Conference Program

This paper presents the objectives, methodology, and outputs of the Erasmus+ PoEmS project (Promoting Emotional Intelligence at School). The project focuses on promoting Emotional Intelligence (EI) in middle and high school students and teachers, considering it a key competence for inclusion (Jagers, Rivas-Drake & Williams, 2019), with a direct impact on human rights education and global citizenship (Kubacka, 2018). The project integrates emotional learning into the school curriculum, using EI as a tool for raising awareness of social justice and combating discrimination (Biemmi & Viviani, 2025). EI is here intended as a multifaceted construct, composed of situated social and cultural dimensions, such as embodied knowledge and activation (Bar-On, 2006).

Research Design

Consistent with this premise, the Unisi research team adopted an intersectional research paradigm (Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2022; De Vita & Romano, 2025; Viviani, 2018). This epistemological and methodological choice stemmed from the researchers' deep reflection on their own positioning and on the power dynamics acted within the research. They recognized the risk of rendering the voices and experiences of the partner schools (from Italy, Turkey, Spain, Romania, and Latvia) invisible if participatory research models were not used. The project aimed to enhance the situated knowledge (Lave, & Wenger, 1991) of teachers in partner schools, considering them to be holders of unique and authoritative perspectives. Recognizing that each school was a “g-local context” with its situated norms and cultures, an “ethic of reciprocity” (Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2022) based on symmetrical and collaborative relationships was established within the partnership. Through a shared drive, a mailing list, regular online meetings, and a week of in-person training, it was possible to engage in epistemic collaboration (Fricker, 2007) that led to the co-construction of two main outputs: a training package for teachers, which includes self-assessment tests and theoretical references, and a repertoire of twenty multidisciplinary lesson plans.

The process of designing, validating, and testing the lesson plans will be specifically analyzed. Each school proposed four lesson plans, which were then integrated and adapted by the other partners in an intensive in-person training. To give a voice to teachers not directly involved in the project, the research team involved 292 teachers in the validation process through a peer review consisting of Likert scales and an open-ended question.

Results and Implications for Practice

This ‘multi-level’ process of development, writing, and validation is not merely a technical step, but embodies the epistemology of the project: to provide resources that are the result of the application of multidimensional and multi-axial interpretative frameworks. Resources that can adapt to the intersectional specificity of school contexts, without appearing overly broad and generic, ‘one size that should fit all’ (De Vita & Romano, 2025).

Through the experience of the PoEmS project, our aim is to theorize that the construction of democratic and inclusive societies cannot be separated from the commitment of educational systems to promote a polyphonic, emotionally intelligent dialogue, capable of cultivating a plurality of voices while respecting pluriverse belonging and human rights (Kubacka, 2018).

This contribution presents an intersectional participatory study exploring the co-design of a work-preparation pathway for autistic adolescents (16-18 years old) mediated by the humanoid robot Pepper. The project builds on research in social robotics and autism showing that humanoid robots can function as relational mediators by providing predictable, structured, and emotionally regulated interactions (Scassellati et al., 2012; Belpaeme et al., 2018). The relative directness and reduced ambiguity of robotic communication may decrease social overload and support reflective dialogue in contexts such as job interviews, where implicit norms and micro-expressions often generate anxiety. In this perspective, Pepper is conceptualized not as a substitute for human interaction, but as a scaffold that may facilitate self-expression and gradual engagement in work-related communication.

A preliminary eight-session script was outlined, structured around social stories (Gray & Garand, 1993), guided dialogue, and tangible outputs (e.g., strengths maps, interest profiles, communication-of-needs cards, simulated interviews). Consistent with life-design and self-determination approaches (Nota et al., 2016; Wehman, 2011), the pathway aims to support adolescents in identifying strengths, preferences, and environmental needs, in alignment with current disability rights frameworks emphasizing personal projects of life and quality of life indicators.

The design process unfolded on two interconnected levels. First, prospective adolescent participants were consulted to gather expectations and interests regarding robotic interaction. Second – and this is the focus of the present contribution – four autistic adults (aged 25-64; 1 female, 3 males; diverse professional histories; varied diagnostic trajectories) were interviewed to critically reflect on the proposed script. Drawing on intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and epistemic justice (Fricker, 2007), the study treats adult autistic workers not as informants but as situated epistemic agents whose lived experience can interrogate pedagogical assumptions embedded in work-oriented education.

The interviews revealed several tensions. Participants problematized normative “social skills” training, describing workplace conventions as a form of linguistic translation requiring asymmetric effort (“speaking English” to neurotypical expectations). They highlighted the energetic costs of masking and questioned unidirectional adaptation. Environmental and sensory factors (light, noise, color, unpredictability of schedules) emerged as central to work sustainability yet often treated as secondary. Generational differences were significant: older participants diagnosed in adulthood reported long histories of misrecognition within deficit-oriented school systems, while younger adults described improved awareness but persistent anxiety and ambiguity in professional contexts.

Methodologically, the study demonstrates how an intersectional participatory approach can transform a technological proposal into a site of epistemic negotiation. Rather than validating a predefined model, adult standpoints reframe the robot’s role: from trainer of normative behaviors to potential “translator” and decompression space within broader relational ecologies. The paper argues that intersectional research in educational and organizational contexts must allow marginalized knowledges to reshape not only content but also the very architecture of intervention, thereby advancing equity-oriented and reflexive practices.

Starting from the assumption that differences and educational inequalities cannot be fully understood without analysing the interdependence of gender, class, migratory background, ability, sexual orientation, and cultural belonging (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 2000), this paper explores how an intersectional approach can be translated into concrete university training practices. Although intersectionality is widely recognised as an essential epistemological framework for interpreting dynamics of power and discrimination, its operationalisation in educational contexts raises significant methodological and ethical dilemmas.

The paper presents and analyses an Erasmus Blended Intensive Programme (BIP) entitled “The territory as an educational community for educating in differences and preventing all forms of discrimination”, developed in collaboration among four European universities (Sassari in Italy; Salamanca and the European University of Madrid in Spain; Maia in Portugal) and coordinated by the University of Sassari. The project involved students and academic staff in a blended pathway—combining online activities and an intensive in-person week—aimed at promoting education for differences from an intersectional perspective.

The BIP experience was conceived as a pedagogical laboratory in which participants were invited not only to discuss differences, but to experience them directly. Through participatory methodologies, group work, analysis of local case studies, and structured reflective sessions, students were encouraged to critically problematise their own representations, recognise situated privileges and vulnerabilities (bell hooks, 1984), and reflect on their role as future education professionals in plural contexts. Within this framework, the territory was approached as an educational community and as a space for observing the intersections of social, cultural, and institutional dimensions that shape educational opportunities (Tramma, 2009).

The results highlight how the international and collaborative dimension of the Erasmus programme constitutes a privileged setting for making visible the intersections between systems of oppression and opportunity. The exchange among students from different national contexts fostered the emergence of plural—and at times conflicting—narratives, revealing how categories such as “integration,” “equality,” and “neutrality” are culturally situated. In line with intercultural education perspectives (Portera, 2020; Tarozzi & Torres, 2016) and with Banks’ (2016) conception of democratic citizenship education, the experience contributed to the construction of a transnational learning community oriented towards dialogue and the recognition of differences as a resource.

The paper contributes to the debate on higher education practices examined from multiple standpoints—students, teachers, and institutions—by showing how intersectionality can become not only an object of study, but also a guiding principle in curriculum design. The BIP experience suggests that education for differences should not be considered a peripheral area of pedagogical reflection; rather, it represents the core of an authentically democratic and inclusive education, capable of preparing professionals who are aware of the complexity and ethical responsibility inherent in their work within contemporary educational contexts.

Introduction

Within the Italian school system, despite the formally inclusive framework, educational practices aimed at bi-plurilingual pupils labelled as disabled often follow an approach that separates ‘language needs’ from ‘special educational needs’, alongside processes of categorisation, medicalisation and micro-exclusions (D'Alessio, 2011; Migliarini et al., 2020; Stinson et al., 2025). In this context, these pupils risk falling into intersectional gaps (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016), due to educational practices that proceed along parallel tracks (Bini, 2020; Caldin & Cinotti, 2018). Building on this tension, and integrating Disability Critical Race Theory (Annamma et al., 2013, 2018) with the Critical Disabilities Raciolinguistic Perspective (Cioè-Peña, 2021; Migliarini & Cioè-Peña, 2024), this paper presents an ongoing research project aimed at examining the interdependence of various forms of oppression (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991) in shaping discourses and practices related to language education in a school context.

Methodology

This action research project, conducted in a primary school in north-eastern Italy, views the language education process as a prime vantage point for an intersectional analysis that examines the interdependence of racism, ableism and linguicism in perpetuating notions of normality (Annamma et al., 2013) and in affecting access, participation and inclusion. Furthermore, the project aims to make visible the implicit assumptions that guide these processes, through cycles of observation, reflection and intervention, fostering critical reflexivity among teachers (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) and developing replicable methodological approaches for intersectional research in school settings. Firstly, the research design does not focus on individual ‘cases’ and avoids reproducing categorising logics and categories themselves, such as ‘SEN’ or ‘migrant background’, which are instead treated as constructions that are not neutral, but performative and essentialist, fuelling processes of pathologisation and compartmentalisation of students (Stinson et al., 2025), and linguistic or behavioural expectations. The focus is therefore placed on school practices, from a contextual and situated perspective. Furthermore, the project involves teachers, classes and families, combinating observations, interviews, document analysis, interventions and focus groups. This approach contributes to the analysis of different perspectives, whilst minimising researcher bias. The research adopts micro-experiments based on the TrUDL (Translanguaging Universal Design for Learning) model, conceived as a practice of intersectional social justice (Cioè-Peña, 2022). In addition to offering tools for overcoming the dichotomy between language acquisition and disability (Przymus & Alvarado, 2019), the application of this intersectional educational model helps to transform the view of language-culture and disability from a problem into a ‘gift to be nurtured’ (Annamma & Morrison, 2018, p.77). Finally, the introduction of micro-experiments allows us to explore whether the renegotiation of practices fosters processes of problematisation, reflexivity and transformation of the representations that guide inclusion.

Conclusions

Whit a transformative intent (Kemmis et al., 2014), this action research project aims to provide tools for intersectional inclusion that move beyond fragmented perspectives and practices and recognise the multidimensional nature of identities. At the same time, the project seeks to outline forms of intersectional research capable of fostering greater awareness of the processes that shape inclusion and exclusion, from a social justice perspective.

In recent decades, intersectionality has emerged as a key theoretical perspective for understanding the marginalization and vulnerability experienced by women with disabilities (Emmett & Alant, 2006; Naples, 2018). Positioned at the intersection of multiple identity factors, such as gender, disability, social class, age, and ethnicity, they are often exposed to socio-cultural stereotypes that generate multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination across different contexts, including the labour market (EDF, 2022; Chan & Hutchings, 2023). The contribution aims to present the results of a qualitative narrative study grounded in Feminist Disability Studies (Garland-Thomson, 2005) and, more specifically, in an intersectional approach (Crenshaw, 1989). The study reflects on the potential and methodological challenges of intersectional research in school contexts (Davis, Brunn-Bevel, & Olive, 2015), focusing on the labour inclusion of teachers with disabilities, who remain underrepresented in both international and national literature (Neca, Borges, & Campos Pinto, 2022; Bellacicco, Ianes & Macchia, 2022). Moreover, policies and discourses on inclusive education often focus primarily on students, overlooking an ecological vision of the school (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and neglecting professional actors such as teachers with disabilities, who often remain relatively invisible and insufficiently protected from a rights-based perspective (Lincoln, 2021). The study is based on an intersectional methodology (De Vita & Romano, 2025) and involved several teachers with disabilities working across different levels of schooling and with diverse personal and cultural backgrounds. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews exploring professional experiences, forms of discrimination in school contexts, and emancipatory pathways. This methodological approach supported a reflexive and situated perspective while promoting participants’ active involvement as co-researchers in the co-construction of knowledge. The thematic analysis of the interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006) revealed barriers to multidimensional accessibility and exclusionary relational dynamics linked to sexist and ableist stereotypes. At the same time, participants described strategies of advocacy, resilience, and empowerment to challenge discriminatory conditions. The use of narrative and teachers’ testimonies thus allows their life stories to be valued as key sources for understanding the meanings attributed to their professional trajectories and emancipatory pathways (Taddei, 2020; Del Bianco, 2022). These findings highlight the need to rethink inclusion as a complex issue of social justice (Ayers, Quinn & Stovall, 2009) and to adopt a broader perspective that considers discrimination affecting all members of the school community. In this regard, the presence and engagement of women teachers with disabilities may act as levers for change, promoting the rights of those facing multiple forms of discrimination and fostering more equitable and inclusive transformations of policies and services. Ultimately, this may contribute to improving the quality of life of women with disabilities (Ferrara, 2014).

Discrimination can occur along different axes and in various forms. While multiple and compound forms of discrimination involve the coexistence of different disadvantages, intersectional discrimination emerges from the interaction of different axes of inequality that operate simultaneously and in an inseparable manner (Makkonen, 2002). Within this framework, language can be considered one of the possible axes through which intersectional discrimination is experienced. This dimension has been extensively addressed in studies on linguicism and related phenomena. Skutnabb-Kangas (2016) defines linguicism as the set of ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups defined on the basis of ethnicity, culture or language.

Linguistic discrimination can operate at different levels. In some contexts, it may involve the explicit prohibition of using languages other than the national standard language (Blanchet, 2016). However, language – and particularly speakers’ voice – can function both as a personal attribute and as a marker indexing multiple dimensions of social identity, including ethnic background, gender, age, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. In this sense, evaluations of accents are rarely evaluations of language alone; rather, they often entail broader social judgements about the speakers themselves. Crucially, these categories are not independent but deeply intertwined and mutually constructed through social and linguistic practices (Levon, 2015). Language can therefore function as a powerful lens through which multiple dimensions of identity become visible. For this reason, linguistic discrimination often manifests itself in subtle forms, such as discrimination against the way individuals speak a given language. These may include accent bullying, being judged as incomprehensible, being mocked for one’s pronunciation, receiving corrective comments targeting spelling, accent or pronunciation, or being criticised for speaking in ways perceived as inconsistent with one’s gender or sexual orientation (Corona & Block, 2020; Dovchin, 2020; Tankosić & Dovchin, 2021). In some cases, linguistic discrimination can evolve into what has been described as linguistic racism, a form of racism grounded in speakers’ linguistic repertoires and communicative practices (Dovchin, 2019).

Against this backdrop, this presentation aims to open a space for reflection on the potential role of linguistic discrimination as an entry point for broader discussions about social inequality in educational contexts. Introducing classroom activities that explicitly address linguistic discrimination may not only foster critical awareness of language but also encourage reflection on wider issues related to race, ethnicity, gender and social belonging. The presentation will also include a collaborative discussion with teachers of teaching materials developed within the Erasmus+ project CIRCE – Counteracting discrimination practices in education, designed to support educators in addressing linguistic discrimination and promoting more inclusive pedagogical practices.