In 2001, a new national policy document was issued by the Swedish government, mainly dealing with questions on how to increase diversity of the student body with regard to social background, ethnicity, gender and disability. To varying degrees, methods such as validation of informally acquired competencies were introduced to boost heterogeneity in higher education (HE), as this would reflect a genuinely democratic society. In the latest policy document (2004/05:162), internationalisation is focused, yet a number of critical questions regarding democracy and diversity in HE remain to be discussed. In this paper we intend to address some of them, such as diversity and accessibility concerning postgraduate studies. Our key question is: How do students perceive their possibility to pursue an academic career by means of applying for entrance to PhD studies? Findings from interviews conducted with one female PhD student and another woman who had applied for entrance to a PhD programme but was not accepted, and students with reading/writing disabilities in undergraduate courses show that these students are highly motivated to study but are uncertain about their possibility to pursue an academic career. However, the picture is far more complicated than that as we would like to illustrate in this paper.

This short paper is a submission, from the Centre for Welfare Reform to Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. Our submission offers an overview of the UK Government’s Austerity policy. The Austerity policy was established in 2010 by David Cameron’s Coalition Government. The policy is regressive, cumulative and continuous; its five main components are:

1. Cuts to public services
2. Cuts to the income of the poor and disadvantaged
3. Benefits to advantaged groups
4. Rhetoric to blame poverty on the disadvantaged groups
5. Increased conditionality and social control

It is important to note that Austerity is not about austerity. It is an ideological policy, presented as if it were driven by economic necessity and for the greater good, however:

• The policy has been broadly deflationary and has weakened the UK’s economic performance - the UK’s wage growth, recovery and debt levels have been woeful.
• If the purpose of the policy had been to reduce public and private debt then it would have targeted tax increases on the wealthiest 15% - the only group to have genuinely seen their incomes increase over the past 40 years.

For this reason we will not refer to Austerity - but instead to Austerity - the erasure representing the fact that Austerity is a lie. 

It is also important to note that the policies introduced in 2010 were not a reversal of previous policies. Austerity is the accelerated development of policies that began in the 1980s and have increased poverty and injustice in the UK for 40 years. It is impossible in 2,500 words to document all the harmful policies of Austerity and we expect other groups to provide different perspectives; so our focus will be limited to:

• The harm caused by Austerity 
• How Austerity functions
• Why Austerity has continued

The purpose of this article is to render a methodological interpretation of feminist pragmatism, to offer some points for reflection on the concepts of community, reciprocity, and the need for social study/reform. Empirically inspired explications on non-participation are offered. The democratic meaning of participation in collaborative knowledge building is reflected upon. Feminist pragmatism and its methodological interpretation in terms of action research are presented as an important contribution to thinking about organisational and professional development, the gendered nature of knowledge and the way we organise work and society. Examples of transformative actions on the basis of collaborative knowledge building processes are presented and, finally, knowledge simplification and the bureaucratisation of knowledge are highlighted as undemocratic.

Against the background of Swedish preschool's historical and traditional functions in Swedish society, this article focuses on some of the choice points and their implications for professional and organisational development in preschool. By combining feminist pragmatism and feminist action research, some analytical points are made regarding the significance of organisational settings and the limitations they can have on the professional practices within the organisational setting. The preschool teachers in this study show that pedagogical change is possible, although it takes time and is not necessarily endorsed by municipal employers. The role of action researchers is described in terms of positions and ethics. The latter is presented as particularly important.

The aim of this three-year collaborative research project at four preschools in a southern Swedish municipality and in collaboration with an education researcher is the development of knowledge about social, environmental, and economic sustainability through participatory processes. Despite the fact that the preschool profession has been scientifically anchored for more than twenty-five years, access to which is granted exclusively through a three-year bachelor's degree, it is nigh on impossible for preschool teachers to meaningfully introduce new, complex and comprehensive areas of knowledge such as social, ecological and economic sustainability into their practice without adequate additional measures. However, one of the many ambiguities built into the Swedish preschool curriculum is the vaguely assumed maintenance and the vaguely anticipated further development of knowledge.

The ontological, epistemological and theoretical framework for this analytical part of the project HållUt2023-2026 draws on a collaborative approach that considers practitioners as knowledgeable experts, in other words, no analyses will be published without all project participants' contributions and consent. Due to problematic knowledge production experiences relating to curricular ambiguities in previous years, collaborative approaches address and resolve knowledge hierarchies from the outset. Ethical considerations are deeply embedded in the very ontology of the project. The academic researcher takes part on a genuinely equal footing, not in the role of an outsider who prescriptively dictates to preschool teachers what to do. The narrative analysis focuses on sense- and meaning-making on the part of the preschool teachers because one of the many curricular ambiguities is sustainability as a learning objective in itself as it cannot be implemented without first creating robust new knowledge and eventually arriving at new insights.

It is expected that this analysis will contribute towards knowledge production as a participatory process.

This chapter covers a range of topics pertaining to the ontological, epistemological, and ethical intricacies, complications, and possibilities of providing quality healthcare to women patients regardless of disability, race, ethnicity, and class by using empirical examples of certain diseases. Methodological concepts through reflections on subjectivity and objectivity are presented as contested issues, and radical objectivity, a concept comprising subjectivity, objectivity, and intersubjectivity, is proposed as a knowledge paradigm that allows healthcare personnel and patients to make knowledge claims that are mutually recognized as valid. Three models of healthcare, paternalistic, person-centered, and feminist pragmatist, are presented, outlining the specific problems inherent in each model of healthcare provision. The paternalistic model allows for no agency on the patients’ part, elevating healthcare personnel, specifically doctors, to authoritative knowers. The person-centered model of healthcare grants some shared responsibility between healthcare personnel and patients, and some concessions are made toward patients as knowers. In the feminist pragmatist model, healthcare personnel and patients commit to equal relationships. Gender equality and gender equity are identified as insufficient tools for organizational change, and theories of professions are drawn on to deliberate about change at the systemic level.

Power in Education is a strange beast in many guises. As for guidance and leadership, let’s just say it’s complicated. Educational leadership and coaching are necessary though. Only, what type of educational leadership and what kind of coaching might be conducive to society building? Why do we need leadership, in what direction should it take us, and are these the right questions to ask? I want to focus here on concepts which can be assumed to express shared values.

In this chapter, Jane Addams’ thoughts and actions on why ethics matter in a democratic society meet with thoughts and ideas central to critical disability studies, feminism, and feminist pragmatism. Actions as an expression of ethics correspond with critical disability activism’s clarion call “nothing about us without us,” through which disabled people have attempted to gain agency and just representation for decades. The author of this chapter argues that chronically ill and disabled women have been under-theorized, and barely represented and analyzed in most feminist schools of thought. In fact, feminist philosophers, and academics in general, have been reluctant to address the injustices inflicted on ill and disabled women, rendering them more vulnerable and exposed to arbitrarily worded social policy and ensuing unintended negative consequences. This article offers several entry points from which to view social injustices inflicted on ill and disabled women. It opens debate about Addams’ concepts of ethics expressed through Action, Democracy, Social Policy and Reciprocity, and Activism, and their interest for today’s critical disability scholars and other social scientists, practitioners, and activists. Addams considered compassionate action-taking based on sympathetic knowledge as an expression of applied ethics. This chapter argues in favor of collaborative knowledge production as a viable, reciprocal way out of a morally objectionable morass that leaves ill and disabled women to fend for themselves in an unsympathetic world experiencing continual public-health crises.

The purpose of this chapter is to present a feminist-pragmatist philosophical argument as to the significance of broadening the body of mainstream academic knowledge. Academic disciplines have been slow in adjusting their knowledge basein the light of societal, technological, political and other developments and their grassroots movements. Even in the 21st century, Jane Addams’ calls for social justice, improvedliving conditions, and quality education based on lived experience and rigorous knowledge seem almost subversive, with academics still debating whether for instance activism or other forms of knowledge should inform theories.Unsurprisingly, hierarchical knowledge systems have alwaysconstituted sites for ‘others’ to overcome barriers to participation and recognition in such systems, in a literal, epistemological and ontological sense. Nancy Fraser's concept of recognition and Addams' concept of research-based activism for social change here meet with crip theorist Alison Kafer (2013) for critical thought about the different meanings of participation, and change in transformative spaces, a concept that harks back to the early days of feminist pragmatism. I argue that any effort to improve participation in higher education must entail advocacy for structures and contents that encourage the use of participatory methodologies that enable disabled academics to transcend the qualitative and quantitative, the medical model and social model divides that narrow possibilities for the type of future envisaged not only by crip queer theorists but by 19^th century women activists that fought to take their lived experience into the public sphere. By proactively seeking out and incorporating spaces for transformative learning and scholarship, ableism in academia, based on prejudice and historically flawed reasoning, will not only be challenged but increasingly rejected.

This doctoral thesis had two purposes. 1. To study some preschool teachers’ possibilities to develop a gender aware pedagogy by applying theories of organisation, profession and collaboration. 2. To do qualitative research by drawing on principles of research for social justice, as a contribution to the development of methodology in feminist educational action research. The following research questions helped elucidate these purposes: How do preschool teachers create space for reflection and knowledge processes over time? What individual and collective actions do preschool teachers take over time? How can this study contribute to organisational development? Feminist pragmatism served as the philosophical underpinning for feminist action research (FAR) as a methodology and method. The preschool teachers were regarded as agents for change in their own pedagogic and organisational practices. Over a three-year period meetings were conducted on a regular basis. One-on-one interviews, group interviews, numerous emails, telephone calls and some observations completed the data collection. The analytical research narrative emerged by linking the preschool teachers’ actions to their ambiguous professional status. Actions were interpreted by applying the principles inherent in FAR, what, who and critical incidents over time. The absence of professional recognition from the municipal employer and parents for the preschool teachers was evident. Since the preschool teachers needed professional recognition, they experienced the collaborative nature of this study of great value as it conferred legitimacy for their professional development. There emerged meaningful pedagogic change over time, which emphasised the temporal aspect of organisational change from the bottom up. Collective actions began to take root in a shared value system. The design of the project – to collaborate with an outside ally – was decisive in regard to creating space for reflection and collective actions. Collective actions were possible due to the courage of individual participants who dared break silences surrounding organisational injustices. In conclusion, it can be stated that organisational change over time is indeed possible by practising radical openness for agency. Transformative knowledge processes can be achieved provided that genuine offers of participation are issued and well received. By elaborating on terms such as action, participation, emancipation, social justice and knowledge, a methodological contribution could be made to feminist action research.

In knowledge-intensive organisations, it is unnecessarily limiting to define the workplace as a physical building encompassing a ‘nine to five’ work shift. Much knowledge-intensive work can be conducted off-site using various forms of information technology. For the chronically ill, an inability to access the physical workplace is often used as an excuse to remove the employee, with little effort made to keep them employed via different work methods. This isolates the former employee and causes a loss of their, often considerable, knowledge to the organisation. We must reconsider how we view what work is and what constitutes the workplace.

In this article we discuss ableist manifestations about chronically ill and disabled schoolchildren in Sweden. On claiming their right to schooling, these children risk being excluded due to not conforming with norms while being refused alternative formats that would enable participation. They are then accused of not attending school and construed as problematic. Parents are derided as mollycoddling perpetrators by teachers who perceive themselves as superior knowers of disability and illness, polarising an already infected school debate. Alternative formats for participation are derided, claiming that certain disabilities do not exist or that parents exaggerate their children's symptoms. We concede that teachers' poor work environments due to underfunding and unreasonable workloads are problematic, but we are adamant that unfavourable work conditions must not entail unethical professional conduct. We hope this article will contribute to putting the situation of chronically ill and disabled schoolchildren in Sweden on the radar of Critical Disability Studies as well as in relevant fields of practice and that it might stimulate a change in public debate.

Head teachers are in a position to facilitate disabled pupils’ access to and participation in Education. However, head teachers’ difficulties in creating inclusive schools are considerable. Regarding disabled pupils’ rights, governing bodies sometimes find it too easy to dismiss the Education Act concerning access and participation in relation to disabled pupils, prioritising budgetary concerns over disabled children’s rights. This article discusses the possible role of ethical and educational leadership in disrupting the ableist assumptions that underpin so much of the Swedish education system. This is no small feat in a society that perpetuates a public discourse of disability as an inferior state of being and as a tragedy to be overcome. The authors make a case for school as an integral part of society, hence the need for disability to be understood as a knowledge subject in its own right.

The purpose of this article is to present an understanding of knowledge and learning in organisations from pragmatist perspectives. Relying on the work of early pragmatists as well as contemporary pragmatists, we introduce a conceptualisation of knowledge as the outcome of inquiry. Knowledge, in this article, is presented as provisional, multi-perspective, both particular and general. Our point of departure here is that the chief value of knowledge is its usefulness in solving problems. Pragmatist views of knowledge are further explicated in our discussion of four pragmatist themes, which we have identified as particularly viable on the basis of Jane Addams’ pragmatist view and the practice of democracy in organised life: 

1) Knowledge as transactional in organisations,

2) Reciprocity and learning in organisations,

3) Experience-based knowledge and meaning-making in organisations, and

4) Sustainability as an ongoing, democratic process in organisations.  

In the pragmatist school of thought we draw upon, a predominant issue is always also the very purpose of knowledge, or what we refer to as ‘usefulness’. Under discussion,we argue that a pragmatist understanding of knowledge and learning in organisations allows us to move beyond the polarisation of cognitive-possession – social-process and instead work from an alternative framework, with a focus on processes of learning and knowledge in organisations that aim at integrative, democratic problem solving.

The purpose of this article is to present an understanding of knowledge and learning in organizations from pragmatist perspectives. Knowledge, in this article, is presented as provisional, multi-perspective, both particular and general. Our point of departure here is that the chief value of knowledge is its usefulness in solving problems. Pragmatist views of knowledge are further explicated in our discussion of four pragmatist themes, which we have identified as particularly viable on the basis of Jane Addams’ pragmatist view and the practice of democracy in organized life (Fisher, Nackenoff, and Chmielski, 2009). 1) Knowledge as transactional in organizations, 2) Reciprocity and learning in organizations, 3) Experience-based knowledge and meaning-making in organizations, and 4) Sustainability as an ongoing, democratic process in organizations. In the pragmatist school of thought we draw upon, a predominant issue is always also the very purpose of knowledge, or what we refer to as “usefulness” (Biesta & Burbules, 2007; Elliott, 2007). Under discussion, we argue that a pragmatist understanding of knowledge and learning in organizations allows us to move beyond the polarization of positivism – anti-positivism and instead work from an alternative framework, with a focus on processes of learning and knowledge in organizations that aim at integrative, democratic problem-solving.

The aim of our Practice-and-Research project HållUt2023-2026 is to establish what constitutes sustainable leadership in preschool in relation to social, ecological, and economic sustainability according to the Swedish National Curriculum for Preschool (Lpfo2018). While we have been awarded a Sustainable Municipality prize, our knowledge and professional competencies require more effort regarding SDG17 to be able to support our youngest members of society. Acutely aware of the climate crisis and its catastrophic effects on societies, the development of robust pedagogies and sustainable leadership may help strengthen democracy, e.g. by inspiring resilience in children. Theories of professions, lifelong learning and sustainable leadership form part of our participatory action research framework. The Reflection-Action-Reflection-Action model (RARA) also draws on theories and science-based facts in a process-oriented manner. The RARA-model includes dialogue, diaries, videos and ongoing interview studies relating to our evolving understanding of social, ecological and economic development in preschools. Ethics in Participatory Action Research habitually exceed those stipulated by ethics committees and we have put safeguarding mechanisms into place to prevent any ethical shortcomings. We are participants and researching parties and participate as equal members. We strictly observe provisions in law and recommendations by social research ethics bodies, by regularly discussing any issues. The participating academic researcher is tasked with meticulously monitoring that all ethical considerations be taken seriously and swiftly dealt with.

By the end of 2026 we expect to: present a model for sustainable development and sustainable leadership, contribute towards practice-and-research based methods, offer knowledge-based professional development from inside preschools, vocalise clearly the importance of preschool teachers’ professional development relating to sustainable development, better protect children by adequately preparing them for the future.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the implementation of Action Research (AR) in the context of Swedish municipal care from a facilitator’s’ perspective. Four empirical studies using the AR approach were performed during 2007–2012 in six municipalities. Establishing support for AR was time-consuming when it concerns starting up processes that were created and were changeable over time. Further, the processes were focused on the sustainable development of practice, based on practitioners’ and care consumers’ knowledge that is a precondition of organizational change. An important precondition was that the participants were motivated and participated actively in all phases of the AR cycle. Another important precondition was that the participants got along with each other and trusted each other. The participants’ engagement and the collaboration that was established between the participants and the facilitator were likely a result of this. Moreover, even positive interaction with participants representing a “top–down” perspective was important for the implementation of proposed changes to the practice. In conclusion, AR enhanced sustainable action based on participant’s everyday knowledge relating to areas they want to change and improve in the context of municipal care practice.