Diamond Art Painting Workshop

Title:  Reclaiming Voice: Power, Representation, and the Politics of Collaboration in Educational Policy

Auhor: Daljit Gill-Badesha, EdD

Abstract:  This article critically explores the tensions between collaboration and representation in educational policy development. Drawing on practitioner research and creative expression, the author examines how collaborative spaces can reinforce systems of inequity by privileging certain voices over others. Through personal reflection from the author’s doctoral journey, social constructionism, and Critical Race Theory, the author interrogates who is invited to speak, who is heard, and whose knowledge is legitimized in policy processes. The article includes a poem titled ‘Don’t Speak for Me’ to illustrate the emotional and political dimensions of being spoken for. Ultimately, it calls for an ethical and reflexive approach to collaboration, one that honours lived experience as a form of authority and power.

Keywords: Educational Policy, Voice, Collaboration, Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, Positionality, Representation, Social Constructionism, Lived Experience, Power.

Introduction

Educational policy increasingly invokes the language of collaboration, equity, and inclusion. Yet the lived experiences of those most affected by these policies are often left out of policy development or are included only in tokenistic ways. This disconnect is more than a design flaw; it reflects a deeper epistemic and political tension: who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and who is authorized to represent “community” within education policy?

This article critically examines these problematics through a personal and scholarly lens. As a racialized woman working in multi-organizational settings, I have repeatedly seen how educational policies attempt to include diverse voices while simultaneously silencing or even co-opting them. Drawing on my dissertation research and the poetic expression ‘Don’t Speak for Me’, I explore how power, positionality, and discourse shape collaborative practice and stakeholder participation. Using a social constructionist and intersectional framework, I reflect on what it means to bring one’s full self into policy and collaboration, and perhaps more importantly, what is lost when we do not.

In doing so, this article does not merely advocate for better inclusion mechanisms. It offers a reimagining of collaborative policy development that is not only technically inclusive but emotionally and politically accountable.

Reflective Practice

The UBC – EDLP (University of British Columbia, Educational Leadership and Policy) program is designed to provide doctoral students with space to reflect on their practice, through theory and back to practice. The journey affords the opportunity to find one’svoice in writing and research. The program allowed me to unpack my beliefs, biases, and assumptions so that I am not bound by my limiting definitions of leadership. The process enabled me to identify values that influence me as a practitioner and researcher (Harding, 1992; Saban, 2000; Smith, 2005). The process of exploration and uncovering my assumptions (Butin, 2010) shifted how I understand and frame my practice. Having this reflexive standpoint helped me to situate my location and shaped the questions I asked(Harding, 1992), such as – who am I? And what do I bring to my practice and my research study as a racialized woman?

This line of inquiry fostered a deeper exploration to unpack my identity, history, and roots and empowered me to write from the positionality of a racialized woman. I found my voice as an educator, collaborator, and activist in my research and practice (Joshee, 2008). I gained a deeper understanding of my leadership and values. I reimagined leadership that embodies my roots as a South Asian leader, incorporating dil (a Punjabi word that means heart), rueh (a Punjabi word that means spirit or emotional health, pronounced roo), seva (a Punjabi word that means selfless service) and kaum (a Punjabi word that means community, collectiveness or nation). I unpacked how, in addition to my academic and professional experiences, my worldview is shaped by my experiencesgrowing up as a South Asian woman who comes from an immigrant family from India. My cultural identity and religious background, as a Punjabi Sikh woman, is steeped in an Eastern worldview that is deeply personal and foundational, underpinning my leadership practice. 

If the goals of educational policy are to be inclusive, then utilizing Arnstein’s typology of citizen participation with the metaphorical “ladder,” with each rung representing increased levels of citizen agency, control, and power, provides a continuum of how to get from exclusion to inclusion. Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969) outlines a range or continuum of participatory power that moves from nonparticipation (no power) to degrees of citizen participation (actual power). This range can be informative to outline where and how individuals are given voice and access to power, and to make decisions for themselves and their communities. It is a part of enabling democratic participation in policy. However, power can take many forms and orientations (Gray and Purdy, 2018),and at times, power over can dominate in our current structures. For example, when designing services for refugee children and their families, it is often the decision-makers (with or without lived experience) who choose service models, without including those being served in the planning process (Gill-Badesha, 2023). Gill-Badesha’s (2023) dissertation outlines a case study where co-design by including the intended service recipients, helped inform the positive planning and trajectory of a multi-agency collaborative involving stakeholders from education, health, government, and non-profits. 

I argue that the goals of diverse participation require individuals to undergo reflective practice to locate themselves in planning and design, to enable inclusive educational policies and collaborations, from the outset. It is an interrogation that becomes crucial,and questions such as, who is allowed/has power/has privilege to speak and who speaks for others, must be asked if inclusion is an intended outcome. As a racialized leader, I have not always spoken up for myself and have conceded to the powerful and dominant voices in the room and seen this happen with other racialized leaders who are not given authority or credit for their viewpoints. For example, a racialized non-profit leader speaks out on behalf of their clients who are refugees and is overlooked until a dominant, White voice amplifies their message (Gill-Badesha, 2023). Reflecting on my experiences has strengthened my voice, where I feel empowered to include more of my whole self in public policy environments, and reflective practice can benefit other racialized leaders to do the same.

Educational policies aspiring for individual and systemic mechanisms of inclusion require a shift in power for all to participate. In situations of collaboration, Burr’s (2015)social constructionism surfaces where leadership behaviours are constructed within a social space and through interactions with others. These interactions with others shape our behaviours and actions. We need to consider how these interactions ultimately shape leadership and educational outcomes. Furthermore, Burr (2015) asserts that the “different constructions of the world can be judged only in relation to each other and not by comparison with some ultimate standard or truth” (p. 93), a sentiment consistent that there is no one leadership approach in education and richness arises from a multiplicity of voices and approaches.

The doctoral journey spurred a creative voice where I found authenticity and positionality to feel real and sometimes raw but grounding to who I am as a racialized woman. I have discovered a space to voice my power, while acknowledging my positionality. With a renewed sense of voice, the power of poetic expression serves as a tool for holistic expression. My voice is not limited to creative writing, and in fact, flows into my leadership practice and impacts how I show up as a racialized leader. I share one poem that embodies my voice, representation, and power.

Don’t Speak for Me

I have a voice.

Don’t speak for me,
you don’t know my dreams,
my worries,
or my hopes.

Don’t speak for me,
if you haven’t taken the time to understand 

how I think,
how I act,

or how I love.

Don’t speak for me
if you haven’t felt the pressure of being not enough,
or have been told to your face,

that you are less than others.

Don’t speak for me
if you have not walked beside me,
or helped me get back up,
or shared my burden,
so I that I am not carrying it all alone.

Don’t speak for me
if you have not stumbled,
or fallen,
or been so hurt that your insides ache

that your outside world crumbles.

Don’t speak for me
if you haven’t had to apologize 

for something you did not do,
but it was your duty 

to take the responsibility
on behalf of others.

Don’t speak for me
if you haven’t had to keep a secret,
in order to preserve the family,

where their honour meant more than yours.

Don’t speak for me
if you haven’t held me close,
while I wailed from the depths of my soul,
and longed to be nurtured,
but you didn’t help me. 

Don’t speak for me
if you haven’t touched my hand 

and felt the spark of love flowing from my heart,

waiting to envelope all around me,

and to be validated into existence.

Don’t speak for me
If your privilege is more powerful than mine.

Don’t speak for me.
Because if you have not done these things,
you don’t know me.
Which means,
you can’t represent me.

Don’t speak for me.
I have my own voice.
And I’ll find my own privilege.

(written by the author)

Through this poetic expression, I argue individuals must be given space to speak for themselves, and attempts to represent others do not, in any way, bring the lived and diverse experiences, in particular, racialized women, to the forefront. In socially constructed collaborative spaces, reflection and power, rooted in nontraditional forms and experiences, can invite participation supporting inclusive aims. 

Collaboration and Intersectionality

Collaboration, as a practice, is situated in the broader socio-political-economic and historical policy ecosystem, which are rooted in Western notions of competition, individualization, and marketization that are part of the calls for collaboration (Weaver-Hightower, 2008). Community-based contexts and policies continue to move towards collaboration across diverse stakeholders, stemming from policy aims, creating both opportunities and challenges for organizations and individuals alike. The K-12 Anti-Racism Action Plan, a provincial initiative launched in 2023, serves as one policy example where the goal is to have safer and more inclusive schools by addressing systemic racism and centering the voices of Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities in education through increased representation, inclusion and collaboration(Government of British Columbia, 2023).

With the increasing focus on diverse participation in collaboration, the issues of power and positionality become essential to discuss. Having participated in many variations of multi-stakeholder collaboration, it has been an essential aspect of my leadership practicefor decades. However, situations of power over, exclusion, and marginalization are real, with pressure to conform and support the dominant voices and approaches. 

Diverse individuals bring ideologies to collaboration that can increase effectiveness or increase potential sources of conflict. Collaborative planning processes can include what Rittel and Webber (1973) consider a planning task built on figuring out the “right thing to do” (p. 159). They suggest the complexity of these processes is, in part, about the political negotiations in planning when it comes to addressing the intractable social issues of our society. In their view, the conflict in collaboration is about individuals and their “versions of goodness” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 169), and I ask, how does one articulate these “versions of goodness” without space to reflect on personal values and ideals? Planning processes often have limited space, if at all, to discuss and navigate these negotiations.

Power Dynamics and Collaboration

In my dissertation (Gill-Badesha, 2023), I explored the notion of participant experiences of power dynamics within multi-stakeholder collaboration and how these experiences intersect within the broader socio-political-economic policy ecologies. This study highlighted that the power of interpersonal relationships, emotional connections to project goals, and the importance of personal commitments to overall project aims can alleviate and mitigate some of the negative power dynamics often occurring in collaborative spaces (Gill-Badesha, 2023). While the notion of collaboration is often presented as a seamless, productive, and homogenous practice of interdependent stakeholders who navigate differences, interests, and values to achieve mutual aims (Gray, 1989; Gray & Purdy, 2018); it is also a contested space where individuals negotiate clashing values, differing interests, varying power and politics, that can emerge to undermine and contaminate individual and group experiences. Individuals risk being blamed if things go awry or of critiquing the structural, power, or policy contexts. Individuals are left to negotiate and navigate a middle ground (Gray, 1989) without regard for the blurred boundaries, entanglements, and personal incongruences that can arise. I faced these challenges and the pressure to conform, while leaving my lived experiences and values out of the discussions. This only adds further complexity to an already messy practice, thwarting the potential of collaboration and distressing the individuals involved, or how individuals make meaning of their experiences.

Participant experiences can be understood considering Vivien Burr’s writings (2003; 2015) on social constructionism, a critical stance in the face of taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world, including oneself. As part of postmodern philosophy, social constructionism seeks to understand the processes by which people describe, explain, and, ultimately, view themselves and the world (Anderson, 2014; Legg & Stagaki, 2002). From a social constructionist perspective, there are no set or universal truths; rather, there are multiple “truths” that should be understood as socially, historically, and culturally constructed; what we view as the “truth” shapes how individuals view their personal circumstances and possible future courses of action (Larson & Anderson, 2019). It is this negotiation of multiple truths and positions that can shape participants’ experiences and the outcomes of collaboration. 

Intersectionality and Collaboration

The consideration of an intersectional lens of Critical Race Theory (CRT) can help to illuminate additional complexities and dynamics of power related to, but not limited to,race, colour, class, culture, gender, sexuality, religion, immigration status, and abilities (Tate, 1997). This lens can allow for a deeper examination of participants’ experiences and worldviews that may lead to an understanding of the challenges and tensions they experience, while also creating space to reflect and honour the histories, experiences, and knowledge that participants. Intersectionality also points to the political structures, systemic oppressions, and tropes that are at risk of being perpetuated in collaboration. A social constructionist approach combined with an intersectional framework can identify other circulating discourses present in institutions and overall political and societal constructions that are material conditions that can inform or intrude as policy is shaped. An intersectional examination could provide space to interrupt systems of oppression and privilege, as the configuration of individuals and institutions coming together is often representative of broader societal structures of privilege, domination, and oppression. 

In her article in the Washington Post entitled “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait,” Crenshaw (2020) identified intersectionality as an analytical way of thinking about identity and its relationship to power for those reflecting on racism, sexism, class oppression, transphobia, ableism, and more, that generates debate and controversy. Cho et al. (2013) argued that intersectional approaches bring insights and processes into education and research that can illuminate the hidden and multilayered structures of power and domination through which knowledge is produced and disseminated. Educational policies aiming for inclusion can benefit from this analysis. 

Warmington et al. (2018) explored the personal reflections of educators and contributors who have worked to shift policy on race equality in educational policy in England over 20 years. And they concluded that “the vagaries of race equality policy in education could only be understood in relation to the wider politics of race, the wider history of race in Britain” (p. 424), arguing that there “is a need to examine the state of contemporary education in the ‘post-multicultural’ context, through a critical race-conscious lens” (p. 424). Their project interviews suggest that ‘the de-racialisation’ of research and policy has led to a slippage in tackling racial inequities” (Warmington, 2018, p. 424) and validates the notion of incorporating an intersectional conceptual framework to understand equitable participation in the systemic and political structures that may or may not create safe spaces for engagement. Aligned with this, Cho et al. (2013) assert that intersectional dynamics and discursive debates are important to impact future movements and social justice initiatives, and as part of the politics of knowledge. 

Furthermore, if we consider the role of gender in collaboration, and if there are women of colour involved, then Ngunjiri and Hernandez’s (2017) study illustrates the complexity of enacting authentic leadership for immigrant women of colour who are leaders within predominantly White institutional contexts. They include Black feminist thought to inform intersectional analysis for individuals to unpack their experiences at the nexus of gender, race/ethnicity, national origin, age, and other identities that are salient in the context of predominantly White institutions. While their focus was on contributing to authentic leadership theory, their study provides a consideration of incorporating intersectionality to situate the experiences of women and people of colour. They made recommendations on “striving for authentic leadership that utilizes multifocal lenses and lived experiences and fluidity of identities as standpoints from which to lead” (p. 403)within the context of lived experiences of systemic racism. The opportunity to locate oneself in histories and experiences can provide insight into the challenges and tensions of being a racialized woman leader. I include my poetry as an example to highlight this experience and encourage policymakers to consider how lived experiences can be amplified in educational policy and settings, not marginalized or muted.

Conclusion

If educational policy aspires to be inclusive and collaborative, it must do more than invite diverse voices to the table – it must critically examine the structures that determine whose voices are amplified, whose are muted, and whose are ventriloquized. My poem ‘Don’t Speak for Me’ captures the emotional and political cost of being spoken for, rather than heard. It is a protest and a plea – one that reflects broader systemic dynamics in education and public policy.

Through this article, I argue that collaboration in policy is not simply about designing better systems or consultation processes. It requires a radical shift in how we understand knowledge, voice, and power. Drawing on Critical Race Theory and social constructionism, I propose that educational policy must confront its complicity in reproducing inequalities. It must create space not only for lived experience but for lived authority, where there is recognition that people from marginalized communities are not objects of policy but co-creators of meaning, knowledge, and practice.

To collaborate authentically in educational contexts means to grapple with discomfort, to question who we assume we speak for, and to intentionally centre those who have historically been silenced. It means recognizing that voice is not just an input into policy but a form of power and legitimacy. And ultimately, it means acknowledging that no meaningful collaboration is possible without space for diverse voices and relational accountability.

 

Title: The Reflective Journey Continues: Travelling Betwixt and Between Conflicting Worlds in Educational Leadership

Author: John Fleming, EdD

“The growing influence of neoliberalism in post-secondary education has changed the definition of both education and educational leadership, moving each further away from values of participatory democracy toward educational practices that are antithetical to such principles. Under neoliberal conditions, education becomes a commodified resource in a global marketplace, impacting identities and relationships alike: students become customers, faculty are contractors, and administrators are corporate managers” (Fleming, 2021, p. iii).

What follows are my final reflections on the autoethnography that was my EdD dissertation, which were grounded in a Sociological Imagination (Mills, 1959, 2000) thatexplored and confronted the dissonance characteristic of my leadership experience as a dean in post-secondary education. A key claim in my study is that educational leadership must be reconstructed as a plural identity allowing one to exercise judgement in multiple worlds, holding conflicting values and practices, contributing to furthering education as democracy, when possible (Fleming, 2021).

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Time has a way of shaping how we look back and how we look forward.  Time before today is history; tomorrow is the imagined future.  Both are equally important in the stories of our lives.  Our individual and collective biographies are grounded in time, place and structure.  It is what allows us to bring meaning to the stories of our lives.  

My story is both a biography and a study.  It is the story of my experiences and the meaning I have given to them.  It is equally a study in that I have attempted to address a personal trouble within the larger social milieu.  In doing so, I aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges of leadership in post-secondary education at this time.  Through sharing my biography and creative non-fiction (counter-storytelling), my goal has been to highlight my own leadership dissonance as an expression of a bigger issue; one that has the capacity to influence identity and relationships alike.  I have done so primarily by engaging in uncomfortable liminal spaces, betwixt and between the known and the unknown, with the ultimate purpose of understanding who I am and what I stand for in the biography that is my lifeand my career.

I have centred the core of my personal dissonance within the growing structural influences of neoliberalism in post-secondary education at this time (Fleming, 2021).  It does not seem an exaggeration to conclude that such influences are not only changing how education is defined and practiced but has also had the impact of changing the identities and relationships among those on their current educational journeys.  I note for example, that my own values are at odds with the philosophy and educational practices embedded within a neoliberal framework(Brown, 2005; Connell, 2013; Larner 2000; Polster 2012).  However, I hold a note of optimism.  Unlike some, I do not see the growing influences of neoliberalism in higher education as a hopeless fait accompli.  Likewise, I see no panacea as being able to counter this powerful influence.  There will most likely not be a return to a philosophy of education and an educational practice consistent with historical versions of the past (Peters, 1973; Coulter & Weins, 2009).  Instead, I argue for something betwixt and between the past and future: let us imagine educational journeys that continue to contribute to the good and worthwhile life, under present and anticipated future social conditions.  For me, such journeys continue to view education as participatory democracy (Kelly, 2014), a way for people to journey as citizens, toward the values they hold to be most precious for all.  In my case, it is a journey toward supporting a better future for all, regardless of personal status or social conditions.  It is about building a public that respects learning and living that is caring and not only respects diversity, but creates space and opportunity for it, including all the tensions that necessarily come along with it.  Finally, and most importantly, it advances autonomy equally and for all.

Looking in the present

It is not enough to look back and to look forward.  We must also acknowledge what is the reality of the present.  If we do not, we risk ignoring the importance of being in the uncomfortable liminal space that may be right now.  It is equally as important and often the place where the greatest learning can occur, if we will only acknowledge the discomfort and troubles that exist for us in the present.

The world remains in an unpredictable liminal state.  The COVID-19 pandemic has waned despite millions of people worldwide having died from this virus.  There is much talk about wanting to return to the past and what was the reality before the pandemic.  That is not to be.  It cannot be.  There is anticipation of a “new normal” but that too, for now, must only hold space in the imagined future.  We will need time to shape it—and be shaped by it.  We sit for now in the uncomfortable liminal space betwixt and between the past and the imagined future.

Post-secondary institutions continue to operate within their own liminal reality: virtuallyand in real space and time.  Students, staff, faculty and administrators continue to work almost exclusively from home.  Schooling now often occurs outside the physical space once occupied by all; our definition of this space has now ironically changed to reflect the possibility of being in physical spaces anywhere but where we used to be.  

Leadership, too, must continue to be practiced in liminal spaces.  Zoom and Teams havebecome the virtual spaces that replace the office or meeting room as we once knew them.  One can question if the present is better or worse, but I would argue that it is simply different; an uncomfortable change that we must embrace for now until we know what the anticipated future will hold.  What will we make of it?  And where then, does all this leave us?

Looking within, looking beyond

If we are not careful to take the time to look both within ourselves and to our social worlds beyond, we run the risk of engaging a personal dissonance that can completely disempower.  My study illustrated by way of my own personal biography the dissonance I have experienced as a leader in post-secondary education at this time.  Looking only within led me to conclude that the challenges I was up against in my leadership role were expressions of deficiencies in my own agency, rather than symptoms of larger social influences.  In short, such dissonance led me to believe that I alone was the problem.  

It was only after engaging with the uncomfortable liminal spaces in my own journey that I was able to locate the source of my troubles within the structural reality of neoliberal capitalism and its influence on my career, education and society itself, as we now experience it.  In truth, neoliberal philosophy and its related influences are antithetical to my own values and how I have come to define and practice education and leadership.  In short, neoliberalism had the effect of not only impacting my identity but had me question my own agency as a teacher and a leader.  

My own practice of reflexivity means questioning with intensity my experiences, my values, my judgment and my practice.  It has been the part of my journey that has allowed me to be able to answer two very important questions: who are you and what do you stand for?  Doing so facilitated a form of learning that clarified for me why the struggles in my leadership were so pronounced.  I conclude now with confidence that it was not solely a reflection of my personal agency.  It reflected the tensions at the centre of my values under the influence of the political and structural influences of this time.  This is not to be minimized.  In my own case, these tensions not only made me unhappy, but they also made me question my own sense of self efficacy and competence.  It led to a formidable case of imposter syndrome.  I won’t go as far as to argue that it made me ill, but I will argue that it certainly contributed little to my well-being.

Looking for change

By going into the uncomfortable zone of the liminal, the space betwixt and between, I have been able to anchor myself in the identity that reflects who I am, including my multi-generational family system, the cultures I have come to identify with and the experiences resulting from the structures of those cultures in time and place.  Moreover, it is the knowledge embedded in the anchoring of my identity that has allowed me to understand, by way of reflection, what I stand for.  It is clear to me now in the analysis of my practice as a leader in post-secondary education.  It is present in the exercise of my judgment: when I conform, when I innovate and when I rebel.  What I have learned along the way, is how I continue to support the educational journey of others, in support of participatory democracy.  It is evident in my judgement and my decisions as they are represented at times, in the “eruptions” and “contestations” of my practice as a leader: my actions aimed at creating public spaces and opportunities for civic dialogue by all, my efforts at ensuring that I maintain strength and participation in the web of relationships necessary in my private sphere (Arendt, 2013), and my public actions contesting decisions and practices in post-secondary education that under neoliberal influence threaten to change the very identities and relationships of all those who have entrusted us with their care (i.e. the identity of students as consumers, faculty as contractors and administrators as corporate managers).  We are all, instead, potential leaders, capable of so much more when we see each other for who we are and what we stand for.

My study represents the story of one leader.  It represents a journey of leadership, one that continues now, not in a specific role or a particular job or title.  I recommend avoiding the practice of attaching one’s identity to such tentative concepts of the journey.  The journey continues in the exercise of my judgment, anchored in the knowledge of who I am and what I stand for.  It continues in how I engage with others in supporting their own educational journeys as well.  

As previously argued, neoliberal philosophy, policy and practice in higher education is gaining influence, not losing ground (Larner, 2000). This holds the ongoing threat to the identities and relationships for all on their current educational journeys.  It is a threat that reduced identity to roles within a market economy.  More importantly, it threatens the very notion of the good and worthwhile life for all.  Rather than promote democratic and civil fellowship, neoliberalism commodifies education and learning, restricting it to some, not all, and therefore renders it antithetical to democratic practice.

The future is not hopeless.  If I have successfully argued in this study that neoliberalism has had the impact of changing identities and relationships, it is the very practice of becoming grounded in one’s identity that provides the counterbalance, the antidote, at least in part, to the current wave of change.  By knowing one’s self, one can lead from a place of confidence and integrity toward the good and worthwhile life for all.  

Identity is a tricky concept.  In my study, I make it clear that it holds good, bad and ugly personas, all of whom are necessary and must be given voice.  Like the metaphor of a masquerade ball (Fleming, 2021), on the leadership journey we must present different personas, at times masked, made public only when to do so allows for opportunities, eruptions and contestations.  All are necessary in effective leadership, but none can be your only approach.  To do so renders one either a pawn in the game of the current social structure or a problem to the system that will eventually be eliminated.  One must be smart to survive.  One must know who they are and what they stand for; because sometimes, you will not win in your eruptions or contestations but you must hold strength in the knowledge of who you are and what you value to survive long enough to exercise your judgment at the next occasion, where there is opportunity to advance the good and worthwhile life.  Essential to this goal is the necessity of a web of relationships one holds in the realm of the private sphere (Arendt, 2013).  The journey is made much easier, perhaps even possible only because of the support of like-minded others with whom one must build coalitions.  It is through these coalitions that we must navigate the “masquerade ball” that is educational leadership.  I emphasize through this metaphor that it is not always necessary to show one’s face in the dance, to accomplish what is the goal of the coalition.  All in the coalition are playing an important role, directly or by proxy.

My study in no way represents “the only way” to manage the dissonance often at the core of leadership—the assumption of deficiencies in personal agency.  It does, however, represent, “one way.”  I encourage all those in leadership positions to build on the lessons that I have engaged on this journey.  I can guarantee two outcomes: first, it will be uncomfortable; and second, it will be worth it.  What you learn will carry you for life.  In so doing, you also ensure that your educational journey continues to contribute to a good and worthwhile life for yourself and many others on their own educational journeys.  

Start by finding the uncomfortable liminal spaces that will allow you to see and name the problem at the core of your leadership dissonance.  In this study, the journey led me to the important realization that it was not me at the centre of the problem.  I was not an imposter.  I was however, impacted by the social milieu in which I was expected to lead—a neoliberal one.  As a therapist and as leader, I believe in the power of naming the problem as a first step.  By doing so, it becomes feasible to recognize one’s own strengths and to build the web of relationships that will be necessary in the realm of the private, to counter the problem.

Building on this story

I have learned a great deal on this part of my journey.  I would hope my story, this study, might continue for others on their own journeys of leadership.  I conclude by reflecting on a key theme that has surfaced from this study. It is the importance of spending time in the uncomfortable liminal spaces to engage a sociological imagination (Mills 1959, 2000) that holds the capacity to change or bring new meaning to the concept at the core of all leadership: one’s self-identity.

In my study, I have given focus to the identity and relationships of deans and associate deans.  However, the journey should not end here.  Equally important are the identities of students, faculty and all others who are currently on their own educational journeys.  It would seem a logical extension of my story and this study to explore the identities and relationships among these others, as they navigate the stories of their own educational journeys and discover who they are and what they stand for.  These stories hold yet more meaning for our understanding of education and leadership.  

Let me begin with students, who under neoliberal influence have had their identities reduced to consumers in the market economy—pursuing a necessary and restricted resource that will position them competitively in the capitalist market.  Those whose interests lie outside these boundaries will have already been pejoratively redefined in terms of their place in the market economy.

Faculty identities too have been impacted by the neoliberal influence.  Gone are traditional roles and status defined by academe, replaced by employees under contract in the market system of higher education.  It is no wonder that faculty and students share conflicted identities and purposes.  Each was introduced to “education” under different normative definitions.  How do we now reconcile these tensions?

Finally, I note that administrators such as myself and my colleagues are also at risk under neoliberal conditions.  We too have been reduced to corporate managers in audit cultures, not leaders in support of the educational journeys of others.      

Title: When Your Practice Becomes Homeless

Author: Don Poirier, EdD

Introduction

The world seems bent on dramatic change to the point of breakage. Public institutions are caught in the middle of shifts in government policies on immigration and a reduction of international student numbers that threatens their solvency, as well as larger culture wars that emanate from and mirror a shift in public sentiment both here and abroad. Among such tectonic forces individual practitioners are left to wonder what is to happen to them as institutions consider where to cut budgets. This can lead to a sense of helplessness or even job loss. How can we begin to understand what is happening and our role in a new reality? I begin by sharing my own struggles with a practice under duress, reflecting on the various forces at play, and look to my own research to help make sense of a world seemingly gone awry. It is hoped that these insights give both perspective and advice to those dealing with a threat to their educational practice.

A story of practice under duress

It was at the end of a day at the office when most of the staff had left. As was typical, I wandered through the empty fields of cubicles thinking of old Dilbert cartoons that might capture thecomplexities of our institutional culture. It was a culture borne out of an uneasy merger of two separate public institutions: the one an aspiring ‘university college’ that offered a range on in-person academic and trades programs and courses to its region, the other an established public university that existed under a clear mandate to meet the ‘open education needs’ of the province based on open educational practices and technology enabled delivery. Both ‘sides’ of the institution represented established communities of practice that, in their own ways, could point to a history that prioritized learner success and innovative community engagement. Yet, both sides were also structurally separated by legislation that split governance decisions involving curriculum between two different bodies, the coexistence of historically and operationally unique sets of policies and practices that guided both academic decisions and student services, initially separate government funding based on regional versus provincial mandates, and two separate collective agreements guiding the rights and responsibilities of unique faculty bargaining units. These fault lines of separation lingered for years through successive changes in leadership punctuated by calls for understanding, cooperation, and ultimately for ‘integration.’ For many, this last call to fix the ‘problem’ represented the final solution in the culture war where one sidemust lose so the other could thrive. In short, it was a call for an acquisition rather than a merger.

My wanderings through the ‘cubicle farm’ led me to a familiar sight. Sitting in his office was a friend, colleague, and the latest incarnation of interim bosses (a.k.a. lead cubicle farmer) to leadthe division. Irwin came to the institution as head of curriculum development within the division. He was a well-respected voice in the fields of distance and open education both in Canada and abroad. We would often talk about the role that open education in general, and our division in particular, has and could play in addressing the struggles of marginalized groups in society and advancing institutional reach and influence to meet the evolving needs of learners and serve the ‘common good.’ We both understood the roller coaster history of our division and the struggles of acceptance open education has had within post-secondary systems that tended to operate on established norms of ‘academic excellence’ including the delivery of curriculum, as well as institutions competing for resources that sometimes made inter-institutional cooperation a point of celebration or consternation rather than the norm. This combination of promise and political turbulence was witnessed by the shifting responsibilities and names of the division from the Open Learning Institute in 1978, to the Open Learning Agency (1988), then to the BC Open University (1996), and finally in 2005 as a division of a special purpose university in BC’s interior (Abrioux, 2006; Johnson, 2023; Moran, 1991). 

Irwin was eager to show me a picture he had taken while on a recent trek across campus. Piled outside the warehouse that heldamong other things hundreds of ‘pizza boxes’ that delivered distance course materials to thousands of students annually across the country and sometimes abroad, was a stack of pallets slated for disposal. Amongst the pile of rubbish was a pallet from the Open Learning Agency. Irwin put the foam backed picture in front of me and left me to interpret. We sat there insilence. Irwin finally spoke up and said, ‘It says it all, doesn’t it?’ What that image intuitively captured for both of us was a barrage of year over year microaggressions that spoke of distrustand feelings of alienation as well as moments of open dislike. These markers of philosophical, operational, and cultural strain were felt by all facets of the division through such daily interactions as operational meetings, collective agreement grievances, and the pursuit of a revisionist history focussed on undermining the identity of over forty years of open education practice in the province. 

The strain Irwin felt navigating the challenging political terrain took its toll. He left the institution to pursue what he loved:curriculum development, music, and most of all his family. Irwin and I kept in touch as I took on his role as division head. He heartily recommended me as his replacement in part because I understood what to expect. I continued to have my conversations with Irwin as he was one of the few who understood the challenges and strains of leading a division that was not always welcome beyond the student tuition it generated. As the stories of conflict and anxiety among staff grew, Irwin always found time to be my mentor and friend. It was during one such session that he simply said, ‘I think it’s time for you tobecome selfish and focus on your health and your family.’ I finally left that institution with feelings of guilt for leaving those behind to face institutional grievances alone and for the time lost with my own family, exhaustion from sixteen years of struggle to fulfill the provincial mandate and support learners who had limited educational options, and fear of the unknown including financial insecurity.

Irwin was a survivor of cancer twice over. Within six months after my departure, he informed family and friends that his latest bout with cancer would be his last. He and a colleague from the world of open education planned a trip to his old haunts in the province’s interior. We arranged to have lunch at my home just before he returned to his family. It was just the two of us in the house. He sat at the table physically and emotionally exhausted from his trip of places, people, and memories. He could have easily cancelled our lunch without judgement but instead took the time to ask how I was doing and the details of my last days as his successor. At the end of lunch and the myriad stories he gazed at me and asked, ‘Did you go quietly?’ The inference was clear: did I take the opportunity to give voice to the perceived injustices to our division and purpose, or did I abandon my convictions as a proponent of a set of practices that prioritized learner circumstance before institutional convenience and my responsibilities as a leader to simply fade away? I confirmed that I thought I had made my feelings clear to the point of professional recklessness. Seemingly satisfied with my response, he said, ‘That’s all anyone can do.’ When he was about to leave,we promised to keep in touch. He gave me a hug before opening the door that brought in the fresh December air. We never spoke again. 

Practices under duress: Values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours

My story of practice under duress is thankfully unique. The set of historical circumstances and political dynamics as well as institutional personalities that came together to characterize my operating environment created a situation that few others can claim. However, it shares one important characteristic that isseemingly defining a variety of institutional practices today –practitioners caught in the maelstrom of economic, political, and cultural forces that leaves them questioning where they fit within an institution caught trying to navigate the winds of change. For me the defining inflection point came in the form of the COVID pandemic when campus-based faculty were faced with a choice – change their pedagogical practice or get left behind. For many, the demands of the situation put into relief that they were professionally vulnerable to external forces. This prompted a struggle between collective bargaining units for the right to work that was previously considered by many traditional faculty a lower form of educational practice that nevertheless attracted the greatest number of domestic students by headcount. 

Today, the shifting forces at play make the influence of a virus seem like a more straightforward affair that produced a scientifically created vaccine as a tangible response. We currently find ourselves in a complex web of geopolitical and cultural clashes that have at their roots a set of values, attitudes, and beliefs at odds with others. One example is found in the contentious claim made by the American Catholic Vice-President, J.D. Vance, who early in his tenure cited the ethical doctrine of ordo amoris in support of Donald Trump’s immigration policies and decision to cut USAID funding to the world’s neediest (Liedel, 2025, February 3). The doctrine, which is often referred to as ‘order of love,’ espoused by such notable Christian theological thinkers as (Saint) Augustine and (Saint) Aquinas, was promoted to understand our ethical responsibilities to others. Crudely, the doctrine suggests that given our finite station in this world we must ‘order’ our attention of love beginning with God and emanating outwards. For Vance, this meant that our obligation to show our love was on a scale based on (physical and possibly cultural) proximity. That is, those who are closest to us, e.g., family and friends, are more deserving of our direct love over others who live further away, e.g., the poor of Africa. This move from a theological perspective towards a political ideology that prioritizes the rights of America and Americans before others distorts an attempt to understand our moral responsibilities towards others by limiting our responsibilities to the ‘other’ (See Pope, 2025, February 13).   

Of course, the example of a religious viewpoint being harnessed to achieve a political objective is neither new nor happens in isolation. One of the interesting things about today’s world is that many of those values, attitudes, and beliefs that previously remained hidden in our thoughts, shared among like minded individuals on a social platform, or even promoted on the dark web is put on louder display for all to see in the form of government policy, e.g., trade and immigration, or the drop in civil discourse over the absolute need to be right that is often accompanied by revisionist history or simply gaslighting. Again, such instances and expressions are not new. The speed and uniformity of such sentiments and behaviours, however, is note worthy. The seemingly steady rise in distrust, anger, and yearning for a new world order is partially explained by the rise of strategic alliances between groups feeling alienated. A case in point is the co-development of the American evangelical movement with the interests of the Republican party. The popular works of Tim Alberta and Kristin Kobes Du Mez among others details the symbiotic relationship between a religious sensibility with political ambition that has resulted in a largely white American Christian nationalism. Du Mez pays particular attention to the role of an American mythos that understands gender roles as both a religious command as well as a hero’s journey based on the ‘old West’ motif where men as individuals asserted their authority and women supported them with deference and Christian humility. The result is a complex worldview that masks multiple forces of influence under the guise of mythic uniformity and a world made hopeful through certainty in values, attitudes, and beliefs. Canada is not immune or insulated from the dynamics of American politics. There are signs that similar attitudes about creating a more ‘traditional’ society complete with gender standards are at play in such knowledge-infused public spaces as community libraries (LaFleche, Ward, & Kelley, 2025, February 7).

So, what does this have to do with education as a sector in Canada? Well, despite what some within the academy might wish, post-secondary institutions sit at the nexus of different cultural and political riptides. A recent example of this would bethe renewed need to defend the tenants of DEI and charges of ‘wokeism’ within a society that is seeing pushback to the ideals of inclusion and academic freedom (see Barker, 2025, May 28; Scali, 2025, May 28; Usher, 2025, April 23). Of course, not every force of change is mired in such a complex web of deeply held 

 

Title: Cultivating Plurilingual Selves: Transformative Learning Across Languages and Cultures – Implications for Applied Linguistics and Adult Education

Author: Natalia Bussard, PhD, EdD

ABSTRACT:

Throughout my life, I have cultivated a deep interest in multilingualism and its profoundinfluence on the identities and lived experiences of plurilingual individuals. My interdisciplinary research, grounded in theory of plurilingualism, transformative learning (TL), and sociocultural theories of language and culture, have deepened my understanding of three interconnected dimensions: the development of a plurilingual self, the dynamics of relationships of plurilingual individuals with others, and expansion oftheir worldviews. The research participants may have acquired their multiple languages through schooling, immersion or through immigration to other nations. In my qualitativenarrative inquiry study, I examined transformative experiences of nine plurilingual individuals from diverse backgrounds. The transformations I observed were linked toincreased resilience, creativity, confidence, cultural awareness, openness, and lifelong learning and spanned across plurilingual individuals’ lifetime. Collaborating with participants, I co-created data through demographic questionnaires, language portraits, focus groups/interviews, and memoirs, then analyzed them using narrative inquiry and reflexive thematic analysis. Novel findings of this research study underscore the broad interdisciplinary relevance of plurilingualism across psychology, sociology, and educational policy, and affirm its significance beyond language acquisition alone.

Keywords: Plurilingualism, Transformative learning, Identity, Relationships, Worldviews

Theoretical Background

My research study is grounded within the social constructionism paradigm (Schwarz&Williams, 2020) according to which what we know and how we came to know it is socially constructed. I based my research of plurilingual individuals’ TL experiences on Mezirow’s (1978) Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) and theory of plurilingualism (CoE, 1996, 2001). TL occurs as a result of a shift in one’s beliefs, relationships, behaviors, and identity.This shift is a result of facing a difficult situation in one’s life which canalso happen due to exposure to new cultures or languages.TL framework integrates foundational TLT with contemporary insights into the role of emotions as catalysts for transformation, as articulated in the works of Mälkki and Green (2018) and Mälkki and Raami (2022).

Initially, Mezirow focused on the cognitive, rational dimension; later, scholars Dirkx (2006), Taylor (2009), and Illeris (2014), recommended increasing attention to the emotional dimension. Ross (2020) focused on transformation as a peak and transformation as trauma and reconfirmed the importance of emotions as catalysts of TL. While Mezirow (1978), a foundational figure in adult education, posited that perspective transformation alters an individual’s system of values and results in different behavior changes distinct to adulthood, Kegan et al., (1982), through constructive-developmentalpsychology lens, viewed transformation as an epistemological shift towards more complex meaning-making which enables critical reflection and autonomous thinking, spanning across an individual’s life. Illeris’s (2014) study of identity confirmed that a person starts to be capable of engaging in a critical reflection since youth. 

In further development of TLT, Mezirow (1995) recognized an important role of the relationships in TL. Taylor (2000) expanded this perspective by emphasizing that through interpersonal connections, learners enhance their openness and develop the confidence to use their emotions effectively, and thereby accelerating transformative processes.

Plurilingualism (Council of Europe, 1996, 2001) rather than multilingualismaccentuates the idea of “a person, viewed as a social agent, [who] has proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (Council of Europe, 2001, p.168). Piccardo (2017) argued that the much wider used term multilingualism, does not fully encompass the complexity of increasing linguistic and cultural diversity, and therefore the construct of plurilingualism better expresses the intricacy of language acquisition and use (Council of Europe, 1996, 2001; Coste et al., 2009). Piccardo’s (2017) definition highlights the aspect of inclusivity:

Plurilingualism differs from multilingualism (the simple addition of languages insocieties and/or individuals) in that it focuses on the relationships between the languages an individual speaks, the underlying linguistic mechanisms and cultural connotations, the personal linguistic and cultural trajectory as well as the persons’ attitude toward language diversity, stressing openness, curiosity, and flexibility(p.2).

In this definition, Piccardo (2017) distinguishes plurilingualism from multilingualism, underscoring the relational aspect of plurilingualism among languages in the repertoire of an individual, their languages and cultures as well as their openness, curiosity, and flexibility.

My research also draws on the concept of Norton Peirce’s (1995) language as investment which captures “the relationship of the language learner to the changing social world [and] conceives of the language learner as having a complex social history and multiple desires” (pp.17-18). Language investment connects plurilingual individuals’motivation for language acquisition with their agency. Plurilingual individuals’ agency propels them to acquire additional languages and, influenced by this process, enables them to act in the world in transformative ways. The transformative processes can beexamined through plurilingual individuals’ journeys and identities, drawing on the classifications of transformations proposed by Illeris (2014) and Ross (2020). Illeris (2014) identified three types of transformations: progressive (a positive effect that moves towards transformation), regressive (a negative or slowing down effect that moves away from transformation), and restoring (reformulating goals to make them more realistic, and achievable in life). Ross (2020) introduced two additional types of transformations: peak (extremely positive, uplifting) and traumatic (extremely negative, leaving the individual feeling down).

While transformative journeys of language learners/users have been captured in the literature to some extent (Pavlenko, 2006; Obojska, 2019, Galante, 2024), these studies focused on identities depicted either in study abroad trips or service-learning environments, and did not fully encompass the complexities taking place in minds of adult plurilingual individuals reflecting in the changes of their interpersonal relationships.Having observed this gap in the literature, I positioned transformation as the central theoretical framework of my research, recognizing disorienting dilemma and critical reflection as catalysts for transformation, enabling the learners reassess their seeing, knowing, feeling, and acting in the world (Bussard, 2024, 2025).

Methodology

My study is epistemologically based on social constructionism, a framework which posits that knowledge is historically and culturally situated. Within this paradigm, language actively constitutes reality, serves as a precondition for thought, and functions as a form of social action (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The center of my attention are the social practices in which nine plurilingual participants engaged with me, co-constructing the dataset. To advance plurilingual scholarship, I adopted a researching multilinguallyframework (Holmes et al., 2013), granting participants the agency in selecting their preferred language of self-expression across three modalities: focus groups/interviews, language portraits, and memoirs. Additional co-created data were collected through demographic questionnaires, administered in English. The first stage of data co-creation allowed me to gather participants’ perspectives on their countries of origin and thecultures they had been immersed in. Following this, participants created their language portraits, illustrating the language repertoires they had acquired throughout their lives. Through the portraits the participants expressed the significance of each language they spoke. Before participating in focus groups/interviews, participants engaged with two language learning memoirs written by the researcher. This activity’s aim was to familiarize the participants with the concept of a disorienting dilemma—a moment or aperiod of time— leading to personal transformation—and to prompt them to consider their own transformative experiences. The participants were informed that after the focus groups, they would write their own language learning memoirs. Initially, I planned to conduct three focus groups with three participants each to facilitate the exchange of ideas. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, some participants were unable to attend the originally scheduled sessions. To avoid further delays, I opted to conduct with them individual interviews. During the 90-minute focus groups or 60-minute interviews, I co-generated rich descriptions, exploring the participants’ identity dilemmas, transformations, and catalysts for their life journeys. Both the focus groups/interviews and the memoirs co-generated of rich data, which allowed me to identify subthemes and overarching themes that contributed to novel findings. In my qualitative research, I used Clandinin & Connelly’s (2000) narrative inquiry methodology and reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), further opting for Fraser’s (2004) approach due to its emphasis on rich contextual descriptions. This combination of approaches provided analytical flexibility while explicitly incorporating my interpretive role as a researcher.

Transformations of identities, interpersonal relationships, and worldviews

In this section, I introduce the types of transformations my participants underwent in their language learning journeys, focusing on changes that shaped their identities. I then provide a brief overview of how these shifts in identity influenced their interpersonal relationships and their worldviews. In the discussion, I summarize these findings, propose plurilingual educational policies, and situate them within the existing body of literature.

Drawing on Illeris’s (2014) and Ross’ s (2020) classifications of transformations, I identified that most plurilingual individuals’ transformations aligned with restoring transformations (Illeris, 2014). In these transformations, participants experienceddisorienting dilemmas, reformulated their goals to become more realistic and achievable in life. The following six examples illustrate restoring transformations, the first two of which simultaneously represent traumatic transformations (Ross, 2020).

During her adolescence, Fabyan was silenced by a Slovak man for using Hungarian to communicate. This suppression ignited her resilience and a desire to act contrary to societal norms. Fabyan’s transformative experience affirmed her agency and acceptance for others. Marie Rose, like Fabyan, faced ridicule from Slovak peers for using Hungarian in Slovakia which catalyzed a shift. This negative experience, nevertheless, fostered acquiring additional languages and empowering others to self-express through their preferred languages. Elena leveraged her plurilingual abilities and immersion in other cultures to reorient herself from hopelessness of a challenging family environment. This shift allowed her to rebuild her belief system and cultivate a purposeful life. Both Marie Rose’s and Elena’s transformations qualify as traumatic transformations in Ross’s (2020) classification framework.

Lucia’s disillusionment with her ability to find employment in Mexico without speaking Spanish led to her to acquire the language and establish closer professional and personal relationships with Mexican communities which is an example of a restoring transformation. Tim’s inappropriate use of words, intended to praise the host for a delicious meal during Sweden’s Midsummer festivities, left the host feel unappreciated and led Tim to reconsider the importance of fully understanding each word he was using. This disorienting dilemma became the catalyst for his restoring transformation.

Manon realized that thinking in another language while living in Japan was transformative. This realization led Manon to acquire more languages, become appreciative of other cultures, more accepting, and less judgmental. Her transformation was both restoring and profound –– a kind that Ross (2020) classifies as peak– as it left Manon uplifted. Three out of nine participants’ transformations were peak transformations. Another peak transformation was Aida’s move to Austria, where using German daily helped her realize how her comprehension improved over time. Aida’sprogress validated her parents’ investment in teaching her languages, which later became an impetus for learning even more languages. This developmental stage is also termed progressive transformation (Illeris, 2014). Nemo’s transformed as his perception of language shifted from viewing it as a tool for expressing meaning to understanding it as a means of connecting with other cultures. This transformation represents both a peak and a progressive transformation. Baruch’s progressive transformation became evident in how learning of English became a catalyst for connecting and communicating effectively with others, and he became motivated to acquire additional languages. The restorative (some trauma), progressive (peak), and regressive transformations associated with identity shifts were reflected in qualities such as heightened resilience, hope, confidence (Pomeroy & Oliver, 2021), agency (Ahearn, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2019), and feelings of personal growth. In terms of interpersonal relationships, participants felt a stronger desire for connection, greater efforts to understand others, and improved communication effectiveness, all of which were linked to increased empathy (García-Vazquez et al., 2022), aspirations to empower, support, accept, and appreciate others. Participants reported embracing a lifelong learning mindset, a deepened desire to acquire new languages in terms of language investment (Norton Peirce, 1995), an appreciation for diverse cultures (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013), interculturality (Byram, 1997, 2021; Senyshyn, 2018) and an increased openness and acceptance toward others (Byram et al., 2001; Bussard, 2024, 2025).

Discussion and Connection to Educational Policy

Plurilingual individuals’ multifaceted identities changed through navigating the psychologically complex transformative language learning journeys. Yet, transformation through plurilingualism is only one way in which an individual’s identity, relationships with others, and worldviews can be altered and such transformation is not a guaranteed and depends on each individuals’ unique factors (Bamber, 2016; Mezirow, 1978; Senyshyn, 2018). My research revealed that genuine connection with others depended on a level of self-understanding or self-awareness in relation to others and on individual factors that require further investigation in future research. My research participants highlighted that multiple language acquisition has strengthened their interconnectedness with the cultures in which they were immersed, and vice versa (Bamber, 2016; Senyshyn, 2018; Wernicke et al., 2021). Participants concluded that they had become intercultural speakers who “interact with ‘others’, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world, to mediate between different perspectives, to be conscious of their evaluations and differences” (Byram, 2001, p. 5).

My research study’s participants reported an increased sense of connection due toexposure to multiple languages and cultures, which was reflected in their increased level of empathy, openness and acceptance of others. Simultaneously, some participants essentialized other cultures, and made generalizations, indicating signs of classism and racism. Based on this, I observed that exposure to multiple languages and cultures does not guarantee a positive relationship between plurilingualism and cultural sensitivity, rather, this relationship is complex (see also Putnam, 2007).

The insights from this research have significant implications for a wide range of stakeholders, including parents, language learners and users, teachers, school administrators, policymakers, fellow researchers, and the general public. My research’s findings have practical relevance for the stakeholders mentioned above; can inform evidence-based decision-making, and contribute to the development of more inclusive and effective language policies in order to better support diverse linguistic communities.For example, language teachers might encourage all their students to use all the languages in their repertoire as bridges that support language learning. This practice has proven effective because a strong foundation in a child’s first language significantly enhances their ability to develop plurilingualism (Lo Bianco, 2017). This approach would transfer responsibility for children’s plurilingual development would from parents — who frequently lack the necessary skills and resources— to institutions better equipped to implement effective practices that foster academic and societal success (Anthony- Newman, 2025; Piller & Gerber, 2021). My own research aligns with these perspectives, revealing that participants expressed themselves differently depending on which language from their repertoire they used, thereby evoking distinct memories. Simultaneously, the language used influenced how participants prioritized different ideas. Allowing participants to choose their preferred language enabled them to discuss topics that wouldotherwise remain unexplored, enriching the research and enhancing its comprehensiveness.

The implementation of plurilingual language policies in schools could significantly benefit students by fostering the transformation and expansion of their worldviews. Furthermore, such policies may substantially enhance students’ cognitive and interpersonal skills, including creativity, analytical thinking, and the cultivation of a positive attitude toward lifelong learning. In addition, practicing of plurilingualism can enhance individuals’ relationships by fostering greater acceptance of diverse worldviews. This understanding may encourage policymakers to implement policies plurilingualism-friendly policies across all levels of education. For instance, schools could establish policies that incorporate all languages present within the educational environment– ranging from the dominant instructional language to the diverse home languages spoken by students. Such policies would aim to create an inclusive linguistic environment that actively values and supports every student’s background language background, thereby strengthening the school’s cultural and communicative cohesion.

References:

Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual review of anthropology, 30, 109-137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109

Antony-Newman, M. (2025). Plurilingualism for social justice: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2025.2475915

Bamber, P. (2016). Transformative Education through International Service-Learning: Realising an ethical ecology of learning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684970

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., Nichols, A. & Stevens, D. (2001). Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595356

Byram, M. (2021). Defining and Describing Intercultural Communicative Competence. In Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: Revisited (pp. 12-39). MultilingualMatters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410251-005

Bussard, N. (2024). Influences of Transformative Multiple Language Learning and Use on Changing the Ways of Seeing and Being in the World, Proceedings of the XV Biennial International Transformative Learning Conference (pp.256-263). University of Siena, Italy.https://www.intertla.org/past-conferences-proceedings/

Bussard, N. (2025, March 9), More Languages, More Opportunities: Your Life, Amplified, UniNewsletter, volume 3, pp.8-11, https://issuu.com/uninewsletter/docs/un-march/9

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

Council of Europe (CoE). (1996). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment:

A Common European Framework of Reference. [Draft 2 of a Framework

Proposal; CC-LANG (95) 5 rev. IV]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. rm.coe.int/

modern-languages-learning-teaching-assessment-a-common-european-framew/1680886e8c

Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. rm.coe.int/1680459f97

Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence:

Studies towards a Common European Framework of Reference for language learning and teaching. Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rm.coe.int/168069d29b

Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. In E. Taylor (Ed.), Teaching for change. New directions in adult and Continuing education, 109, 15–26.

Fraser, H. (2004). Doing narrative research: Analyzing personal stories line by line. Qualitative Social Work, 3(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325004043383

Galante, A. (2024). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence: Origins, current trends, and future directions. In C. Fäcke, X. Gao, & P. Garrett-Rucks (Eds.), The handbook of plurilingual and intercultural language learning.Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394165957.ch24

García-Vazquez, E., Turrero-García, M. & Rodriguez, N. Multilingualism enhances immigration acceptance through increased intergroup quality contact: A proof of concept in New Jersey and Spain, Lingua, 273(103320), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103320.

Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., & Attia, M. (2013). Researching multilingually: new theoretical and methodological directions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 285–299.

Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative Learning and Identity. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614548423

Kegan, R., Noam, G. G., & Rogers, L. (1982). The psychology of emotion: A neo-Piagetian view. Child Development, 53(6), 1298-1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219821606

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12536

Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482070

Lo Bianco, J. (2017, February 9-10). Multilingualism in education: Equity and social cohesion: Consideration for TESOL [Paper presentation]. Summit on the Future of the TESOL Profession, Athens, Greece.

Mälkki, K., & Green, L. (2018). Working with edge emotions as a means for uncovering problematic assumptions: Developing a practically sound theory. Phronesis, 7(3), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.7202/1054406ar 

Mälkki, K., & Raami, A. (2022). Transformative learning to solve the impossible. In E. Kostara, A. Gavrielatos, & D. Loads (Eds.), Transformative learning theory and praxis (1st ed., pp. 76–91). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429450600-7

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28(2), 100–110.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning (pp. 37–90). State University of New York Press.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

Norton Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803

Obojska, M. A. (2019). Trilingual repertoires, multifaceted experiences: multilingualism among Poles in Norway. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1611337

Piccardo, E. (2017). Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: A systemic analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169

Pomeroy, E., & Oliver, K. (2021). Action Confidence as an Indicator of Transformative Change. Journal of Transformative Education, 19(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344620940815

Piller, I., & Gerber, L. (2021). Family language policy between the bilingual advantage and the monolingual mindset. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(5), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1503227

Putnam, R.D. (2007). “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.” Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

Ross, S. (2020). The Map to Wholeness: Real-Life Stories of Crisis, Change, and Reinvention-Your Guide through the 13 Phases of Transformation. North Atlantic Books.

Senyshyn, R. M. (2018). Teaching for transformation: converting the intercultural experience of preservice teachers into intercultural learning. Intercultural Education, 29(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1429791

Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural Competency: A Transformative Learning Process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400303

Taylor, E. (2000). Fostering Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory in the Adult Education Classroom: A Critical Review. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 14(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.56105/cjsae.v14i2.1929

Taylor, E. W. (2009). Fostering transformative learning. In J. Mezirow, E. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace and higher education. Jossey-Bass.

Wernicke, M., Hammer, S., Hansen, A., & Schroedler, T. (Eds.). (2021). Preparing Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners. Multilingual Matters. https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/?K=9781788926096