Controversial issues in Swedish citizenship education: Teachers’ strategies

Abstract

Understanding controversial issues is important for students to develop as future democratically participating citizens. However, addressing them can be challenging for teachers and there is a clear need for increased knowledge about how to deal with them in teaching. This article examines the strategies applied by civics teachers when teaching Swedish pupils of grades 7–9. We focus particularly on civics teachers as civics is an important subject in Swedish schools, in which there is a strong tradition of dealing with current issues and social problems. We analyse their approaches to four common strategies for teaching controversial issues identified from previous research (avoidance, neutrality, norm mediation and provocation) using data obtained from a survey of 73 civics teachers, six interviews and two observational case studies. The findings are discussed in terms of three educational functions formulated by Biesta: qualification, socialisation and subjectification. They indicate that teachers adopt varying strategies that seem most appropriate according to their professional judgement in specific situations, and the educational functions are usually closely intertwined in practical teaching.

Introduction

School education has several socio-economic functions. It is intended to provide the rising generation with knowledge and abilities that enable them to function and participate fully in adult life. It is also intended to socialise young people in terms of familiarisation with prevailing social values, while also providing opportunities for young people to create their own identities, think critically, and develop new ideas that may be contrary to those of the prevailing society (Biesta, 2009a, 2020). Citizenship education in school contributes to fulfilment of these functions. However, studies made in different national contexts reveals that this takes place in different ways and to different degrees (Schultz et al., 2017, 2023; Torney-Purta et al., 1999).

In 2015, the Council of Europe argued that teaching about controversial issues is a particularly important part of citizenship education but is often relatively undeveloped (Huddleston and Kerr, 2015). Research has shown that teaching about controversial issues can be seen by teachers as exciting and educational, but also challenging and risky (Anker and von der Lippe, 2018; Larsson et al., 2023). Moreover, when political polarisation is high teachers seem to find such teaching more difficult (cf. McAvoy and Hess, 2013; Pollak et al., 2018). We also know that teachers choose varying teaching strategies based on situational factors, teaching goals and personal orientation (cf. Cassar et al., 2021; Larsson and Larsson, 2021; Zimmerman and Robertson, 2017). Among things we don’t know much about is how teaching about controversial issues contributes to fulfilling educational functions. Does it, in a given national context, relate mainly to qualification, to socialisation or to subjectification as Biesta put it? This article tries to contribute to such knowledge, thereby offering a base for a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities in controversial issues education.

The aim of this article is to explore how educational functions are reflected in the strategies applied when teachers raise controversial issues in citizenship education. Empirically, the article is based on data drawn from a recently completed research project, initiated partly to address a lack of knowledge about how teachers in Swedish schools handle controversial issues in their teaching (Larsson et al., 2023). In the national context of this case, Sweden, this is especially the remit of teachers of the subject civics (Sw: ‘samhällskunskap’). This subject is the main contributor to citizenship education, as goals for the subject include transmission of knowledge of politics, economics, sociology and citizenship-related values. The subject is taught in all ten compulsory school years, and all upper secondary school (gymnasium) tracks. In civics teaching, there is a long tradition of dealing with current issues and social problems (Larsson, 2019; Morén, 2017; Olsson, 2016), and providing practice for the students in discussing, debating and taking a stand. Therefore, it is particularly interesting how these teachers think strategically about controversial issues.

Literature review

Erlich and Gindi (2018) have shown that civics teachers play prominent roles in fostering critical thinking skills and teaching about controversial, political issues in Israeli schools, and “scored higher [than other teachers] in all the variables related to discussions of controversial political issue [sic] and reported more relevant behaviours”, confirming the relevance of focussing on these teachers. Other studies on education concerning controversial issues, however not specifically focussed on this group, have identified several distinct approaches that teachers may adopt in their teaching about controversial issues. Using various analytical frameworks, Stradling (1984), Hess (2005), Cotton (2007), Ljunggren and Unemar Öst (2010), Flensner (2020) and Persson (2022), among others, have identified sets of typical strategies that teachers may adopt. The cited authors have focused on slightly different aspects, and thus formulated slightly different categories, but basically four didactic strategies can be discerned.

Many authors have noted that teachers sometimes shy away from the controversial. According to Pollak et al. (2018: 389) there can be many reasons for such avoidance. For example, they may see risks of objections from parents or strong emotions being aroused in students that they may find difficult to handle. They may also feel that they lack sufficient knowledge or ability to handle a question well. For such reasons, Flensner (2020: 9) found that teachers sometimes avoided certain questions by, for example, not responding to some students’ comments, or interrupting them at an early stage. In practice, this sometimes happened despite teachers explicitly stating that all kinds of issues could be discussed in their classrooms. Pollak et al. (2018) also found that teachers with middle school-aged children did not necessarily avoid controversial issues altogether, but could focus attention on aspects that could be unifying, or generic literacy training, rather than the more sensitive or polarising aspects. Similarly, Persson (2022) has noted a defensive approach of teachers to avoid overly heated classroom discussions, mainly because they are concerned that some individual students may be hurt. Hess (2005) and Flensner (2020) have identified a version of this strategy that also reduces attention to contentious aspects and is to some extent avoidant, in which rather than acknowledging the controversial nature of certain issues teachers treat them as factual issues. Stradling (1984) has highlighted a similar approach, involving strong efforts to maintain objectivity, focusing on facts.

Another relatively common strategy of teachers is to provide different perspectives on controversial issues in a neutral manner, equally highlighting different points of view (Flensner, 2020; Hess, 2005; Persson, 2022; Stradling, 1984). In a related strategy, the teacher chooses to withhold his or her own opinions and acts as a neutral debate leader for students’ discussions (Cotton, 2007). In addition, based on results of the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study, Ljunggren and Unemar Öst (2010: 35–36) have found that Swedish teachers quite often act as debate leaders. However, most often when students express contentious opinions the teachers adopt a role Ljunggren and Unemar Öst called the “norm mediator”. According to their analysis, norm mediation is also the strategy advocated in the Swedish curriculum.

Strategies that involve mediating norms in some way have also been noted in several of the other cited studies. According to Hess (2005), teachers can choose to promote a certain approach that is in line with either their own perceptions or stated curriculum requirements. As Persson (2022) shows, teachers may try to correct students’ views and foster a desirable goal such as environmental awareness or respect for dissent or other democratic values. To do so, teachers may try to elicit empathy in students, which Flensner (2020) highlights as a particular teacher strategy. Ljunggren and Unemar Öst (2010: 35–36) distinguish two other strategies in addition to the norm-mediating strategy, both of which involve not letting students’ opinions emerge in a classroom discussion. An educator may stop pupils expressing opinions they regard as inappropriate or unacceptable, and justify the rejection of such opinions directly in the classroom or privately with the pupils who apparently hold them. We regard the additional teacher strategies presented by both Flensner (2020) and Ljunggren and Unemar Öst (2010) as variants of the norm-mediating strategy.

In some situations, teachers may also try to promote debate by provoking students in various ways. Flensner (2020) sees provocation as a specific strategy. So does Persson (2022), but refers to it as deliberate “disruption” of students’ perceptions to enable new thoughts to arise. Cotton (2007) and Stradling (1984: 125) also noted that teachers may adopt a “devil's advocate” strategy, by expressing contrary views to those expressed by students, thereby challenging the students’ opinions and sharpening their critical thinking.

In this review of previous research, we have thus distinguished four types of didactic strategies for teaching controversial social issues: avoidance, neutrality, norm mediation and provocation, which we use here as parts of a conceptual framework to analyse participating civics teachers’ comments and observed practices.

Theoretical and methodological framework

The empirical material was collected using an inductive exploratory approach with the aim of finding out what teachers perceive as controversial issues in teaching and how they handle them (Denscombe, 2021). By focusing on teachers’ own views, we have sought to capture “the perspective of the teaching professional”, as teachers must adapt their teaching approaches in response to often “unpredictable, complex, and uniquely situated didactic situations” (Biesta, 2009b; cf. Frelin, 2014; Persson and Berg, 2022: 62; Schön, 1983). Thus, we have not attempted to define what a controversial issue is, and instead sought teachers’ perceptions. It would have been impossible to completely dispense with a preconceived idea of what we were looking for, as collection of relevant data necessitated a simple conceptualisation when communicating with participating teachers. We chose to use the conceptualisation of controversial issues presented by Huddleston and Kerr (2015: 8) as those “which arouse strong feelings and divide opinion in communities and society”. However, we have consistently emphasised that we were (and are) primarily interested in the teachers’ own experiences and associated thoughts.

The outcome of the empirical analysis of how the four didactic strategies identified in previous research are expressed in the material is then interpreted in terms of the three educational functions (qualification, socialisation and subjectification) distinguished by Biesta (2009a, 2020). Qualification refers to provision of students with knowledge, abilities and skills they require to participate as fully as possible in society and working life. Socialisation refers to the transmission to young people of the norms of the prevailing society, that is, the values and behaviours that are currently regarded as desirable, acceptable, and unacceptable. Subjectification refers to the process whereby young people become “subjects” in their own right, who can change both their own life-courses and social structures in response to constant socio-economic, cultural and political evolution. To do so they must be capable of critically thinking about of existing conditions and advancing new ideas in order to drive change. In summary, the four identified didactic strategies and three educational functions provide the theoretical and methodological foundations for this study.

Methods

The empirical material this article is based upon consists of data collected via a survey of views of civics teachers in Swedish junior high schools (for pupils of school years 7–9, 13–15 years old), interviews with six teachers, and case studies involving observations of 15 teaching sessions led by two of the interviewed teachers.

The survey was conducted online in late 2018. Teachers were invited, through a Facebook interest groups for social studies teachers, to participate in a survey on teaching controversial social issues in social studies (civics, geography, history and religious education) in grades 7–9. Participation was voluntary and completely anonymous, and we had no personal contact with the teachers. Eighty teachers chose to complete and return the questionnaire, 73 of whom stated that they had taught civics in recent years. Responses of these 73 teachers, all of whom were self-reportedly certified civics teachers, are considered here. This article uses the responses to three survey questions. The first asked: How much do controversial issues permeate you teaching in each social studies subject? Respondents chose from four options, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘nearly all teaching’, with an option for free text comments. The second question called for free text responses and read: Do you actively chose to abstain from any particular area? The third question inquired: What teaching strategies do you prefer to apply? Respondents selected from four options and could include free text comments.

Two case studies were conducted in 2019–2020 consisting of teacher interviews and classroom observations of civics education. The two teachers (designated Teachers 1 and 2) involved had chosen a teaching module they expected to be controversial. The studies included interviews with the teachers before and after classroom observations. Case study 1 followed Teacher 1's interactions with a year 7 class (8 observed lessons of 50 minutes each). Case study 2 followed Teacher 2's interactions with a year 8 class (7 observed lessons of 50 minutes each). In case 1, the class consisted of 18 students (6 female and 12 male) and the group was recently formed. The class was curious and attentive but rather quiet and hesitated discussion, possibly a consequence of that they did not know each other well. In case 2, the students knew each other, but came across as somewhat reluctant to engage in discussion.

The observations were guided by an attention to how teachers and students interacted when situations came across as controversial. All observable information was recorded as field notes during the observations. The pre-observation interviews included questions about the planned content and the teachers’ didactic considerations in relation to controversial issues. In the post-observation interviews the teachers were asked to reflect on the outcome of the teaching in relation to their goals and intentions. The interviews, which lasted between 45 and 60 min, were recorded and immediately transcribed.

To further elucidate the teachers’ strategies, four additional teachers (Teachers 3, 4, 5 and 6) were interviewed in 2021–2022 without also observing their teaching. ¹ Before the interviews, the teachers were asked to prepare by thinking of one teaching episode about a controversial issue that the teacher would call successful, and one that they felt did not go very well. The interviews with teachers 3–6 were conducted by phone or online and lasted 25–55 min.

Throughout the project we have striven to follow the Swedish Research Council's principles for good research practice (2017). We have also adhered to Umeå University's regulations regarding risk and vulnerability assessments, as well as the handling of personal (and other) data in all stages of the research process. The project has been ethically approved by the appropriate authority.

The analytical process consists of three steps. In the first step, analytical categories were generated through review of research, resulting in the four strategies avoidance, neutrality, norm mediation, and provocation. In the second step, these strategies were applied to the empirical data. Statements in the survey responses, interviews and observations were linked and interpreted to the identified teaching strategies. Statements that were explicitly uttered were used, but also to some extent more implicit information like tone of voice, emphasis on certain passages or sighs. Thus, both the semantic level and the latent level of speech were considered in the analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun and Clarke, 2006: 84). In the third step, the four strategies as they came across in the material were discussed in relation to the educational functions socialisation, qualification and subjectification (Biesta, 2009a, 2020).

Teachers’ approaches to identified teaching strategies

That controversial issues have an important place in the teaching of all the social studies subjects (civics, geography, history and religious education) in grades 7–9 is clear from the survey. Especially, this applies to the civics subject. This corroborates our initial assumption that civics teachers most frequently address controversial issues in their teaching. They regarded controversial issues as being most relevant and most frequently raised in their teaching of civics, followed in order by religious education, history and geography. However, the between-subject differences in these respects were not very large. No civics teacher stated that controversial issues were irrelevant. Two-thirds (49 teachers) stated that controversial issues permeated much of the teaching, just under a third (21 teachers) stated that they selected a few issues to address, and one expressed a preference to avoid them. The free text comments corroborate the general view that civics has a prominent role in dealing with such issues. For example, one stated that, “Controversial issues have a natural place in civics. In the other subjects, I try to work through the overload of subject matter and rarely take time for discussions”. The following sub-sections consecutively deal with findings regarding each of the identified teaching strategies.

The avoidance strategy

The survey showed that all participating civics teachers considered controversial issues to be important, and addressed them to some extent. About half said there was no specific area they avoided, while for the others it often seemed to depend on the student group involved. One stated that, “In one of my classes, a debate on feminism became too lively, so I avoided it there.” Another stated that, “At the moment I have pupils with racist views, so I like to avoid topics where they spread their views.” Another teacher said to be raising controversial issues but limited the space to undemocratic voices, stating that, “Sometimes I just silence them”. Several emphasised that they did not avoid issues, but considered how to raise them. These findings indicate that teachers seem to want to avoid “too lively” discussions and limit space for the spread of undemocratic views, at least in settings similar to those of the respondents. Thus, there are situations where teachers choose an avoidance strategy, possibly in an overlap with norm-mediation and as a way of avoiding exposure of individual students to offensive statements.

The observations and interviews corroborated these conclusions. In Case study 1, during a session on “fake news” the teacher set limits on prejudice expressions by students. The lesson had started with the teacher giving the students examples of different categorical positions, for example “crime is increasing drastically” and “harsher punishments reduce crime” and the students where invited give their own examples. Next, the students had to look for information and sources that supported or refuted the statements. We interpret this task as an example of a teacher wanting to show students different perspectives and points of view by assuming a neutral role. However, closer examination shows that the teacher created situations in which there were clear limits on the statements and prejudices that the pupils could express. In subsequent conversations the teacher clarified that s/he intended to balance between free expression of ideas, consideration of multiple perspectives, and expression of some prejudices that were not overtly crude or prejudice. If e.g rasist attitudes were uttered, the teacher made it clear that they did not fall within the limits of what could be said in the classroom. The teacher was relatively inexperienced, with just two years’ teaching experience, and we interpret these considerations as being at least partly rooted in a fear of initiating a classroom situation that s/he could not handle.

Evidence that teachers had applied avoidance and aversion strategies and approaches emerged several times in the interviews. During the interview, Teacher (6) became aware that s/he avoided content related to immigration “I have almost avoided the topic, actually”. Another teacher (3) reflected on how they had avoided some content to that would have exposed themselves to feelings of insecurity and discomfort, as follows:

… on the other hand, it's easy to make this topic very short… I think I could have made this topic longer, but I didn't. Why didn’t I? Maybe because I didn't want any more difficult questions or because it's quite sensitive. (Teacher 3)

In line with findings by Elmersjö (2024), our participating civics teachers found identity-related issues to be controversial. One of the interviewees (Teacher 6) described controversy related to students’ religious identity arising when addressing the social issue of gender equality. Students with varying degrees of secular identity and those with a clearly Islamic identity adopted opposing positions regarding, for example, the hijab. Due to the students’ conflicting views of an issue that was closely linked to their identities the teacher subsequently avoided any action that might encourage debate between students. External pressure could also motivate avoidance of particular content or an issue. For example, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Teacher 5 expressed support for the authorities’ recommendation that everyone should be vaccinated. Initially, only adults were eligible for vaccination, but when the recommendation was extended to younger age groups the situation changed for the teacher. The school management encouraged teachers to avoid discussing the issue of vaccines with students, to avoid influencing students in one direction or another. The teacher felt that it was difficult to navigate the issue:

The next day it turns out that, damn, I wasn’t allowed to show those opinions because I must be very neutral. It changes all the time in terms of what's happening in the news and what's happening in society. You have to tiptoe a bit. (Teacher 5)

Thus, this teacher's aversion to or avoidance of the vaccination issue depended on the policy of the school management, rather than the teacher's own beliefs, showing that avoidance can have diverse causes. It may stem from the teachers’ own insecurity or discomfort, recognitions of a need to ensure that opinions are not expressed in classroom discourse and discussions that conflict too strongly with curricular norms and values or opposing views that are deeply linked to identities of other students. The avoidance strategy is related to the neutrality strategy, which is addressed next.

The neutrality strategy

In responses to the questionnaire nearly four fifths of the teachers indicated that they preferred to present different aspects or opinions as convincingly and neutrally as possible without revealing their own views. In the free text responses, several statements also indicated that teachers tried to maintain a neutral approach in their teaching. One teacher mentioned that they brought up topics for discussion as they naturally emerged and adopted an objective stance in these situations. Another illustrated how teachers often try to make students understand that many issues are complex and multi-dimensional, so conflicting positions may sometimes have equal validity (such as promotion of free speech and its restriction to avoid offence and social division). Thus, depending on how students’ discussions develop, teachers may adopt different roles in efforts to ensure that all sides of an issue are highlighted. Our participants particularly highlighted the importance of remaining neutral when addressing political issues. The prevalence of the ideal of neutrally presenting different points of view also emerged in the observed teaching and teacher interviews. This appears to be a norm that the teachers had internalised and perceived to be harmonising with the mission defined by the curriculum.

The teacher in Case study 1 regularly set a “task of the week”, to encourage pupils to practise taking different perspectives. Each week the students were asked to find something they wanted to change or improve in the local community then write a letter to a relevant recipient they identified, such as a local politician. In the post-observation interview with the teacher, it became clear that s/he endeavoured to highlight different points of view. Tasks set by the teacher for the pupils in Case study 2 included working on a topic called “without information no democracy”. During a lecture, the teacher explained the differences between a democracy and a dictatorship, and between censorship and open information. Although the lesson was factual and neutral, the teacher still clearly mediated norms including support for democratic values such as freedom of expression and other fundamental rights and freedoms. This also shows that different strategies can be combined, because in addition to the neutrality strategy the teacher also used a norm mediation strategy.

There is also evidence of teachers applying the strategy of encouraging students to consider issues from different perspectives in the interviews. They present different viewpoints from those initially expressed to enhance students’ critical thinking and awareness of other opinions and their potential validity. As one teacher expressed this, “I think it's so important for them to see and hear that there are different opinions and that it's okay. That it's okay to have different opinions” (Teacher 5). Thus, teachers often strive to help students to look at social issues from different perspectives including those expressed by other students in the same classroom. One teacher described feeling that discussing politics often resulted in sensitive or “tricky” situations, saying, “You try, regardless of your own political preferences, to teach as neutrally as you can” (Teacher 6). They also indicated that when conflicts arise between students, neutrally presenting different points of view provides a strategy for the teacher to help them manage the conflicts and reach points where they can understand each other, at least to some extent:

If someone is discriminated against or insulted or subjected to harsh words or offensive behaviour I have to take it just as seriously. I can’t… I have to be neutral. I have to be objective. I think that's the only way. (Teacher 4).

It should be noted that teachers striving to present different points of view considerably overlaps with the norm-mediating strategy. This is because seeing and understanding issues from different perspectives, respecting the views of others, discussing issues and resolving conflicts can be seen as an important norm underlying the mission formulated in the curriculum. One teacher described being satisfied when students manage to talk to each other despite having different opinions. We regard this as an expression of an ideal that pupils should embrace the values of pluralist democracy. The next section presents findings concerning the norm mediation strategy.

The norm mediation strategy

The participating teachers appeared to be comfortable with the strategy of acting as a mediator of norms, and regarded communicating the values formulated in the curriculum as part of their mission. More than two thirds of the surveyed teachers stated that they followed the official line, that is, actively supported the approach presented in the policy documents. The free text responses provide several examples of teachers adopting a norm-mediating approach. One teacher stated that the principle that all humans have equal value must permeate teaching, and thus should speak out against racism and racist structures, clearly distancing themselves from Nazism and other discriminatory ideologies. One emphasised that his/her mission was to educate citizens in a democratic spirit and to defend human rights, while another stated that important elements of the mission is to form tomorrow's citizens and encourage all students to think for themselves.

The norm-mediating strategy was also evident in the observed teaching. During a lesson the teacher in Case study 1 discussed statements about the costs and benefits of immigration. The teacher repeatedly emphasised the importance of citizens being critical of information related to social issues. Thus, communication of this norm permeated the teaching.

The teacher in Case study 2 also showed clear norm-mediating teaching. On one occasion s/he raised a local example of online hate affecting students at another school. S/he clearly encouraged students to think carefully when posting on social media. On another occasion, s/he demonstrated a norm-mediating teaching approach in an assignment focusing on gender roles, in which s/he showed a music video problematising stereotypical gender roles as a starting point for a norm-critical discussion. In these cases, the teacher clearly mediated norms about the equal value of people and gender equality.

In the interviews there was even clearer evidence of teachers regarding the norm-mediating strategy as part of their teaching task:

I actually think it's quite good that it explicitly states that we should take a stand against anti-democratic views. In those situations, I think… I have a clear mandate when that kind of extreme view emerges. I take that for granted, to clearly take a stand against it. With factual arguments, of course. (Teacher 6)

At the same time, the teachers expressed recognition of the importance of their own deeply held values in their civics teaching. However, this strategy can lead teachers to oppose values held by students and parents, resulting in conflicts with both students and parents, as illustrated by the following quotation:

I ended up in discussions that maybe I shouldn’t have been in when I’m supposed to be as objective as possible in the classroom. I guess I thought, in my head, that political parties that have very extreme views would just be a flash in the pan, but that didn’t happen. So I’ve had some not-so-good situations where students and parents have asked what my intentions are with my teaching when I’ve been too… immigrant-friendly and refugee-friendly. (Teacher 5).

In efforts to maintain certain norms, such as not being prejudiced and promoting views consistent with those norms, the teachers indicated that they sometimes felt that they were preventing students from expressing their beliefs. Examples included views on issues related to antisemitism and discrimination associated with the conflict between Israel and Palestine. One teacher (4) struggled with the dilemma that he felt a duty to speak out against racism and discrimination, while at the same time finding it problematic to force a certain way of thinking on his students.

The provocation strategy

The participating civics teachers appeared to have used the strategy of deliberately disturbing or provoking students relatively little. The questionnaire invited teachers to compare their own strategy to acting as a “devil's advocate”, that is, deliberately opposing students’ views. About a quarter of the teachers said that this was similar or very similar to their own approach, but a larger proportion, just over a third, said that it was ‘not at all similar’ to their own approach. Thus, only a small proportion seemed to see it as a didactic strategy to choose at appropriate times. However, the free text responses included descriptions of several examples of teachers adopting a provocative teaching strategy, with several describing how provocation may be needed to start a discussion among students in the classroom. Another said that provoking students can be an effective way to sharpen their arguments and positions.

In the case studies very few examples of the provocation strategy were observed. Moreover, teachers’ reasoning about their didactic choices indicate that they generally avoided provoking the pupils because of perceptions that it conflicts with other objectives, such as promoting good relations and social cohesion. The teacher in Case study 1 justified this avoidance by prioritising the goal of creating cohesion in this class, which had been newly formed. Few examples of teachers presenting disruptive or provocative views were also mentioned in the interviews. When teachers did choose to be provocative, the apparent purpose was to represent views that were not represented, or expressed, in the classroom, as illustrated by the following statement.

They were not entirely clear about their roles and positions in this new class. It often gets very quiet. There's not much discussion in those situations. One group that was in favour of the death penalty, they became quite influential. I got no response from other students. They didn’t want to raise their hands. I tried to counter-argue and get the others to engage, but not much happened there. (Teacher 6)

The aim of the strategy reported in this quotation coincides with that of the strategy of neutrally representing different perspectives. It shows that teachers may use provocation to help students see different perspectives; the objective is the same, but the strategy to achieve it differs.

In summary, the survey, interviews and observations provided remarkably few examples of the teachers applying a provocative strategy. This may have been at least partly because the strategy of provoking pupils is not fundamentally compatible with Swedish school culture and the working environments of our participants, which are imbued with ideals of close relationships and mutual trust between teachers and students. In such a learning culture, challenging students in a speculative manner may be perceived as conflicting with the ideals of teachers’ mission.

Educational functions and teachers’ strategies: Discussion

Our findings, based on questionnaire responses, teacher interviews and observations of teaching sessions, show that the four strategies may be expressed in different ways in the teaching of controversial issues. Individual teachers do not always use a given strategy, but largely adopt one that seems appropriate for the given situation and group of students they are currently working with. Now, we will move to the third step of the analysis. Based on how the four strategies are expressed in teachers’ statements and teaching about controversial issues, the choice of strategies will be discussed here in relation to the educational functions: qualification, socialisation and subjectification. We will display that that the four strategies, as they are expressed in the collected material, have differing strengths of association with the three functions.

Socialisation as a function appears in all strategies as expressed by the teachers in the study. It is an explicit, and clearly evident, function of the norm-mediating strategy. However, the neutrality strategy, involving the equal and neutral presentation of different perspectives, also has a socialising function, as it both helps and fosters students to think rationally, scientifically, consider different perspectives, and be objective, not least because the teacher acts as a role model.

The provocation strategy, as we have seen, is expressed in situations where the teacher wants to show significant opinions that are not expressed by a student group. This also has a socialising aspect, by indicating what is rationally or factually right or wrong, or whether an action or expression lacks legitimacy. In addition, the avoidance strategy can contribute to socialisation, as teachers may choose it in situations where they judge that there is a high risk that raising something controversial would inhibit or counteract desired socialisation, for example by spreading undemocratic views.

Our study clearly shows that all four strategies can contribute to subjectification too. Although norm mediation is a clear form of socialisation, it also has subjectifying potential, as embracing prevailing norms (or at least familiarity with them) has presumed importance for young people to achieve their own ambitions in a given society. Students also require insights into expected norms and active choices to establish their own norms.

As we have seen, norms are not necessarily the same in school, society and family. In order for students to be able to free themselves from their families and close acquaintances, and become thinking individuals in their own right, norm mediation can be both a step and starting point. In a similar manner, the disruptive strategy can help students to discover alternative points of view and become more grounded in their own norms. However, neutrality is probably the most common strategy that teachers apply to promote subjectification, as it leaves room for the students to shape themselves as subjects. When a teacher chooses the avoidance strategy, it may be out of consideration for the students (as in socialisation) as s/he may judge that it is better to avoid an issue that may hinder some students’ subjectification.

All the four strategies, possibly except for avoidance, may also contribute to qualification. Norm mediation is essential, as understanding social norms is crucial for learners’ qualification to participate in the labour market and as citizens. Disturbance and provocation can be used to broaden perspectives, thereby enhancing students’ ability to think, and thus their qualifications. The neutrality strategy most obviously involves the “pure” transmission of knowledge, which in itself enhances qualification. Moreover, grades and other formal qualifications are often based on this type of knowledge. The avoidance strategy is most weakly linked to qualification. To some extent, teachers’ avoidance of certain issues can mediate messages about what content and positions are valid and legitimate. However, if the teacher explains to the students why a certain issue is avoided, avoidance can also contribute to qualification.

In sum, all four strategies are associated, to varying degrees, with all three educational functions. Regardless of the choice of strategy, qualification is usually promoted, and in many cases both socialisation and subjectification. Thus, teachers’ strategy choices should not always be interpreted as either socialising or subjectifying. This is interesting as subjectification often is understood as critical thinking or “counter-socialisation” in opposition to socialisation (Långström and Virta, 2016; Ochoa-Becker, 2007). This also corroborates a point emphasised by Biesta (2020), that the three distinguished educational functions are primarily meaningful at an analytical level, while in practical teaching can be very closely intertwined. Persson and Berg (2022) made a similar observation. Their results show that the teachers interviewed had found approaches that did not juxtaposition socialisation and subjectification, but rather saw the two functions as combinable, in the unique didactic situations.

Of the four strategies, avoidance is most weakly associated with all the educational functions. As Erlich and Gindi (2018) showed in their investigated context, civics teachers are much more inclined to include discussions of controversial issues in their teaching than other subject teachers. This is indicated also in other studies (Larsson and Larsson, 2021). Still, civics teachers sometimes strategically choose avoidance as we here have shown. Although it less clearly contributes to educational goals, teachers may choose to avoid controversial issues to protect some students’ well-being and foster good relations between teachers and pupils, as well as between pupils. This is in line with stipulations in the curriculum to promote co-operation and consensus. It can also be said to harmonise with generally accepted norms of Swedish school culture and a Swedish understanding of a functioning democratic culture: favouring kindness and consideration rather than loud discussion and conflict (Ljunggren and Unemar Öst, 2010; Norgren Hansson, 2024).

Conclusion

In this study we have sought to broaden the understanding of teachers’ strategies for teaching controversial issues, by exploring experiences and views of civics teachers in Sweden and thereby opening for the perspective of the teaching professional and the everyday practices of teaching in complex and unique situations (Persson and Berg, 2022; Schön, 1983). For this purpose, we have mirrored the choices of strategies by surveyed, interviewed and observed teachers, against Biesta's educational functions. The results strongly indicate that the teachers generally do not choose a strategy based on principled convictions, but on professional considerations in specific situations with specific groups of students. This study contributes to deepened understanding of how the four strategies for teaching controversial issues are interrelated with different functions of education. By making this knowledge more readily available, the article provide a ground for teachers’ reflection on the teaching and learning processes about reasons and consequences of the didactical choices involving controversial issues.