Disabled people comprise 15% of the world’s population, 80% of whom are in the global south. They are integral parts of our families, communities, and cultures. Disabled people are a part of our human diversity but continue to face discrimination and exclusion in socio-economic, political, and cultural life. Disabled people are disproportionately represented among those living in poverty, which, when analysed in depth, is usually the result of discrimination, government failure, ineptitude, immorality, criminality, or exclusive policy.

The social model of disability envisages disablement as a social construction of systemic barriers, discriminatory attitudes, and exclusion. It represents a shift from individual medical assumptions about disability to an analysis of how society responds to impaired individuals and disables them from full participation. The model implies that impairments would not necessarily lead to disability if society were to accommodate and include disabled people. Indeed, most people acquire their impairments (to varying degrees and in different forms) through birth, poverty, environmental hazards, violence, accident, war, and ageing. This critical approach to disability issues has become internationally influential and changed the way disabled people see themselves and organize for social change. This perspective also considers the multiple intersecting identities that people with disabilities hold, and forms of oppression related to their gender, sexuality, age, race/ethnicity, nationality, class/caste, or other characteristics.

As the social model has developed over the past few decades, there has also been a rise in profile of disability rights and disability justice. As a starting point, however, it is important to acknowledge that contemporary understandings and attitudes towards disability have been shaped by the onset of capitalism and its associated ideologies of individualism, liberal utilitarianism, industrialisation (specifically waged labour) and the medicalisation of social life. As a result, the injustice of disableism (in all its discriminatory forms) is endemic to most, if not all, “developed” contemporary societies.

This call for papers is asking for transnational and transdisciplinary studies/expressions of lived experiences facing disabled people across the globe from a social, human rights and/or disability justice perspective. Accounts could range from the results of climate change/action, renouncement of human rights, hate crimes and violence, structural vulnerability and discrimination, disability politics and policies, neoliberal exploitation or indiscriminate impoverishment, and exclusive service provision. Similarly, intersectional analyses of the experiences of youth, 2SLGBTQI+, indigenous and tribal peoples, ethnic minorities, refugees, and migrants, are particularly welcome. This call for papers is seeking manuscripts that promote social inclusion and encompass solutions to social exclusion. Papers discussing innovative practices of inclusion are also welcome as are perspectives from the Global South.

We also encourage authors whose first language is not English to send in a copy of their manuscript in their Native language, to be made available through the (In)Justice International website. These manuscripts will form an informal companion to the official issue published by Social Inclusion: They will not undergo peer-review and are exempt from the journal’s article processing fee, but will not be included in the published volume. For more information, please contact Simon Prideaux ([email protected]).

Language learning and language education plays a central role in adult migrants’ establishment in the receiving country. This issue has gained increased political significance in the wake of globalization (Canagarajah, 2017).

Whereas adult migrants’ knowledge of the receiving country’s official language is often treated as a prerequisite for social inclusion, the alleged lack of language competence among adult migrants is often considered a threat to social cohesion (Rydell, 2018a). However, adult migrants anywhere are quite the heterogeneous group, with different life experiences and conditions for language learning and social inclusion. From the perspective of migrants themselves, language learning is mostly future-oriented, as access to linguistic resources is linked to a "future identity" and the prospect of being part of an imagined community. It is thus regarded as a means for entering the labour market as well as higher education (Norton, 2013; Rydell, 2018b). However, with a strong focus on language and language learning, there is a risk that other important factors in migrants’ social inclusion are neglected (Dahlsted & Fejes, 2021; Simpson & Whiteside, 2015).

For adult migrants, adult education is a crucial setting for initial language learning (cf. Fejes & Dahlstedt, 2020a, 2020b). The main focus of initial language learning for adult migrants, as elaborated in European national as well as international policies, is the preparation of these individuals for the labour market, i.e., employability (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2017; Simpson & Whiteside, 2015). However, the relationship between language learning and the labour market is complex. It has been shown, for example, how in European countries migrant adult students during their work placement encounter limited access to interaction and learning opportunities, or that knowledge in English, rather than the local language of the new host country, could be sufficient for career opportunities. From a longitudinal perspective, it has been pointed out how those adult migrants who had participated in second language education after a 10-year period experienced a higher level of labour market participation than those who never attended such education. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found with respect to levels of income (for the Swedish example cf. Kennerberg & Åslund, 2010). However, other studies have illustrated that access to the labour market is not solely determined by migrants’ language proficiency, since migrants’ social mobility also depends on factors like educational background and social networks (cf. Behtoui & Olsson, 2014).

The relationship between migrants’ language learning, the labour market, and social inclusion is a complex one, and scholars are challenged to address it in this thematic issue. We invite contributions that problematise such relationship across different educational, social, professional, and geographical contexts.

References

Behtoui, A., & Olsson, E. (2014). The performance of early age migrants in education and the labour market: A comparison of Bosnia Herzegovinians, Chileans and Somalis in Sweden. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(5), 778–795.

Canagarajah, S. (2017). Introduction—The nexus of migration and language: The emergence of a disciplinary space. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language. Routledge.

Dahlstedt, M., & Fejes, A. (Eds.). (2021). Utbildning i migrationens tid: Viljor, organisering och villkor för inkludering [Education in times of migration: Wills, organization and conditions for inclusion]. Studentlitteratur.

Fejes, A., & Dahlstedt, M. (2020a). A place called home: The meaning(s) of popular education for newly arrived refugees. Studies in Continuing Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2020.1767563

Fejes, A., & Dahlstedt, M. (2020b). Language introduction as a space for the inclusion and exclusion of young asylum seekers in Sweden. International Journal of Qualitative Research on Health and Well-Being, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1761196

Kennerberg, L., & Åslund, O. (2010). Sfi och arbetsmarknaden [SFI and the labor market]. IFAU.

Lindberg, I., & Sandwall, K. (2017). Conflicting agendas in Swedish adult second language education. In C. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Entangled discourses: South-North orders of visibility. Routledge.

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual Matters.

Rydell, M. (2018a). Constructions of language competence: Sociolinguistic perspectives on assessing second language interactions in basic adult education. Stockholm University.

Rydell, M. (2018b). Being “a competent language user” in a world of Others: Adult migrants’ perceptions and constructions of communicative competence. Linguistics and Education, 45, 101–109.

Simpson, J., & Whiteside, A. (2015). Adult language education and migration: Challenging agendas in policy and practice. Routledge.

The current digitalization implies a profound societal transformation that will significantly restructure our working lives. For society, and for the world of work in particular, the dynamics of digitalization present one of the major challenges. Thereby, the digital transformation of work does not simply relate to technological innovation, but rather should be understood as a complex socio-technical process, which is socially prepared, technically enabled, discursively negotiated, and ultimately individually mastered. As a result, the digitalization of working worlds is characterized by multiple dimensions and processes that evolve and proceed unevenly, interacting in complex ways and not uncommonly contradicting one another.

While different approaches and lines of argument evolve around the digital transformation of work, three overarching strands of discussion can be identified. These address the relation between (a) work and society, (b) work and organization, and (c) work and technology. Regarding the relation between (a) work and society, we can see the social impact of digitalization, resulting in disadvantages for certain groups of society at the labor market, including gender disparities, uneven labor market participation structures, newly emerging employee categories, or concerns evolving around work-life balance, to name a few. Also, the relationship of and interaction between service economies and production are changing significantly due to digitalization processes.

For the dimension (b) work and organization, we can observe changing working conditions of employees, new business models, struggles of labor policy to set regulations for digital work as well as inter-company aspects such as how digitalization is modifying the interplay between autonomy and control, between managers and employees, between management and representative bodies, and between platform providers and crowd-workers, among other aspects.

In terms of the relation between (c) work and technology, the focus is placed on changes in work processes within organizations. Observed changes modify socio-technical structures and related forms of interaction and collaboration, which may significantly affect and restructure individual workplaces. In this context, Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, or artificial intelligence (AI), among others, enable increasing connectivity and integration of physical and digital worlds so that interaction and collaboration between several actors, people and robots, and people and algorithms are undergoing a dynamic expansion. New job profiles, skill demands, and training requirements are one facet of the implications these dynamics may induce.

Against this background, this thematic issue explores the implications and dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion related to the digital transformation of working worlds. We invite contributions that consider the interplay between the multiple dynamics and dimensions of the digitalization of work and social inclusion, for example (but not exclusively) in terms of gender, age, work status, employment groups, qualifications and skills, as well as sectors and countries, or their intersections in specific work domains or work dimensions such as work processes, employment opportunities, careers, and working conditions. We welcome theoretical contributions as well as empirical and comparative studies conducted using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.

Today many cities have to deal with multiple crises such as the financial crises, housing crisis, climate crisis, food crisis, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Living in such a city is often characterised by insecurity concerning finding a safe living space and obtaining sufficient income-generating activities. Moreover, there is a growing gap between the poor and the better-off. In low-income neighbourhoods, individuals have to cope with for instance a shortage of (financial) means and inadequate housing. This causes stress about how to survive, which often creates a short-term perspective which obstructs planning for the future. Many poorer sections of society got stuck in poverty stress, while others have developed skills enabling them to escape from poverty. These coping mechanisms can be more or less successful.

In low-income neighbourhoods people may join hands to improve their living conditions. Moreover, there are social workers who work with the poor with the aim of improving their vulnerable circumstances. For these interventions different kinds of methods are used. Some methods are linked to neoliberalism, while others fight against this and may focus on different kinds of community development. The aim of this thematic issue is to better understand the positions of neighbourhood residents in contemporary vulnerable circumstances, analysing the viewpoints of both the better-off and the poor.

Theorizing is often considered a privileged act reserved for academics. However, knowledge rarely is a product of an individual “genius”; instead, it is grounded in and fueled by lived experiences and narratives of resistance, transformation, and hope. Knowledge emerges from engagement with collective sources, through collaborations with others.

Throughout history, activists, students, scholars, politicians, and marginalized communities have contributed to and utilized socio-political theorizing to understand how micro/meso processes of social inequality and marginalization are embedded in socio-political macro-structures and sustained and legitimated by normalized discursive practices. Hence, the promise of a historicized socio-political diagnosis—a “sociological imagination” or “critical consciousness”—is that it allows us to recast private troubles into public issues, shift the locus of blame to external structures, and find possibilities to intervene, resist, and engage in political action. It potentially allows for practices of politicization, intervention, and transformation.

This thematic issue’s understanding of knowledge co-creation is rooted in an engaged, relational, reciprocal approach that recognizes the mutual interdependence of theory and practice. Through co-creative research, in which scholars create knowledge with and for—instead of about—people, different actors seek to contribute to advancing people’ struggles, needs, interests, and desires.

The thematic issue consists of empirical and theoretical contributions from South Africa, the United States, and the Netherlands that address how academic theorizing is co-created by and co-creates processes of emancipation and transformation for differently positioned and impacted individuals and collectivities. In their contributions, knowledge co-creators (from both inside and outside academia) aim to improve social inclusion and justice for refugees/forced migrants to engage further with the question of how theory and practice are co-created as an engaged, collaborative, reflective, and critical act between scholars and social movements, activists, artists, societal partners, and other individuals or communities. This entails acknowledging how these actors learn, acquire, work with, resist, transform, as well as reproduce (hegemonic) theories and practices.

Since 1960s, the concept and phenomenon of inequality has been widely studied across a range of disciplines. Most research and public discussion has focused on income and wealth inequalities between individuals or households, or what Stewart has termed “vertical inequality.” In contrast, much less attention has been paid to the issue of socio-economic inequalities between different culturally-defined groups or so-called “horizontal inequalities” (HIs). Socio-economic HIs cover a range of dimensions and may refer to inequalities in the ownership of assets, income, and employment opportunities. They may also pertain to inequalities in the access to a range of social services (i.e., education, healthcare, and public housing), as well as in achievements in health and educational outcomes. Hence, socio-economic HIs cover both inequalities in opportunities and outcomes.

There are important reasons for societies to be concerned about the presence of socio-economic HIs. On the one hand, HIs matter because they tend to affect people’s happiness and well-being, and may unfairly trap individuals and groups in a position of inferiority. On the other hand, HIs may also matter instrumentally. Indeed, reducing severe socio-economic HIs may be necessary for promoting economic efficiency and for maintaining political stability and social cohesion in multi-ethnic societies. With regard to the latter issue, a growing body of both qualitative and quantitative empirical research has found evidence that the presence of HIs significantly increases the risk of violent conflicts. Furthermore, research on countries such as Bolivia, Côte d‘Ivoire, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, South Africa, and the US has shown socio-economic HIs to be extremely persistent; in some cases locking certain groups into positions of inferiority for centuries. Hence, in cases where there are sharp and persistent socio-economic HIs, there may be a strong case for the introduction of redistributive policies aimed at correcting the existing socio-economic His—or what we term “horizontal redistribution.”

While extensive research has been conducted on perceived income inequalities between individuals (i.e. vertical inequalities) as well as on how perceived levels and sources of income inequality affect preferences for redistribution in Western countries, extremely little research has been conducted on the drivers of people’s attitudes towards horizontal redistribution in diverse societies. More specifically, we know very little about how different kinds of horizontal redistribution interventions affect people’s inter-group attitudes and behavior. Existing research concerning people’s attitudes towards horizontal redistribution is largely limited to research on affirmative action in the US and a few other countries with large affirmative action programmes.

The objective of this thematic issue is to address this important academic and policy void by analyzing and studying people’s attitudes towards redistributive policies in a range of contexts and regions. Articles should cover different contexts where HIs are significant, although the characteristics of the salient groups vary across contexts. The thematic issue proposes to cover black/white inequalities in the US, Brazil, and South Africa, ethnic inequalities in Nigeria, Malaysia, Kenya, and the Roma people in Eastern Europe, caste-based inequalities in India, and religious inequalities in Northern Ireland. The group of selected article should use a variety of methods, including statistical analysis drawing on perceptions surveys, discourse analysis, and historical analysis.

This thematic issue will revolve around the ERC advanced research project Becoming a Minority (BaM). The issue will explore six European majority–minority cities (Amsterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Malmö, Rotterdam, and Vienna) in which residents without a migration background are one of many ethnic minority groups. Articles will focus on this group of residents. Specifically, we aim to uncover how practices of (in)exclusion in majority–minority neighborhoods come about and are experienced by residents without a migration background.

One of the articles in this thematic issue will be based on the BaM survey conducted in 2019 and has a comparative angle focusing on all six BaM project cities. The other contributions will be based on semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019 and the first quarter of 2020. Two of these qualitative articles propose a comparison between two cities, while the others will remain focused on one.

Central to the articles are the concepts of social boundaries, interactions (across ethnic boundaries), belonging, and belonging uncertainty. Themes addressed in these articles include how various national discourses in Europe are rooted in the bright boundaries put up between people with and without a migration background, how they resonate at the local majority–minority level, the function of space in majority–minority neighborhoods, and how neighborhood spaces such as shops, schools, parks, and streets can gain a strategic function for neighborhood residents to interact across ethnic boundaries.

This thematic issue underlines the importance of looking at the interplay between symbolic and social boundary-making through national discourses and inter-ethnic contacts and feelings of belonging (uncertainty) in the local setting of majority–minority neighborhoods to understand practices of inclusion and exclusion in majority–minority neighborhoods in Europe.

Recently there has been a chorus of demands to “re-imagine” social care. Community and faith-based organisations, policy, and academic communities are engaged in discussions on issues such as human rights for older populations, the future of residential-based aged care, how to better support family/community care, and strengthen local place-based community development. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has added new urgency to this mission. From the perspective of C. Wright Mills’ sociological imagination, the private pains and suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed public troubles of endemic system failings and low investment in social care, including workforce gaps, prevailing discourses of ageism, tensions with health systems, and limitations of market models of care and support.

Set against this background, the subject of this thematic issue of Social Inclusion is a prevention agenda in social care for older people, with a focus on community development values and approaches. Prevention is a central social welfare principle in many countries. It is associated with policy and practices that aim to meet social care needs early, mitigating against the need for future support and assistance. While applied in the context of complex social problems, discourses of prevention are most coherent and established in the realm of public health (e.g., tertiary, secondary, and primary prevention). As Rapoport highlighted in the 1960s, however, translating the unified view of prevention associated with public health into social welfare is inherently problematic. This remains the case. Preventative social care and support necessarily operate in complex and dynamic systems, generally where knowledge of causation and the consequences are unclear, and an imaginative application of care needs and contexts is required.

Though current policy direction across many countries suggests opportunities for re-imagining how prevention may be best conceptualised, numerous studies have highlighted that there remains considerable confusion and disparity in how this plays out in practice. Prevention in social care can be implemented from mixed starting points, i.e., economic objectives, social justice objectives, and look different in practice. Included within this broad agenda are community development approaches and service delivery models driven by the needs of older people in their communities/localities, and collectively focused on common concerns and solutions.

This thematic issue will canvass questions such as:

• What can be learnt from social care preventative practices with older people that use community development approaches?
• How might older people be part of a reimagination of a preventative agenda in social care?
• What can social enterprises and cooperatives contribute to advancing a prevention agenda in social care?
• What might the marketisation of service delivery systems (e.g., individualised/direct payments) mean for community development solutions and approaches?
• How can prevention in social care be better conceptualised?
• What has been learnt from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older populations to inform a prevention agenda in social care?

The concept of equal opportunity is one of the objectives of sustainable development, as identified by several SDGs. All children have the right to an education, and one of the most important components of inclusive education is the guarantee that all students are present, participating, and progressing, as well as the ability to provide them with equal opportunities. Today, however, inclusive education is a dual and controversial issue, and its application and real development are still far from being a right with such guarantees. It is imperative that the educational system offers equal opportunities to all children, regardless of their differences. At the heart of the idea of inclusive education lie serious issues concerning human rights and equal opportunities, which remain a major challenge.

It is important to highlight the importance of educational inclusion as a movement to transform education systems in order to address a diversity of students and ensure universal equal access to education. Work on social justice and equality is integral to the implementation of educational inclusion. A state that assumes the role of guarantor of the right to learning opportunities needs to adopt policies that promote human capital development as a means of achieving sustainable development goals, ensuring equality of opportunity and fostering equity. On this horizon, education for sustainability and inclusion is necessary and urgent.

The goal of this thematic issue is to provide a critical analysis of barriers to social inclusion in schools and propose inclusive educational practices that help connect and unite diverse students. We propose proactive practices as “built-in” preventions to increase social inclusion, in addition to summarizing relevant intervention approaches. Also, we recommend greater emphasis on social inclusion in teacher education and professional development as well as provide suggestions for future research.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Social inclusion and school adjustment
• Anti-bias, intergroup contact, and social norm interventions
• Multicultural education and social-emotional learning
• The role of teachers in students’ social inclusion in the classroom
• Mobile learning for quality education and social inclusion
• Adaptation of the educational system concerning the inclusion
• Educational inclusion and cultural diversity in regional communities
• Social inclusion and exclusion in a higher education environment

This issue is asking for papers that examine the nature of “global precarity” and/or reflect upon the process of the global commodification of labour and its impact on what constitutes “precarity” for workers around the world: low-wages, insecure contracts, absence of training and progression, lack of status and exposure to a range of “work-based harms.” As global labour commodification has been accelerated and neoliberal employment policy has stripped away legislative and regulatory protections, a range of demographics have been rendered increasingly insecure, “precarious,” and disposable. This ranges from migrants and ethnic minorities, where varying citizenship statuses and structural racism may relegate them to the fringes of the labour market, to young people, who may also face ineligibility for support mechanisms, a lack of opportunities and increasingly fractured and fragmented transitions into work.

Moreover, a lack of appropriate social policy responses to contemporary global challenges to the global financial crisis of 2008 onwards, Covid-19 and post-pandemic inflationary pressures exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine, ongoing neo-colonialism, and climate change means that a variety of groups have faced increasingly uncertain futures.

We acknowledge that there is nothing new about “precarity”; the so-called “standard employment contract” that accompanied the shift to social democracy only existed for a few brief decades in the Global North in the aftermath of the Second World War, and even then, women and migrants were largely excluded. Nevertheless, the diffusion of neoliberal politics centred on deregulation, privatisation, and “responsibilisation” has, to a significant degree, unpicked the security that existed for some workers in the Global North while leading (in combination with neo-colonialism) to greater informalisation, hyper exploitation, and outward migration in the Global South. Younger, ethnic minority, migrant, and working-class people are disproportionately exposed to such processes, relegated to “gig work” or “bogus self-employment,” zero-hour and fixed-term contracts, insecure agency work or “off the books” employment within the illegal economy.

This call for papers is asking for global studies of the lived experience of precarity (linked to labour markets), with a particular focus on youth, ethnicity and migration status, gender and sexuality, disability, and class. Such analyses will be connected to questions of political economy (globalisation and “neoliberal statecraft”), the presence or absence of welfare systems that support people out of and into work, the vitality (or otherwise) of labour movements that are capable of organising, supporting, and defending workers, the role of technology in facilitating or inhibiting different forms of work, and the significance of culture and ideology in reproducing various workplace regimes.

We also encourage authors whose first language is not English to send in a copy of their manuscript in their Native language, to be made available through the (In)Justice International website. These manuscripts will form an informal companion to the official issue published by Social Inclusion: They will not undergo peer-review and are exempt from the journal’s article processing fee but will not be included in the published volume. For more information, please contact Simon Prideaux ([email protected]).

“Silencing” appears in social sciences studies as a far-reaching theoretical and empirical topic of discussion (Bhambra & Shilliam, 2009; Brown, 2008; Jaworski, 1997; Post, 2008). With broad contributions made on how silencing relates to mobilisations of power—or even as a stronghold of power itself—there exist defined conceptual and practicable links between silencing, power, and resultant social exclusion for demographics and individuals who experience silencing. Altiney and Peto (2015) co-edited a special issue on “new directions in feminist thinking on genocide,” mentioning “silence as narration.” The “archaeology of silence” (de Lagasnerie & Louis, 2015) needs more attention in a political-institutional context where institutional racisms might silence visible ethnic minorities, for example, and what it needs to speak out and complain against, as Ahmed (2021) follows up. Those who become bystanders—acting silent—to racist and sexist acts might be complicit in this form of embedded and institutionalized racism and sexism. However, we are less interested here in “silence” than in processes of silencing; understanding who is silenced by whom, when, and how. Silence can be an individual choice (Clark, 2020), but silence as a mass phenomenon, embedded in institutions and regarded as a signifier of taboo or stigma hints at structural power hierarchies in need of unwrapping and exposing. In situ, the myriad angles and case examples with which to approach silencing as it is experienced presents an extensive scope for the renewed address of how silencing is shaped and reshaped by power arcs.

This thematic issue approaches institutional processes of silencing and invites scholars to challenge both how and why institutions house silencing, interrogating processes of silencing as an apparatus of wider power arcs.

Further, we are interested in understanding how silencing is overcome and in what ways temporary silence can be resolved without structural damage in giving a voice and being heard. Does silencing have consequences for institutional actors, and can acts of silencing be recorded?

Paying particular attention to how intersections of social class, gender, and ethnicity receive and shape processes of silencing, this thematic issue seeks to situate intersections of individual demographic identity as ventricles of specific vulnerabilities to the silencing, power, and social exclusion nexus, to uncover institutions as instrumental in this.

Possible, but not limited, angles of inquiries are:

• Media coverage, and the silencing of non-visible minorities: Does the notion of majority and minority make sense in the context of gender/sex and social class silencing?
• Memories of war and violence—rules of forgiveness and silencing in-group atrocities: Which groups of victims remain invisible?
• National lenses and the de-colonial gaze: In what ways does the silencing of the subaltern must be read and interpreted anew again and again against situated historical and national (nation-state) contexts?
• Queering the text (visual and written): Do form and material matter in the ways space is inhabited and space is given to silenced minorities?
• Does academia prolong silencing through institutional procedures and the normalisation of white middle-class standards?
• How does “un-silencing” (Altiney, 2014) work, and which classed, gendered, and racialised actors are pushing the undoing of historical silence?

References

Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint! Duke University Press.

Altiney, A. G., & A. Petö (2015). Europe and the century of genocide: new directions in the feminist theorizing of genocide. Gendering Genocide, 22(4), 379–385.

Bhambra, G. K., & Shilliam, R. (2009). Silence and human rights. In G. K. Bhambra & R. Shilliam (Eds.), Silencing human rights: Critical engagements with a contested project (pp. 1–16). Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, W. (1998). Freedom’s silences. In R. C. Post (Ed.), Censorship and silencing: Practices of cultural regulation (pp. 313–327). The Getty Research Institute.

Clark, J. N. (2020). Finding a voice: Silence and its significance for transitional justice. Social & Legal Studies, 29(3), 355–378.

de Lagasnerie, G., & Louis, E. (2015). Manifesto for an intellectual and political counteroffensive. LARB. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/manifesto-for-an-intellectual-and-political-counter-offensive

Jaworski, A. (1997). Introduction: An overview. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 6–13). De Gruyter.

Post, R. C. (1998). Censorship and silencing. in R. C. Post (Ed.), Censorship and silencing: Practices of cultural regulation (pp. 1–16). The Getty Research Institute.

China’s transition from a low-income country to the world’s second-largest economy has been fueled by coal. Coal in 2018 supplied 59% of China’s energy consumption and its carbon emissions are consistently great. In 2017, China was responsible for 26% of global carbon emissions, while the United States accounted for 14% and Europe for 10%.

On September 2020, and in preparation for COP26, China announced its intention to reach carbon neutrality before 2060 and to strive to ensure that emissions peaked before 2030: Integrated as a binding commitment in its 14th five-year plan, the country must achieve a cumulative 13.5% reduction in energy consumption per unit of GDP and an 18% decrease in carbon dioxide emission intensity. The social implications of these commitments are profound. With the 5.2 million coal miners accounting for 0.6% of the national workforce and contributing 0.5% to total GDP in 2017, 120,000 miners will need to be laid-off or redeployed annually. Supply-chain job losses will be even greater, geographically concentrated, and therefore with major impacts on local economies. The social costs of China’s already substantial shift towards a low carbon economy have not been equitably distributed. Top-down decision-making, lack of community participation, and strong vested interests have proved harmful to the most vulnerable workers in the already most disadvantaged communities.

Globally, the much-discussed concept of “just transition” is, however, rarely rigorously implemented. Often limited to equitable outcomes, we will argue that it should embrace procedural justice and reflect social, cultural, symbolic, and institutional circumstances. With a focus on China, this thematic issue invites authors to submit theoretical and empirical articles that address, among other possibilities:

• The meaning of just transition;
• Cultural, political, and structural obstacles to just transition;
• Approaches to, and examples of, just transition.

If, as some argue, just transition is premised on liberal democracy, what relevance does it have in China?

There has been a growing research interest in recent years in the expanding migration into rural areas (McAreavey & Argent, 2018). These studies have illustrated how migrants have commonly replaced out-migrating local populations and helped maintain necessary services and local economic activities (Hedberg & Haandrikman, 2014). Rural areas are increasingly diverse and heterogenous places with transnational populations. Like urban areas, they are part of the global neoliberal restructuring and their integration into international economy has transformed many local sectors (Rye & O’Reilly, 2021). Different kinds of internal and international migrants, such as those arriving as workers, refugees, and lifestyle migrants inform the heterogeneity of contemporary migrations. Their conditions, opportunities, and right to stay varies.

This thematic issue contributes to the understanding of this complex reality by focusing on how immigrating populations themselves experience processes of inclusion and exclusion in rural localities. It attempts to cover a broad spectrum of issues to reflect the multifaceted character of migration to rural areas. What kinds of issues are people concerned with when moving to or working in often tightly knit, small, rural communities? While many studies have focused on the perspectives of the receiving locations (e.g., services, policies) this thematic issue seeks contributions from the point of view of the in-migrating persons and the lived experiences of incorporation of various groups. Authors are invited to contribute articles that deal with the complex and multifaceted processes of integration and belonging based on diverse research methods and theoretical perspectives: What does integration mean to participants? How are they able to become active agents of change both personally and in local transformations? To what extent do migrating populations see themselves as included and part of local communities? What kinds of challenges do different groups encounter and on what bases are they excluded? What do they need in terms of accessibility to services? These are a few examples of the questions we encourage our authors to explore.

References

Hedberg, C., & Haandrikman, K. (2014). Repopulation of the Swedish countryside: Globalization by international migration. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.01.005

McAreavey, R., & Argent, N. (2018). New immigration destinations (NID) unravelling the challenges and opportunities for migrants and for host communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 64, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.006

Rye, J. F., & O’Reilly, K. (2020). International labour migration to Europe’s rural regions. Routledge.

The use of artificial intelligence-based technologies, including biometrics and blockchain, is on the rise in many sectors. Still, these new technologies are often employed with no regulation, weak oversight and governance mechanisms. The existing literature suggests that the deployment of these technologies has been opaque with little knowledge about who has access to the data, with whom it is shared and who is accountable for the wrongdoings of humans and automated decision-makers in the process. In many sectors, recipients are obliged to provide their consent in order to receive the product, without knowing how their data will be used and how it will be protected.

Moreover, these new technologies have been introduced without an examination of possible forms of exclusion. Like any other tool, technology in itself is not neutral. The ability to design, own and use AI-based technologies is directly related to relationships of power. Not only assessing individual characteristics and posing a risk to privacy rights, biometric identification can discriminate according to group-based (gender, ethnic, religious) characteristics. For instance, existing preliminary research finds that 'machine bias' against gender and racialised characteristics of individuals persist in the scanning of CVs and in assessments of criminals' likelihood of becoming a recidivist. Even though there is growing activism on risks to data privacy, there are very few scholarly investigations on how AI-based technologies can give rise to discrimination of certain groups over others.

This thematic issue will explore the following questions and related topics: To what extent the use of new technologies result in discrimination based on gender, ethnic or religious backgrounds? What are the newly emerging governance mechanisms to mitigate such forms of discrimination? How is accountability ensured in the design and implementation stages? What is the role of civil society and courts in challenging the 'machine bias'? This thematic issue invites articles with a critical lens and empirically novel findings across various spheres, including but not limited to courts, public security, and border management, among others.

Issues of war and peace have crucially been re-/positioned within the center of global politics, media publics, humanitarian aid, and individual life worlds by the war on Ukraine. These issues are not new. Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Darfur, and Mali are only some of the signifiers of violent conflicts that have plagued the world for years.

In almost all conflicts and wars, children are among the groups most affected by their pervasive consequences. They are, however, not only passively suffering victims of violence, displacement, hunger, and existential hardship, but remain (sometimes more, sometimes less) conscious actors in a collective process of meaning-making: They perceive, they reflect, they interpret, they conceptualize. An important medium of these discursive negotiations are drawings. Drawings are generated as means of reflections of war and peace in spontaneous play at home, in informal and formal educational settings, via pedagogical instructions, in therapeutic contexts, and—as child-sensitive and participatory method—for research endeavors. The systematic methodological thinking about and the recognized use of drawings in empirical research projects, nonetheless, still represent a desiderate within many disciplines. As an interdisciplinary and inter-university group we now aim to bring together exciting innovative contributions focusing on children’s perceptions, reflections, and conceptualizations of war and peace from a wide range of (inter-/trans-)disciplinary fields, theoretical foundations, method(olog)ical perspectives, and different regions in this thematic issue.

War, climate change, and economic instability pose unpredictable security threats in today’s world. Are, for example, societies safe, and if they are, safe for whom? This thematic issue will examine the sometimes-horrific difficulties and problems that minorities and others with marginal positions in societies and mainstream cultures have had to face and try to overcome.

We ask for papers that attempt to address increased insecurity and those issues that affect people in marginal positions due to their Indigenous backgrounds, ethnicity, age, gender, and sexuality, disability and illness, socio-economic position and class. We also want papers to inquire or examine if these insecure individuals are left to struggle by themselves and why. Are they excluded from existing security networks—or are there any networks at all? How do these global, dangerous developments affect their sense of safety, trust in society, and abilities to use welfare services? And how are their needs met?

To broaden the scope of our investigations, we call for papers not just from scholars, but NGOs, barristers, and practitioners in the fields of sociology and social policy, anthropology, geography, critical economics, political sciences, criminology, gender studies, youth studies, and disability studies. Papers from people who have “lived” experience of this desperation or have reported upon are also welcome.

Topics of interest to this thematic issue include (but are not limited to) why some of people feel the need to seek refuge elsewhere, what happened on their route to “safe” sanctuaries, and how they were treated/received at their final or intermediate destinations. Proposals relating to the traumatic events of any group of fleeing refugees are encouraged, and we especially welcome those focused on movement from and within the Global South.

Case studies that look at Indigenous people, ethnic minorities, disabled people, the young, and issues relating to gender and sexuality in a discriminatory, “ableist,” and heteronormative time of war will all be welcome additions to this thematic issue.

Economic strife, on the other hand, is relevant in that war can either cause or exacerbate divisive economic forces impacting upon these aforementioned individuals.

We also encourage authors whose first language is not English to send in a copy of their manuscript in their Native language, to be made available through the (In)Justice International website. These manuscripts will form an informal companion to the official issue published by Social Inclusion: They will not undergo peer-review and are exempt from the journal’s article processing fee but will not be included in the published volume. For more information, please contact Simon Prideaux ([email protected]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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