As the STRIDE project works to build a new, comprehensive and comparative knowledge-base on education reforms, policies and interventions that reduce inequalities in education, training and learning outcomes across Europe (2024–2027), we are constantly looking for research that helps us understand what works, for whom, under what conditions, and whose perspectives shape the evidence we rely on.
That is why we invite policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders to explore the Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), Vol. 10 No. 1 (2026) thematic issue: “Diverse Perspectives on Decolonizing the Field of Comparative and International Education.”
Why this issue now?
In the editorial introducing the issue, Susan Wiksten emphasizes that decolonizing work is not a passing trend or a “one-off” correction. It is an ongoing scholarly responsibility: a continuous process of self-reflection on power, oppression, and the production of knowledge, especially as societies change and new inequalities emerge. The editorial situates this discussion in a shifting global climate that is affecting education research directly: reduced mobility, constrained international collaborations, and policy environments that can discourage critical inquiry and social justice-oriented research.
For STRIDE, this context matters. Inequalities in education are not only outcomes reflected in attainment data; they are also shaped by deeper forces, including how knowledge is constructed, how “normal” is defined, and how power travels through curriculum, pedagogy, and policy. This thematic issue speaks directly to those deeper dynamics by interrogating how Comparative and International Education (CIE) can be complicit in reproducing structural oppression and “cognitive (in)justice,” while also offering pathways for renewal in the field.
Decolonising the curriculum: beyond “adding diverse authors”
One of the most practical bridges between NJCIE’s decolonising agenda and STRIDE’s mission is the growing recognition that reducing inequalities requires more than expanding access or tweaking assessment. It also requires rethinking what counts as legitimate knowledge and how learners are positioned in classrooms and more broadly in education systems.
A decolonised curriculum is not about removing European knowledge. Instead, it aims to contextualise dominant knowledge of traditions and make room for other intellectual lineages. It is also not a token gesture of adding a few diverse authors to reading lists; it requires a structural shift in how subjects are taught, including attention to political and cultural biases embedded in teaching materials and pedagogy.
Key aspects of a decolonised curriculum align strongly with STRIDE’s equity goals:
- Challenging knowledge structures: interrogating why some knowledge becomes “standard” while other perspectives are marginalised.
- Diversifying content: incorporating knowledge systems and histories from colonised or marginalised populations.
- Contextualising disciplines: recognising that many academic fields developed within historical power dynamics, including coloniality.
- Inclusivity and empowerment: enabling students to become active, critical learners and addressing disparities such as awarding gaps.
- An ongoing process: a collective, iterative effort in which students and educators continuously rethink pedagogy rather than implementing a one-time solution.
This matters for inequality reduction because curriculum and pedagogy shape who feels recognised, who feels capable, and whose experiences and ways of knowing are treated as legitimate. In STRIDE terms: decolonising work is not separate from effective interventions; it can be a precondition for interventions to be equitable and effective across diverse learner groups.
Plurality of perspectives as a method for equity
A central argument is that the added value of CIE research depends on its ability to bring a plurality of perspectives into discussions about common good resources and political choices. For STRIDE, this resonates with our comparative approach: when we compare reforms and policy initiatives across European contexts, we must be mindful that what appears effective in one place may reproduce exclusion in another, especially if the underlying assumptions of the reform are unexamined.
Wiksten also underscores a crucial reality: whether research findings shape practice is partly a matter of dissemination, but ultimately a matter of political will. This is precisely where STRIDE operates: connecting evidence to policy dialogue and supporting decision-makers with comparative insights that can sustain political momentum for equity.
Technology, AI, and the new “decision points” in education
The issue also engages in a theme that STRIDE partners are increasingly confronting: digitalisation and AI in education. The editorial highlights forum contributions linked to CIES Provocations sessions, which document hopes and fears around technology and identifies the need to examine where automated systems are still dependent on human decision-making that is, the points at which values, assumptions, and biases can enter.
For equity-focused reforms, this is not a peripheral concern. Digital tools can expand access, but they can also amplify exclusion when they embed unexamined norms about language, culture, standards of “good” writing, or legitimate knowledge.
What we encourage you to do next
Read NJCIE Vol.10 No.1 (2026) with STRIDE’s mission in mind, as a resource for strengthening the conceptual foundations of equity-driven reforms. As you read, consider using the issue as a catalyst for discussion within your institution, ministry, training provider network, or research team:
- Where do our reforms assume a standard learner, standard knowledge, or standard pathway?
- Which voices and knowledge traditions are centred and which remain peripheral?
At STRIDE, we believe that reducing inequalities in Europe requires both evidence on what works and clarity on what we value. This NJCIE thematic issue is an invitation to advance both.
