The problematisation of ethnic and cultural diversity in physical education teacher education (PETE): an analysis of PETE course syllabi from Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of studies have focused on policies in physical education and physical education teacher education (PETE). Policies are important because they prescribe behaviours or a course of action, and they legitimise some knowledge and perspectives while discrediting others. In the field of physical education (PE), a white, male-centric, middle-class, heteronormative and able-bodied understanding of bodies and sports has been the frame of reference for a long time, which can lead to the marginalisation, exclusion and alienation of pupils, students and faculty. In this paper, I investigate how ethnic and cultural diversity are represented in three PETE programmes in Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada, respectively. Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ (WPR) approach for analysing policy was used to analyse course syllabi from the three selected PETE programmes. The findings suggest that ethnic and cultural diversity are represented in different ways, however, the course syllabi from all three countries were underpinned by liberal and critical approaches to multicultural education. This study has several implications. Teacher educators are reminded to pay attention to how the problematisation of ethnic and cultural diversity in course syllabi can allow or constrain different ways to think about these issues, and that policies can create certain types of ‘problems’ and ‘subjects’, which can lead to real-life consequences. Furthermore, they are reminded that these problematisations can be resisted and challenged.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education teacher education
• syllabus
• policy analysis
• ethnic and cultural diversity
• Indigenous
• Bacchi

Introduction

Within physical education and physical education teacher education (PETE)¹ research, there has been a recent increase in studies on policies, such as physical education (PE) curricula (e.g. Dowling & Flintoff, 2018; Fitzpatrick & Allen, 2019) or PETE programmes/course syllabi (e.g. Apelmo, 2022; Philpot, 2017) Here, I use a broad understanding of the term ‘policy’, which comprises the macro level (i.e. government or national) and micro level (i.e. institutional) (Vidovich, 2007). Policies are a product of a political process and thus never neutral, they are often characterised by compromises, contradictions and vagueness (Ball, 1993). Furthermore, policies are ‘the operational statement of values’, and they ‘project images of an ideal society (education policies project what counts as education)’ (Ball, 1990, p. 1). In the same way, curricula and syllabi state what is worth knowing and what is not, prescribe behaviours and actions and create ‘subjects’ and ‘problems’ (Alfrey et al., 2021; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Since values are always embedded within a cultural context, we need to ask whose values are represented in policies and curricula and whose are left out.

Various studies have argued that there is a lack of diversity in the physical education profession and the physical education and kinesiology (or sport science) faculties and that they are dominated by a white, male-centric, middle class, heteronormative and able-bodied understanding of bodies and sport (Barker, 2019; Douglas & Halas, 2013; Flintoff, 2014; Nachman et al., 2021). While there are connections between physical education and PETE, one cannot presuppose that a trend in physical education will necessarily be reproduced in the same way in PETE or vice versa (Richards et al., 2019). That being said, both milieus are influenced by global neoliberalism and the effects of it on educational practices include ‘homogenization, deterritorialization, and Westernization, promoting gender-neutral and colourblind thinking and deflecting attention away from issues of social justice’ (Azzarito et al., 2017, pp. 205–206). Another distinguishing feature of global neoliberalism in physical education is the pervasiveness of whiteness² in the field, which manifests itself in different ways. On the one hand, whiteness is positioned as normal and universal; it is at the centre but it remains unnamed (Dowling & Flintoff, 2018; Nachman et al., 2021). On the other hand, there is a ‘silenced dialogue’ around ethnicity³ in physical education (Thorjussen & Sisjord, 2018), where ethnicity is either ‘othered’, explained using deficit perspectives or simply made invisible (Flintoff et al., 2015). There are few studies that have examined issues of ethnic and cultural diversity in PETE, but many of these have reported shortcomings in how these issues are addressed, leading to stereotyping, inequality of educational opportunities and marginalisation. The reported shortcomings include for instance, unintentional othering and exclusion by pre-service teachers (van Doodewaard, 2021), colour-blind approaches and cultural discourses of race utilised by teacher educators (Flintoff & Dowling, 2019) or black and ethnic minority pre-service teachers facing stereotyping or ‘feeling out of place’ (Flintoff, 2014).

That is why, in this study, I seek to investigate how ethnic and cultural diversity are represented in PETE course syllabi in three countries: Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada. Following Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016) approach to analysing policy, ‘What is the Problem Represented to Be?’ (WPR), I take a closer look at course syllabi from one PETE programme from each country. This paper contributes to ‘unsilencing’ the dialogue around ethnicity in PETE by looking into how ethnic and cultural diversity are represented by various PETE programmes and how each country’s context can amplify or silence certain discourses and voices (Alfrey et al., 2021) within policy documents.

Theoretical and methodological perspectives

Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be’ (WPR)?

I used Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach to analyse my material. WPR is a Foucault-inspired, poststructuralist approach to analysing policy texts. The WPR approach challenges the claim that policies solve pre-existing problems; instead, it encourages the thinking of policies as practices that ‘produce’ certain types of problems (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). In other words, looking at what the proposed solution is allows us to understand what we think the problem is. The WPR approach thus encourages us to ask what kind of problem has been produced, how it was produced and what are its effects? To do that, Bacchi (2009) proposed a set of six questions that ‘work backwards from policy proposals to examine the unexamined ways of thinking on which they rely’ (p. 21). However, the aim here is not to critique policies and replace them with another ‘truth’; rather, it is to invite critical reflection. Bacchi’s (2009) six interrelated questions are as follows:

Q1. What is the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy?

Q2. What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the “problem”?

Q3. How did this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?

Q4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be conceptualised differently?

Q5. What effects (discursive, subjectification or lived) are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

Q6. How and where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced?

WPR can be categorised under the wide umbrella of discourse analyses; however, it does not engage in detailed ‘linguistic’ analysis in a way that reflects, for example, Fairclough’s approach to text analysis; rather, WPR ‘uses texts as “levers” to open up reflections on the forms of governing, and associated effects, instituted through a particular way of constituting a “problem”’ (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 18). Any material that can be understood as a ‘form of proposal’ (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 18) can be used in the WPR approach. In my case, I analysed course syllabi and programme descriptions from PETE in Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada. These documents prescribe a guide of conduct, specifically what future teachers have to know and what competences they should have in connection to ethnic and cultural diversity in teaching.

Gorski’s approaches to multicultural education

Gorski (2009) distinguishes between three main approaches to multicultural education: conservative, liberal and critical. Gorski developed these categories by studying syllabi from multicultural education courses offered in U.S. universities. Using his categories, I can discuss my findings and compare them to previous research in the field. The conservative approach to multicultural education emphasises the ‘Other’, portraying minorities as deficient, often due to their cultural differences. This approach aims to assimilate minorities into the majority population and tends to essentialise culture, resulting in ‘us’ versus ‘them’ stereotypes (Hummelstedt, 2022). In contrast, the liberal approach encourages people to accept and celebrate diversity, reflect on their biases and develop multicultural competence (Gorski, 2009). However, critics argue that these approaches fail to address power dynamics and structural inequality (Hummelstedt et al., 2021). Lastly, critical multicultural education draws on other approaches and theories, such as critical pedagogy, critical whiteness and postcolonial studies (Hummelstedt, 2022).

Materials and method

The data for this study consists of course syllabi and programme descriptions from three higher education institutions in Norway, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand. The course syllabi are also known as course descriptions or outlines, depending on the country and institution. In this study, they will be referred to as ‘course syllabi’. Although the course syllabi looked different in each country, they all included a description of the course content and outcome goals. Some syllabi also included reading lists and assignment descriptions. The length of the documents varied from one to several pages. Only the Norwegian institution had a programme description, which outlined the programme’s structure, goals and requirements. For the Aotearoa/New Zealand institution, an accreditation document was analysed, which covered the same information as the Norwegian programme description. No such documents could be obtained for the Canadian institution.

Table 1 shows the data for this study, as well as additional documents (which are used to discuss Q3). The additional documents consist of steering documents which either directly or indirectly influence PETE in each country, some of them are directly concerning PETE while others are concerning teacher education or education more generally. This is done to contextualise PETE in each country and to better understand how they are aligned with higher level documents. These additional documents were chosen with the help of local contacts persons who were part of the respective institution’s PETE staff, and who thus had a vast knowledge of PETE and educational system in their country.

Table 1. Overview of documents (data in bold).

	Norway	Aotearoa/New Zealand	Canada
Local/Institutional	Programme description for 5-year programme Course syllabi from 5-year programme	Regulation for degree X 3 year (CUAP) Course syllabi from 3-year undergrad Course syllabi from ITE	Course syllabi from 3-year undergrad Course syllabi from ITE
Regional/Provincial			Provincial Teacher Standards
National	Education Act National Curriculum Regulations for Teacher Education in Practical and Aesthetic Subjects for Years 1–13 National Curriculum Guidelines for Teacher Education in Practical and Aesthetic Subjects for Years 1–13	ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession Tātaiako: Cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners Tapasā: Cultural competencies for teachers of Pacific learners	Truth and Reconciliation Report Position statements CCAUEPK

In the first analytical step, I read through all the course syllabi and programme descriptions to get an overview of the structure, content and tone of the documents. Based on this first reading, I decided on some key words that I would be looking for in the documents. This list was continuously updated and changed, once new key words were added I returned to the documents to make sure I did not miss any relevant passages. Key words were chosen based on the focus of this study, additionally, words which are related to ethnic and cultural diversity and that are used in critical research, critical pedagogy and within social justice discourses were searched. By doing this, I excluded courses in which ethnic and cultural diversity issues did not appear (Table 2).

Table 2. List with key words.

List of key words
Divers* Cultur* Ethnic* Rac* Minority Majority Sami Māori Pacific/Pasifika First Nation Métis Inuit	Aboriginal Indigen* Inclu* Equit* Equal* Social justice Emancipat* Critical* Difference Marginalis* Discrimin Other*

Instances where the key words appeared, but were not related to the focus of my study were excluded from analysis, e.g. ‘youth culture’, ‘inclusion’ but relating to disabilities. By searching for these keywords, I was able to identify passages in the documents in which topics relevant to my research questions were discussed. All instances where key words appeared were included in the analysis. In the third step, the marked passages of the programme descriptions and course syllabi were re-read in a close reading and analysed using Bacchi’s questions. Finally, Gorski’s (2009) typology for multicultural education was used to make sense of the discourses which the course syllabi draw on when addressing ethnic and cultural diversity issues.

Sample

This study is part of a bigger project which aims to get a deeper understanding of how ethnic and cultural diversity are addressed in PETE in Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada. Thus, the choice of countries was pregiven. The institutions were chosen because they all have ethnically diverse student populations and/or are known for implementing critical perspectives in their education programmes. It is to be noted that while the student population across the three institutions are relatively diverse, this is not necessarily mirrored in the composition of faculties, which are still dominated by white, majority population faculty members. It is thus important to keep in mind that the programmes and course syllabi are most likely developed by white, majority population teacher educators. That being said, many institutions would have fit these criteria, the decisive factor was convenience, that is, easier access to the institutions and documents because of the contact persons. The names of the institutions were anonymised. In the following section, I will briefly introduce each country’s approach to immigration and multiculturalism, and describe the structure of PETE in each country.

Norway

Norway, a country known for its strong welfare state, was traditionally perceived as an ethnically and culturally homogenous country. However, this perception is not entirely accurate, as Norway has had various national minority groups residing within its borders for many years, whose groups suffered from the government’s ‘Norwegianisation’ policies (Hagelund, 2002). Today, after several waves of immigration and changes to policies, Norway’s immigration policy can be described as ‘restricted and controlled’ (Brochmann & Djuve, 2013). Even though educational inequalities have declined and seem to be comparably low to similar countries, there is empirical proof of ethnic discrimination in the employment market (Larsen & Di Stasio, 2021; Midtbøen, 2016).

When it comes to becoming a physical education teacher in Norway, there are several pathways available. In this paper, the focus is on the newly developed five-year specialised PETE programme, which allows students to specialise in physical education along with one or two additional subjects. The programme is regulated on a national level by two key documents: the National Curriculum Regulations (Ministry of Education and Research, 2020) and the National Curriculum Guidelines (Universitets- og høgskolerådet, 2021). These documents provide quality standards for teacher education and ensure that PETE programmes across the country have a similar structure and content.

Aotearoa/New Zealand

New Zealand can be described as a multicultural reality in an officially bicultural framework (Spoonley, 2015). Until the 1980s issues of cultural difference were related primarily to Māori-Pakeha relations, this partly changed after the liberalisation of immigration policies which led to a large influx of immigrants from the Pacific Islands and Asia (Smits, 2019). Aotearoa/New Zealand has a relatively high income inequality compared to other developed countries (Wylie, 2013), and Māori as well as Pacific pupils and students suffer most from educational inequalities (Mayeda et al., 2022).

In Aotearoa/New Zealand there are no national regulations for PETE, leading to a variation in programmes. Students usually need an undergraduate degree in a related field, followed by a one-year teaching diploma. However, many of these programmes may have limited physical education-specific content, resulting in graduates lacking specialised knowledge. At the national level, the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand reviews and monitors the quality and standards of ITE (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017, 2019).

Canada

Canada, like Aotearoa/New Zealand represents a complicated history of settler colonialism and later, significant immigration. It was one of the first countries to adopt a multicultural policy (in 1971), and celebrating multiculturalism has since become a way of defining national community (Mann, 2016). There are still educational inequalities related to ethnicity, these however, can significantly differ from province to province (Lyon & Guppy, 2019).

In Canada, education falls under the responsibility of provincial governments. Therefore, there are no national regulations regarding PETE. There are variations between provinces, but generally, most physical education teachers complete a four-year undergraduate degree in fields such as kinesiology, motor sciences, etc. and a teaching diploma or master of teaching (which are usually more or less one year long). There is a national organisation called the Council of University Physical Education and Kinesiology Administrators (CCUPEKA), which aims to serve as an accreditation body for physical education and kinesiology programmes. However, accreditation from CCUPEKA is not required for universities that want to offer such programmes.

Positionality statement

This study is inspired by a critical research paradigm, thus aiming to acknowledge and address ‘the inequalities and injustices inherent in the practices, pedagogies, and policies of this field with a view to developing an emancipatory agenda’ (Devis-Devis, 2006, p. 37). Following Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), I see problematisations of policies as ‘productive’ and necessary to question taken-for-granted statements and assumptions and which these are based. I am a white, male researcher of mixed European descent, who can be considered an outsider in all three countries represented in this study, since I have no heritage in either. That is why it was of essential importance to have ‘insiders’ from each of the three countries who helped me navigating the educational systems and choosing relevant documents to investigate.

Findings

The analysed material from the programme descriptions and course syllabi are presented in this section with the help of Bacchi’s (2009) questions that guide the WPR approach.

1) What is the problem of ‘teaching ethnic and cultural diversity’ represented to be in PETE course syllabi? and 2) What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

A presupposition for the creation of policies, guidelines or course syllabi content which addresses ethnic and cultural diversity is that there are detrimental conditions in physical education and PETE, such as for instance, xenophobia, racism, discrimination, marginalisation or exclusion based on ethnicity, etc. The next presupposition is that current physical education professionals are not sufficiently equipped to deal with issues of ethnic and cultural diversity. The key problem (represented to be) is thus, physical education teachers lacking knowledges and competences to address ethnic and cultural diversity issues. However, as we will see, the ‘problem’ is represented in slightly different ways, as is the ‘solution’. The ‘solution’ is represented in the course syllabi by what the necessary knowledges and competences are in relation to teaching ethnic and cultural diversity.

In the Norwegian documents, ethnicity and cultural diversity were never mentioned explicitly (except ‘ethnicity’ once in a listing with other identity dimensions). Instead, diversity and ‘equity, diversity and inclusion’ were used to encompass these topics. Diversity was often mentioned alongside inclusion and one course specifically focused on diversity and inclusion in physical education. The programme description (Norwegian University, 2021b) emphasised gaining diversity and inclusion competence [mangfold- og inkluderingskompetanse]. In the same paragraph, the programme was said to take a ‘norm-critical perspective’ (see for instance, Björkman et al., 2021); however, there was only one further mention of ‘critical’ in connection to diversity across all syllabi. Culture is often mentioned in general terms (e.g. referring to ‘socio-cultural’ or ‘multicultural perspectives’) in teaching. There was one mention of ‘other cultures’ in an outcome goal for a course: ‘can plan for creative exploration of dance and alternative forms of movements based on youth cultures and other cultures’ (Norwegian University, 2021a), and one mentioned Sami/Indigenous culture: ‘can explain laws and governing documents that regulate adapted/universal education and inclusion in school, including an understanding of the Sami’s status as an Indigenous people’ (Norwegian University, 2021a). A closer look at the courses’ outcome goals gives a clearer picture of what are the desired knowledges and competences of future teachers when it comes to teaching ethnic and cultural diversity. Pre-service teachers should have ‘knowledge of the diversity of pupils’, the skills to ‘plan inclusive physical education teaching based on a diverse group of pupils’ and the competence to ‘present research-based knowledge and use such knowledge to reflect on inclusion and diversity in physical education’ (Norwegian University, 2021a). In summary, the language used in the course syllabi is rather vague, not mentioning ethnic and cultural diversity explicitly, but rather under broader terms such as diversity or inclusion. The ‘problem’ of teaching ethnic and cultural diversity does not seem to receive much explicit attention, and when it does the proposed ‘solution’ is to enhance competency in diversity and inclusion, to have knowledge of the diversity of pupils and their backgrounds and to have the ability to create inclusive learning environments in physical education.

The programme accreditation document (of the three-year undergraduate programme) and course syllabi from both programmes (undergraduate and teacher education degrees) in Aotearoa/New Zealand addressed ethnic and cultural diversity throughout. The accreditation document for the undergraduate programme stated that it ‘will recognise and value the unique ethnic diversity of the greater [name of region] and Aotearoa/New Zealand society in general, with a particular focus on Māori and Pacific populations’ health and physical cultures’ (New Zealand University, 2016c). The programme included different courses where ethnic and cultural diversity were explicitly addressed; for instance, a course on socio-cultural foundations was described as including ‘studies of different cultural (Pakeha, Māori, Pacific, Asian) concepts of, and engagement with, health, sport and physical culture’ (New Zealand University, 2016a). Furthermore, the programme offered various courses that looked specifically at Māori movement cultures, thus valuing Māori knowledge, language, values and beliefs. Socially critical approaches were emphasised throughout the course descriptions. Like for instance, reflections on structural issues and power relations and critical examinations of policies relevant to education were addressed as this outcome goal shows: ‘reflect upon the power relations evident in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and biculturalism, as well those relating to Aotearoa/New Zealand’s increasing ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity and the implications of these in education and social policy’ (New Zealand University, 2016a). Similarly, the teacher education programme foregrounded a social justice understanding and used strong language; for instance, one course stated that a focus was to ‘critically examine notions of equity and social justice’ and to ‘use critical frameworks to understand notions of difference and diversity’ by introducing ‘critical theories of race with specific reference to Aotearoa/New Zealand’ (New Zealand University, 2016b). Culturally responsive teaching was mentioned numerous times in different course descriptions. Furthermore, there were two courses with a specific Māori focus – a Te Reo Māori language course and a Te Ao Māori worldview course. To summarise, ethnic and cultural diversity were addressed, both explicitly and implicitly, throughout the documents from both programmes. There was an emphasis on recognising Māori and Pacific knowledges, values and beliefs and infuse education with Indigenous knowledge. Furthermore, there was a focus on critically engaging the students to help them understand inequities on a structural and societal level by problematising the power relations present in policies and other important documents. Finally, a culturally responsive pedagogy and an interpersonal approach addressing assumptions and beliefs in relation to ethnic and cultural diversity were addressed.

The Canadian university’s course syllabi, both the one from the four-year undergraduate programme and the one-year teacher education programme, addressed ethnicity (mostly in tandem with race); however, most of the uses of the term were within a list of identity dimensions. It is important to mention that the undergraduate programme was a generic kinesiology programme, meaning that many courses did not address ethnic and cultural diversity (e.g. emphasising a biophysical science approach rather than socio-cultural), and the ones that did elect to adopt a sport-sociological perspective, asking students to critically reflect on and deconstruct race and ethnicity in sport, as this quote from a course description shows: ‘How do various ideologies, or webs of ideas, such as class, gender, race, ethnicity or body shape and size influence the activities you do or do not do’? (Canadian University, 2021a). The programme offered various elective courses that focused explicitly on Indigenous knowledge or perspectives in connection with sport, physical activity and health. The syllabi from the teacher education courses foregrounded a social justice and critical approach to teaching: ‘Lead activities designed to promote critical health education from a social justice perspective’, and ‘Develop ethics of care and responsibility, justice and emancipation as a skilled teacher’ (Canadian University, 2021b). While there were specific courses focusing on Indigenous education, they were not specific to physical education. However, Indigenous perspectives seemed to be integrated throughout the physical education-specific courses as well. To summarise, teaching ethnic and cultural diversity in this case is represented as raising the awareness of and reflection on how race and ethnicity are constructed within sport and physical education, as well as deepening the knowledge of colonisation and the role sport and physical education play(ed) in it. The teacher education programme aimed to equip students with criticality and instil in them a responsibility to pursue social justice. Furthermore, these Canadian programmes seemed to be (to some degree) infused with Indigenous perspectives and knowledge, as different courses either focused fully on Indigenous knowledge and issues or included concepts or worldviews in certain modules.

3) How did this representation of the problem come about?

To investigate how these representations of the problem came about, I looked at documents connected to (physical education) teacher education that impacted the programmes directly or indirectly.

As mentioned earlier, in Norway, there are national documents that act as regulations and guidelines for teacher education programmes. In these documents, ethnic and cultural diversity are not mentioned explicitly, and the focus and language are similar to those in the course syllabi and programme description. While Sami matters appear only once in the course syllabi (referenced in Q1), there is a longer reference in the National Curriculum Regulation to the inclusion of Sami matters in teacher education. Most of this is excluded from the National Curriculum Guidelines. A look at Norway’s Education Act helps to provide a clearer picture of how ethnic and cultural diversity should be addressed in education. Education should be ‘based on Christian and humanist heritage and traditions’ and should ‘provide insight into cultural diversity’ and promote ‘democracy, equality and scientific thinking’ (Ministry of Education and Research, 1998). Arguably, Norway’s strong welfare system (with its controlled integration policy) paired with the fact that research has shown high social mobility among descendants of immigrants (Hermansen, 2016) and no strong sign of educational inequalities between minority and majority students (Reisel et al., 2019) might be reasons why Norway’s approach to ethnic and cultural diversity in education focuses on an interpersonal approach.

While there are no national regulations or guidelines for PETE in Aotearoa/New Zealand, two national documents created by Aotearoa/New Zealand’s Teaching Council can be helpful in tracing the ideas observed in the course syllabi. The first is the ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements, which serve to assess the quality of ITE (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2019), and the second is the Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017). Both documents emphasise the importance of culturally responsive and inclusive teaching. The commitment to biculturalism is visible in the frequent referral to the Treaty of Waitangi in both documents. One teacher standard, for instance, is to ‘demonstrate commitment to tangata whenuatanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand’ (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017). Furthermore, the Ministry of Education developed two cultural competency resources for teachers of Māori learners (see Ministry of Education, 2011) and Pacific learners (see Ministry of Education, 2018). Compared to the descriptions in the course syllabi from the programme, the language in these two documents seems more vague or ambiguous; the main focus seems to be on cultural responsiveness, inclusivity and respecting the diversity of learners. Only in a few instances is a similar level of criticality found, as in this section dedicated to the Treaty of Waitangi: ‘This requires the injustices caused by colonisation to be addressed and all New Zealanders to engage in creating a positive future that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017). To summarise, while the explicit focus on the needs of Māori and Pacific learners, a commitment to biculturalism and cultural responsivity can be seen throughout the different levels, the more critical approach to these topics, as seen in the two programme descriptions from the Aotearoa/New Zealand university, seems not to be present to the same degree in the higher-level documents.

Since education is organised at the provincial level, there are no national documents about (physical education) teacher education in Canada. However, there are other documents that are helpful in placing the university programme within a wider Canadian context. At the provincial level, there is a Teacher Standards document (British Columbia Teachers’ Council, 2019), while at the national level, the Truth and Reconciliation Report (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) had a significant impact on education in connection to addressing Indigenous matters. In the Teacher Standard document, for instance, educators are expected to ‘respect and value the diversity in their classrooms’, to ‘treat students equitably with acceptance, dignity and respect’ and to ‘critically examine their own biases, attitudes, beliefs, values and practices to facilitate change’ (British Columbia Teachers’ Council, 2019). Stronger language is featured in CCUPEKA’s position statements on anti-racism in physical education and kinesiology:

CCUPEKA calls upon those in positions of power and privilege to reflect on their own experiences, biases and privileges; to acknowledge that privilege often comes at the expense of Indigenous peoples, Black people, and other marginalized peoples; and to act to dismantle systemic racism and oppression. (CCUPEKA, 2021)

Within the Truth and Reconciliation Report’s calls to action are four that are specific to education (62–65) and five that are specific to sport (87–91), and the effects of that are visible on all levels. CCUPEKA operates under another position statement through which it commits to ‘taking impactful steps using mechanisms of accreditation, education and systemic change to support the learning and unlearning that promotes reconciliation, decolonization and Indigenization of Physical Education and Kinesiology programs’ (CCUPEKA, 2021). Similar to the case of Aotearoa/New Zealand, the critical approach identified in the Canadian course syllabi documents is not present in higher-level documents issued by the Ministry of Education, such as the Teacher Standards; however, it is present in other documents, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Report or CCUPEKA’s statements, which do influence teacher education.

4) What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the problem be thought about differently?

The purpose of these questions is to identify what has been silenced in the problem representations and what issues and perspectives have been left out or are present only marginally to stimulate a reflection on if and how the ‘problem’ could be conceptualised differently (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Before examining what silences are present in the different problem representations it is critical to consider that this study only focussed on course syllabi where the key words appeared, thus excluding many course syllabi where ethnic and cultural diversity issues were not addressed at all. The fact that issues connected to ethnic and cultural diversity were not even problematised in many course syllabi is of course in itself a major silence.

The way ethnic and cultural diversity are problematised in the course syllabi and programme descriptions from the Norwegian university leaves different issues unaddressed. One of the most obvious silences was regarding Sami matters. As mentioned in Q3 section, the National Curriculum Regulations dedicated a whole paragraph to explaining how Sami matters should be addressed. However, the focus on Sami matters became increasingly less prevalent from the National Curriculum Regulations to the National Curriculum Guidelines and, finally, the course syllabi. Among all course syllabi, there was only one mention of Sami matters in one of the course’s outcome goals:

can give an account of laws and governing documents that regulate adapted/universal education and inclusion in schools, including an understanding of the Sami's status as Indigenous people and their right to education in line with the Education Act and the current curriculum. (Norwegian University, 2021a)

This does not address Sami culture or knowledge, meaning that it was not present in any course outcome goal. Arguably, this would leave future physical education teachers ill equipped to fulfil the goals stated in the National Curriculum Regulations.

While there were no strikingly obvious silences in the Canadian documents, there were some noteworthy findings. There did not seem to be a coherent approach to addressing ethnic and cultural diversity across the different courses. Many appearances of the keywords were concentrated on a few number of courses. This might be a sign that the initiative was taken mostly by individual teacher educators or course responsibles to address these aspects in courses, rather than a department or faculty wide effort to implement it in the whole programme(s).

In the Aotearoa/New Zealand case, it was more difficult to identify silences because both programmes (bachelor degree and ITE) dedicated a lot of space to ethnic and cultural diversity issues, significantly more than Norway and slightly more than Canada. However, even though the course syllabi dedicated a lot of space to these issues, I remind the reader that in the case of Aotearoa/New Zealand (and Canada), the teacher education programme is only 12 months long, meaning the content could be condensed, or the coverage scant because of competing agendas within PETE. This might not represent a literal silence in the documents; however, its implications are equally important.

5) What effects are created by this representation of the problem?

Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) considered three interweaved types of effects: discursive, subjectification and lived. The discursive effects show how problem representation influences what can be thought and said about the issue (connected to Q4). The subjectification effects show how the problem representation creates certain kinds of subjects. Lastly, the lived effects show the real-life consequences of the problem representation.

As for the discursive effects, in the Norwegian case, ethnic and cultural diversity issues were visible in the texts mostly through the problematisations of diversity and inclusion, which excluded many dimensions and perspectives on ethnic and cultural diversity. The Sami were the only ethnic group explicitly mentioned; however, they played a marginal role in the texts. In the Canadian and New Zealand universities, ethnic and cultural diversity were addressed in a more multifaceted way compared to the Norwegian university. This leaves room to think and talk about the issues in different ways.

The different course syllabi and programme descriptions, with their outcome goals, prescribe what kind of knowledge, skills and competences future physical education teachers must acquire during their education; thus, they create physical education teacher subjects in relation to how ethnic and cultural diversity are to be addressed. Based on the findings from the previous questions, two subjects are identified. These are constructed in the course syllabi from all three countries. One is the teacher as ‘cultural mediator’, which is a term used in the Norwegian National Curriculum Guidelines (National Council for Teacher Education, 2020). This subject is a teacher who has cultural competences, knowledge of the diversity of their pupils and how the diversity of backgrounds might influence some pupils’ learning. Furthermore, he/she values and celebrates diversity, and is a ‘mediator’ between cultures, thus managing and communicating between different cultures, which should facilitate inclusion. While the other subject identified is the teacher as an’ agent of change’. The competencies of this teacher subject are more in line with what critical pedagogies or social justice education advocate for, such as ‘socio-political conscience’ (Ladson-Billings, 2014) or ‘tools for critical thinking, action and social change’ (Hackman, 2005).

The lived effects of these subjectifications can be various, for instance, if the ‘cultural mediator’ teacher subject, with its’ limited understanding of teaching ethnic and cultural diversity, is the dominating one, this can lead to teachers neglecting important aspects, such as power relations, structural inequalities and injustices. Even though having good intentions, this could have detrimental effects for pupils. However, studies exploring the lived experiences of the different actors are needed to obtain a better understanding of, for instance, how teacher educators interpret and translate course syllabi (policy enactment) (Alfrey et al., 2021).

6) How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

The purpose of these final questions is to highlight, on the one hand, the ‘practices that install and authorize a particular problem representation’ and, on the other hand, to ‘reflect on forms of resistance and “counter-conduct” that challenge (or could challenge)’ problem representations (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 24).

Turning back to Q3, I discussed some documents and texts that played a role in producing, disseminating and defending the different problem representations seen in the PETE courses syllabi. However, there are various ways these can be produced and disseminated, such as through research publications, conferences, education policies and education resources. Furthermore, they can be shared through physical education practice and individual experiences. For instance, the problematisation of ethnic and cultural diversity which produced the subject of the teacher as ‘cultural mediator’ is reproduced and disseminated through research that focuses on intercultural approaches, or cultural competences (Hammer, 2012; Wyant et al., 2018). These problematisations can be challenged, and they are challenged in the course syllabi as well. In research they are challenged by studies focussing for example, on critical whiteness perspectives (Flintoff & Dowling, 2019), or activist approaches (e.g. Luguetti & Oliver, 2020).

Concluding discussion

This paper applied Bacchi’s (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016) WPR approach to examine how ethnic and cultural diversity are represented in PETE course syllabi from Norway, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Canada. The key assumption underlying the presence of ethnic and cultural diversity content in the PETE course syllabi is that physical education teachers lack knowledges and competences to teach about these issues. The analysis showed that each institution represented the ‘problem’ (and the ‘solutions’ to it) in slightly different ways, however, the course syllabi from all three countries were underpinned by liberal and critical approaches to multicultural education (Gorski, 2009).

Question one showed how liberal understandings of multiculturalism underpinned the majority of the Norwegian course syllabi (and some Canadian and Aotearoa/New Zealand), where the richness of diversity is highlighted and celebrated, however without addressing more difficult topics such as power relations, inequalities and injustices (Hummelstedt, 2022). Liberal multiculturalism assumes that discrimination and exclusion can be fought solely by addressing individuals’ racial prejudices, biases and stereotypes (Hummelstedt, 2022), that is why cultural competences play a central role in these approaches. It is important to note that, while cultural competences, valuing and celebrating diversity are necessary for teachers, the superficial focus on culture can have detrimental effects on ethnic minority pupils. In that, liberal multiculturalism still thinks in binaries – we and them – while critical multiculturalism tries to understand how the ‘other’ is created by looking at power relations and structural inequities (Björkman et al., 2021; Hummelstedt, 2022). Question three showed how steering documents connected to PETE (but also education more in general) often had similar ways of addressing ethnic and cultural diversity, even though some differences were identified between the different levels. While question four highlighted how the silences that are present in the course syllabi can influence what can be thought and said about the issue. Question five asked about the different effects of the problem representation, and the analysis identified two teacher subjects which are produced by the course syllabi, the teacher as ‘cultural mediator’ and the teacher as ‘agent of change’. Lastly, in question six I considered some of the ways these representations are produced and disseminated.

This study aimed to address issues of ethnic and cultural diversity in physical education and PETE to make the dialogue around race and ethnicity in physical education ‘unsilent’. The study has several implications. Firstly, teacher educators are reminded to pay attention to how the problematisation of ethnic and cultural diversity in course syllabi can allow or constrain different ways to think about these issues. The course syllabi analysed in this study were underpinned by liberal and critical multiculturalism discourses, which, as we saw, can limit what is seen as valuable knowledges and competences in relation to teaching ethnic and cultural diversity. Secondly, this work contributes to raising awareness within physical education on the ways that problematisations in policies, such as that of ethnic and cultural diversity, can create certain types of ‘problems’ and ‘subjects’ (e.g. teacher as ‘cultural mediator’ or ‘agent of change’) (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016), and that these subjectifications can lead to real-life consequences. For instance if the ‘cultural mediator’ teacher subject is dominant, this might lead to the neglect of considering power and structural issues, and a limited and superficial engagement with ethnic and cultural diversity might lead to reproducing ‘othering’, exclusion and marginalisation instead of challenging them (Hummelstedt, 2022). Lastly, we are reminded that policies, or in this case course syllabi are not absolute; rather, they can be critically examined, challenged or resisted.

Several limitations of this study are worth being noted. Firstly, that it is not a study of the ‘taught curriculum’ but rather of the ‘official curriculum’ (Gorski, 2009). This means that teacher educators interpret course syllabi in different ways, choosing to emphasise certain aspects or perspectives over others. However, looking at what is stated in policies is equally important to what is enacted, because policies ‘exercise power through a production of “truth” and “knowledge”, as discourses’, and thus, the possibilities of interpretation and enactment ‘are set within a moving discursive frame’ (Ball, 1993, p. 15). Secondly, as mentioned in Q4, this study focussed only on the course syllabi where certain key words appeared, hereby excluding many documents.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 I use the term ‘PETE’ even if, depending on the country, the correct term could be ‘HPETE’ (health and physical education in Aotearoa/New Zealand) or ‘PHETE’ (physical and health education in Canada).

2 ‘Whiteness is a racial discourse but also a racial perspective or world-view … whiteness is characterized by the unwillingness to name the contours of racism, the avoidance of identifying with a racial experience or group, the minimization of racist legacy, and other similar evasions’ (Leonardo, 2002).

3 Here I follow Gabbert’s (2006) definition of ethnicity: ‘ethnicity refers to a phenomenon of social differentiation in which actors use cultural or phenotypic markers or symbols to distinguish themselves from others. It is a method of classifying people into categories that include individuals of both sexes and all age groups organized into several kin groups using a (socially constructed) common origin as its primary reference’.