The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)International | Intercultural | Interdisciplinary

Find us online
iafor.org

iaforjapan

iafor

iafor.official

iaformedia

support@iafor.org

Where will your ideas
take you next?

iafor.org

Contents
4

Executive Summary6

1. Introduction

11

2. Arts and Humanities at the Helm: From ‘God’ Back to ‘Human’12

2.1. Keeping the Arts and Humanities Alive15

2.2. Nature, Humans, and the Humanities

16

2.3. Humanities at the Margin18

3. Migration, (Peace) Education 101, and Global Citizenship19

3.1. Refugee and Migrant Education

21

3.2. Educating for Peace 101

24

3.3. The Forum: Global Citizenship and Caring for the Marginalised

29

3.4. Rethinking the Purpose of Education

31

4. Artificial Intelligence as Humanity’s Ally

33

4.1. ‘Delving’ into Education with AI

37

4.2. AI for Sustainable Healthcare and Ageing

39

4.3. Democratic Governance of AI

40

5. Conclusion

42

Conference Networking and Cultural Events

44

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024 Key Statistics

47

Conference Photo Gallery

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

3

Executive Summary
The IAFOR European Conference Series gathered scholars and professionals
from around the globe to London to address pressing issues within Education,
Language Learning, the Arts & Humanities, and Gerontology. Speakers at theconference highlighted enduring issues of power and inequality, particularly
as they manifest in global conflicts and the marginalisation of vulnerable
groups today. A variety of topics emerged in response to these widespreadand felt issues, with a particularly strong emphasis on Artificial Intelligence (AI),particularly the ethics surrounding its infrastructure, implementation, and access.
The need for democratic oversight in the development and deployment of AI
to avoid reinforcing existing social and economic disparities was a key point
in keynote and delegate presentations alike. Discussions also highlighted therole of education today, particularly in the Arts & Humanities, emphasisingthese disciplines as essential for fostering ethical and responsible citizenship.
Concerns were also raised about the ongoing defunding of these disciplines
and the potential consequences for critical thinking and societal engagement
due to their increasing absence. To further engage with these issues, the IAFOR
International Academic Board announced four key themes that will run throughIAFOR conferences and shape academic discussions over the next five years ofprogramming (2025-2029): Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Humanity and
Human Intelligence, Global Citizenship, and Education for Peace and Leadership.

The role of the Arts & Humanities in addressing the broader societal challenges
was also a focal point, with discussions on how these disciplines can foster amore profound understanding of human behaviour, cultural diversity, and ethicalleadership. The decline in funding for these fields was criticised as a threat tocultivating the critical thinking and empathy necessary for addressing global
issues such as climate change, social injustice, political conflict, and technologicaldisparity. Furthermore, the conference raised awareness on the importance ofredefining the purpose of education to embrace uncertainty and foster creativity.
The discussions advocated for an educational approach that encourages curiosityand lifelong learning, challenging the current trend toward standardisationand specialisation. This approach was proposed as essential for developing
responsible global citizens who can engage with the complexities of the modern
world.

4

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

Migration and refugee education were also highlighted as significant concerns,
with discussions centred on how middle powers can utilise niche diplomacy to
influence global governance and improve educational access for displaced andexcluded populations. The conference highlighted the transformative potentialof education in integrating refugees into their host societies, thereby shifting thenarrative from refugees as a ‘problem’ to recognising them as an ‘opportunity’for societal growth and development. The Forum, a moderated open-dialogue
format of discussion newly implemented into IAFOR’s conference plenaries,
weaves the conference’s focal points with the delegates’ view on global issues,
with the focus on ethics and care in global citizenship. The discussion addressed
the challenge and the potential solutions for educators as well as policymakers in
defining and fostering global citizenship.

The intersection of AI and human intelligence was explored with a focus on how
AI, while powerful, lacks the creativity and ethical judgement inherent in human
intelligence. The necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration in AI development
was a key point to ensure that AI technologies are inclusive, ethical, and serve
societal needs, particularly through the inclusion of the Arts & Humanities in its
ongoing development and range of use. The discussion also emphasised theimportance of critical and creative literacy in education, discussed as a way toempower students to navigate and critically engage with AI in meaningful ways.
The conference also addressed the challenges of an ageing population andthe role of AI in healthcare, particularly in supporting healthy ageing and social
care. While acknowledging the potential of assistive robots and AI in enhancing
healthcare, the speakers cautioned against over-reliance on technology,
advocating for a balanced approach that integrates human compassion withtechnological advancements. The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration
between AI developers and healthcare professionals was stressed to ensure thattechnology serves to enhance, rather than replace, human care.

The IAFOR European Conferences in London reinforced the importance ofinternational and intercultural collaboration, as well as an interdisciplinary
approach in addressing the complex challenges facing humanity today. The
discussions called for a rethinking of our social, economic, and political systems,
advocating for an inclusive approach that values diverse perspectives and fosters
global citizenship. IAFOR’s commitment to providing a platform for these critical
dialogues was reaffirmed, with a focus on continuing to create spaces where allvoices can contribute to shaping a sustainable and equitable future.

5

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

1. Introduction
IAFOR’s European Conferences in London were held in partnership with University
College London (UCL) and Birkbeck, and was co-hosted with UCL, with which IAFOR
has a long-standing history of collaboration. Featuring an open and interdisciplinary
two days of plenary sessions, 672 delegates from 84 countries joined this intellectual
exchange. In his welcome address, Dr Joseph Haldane, Chairman of IAFOR, alumnusof the University of London, and now an Honorary Professor of UCL, spoke ofthe importance and aptness of hosting our conference in this city, but also within
the unique intellectual space offered by a ‘great university’ which has placed ‘theinternational, the intercultural and the interdisciplinary at the heart of its mission.’
Watch on YouTube

6

In her welcome address on behalf of the university, Professor Alison Koslowski,
Pro-Provost of Equity and Inclusion at UCL addressed the mutual aims and mission
between the two institutions. Both UCL and IAFOR are dedicated to encouraging
interdisciplinary discussion, facilitating intercultural awareness, and promotinginternational exchange. UCL was the first university in England to welcome students
from diverse cultural, religious, and social backgrounds, ‘founded on the notionthat it is possible to live together well and to believe radically different things,’
Professor Koslowski explained. IAFOR is actively looking towards fostering the same
inclusive environment and promoting UCL’s beliefs within our own organisation’s
own programming repertoire, offering spaces of academic dialogue and debate
where all voices are elevated and heard. According to Professor Koslowski, ‘We all
have preconceived ideas which can feed into prejudice of one kind or another. Oneof the ways in which we can work to notice these preconceptions is to experience
the challenge of finding ourselves in dialogue with people from other backgrounds
and places, such as this conference permits.’ She also commended IAFOR for its
proactive efforts in creating a safe environment for international, intercultural, andinterdisciplinary exchange. IAFOR looks forward to a continued collaboration with
UCL, SOAS, Birkbeck University of London, ECPD, and all other institutions who share
this common mission.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

Watch on YouTube

IAFOR Provost, Professor Anne Boddington began the conference’s academic
programme by citing how Plato’s views on power ring true even after centuries ofhuman and societal transformation: those who tell and claim the stories, control
the world; and the stories we are told and tell are the flesh on the bones of power.
The fact that humans are still facing discrimination and exclusion based on power
struggles even after numerous transformations of societal, economic, and politicalstructures may signal that the instinct to overpower others is deeply ingrained within
the definition of ‘human’. While we may struggle with defining what it means to be
human, we pay little attention to who has the ability to decide what it means to be
human. Throughout human history, power comes from stories that are heard, but
Provost Boddington directed us to consider a critical question: who tells these stories
today?
Power injustices manifest themselves in all levels of human activity. Today, global
conflicts, resource disputes, natural crises, and cultural, ethnic, or religious tensions
often result in catastrophic consequences for the marginalised ‘other’, dependingon who is telling the story. Migration exemplifies this, with 120 million displaced
people on the move in Europe alone. Professor Brendan Howe explained in his
keynote speech that migrancy of marginalised peoples results in the massive loss ofhomes and educational opportunities for these demographics. On the other hand,
as Professor Alfonso J. García-Osuna outlined in his keynote presentation, rampant
consumerism drives ecological overshoot, putting humanity in conflict with nature
as well. The marginalised ‘other’ is usually the first to feel nature’s wrath, while thosein power and ‘safe’ within their robust infrastructure fail to understand how natural
catastrophes will soon knock on their door too. Dr Neelam Raina further discussed
how the marginalised ‘other’– specifically indigenous people, people living on
geographical margins, and women – are excluded from academic, economic, andpolitical systems, despite holding precious tacit knowledge, capable of contributing
to and innovating those systems.
Questions of power and democracy, such as access to knowledge, are further
exacerbated by the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the advancement oftechnology. This is one of the reasons why IAFOR maintains an open-access policyon all generated knowledge either through conferences or journal articles, striving
for the democratisation of knowledge and the creation of an inclusive community.
It is also one of the key reasons why IAFOR selected the theme of Technology andArtificial Intelligence as an emerging issue to be discussed among our community
members.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

7

Those who have easy access to and control AI control what it learns and in which
direction technology evolves. The marginalised ‘other’, people who do not evenhave access to data and the internet, and possess different forms of knowledge andperspectives, never get an opportunity to be heard or included in the algorithm.
Dr Cian O’Donovan argues that users of AI are also at the mercy of the developers’
world views, as they become increasingly dependent on technology without
understanding how it works. Older generations particularly suffer from this ambiguity,
while younger generations do not realise how their unique worldviews, autonomy,
and creativity are slowly being erased.
It is time to rethink our ‘broken system’, as Dr Raina stated. Before we attempt todefine what it means to be ‘human’, we need to look at what humans do and how
they do it. The definition of ‘human’ will depend on whether what humans do isobjectively positive or negative. As the plenaries highlighted, we do not have to
be at the mercy of our deeply ingrained instinct for survival. Our economic systemneeds to be rearranged so that it does not promote uncontrolled consumerism
harming humans and nature. Our educational system needs to be rethought, throughtargeted questions such as what is the purpose of education, who does it serve,
what is knowledge, and how is knowledge created? Our political systems need tochange from having too much emphasis on nationalism to more emphasis on how
our communities are part of a larger socio-economic and ecological system. Dr Raina
concluded that individuals who comprise society and create social systems need toreevaluate their behaviour, how they approach the marginalised, what it means to
be a responsible citizen, and how they contribute to the greater good of humanity.
These are issues raised around the idea and education of global citizenship, which
IAFOR identifies as another key theme to be addressed in our series of conferences,
especially through the open-dialogue format discussions of The Forum.

8

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

A recurring note across the keynote speeches and panel discussions was an allusion
to the fact that inclusiveness, respect, and cooperation are much more beneficial tohumanity than segregation, exclusion, and undemocratic decision-making. Power
does not come only from the oppression of the ‘other’; power can also come frompositive collective efforts and ideas. Interdisciplinarity can lead to innovative solutions
otherwise obstructed by limited perspectives and can in turn drive responsible
technological advancement. The same is true for tacit knowledge and people
on the margin contributing to sustainable development. Succumbing to what
keynote speaker Dr Marcelo Staricoff coined as the ‘joy of not knowing’ approachto learning and inquiry and embracing uncertainty by being open to other pointsof view can birth new ideas and stimulate research and development. Democratic
governance of AI – including global knowledge sharing, allowing access to physicalinfrastructure, equitable decision-making power, and transparency in AI governanceand development of AI – can lead to a wider range of benefits for all people andnature. Seeing humans as part of nature, co-existing with other living organisms, andnot as a ‘god’ will instil more respect for the planet and ensure sustainable practices,argued keynote speaker Professor García-Osuna. As he raised questions around whatmakes us human and how humanity relates to our social, economic, and politicalsurroundings, Professor García-Osuna spoke directly to another key theme identified
as important by IAFOR: Humanity and Human Intelligence.
Professor García-Osuna continued that in order to reach the understanding thattogether we have better chances of survival, the instinct so central to humannature as individuals and as a species, Professor García-Osuna noted that the roleof education is of utmost importance. He made a plea for the central and crucial
importance of the Arts & Humanities in this education. The Arts & Humanities haveseen their funding significantly slashed across many institutions around the world,
yet these subjects play a prominent role in cultivating an ethical and responsible
mindset within future generations. In Professor García-Osuna’s words, without the
combination of creativity, social responsibility, conflict resolution skills, respect,and cultural appreciation: ‘The STEM disciplines just feed the capitalist system of
production and consumption, not adding ‘real value to the human experience.’ It isarguably a key responsibility of higher education institutions to promote debates oncontested narratives; to reflect, act, and improve on justice, equity, and humanity tomaintain an uneasy but essential peace. For this, we need to redefine what ‘peace’ or‘global citizenship’ mean, and what such a curriculum looks like.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

9

Our invited speakers have offered several solutions to how we can foster morecollaborative efforts and distil the good parts of being human from exclusion,
discrimination, fear, and hatred. From embracing uncertainty and abolishing the fearof the unknown to creating socially responsible and active citizens on and off campus,
education plays a large role in fixing our ‘broken systems’. Reinvesting in education,
especially the Arts & Humanities, is essential. Valuing the process of knowledge
creation instead of the final product of technological output, avoiding dependency
on technology, and adopting a proactive rather than a reactive mindset to technology
and AI will also help us understand our ever changing relationship with technology
better. Replacing nationalism with a more global mindset will lead to a repositioningof the human within nature and the wider socio-economic and political system.
The academic programme during the London conference offered an interdisciplinarylens into a narrative that weaves together human behaviour, peace, global
citizenship, and the role of technology and education in these processes. Many ofthese issues revolved around the question of what it means to be a global citizen.
In keeping with the IAFOR mission, we hosted our second Forum during theplenaries, centred around the wider issues addressed within the London programme.
In its design, the open discussion format of The Forum underlines the importanceof hearing insights and drawing upon delegates’ experience and expertise, theirvarious national, cultural and disciplinary backgrounds to address the topics at
hand, gathering their insights on questions of exclusion, discrimination, ethics, andcare within global citizenship and peace education. The Forum, its format, and its
participants will further the integration of our forthcoming conference themes by
incorporating the ‘international, intercultural, interdisciplinary’ of IAFOR’s conference
programme and its delegate network.

10

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

2. The Arts & Humanities at the Helm: From‘God’ Back to ‘Human’
Humanity is currently fighting battles on a multitude of fronts while it struggles todefine what it means to be human. From natural crises and ecological overshootdue to a flawed economic system of overconsumption, to exclusion and physicalattack on the marginalised, to an intellectual struggle between human and artificial
intelligence, Professor García-Osuna described humans as a self-proclaimed ‘god’
slowly walking towards his own demise. In our struggle for survival, an instinct that isso central to our nature, we redefined what it means to be human: to be human, in
this context, means to overpower others and nature itself, having one’s ideas heard,
and being entitled to certain things. Despite humans having drafted a Declaration of
Human Rights to be universally applicable to all, since ‘human’ means to have power,rights are for those with power. In Thucydidean words, ‘the strong do what they canand the weak suffer what they must.’
Professor García-Osuna argued that the Arts & Humanities have traditionally had
the effect of taming our animalistic nature and preventing us from falling prey to thepassion of power. As their name implies, the Arts & Humanities remind us what itmeans to be human by teaching cultural understanding, acceptance of the ‘other’, acuriosity for other people’s ways of expression and worldview, peaceful negotiation
skills, and how to engage with society. They also are able to occupy contested spacesthat science cannot, through indirect ways of influencing politics with more nuanced
approaches. The Arts & Humanities allow us to reevaluate our biases and social
behaviour by positioning the human within a wider ecological, socioeconomic, andpolitical system – not above it.
Yet, it is this very discipline that is currently heavily defunded and labelled as‘frivolous’. Any knowledge that does not translate to monetary profit seems uselessto those driving the market and those who benefit from it. A common point in all
three keynotes on the role of the Arts & Humanities was that by devaluating thediscipline, we are limiting our chances of fighting against a limited focus on theimmediate locality, nationalism, the rise of right-wing politics, and climate change,
and the marginalisation of the weak, those deemed ‘uncreative’, and nonautonomous
young generations. Professor García-Osuna urged that it is crucial for humanists tobecome more vocal and stand their ground against the corporate mindset; the Arts
& Humanities must be repositioned within the educational system, for they are crucial
to the redefinition of the ‘human’ if the human wants to survive and live with dignity.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen202411

2.1. Keeping the Arts & Humanities Alive

Watch on YouTube

Speaking on how the Arts & Humanities are currently under attack, Professor Donald
E. Hall of Binghamton University, United States, presented how various factors
can lead to the decline of a university in ‘perilous times’ like today. In the keynote
presentation, ‘How to Destroy a University’, Professor Hall gave an intimate
example of how the intellectual freedom of the social sciences and other fields ofscience is under attack in the United States by those in institutional power: decisionmakers questioning their ‘value’ and place in higher education.
Professor Hall led us to the overarching question of what the ‘purpose’ of higher
education is, highlighting from his own personal experience how the social sciences
opened his eyes and mind to the global community of ideas and provided a way
out of the unlivable life he saw around him. He stressed that the role of educational
institutions should not be just to train students in a mechanical track, but to takeyoung adults on a ‘journey of consciousness’ by broadening and deepening theirunderstanding of the complexities of the world. He argued that the university as an
institution should enhance the student’s ability to see the world from a variety ofviewpoints and be aware of the diverse needs of others, growing their potential tointervene in pressing crises around the world. In other words, the role of education,
as exercised within universities, should be the creation of responsible and active
global citizens.
Indeed, the Arts & Humanities have always had the goal of teaching ‘diverse
viewpoints’ and how to accept the diversity of perspectives, thoughts, and cultures.
Citing Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method, Professor Hall highlighted how the‘confrontation of perspectives’ drives change in the world and helps us learn fromeach other about our own limitations, mistakes, and selves.

12

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

In the United States, however, diversity offices are being shut down and discussions
on differences on campus and in the classroom are being banned. This, Professor
Hall argued, is opposing the learning process Gadamer proposed, as it limits thediverse perspectives and ‘kills the generation of new knowledge.’ What the Arts
& Humanities do is challenge the concept of static truth, adorned by would-be
autocrats and political and religious fundamentalism. Right-wing politicians tend tonot believe in the worth of reading fiction, studying foreign languages, or pursuingart. This leads to budget cuts in these fields of study helmed by right-wing politicians,
whose anti-humanities agenda mirrors their anti-science agenda, such as the belief inan univocal, monostatic truth.
For example, West Virginia University, a university aiming to be a powerhouse inresearch and teaching, faced a severe budget cut that led the university to fire all of
its tenured language professors, eliminate its art history programme, and halt over
100 other faculty lines. The Arts & Humanities faced the most severe budget cut
in this university, for their contributions were viewed as ‘frivolous’. Paired with thedecreasing population and subsequently low enrollment numbers, fewer optionsof study have also led students to decide not to attend WVU in particular, opting
instead for an institution offering Arts & Humanities tracks. What is worse, Professor
Hall said, is that WVU is being used as a model of how other states could and should
do with their universities, which will be the ‘harbinger of the horror’ across the UnitedStates. Students and faculties in these fields are suffering from the consequences of
the university’s ‘inept and criminally neglectful’ administrative leadership.
Professor Hall highlighted that humanists should remind people that the Humanities
and Language Studies are vocationally useful. What we teach in these fields helps
increase employability by enabling students to see the world and generate newknowledge in creative ways. This, he argued, will help in addressing the students’and parents’ anxiety over their employability if the Arts & Humanities track is
pursued. Professor Hall urged us, the ‘privileged’ holders of positions in higher
education, to use our space in the academy to practise what Foucault called the‘specific intellectual’, creating incremental changes by pushing for these issues
relentlessly against those who are anti-science, anti-art, and anti-diversity. ‘Silence
equals death,’ said Professor Hall as he encouraged delegates to spread the valuesof internationalism, interculturalism, and interdisciplinarity back at their homeinstitutions.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

13

2.2. Nature, Humans, and the Humanities

Watch on YouTube

Human beings see themselves in conflict with each other, but they are also in conflictwith nature itself. This is the point of view that the ‘profit-driven world’ has created. In
his keynote speech ‘Humanities at the Helm: Mobilizing Scholars to Confront thePlanetary Climate Crisis’, Professor Alfonso García-Osuna from Hofstra University,
United States, discussed how our political and economic systems have repositioned
the ‘human’ from being a part of an ecosystem to becoming its ‘god’. This was theunfortunate work of the Humanities themselves, and so, it is the Humanities thatshould correct humanity’s course before we drive our planet to ecological overshootand humanity to its extinction.
To demonstrate the importance of the Arts & Humanities and true wisdom, Professor
García-Osuna opened his speech with a quote from the stoic philosopher Seneca,
who made the distinction between wisdom and ingenuity. ‘Ingenuity [science]
allowed man to know and control his physical environment, while wisdom allowed
him to do it with an ethical purpose,’ he said. The problem is we chose to put morevalue on control, dominance, and power over ethics and sustainability throughout
modernity, particularly in regard to our physical environment. In Professor GarcíaOsuna’s words,‘Now that our planet is roasting while we continue to shoot at eachother, we as Humanists must enter the battlefield in the name of reason, assuming
control over these spaces that science has been unable to enter.’ But how did we end
up in this predicament?
Education has placed a lot of emphasis on the positive effects of the Humanities
such as the Enlightenment, which sparked intellectual curiosity and the advancementof science and technology. Conversely, nobody really talks about the dark side of
the Humanities. While Western scientific thinking has given humans the ability toquestion the static truths of religious fundamentalism, it has replaced it with anotherstatic truth: that there must be an entity above everything else. Professor GarcíaOsuna elaborated that the Humanities placed the human at the forefront, ‘that is tosay, historically, a place reserved for a god. They replaced the gods with us.’ With
the gods marginalised and the human brought to the forefront, nature was no longer
sacred. The economic growth seen since the Industrial Revolution never questioned
sustainability, uneven or unequal growth. In this way, we gradually sparked a war withnature, and today humans are fighting climate change.
‘Even though we recognise that as humans we will perish if we overtake all otherorganisms on the planet, we haven’t done much to find a solution,’ said Professor
García-Osuna. Perhaps, this is because we realise that we would need to erase apart of ourselves that makes us ‘human’. We would have to erase the instinct tooverpower others, which is deeply ingrained within the definition of ‘human’ and tied
to our survival instinct. Because of this, Professor García-Osuna doubted that humans
will ever be able to overcome their natural desire for power and overconsumption;‘Evidently, preservation requires consumption, and consumption requires violence toother organisms. Higher levels of violence improve the odds of sustaining life as themore you kill, the more you eat and stockpile.’ It is more likely that we will continue
over consuming, hoarding resources for leaner times, and using violence to securesurvival.
While we may not be able to change the core of what makes us human, our natural
instincts, or our passions, we can still attempt to tame them. Professor García-

14

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

Osuna identified tribalism and nationalism as the main obstacle to irresponsible
consumption and violence. ‘The problem is that societal wellbeing is understood as
a local necessity. Beyond the borders of the imagined community of the tribe, be
it a municipality, a state, or a nation, that necessity gradually dissipates’. Professor
García-Osuna argued that our socioeconomic and political systems are designed insuch a way as to ensure the survival of our tribe or nation, and education reinforces
this thinking pattern. This thought was echoed by some delegates at The Forum
discussion, who argued that many today feel unattached to concepts such as
global citizenship and worry more about the rising cost of living and threats to their
immediate survival.
Professor García-Osuna questioned whether we could re-introduce the Arts &Humanities in a way that we can overcome ‘locality’ – viewing and acting within
our own immediate interests – and sensitise ourselves to the issues of marginalised
people and the earth itself. He encouraged us to recommit to the concept ofsupranationalism and supranational institutions that ‘encourage loyalty to something
greater than the nation or community that encourage people to think of the planet as
their homeland.’The Arts & Humanities, along with the educators and academics who teach them,
may not be able to change national policy, as Professor Hall mentioned in his keynote
presentation, but they possess a different kind of power, said Professor García-Osuna.
According to him, humanists’ main purpose is to generate and analyse novels,
poems, paintings, films, sculpture, or theatre. These are areas that stimulate criticalthinking and influence our socioeconomic and political behaviour. As humanists,‘we have jurisdiction over much of the culture that society consumes. It means wecontrol the very influential component of society’s perceived moral constitution. We
command the narrative through which society looks at itself,’ he argued. Quoting
Carolyn Levine, ‘humanist thought can help us organise ourselves into collective
forms that could truly generate meaningful structural change in our political systems.’
Such power can convince political representatives to pay more attention to theenvironment or be voted out of office. In this indirect way, Professor García-Osunaconcluded that the Arts & Humanities can occupy spaces that are inaccessible to the
Sciences and revolutionise thinking in a peaceful way.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

15

2.3. Humanities at the Margin

Watch on YouTube

Another perfect example of how the Arts & Humanities can occupy spaces that
other sciences cannot or are unsafe to enter was presented by Dr Neelam Rainaof Middlesex University, United Kingdom. Her keynote speech titled ‘Invisiblised
and Erased Narratives: Essential Views from the Margins’ talked about how weare deliberately erasing and invisiblising a lot of people, things, and solutions in
the name of the institutions that we put our faith in; ‘institutions that have failedus.’ Dr Raina urged us to inquire about and include the marginalised and their tacitknowledge in new ways that do not necessarily conform to institutionalised processes
and systems.
The middle ground is shrinking, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, andviolence has been on the rise worldwide. The middle ground, usually a safe
space where people of different views and values come together to discuss theirdifferences, is also shrinking; institutions have stopped providing such spaces for
dialogue, and in the few cases where dialogue takes place, it is polarised, explained
Dr Raina. Groups of people that are marginalised are either facing violence silently or
are being excluded from our current socioeconomic and political systems altogether.
With only limited dialogue and reflection taking place, those marginalised voices do
not even get a chance to be heard. According to Dr Raina, people at the margins–those being geographical, religious, or educational in nature, or identity-, access-toresources-, and gender-related –often possess a specialised kind of knowledge andcontribute to the economic system in ways that have not been institutionalised and,
therefore, not accepted.
However, it is this tacit knowledge that is our promising future, argued Dr Raina. Thisis a kind of knowledge that does not come from earning a degree, but through years
of practice and an orally transmitted tradition from generation to generation. These
practices have shown time and time again how resilient they can be, as Dr Raina
illustrated later through her case study. Here, resilience is viewed ‘not as definedby the West, but resilience as unfragile, anti-fragile, unbreakable,’ proclaimed Dr
Raina. The Arts & Humanities are the disciplines that show curiosity for and study thistacit knowledge, usually through entry points and ways that remain closed to other

16

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

disciplines studying formalised socioeconomic and political systems. ‘The study oftacit knowledge allows us to have difficult conversations that we could otherwise nothave’ said Dr Raina.
To elucidate how important the contribution of the Arts & Humanities is to dialogue
and conflict resolution, Dr Raina used the case study of her project in the Kashmir
region of India, where women in two culturally divided communities are among
the most marginalised of the marginalised. These women are firstly marginalised
geographically, as their communities reside deep in the mountains with noconnectivity or infrastructure. They are also marginalised in terms of gender, following
a patriarchal society in which they are not allowed to speak about politics. Then,
there is also a religious dichotomy between Hindu and Muslim women, avoiding
each other for religiopolitical reasons. It is these women that disciplines such as thepolitical sciences or economics cannot reach. Politics is such a contested topic in thisregion that ‘talking about politics will get you into trouble. However, the conversation
about culture, humanities, art, heritage, and tradition goes down very well. People
will come out of their house to talk to you,’ said Dr Raina.
‘There is an entry point that the Arts & Humanities presents to us that allows us tonavigate spaces that are not open to dialogue; spaces that are fragile because of
their politics of identity,’ Dr Raina claimed. She went on to explain how her casestudy featured a project inquiring about these women’s arts and crafts practices
which brought these two communities together in a shared room, sparking endlessconversations with each other about embroidery and crafting, seemingly erasing
any trace of conflict. It is in these conversations about crafts and arts common toboth Hindu and Muslim communities that the middle ground started to appear. The‘neutrality of creativity’ according to Dr Raina, often seen as ‘frivolous’ by profitdriven society, creates an opening for conflict resolution and the eradication ofviolence.
Echoing Professor Alfonso García-Osuna, Dr Raina concluded with a call to action
to rethink our broken system. ‘We need a radical rethinking of our contract withgoods, services, and systems,’ she said, continuing that ‘if the institutions we havegiven power to and had a reason to exist are now dysfunctional, then we need toquestion them.’ Individually, ‘we need to stop thinking that we are on a train wecannot jump out of. We need to create these spaces that allow us to bring forth thesemarginalised voices.’ Dr Raina commended IAFOR for doing exactly this: creating asafe space and avenues through which complex and contested issues are not directly
addressed, but are given a platform to be heard and talked about in a peaceful,apolitical way.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

17

3. Migration, (Peace) Education 101, andGlobal Citizenship
According to Professor Boddington, power exercised against the marginalised canbe challenged indirectly on individual, professional, and governmental levels to fix
our broken system. Marginalised groups are not the only ones affected by power
dynamics. On the other side of the spectrum are the privileged groups, which also
have their share of responsibility in marginalising the ‘other’. While there is a lot we
can do for the marginalised, there is similarly a lot we can do for the privileged toensure a balance of power.
The role of the Arts & Humanities is exceptionally important in current times when
we are facing a humanitarian crisis regarding migrants, refugees, and heightened
war and conflict around the world. Refugees and migrants make up one of the larger
groups of marginalised people around the world and are often seen as a ‘problem’
that needs to be fixed one-sidedly, according to Professor Howe. However, thesepeople can also be an ‘opportunity’ for the development of economies and societiesthat host them, empowered by the dominant groups within society, noted Professor
Howe. According to him, education is their biggest obstacle to a smooth integration
within local communities and national economies, but it can also be their greatest
solution.
It is not only the ‘problem’ of the refugees that we need to fix, but also realisingthat ‘opportunity’ comes with accepting them. The greatest obstacle to allowing theopportunity of welcoming refugees and migrants to affect local, national, and global
communities positively is the ‘problem’ of the indifference or, sometimes, violence
shown by privileged groups within society. ‘Addressing both sides and fostering
understanding and respect is the key to a harmonious coexistence between two
often unequal groups’, said Professor Howe.
So, how do we challenge this dynamic indirectly and ‘apolitically’? The keynote
speakers, panellists, as well as the audience had a chance to discuss these issues
at the London conference. In sum, it is high time for us to redefine education andrethink its purpose. What does ‘Peace Education’ and ‘Global Citizenship’ look like?
What is the purpose of education? How can we abolish the fear of the unknown andembrace the joy that comes from not knowing something? Rethinking the purposeof education comes with the realisation that what is needed the most during thesetimes of crisis are young, responsible, and active citizens, who are conscious andautonomous learners, unafraid of not knowing the ‘other’, and capable of discerning
what is morally and ethically incorrect, based on ‘universal wrongs’, according to theplenary panel discussion, ‘Educating for Peace: Conflicting Narratives, Migration,
Immigration, and Global Citizenship’.

18

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

3.1. Refugee and Migrant Education

Watch on YouTube

Power struggles between the dominant and the marginalised groups within society
can manifest on different levels: the individual, professional, or governmental level.
Challenging these dominant power dynamics can also arise from various levels. In his
keynote speech ‘Providing Access to Higher Education for Refugees: Challenges
and Benchmarks’, Professor Brendan Howe from Ewha Womans University inSouth Korea addressed one of these levels, namely how ‘middle powers’ on agovernmental level can challenge superpowers to the benefit of the marginalised.
Specifically looking at the global issue of migrants and refugees and their struggle
with access to education, Professor Howe explained how middle powers can use‘niche diplomacy’ regarding this humanitarian crisis to change international policies
and hold superpowers, such as the United States, accountable for the lack of action
against injustices occurring to migrants and refugees. With the help of education,
he argued that we can create a win-win situation for both the marginalised andgovernments by empowering refugees and fostering a peaceful environment for thedevelopment of societies and economies.
There are currently 110-135 million forcibly displaced people in the world, of
which 35.5 million are refugees; 41% of these refugees are under 18 years old. The
migration and refugee crisis is a severe challenge to national governments andinternational organisations. In his talk, Professor Howe explained that ‘along withthe climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and theconflict in Israel-Palestine, the migration and refugee crisis is one of the most serious
challenges to the so-called “liberal, rules-based international order”’.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

19

One of the most pressing issues faced by migrants and refugees is access to
education so that they can be smoothly integrated into their host countries’socioeconomic systems. Among the many obstacles they encounter, the biggest one
is the lack of proper documentation, such as national IDs and educational attainment
certificates that usually get lost during a rushed exodus from war-stricken zones.
Without such documentation, it is extremely difficult for migrants and refugees toenter universities and find employment in their host countries. These problems led
to the 2019 Global Framework on Refugee Education, the first-ever global treaty on
educational matters. ‘We have been aware of these problems since 2019, but little
progress has been made since then,’ said Professor Howe. While a lot of workshops
and professional training are offered to them, what they actually need is access todegree programmes. ‘We are not focusing on the long-term needs of refugees’,
Professor Howe stated. While workshops and professional training might help
refugees and migrants ensure their immediate survival, degree programmes would
ensure that refugees can get access to better job opportunities in the future, thereby
empowering their resilience in the long-term.
Professor Howe pointed out that this is because we are always discussing the‘problem’ of refugees, instead of the ‘opportunity’ of refugees. Refugees andmigrants are usually painted as trouble-makers, raising crime rates, having conflicting
cultural, societal, or religious values from their host societies; having difficulties
integrating into these societies, and being a financial burden on the country.
However, there are many opportunities that come from welcoming refugees
and migrants that are not discussed enough. ‘Educated refugees empower theircommunities, they promote socio-economic and gender equality and contributeto the peaceful development of societies,’ said Professor Howe. According to him,
research has demonstrated that higher education reinforces individual competence
and the sustainable development of society. If we focused on delivering higher
education opportunities to migrants and refugees, they could, in turn, be a driving
force for national economies and social wellbeing.
This is where middle powers and niche diplomacy can step in to elevate the statusof the marginalised refugees and migrants. According to Professor Howe, ‘middle
powers, such as Canada, South Korea, Norway, and Australia, can be system-affecting
states.’ They identify niches of foreign policy, particularly where they can financiallybenefit from the most. Often, the selected niche area is in humanitarian governanceissues. Middle powers want to contribute to global governance reform not only
because it’s the right thing to do, but because they can get more money from it:‘Global governance reform represents a noble opportunity for middle powers not
only to aid the most vulnerable individuals and groups, but also to raise their own
prestige and influence on the international stage,’ said Professor Howe. National
governments do not currently fulfil their responsibilities as proposed by the UN. This,
Professor Howe argued, is where middle powers that usually do not have enoughpower to influence powerful nations can step in. With their niche diplomacy andunder the pretence of a global humanitarian crisis, they can put pressure on more
powerful national governments to fulfil their responsibilities.
The migration and refugee crisis is as much a global responsibility as it is a local one.
On a global scale, middle powers can have a considerable influence on the politicalscene. This is exactly how power dynamics can be indirectly challenged through waysthat do not directly contest powerful actors. What local, individual, and professional
responsibility to empower the marginalised looks like will be discussed in thesubsequent sections.

20

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

3.2. Educating for Peace 101

Watch on YouTube

What can we do as individuals, as professionals, and as government leaders to makea difference? How can we reconcile conflicting narratives and give marginalised
voices a chance to tell their stories? The panel discussion ‘Educating for Peace:
Conflicting Narratives, Migration, Immigration and Global Citizenship’,moderated by Professor Anne Boddington of Middlesex University, United Kingdom,
touched upon these questions and offered insights as to what a conflict resolution (orPeace Education) curriculum could look like. The panel comprised Professor Donald
E. Hall, Professor Brendan Howe, and Professor Ljiljana Marković of the European
Center for Peace and Development (ECPD) in Serbia, each of them engaged in
educating for peace through their own disciplines, curricula, and teaching methods.
To the opening question of what we can do as individuals in our everyday lives
to empower marginalised people, all three panellists agreed that having a criticalmindset and acting upon it are the most important things. We need to focus onunderstanding what the ‘universal wrongs’ are, said Professor Howe; if there issomething that, on an individual level, we intuitively think is not right, we have an
obligation to speak about it, but always within safe bounds. ‘Politics is the art of thepossible. Do what you can within the bounds of keeping yourself safe,’ he urged theaudience. Adding to this, Professor Marković stressed the importance of being anactive consumer and autonomous learner. ‘We need to know why we are learning,
what our aims are in our individual careers in life, and what quality of knowledge
we want to produce within ourselves,’ she said. To become a ‘specific intellectual’in the Foucaultian sense, and to exercise power within our spheres ‘with a criticalconsciousness, with a sense of social commitment, with a sense of vision, with a
responsiveness to students, is key,’ concluded Professor Hall.
ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

21

Professor Howe agreed that being responsive to students’ needs through a bottomup perspective is an important step that professionals and educators should take.
Regular consultations with students, faculty staff, and administrators exemplify good
leadership that comes from the bottom-up, is responsive, effective, and encourages
a human-centred approach in all disciplines. Professionals need to put these peacefulinteractions and conflict-resolving discussions at the centre of the students’ learning
universe, added Professor Marković. However, while Professor Hall speaks forthe responsiveness to students, he also warned educators, faculty members, andhigher-status academics that they cannot, and are not supposed to, change national
policy. According to his perspective as an educator, ‘we don’t change policiesof governments that are not even our own and are thousands of miles away.’ Hewarned against assuming that by demonstrating or acting in a civilly disobedient way,
educators are changing the world outside their campuses. Instead, what educators
should strive to do professionally is to make sure that when students leave thecampus, they remain active citizens; they vote, speak up, and demonstrate outside ofcampus.
Finally, on a governmental level, both Professor Marković and Professor Hall made anote of the ‘terrible divestment from public education’. Funding has been severely
limited in public universities, especially in the case of the Arts & Humanities but
in other disciplines as well. There needs to be a reinvestment in public education,with Professor Marković proposing that she would allocate more than 7% of GDP as
an investment into education. As a result, the cost of education borne by students
themselves would also decrease, making education more accessible to even an
undocumented person, such as refugees and migrants, who may not have the means
to finance their education through proper work, said Professor Howe.
The panel also offered their answers to what a Peace 101 undergraduate course
could look like. As Professor Boddington explained, global citizenship education
or education for peace are such abstract themes to many, making specific curricula
difficult to design if a universal definition for these themes is not decided. Specifically,
she asked the panellists to answer the question ‘what is the literature to your“perfect” module of Peace 101?’ Her question was further justified by an audience
member asking what ‘peace’ is, displaying their disappointment in educational
institutions’ capacity to understand and enact meaningful change in a world full of
hatred.

22

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

‘Peace is a contested concept. It is not only the absence of war,’ answered
Professor Howe. According to Professor Howe, instead of teaching the war/peacedichotomy common to international relations, he would teach about conflict andconflict resolution. ‘We all experience conflict in our everyday lives. In fact, we
can even experience conflict without anyone else being around’. He made an
anecdotal reference to the internal conflict of wanting to lose weight but loving
to eat chocolate. How to reconcile these conflicting thoughts within ourselves isthe question we should focus on. Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. ‘Whatis bad is when it manifests itself in a violent way,’ he concluded. ‘Hate is sociallyconstructed. We are not born into this world hating other people. It is the productof securitisation, deflecting from our own shortcomings. As it is socially constructed,
we can socially deconstruct it. That is the objective of peace education: to sociallydeconstruct hatred’. Lack of empathy, and commonality instead of division, is thebasis of what we need to talk about, added Professor Hall.
Professor Marković also insisted on including subjects that make us understand ourinternal thinking processes. She heavily leaned on the economic side, as she viewed
behaviour as a matter of choice, explicable by economic concepts such as marginalutility, scarceness, and choice theory: ‘It is up to us to choose the trade-off between“chocolate and losing weight”, in order to understand and prevent the conflict
before it happens’. According to her, preventing conflict is a crucial part of teaching
about peace. Therefore, she mentioned that she would teach the works of John
Maynard Keynes, Michael Posner, James Meade, Okita Saburo, and Shinichi Ichimura.
She further cited some classical philosophy works such as Aristotle and Darwin’s
evolutionary theory as essential parts of the curriculum to help students understandthat their subjective truth is not fixed.
For Professor Donald Hall, the most important thing is for students to understandwhere power lies and how power is exercised. The single, most important thing hewould teach is the work of Michel Foucault. He would also teach texts that show
where oppression is normalised, such as George Orwell’s 1984.
Ultimately, the panellists agreed amongst themselves that the learning outcome of‘Education for Peace’ should be critical consciousness. Their proposed curricula andmodules should equip students with the ability to see that our subjective truth is noteternal or fixed, and not an inherent right that each of us has. The panel proposedthat this should be the purpose of education and urged the audience to rethink what
education is for, and what curriculums should look like.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

23

3.3. The Forum: Global Citizenship and Caring
for the Marginalised

Watch on YouTube

The panel on ‘Educating for Peace’ was followed by IAFOR’s second round of The
Forum discussions, an open dialogue between audience members moderated
by Professor Hall and Dr Melina Neophytou of IAFOR. This conference’s Forum
discussed ‘Global Citizenship: Ethics and Care’ and strikingly reflected similar
insights from experienced professionals alongside the experts on the panel. Afterasking the audience first to define global citizenship, the moderators prompted
participants to share their insights on the relationship between institutions and thepeople, the indifference of students regarding global issues, and how to get students
and people in general to care about the world. The discussions mainly revolved
around themes of colonialism, neoliberalism, and capitalism/consumerism, yielding
interesting contrasts to some of the keynote speeches.
As the panel before discussed, the ones who have power have the ability to tell theirstories and have their stories shape reality. In defining global citizenship, one of theparticipants echoed exactly this by questioning who has the power to define what
global citizenship means.
For a long time, we’ve had this dichotomy of whose voice is allowed, who
has the power, who are the privileged. It becomes a perspective, but whose
perspective? If we talk about global citizenship, we have to respect individual
identities. We have to respect the cultural capital that every individual brings
from their cultural background. This means, it will not be about the loudest
voice that has always been perpetuated in the world, where setting a cultural
perspective has always defined the standard.

24

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

In the same line of thought, another delegate said that having a positive or negative
attitude towards global citizenship may be influenced by where someone comesfrom. The participant alluded to the fact that people in some countries may havean easier time harnessing the benefits of global citizenship due to their stronger
passports, while others have limited options or are even excluded from global
citizenship. Global citizenship in both cases is seen as a privilege and as a product of
those who have the power to define what it means.
Not only is there a disconnect between those in power and those who follow, butthere also seems to be a disconnect between institutions with their lofty aspirations
and citizens with practical demands. When asked whether they agreed with thisstatement, the vast majority in the audience (71%) answered ‘yes’, while only 3% said‘no’, and 26% answered that ‘it’s complicated’. To elaborate on why ‘it’s complicated’,a delegate argued that:
There is lots of talk about hard-to-reach communities, but I actually think it’s
hard to access institutions. I think this framing, and the framing of thought,
and reversing that into people aren’t hard to reach, institutions are hard toaccess is the right question to ask…I think institutions of universities are suchecho chambers and rooted in the “hypothetical”, sometimes even in practice.
I think it’s a more intersectional layer of local governments, of local councils (Iam from one), looking at how people are actually implementing and caring or
not caring for their communities, and having that interdisciplinary approach
between institutions as well.
To understand why a lot of students do not care for their communities or for theworld as global citizens, participants were asked to share their insights from teaching
and interacting with students in their classrooms. A distraught delegate painted a
profile of the average student today, complaining that ‘they have big pockets ofmoney, they are influenced by social media, they don’t make their own bed, and theyuse ChatGPT for their assignments.’ Using unethical means to complete their own
assignments and not being responsible enough to contribute to their own family, letalone their community is a problem that parents and educators alike should look at
before they demand them to be global citizens.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

25

Others came to the students’ defence, shifting the blame to the socioeconomic
system instead. One delegate stated ‘it is not that students do not care, they havejust become part of this cycle within the neoliberal, capitalist framework.’ Students
are more concerned about making a living and surviving rather than contributing
to social causes, thereby forced by our consumerist system to ‘join the rat race’.
The anxiety of finding a job is the reality of students today. According to anotherparticipant:
They are not even sure if they will be able to rent an apartment one day, liveon their own, or buy food. That level of economic insecurity can drive a lot oflack of sympathy toward the plight of others because you are mostly worried
about yourself.
This consumerist system affects students as much as educators too. According to one
delegate’s experience:
Teachers want to [make students care about global issues] but they can’t
because they also exist as a part of that neoliberal, consumerist framework.
I am a lawyer and work in the development sector. I have met a lot of social
workers. They want to make a change, but they also need to make money.
The difference in socioeconomic status between students is also problematic andaccentuates the issue further, as a delegate noted:
In Nigeria, people find it difficult to eat. When you haven’t found food to eat,
what are you going to talk about? We go into a class and we see students
who are living in poverty and others who live in affluence. So, while others arethinking about what to eat, some are thinking about flying private jets andgoing on yachts.

26

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

Although these are depressing insights and complex issues, participants have offeredsome solutions that could sensitise the younger generations to global issues anddevelop an ethical and moral compass while caring for others. One delegate echoed
Professor García-Osuna’s and Dr Raina’s argument that to solve the problem, we haveto change the regime. ‘I think the mismatch comes from the absence of political will.
If there is political will in any nation, then the institutions will match the people’s andtheir leaders’ opinions,’ they explained, ‘otherwise, the institutions are just talking,and the people just obey. How to solve the problem? This is the question now. To
solve this problem, you have to change the regime. That is the only way.’
Another delegate said that ‘students have to be citizens in their own country first.’
Off-campus experiences, such as service learning, can improve their capacity for
empathy towards other people’s suffering and get them in touch with local issues.
‘Once they learn empathy, they can imagine other people’s suffering. So, citizenshipfirst, and then global citizenship’ the delegate concluded. This view posits aconundrum against what Professor García-Osuna suggested in his keynote about
nationalism or tribalism being the main issue of why people do not care about theworld. He argued that too much focus on the local takes away from the bigger
picture of global issues. If people remain preoccupied with their localities, theinterconnectedness between all local communities is lost. On the other hand, notbeing attached to the local community and developing a sense of belonging andsharing of issues desensitises people to the plight of others. How to balance these
two worlds – the local and the global – might be the real issue.
Other solutions to sensitising younger generations, such as changes in the
curriculum, educational structures, and teaching pedagogies, were also offered.
For example, one participant highlighted the effect of teaching religion at schools,
a subject that has almost disappeared from curricula nowadays. According to that
educator:
In South Africa in the 1990s, we used to have a subject on Religion at school.
We used to have young students who knew elderly people, they knew how to
pray, and how to respect everyone. You saw someone struggling, you helped.
Nowadays, when kids see you struggling, they laugh and they are competingwith who is more savage. On social media, you can see daily how disrespectful
and ignorant young people are. That is what the world turned into today.

27

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

In terms of teaching pedagogies, an educator prompted others to create projectoriented lessons, such as taking students on field trips and working with marginalised
sections of society as part of the curriculum. Another educator said that teachers
should approach especially complex political issues with other pedagogical models‘through which people could be influenced in the way they think and act.’ To
understand our political system, we have to teach politics in a different way because‘everyone hates politics.’ Another educator presented a more radical thought that‘the teacher education system must change. There is a likelihood that teachers
themselves do not care about the world. If the teachers don’t care, then how would
the students care?’
The final thought of The Forum discussions summarised the complex situation of how
certain discussions can lead to more social division and conflict, suggesting a moreindirect, calm approach, in line with Dr Raina’s presentation.
We have to move away from playing the blame game. If we want to change amindset, we cannot do so with accusatory tones. I teach pre-service teachers
on Culture and Ethics. There, we talk about the achievement gaps between
coloured students and white students. Many of the teachers feel like “I wasn’t
part of the history of segregation. I feel I’m being accused every time society
talks about change.” This gives every human being a fire mindset, when they
feel they are being accused of something they don’t feel responsible for. So,
if we want to develop care within students, we should have an open mind andan open dialogue, without stigmatising any groups of people.
The Forum will continue to provide such an apolitical space for privileged andmarginalised people alike to speak their minds freely, striving to erase stigmas andprejudice. Through an interactive and calm dialogue, IAFOR hopes to generate
insightful knowledge from the ground that can enlighten all participants and ourcommunity, fostering international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary cooperation.

28

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

3.4. Rethinking the Purpose of Education

Watch on YouTube

Both the panellists and keynote speakers, as well as participants at The Forum,
have expressed the need for rethinking the purpose of education. Not embracing
the ‘other’ and showing hate towards a marginalised group stems from a ‘fear of
not knowing the “other”’ as Professor Howe previously mentioned. Therefore, theprimary purpose of education should be to learn how to embrace what we do notknow and abolish the fear of not knowing. This is what Dr Marcelo Staricoff (Universityof Sussex, United Kingdom) discussed in his keynote presentation titled ‘The Joy of
Not Knowing and Why It’s So Brilliant to Not Know!’. Dr Staricoff’s main message
to educators was that education should reinforce the inquisitive nature of young
children and encourage them to step into the ‘pit’ of unfamiliarity to find joy inlearning something new.
Dr Staricoff began with the definition of knowledge and contrasted it with societal
expectations of what it means to possess extensive knowledge. Individuals facea lot of pressure to appear knowledgeable and competent in various situations.
As a result, evaluation methods in the current educational system focus on thereiteration of knowledge, testing students’ memory skills and rewarding those who
can reproduce what they already know. However, ‘knowledge is irrelevant if it’s notaccompanied by a thorough understanding and mastering of that knowledge, andthe wisdom with which to use such knowledge for the good of society,’ said Dr
Staricoff.
He argued that embracing uncertainty can enhance creativity and innovation, citing
examples from fields like science and technology where breakthroughs often comefrom acknowledging gaps in knowledge. There are numerous historical instanceswhere significant technological and academic advancements occurred because
individuals admitted they did not have all the answers, with the enlightenment
being such a period of inquisition and exploration of the unknown. These examples
highlight the transformative power of embracing uncertainty in driving innovationand progress. Dr Staricoff highlighted the importance of creating environments
where questions and exploration are valued over immediate answers. The ‘Joy of
Not Knowing (JONK) Learning to Learn Week’ is among the models that foster sucha mindset, which schools use to launch the academic year and includes how students
can be equipped with creative thinking, visible thinking, philosophical thinking, andECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

29

realising themselves as lifelong learners. Accepting and valuing the state of notknowing helps individuals navigate complex challenges more effectively and innovatein ways that those who strive for certainty may overlook. He encouraged a shift inperspective towards embracing uncertainty as a driving force for innovation.
Accepting uncertainty also comes with several psychological benefits. Dr Staricoff
suggested that acknowledging one’s limitations can reduce anxiety and promotemental well-being, as it shifts the focus from trying to know everything to engaging
in continuous learning. By accepting the impossibility of complete knowledge,to ‘feel comfortable with being uncomfortable,’ individuals can foster a mindset
oriented towards growth and development. Fostering curiosity and maintaining an
open mind also results in the inclusion of marginalised students in the classroom, as
every student feels a sense of belonging to a group with the same goal: to find out
things they do not know. Not knowing is not seen as a weakness, but as something
desirable, thereby empowering all students to participate in class activities, as theyrealise that in order to learn something new they must not know it first.
Dr Staricoff reiterated the importance of curiosity and continuous learning by callingfor a cultural change in how knowledge and uncertainty are perceived. ‘If we take thepath of least resistance all the time and remain in comfort, then there is no learningthat happens as a result of that,’ he explained. As he invited the audience to reflect
on their own experiences with uncertainty and how it has influenced their personal
and professional growth, he made a point that they were once curious children too.
Children are born as natural philosophers and investigators. Education needs tonurture this inquisitive nature. With this as education’s purpose, a case can be madeagainst standardisation and specialisation, which today’s labour market and ourconsumerist society promote. This promotion of knowledge repetition instead ofknowledge generation is further accelerating conflicts and crises today. If education
has one role to play, then, it would be to instil within students a sense of curiosity andhappiness that comes from generating new knowledge as a result of being confident
enough to approach the ‘other’, the unfamiliar, and the unknown.
Interdisciplinarity follows exactly this JONK model proposed by Dr Staricoff. Whatkind of technology can we create if we include disciplines labelled as ‘frivolous’and ‘unproductive’? What would AI look like if developers were trained in classicalphilosophy? There is a tendency to divide disciplines and follow a method ofstandardisation and specialisation, which can be detrimental to society’s well-being
and the advancement of knowledge and technology. Dr Staricoff’s JONK method isapplicable even outside the K-12 education system, as it encourages disciplines tonot be afraid of each other but recognise that in each of them, there are importantquestions that other disciplines can answer for them.

30

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

4. Artificial Intelligence as Humanity’s Ally

Watch on YouTube

Societies around the world are currently facing many challenges, notably an ageing
population and a higher cost of living. As conference chair, Dr Evangelia Chrysikou
from the Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction at UCL, United Kingdom,
pointed out in her welcome address that many young people from her home countryof Greece are leaving for a better life abroad, are not reproducing, and driving the‘brain drain’ trend in the country. One debilitating consequence of this is that Greece
now lacks doctors, putting the whole country’s healthcare sector at risk. The lack of
doctors is also slowly felt in other European countries, including the United Kingdom.
This poses problems for the future, where a possible consequence of a lack of
medical professionals will lead to the expectation that a child will have to support up
to two parents and four grandparents. ‘How will the future young generation be able
to support healthcare, while also being carers, nurses, and maintain a full-time job?’
asked Dr Chrysikou.
This is where we seek help from technology. In fact, AI is already being used inhealthcare, but its usage is limited. Currently, AI does not know social responsibility.
It should be able to assist with social issues of patients and the elderly, but at
the moment it only assists during actual hospitalisation. Social responsibility is acharacteristic of human intelligence. Incorporating this human characteristic into
AI requires creativity and interdisciplinary cooperation. Had AI developers been
educated in social sciences or welfare, for example, they could have considered thewhole spectrum of a human’s life and not focused only on what a human consumes –in this case, care during hospitalisation – driving hospital profitability.
AI is feared by many, but it does not need to be seen as a threat. AI is not creative,
as it only generates already existing knowledge; it does not know what to do with theknowledge it generates. The real threat is human intelligence becoming more likeartificial intelligence, in the sense that we might be reproducing knowledge without
generating new knowledge, or without using that knowledge in a meaningful way
that benefits society.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

31

Education has already been moving towards that direction for decades, especiallywith the introduction of the Internet. However, the introduction of technology, suchas the book, the Internet, and now, AI, does not mean that the learning process has
been taken over by technology itself. As humans, we are still capable of learning andinnovating: technology should be seen as a tool, and its advancement should beseen as an enhancement that enables us to achieve new heights and set new records.
Conversely, we need to rethink the purpose of education, rethink what a goodscholar is, and rethink what knowledge is. The situation also asks us to rethink ourconsumerist society and the meaning behind living with dignity. The proliferation of
AI is actually forcing us, in a good way, to ask these critical questions. Therefore, thenarrative should not be one of human vs artificial intelligence, but how human andartificial intelligence can cooperate effectively for the betterment of society.
For that to be achieved, we need to focus on the democratic governance of AI.
We need an AI that is inclusive, safe, ethical, and responsible. The introduction of
AI is opening up many new possibilities for humanity to transform itself, along with
its socio-economic and political structures. Decision-makers need to be careful
not to reproduce already existing social injustices within new ways of thinking andoperating. Therefore, how many sectors and stakeholders are involved in the training,development, and implementation of AI is crucial. We need AI to evolve in many
directions to accommodate and include all possible directions. In order to do so, weneed to recognise what these directions are and from where they derive. Including
marginalised voices is of utmost importance to ensure that all directions havebeen included, while also opening the way for innovative solutions based on tacitknowledge.
‘We need all sectors and industries to come together: scientists, artists, politicians,
industry experts, and others,’ said Dr Chrysikou. She concluded her address byhighlighting the importance of quality education in shaping the future of AI andhumanity, and our role in sculpting it: ‘This is why this IAFOR conference is good.
It invites everyone from all countries, cultures, and disciplines to come together.
Educators will become the link that supports the branches the future young
generations have to support’.

32

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

4.1. ‘Delving’ into Education with AI

Watch on YouTube

Many critics view the relationship between human and artificial intelligence as acontentious one fearing AI’s volatile position of power to generate knowledge
without having any real use for it. It does not get creative with the knowledge it
reproduces, and it cannot think of ways to use existing knowledge to create newknowledge. A common thread of consensus among the speakers and delegates in
London was that the real challenge is not AI taking over human intelligence, but
human intelligence becoming more and more like artificial intelligence. Humanintelligence may becvome a type of intelligence that knows how to generateknowledge with AI as its tool, without knowing what that knowledge means,
where it came from, or how it can benefit society. In his presentation titled ‘AI and
Education’, Dr David Mallows, Head of Academic Writing at the UCL Institute of
Education, United Kingdom, discussed this contentious dynamic by addressing theimpact of AI in Higher Education. His encouraging message is that the learning
process, although disrupted by AI, did not lose its meaning, and that education canbenefit from the responsible use of AI, if educators are not afraid of using it.
The importance of the learning process, Dr Mallows argued, is the journey and not
the end. Producing a written argument involves a process during which students
engage with the ideas they generate rather than just deliver a ‘final product’. Counterto the argument made by those who fear AI, technology has not permanently
disrupted this learning process. However, the introduction of AI has prompted us torethink how knowledge is created, how it is expressed through writing, and how thecreated knowledge is evaluated. Humans have not lost their ability to learn – it is justa matter of readjusting how we evaluate their learning process, as new tools require
new methods.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

33

Dr Mallows presented how academic writing has been used as ‘passing’ or‘pretending to be’, quoting that ‘by writing academically, you pretend to be an
academic’ as students mimic the writing styles as they produce a written piece. This
raises the question: if AI can produce academic writing for students, what can they,or have they actually ‘learnt’ from the process of writing? To accommodate students’
engagement with AI, UCL allows a ‘window’ of assessment change that lessens thebureaucratic process it usually takes, enabling educators to incorporate or rethink
how we allow the student to use ‘the tool’ while maintaining ‘the craft’ in the learning
process. The rubric has been constantly readjusted to emphasise the students’criticality, the student’s ability to distinguish human-generated texts from AI ones,
and how to become critical of machine-created texts. Writing is not knowledge, said
Mallows, but it is the accepted form of expression of knowledge. We tend to place
the value on the writing rather than the idea and this is what has to change.
Educators should engage with AI not because it is a threat, but because it exists
and students have been using it in interesting ways. It asks us to rethink how we
ask questions to create knowledge and how certain knowledge is being created. In
writing a paper, for example, we tend to accept the human proofread text, or accept
suggestions from Grammarly and spell check in MS Word without questioning them,as we value the ‘final product’ rather than the process of generating it. ChatGPT is
another tool that works in a similar way of ‘assisting’ or ‘shaping’ the final product inthe same manner that we have been accepting. Dr Mallows further stressed that the‘tool’ is not the craft’; we should look at AI as a tool that helps the students who havedifficulties in writing and focuses on how they engage and justify their final product.
Dr Mallows pointed out that there is something that AI cannot do that humans cando very well, and that is creative thinking. Human ideas are original and come fromhuman experience. AI reproduces knowledge based on what is already known, but
it cannot think of ways in which already existing knowledge can be used to generate
new, innovative solutions. Human intelligence is capable of using existing knowledge
creatively, rearranging it, and mixing it with real-life experience to generate newknowledge. Therefore, educators should not be afraid of AI, and instead redefine thepurpose of education and the purpose of knowledge creation. Students should beassessed based on these human capabilities, such as originality and creativity, which
AI cannot replicate.

34

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

So, how can we become competent users of AI and how can students realise thatthey can do something that AI cannot? To incorporate AI in higher education
effectively, Dr Mallows urged educators to foster AI literacy. At UCL, there are several‘AI levels’ of classes, from ‘level 1’ of not allowing students to use AI at all, to ‘level
3’ where the class fully engages students with AI in assignments. Dr Mallows argued
that the ‘level 3’ class is the right direction to go towards, but it requires a lot ofchange. The main questions arise around ethics and academic integrity in using AI,
as well as issues around guidelines and transparency. To address these questions,
Dr Mallows proposed that students should be trained to have ‘critical literacy’ and‘creative literacy’, which are characteristics that are lacking in ChatGPT-generated
texts. Students should be able to question and become critical about these texts, orlearn how to better prompt ChatGPT to achieve the desired outcome. This would
foster AI literacy within students, not accepting what AI produces or using it as
the only tool, but critically evaluating and recreating what it produces. The bookand the internet have previously disrupted education, and many were wary of theirintroduction into the learning process. However, humanity has adapted and it has
accepted all technological advancements. AI is just another such advancement that iscurrently disrupting education. We can either be afraid of it, or we can accept it andsee how we can benefit from it, said Dr Mallows. The key is to focus on the learning
process and not the final product. He prompted institutions and faculty members to
ask the critical question of ‘What is it that we are actually certifying and measuring in
the credentials we give as a higher education institution?’ ‘There is currently a lot of
denial out there’ regarding the development of teaching methods for critical literacy,
said Dr Mallows. Once educators figure out how to assess the learning process ofstudents and how to incorporate critical literacy in curricula effectively, education andhumans will be immensely empowered by the use of AI.

Watch on YouTube

An example of why AI is needed and how human and artificial intelligence can beused as a healthy combination to generate new knowledge for the betterment ofsociety’s wellbeing is the eye movement tracking AI technology, used to improve
the learning process of students. In her presentation titled ‘The Examination of Eye
Movements in Language Learning Research: A Focus on Vocabulary’, Dr Ana
Pellicer-Sánchez of the UCL Institute of Education, explained how AI tracks learners’
eye movements while they process new vocabulary. Dr Pellicer-Sánchez highlighted
the role of eye-tracking technology in providing insights into cognitive processes,
and how this reveals strategies learners use to decode and comprehend new words
in the vocabulary learning process.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

35

By providing examples measuring saccades, fixations, and regressions when
encountering unfamiliar vocabulary, Dr Pellicer-Sánchez demonstrated the utilityof eye-tracking in understanding the intricacies of language acquisition, such aslearners’ attention, processing behaviour, and vocabulary gains. The findings assist
in producing effective learning materials, such as highlighting and emphasising new
vocabulary in reading material for the reading approach, or bilingual subtitles inmedia in the viewing approach.
Despite limitations of eye-tracking research, mainly revolving around the fact thatit does not represent ‘everything’ underlying the learning process, Dr PellicerSánchez highlighted the positive outcomes of using technology in a creative way
to create innovation and new knowledge. The eye-tracking movement to improve
language learning is an excellent example of the cooperation between human andartificial intelligence. It is exactly this outcome that Dr Mallows hoped for education
and research to reach. Finding creative ways to use AI in order to enhance thelearning process can have tremendous effects on the advancement of humanity
and technology in many fields. If we take Dr Staricoff’s words into consideration,
repurposing education and knowledge creation to contribute to the good of society
involves the coming together of various disciplines and the cooperation of artificial
and human intelligence. Not being afraid of AI, but rather stepping into the ‘pit’ of
the unknown and seeing what we can do with AI, is the way to move forward.

36

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

4.2. AI for Sustainable Healthcare and Ageing

Watch on YouTube

The responsible use of AI applies universally in all areas and disciplines, not just in
education. AI is changing our lives in almost every sector, with the healthcare sector
being one of the areas in which AI has had the most influence. With this also comesthe challenge of unregulated AI: in the healthcare sector where situations can bea matter of life and death, dependency on unregulated AI can be fatal. Professor
Praminda Caleb-Solly of the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, addressed
how assistive robots and AI technologies are transforming support for healthy ageing
and social care in her presentation titled ‘Helping Us To Help Ourselves – How
Assistive Robots and AI Can Change the Dynamics of Supporting Healthy Ageing
and Social Care’.
There is currently an increasing demand for social care due to an ageing population,
especially in developed countries. This increasing demand, together with poorly
resourced health and care infrastructures, produces multi-layered problems, such asa shortage of staff in the healthcare sector, social isolation in homecare, or a lack ofpreventive healthcare, said Professor Caleb-Solly. AI and robots have already beenaround for the past few years, supporting workers and patients within some stagesof the patient care continuum. However, there has not yet been systematic use of
assistive robots and AI that work with health and social care professionals along thefull patient journey, including prevention, rehabilitation, and social care of patients asthey exit the hospital and are reintroduced to their social network and daily routines.
Adopting assistive robots could help in enabling access to social connections andageing in place, as well as mitigating the risk of hospitalisation and supporting job
displacement. These innovations are critical advancements in helping change thecurrent landscape of health and social care.
Professor Caleb-Solly argued that, while there is a need for assistive robots andAI, we should be cautious of becoming reliant on them, as it can lead to overdependency. Rather than replacing human caregivers, robots and AI can enhancetheir capabilities. Patients and humans in general need to retain autonomy andindependence in their daily lives: robots should be assistive, and not replace human

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

37

actions and decision-making. We still need humans to increase a robot’s reliability
in its functions, and to have it involve us humans in its assistive actions. What thehealthcare sector should look at is what AI can do well and what humans can do well,and allocate responsibilities accordingly.
Assistive Robots, in Professor Caleb-Solly’s definition, are ones that should be ableto ‘sense’ the patient’s health status, ‘learn’ and predict the patients’ needs, and‘assist’ with such needs in a personalised way. In her research, data was used fromalready existing consumer-based Internet of Things technologies to develop machinelearning and AI algorithms to detect patterns of behaviour to identify illness throughmonitoring changes. This data, when combined with the patient’s medical record,
can provide effective information to drive personalised care. In her research, she is
exploring how robots can utilise large language models and notes the importanceof including healthcare professionals in the process of creating the robot-learningmodels to better deploy the technology. Telepresence robotics is among the typesof technology that connects patients to healthcare professionals and people in theirsupport system, which has evidently improved the patients’ well-being.
There are also ethical issues to take into consideration, and a need for regulatory
frameworks to ensure safe and effective implementation. Like the speakers before
her, Professor Caleb-Solly also stressed the collaborative potential between
technology and human caregivers, aiming to alleviate some of the burdens on thecurrent healthcare system. She called for a balanced approach to adopting thesetechnologies, urging policymakers and healthcare providers to embrace innovation
while maintaining a focus on compassionate and pragmatic care. Professor CalebSolly’s arguments echo what other speakers on AI have warned about in termsof not knowing how AI generates its knowledge and depending too much on its
final product without critically thinking about it. The discussion also prompted us
to rethink, once more, what the purpose of using AI is in our daily lives. Had there
been more interdisciplinary discussion between AI developers within the healthcare
sectors and social scientists, for example, or had AI developers inquired aboutknowledge outside of their own discipline, AI robots could have already been
considered as suitable tools to help patients reintegrate into society after a critical
health issue. Problems such as isolation or depression within older adults withageing-related impairments could also be addressed through technology if humans
train AI responsibly and with empathy towards these societal issues that are often
overlooked. Once again, the importance of the collaboration between human andartificial intelligence takes a central position in the discussion around AI.

38

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

4.3. Democratic Governance of AI

Watch on YouTube

Most of the aforementioned issues surrounding AI are the product of its
undemocratic governance. ‘The politics of AI lies just in the middle of a lot of politicaldecision-making directions, as it can go anywhere and it can affect anything,’ argued
Dr Cian O’Donovan (University College London, United Kingdom) in his keynote
presentation titled ‘Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Democracy’. This is exactly
why policy-makers need to make sure that the foundations upon which AI rests aredemocratic in terms of inclusivity, transparency, and safety, in order to not replicate orexacerbate the socioeconomic injustices that already exist in the world.
The struggle for power, as elaborated on by other speakers and panellists, in thesense of storytelling and whose voice gets a chance to be heard is also reflected
within AI governance. The grand narrative of AI being inevitable stems from thebelief that ‘we are all in this together’ when in fact we are not. The access, or theharm from AI, is not equally distributed and has accelerated already existing unjust
and unsustainable harms in an unstable direction. Who determines provision, access,cybersecurity, safety, and ways of implementation? Currently, only 15% of generated
research draws a link between AI and social needs, while only 1% acknowledges thedownsides of AI. Debates around governing AI, such as ethical, responsible, andsafe AI, currently miss a ‘politics of radical hope and inclusion,’ said Dr O’Donovan.
‘Maybe that is something to look for in the Margins,’ he said while nodding in Dr
Raina’s direction and alluding to her previous argument about the importance of
seeking out tacit knowledge of marginalised people.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

39

‘Sociopolitical choices need to be made regarding AI,’ argued Dr O’Donovan.
More sectors and more stakeholders need to be included in the decision-making
process surrounding the usage of AI in multiple sectors. The least powerful sectors
and people are important for democratic politics and the democratic governingof AI, as we look toward a more inclusive decision-making process. Therefore,
citizen involvement is probably the closest we can get to inclusivity at this moment:‘We need to be asking the public: “What do you think about AI, what do you
think about the direction in which it is going?” We don’t have opinions of what AI
developers think yet either. The ones who design AI seemingly don’t have thosesame perspectives as the public,’ stressed Dr O’Donovan. It seems as if many current
policy-makers are aware of what Dr O’Donovan expressed are ‘mis-benefits’ of AI
and the risks they entail for the current direction in which AI is going, but continue tomake the same decisions regardless. He argued that multiple directions are needed.
‘The process is not one of slowing down or speeding up. It’s all about giving AI a
direction.’
Dr O’Donovan proposed ‘Hopeful AI’ as a way to change the narratives ofinevitability and for people in different groups to benefit from it in diverse ways. To
initiate and shape ‘Hopeful AI’, Dr O’Donovan argued that we should reclaim thepolitics of AI. The current politics involving AI are less than democratic, for politics
around it, such as the assessment of the risks and its alignments with political andbusiness agenda, is more individualist or group-specific rather than collective. Dr
O’Donovan, echoing the views of others, emphasised the motto upon which IAFOR
rests – the ‘international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary’ – as crucial in any political
discussion.

5. Conclusion
IAFOR’s London conference created an opportunity to bring together insights fromthe fields of Education, Language Learning, Arts & Humanities, and Gerontologythat align with the four key themes IAFOR has identified as emerging trends
within academia and society at large. Addressing issues of humanity and human
intelligence, artificial intelligence and technology, global citizenship and peaceeducation, and leadership, the keynote speakers and panellists weaved a narrativeof international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary cooperation as the key to solving
complex local and global issues.
Today, humans are faced with numerous crises, including climate change, themarginalisation and violence towards certain minority groups, a rising cost of living,an ageing population, and a struggle between human and artificial intelligence. In
striving to become a ‘god’, humanity has positioned itself above nature, creating
unsustainable social, economic, and political systems that are causing the challenges
it currently faces. Education – the Arts & Humanities in particular – hold the key torectifying all these missteps, as they can recentre and redefine the ‘human’, cultivate
understanding, respect, and acceptance of the ‘other’, and allow for peacefulnegotiations and the coexistence of various groups of people within one global
society.

40

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

However, it is the Arts & Humanities that are currently facing the danger of
elimination, as they are being heavily defunded in institutions of higher education
across the globe. With the proliferation of AI, a technological advancement thatpossibly holds the solution to creating a sustainable future, the importance of the Arts
& Humanities is even more emphasised. We need critical consciousness, autonomous
learning, creative thinking, and inclusive practices, in order to not replicate alreadyexisting social injustices within a new system the ongoing implementation andevolution of AI is allowing us to build.
The discussions at this IAFOR London conference asked us to rethink the purposeof education, what it means to be a global citizen, knowledge and the creation
thereof, and most importantly, to rethink what it means to be ‘human’. Our debates
call for a radical rethinking and reimagining of our broken social, economic, andpolitical systems in order to create a more sustainable future. We need to foster anenvironment in which the ‘international, intercultural, interdisciplinary’ can thrive, so
as to ensure that all voices are heard. Marginalised people, people from the Global
South and North, people from developed and developing countries, and all otherdichotomous groupings based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.,
must enter the dialogue discussing how best to create a better future. IAFOR willcontinue to carry this mission forward, striving to provide an inclusive and safe space
for all voices to speak up.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

41

Conference Networking and Cultural Events
Networking events within our conference programmes provide designated spaces foropen discussion, forming professional connections, and inspiring collaboration within
and outside the conference venue. The conference itinerary featured a variety of such
spaces, welcoming both returning delegates and new members alike.
An afternoon tour at The British Museum served as the London programme’s Cultural
Event, offering an exceptional prelude to the conference on Wednesday, July 10. The
guided tour brought delegates through the museum’s vast and historic collection,
leading them through some of the world’s most significant artefacts spanningmillennia of human history and culture.
The conference Welcome Reception capped off the conference plenaries at SOAS,
University of London on Thursday, July 11. Delegates, both familiar and new to the
IAFOR network, were welcomed to carry on discussions prompted by this year’s
keynote presentations with the speakers themselves, and plenary speakers joineddelegates to speak one-on-one about their work, research, and ideas. A staple
within IAFOR’s conference programme, the Welcome Reception is always free forall registered delegates to attend, where they are encouraged to expand upon the
programme and their network.
The Conference Dinner followed the reception, leading delegates to the Savile Club,one of London’s most prestigious and historic private members clubs. Establishedin 1868, the Savile Club has long been a gathering place for the city’s intellectuals,
artists, and dignitaries, with IAFOR delegates and our London programme speakers
continuing this tradition of intellectual exchange and camaraderie within the historic
venue.

42

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

Delegates were treated to a warm welcome speech by long-time IAFOR collaborator
and respected figure in the world of art and design education, Professor Bruce Brown
from the Royal College of Art, United Kingdom.
The Conference Dinner celebrates the network of academics IAFOR has built over
the years, as well as the cultural and culinary background of our host venues. For our
London programme, the Savile Club provided an exemplary course meal of British
fine dining. Delegates from all over the world enjoyed a culinary experience thatshowcased the best of British cuisine, expertly prepared and presented.
Towards the end of the evening, IAFOR CEO & Chairman Dr Haldane delivereda closing and thank you speech, congratulating the speakers on their insightfulpresentations, expressing his appreciation for the high calibre of discussion that had
taken place throughout the day. He also looked forward to the parallel sessions in the
coming days, encouraging delegates to continue their engagement with the diverse
and thought-provoking topics on the agenda.

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

43ECE/ECAH/ECLL/EGen2024
Key Statistics

international
interculturalinterdisciplinary

Date of creation: June 10, 2024

672 DELEGATESFROM 84 COUNTRIES
422

166

OnsitePresentations

22%
55%

Occupation

6%

498

OnlinePresentations

55% University Faculty
59%
22% Doctoral Student
6% Public Sector/Practitioner
5% Postgraduate Student
5% Postdoctoral Fellow or Instructor
3% Other
2% Independent Scholar
2% Private Sector

Institutions andOrganisations

36%

59% Doctoral Degree
36% Masters Degree
5% Bachelors Degree

Education

5%

Top Five Streams

48
36

36

1. Teaching Experiences,
Pedagogy, Practice & Praxis (48)
2. Higher Education (36)
3. Learning Experiences, Student
Learning & Learner Diversity (36)
4. Design, Implementation &Assessment of Innovative
Technologies in Education (30)
5. Lifespan Health Promotion (23)Top Five Countriesof Delegates

10%
7%

30

1. United Kingdom (10%)
2. United States (7%)
3. Hong Kong (6%)
4. Taiwan (5%)
5. India (5%)

6%

5%

5%

23

Multiple Authored vs.
Single Authored Submissions

588

Total
Presentations

258
Hours ofContent

54%

46%

international | intercultural | interdisciplinary

ECE/ECAH/ECLL/EGen2024
Key Statistics

international
interculturalinterdisciplinary

Date of creation: June 10, 2024

672 DELEGATESFROM 84 COUNTRIES
422

166

OnsitePresentations

22%
55%

Occupation

6%

498

OnlinePresentations

55% University Faculty
59%
22% Doctoral Student
6% Public Sector/Practitioner
5% Postgraduate Student
5% Postdoctoral Fellow or Instructor
3% Other
2% Independent Scholar
2% Private Sector

Institutions andOrganisations

36%

59% Doctoral Degree
36% Masters Degree
5% Bachelors Degree

Education

5%

Top Five Streams

48
36

36

1. Teaching Experiences,
Pedagogy, Practice & Praxis (48)
2. Higher Education (36)
3. Learning Experiences, Student
Learning & Learner Diversity (36)
4. Design, Implementation &Assessment of Innovative
Technologies in Education (30)
5. Lifespan Health Promotion (23)Top Five Countriesof Delegates

10%
7%

30

1. United Kingdom (10%)
2. United States (7%)
3. Hong Kong (6%)
4. Taiwan (5%)
5. India (5%)

6%

5%

5%

23

Multiple Authored vs.
Single Authored Submissions

588

Total
Presentations

258
Hours ofContent

54%

46%

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024
international| intercultural | interdisciplinary45

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

46

Conference
Photographs

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

47

48

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

49

50

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

51

52

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

ECE/ECLL/ECAH/EGen2024

53

2024-V
ISSN: 2759-4939