Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CRITICAL CHANGELAB (Democracy meets arts: critical change labs for building democratic cultures through creative and narrative practices)
Reporting period: 2023-04-01 to 2024-03-31
The Critical ChangeLab project aims to reinvigorate the relationship between youth and democracy and consequently the future of 21st Century European democracy. This is achieved by spearheading the reach and impact of Critical ChangeLab Model of Democratic Pedagogy, fostering youth's active democratic citizenship at a time where polarisation, political divisions and declining trust in democracy are spreading. The Critical ChangeLab Model for Democratic Pedagogy fosters learners' transformative agency and strengthens democratic processes in education through collaborations across formal and non-formal education and local actors around global/local challenges relevant for youth. The Model promotes creative and narrative practices to explore the historical roots of local and EU-wide challenges, understanding the value-systems and worldviews underlying distinct types of relations (human-human, human-nature, human-technology). At the Critical ChangeLabs, young people are introduced to approaches like theatre of the oppressed, transmedia storytelling, and speculative and critical design to rethink European democracy and envision justice oriented democracy futures.
During the first year of the project (1.4.2023-31.3.2024)
1. An instrument for assessing the state of democracy in formal and non-formal education institutions was developed, piloted and implemented (T1.1). The Democracy Health Questionnare (DHQ) was informed by research on the state of democracy education across Europe, benchmarking trends and existing instruments to assess democracy. DHQ was designed in a manner that its concepts made a foundation for the development of the Democracy Health Index (DHI) for assessing everyday democracy in various learning environments. This quantitative research phase was conducted in formal and non-formal education institutions across nine EU member states and reached 1330 institutions as respondents. DHQ and DHI were delivered as a tool for supporting education institutions to self-assess their Democracy Health (D1.1) the results of the study were reported (D1.2).
2. Ten case studies were conducted on groups of young people growing up in challenging contexts for the development and practice of everyday democracy (T1.2). The qualitative data collected allowed gaining knowledge and comparison of youth perspectives on everyday democracy. The groups covered included e.g. immigrants, refugees and migrants, ethnic minorities, LGBT youth, those living in remote areas, early school leavers, girls, youth living in substitute care and young people living in less privileged socioeconomic environments. In each of ten countries an in-depth case study consisting of focus groups with youth, semi-structured interviews with educators, and ethnographic accounts of the contexts that include secondary historic analyses was conducted. Overall, the case studies involved 80 young people and 49 individuals working with/for youth. A summary of the data, as well as an introduction of youth perspectives on everyday democracies in challenging contexts across 10 countries was produced (D1.3).
3. A conceptual and methodological framework for developing critical literacies for democracy using creative and narrative practices was created (T1.3). The framework articulates the Critical ChangeLab Model of Democratic Pedagogy. The development of the framework took into consideration National curricula and pedagogical frameworks on citizenship education, as well as in existing competence frameworks for democracy education such as the Council of Europe’s competences for democratic culture development. As part of this task, partners benchmarked creative and narrative practices for supporting cultural and critical literacies with special consideration to those informed by critical pedagogy, critical historical learning, theatre of the oppressed, critical and speculative design, and futures thinking methodologies. The materials collected in this phase were the key for the development of the Critical ChangeLab Model Framework and Toolkit (D1.4)
4. Building on the conceptual and methodological framework, a pilot implementation of Critical ChangeLabs in formal and non-formal learning environments was carried out in the first PAR cycle (T1.4). The Critical ChangeLabs will use a participatory approach in 19 locations, engaging at least 250 learners, 70 educators, and ten civil society organisations who will co-create methods for transmedia storytelling in democracy education contexts. These methods will be linked to the Critical ChangeLab Model. During PAR cycle 1, a total of 12 critical changelabs were planned by project partners, and an additional 10 external labs were arranged through an international call. The Laboratories were located in countries from Europe, North Macedonia, Serbia and the United Kingdom, in rural and urban locations. The environments where the Laboratories were set can be described as collaborations between formal and non-formal settings (n=17). In some cases, the Laboratories wee also run as part of Civil Society Organizations’ activities, which can be considered as informal learning settings (n=5). This PAR cycle worked as a pilot for testing and refining the Model before cycles 2 and 3 (in WP2) in which the number of participants will be scaled, and international collaborations will be supported.
1. An instrument for assessing the state of democracy in formal and non-formal education institutions was developed, piloted and implemented (T1.1). The Democracy Health Questionnare (DHQ) was informed by research on the state of democracy education across Europe, benchmarking trends and existing instruments to assess democracy. DHQ was designed in a manner that its concepts made a foundation for the development of the Democracy Health Index (DHI) for assessing everyday democracy in various learning environments. This quantitative research phase was conducted in formal and non-formal education institutions across nine EU member states and reached 1330 institutions as respondents. DHQ and DHI were delivered as a tool for supporting education institutions to self-assess their Democracy Health (D1.1) the results of the study were reported (D1.2).
2. Ten case studies were conducted on groups of young people growing up in challenging contexts for the development and practice of everyday democracy (T1.2). The qualitative data collected allowed gaining knowledge and comparison of youth perspectives on everyday democracy. The groups covered included e.g. immigrants, refugees and migrants, ethnic minorities, LGBT youth, those living in remote areas, early school leavers, girls, youth living in substitute care and young people living in less privileged socioeconomic environments. In each of ten countries an in-depth case study consisting of focus groups with youth, semi-structured interviews with educators, and ethnographic accounts of the contexts that include secondary historic analyses was conducted. Overall, the case studies involved 80 young people and 49 individuals working with/for youth. A summary of the data, as well as an introduction of youth perspectives on everyday democracies in challenging contexts across 10 countries was produced (D1.3).
3. A conceptual and methodological framework for developing critical literacies for democracy using creative and narrative practices was created (T1.3). The framework articulates the Critical ChangeLab Model of Democratic Pedagogy. The development of the framework took into consideration National curricula and pedagogical frameworks on citizenship education, as well as in existing competence frameworks for democracy education such as the Council of Europe’s competences for democratic culture development. As part of this task, partners benchmarked creative and narrative practices for supporting cultural and critical literacies with special consideration to those informed by critical pedagogy, critical historical learning, theatre of the oppressed, critical and speculative design, and futures thinking methodologies. The materials collected in this phase were the key for the development of the Critical ChangeLab Model Framework and Toolkit (D1.4)
4. Building on the conceptual and methodological framework, a pilot implementation of Critical ChangeLabs in formal and non-formal learning environments was carried out in the first PAR cycle (T1.4). The Critical ChangeLabs will use a participatory approach in 19 locations, engaging at least 250 learners, 70 educators, and ten civil society organisations who will co-create methods for transmedia storytelling in democracy education contexts. These methods will be linked to the Critical ChangeLab Model. During PAR cycle 1, a total of 12 critical changelabs were planned by project partners, and an additional 10 external labs were arranged through an international call. The Laboratories were located in countries from Europe, North Macedonia, Serbia and the United Kingdom, in rural and urban locations. The environments where the Laboratories were set can be described as collaborations between formal and non-formal settings (n=17). In some cases, the Laboratories wee also run as part of Civil Society Organizations’ activities, which can be considered as informal learning settings (n=5). This PAR cycle worked as a pilot for testing and refining the Model before cycles 2 and 3 (in WP2) in which the number of participants will be scaled, and international collaborations will be supported.
During the first year of the project (1.4.2023-31.3.2024)
1. Successful development of Digital Health Questionnaire and its application in 9 countries of EU indicates a potential for future use of this self-assessment tool in both formal educational institutions and organisations providing non-formal education. Ecological validity proven on a sample of European countries can be expanded to a wider non-EU sphere including both countries in Europe and neighbouring regions. This expansion would allow for a collection of data on democracy health of educational institutions globally.
2. Initial overview of the data collected in through the ten case studies on groups of young people growing up in challenging contexts for the development and practice of everyday democracy indicates great potential for further comparative qualitative research which would include case studies from all EU countries. Rigorous case selection could result in a very context rich data providing fertile material for development of education and youth policies on EU level.
3. Concerning the development of a conceptual and methodological framework for supporting critical democracy education through creative and narrative practices. Given that data collection on the Critical Changelab activities is not complete and that the empirical analysis is still in progress, it is not possible to identify results that go beyond the state of the art.
1. Successful development of Digital Health Questionnaire and its application in 9 countries of EU indicates a potential for future use of this self-assessment tool in both formal educational institutions and organisations providing non-formal education. Ecological validity proven on a sample of European countries can be expanded to a wider non-EU sphere including both countries in Europe and neighbouring regions. This expansion would allow for a collection of data on democracy health of educational institutions globally.
2. Initial overview of the data collected in through the ten case studies on groups of young people growing up in challenging contexts for the development and practice of everyday democracy indicates great potential for further comparative qualitative research which would include case studies from all EU countries. Rigorous case selection could result in a very context rich data providing fertile material for development of education and youth policies on EU level.
3. Concerning the development of a conceptual and methodological framework for supporting critical democracy education through creative and narrative practices. Given that data collection on the Critical Changelab activities is not complete and that the empirical analysis is still in progress, it is not possible to identify results that go beyond the state of the art.