Parental public pedagogies: The perspective of two case studies

Keywords: parents, public space, public pedagogy, parental public pedagogy, interruption

Abstract

Research objectives and problem(s): The aim of this article is to analyze parental public pedagogies from the perspective of two case studies.

Research methods: This case study adopts a qualitative case study design and uses narrative interviews, observations, and document analysis.

Process of argumentation: The article begins with a discussion of the theoretical foundations of public space, public pedagogies, and issues related to parental involvement. This is followed by a presentation of the research design, the findings, and a discussion of the forms of public pedagogies demonstrated in both cases.

Research findings and their impact on the development of educational sciences: The people at the center of both case studies interrupt and disrupt the public space of which they are a part. Their interruptions express disagreement with what Gert J. J. Biesta describes as an “egological” form of existence: one focused solely on the individual self. Through their ongoing engagement with subjectivity, both participants—as parent and as teacher—develop a pedagogy of interruption.

Conclusions and/or recommendations: The article concludes with reflections, including forward-looking ones, drawing attention to the role of networks of parent–researchers in public space in strengthening the subjective representations of both parents and researchers.

References

Biesta, G. J. J. (2012). Becoming public: Public pedagogy, citizenship and the public sphere. Social and Cultural Geography, 13(7), 683–697.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). Interrupting the politics of learning. Power and Education, 5(1), 4–15.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2014). Making pedagogy public: For the public of the public, or in the interest of publicness? In J. Burdick, J. A. Sandlin, & M. P. O’Malley (Eds.), Problematizing public pedagogy (pp. 15–25). Routledge.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.

Giroux, H. A. (1998). Public pedagogy and rodent politics: Cultural studies and the challenge of Disney. Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies, 2, 253–266.

Giroux, H. A. (2003). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35, 5–16.

Mendel, M. (2019). The spatial ways democracy works: On the pedagogy of common places. Why, why now? Research in Education, 103(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719839743

Mendel, M. (2020a). Education is power and parents are force. Foreword. International Journal About Parents in Education, 12(1), I–VII. http://www.ernape.net/ejournal/index.php/IJPE/article/view/367/275

Mendel, M. (2020b). Parents in education and democracy: Ontologies of engagement. International Journal of Pedagogy, Innovation and New Technologies, 7(1), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.4464

Mendel, M. (2022). On the haunted ‘public’ in public education in Poland. European Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211008262

Mendel, M. (2023). Parental public pedagogy: A Polish leader about being together, where action is possible and freedom can emerge. International Journal About Parents in Education, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.54195/ijpe.16412

Rancière, J. (2005). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible (G. Rockhill, Trans.). Bloomsbury.

Published
2025-12-31
How to Cite
Mendel, M. (2025). Parental public pedagogies: The perspective of two case studies. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education, 14(2 (28), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.35765/mjse.2025.1428.02