SOLIDARITY IN ACTION: A CO-DESIGNED SPECIAL ISSUE WITH BRAZILIAN AND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCHERS

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to offer a template for colleagues who wish to seize the opportunity to work together across nationalities to interrogate solidarity. In this Special Issue, twenty-two researchers (nine Brazilians and thirteen international) worked in six small groups for two years to write about their experiences with collaborative practices. Drawing on Freire’s concept of solidarity, the editors shared the steps of the co-design process as well as their views which resulted in three themes: (a) the need of heightening the exposure of the Brazilian academic community; (b) our collective care about language and communication; and (c) how in leading this project we rethought ourselves in different ways. We argue that the template of the co-designed Special Issue should be grounded on solidarity when utilised by colleagues in other countries. It is a solidarity based on sharing the struggle to change social inequalities with people and the will to give and rethink ourselves.

Keywords:
Solidarity; Freire; Internationalisation.

Resumo

O objetivo deste artigo é oferecer um modelo para colegas que desejam aproveitar a oportunidade de trabalhar juntos em todas as nacionalidades para questionar a solidariedade. Nesta seção Em Foco, vinte e dois pesquisadores (nove brasileiros e treze internacionais) trabalharam em seis pequenos grupos durante dois anos para escrever sobre suas experiências com práticas colaborativas. Partindo do conceito de solidariedade de Freire, os editores compartilharam as etapas do processo de co-design, bem como suas visões que resultaram em três temas: (a) a necessidade de aumentar a visibilidade da comunidade acadêmica brasileira; (b) nosso cuidado coletivo com linguagem e comunicação; e (c) como ao liderar este projeto nos repensamos de diferentes maneiras. Defendemos que o modelo da seção Em Foco coelaborada deve ser fundamentado na solidariedade quando utilizado por colegas de outros países. É uma solidariedade baseada na partilha da luta para mudar as desigualdades sociais com as pessoas e a vontade de doar e repensar a nós mesmos.

Palavras-chave:
Solidariedade; Freire; Internacionalização.

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer un modelo para colegas que desean aprovechar la oportunidad de trabajar juntos en todas las nacionalidades para cuestionar la solidaridad. En este número especial, 22 investigadores (nueve brasileños y trece internacionales) trabajaron en seis pequeños grupos durante dos años para escribir sobre sus experiencias en prácticas colaborativas. Basados en el concepto de solidaridad de Freire, los editores compartieron las etapas del proceso de codiseño, así como sus puntos de vista, que dieron como resultado tres temas: (a) la necesidad de aumentar la exposición de la comunidad académica brasileña; (b) nuestra preocupación colectiva por el lenguaje y la comunicación; y (c) cómo al liderar este proyecto nos repensamos de diferentes maneras. Argumentamos que el modelo del número especial codiseñado debe basarse en la solidaridad cuando sea utilizado por colegas de otros países. Es una solidaridad basada en compartir la lucha por cambiar las desigualdades sociales con las personas y la voluntad de donar y repensarnos.

Palabras clave:
Solidaridad; Freire; internacionalización.

1 INTRODUCTION AND FREIRE’S CONCEPT OF SOLIDARITY

This paper arose as the possibility to seize the opportunity to work together across nationalities to interrogate solidarity - the Special Issue is an example of one such way to do this. Initially, the Special Issue concept emerged from a desire of one of the editors (Luiza) to heighten the exposure of the Brazilian academic community. After completing her PhD and engaging with international literature about collaborative practices in physical education continuing professional development (PE-CPD), Luiza realised that the diverse and rich experiences that are lived in Brazil are not always shared and recognised internationally. Luiza invited Carla and Cecilia to be onboard on this innovative project in co-designing a Special Issue. We wanted to do something different from most previous Special Issues where international and Brazilian scholars wrote papers separately. We wanted international and Brazilian researchers to enter in solidarity and experience an exchange of knowledge. Would it be possible for international and Brazilian researchers to co-design a Special Issue, understanding this partnership as an act of solidarity? Could solidarity be the base for the internationalisation of research?

There is a body of research that highlights how the internationalisation of research activities has become an area of prominence, particularly in tertiary education (ANTELO, 2012; WOLDEGIYORGIS; PROCTOR; DE WIT, 2018). However, this body of research described that there are diverse economic and political challenges when working toward the internationalisation of research activities in tertiary education (e.g., KNIGHT, 2012; RUMBLEY; ALTBACH; REISBERG, 2012; TAYLOR, 2004). For instance, an increasing consideration of international university rankings and the place of research indicators within those rankings. Rankings are considered the main drivers for internationalisation, while social-cultural motivations, such as solidarity, seem to be decreasing in status (KNIGHT, 2012; RUMBLEY; ALTBACH; REISBERG, 2012; TAYLOR, 2004).

In the neoliberal context¹ of tertiary education, the main drivers for internationalisation have been viewed as disruptive and insensitive to the less privileged contexts (e.g., Global South² countries), and as a consequence seen to nurture inequities (MACPHAIL; LUGUETTI, 2021). In this neoliberal logic, the international relevance of research includes a highly competitive agenda related to the increased productivity of individual researchers, their universities, and their nations, tied to the use of analysis in support of rankings (WOLDEGIYORGIS; PROCTOR; DE WIT, 2018). Like other scholars in the area, we believe there is a need to critique this neoliberal view of internationalisation of research as market-driven, profit maximisation and control (KHOO et al., 2019; ROMANI-DIAS; CARNEIRO; BARBOSA, 2019).

In countries in Global South such as Brazil, we face several challenges with the internationalisation of research where internationalisation can be considered an incipient phenomenon (GUIMARÃES et al., 2020). Challenges for internationalisation in Brazil include mainly the invisibility of the academic production of the Global South due to the hegemony of English, dominated by models and concepts of the Global North (GUIMARÃES et al., 2020). Brazilian researchers and universities struggle with the criteria used for rankings which tend to favour universities in the Global North or English-speaking universities and, as such, these rankings cannot capture the reality (and specificities) of universities in the Global South (FINARDI; GUIMARÃES; MENDES, 2020).

Internationalisation of research in the Global South can be used both to reinforce the legacy of colonisation and to break free from it. For instance, the reinforcement of colonisation can occur when foreign internationalisation Global North ideologies are applied to local contexts without the necessary adaptations to local needs and values. In this colonising mode, Global North countries seek to implement their education standard and infuse their values into Global South countries, expanding their intellectual, cultural and financial dominance (FINARDI; GUIMARÃES; MENDES, 2020). For Tuhiwai Smith (2012), decolonising research consists of three interconnected elements: (a) the delinking of knowledge and thought from Global North logic; (b) undoing practices, actions, and ways of being that reify colonial power; and (c) the redistribution of power, including land and material resources. A decolonising lens offers a radical critique of how the internationalisation of research has happened in Global South countries.

By using a decolonising lens, we argue that internationalisation should be viewed as a ‘moral practice’ (MACPHAIL; LUGUETTI, 2021) where the notion of solidarity could be a way of communities cultivated by researchers and not be based on particular geographical or institutional affiliations but on a shared set of values that may radicalise solidarity toward ‘othering’³ (FINE, 1994; FREIRE, 1987; ZEMBYLAS, 2017). We suggest the Freirean concept of solidarity nurtured by sharing the struggle with people, and the will to give and rethink ourselves.

The revolution is made neither by the leaders for the people, nor by the people for the leaders, but by both acting together in unshakable solidarity. This solidarity is born only when the leaders witness to it by their humble, loving, and courageous encounter with the people (FREIRE, 1987, p.102).

In the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire argued that solidarity requires ‘struggle with people’; is a radical posture and requires that one enter the situation of those with whom one is in solidarity. Freire described that discovering themselves to be an oppressor may cause considerable anguish, but it does not necessarily lead into solidarity. Freire (1987, p. 22) argued for a pedagogy that ‘must be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity’.

For Freire, solidarity is also characterised by the will to give. Contrary to common misconceptions, giving does not refer to self-deprivation or ‘giving up’ something. Instead, giving is a productive activity that enhances the joy, insight, and ability of the giver as well as the receiver (CHABOT, 2008). Finally, those who commit themselves with solidarity must re-examine themselves constantly and it requires a profound rebirth (FREIRE, 1987). It results in a process of personal and social transformation for everybody. It is a process of opening our own eyes as researchers and seeing the world through different eyes, coupled with a desire to open others’ eyes (CAHILL; RIOS-MOORE; THREATTS, 2008). Rethinking ourselves is connected with relationality: subjects are made in and through relationships (GAZTAMBIDE-FERNÁNDEZ, 2012). By entering in solidarity with people we rethink ourselves: we are not who or what we think we are outside of relationships - there is no ‘I’ outside of ‘we’ and there is no ‘we’ without a ‘they’ (GAZTAMBIDE-FERNÁNDEZ, 2012).

Even though it is recognised that internationalisation could be a ‘moral practice’, there is a gap in empirical studies in this area, particularly interventions or actions toward solidarity. The purpose of this paper is to share one possible way by which colleagues can collectively share the notion of solidarity. Specifically, we focus on sharing the steps the editors took to implement this project and their view which interrogates the notion of solidarity.

2 THE CO-DESIGNED PROCESS: A TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE SPECIAL ISSUES

This project was an initiative of Brazilian scholars (Luiza, Carla and Cecilia) and was originated from the need not only to disseminate the work carried out in Brazil but also to engage in dialogue with research carried out in the international context. The editors’ position was that internationalisation should be grounded on solidarity as a key aspect to transform the social and material conditions of inequality. Based on this notion of solidarity in collaborative PE-CPD, four themes were selected for this Special Issue: (a) types of collaborative PE-CPD; (b) the facilitation process in the development and cultivation of collaborative PE-CPD; (c) the process of development of collaborative PE-CPD; and (d) innovative methodologies in collaborative PE-CPD.

Participants included twenty-two researchers: nine Brazilians and thirteen internationals (including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, the U.S, and Turkey) (see Table 1). The researchers were selected from the national and international literature on collaborative practices (productive researchers in the area). Additionally, there was a personal dimension in this selection since the Editors knew the individuals as part of the PE-CPD academic community and their likely positive disposition towards such a project. The researchers received an email from the Editors (Luiza, Carla and Cecilia) being invited to participate in the Special Issue and in the research.

Table 1
Participants and countries (and Brazilian cities/states) represented

International researchers

Brazilian researchers

Dr. Alan Ovens (New Zealand) Dr. Carla Luguetti (Australia) Dr. Carla Vidoni (the US) Dr. Cassandra Iannucci (Australia) Dr. Cecília Borges (Canada) Dr. Deniz Hunuk (Turkey) Dr. João Costa (Ireland) Dr. Kevin Patton (the US) Dr. Tim Fletcher (Canada) Dr Paula Batista (Portugal) Dr. Melissa Parker (Ireland) Dr. Anne-Sophie Aubin (Canada) Dr. Stephanie Beni (Canada)

Dr. Heidi Jancer Ferreira (Poços de Caldas, Brazil) Ma. Janaína da Silva Ferreira (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) Dr. Luiz Sanches Neto (Fortaleza, Brazil) Dr. Luiza Lana Gonçalves (Campo Grande, Brazil) Dr. Luiz Gustavo Rufino (Campinas, Brazil) Dr. Marcos Godoi (Cuiaba, Brazil) Dr. Roraima Alves da Costa Filho (Rio Claro, Brazil) Dr. Roberto Tadeu Iaochite (Rio Claro, Brazil) Dr. Samuel de Souza Neto (Rio Claro, Brazil)

Source: the authors

Luiza idealised the co-designed Special Issue with the desire to heighten the exposure of the Brazilian academic community. Luiza is a Brazilian teacher educator and researcher who has investigated teachers’ CPD and learning communities in the last four years (GONÇALVES et al., 2022). Luiza invited Carla and Cecilia to co-author the Special Issue in the beginning of 2020. Carla is a Brazilian living in Australia teacher educator and researcher with experience in social justice and learning communities (LUGUETTI; OLIVER, 2021). Cecilia is a Brazilian living in Canada with extensive experience in research collaborative practices and PE-CPD. Luiza, Carla and Cecilia acted as facilitators in the co-design process. In addition, they also were participants in the small writing groups, writing papers for the Special Issue. Luiza was considered a Brazilian researcher in this study⁴ and Carla and Cecilia were international researchers due to their careers in Australia (three years) and Canada (20 years), respectively.

During the project, we as editors invited Ann MacPhail as a senior scholar in sport pedagogy to undertake the role of a critical friend (MACPHAIL; TANNEHILL; ATAMAN, 2021). Ann and Carla had previously published a paper where they explored the challenges experienced by Ann, as she attempted to enhance the internationalisation of her research activities (MACPHAIL; LUGUETTI, 2021). Thus, Ann’s interaction, questions and provocations made it possible to expand the understanding and elucidation of the circumstances in which the study was developed. The co-designed Special Issue was a way that Ann and Carla imagined the concept of solidarity in action they had previously advocated for (MACPHAIL; LUGUETTI, 2021).

The co-designed process started after one year of negotiating the Special Issue details with Movimento Journal and planning the initial actions in the project (see Table 2). During the project, five virtual meetings were held via Zoom with all the researchers. Before the first meeting, we asked the researchers to send a short biography presenting their line of research and the areas of interest of no more than 250 words (see Figure 1). We shared all bios with all researchers and asked them to select researchers they would like to work with and the themes they would like to work on in their papers. Based on the researchers’ answers, we grouped them into six small groups.

Table 2
Steps, dates and equivalent months

Steps	Deadlines	Equivalent months
Planning the Special Issue	Feb- 2020 to March 2021	First year
Invitation via e-mail	April 2021	Month 1
Short biography	May 2021	Month 2
Submission of group’s abstract	September 2021	Month 5
Submission of full papers (first draft for review)	March 2022	Month 11
AIESEP Symposium (presentation)	June 2022	Month 14
Final submission to editors	July 2022	Month 15
Translation of papers English/Portuguese	August 2022	Month 16
Final submission both versions	September 2022	Month 17

Source: the authors

Figure 1
Example of one of the bios

In the first virtual meeting, we explained the project to the researchers (e.g., mentioning the philosophy based on solidarity). In addition, we shared the six small groups created based on their answers in response to the bios and themes. We clarified that the process of creating groups considered the following criteria: (a) the themes they chose; (b) the researchers they wanted to work with (matches); (c) the need of mixing international and Brazilian researchers; (d) the domain of language (previously asked in a survey). We allocated breakout rooms to each group, members introduced themselves and brainstormed possibilities to work together. In total, six breakout rooms were hosted with three researchers in each. We suggested each group meet at least once before our second meeting. We also asked the researchers to send abstracts to the editorial team with initial ideas for their proposed collaborative work. Finally, we encouraged the groups to invite other researchers if they wished to. At the end, one researcher had to leave the project and five other researchers were added to the initial group.

In the second virtual meeting, we suggested the groups present their abstracts (1 slide) and engage in a dialogue with the whole group. In addition, we asked the researchers to share the main challenges and facilitators in the process (e.g., What was each group’s experience in the process of writing the abstract?). The third meeting refined the articles through collaborative discussions. We initially shared the ideas around submitting a symposium at an international conference and sought everybody’s input. Then, each small group shared what they did, followed by a collective discussion.

The fourth and fifth meetings were co-designed to collaboratively review all six papers (3 in each meeting) with the purpose to refine the papers through collaborative discussion. Each small group was assigned a paper to review, and they received the paper with a month to read and prepare a 10-minute presentation to share their reviews. After the reviewers’ presentations, we engaged in 10 minutes group discussion where all researchers could contribute to providing feedback on the papers. After the meeting, the researchers had two months to review feedback on their respective papers and return them back to the reviewers. As suggested by some of the researchers, the editors encouraged the researchers to send the corrections back to the group that reviewed the paper and seek their final input before submission.

3 INTERROGATING THE NOTION OF SOLIDARITY: THE EDITORS’ PERPECTIVES

We argue that the template of the co-designed Special Issue could be used by colleagues in other countries if grounded on solidarity. This section interrogates the notion of solidarity from the editors’ perspectives which resulted in three themes: (a) the need of heightening the exposure of the Brazilian academic community; (b) our collective care about language and communication; and (c) how in leading this project we rethought ourselves in different ways.

3.1 HEIGHTENING THE EXPOSURE OF THE BRAZILIAN ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

When this co-designed Special Issue started, there was a wish to acknowledge the knowledge production of Brazilian scholars as a way to heighten the exposure of the Brazilian academic community. As editors, we are Brazilians living and working outside Brazil in Global North countries. So, we recognised and experienced the lack of value and recognition of knowledge scholars from Global South countries face. We experienced the invisibility of the academic production of the Global South due to the hegemony of English (GUIMARÃES et al., 2020). We lived in sometimes two worlds in terms of knowledge sharing: the Brazilian world (Global South) and the Global North.

Luiza’s experience with the international context during her PhD was the catalyst to the concept of this Special Issue. In reading and experiencing collaborative practices in Brazil and internationally, Luiza noticed two worlds with rich knowledge but lacking dialogue across (and within) the two communities. It was considered necessary to create a project that would acknowledge and forefront the knowledge production of Brazilian scholars.

Our intention with this Special Issue was to initiate the dialogue between these two worlds (Brazil and Global North). We acknowledge that Brazil produces knowledge about collaborative PE-CPD practices, but it does not dialogue with the international context. For example, most of the Brazilian production about collaborative PE-CPD practices is in Portuguese and sometimes uses different keywords to define the body of research (e.g., action research, school placement). The Brazilian knowledge production is isolated in some sense due to the over value of publications in English.

As editors, we saw the Special Issue as the opportunity to create a space to share knowledge, particularly heightening the exposure to Brazilian knowledge production. We consistent repeated to ourselves and the whole Special Issue group that this project should challenge the social construction of colonised minds that believe the non-English speaker countries are less important or less knowledgeable.

3.2 CARING ABOUT LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

As editors, we shared a collective caring about language and communication. We knew that language would be an issue in this project. We were working with twenty-two researchers and English was the second or third language for many researchers (including the Editors). Additionally, we had eight scholars in our group that could not speak Portuguese and we knew that we would need to communicate mostly in English or translate all the time.

Even though we faced challenges in communicating, the researchers were keen to care about strategies to communicate. Some strategies were adopted to facilitate communication within the group included: simultaneous translation during some meetings, emails sent in both languages, and freedom to write the paper in researchers first language. This type of work was just hugely time-consuming, but essential to creating a caring and safe environment.

We also had to be open in sharing our emotions and feelings during the meetings. English was the second and third language for the editors and we were sharing our emotions and feelings in relation to the struggles with language. For example, Luiza shared her experiences of studying internationally without being proficient in English with one of the members that felt ashamed about their English skills. We asked for Carla’s Vidoni help (Brazilian living in the U.S. for more than twenty years) when we could not do the translations to our Brazilian colleagues. Some of our international colleagues also shared their feelings about not be able to speak other language than English. The strategies adopted and the demonstration of members vulnerability regarding language helped us to create a caring environment where diverse people can understand each other.

3.3 LEADING THE PROJECT AND RETHINKING OURSELVES

As editors, we realised how in leading and experiencing this project we rethought ourselves in different ways. More than facilitating the activities, we were also part of the small groups collaborating with Brazilians and international researchers. We were in three different groups and the action and reflection from this experience made us rethink ourselves in different ways. For example, we extended our understanding of how to collaborate with people. Luiza and Cecilia learned about themselves in this process, particularly by negotiating different perspectives in collaborative practices. They both learned how collaborative practices in academia can be hard and require patience. Even though they both had experience with collaborative practices, they were working at this time with researchers and the new context required them to be patient and develop new skills about how to collaborate.

Carla changed how she saw herself. Leading this project made Carla rethink her positionality. She became aware of her lack of knowledge of Brazilian reality, Brazilian theories and ways of thinking. Carla mentioned, “I was thinking about how I learned that I’m not a Brazilian because in working with Marcos and Luiz, I realised I don’t know about the Brazilian reality.” Carla realised herself to be more of an outsider (e.g. scholar from Global North) than an insider (Brazilian scholar) and it was different from what she expected or would like. In understanding her outside positionality, Carla reflected on how she might reinforce colonial power. Her lack of knowledge of the Brazilian reality reflected in her publications most in English and perhaps her colonised mind that should be challenged.

4 SOLIDARITY IN ACTION: FINAL THOUGHTS

The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she [or them] can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself or [themselves] the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she or [them] does commit himself or herself or [themselves], within history, to fight at their side (FREIRE, 1987, p.13).

In this paper, we offer a template for colleagues who wish to co-design a Special Issue that interrogates the notion of solidarity. As Freire pronounced, we wish that we could enter into dialogue in the struggle for liberation. As Brazilians, we were aware of the social inequities in academia and structures of oppression. We did not want to see people bring them a message of ‘salvation,’ but create a space through dialogue where we could fight not for the people, but only with the people (FREIRE, 1987). We sought to propose a way of organising a Special Issue that recognises that internationalisation is a ‘moral practice’. We suggested a way to intervene or act toward solidarity. Freire (1987) described that discovering ourselves to be an oppressor may cause considerable anguish, but it does not necessarily lead to solidarity with the oppressed. The oppressor is in solidarity with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labour - “when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love”. (FREIRE,1987, p. 35).

Drawing on Freire’s concept of solidarity, we discussed how our genuine intention in this project was to forefront the Brazilian knowledge production. This experience was never about recolonising our minds and practices. However, constantly we had to force ourselves as editors to move away from the idea of ‘othering’ Brazilian researchers. We entered this project considering Brazilians and international researchers as co-constructors and agents of knowledge (DONÁ, 2007), but was just by living this experience that we truly notice the richness of dialogue and solidarity in order to contest colonisation in internationalisation of research. We did not want international researchers to ‘give Brazilians’ voice’, ‘save them’, or ‘internationalise them’ reproducing how acritical international researchers have spoken ‘of’ and ‘for’ Others (DE MARTINI UGOLOTTI; CAUDWELL, 2022; FINE, 1994). For Fine (1994, p. 71), research is always implicated in the Self-Other hyphen: ‘when we opt to engage in a social struggle with those who have been exploited and subjugated, we work the hyphen, revealing far more about ourselves, and far more about the structures of Othering’. We invited researchers to join us in working on the hyphen (FINE, 1994), exercising reflexivity in terms of our own positionality and assumptions.

The ethic of care emerged as a way to make sure we were hearing most of the voices despite the diversity of languages. We collectively developed strategies to include all participants as much as we could, and it was timing-consuming but still rewarded. We shared our vulnerabilities and it created a space where we believe the researchers care for each other (HOOKS, 1994). Caring interactions between Brazilians and international researchers provided a unique culturally responsive approach in which power relations were revealed. We discuss how in leading and experiencing this project we rethought ourselves in different ways. We explored collaborative practices in academia at a level we have never experienced before. It taught us how to be better listeners and develop the patience to negotiate diverse perspectives. According to Freire (1987), those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly and it requires a profound rebirth. Only through ‘comradeship with the oppressed can the converts understand their characteristic ways of living and behaving, which in diverse moments reflect the structure of domination’ (FREIRE, 1987, p.15).

Finally, we believe this co-designed Special Issue could be extended to other contexts in order to present a possibility to put solidarity into action. We suggest that the structure of meetings based on dialogue and reflection could be implemented in other contexts as a way of co-create knowledge and internationalising research. We consider solidarity as the root of the internationalisation of research. In a growing neoliberal logic where research includes a highly competitive agenda and rankings with dominated models and concepts of the Global North (FINARDI; GUIMARÃES; MENDES, 2020; GUIMARÃES et al., 2020), this project remembered us what critical internacionalisation means. We did not engage in this journey for profit maximization, research control or colonise the Global South. We engaged with the intention of the struggle with people and the will to give and rethink ourselves. We invite other researchers to do the same.

• 1
  The liberal context means the increased focus on control and market-driven strategies in tertiary education by implementing narrow, measurable indicators such as performance standards, students’ evaluations, and benchmarks (GIROUX, 2011). This accountability turn has had a serious impact on teacher educators and researchers.
• 2
  Global South does not denote a geographical location, but rather gives visibility to parts of the world that have been historically dominated often considered inferior by the Global North. Global South is used to describe a grouping of countries along socio-economic and political characteristics which were oppressed by the injustices caused by the main modes of domination.
• 3
  The idea of ‘othering’ is crucial for understanding the barriers to entering in solidarity with the oppressed. The oppressed in this context are the Global South countries. In othering people, we dehumanise members of our society. As researchers, we should interrupt othering and engage with people.
• 4
  Although Luiza currently works at Monash University, she was considered a Brazilian researcher in this project due to her job at Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul until the nearly end of this project.
• FUNDING
  This study was not supported by funding sources.

RESEARCH ETHICS

This research project followed the Resolutions 466/12 and 510/2016 of Brazil’s National Health Council.

EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Alex Branco Fraga*, Elisandro Schultz Wittizorecki*, Mauro Myskiw*, Raquel da Silveira*

*Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Escola de Educação Física, Fisioterapia e Dança, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ANTELO, Absael. Internationalization of research. Journal of International Education and Leadership, v. 2, n. 1, p. 6, 2012.
• CAHILL, Caitlin; RIOS-MOORE, Indra; THREATTS, Tiffany. Different eyes/open eyes: Community-based participatory action research. In: CAMMAROTA, Julio; FINE, Michelle (ed.). Revolutionizing education: youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. p. 89-124.
• CHABOT, Sean. Love and revolution. Critical Sociology, v. 34, n. 6, p. 803-828, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920508095100
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920508095100
• DE MARTINI UGOLOTTI, Nicola; CAUDWELL, Jayne. Leisure and forced migration: lived lived in asylum systems. In: DE MARTINI UGOLOTTI, Nicola; CAUDWELL, Jayne (ed.). Leisure and Forced Migration: lived lived in asylum systems. New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. p. 1-18.
• DONÁ, Giorgia. The microphysics of participation in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, v. 20, n. 2, p. 210-229, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem013
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem013
• FINARDI, Kyria Rebeca; GUIMARÃES, Felipe F.; MENDES, Ana Rachel. Reflecting on Brazilian Higher Education (Critical) Internationalization. International Journal of Higher Education, v. 6, p. 1-23, 2020.
• FINE, Michelle. Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In: DENZIN, Norman; LINCOLN, Yvonne (ed.). Handbook of qualitative research California: Sage Publications, 1994. p. 70-82.
• FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia do Oprimido 17. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987.
• GAZTAMBIDE-FERNÁNDEZ, Rubén A. Decolonization and the pedagogy of solidarity. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, v. 1, n. 1, p. 41-67, 2012.
• GIROUX, Henry A. On critical pedagogy New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011.
• GONÇALVES, Luiza Lana; PARKER, Melissa; LUGUETTI, Carla; CARBINATTO, Michele. The facilitator’s role in supporting physical education teachers’ empowerment in a professional learning community. Sport, Education and Society, v. 27, n. 3, p. 272-285, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1825371 Accessed on: Jun. 20, 2022.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1825371
• GUIMARÃES, Felipe Furtado et al The mission statements of the federal universities and the projection of internationalization in Brazil. System, v. 94, 2020.
• HOOKS, Bell. Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994.
• KHOO, Su-Ming et al Moving from interdisciplinary research to transdisciplinary educational ethics: bridging epistemological differences in researching higher education internationalization(s). European Educational Research Journal, v. 18, n. 2, p. 181-199, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118781223
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118781223
• KNIGHT, Jane. Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In: DEARDORFF, Darla K. et al (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education [S.l.]: Sage, 2012. p. 27-42.
• LUGUETTI, Carla; OLIVER, Kim L. A transformative learning journey of a teacher educator in enacting an activist approach in Physical Education Teacher Education. Curriculum Journal, v. 32, n. 1, p. 118-135, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.81
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.81
• MACPHAIL, Ann; LUGUETTI, Carla. Nurturing solidarity: considering the internationalization of research activities in kinesiology as a moral practice. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, v. 5, n. 2, p. 56-67, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2020.1866469
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2020.1866469
• MACPHAIL, Ann; TANNEHILL, Deborah; ATAMAN, Rebecca. The role of the critical friend in supporting and enhancing professional learning and development. Professional Development in Education, p. 1-14, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1879235
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1879235
• ROMANI-DIAS, Marcello; CARNEIRO, Jorge; BARBOSA, Aline dos Santos. Internationalization of higher education institutions: the underestimated role of faculty. International Journal of Educational Management, v. 33, n. 2, p. 300-316, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2017-0184
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2017-0184
• RUMBLEY, Laura E.; ALTBACH, Philip G.; REISBERG, Liz. Internationalization within the Higher Education Context. In: DEARDORFF, Darla K. et al (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education [S.l.]: Sage, 2012. p. 1-536.
• TAYLOR, John. Toward a strategy for internationalisation: lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, v. 8, n. 2, p. 149-171, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260827
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260827
• TUHIWAI SMITH, Linda. Decolonizing methodologies 2. ed. London: Zed Books, 2012.
• WOLDEGIYORGIS, Ayenachew A.; PROCTOR, Douglas; DE WIT, Hans. Internationalization of research: key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, v. 22, n. 2, p. 161-176, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804
• ZEMBYLAS, Michalinos. Love as ethico-political practice: Inventing reparative pedagogies of aimance in “disjointed” times. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, v. 14, n. 1, p. 23-38, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2016.1277572
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2016.1277572

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Feb 2023
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  15 Oct 2022
• Accepted
  21 Oct 2022
• Published
  15 Dec 2022