ERASMUS+ project SAFE-Safe spAces For lEarning

EDUCAÇÃO

A. Giannakopoulou¹, A. Kozyra¹, G. Ganglbauer², A. Hrubesch², M. Maksimovic³, R. Vieira⁴, F. Borges⁴, L. Moraiti⁵, M. Papadiamantopoulou⁵, A. Giannakopoulou⁵, G. Maciariello⁶, K. Popovic⁷, T. Fritz²

Abstract

The concept of safe spaces, as is understood and discussed in this paper, relates to how systemic marginalization creates normalized oppression in a way that deems societies as more unsafe to the underprivileged. In the pages to follow we will discuss how we can create a premise that presents these concepts, and actively promotes the creation of direct democratic social contracts to transcend them in adult education practice, through the practice of gamification as implemented in the SAFE project.

The ERASMUS+ project SAFE-Safe spAces For lEarning, coordinated by EPATV from Portugal is running for almost three years now with partners from all over Europe, and more specifically, VHS Vienna, from Austria, DAFNI KEK from Greece, Patatrac from Italy along with the EAEA- European Association for the Education of Adults from Belgium representing the European perspective and the ICAE- International Council for Adult Education from Serbia tackling global developments. As a consortium we started with the assumption that inclusion means holistic and systemic change not provided by a one-way effort but by society as a whole and adult education is at the core of such a change. To do so the ALE community will have to consider:

“How does recognising privilege and struggle, safety and unsafety, access and inaccessibility can relate to the way that we exist in both our learning practice and society at large?”

Safe spaces, answering to that, are places (in the wider sense, including virtual spaces) where people are free to express their own opinion, without being stigmatized, safe spaces are characterised by trust in the group and the “trainer”; they are a space where people are not confronted with different opinions, there is no manipulation, there are no judgements; safe spaces are free of formal and external evaluation. Learners have the certainty of knowing the structure, the procedures and the goals. Some classrooms might be safe spaces. However, as hooks [1] points out, even in the absence of explicit antagonism or discomfort, “many students, especially students of colour[or any other minority group, we might add], may not feel at all ‘safe’ in what appears to be a neutral setting”. As such, safe spaces should be understood not through static and acontextual notions of “safe” or “unsafe”, but rather through the relational work of cultivating them.

In this paper we will showcase how the SAFE consortium team co-created with the broader adult education community the SAFE Boardgame as a liberating way to explore answers to the aforementioned questions and provide us outlets to communicate change and elaborate on safe spaces. The boardgame, to do that, facilitates the co-configuration of direct democratic social contracts between the players, establishing the particularities of oppression, challenge and struggle that arise in different group dynamics, relating to societal and systemic patterns.

The material and research included in this paper gathers from the sum of the results of the project namely: 1) The Safe Spaces for Learning Guide: How to create and maintain a safe space for adult learning, 2) Safe Spaces in everyday life: The Why, the What, the Who the Where and the How., 3) The visual library of existing safe spaces for adult education, 3) The S.A.F.E. Boardgame and 4) The SAFE Policy Paper: Sustaining Safe Space Mentalities

Keywords: Safe spaces, adult education, adult learning, direct democracy, social contract, gamification, board game..

1        INTRODUCTION

Understanding the concept of safe spaces

A safe space is a space which, either technically or emotionally, is meant to provide equal opportunities, representation and communication outlets for marginalised groups or persons in an environment of respect and understanding that eliminate oppressive behaviours, recognises struggle and cultivates dialogue. In this effect we are the ones that shape and the only ones that can maintain safe spaces as places where we come together and communicate regarding our experience with marginalisation, learn, and engage in social and political matters against repression.

The European Commission has highlighted in the last decade, through campaigning and recording realities in documentarist manners, the crucial role that safe spaces play in the psychological empowerment of refugees and people in traumatic journeys under systemic exclusion due to gender, sexuality, race or their socio-economic status.

The concept of ‘safe space’ that we use derives from the 1970s women’s, LGBT and racial movements and was originally used to name physical meeting places where likeminded people could meet and share their experiences in a safe environment [2]. In adult education the concept of safe space, even if not articulated in using the exact terms, is a critical part of empowering adult learners and achieving outreach for the establishment of actual diverse communities, as is discussed by the OED- Outreach, Empowerment and Diversity Network. When the concept is transferred into the learning communities, we see the meaning extended in terms of places where learners can speak freely, without being afraid of their peers, the educator or the administrative and management staff of the educational provider.

What is also important to highlight is that a safe space is not bound to be geographically demarcated as it can extend to the online communities or even one’s self.  Evolving through this concept, a discussion on the essential elements of an open society is key to creating truly safe and inclusive spaces.  A safe space as is hinted by bell hooks can only be truly safe if it recognizes the struggle and the privilege of the people it includes. This clarification is essential in perceiving a safe space not as a prison of thought, policing experiences but as a way to understand and represent the end of exclusion. Openness is a key aspect of the construction of “safe spaces” as in their entirety focus on the battle against exclusion as exclusion is multifaceted, encompassing social, economic, and political marginalization [3].

Direct Democratic processes and safe spaces

Direct democracy is at the very core of the concept of safe spaces as we see it here.  It is, as such, as the power of this democratic process comes from the direct involvement of the people and includes, one way or another, the co-creation of a social contract that relates to the experience of the specified group of people, their actual experience and opinions and their integral needs.

It is the view of the SAFE consortium that this exact point of setting a just social contract that has been co-decided by the learning community for the assurance of the learning community’s creation of a personalised safe space has inherent links with the concept of playing the game as was theorised by Bourdieu.

Taking a directly democratic and social-constructionist approach towards establishing the educator-learner and learner-learner relation the, through the SAFE project we propose that a teaching strategy based on the principles of a boardgame is a meaningful way to energise the structured lecture environment on the themes of realising power dynamics, safe and unsafe elements of coexisting, recognise struggle and raise awareness on multiple discrimination. Designed in the first instance to facilitate learners’ understanding of substantive information, the SAFE boardgame aims to enable teachers to elicit reactions to the process which serve as teaching points about the theory and practice of social research and especially on the creation of a safe and directly democratic environment.

As the adult education community we have an uncontested right and obligation to reflect on the ways and the motivations on which we act. We need to more essentially represent the wealth of processes we have created in order to break the cycles of bias, oppression and discrimination and realise that education without transformation and progress is just another institution.

2        METHODOLOGY

In the SAFE boardgame we are seeking to link Bourdieu’s theory on the limits of objectivism and subjectivism [4] with contemporary approaches to learning, in aims to highlight the importance of establishing safe spaces for adult education and society. Critically seeing the concept of social structure, and foster reflection on the impact and social influence of the role of the adult educator in society.

Making these ideas, apt and visible in the game, was the most evident target of our consortium. The process of creating the mechanics of our boardgame was quite turbulent, as the wealth of ideas was constantly creating new needs and approaches on the end goal, the challenge of the game.

A significant step in diving into our methods was the research and discussions, interpersonal and personal that can be thoroughly found reported in our publication “The Why, the What, the Who, the Where and the How”.

In the framework of our project, initially a debate about the concept of safe spaces for adult learning took place using a collaborative document to which all partners provided ideas and concepts, either from their own experience or from theoretical literature.

Following that, a set of questions was developed and duly debated by the partnership for focus groups that were in turn organised in all partner institutions with two groups in mind: learners and educators. This first publication provides an analysis of both elements: first an overview of the online debate is given and second the focus group “results” are presented. In addition to the focus groups, one interview was conducted by the Viennese partner with one learner. The  group agreed  on a  general  structure  for  the  data analysis  that  is  based  on  five very simple questions: the Why, the What, the Who, the Where and the How.

The Why refers to ”Why do we need safe spaces?”, both as educators and as learners, i.e. reasons  from  daily life  of  learners  and  also  the  difficulties  faced  by educators  as they have to hand over power and change their traditional roles. The What consists of what constitutes a safe space; whether it is a real space,  a  virtual  space  or  a  special  kind  of  relationship  within  the  group  and the educator. The  Who addresses the  question  of  who  needs  a  safe  space  and  the  Where  the location of safe spaces. Here we are talking about real spaces, their location. Finally, the How refers  to  the pedagogical work  within  safe  spaces.  It  brings  up  the question: how can and should we as educators act within these safe spaces? The Who also asks the question of who decides what a safe space is and for whom, and who has the right to determine the safety of a certain space.

Upon these findings of the publication and our focus groups we couldn’t help but notice how the goal of our boardgame would have to revolve around the creation of a social contract between the players and their self, their learning community and their societies.

To do that we agreed that the players could either play the game as themselves or as characters that are randomly assigned to them, by luck and the use of a dice. In both and any case, though we agreed that in this game, no one can win if even one stays behind.

To navigate the SAFE board the group will have to overcome challenges and reflect on why they do or do not face them, use tools to help their community and choose imperatives to include in their social contract. 

During the initial phase of piloting our boardgame design, we aimed  to see if the idealised mechanics would work, as well as formulate the content. With a sense of trust in the process we the enthusiastic involvement of heterogeneous cohorts comprising adult learners, educators, and policymakers. This collective engagement resonates harmoniously with the insights of bell hooks, that underscores the pivotal significance of inclusive education and critical discourse in the confrontation of privilege and oppression.

Incorporating the theories of bell hooks into the framework of our pilot phase provides an analytical lens through which to assess the efficacy of our board game as an instrument of transformative pedagogy. Notably, bell hooks advocates for an educational paradigm that challenges prevailing biases and entrenched systems of power. In this context, our board game effectively served as a conduit for open dialogue, thereby affording participants the opportunity to delve into their personal narratives concerning privilege and adversity. This engenders an environment conducive to introspection and critical self-examination.

Furthermore, we saw even the idea of the boardgame fostering dialogues concerning systemic marginalization and normalized oppression, even when such discussions were unforeseen, is indicative of the potency of adult education in the disruption of dominant discourses. The game functioned as a crucible in which participants were able to not only acknowledge these sociostructural phenomena but also to undertake collective efforts aimed at their redressal.

In the summative discussions of this piloting phase our inquiry was centered on elucidating avenues for augmenting the mechanics, content, and overarching educational utility of the board game. This methodological stance is congruent with our emphasis on dialogue and cooperative learning as foundational elements of the pedagogical process. By enlisting the active involvement of participants in the ongoing development of the game, we embodied the direct democratic and participatory principles that we had identified from the start of our endeavour.

3        results

The summary of the results of our project can be best explored and re-invented through the SAFE Boardgame. The SAFE Board Game is an interactive learning tool that aims to ignite discussions around safe spaces and privilege in learning environments and social situations. Through familiar game mechanics and the methodology of role- playing, the players are invited to explore different challenges and come up with strategies to overcome them together. The players work as a team throughout the game and by the end of it, they come up with their own version of a social contract to apply to their interactions and learning environment.

The creation of the character of each participant is an integral part of the process of realising bias, privileges, and challenges in terms of feeling and being safe to express oneself and to participate in the learning setting and in society, gathering from concepts included in Erving Goffman’s frame analysis [5].

In terms of the character development, the SAFE Board Game can follow two different paths: Either for the characters to be completely randomly generated for each player by rolling the dice, or strategically chosen by the facilitator or “Game Master” to focus the game on more specific outcomes for the group of learners.

During the game the collective body of the team will meet different statements and situations.

1. Time is given to the players to find and discuss “Social Contract” statements and see whether they are useful and beneficial for their group, and if it will help them create a safe space amongst them. After having discussed the statement, they need to decide if they will add it to their active Social Contract pile or discard it.
2. Along the way, players are also met with “Challenges” that might affect one or more of them. All the affected players have to stay behind and cannot move on with the rest of the group.
3. To reunite the affected players with the group, the players need to secure a “Tool” card that will allow them to start a discussion and come up with the best solution to bring together as many of the affected players as possible.

The game is made up of:

• A board with tiles;

• 1 dice;

• Random and Custom Identity Sheets;

• 8 Challenges Facing Cards

• 6 Character Plates / Glossary Cards

• 40 yellow “Social Contract” cards

• 25 purple “Challenges” cards

• 22 blue “Tools” cards

As the SAFE board game continues to evolve, incorporating the valuable feedback received during the piloting phase, it promises to be a powerful tool for creating change in adult education.

As the SAFE board game continues to undergo iterative development, incorporating invaluable feedback garnered during its initial piloting phase, it demonstrates its potential as a potent instrument for effecting change within the realm of adult education.

The initial pilot phase represented a significant milestone in the trajectory of the SAFE project, serving to underscore the paramount importance of establishing safe spaces and illuminating the transformative capacities intrinsic to the board game.

Subsequently, post-pilot endeavors were dedicated to refining the SAFE Board Game, culminating in the attainment of the definitive version. Following the completion of this developmental journey, the logical progression was to just play the game!

The consortium hasshared and played the game with the people who contributed to the game’s creation and extended this opportunity to their networks, encompassing learners, educators, and policymakers.

The participants expressed an invaluable appreciation for the game’s ability to create a safe and inclusive learning environment, where everyone’s voice was valued and respected. Most significantly, the players noted that the game encouraged them to examine their own biases and privilege, leading to a heightened awareness of the importance of safe spaces.

However, we shall refrain from further elaboration, as we believe it is best left to the individuals who have engaged with the game and to the collection of quotes we have gathered thus far:

“We have to play the safe game between policymakers!”

“It really helps talking outside of your own self”

“Sometimes we do not understand how many challenges different people may face, not only because of their social status but because of their culture, character or experience. It becomes so much more visible through a game”

“ As educators, we really have to consider safety not only inside the classroom but also between us in an organisation. In my opinion, we would first have to play the boardgame between us and our management”

“This is a game that will keep on evolving. The fact that we can be independent on using only the cards, or only some of them, using only the board and the scenarios, being flexible, is the actual added value”

“I liked that we talked about important things without a lecture about them”

Based on our findings and processes our efforts finalized the boardgame and formulated a series of social prompts and policy recommendations in different levels of practice, that we call the SAFE Policy Paper. In this final publication of the project, we worked in an experiential manner, formulating the social prompts through the experiences of the members of the consortium and the most evident themes around safe spaces each of us worked with, highlighting that safety and space extend [6] from the actual space to the online space and the mentality in one’s sense of creating and seeking safety.

In the SAFE Policy Paper our research and experience is structured into three (3) distinct short chapters to promote further reflection in the context of learning communities, policy discussions, and multidisciplinary developments.

In the first chapter, we shortly discuss the ideology of safe spaces as understood, discussed, and evolved through the experience of the project consortium.

In the second chapter, we are posing social prompts that the adult learning community, as an integral part of society at large, can reflect on and take action upon.

While in the third chapter, we pose a series of policy recommendations organized in three tiers a)Transnational policies b)National Policies c)Local policies. Following the policies we get deeper in our reflections upon existing policies relating to safe spaces, open spaces, public space, participation, and learners’ voices in the partner countries, with two specified mentions of European and global policy initiatives.

The intention of the SAFE Policy is to stretch the belief that our societies are forged by all of us when we all either are given or claim the space to do so and showcase how the concept of safe space is a deeply social and political concept that strongly relates to the discussion of privilege and struggle in adult learning and education and essentially our societies at large.

4        CONCLUSIONS

As part of the adult education community, we have an uncontested right and obligation to reflect on the ways and the motivations on which we act. We need to more essentially represent the wealth of processes we have created in order to break the cycles of bias, oppression and discrimination and realise that safe, open and welcoming spaces are powerful and essential.

This paper has explored the results of our project have demonstrated the potential of the SAFE board game as a powerful instrument for effecting change in adult education. Feedback from participants underscores the game’s ability to foster inclusive learning environments where diverse voices are valued and respected.

As we move forward, the SAFE board game continues to evolve, guided by the valuable feedback received during the piloting phase. It stands as a testament to the potential for transformative pedagogy and the disruption of dominant discourses in adult education. The game’s flexibility and adaptability further enhance its value as an educational tool.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to the Erasmus+ Programme for their generous financial support, which has been instrumental in making this project a reality. This funding has not only provided the necessary resources but has also allowed us to engage in valuable international collaborations, promote cross-cultural exchanges, and enhance the quality of education and research.

5        References

[1]	b. hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, New York: NY: Routledge, 1994.
[2]	K. Kishimoto, “Critiquing the Rhetoric of” Safety” in Feminist Pedagogy: Women of Color Offering an Account of Ourselves.,” Feminist Teacher, no. 19, pp. 87-102, 2009.
[3]	H. Silver, “Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms of Social Exclusion,” International Labor Review, vol. 133, pp. 531-578, 1994.
[4]	P. Bourdieu, In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.
[5]	E. Goffman, Frame Analysis, l’organizzazione dell’esperienza, Rome: Armando Editore., 2001.
[6]	R. Vanacore, Progettare gli spazi educativi. Un approccio interdisciplinare tra architettura e pedagogia, Rome: Edizioni Anicia., 2020.

• ¹European Association for the Education of Adults (BELGIUM)
• ²Die Wiener Volkshochschulen GmbH (AUSTRIA)
• ³University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy (SERBIA)
• ⁴Amar Terra Verde, Lda (PORTUGAL)
• ⁵DAFNI KEK (GREECE)
• ⁶Patatrac (ITALY)
• ⁷International Council for Adult Education (SERBIA)

Editor