This result paves the way for the detection of mercury in the liquid phase by observation, which is easy and does not require any tools. The authors stated that green-produced Ag NPs can be used as a simple and inexpensive sensing partner in biosensor applications. In light of the metal-based nanosystems with sensing performances, Hasan et al. [38] worked on developing a gold nanoparticle-based biosensor that provides observation in a colorimetric way for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer, which is one of the most common cancer types in women. In their study, a novel aptamer-based fluorescence sensor was develpoed for the detection of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF). It aimed to develop a biosensor based on the fact that Au NPs show significant color change after aggregation. The authors stated that after aptamers and platelets were added to the Au NPs solution, aggregations occurred and changed the particle size of the NPs. In this case, the color of the solution changed from a pinkish color to a purplish color. Also, they said that the aptamers and Au NPs-based structure have potential for such applications by providing the observability of such an important disease in a simple, fast, inexpensive, and effective way for early diagnosis. Another metal-based nanostructure widely used in biosensor applications is metal-oxide nanoparticles (MO NPs). Many different forms of synthesized nano-sized metal oxides have many uses as transducers in biosensors, and many studies are being conducted on them [17]. Karakuş et al. [39] synthesized novel green polyphenol matrix CuO nanoparticles with the help of matcha tea powder extract by a low-cost, easy, green, and fast sonochemical method and then studied the development of the biosensor for the smartphone-based digital colorimetric detection of ammonia. In the study, the prepared CuO NPs solution was coated onto the gold electrochemical transducer by drop-casting and then dried at 40°C, and CuO NPs-based electrochemical biosensors were prepared. It was clear that the prepared biosensor carried out with the detection of color changes by performing red-green-blue (RGB) analysis in the examinations with the help of a smartphone provides an easy and highly selective detection of ammonia at nano levels.