Conclusion Online Feminist Pedagogy: Future Learning Experiences Speculated

Nadia Awaida, Eckerd College

Since the start of the pandemic, we have witnessed five years of technological advancements (Marr, 2021). COVID-19 has forced unique challenges on our education system. During moments like these, obstacles turn into opportunities. For a progressive educator like me, this is viewed as an opportunity to pivot out of the traditional pedagogy and leap into a critical one. Set in humanism and progressive education, feminist pedagogy plays a vital role in this imperative transformation. It forces an advanced appreciation of diversity, encouraging us to rethink our ways of knowing and to break down old epistemologies (hooks, 2014).

Although it is challenging to predict the future of feminist pedagogy in online teaching, we can prime ourselves by engaging in a self-reflective process about the status of education. In short, our current 19th-century education system is priming our 21st-century students for jobs that have not been created and teaching them skills that former generations can barely utilize.

The following predictions are based on projected advances in the digitalization of education. Feminist pedagogy in digital learning is central in the creation of smart learning experiences not bound by time and place. These are liberatory spaces that embrace critical pedagogy and self-actualization. They grant learners the capacity to develop curiosity, integrity, resilience, respect, and responsibility. At the core of these spaces, learners enrich their knowledge through critical thinking, dialogue, and self-examination. These smart learning experiences disrupt the traditional hierarchical model, embolden student agency, and strengthen communities while contributing to an inclusive and sustainable future.

Disrupting the hierarchical model. In a future filled with high-speed internet and virtual reality, schools are stripped from power structures and dominant ideologies. Feminist pedagogy becomes a catalyst for these smart learning experiences, levelling the playing field and advancing equity in these interactive spaces. Power is decentralized. Prerequisites are converted into attributes such as open mindedness, flexibility, and active listening. New theories describe the influence of gamification, coding, and algorithms on learner competence.

Emboldening student agency. Digital learning empowers learners through tools that unlock evolving experiences. AI exists as a key component. Embedded software ensures speech recognition, alternative text, closed captioning, and sign language. Feminist pedagogy shifts the focus to learner attributes, not learner preferences; to digital learning experiences, not instructional methodologies; and to gamification, not classroom rules. Learners become advocates for challenging unfair social structures and inequalities as well as agents for connecting their learning with real-life issues.

Strengthening communities. At the heart of feminist pedagogy, members thrive collectively. Unlike patriarchal ideology, historically rooted in marginalized groups, driving fear and inferiority, feminist pedagogy assists in building solidarity and offers opportunities for organic interactions and shared power. It creates diverse and inclusive learning spaces. Learning and interaction take place through diverse digital mediums, removing biases present in the traditional classroom structure. Augmented reality, virtual reality, and haptic technology assist learners to interact with local and global networks. These digital interactions flatten boundaries and extend learning beyond the local reach.

Maha Bali, American University, Cairo

In late 2019, I did an exercise with two former students: we reimagined our course in 30 years, what we would keep, increase, or change. Students suggested that we centre the existing community and well-being dimension. When the COVID-19 pandemic occurred, the future became the now. Teaching with equity and care became urgent to embrace and practise in digital spaces.

I hope that in the future educational institutions will de-emphasize learning outcomes and knowledge acquisition, and teachers and learners will work together to create learning communities that nurture reciprocity, collective care, and agency. This iterative, negotiated process will occur in digital, hybrid, or analog spaces and recognize that learning occurs in invisible ways outside the official time and place of the classroom.

Socially just care. Bali and Zamora (2022) recognize that care without equity is always partial (unequally distributed among caregivers and care receivers) and that equity without care can become performative and contractual. A critical feminist pedagogy recognizes that social “justice requires the empathy of care in order to generate its principles” (Okin, 1990, as cited in White & Tronto, 2004, p. 427). Noddings (2012, p. 55) suggests that we “care unto others as they would have done to them,” an approach that fits well with Fraser’s (2005) approach to practising social justice as the “parity of participation.” In order for a learning experience to promote learner agency, we need to cultivate the capacity of participants to make decisions critically that enable them to co-design their learning experiences for their collective benefit (White & Tronto, 2004)—acknowledging that historically marginalized groups might have internalized their oppression and need extra support in order to practise agency that helps them to make decisions that liberate and empower them (Walker & Unterhalter, 2007) and to remember that one person’s agency might oppress others (Khader, 2019). Collective liberation is complex, difficult, and fraught.

Intentionally equitable hospitality (IEH). Bali et al. (2019) recognize teachers’ power as hosts and their responsibility intentionally to design and facilitate learning spaces with care and equity at their core. In digital spaces, this entails fully involving learners in making decisions on how and where they learn. Learners would have different pathways to reach their (different) learning goals. IEH resists and dismantles power dynamics that exist outside and within a learning space, not through equal representation but by centring marginalized views and perspectives (see Zamora et al., 2021), especially those furthest from justice.

Although digital spaces can help to promote equity, such as by expanding access, platforms might reproduce or create new inequalities. Inequalities can be economic, because of a lack of access to the internet or powerful devices, or cultural/political, since much technology and content reflect dominant white Western male epistemologies. Feminist digital pedagogies would invite learners to critique the pros and cons of every platform available and make informed decisions about which one operates for the collective good and develop community norms and practices. Marginalized learners would be centred in the design of new technologies and in institutional decision-making processes for adoption.

Aras Bozkurt, Anadolu University, Türkiye

Digital learning (also known as online distance education or online learning) is philosophically nourished by the idea of openness (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020, p. 321). In this sense, keeping the back door open (Wedemeyer, 1981) for those who are oppressed and silenced is one of the core missions of digital learning. Empowered by the idea of openness to enable and ensure widening participation and to augment inclusiveness, digital learning aims to democratize education by focusing on learners and learning spaces. Such a view justifies the application of critical approaches, including feminist pedagogy. Being a relative concept, feminist pedagogy is subject to interpretations based on social, economic, and cultural backgrounds and thus requires that it be approached with caution and understood as a broader concept and as an anchor to other critical pedagogies. In line with these thoughts, Veletsianos and Köseoğlu (2022, p. 1) identify feminist critical digital pedagogy “as a lens through which digital educational practice is examined to reveal, challenge, and impact systems of power as they relate to issues that have to do with gender.” These notions suggest that, if we want to benefit from the transformative potential of feminist pedagogy, we need to go beyond gender, sex, and identity-related issues and see it as a broader worldview.

One of the ultimate intentions of digital learning, from the perspectives of feminist pedagogy, is to cultivate women to be autonomous learners by applying self-directed and self-regulated learning principles. Digital learning, and the egalitarian beliefs that it fosters, envisions a learning space where power is distributed equally and, in its ideal form, where learners themselves have the authority to control their own learning processes. However, granting agency and providing equality and equity are not the only areas of interest attached to digital learning; the focus should also be on how entire learning ecosystems operate and how power is distributed in such systems.

One factor that defines power distribution is the distance in digital learning spaces. In assessing learners and providing learning opportunities, digital learning uses technology pragmatically to lessen temporal, spatial (Moore & Kearsley, 2012), and transactional distances (Moore, 1993). Transactional distance can be narrowed by increasing dialogue and conversation or even more by improving structure and hierarchy. In this sense, decentralized, distributed, online learning networks are promising in terms of offering less distance and hierarchy. In such spaces, women learners can benefit from the transformative capacity of online networks by moving from peripherals to the core. Another promising feature of these spaces is that they foster informal learning as well as formal learning. This is significant in terms of purifying learning by prioritizing learners’ actual needs in online learning networks, where women learners can traverse the networks and express themselves through their digitally formed, self-shaped identities.

All in all, one of the most crucial speculations of digital learning is arguably its evolution as a distributed and decentralized online networked space where any learners, including women, can find their true selves. Online networked spaces widen participation, promote equality and equity, and challenge the dogmas of the so-called modern world and the manifestation of politicized educational systems. Thus, adopting a feminist pedagogy is an activist practice and one of the pillars of critical pedagogy. However, I attest that privileging women learners by emphasizing merely their gender, sex, or identity is problematic. Empowering and giving agency to women learners can be truly fulfilled only if learning spaces are places where they are equally represented and recognized and where they can navigate their own way, form their own identity, and pursue their own learning.

Chloe Raub, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Archivists across the globe have had to imagine new ways of offering instruction since the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered our reading rooms in the spring of 2020. Although there is much to mourn about the loss of physical access to collections, digital experiences can alleviate some of the burdens of traditional archival encounters: old buildings might lack accommodations for patrons with disabilities, adorning busts and portraits can be glaring relics of colonialism and white supremacy, and overbearing surveillance systems, though perhaps well intended to protect collections, communicate whose bodies belong in archives and whose do not (Farmer, 2018). Yet pivoting to wholly digital in archives is neither a simple nor an inherently liberatory solution to these problems. Costs and labour aside (creating sustainable digital preservation systems is a complex and expensive endeavour), the challenges of making analog materials digital remain, for the most part, invisible to researchers. The future of digital feminist pedagogy in archives depends on creating critical research experiences that examine archives as a construct, exposing the metaphorical “fingerprints” that archivists leave on their work, including in the digital realm (Caswell, 2019).

Digital archives have been assumed to have an equalizing effect on research, granting access to previously undiscovered histories that can now be perused from the comfort of one’s home, with the ease of technological enhancements. However, archival organization and description, like all knowledge, are governed by dominant power structures. Archaic and offensive legacy language and subject headings are an obvious problem that the profession is grappling with, but it is equally important to consider what is deliberately methodical and general in archival work. Limited time and funds, and adherence to existing professional protocols, frequently result in digitized collections in which the lives of marginalized people, although present, are obscured. As an example, archivist Dorothy Berry illustrates this dilemma in her eloquent personal essay “The House that Archives Built.” As she asks, “how do we locate Black joy?” in reference to a digitized image of four Black individuals, laughing while sitting at a mid-century restaurant counter, that has been described in the online portal as “Photographs. Snack Bar, undated. (Box 149-AV, Folder 4)” (2021). The image is one among 70 from the same collection, and the language replicates a folder title written years ago. In this case and others, the subjects of archival collections and the breadth of their experiences are obfuscated by our profession’s purported commitment to objectivity and by the constraints of digitization work.

Archivists have been called on to diverge from the “show and tell” model of in-person instruction, in which the archivist displays an array of visually enticing objects but offers little to no context on how they came to be “archival” (Hooper, 2010). As with analog collections, future feminist approaches to teaching with digital archives must take researchers beyond the standpoint of passive viewer to that of agentic investigator, centring alternative histories and narratives that have been hidden in the margins of metadata.

Catharyn Shelton, Northern Arizona University

I am writing this piece nine months into a healthy pregnancy as an assistant professor. I have taught my classes while nauseated, while seated with swollen legs elevated, and while masked to avoid COVID-19 exposure. My other two pregnancies were quite different because I was a student. I quietly suffered through three-hour lectures on hard plastic classroom chairs, I felt afraid to tell professors about the pregnancy, and I had to opt out of a course because missing class to give birth “could not be accommodated.”

I share this background to highlight the power that university professors hold over our students while highlighting the fear, discomfort, and injustice that many students experience because of their identities, backgrounds, and life situations. Often our pedagogies unintentionally reinforce these hierarchies, harming the most vulnerable. In this piece, I imagine an aspirational future of feminist pedagogies in which an accounting of power structures and students’ humanity is central to teaching and learning. In what follows, I define and describe humanizing pedagogy (Bartolomé, 1994) and discuss why it ought to be a way forward.

Humanizing pedagogies attempt to resist framing learning as transactional, efficiency-driven processes to mould students in the image of the dominant, colonial culture (Bartolomé, 1994). Rooted in Bartolomé’s work on supporting students historically subjected to colonizing educational practices, humanizing pedagogies push back against expectations that to succeed in a class students must check off a laundry list of standardized activities. Instead, professors must adapt learning to their students while also bringing a political awareness to their classrooms. Professors must get to know students to appreciate the funds of knowledge that they bring. Courses will be designed not only to include but also to accommodate and celebrate students’ identities and to centre issues relevant to their communities. “Success” will look different for different students. Professors might add discussions of current events, include relationship building and identity work centred on culturally relevant pedagogy, tailor class projects to authentic student-selected problems, and implement mastery learning, holistic grading, or ungrading.

Feminist pedagogies traditionally have centred a culture of care, but a more nuanced approach is needed. University students in the United States are increasingly diverse in terms of race, language, sexuality, gender, culture, dis/ability, and other dimensions of identity. Contemporary societal challenges, such as climate and racial justice, are at the forefront of our students’ (and all of our) realities. Meanwhile, the future of university pedagogy risks becoming entrenched in learning management course shells, online exam proctoring services, and Zoom classrooms filled with impersonal black boxes. I envision a brighter future in which humanizing pedagogies can recentre our students as people and refocus our pedagogies as acts of resistance to meet student, community, and societal needs. We will have to invest time in learning about our students, we will have to bring current events to the classroom, we will have to engage in uncomfortable discussions that address power, access, and representation, and change our courses semester after semester (and within a given semester too). Nonetheless, humanizing pedagogy aspires to enable us to meet student needs, community needs, and current needs going forward.

Sukaina Walji, University of Cape Town

Feminist pedagogies and practices are more important than ever. The large-scale forced move to online learning for many campus-based universities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn particular attention to the learning experiences of students and staff. The unprecedented scale and speed of the move and the messiness of dealing with (un)anticipated consequences have surfaced welcome insights, new practices, and research yet at the same time spurred the growth of online education as a business that risks the uncritical uptake of educational technology (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Intersectional feminist approaches provide important conceptual tools for understanding and reimagining digital learning futures.

The experiences of digital learning over the past two years have made apparent the complexity of the learning environments made possible by digital technologies. The easy tropes of ed-tech instrumentalism in which tools and technologies will solve many problems have been overturned with on-the-ground experiences. As feminist pedagogies have long argued, what works in one context might not work in another. Technology is not “plug and play” but continually negotiated, situated, and contextual. It is part of an assemblage that shapes and informs the environment and is itself shaped. Theoretically, this draws from social materialist approaches that have informed feminist approaches (Bayne et al., 2020); underpinning this is a need to reinforce that digital learning is not disembodied or virtual; it is not value neutral, nor does it obviate the need to pay attention to the very material aspects of learning of students and teachers, taking into account race, gender, and socio-economic status. Online learning is not virtual learning (Gourlay, 2021) but happens in physical contexts and in pandemic times, in places such as students’ and teachers’ bedrooms and living rooms, reinforcing new types of inequalities. Feminist perspectives offer alternative approaches to understanding these learning ecosystems, acknowledging the importance of situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988) and rejecting notions of binaries.

Feminist pedagogies point to the importance of careful design decisions in the future to develop high-quality online education and carefully support teachers in digital spaces. A core feminist pedagogical approach would be to move away from things “being done” to people, such as learning and assessment being “delivered” to students or “staff being developed” as passive recipients of an (unfriendly) institution. Feminist pedagogies acknowledge that digital learning is entangled with its stakeholders, who are coupled in mutual dependencies and together should co-construct their learning environments.

Careful pedagogical design would also apply to intergenerational relationships with feminist perspectives offering an understanding of intersectional relationships and how sites of power operate (Pollock & Subramaniam, 2016). Relationships between students and staff, between university leaders and staff, and between learning/instructional designers and academics intersect across (among others) age, gender, and racial contexts. Feminist approaches recognize positionality and power and pay attention to perspectives from the margins that will allow for new ways of intentionally building community to enable equitable and productive collaborations.

Feminist approaches will also inform research that surfaces actual lived experiences, especially where resistance and subversion happen, to reclaim different forms of agency. This envisages different types of online education research that is fine grained, sometimes ethnographic and contextual, and creates new knowledge about online learning. This will include sharing local practices while acknowledging that local knowledge forms part of global understandings of digital education, challenging the binary between centre and periphery.

Discussion

The purpose of this conclusion is to speculate about the future of feminist digital learning, focused primarily on online learning experiences. As education systems and educational institutions continue to evolve with pioneering strategies and pedagogies, online learning experiences will also evolve. We hope that in the future these advances bring more opportunities to incorporate feminist pedagogical theories in online learning experiences. In this conclusion, scholars in the field of education from around the world (Egypt, South Africa, Türkiye, United States) have shared their insights into what we can envision as a future in which feminist digital learning experiences take place. The results of these speculative futures highlight an evolution in learning environments and power structures while centring learning and learners.

In the field of education, we often wonder what the teaching methods for online learning in the future will be; however, we must speculate about the mediums and modalities that perhaps will be common. Currently, there are many debates about the role of augmented reality (Avila-Garzon et al., 2021; Jdaitawi & Kan’an, 2021) and artificial intelligence (Cope et al., 2021) in education. Yet we speculate that future online learning experiences informed by feminist pedagogical tenets will consider advances in modality such as augmented reality and virtual reality with embedded accessibility as the norm. Beyond modality, a key speculation related to online learning environments in the future influenced by feminist pedagogical tenets is the central role of learning networks that are distributed and global, hence leading to more equity, access, and decentralized knowledge hubs. Currently, networked learning has been redefined (Networked Learning Editorial Collective et al., 2021). Its role and reach in education systems are continually evaluated, clarified, and re-established as key elements of online learning environments.

A central theme among scholars’ speculative futures of feminist digital learning is the breakdown of power structures. This includes power structures in learning environment design, educational technology selection, and consumption of digital metadata. In education, instructors, learning designers, and programmers lead the design of learning environments. Learners are often left to be consumers of prepackaged environments such as learning management systems. In this conclusion, scholars have speculated about an online learning future in which learners are involved as designers of learning ecosystems, giving them an essential role in the decision-making process of how their own learning experiences will occur. In addition, we speculate that a feminist digital learning future will also bring a breakdown of power structures in relation to instructors’ selection of and relationship with technology. Today there are some movements within the field of education raising awareness of the lack of neutrality of technology (Krutka et al., 2019). As scholars, we speculate that instructors will be empowered, within their institutions, to implement critical intersectional approaches in educational technology use and integration. From the digital library perspective, scholars speculate about a feminist digital learning future in which learners, instructors, and researchers become active digital archivists who break down oppressive structures in library systems and lead the way to more knowledge democracy.

Key Takeaways

• As scholars, there is a collective sense of acknowledgement that future feminist digital learning experiences will disrupt oppressive pedagogy, technology, and systems.
• We aim for a future in which feminist pedagogy supports online learning conceived as an embodied, meaningful experience in which relationships and trust can develop.
• Our future will no longer scrutinize online learning experiences and instead recognize all of our learners as diverse individuals and equal contributors to the learning process.

References

• Avila-Garzon, C., Bacca-Acosta, J., Kinshuk, D. J., & Betancourt, J. (2021). Augmented reality in education: An overview of twenty-five years of research. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), 1–29. https://doi-org.esearch.ut.edu/10.30935/cedtech/10865
• Bali, M., Caines, A., Hogue, R. J., DeWaard, H. J., & Friedrich, C. (2019). Intentionally equitable hospitality in hybrid video dialogue: The context of virtually connecting. eLearning Mag (Special Issue), 5. https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=3331173
• Bali, M., & Zamora, M. (2022). The equity-care matrix: Theory and practice. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1241
• Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Education Review, 64(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.64.2.58q5m5744t325730
• Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., & Lamb, J. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press.
• Berry, D. (2021). The house archives built. up//root. https://www.uproot.space/features/the-house-archives-built
• Caswell, M. (2019). Dusting for fingerprints: Introducing feminist standpoint appraisal. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 3(1). https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/113/67
• Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 53(12), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732
• Facer, K. (2021). Futures in education: Towards an ethical practice. Paper commissioned for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Futures of Education report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375792
• Farley, F. H. (1982). The future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 11(8), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175580
• Farmer, A. (2018). Archiving while Black. The Chronicle of Higher Education Review. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Archiving-While-Black/
• Fraser, N. (2005). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review, 36. https://newleftreview-org.libproxy.aucegypt.edu/issues/II36/articles/nancy-fraser-reframing-justice-in-a-globalizing-world
• Gourlay, L. (2021). There is no “virtual learning”: The materiality of digital education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.649
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3178066
• hooks, b. (2014). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
• Hooper, L. (2010). Breaking the ontological mold: Bringing postmodernism and critical pedagogy into archival educational programming. In E. Drabinski, A. Kumbier, & M. T. Accardi (Eds.), Critical library instruction: Theories and methods (pp. 29–42). Litwin Books.
• Jdaitawi, M. T., & Kan’an, A. F. (2021). A decade of research on the effectiveness of augmented reality on students with special disability in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11369
• Khader, S. J. (2019). Decolonizing universalism: A feminist transnational ethic. Oxford University Press.
• Krutka, D., Heath, M., & Staudt Willet, B. (2019). Foregrounding technoethics: Toward critical perspectives in technology and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(4), 555–574. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/208235/
• Marr, B. (2021, October 26). The biggest artificial intelligence milestones of the decade so far. https://bernardmarr.com/the-biggest-artificial-intelligence-milestones-of-the-decade-so-far/
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage.
• Networked Learning Editorial Collective, Gourlay, L., Rodríguez-Illera, J. L., Barberà, E., Bali, M., Gachago, D., Pallitt, N., Jones, C., Bayne, S., Hansen, S. B., Harastinski, S., Jaldemark, J., Themelis, C., Pischetola, M., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Matthews, A., Gulson, K. N., Lee, K., Bligh, B., … & Knox, J. (2021). Networked learning in 2021: A community definition. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(2), 326–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y
• Noddings, N. (2012). The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest, 40(5), 52–56.
• Pollock, A., & Subramaniam, B. (2016). Resisting power, retooling justice: Promises of feminist postcolonial technosciences. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(6), 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916657879
• Romero-Hall, E. J., Correia, A., Branch, R., Cevik, Y., Dickson-Deane, C., Chen, B., Liu, C., Tang, H., Vasconcelos, L., Pallit, N., & Thankachan, B. (2021). Futurama: Learning design and technology research methods. In E. J. Romero-Hall (Ed.), Research methods in learning design and technology (pp. 206–226). Routledge.
• Ross, J. (2017). Speculative method in digital education research. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160927
• Veletsianos, G., & Köseoğlu, S. (2022). Introducing feminist critical digital pedagogy. In G. Veletsianos & S. Köseoğlu (Eds.), Feminist critical digital pedagogy: An open book (pp. 1–3). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/feminist_digital_ped/introducing_feminist
• Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education. Springer.
• Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. University of Wisconsin Press.
• White, J. A., & Tronto, J. C. (2004). Political practices of care: Needs and rights. Ratio Juris, 17(4), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2004.00276.x
• Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of COVID-19. Education International. https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/25251:commercialisation-and-privatisation-inof-education-in-the-context-of-covid-19
• Zamora, M., Bali, M., Mehran, P., & Cronin, C. (2021). Equity unbound as critical intercultural praxis. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(4), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.59668/329.5270
• Zawacki-Richter, O., Conrad, D., Bozkurt, A., Aydin, C. H., Bedenlier, S., Jung, I., & Xiao, J. (2020). Elements of open education: An invitation to future research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4659