Education, pedagogy and sport for development: addressing seldom asked questions

Abstract

This special issue features the growing field of Sport for Development. Importantly few questions have been raised about the educative quality of sport for development programmes or the pedagogies by which they are delivered. This seems to be something of an oversight since; by definition development infers some sort of learning or educative process. This introductory paper provides an editorial commentary and summary on the papers included in this issue. We also comment on Sport for Development as a growing field of research and identify what might be some fruitful areas of research direction based on the papers included in the issue. Our reading of the papers suggest that there are important concerns related to pedagogy and educational practices in sport for development projects that stem from a dominance of neoliberal agendas, unintended though this may be. At the same time however, it is apparent that this challenge is being met head on by a growing number of researchers, and reports of this progress can be found in this issue.

Keywords:

• Sport for development
• Millennium goals
• Pedagogy
• Education
• Community development

Why this special issue?

We consider this Special Issue of Sport, Education and Society to be particularly timely. The use of sport as a development tool is not new and as Steven Rynne in this issue suggests, the literature in this field is growing and its history is now well established. However sport has gained particular momentum during the new millennium as having the capacity to contribute to a range of social policy and social justice agendas. As Hartmann and Kwauk (2011) outline, sport is increasingly being used by multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Office of Sport for Development and Peace and the United Nations Children's Fund; international nongovernmental organizations like CARE International and Right to play; Governmental bodies like the Australian Sports Commission and UK sport; international corporations like Nike; and even the extractive (mining) industries as a way of appeasing local communities in how such corporations use land leases. Those involved, in some way, with sport for development is a growing list.

The increasing proliferation of research examining sport for development (SfD) has highlighted that much of the embracing of sport within the international development community has been founded on the belief that sport provides a fresh approach to tackling ongoing developmental challenges (Black, 2011). Sport has routinely been heralded as a different way to contribute to all of the UN's Millennium Development Goals (Beutler, 2008). Moreover sport can be a valuable attraction mechanism, particularly for development programmes targeting young people. However, beyond this sport, has what Coalter (2010) describes as a mythopoeic status as a ‘powerful prosocial force for character building and self-discipline’ (see Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 4). Sports initiatives also have demonstrated capacity to foster leadership skills amongst young people and support the development of social capital (Jeanes, 2013; Kay & Bradbury, 2009). However, despite the proclamations of sport's capacity to offer different and alternative resources and strategies to undertake development work, an increasingly critical discourse has outlined that much of its practice remains entrenched within traditional top-down approaches to development that align to the dominant neo-liberal ideology rather than seek to challenge it. Far from sitting outside of the influence of the broader political economy and dominant development approaches, a critical interrogation (e.g. Darnell, 2012; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011) has highlighted how entwined many sport initiatives are with neoliberal philosophies and paternalistic values that treat young people as problems to be solved (Forde, 2013; Jeanes & Spaaij, 2016; Rossi & Rynne, 2014). These dominant approaches have been evident in several SfD initiatives in Australia for example, particularly in programmes designed to support the development of Indigenous young people (Rossi & Rynne, 2014). It will be apparent in this issue that this concern crosses international borders.

Many initiatives, although admittedly not all, are devised, developed and importantly funded outside of the countries where intended recipients are located, usually by Global North agencies. Canada, the UK, the USA and several Scandinavian countries have all been major players in funding for SfD. Even when projects are managed and delivered by local stakeholders and staff, there remains a noticeable imprint of Global North priorities and practices (Hayhurst, 2009). For example, Forde argues that ‘SDP initiatives tend to align with discourses that emphasise individual responsibility and entrepreneurialism, and often promote universal and simplistic solutions to social problems at the expense of addressing broader structural factors’ (2013, p. 3). This is a point that several of the authors in the issue take up. Moreover it emphasises how, what might be broadly conceived as viable and worthwhile outcomes, may not count as evidence of success. That is, such outcomes that are not easily defined by their measurability may appear as unconvincing to funding agencies.

It is reasonable to suggest that scholarly work about SfD has not featured widely in these pages. The key reason for this absence we would argue is that the educational process and impact of SfD initiatives and projects are seldom spoken about. This might seem odd given that development almost by definition infers some kind of educational process to achieve the stated outcomes. However interrogation of the educative aspects of SfD (or lack of) has rarely been a feature of existing research.

Thinking more broadly about ‘development’ as an educative process

The Nobel Laureate economist Sen (1999) argues that what lies at the heart of ‘development’ is the educative process. He suggests that countries that are ‘developing’, as understood in conventional parlance (he makes the point of course that all countries are developing in some way) invest heavily in education as a driver of development. He shows in his analysis how China jumped ahead of India in the development race because it attached greater importance to education and its processes. Given this, it seems odd that adequate attention has not been given to the educational but more specifically the pedagogical approaches to SfD given their centrality to how the programmes are ‘delivered’. It does beg the question of what is it that SfD (or development more broadly) actually seeks to develop? Sen (1999) and Nussbaum (2011) suggest that development is really only likely to occur when people's capabilities are developed. Capabilities are explained by both of these authors to be what it is that people can do and what they can be. This might sound somewhat trite but Nussbaum (2011) further explains that a capabilities approach is seen as a localized project aimed at improving people's quality of life, not measured by the limits of a country's economic output, but framed by broadly shared values that include respect for equality, respect for dignity and the right to control one's destiny. It is an approach to development that is championed by some Indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson in Australia for example (see Rossi & Rynne, 2014 for more on this). As Nussbaum (2011) argues, the urgent task of public policy is to improve everyone's quality life through developing capabilities. This is largely consistent with the Millennium Goals to which SfD projects are aligned. What appears to be at odds is the delivery of SfD projects that seem to be framed by what Stephen Ball (2012) calls the neoliberal imaginary.

The question then is how can the ideals of SfD programmes, that extol a localized approach to development that is framed by respect for equality, respect for dignity and the right to control one's destiny be delivered? Although the research that has examined education within SfD prior to this special issue is not extensive, what does exist highlights the tendency of SfD to utilize didactical, authoritarian approaches to education, drawing on curricula and knowledge from the Global North (Giulianotti, 2011). Spaaij and Jeanes’ work has highlighted the potential value of Freirian inspired critical pedagogy in repositioning the role of education in SfD and as a framework for prioritizing local knowledge and establishing collective action (Jeanes & Spaaij, 2016; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). The papers in this issue suggest an increasing engagement by SfD researchers with the concept of critical pedagogy and the ideas of Freire and this emerges as a prominent theme in several of the papers, where there is strong advocacy for pedagogy with a critical edge.

None of the authors suggest for one minute that this is easy. It is a position with which we agree.

An overview of the papers

A summary of each paper included in the issue now follows. We have grouped the papers into three broad themes, the first section of papers focus most extensively on the management of SfD initiatives that integrate educational components. Some of the key questions asked within this set of papers include, what are the range of approaches utilized by SfD agencies to deliver programmes with educational components? (Svensson, Hancock and Hums), how do SfD projects develop partnerships to deliver valuable and locally grounded education? (Sherry and Schulenkorf), and how can coaches be trained to deliver SfD in critical and empowering ways (Wright, Jacobs, Ressler and Jung). The second cluster of papers provides a critical appraisal of the current pedagogies within a range of SfD initiatives and engages with the theme of critical and liberatory pedagogies, considering the potential they offer to challenge the dominant neo-liberal, Global North driven agendas currently prevalent in much of SfD practice (Hayhurst, Giles and Wright; Spaaij, Oxford and Jeanes, Mwaanga and Prince). The final section of papers, are grouped together as broadly examining the impact on individuals of participation in SfD (Rynne; Nanayakkara: Kwuak).

The paper by Svensson, Hancock and Hums is different from others in the special issue in that they report on a project that sits within a highly developed (if not the most developed) ‘first’ world nation – the USA. It is perhaps important to acknowledge that the social challenges of isolation, exclusion, poverty, and hardship are not solely located in under-developed or low to middle income countries. Sen (1999) points out that regional differences within nations show compelling comparisons with regions of other nations. The example he uses is the life expectancy of people that live in Kerala, India is equal to or better than people that live in Harlem in New York. These nations however when compared using GDP demonstrate that the USA is a much wealthier nation. Sen's (1999) point is that so called developed nations will have within them communities that are deeply challenged on all social and health indicators. Svennson et al. make a similar case. In spite of the extraordinary wealth of the USA, there are many not-for-profit organizations that exist to support young people for whom mainstream education has not been a fulfilling experience. As Svennson et al. show, many of these are SfD organizations (e.g. the national coalition of organizations called Up2Us), yet little is known about them as little systematic research on them has been undertaken.

The authors introduce the reader to the concept of ‘urban education’ in the USA. This programme was introduced in the USA to bring about social cohesion among immigrants and to improve the conditions of the poor in the rapidly growing metropolitan areas. This initiative the authors suggest is largely considered to have been a failure and urban school systems in the USA appear to remain poorly structured and desperately underfunded. The authors indicate that the organizations they researched are those that cater for children who seem to have fallen through the cracks in the education system and have failed to be catered for in successive waves of educational reform.

Svennson et al. identify the organizations they have researched as ‘sports plus’ (Coalter, 2010) organizations – where sport/movement or physical activity is a tool or a vehicle through which young people can learn about social issues and personal challenges. The authors then set about exploring after school SfD programmes provided by the not-for-profit sector but with particular reference to the educative aims and practices of decision-makers who run these programmes in urban settings in the USA, drawing from a final sample of 17 organizations. The organizations were of varying sizes, served quite different sized populations and therefore ran annual budgets that varied greatly across the sample.

The findings are important since it was acknowledged by many of the leaders of programmes, that sport was simply the hook or ‘fly paper’ to attract young people into the programme not necessarily to educate them through sport but to facilitate their return to mainstream education. Interestingly this process of re-engagement receives little or no federal funding. Hence it appears that the educational system ejects the young people but does not fund their re-connection with it.

The authors indicate however that whilst many of organizations socialized young people into the norms of ‘expected’ behaviour, a number of the directors argued that the social mission of the organization was to confront social concerns and to develop solutions to inequity and exclusion. The authors align this with the arguments made by Spaaij and colleagues later in the issue. However as the authors show – these examples were exceptions rather than the rule.

The authors provide a detailed account of the organizational structures and operational methods that demonstrate the diversity of these not for profit organizations. It was clear throughout this detail that such organizations cannot, by themselves, solve all of the problems of the young people that come through their doors. To that end partnerships are crucial. In spite of this, the authors were able to record examples of success where young people emerged from the SfD programme able to resume their education and in some cases advance to college. As the authors say however, there is a multitude of potential outcomes in such programmes some of which are not intended. We need to know much more about this.

Sherry and Schulenkorf provide an overview of the programmatic challenges of establishing a new ‘education through sport’ initiative in Papua New Guinea. Developed and funded by the Australian National Rugby League, the programme intended to support the growth of rugby league within schools’ literacy, physical and social skills. Sherry and Schulenkorf highlight a number of tensions in this process. Similar to Svennson and colleagues Sherry and Schulenkorf discuss the importance of organizational level partnerships, in their case study these are between both international funding agencies and relevant local agencies. The authors illustrate how a lack of partnerships has been an ongoing concern within the project. They suggest that the programme has struggled to establish a sense of local ownership and despite efforts by the NRL to support local control it is currently regarded, by the local communities as an NRL initiative. Sherry and Schulenkorf discuss how key partner agencies such as the Ministry of Education have not been engaged during the establishment of the project and this has had a trickle-down effect with schools generally considering the project is not something they should be responsible for or maintain in the longer term. Local individuals have been recruited and trained to work as development officers but Sherry and Schulenkorf outline how teachers in particular, consider that the responsibility for the delivery of the programme should remain in the hands of the development officers. Sherry and Schulenkorf provide some valuable insights into the development of curriculum within sport for development initiatives, again demonstrating some of the difficulties of this process when this is not undertaken collaboratively with local people and organizations. They suggest that the Australian designed curriculum was generally not felt to be suitable or appropriate for students. This is a project very in its initial stages but provides a useful illustration of some of the challenges that emerge from externally imposed sport and education initiatives, issues which Hayhurst, Giles and Wright delve deeper into in their paper. Sherry and Schulenkorf conclude that enhanced local partnerships, greater responsiveness to local need and co-construction of curriculum are essential if the project is to become embedded locally, have benefit to young people in the community and achieve sustainability.

Wright, Jacobs, Ressler and Jung focus on a relatively unexplored aspect of SDP educational research examining the education provided to coaches and leaders who become the key implementers and of SDP aims and ambitions. Wright et al. discuss a SDP programme located in Belize but developed and organized with partners in the USA. In the paper Wright et al. as both authors and in the field practitioners discuss the value of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) framework combined with a Freirian inspired pedagogy in encouraging coaches to consider critically how they use sport to support the social and personal development of young people in Belize. Drawing on interviews and observations with coaches during a series of training workshops, Wright et al. illustrate how coaches saw TPSR as providing a useful framework through which they could make life skills teaching explicit. Whilst drawing on particular pedagogies to support learning, the study emphasises the importance of working with coaches to establish relevant and useful knowledge that they can practically take and use within their own local communities and environments. In this way the project addresses some of the problems highlighted in the project of Sherry and Schulenkorf. Continued refinement of the training curriculum based on coach needs assisted in promoting a sense of local ownership over the programme. Wright and colleagues conclude that the pedagogies utilized in the training programme support coaches to become ‘critical citizens’ with greater awareness of how social structures mediated the experiences of young people within their local community as well as a consideration of how they could support young people to contest and challenge these. Although the research suggests positive experiences for coaches involved, Wright et al. are mindful of the ever-present power relationships that exist within the programme as a Northern led and funded initiative. They argue however, that the programme represents a theoretically underpinned attempt to support a collaborative endeavour and the experiences of the coaches would suggest they felt the training provided them with a flexible, critical approach, which they could adapt and utilize to develop education through sport initiatives within their own communities.

Hayhurst Giles and Wright give attention to how SfD programmes in Indigenous communities (in Australia and Canada) far from challenging the conventional hegemony of neoliberalism, often endorse such values largely because of the ‘pedagogies’ employed to deliver SfD programmes. They argue that many (even a majority) SfD programmes employ a biopedagogies approach to ‘teach’ the participants, the ways of the neoliberal world, that is the development of individual attributes and skills that would enable future success and chances in the context of advanced capitalism. There are important observations to make about this. First, these outcomes are not unimportant, even the Australian Indigenous activist Noel Pearson would support some of the same values (see Pearson, 2009). Secondly, a process of individualization runs counter to the key developmental plank of SfD programmes, which is the centrality of community. What Hayhurst and colleagues go on to report is that the girls in the study believed that the programme would help them overcome and challenge certain stereotypical beliefs about Indigenous people and moreover would enable them to navigate their non-Indigenous worlds with greater ease. Pearson (2009) also argues that such skills are important. However Hayhurst et al. conclude that a superior approach would be one that fosters independence and self-determination, though at the same time acknowledge this might endanger the corporate support that some of these programme attract.

This presents as a conundrum in-so-far as this programme is steeped in the discourses of neoliberalism yet are conducted under the auspices of community solidarity and social justice—as the authors suggest these are surely incompatible. Even this however is paradoxical. The essence of the neoliberal project is the ‘non-intervention’ in people's lives and yet we seem to be moving closer towards an intervention that seems to ‘make them more like us’. Whilst the logic of societal participation is compelling, the authors here ask serious question as to whether this is enough.

Spaaij, Oxford and Jeanes explore the challenges of making SfD projects transformative in the Frierian sense. Drawing on a critical pedagogy design, they attempt to show such an approach may be empowering for communities in Cameroon and Kenya. The start point for this paper is important and connects directly with a broader theme of the edition and this is that there are clear tensions in the social mission of SfD initiatives and the accountability to donors to show that they were demonstrably successful in addressing social problems. They point to Cora Burnett (2015) who, like Hayhurst and colleagues, argues that such accountability will be critiqued by critical scholars who will point to the neoliberal hegemonic structures that are likely to be part of the programme design – simply so that it is easily measured. However, Spaaij and his colleagues even step beyond this. Their position is that what ends up being overlooked both within the design of projects and critical analyses of them is how the process of education seems to be separated from the claims made of SfD projects. As they say, there is a paucity of work that critically examines the pedagogies that underpin SfD initiatives. Moreover, they claim that there is almost no attention given to the educational processes that best support the social objectives of SfD programmes. This silence in the literature they suggest, is limiting since education lies at the heart of most SfD projects – and yet strangely it is seldom, if ever, spoken about.

In a sense Spaaij and colleagues are responding to a key challenge of SfD projects that often are framed as we indicated earlier by a ‘we will develop you’ colonial overtone (Darnell's, 2012 work as referred to earlier). To that end, a critical pedagogy approach does get to the central concern of SfD projects which is to empower communities to take responsibility, to avert dependence and to be able to make collective decisions that can change the conditions under which communities exist and function. This is precisely what Sen (1999) argues for but through the lens of welfare economics. For Sen (1999), development is about overcoming what he calls ‘unfreedoms’ – those inequities that so limit people's sense of being, such that decisions that empower rather than enslave can be made.

The case studies presented by Spaaij and colleagues are not comparable and were conducted independently and are different in scope. However the Frierian lens was applied to both so commonalities across the cases are to be expected. The project in Cameroon was at a surface level about increasing women's and girls’ participation in sport but at a deeper level is about female emancipation. The study in Kenya is framed by concern around sexual violence towards women, the limits on women's freedom and a challenging environment related to HIV infection. Hence sexual and reproductive health, are central to this study.

The authors describe the ways in which a Frierian approach applies to and was developed in both cases. However they are inevitably drawn to identify the constraints to transformative action. Not surprisingly one of the main constraints is the measurement of key performance indicators, which as we indicated earlier are more often than not externally designed (and expected) by international donors. These may not align conveniently with the internal needs of the communities. At the same time, the harsh realities of working in communities in low income countries where poverty and hunger are compelling problems means that a Frierian approach may be relegated in favour of some challenging pragmatics. However as the authors conclude, small-scale changes should not be under-valued. These represent progress and transformation, which short of a revolution, tends to be a slow process.

Mwaanga and Prince provide a critical interrogation of how liberatory pedagogies are negotiated and developed within SfD initiatives. Drawing on a case study of the ‘Go Sisters’ programme, an initiative designed and managed by Indigenous Zambians, Mwaanga and Prince provide a thoughtful examination of the ways in which SfD initiatives can be site for critical, empowering and transformative education. They present a strong critique of many existing initiatives, suggesting they are largely grounded in educational principals associated with didactic teaching and what Freire describes as ‘banking education’. The authors are critical of the lack of indigenous knowledge that is used to guide the educative content and pedagogical approaches in many SfD initiatives suggesting this leads to initiatives that maintain the status quo and are largely irrelevant for the young people that they target. In contrast the authors highlight how Go Sisters promoted a dialogical approach encouraging peer leaders to engage with young people in critical dialogue to consider alternative ways of thinking or critical consciousness. Mwaanga and Prince demonstrate how a localized approached supported young women to navigate and balance the tensions that existed between ideas of empowerment and gender equity and traditional gendered expectations within their community, They suggest that externally imposed initiative are often underpinned by Northern ideals of equity and empowerment that are unrealistic for young women to obtain, and potentially create conflict for them within their families and the local community. The authors provide some revealing insights into how Go Sisters has navigated the influences of Northern funding and how this at times has resulted in curriculum that has been less meaningful or valuable to local girls and women. The importance of developing a curriculum that promotes connections with wider communities and families is also highlighted suggesting this is essential if learning is to translate into meaningful or transformative outcomes. Finally the paper discusses the centrality of Indigenous philosophies in underpinning pedagogical approaches, in this instance the concept of ‘Ubuntu Sisterhood’, which the authors point out underpinned the learning context and was espoused by peer leaders and participants. This philosophy encouraged a culture of support and the development of family-like bonds that provided young women with an ongoing support network that was again essential in enabling collective action and gradual change within communities. Mwaanga and Prince offer a 10-year reflection of the Go Sisters initiative and in doing so highlight the ongoing nature of education via SfD. As they conclude ‘an authentic pedagogy is one that continues to develop and liberate over an individual's lifetime’. Education through sport as such is not a quick fix but an ongoing endeavour which participants need to own. Mwaanga and Prince pose two key questions for SDP policy makers and practitioners, first, how do they develop dialogue and negotiation between funders, policy-makers and participants and secondly, how do they foster local ownership in the way that has been achieved within the Go Sisters programme?

Moving into the group of papers that focus more explicitly on how participants experience education through SfD, Rynne provides a detailed insight into the learning that occurred across several surfing programmes delivered in Indigenous communities across Australia. The paper explores both the pedagogies utilized in these programmes but also how participation influences the lives of young people in Indigenous communities. Drawing on workplace theories of learning, Rynne provides a framework for interpreting learning within SfD programmes that positions learning as individual and social, ongoing and situated. In doing so, his analysis of learning considers the individual and the environment and the relationship between the two. The paper draws together qualitative data collected over a three year period with Rynne outlining some of the challenges of condensing the vast amount of information whilst still providing an authentic account of experiences. The findings illustrate that participants through their engagement with the programme had the opportunity to establish meaningful and valued relationships, with the land and ocean, with teachers and staff and with other peers from Indigenous communities. The programme, in multiple ways therefore, enabled young people who may not have otherwise had the opportunity to connect with and learn more about their Aboriginality and cultures. As such, the programme facilitated as Rynne concludes a re(connection) with land and ocean, a (re)development of Indigenous knowledge, and (re)establishment of familial and community bonds. As Rynne indicates learning in the programme was not limited to specific competencies or abilities but instead was highly personal and cultural.

Nanayakkara's paper focuses on examining the outcomes of an intervention designed to support students to develop conflict resolution skills delivered to mainly Singhalese and Tamils students in Sri Lanka. The initiative was delivered as part of a school-based physical education curriculum and underpinned by Olympism education and a humanistic framework. In a mixed methods evaluation, Nanayakkara highlights the value of the programme for enhancing student competencies in conflict resolution and more broadly improving their tolerance and respect for young people different from themselves. The study again illustrates the importance of developing curriculum that can be adapted to the specific circumstances and needs of students’ lives. To be of value students need to be able to connect learning to the specific challenges they encounter in their everyday experiences. Nanayakkara also discusses the importance of teachers actively engaging with and supporting the approaches and content of the curriculum. Where teachers were less willing to engage with students dialogically, students felt that the curriculum was less relevant or practically useful.

In the final paper of the special issue Kwauk takes us to a project in Samoa – an independent island nation in the South Pacific. Kwauk's study demonstrates a different educative approach for a SfD project. In some respects, as readers will see, this is not without its problems and these are deftly identified. In this project sport is seen as an educative pathway for academically underperforming boys such that they may be re-integrated into an education to employment continuum. This compensatory approach to SfD carries with it some of the same messages as the Hayhurst et al. paper; that is sport is the vehicle by which we enable young people to develop the skills to participate in the complexities of the new age economy. However, rather than a liberating experience for the boys, Kwauk points out that the risks of deskilling and persistent marginalization should not be underestimated. A key reason for this is that for boys who are academic underperformers, the employment continuum includes professional sport either in Australia or New Zealand/Aoeteroa, a preferred option to returning to agricultural employment to bolster the Nation's economic output and performance. Kwauk is drawn to conclude that within the context of Samoa, sport, development and education are not necessarily compatible. The few young men that are offered contracts in professional sport (most commonly in the rugby football codes) are seen to command great prestige, however the transnational flows of income back to Samoa through lucrative professional contracts mean that those successful are little more than ‘exports’ sold on an open market. They, like agricultural products add to the nations GNP. Of significance is that the projects reported upon by Kwauk actually had their origins in anti-obesity interventions aimed at countering what is perceived to be rapidly rising obesity rates. As Kwauk confirms, only a few of the young men realize a future in sport. The consequence she reveals, through her interview data, is that many young men return to their villages with no tangible skills to use either on the land or in professional occupations such as government positions. However, as is also revealed there is potential scope for those who emerge from sporting programmes to coach sports and help develop Samoan sporting talent.

Equally as telling, are the stories of those who are or have been successful and are therefore a valuable export commodity, who assess their value according to how they are able to support the family and communities at home in Samoa. In addition, as a sporting export, Samoan young men learn English as a matter of urgency – the importance of this as a valuable asset is made quite clear.

It is difficult to know whether to lament these stories or praise them for the opportunities they have created. However one cannot help but sense that in spite of the opportunities provided, there is a sense of limitation that cannot be avoided. These young men have found a different path and the short-term benefits are significant. However, trading one's physical attributes on a capricious global sports market might be a limited view of sustainable development. We will watch the progression of this research with interest.

Final thoughts

The special issue therefore brings together a broad range of ideas and topic areas under the auspices of education and pedagogy within SfD. It represents the first attempt to focus attention on the importance of education and specifically pedagogy, and how these are conceptualized and played out within SfD programmes and initiatives. The papers within the special issue provide a valuable foundation for critiquing and understanding education within SfD but also illustrate that there are still considerable gaps in the knowledge in this area. As guest editors we believe the educational elements of SfD are central to the movement’s ability to contribute to sustainable development and just as importantly social justice ambitions. As such, we hope the papers prompt further critical dialogue and discussion on the role of education within SfD and help to shape future research efforts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.