Conference Program

This contribution explores the expression of intentionality in teaching design and implementation as a form of pedagogical resistance within democratic education, with particular attention to multicultural, non-Western, decolonial curricula and feminist pedagogical methods. The paper positions teaching not as a neutral or technical activity, but as a deeply political practice embedded in relations of power, inequality, and knowledge production within contemporary schooling and higher education systems (Apple, 2019; Giroux, 1988).

Drawing on bell hooks’ conception of engaged pedagogy—where education is articulated as a practice of freedom and collective transformation—the paper argues that intentionality constitutes a key mechanism through which educators resist hegemonic curricular norms, neoliberal governance of education, and epistemic injustice (hooks, 1994, 2003; Santos, 2014). For hooks, teaching requires the educator to be accountable for their choices, to make visible the ethical and political commitments that shape classroom practices, and to cultivate learning spaces grounded in dialogue, care, and critical consciousness. Intentionality, in this sense, becomes an explicit refusal of pedagogical neutrality and a commitment to democratic and emancipatory education (hooks, 1994, 2003).

The paper conceptualizes intentionality across three interrelated dimensions. First, epistemic intentionality refers to the deliberate selection and organization of curricular content that challenges Eurocentric canons and legitimizes marginalized, Indigenous, and non-Western knowledge systems. This dimension aligns with decolonial curriculum scholarship that emphasizes curriculum as a site of struggle over recognition, voice, and historical responsibility (Mignolo, 2011; Santos, 2014; Tuck & Yang, 2012).

Second, relational intentionality concerns the design of pedagogical relations through feminist methods that destabilize hierarchical teacher–student roles and promote participation, reflexivity, and shared authority—core principles of democratic schooling (Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994; Weiler, 1991).

Third, institutional intentionality addresses how educators negotiate structural constraints such as standardized assessment regimes, accountability mechanisms, and political backlash against critical and decolonial perspectives, while sustaining commitments to equity and social justice (Apple, 2019; Giroux, 2014).

Methodologically, the paper proposes analyzing intentionality through pedagogical artefacts—syllabi rationales, assessment design statements, reflective teaching journals, and collective classroom agreements—to trace how resistance is enacted in everyday educational practices. This approach resonates with critical pedagogy’s emphasis on linking micro-level pedagogical action with macro-level social and institutional dynamics (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988).

The paper concludes by arguing that making intentionality visible is itself a democratic act. By articulating the why behind teaching choices, educators open pedagogical spaces to critique, negotiation, and collective responsibility, reinforcing education’s role as a public good (Biesta, 2013). Intentionality thus emerges not only as a personal stance, but as a form of pedagogical praxis that connects decolonial and feminist theories with the project of democratic education.