Where social justice is concerned with power relationships, marginalization and oppression, educational leadership as a public pedagogy for social justice practice focuses, intentionally, on discourses and practices that work within society and schools in a disciplinary fashion – to normalize individuals in society. This disciplining function of normative discourse and practice fosters forms of structural injustice in schools. A public pedagogy of social justice is concerned with addressing hegemonic forces in the school that oppress individuals: teachers or students or others placed in asymmetrical relationships of power. Therein, leadership that takes a social justice stance takes the form of a public pedagogy to counter the historical and structural injustices in educational settings.

Leadership practice for social justice seeks to create a space of “continuous reenactment” to address injustices. In part, as Kincheloe (2001) explains, the educational leader, through his or her public pedagogy, works to “develop a power literacy to facilitate his or her understanding of the nature and effects of the web of power relations underlying” (p. 684) the discourses and discursive practices that shape the “social.” In the following sections “leadership as public pedagogy” and “social justice as leadership stance” are further examined.

Public pedagogy as socially engaged citizenship provides a civic space and form of public outreach to those cultural groups marginalized, oppressed, or otherwise made subaltern to the dominating culture and class. The educational leader as public intellectual understands that implicit in the notion of public pedagogy is the imaginative nature of art as a form of “cultural politics and the importance of culture and public pedagogy as a struggle over meaning, identity, and relations of power” (Giroux, 2001, p. 8). As well, the educational leader necessarily understands that public pedagogy is concerned with pedagogical struggles that link knowing, imagination, and resistance that, as bell hooks (1991) explains, disrupts “conventional ways of thinking about the imagination and imaginative work, offering fictions that demand careful scrutiny, that resists passive readership” (p. 56).

In this sense, public pedagogy is a form of engaged, social citizenship – performative practice – that is marked by its attentiveness to “the interconnections and struggles that take place over knowledge, language, spatial relations, and history” (Giroux, 2001, p. 9). As a form of socially engaged citizenship, public pedagogy “articulates knowledge to effects and learning to social change to create the conditions that encourage” (p. 9) democratic participation in society. Translated into the classroom, teachers, as public intellectuals, understand the viable role that education plays in preparing an active, critical democratic citizenry.

Schools, when envisioned as democratizing agencies of an educational system in a democratic society, necessarily serve a role of social responsibility concerned with the imperatives of fostering and sustaining a substantive, vibrant democracy. That is, schools as public spaces in which public pedagogy is enacted are responsible for linking learning and social transformation, providing conditions for students to learn the dispositions and capacities necessary to become democratic citizens. Leading, as Giroux (2003) notes of such educational practice “in this sense becomes performative and highlights considerations of power, politics and ethics fundamental to any form of teacher-student interaction” (p. 11). This means rethinking leading and teaching as a form of intellectual work and “proposes that education is a form of political intervention in the world and is capable of creating opportunities for social transformation” (p. 11).

A social justice stance is, in part, an ethical leadership disposition that serves to guide a leaders actions and decisions, and at the same time a social justice stance serves as moral lens through which the educational leader reflects upon his or her own actions and those presented by others. Rather than passively accepting information or embracing a false consciousness instructed by dominant ideologies, the leader takes a much more active role in leading, learning, and reflecting upon his or her relationship with practice and the social context in which the practice is situated.

A stance on social justice is an ethical, moral, and political position-taking (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) within a larger complexity of social, political and cultural contexts; local, national, and global. Such position taking on the part of the educational leader is concerned with Dewey’s (1916) argument that “the conception of education as a social process and function has no definite meaning until we define the kind of society we have in mind” (1916, p. 97). If what we want is a socially just, democratic society, we must work to define that society, in part through our education systems and schools; through the social practices that animate the educational system and schools on a daily basis.

An educational leader, in taking a social justice stance observes, as Maxine Greene (1986) explains, that the type of community, society, and world that

In this sense, educational leaders must be public intellectuals , working within the cultural-historical contexts in which schools are situated; intellectual and cultural workers seen through the “ideological and political interests that structure the nature of discourses, classroom social relations, and values that they legitimate in their teaching” (Giroux, 1988, p. 127). This requires that the educational leader take a critical stance that works pedagogically to transform the public; the public as originally defined by Dewey (1916, 1927) and more recently as examined by Giroux (2001, 2003).

A critical stance for the educational leader is undergirded by a perception of reality that considers the world and our place within it as incomplete, becoming, and subject to our own projections. It is a critical encounter in which such issues as what counts as knowledge or practice becomes subject to individuals’ own histories, ideals, practices, and perceptions (Freire, 1998, pp. 73-80). The critical stance does not simply acquiesce in or absorb new knowledge or practice but rather encounters it as a claim that exists alongside many alternative possibilities and therefore must struggle to retain its legitimacy (Curzon-Hobson, 2003). An educational leader who embraces a critical stance subjects his/her knowledge and practice to a variety of frameworks that s/he has encountered and reflects upon this practice or knowledge in social contexts characterized by tensions and conflicts.

The notion of social justice stance is underpinned by a sense of fragility and openness in the social context, the positions one has in contrast to the position-taking one engages in gives way to the fragility and openness. Importantly, the educational leader who takes a social justice stance recognizes the value that is gained within a social context that is exploited by all in order to reflect upon and imagine anew what is presented and the perceptions of our interrelationships (Freire, 1985, p. 44). The social justice stance often brings to question and introduces conflict to bear on the object of inquiry through his or her practice. Freire (1972) explains this process as “epistemological encircling” in which new ideas—through dialogical inquiry—conflict with and challenge what is considered absolute and show the learner that things can be different” (p. 53). Thus, in mediating injustices and inequities within the educational setting, the educational leader works to create a more democratic culture while fostering a sense of becoming, both in himself or herself as well as in others with whom s/he interacts. This creates a symmetry in the relationships and practices, participation and power, wherein the educational leader is working alongside others toward defining a socially just and democratic society. Defining a socially just society requires that the educational leader know what stance to take on social justice.

This study was situated in a doctoral program and the school districts represented by doctoral students across three doctoral cohorts. The doctoral program is one of three terminal degrees offered at a southwest regional comprehensive university. The doctoral program is a non-certificate program and offers the Ed.D. Degree.

The participants in the study were practicing school and district leaders, including principals, superintendents, other central office administrators, and teacher leaders. With respect to demographic profile, the participants included 6 male and 19 female, with a racial distribution of 3 African American (all female), and 22 White (16 female and 6 male). The participants represented schools and districts in range from small rural, (East Texas) suburban (Houston area), and urban (Houston and Dallas area). The participants were purposefully selected from three doctoral cohorts, representing 3 different years of entry into the doctoral program and spanning approximately 4 years of doctoral studies, from year one to year three in the program. All doctoral students (total of 46 across 3 cohorts) were invited to participate, with 27 accepting the invitation, and 25 completing the data collection process.

A narrative inquiry method was used to collect data. The intent of the inquiry method was to generate discourse text that was representative of the type of social justice stance (or the lack thereof) practiced in each practitioner’s school, with a concern for further developing the notion of a socially just practice as a public pedagogy. Narratives were also examined for social justice stance patterns that were democratic, thus further theorizing social justice. Interview questions were presented to the participants, individually, and responses recorded. All recorded responses were prepared as data files and participants were asked to read the prepared files as part of a member check to ensure that responses were accurately recorded and transcribed.

The practitioners were asked to complete a set of constructed-response questions concerning issues of social justice, democracy, and the work of transforming the public through the school as agency for a democratic society. Specifically, the inquiry was focused on the pragmatics of social justice, which shaped the identity of the school leader as a socially just leader, as well as the nature of the public pedagogy of the practitioners.

The narratives, as “social justice practice” and “public pedagogy” text, were analyzed specifically for language and action within and across discourse, illuminating patterns and relationships. In particular, patterns within and across responses were analyzed for “political” and “ideological” language, with a focus on valences in the language that give way to socially just practices as a form of public pedagogy. The leadership practices, as social just stance, formed patterns of spatial practice that shape the nature of social justice within and through social texts. The narrative texts also reflected pedagogical patterns concerned with the “public” and the work of creating a more democratic society.

The answer to the question of social justice that underlies leadership practice, that is, what is the social justice stance of leaders, often remains unstated in the day-to-day work of educational leaders. The ideological underpinnings one holds concerning social justice are never consciously examined or made public. An analysis of the responses to the question, “what is social justice?” renders a common set of terms that educational leaders use to define this concept. Common terms include equal or equality, equity, fair or fairness, and relatedly how each of these terms works to mediate issues associated with race, ethnicity, language, age, gender, class, sexual orientation, or faith. The discourse patterns reflect a commonality in stated beliefs, but they also reflect underlying values and assumptions concerning social justice that extends the answer to the social justice question in important ways.

John, a White assistant superintendent, states “In my practice, social justice seems to manifest itself in issues of fairness.” He offers an example, “many of our students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Yet they seem to have an exaggerated sense of fairness. If they feel that your actions discriminate against them because they are poor, they are quick to aggressively respond.” Sally, White a central office administrator, extends an important consideration, noting that to “enact social justice requires more than a definition. One must possess a deep understanding of the concept in order to incorporate this practice into day-to-day interactions.” She also expresses her belief that social justice can be defined as the right thing to do for everyone regardless of ethnicity, gender, academic or socio-economic level.” Cordell, a White building principal, shares that for him, “social justice means taking on critical issues such as race, gender, and economic status and allowing these to drive the decision-making process at the work-place. Social justice emphasizes moral values and respect for equity. Social justice is concerned about how race gender, sexual orientation and disabilities affect learning.”

Juxtaposing her thoughts to those of Cordell, Iris, a central office administrator, shares that for her, “social justice is a system of equity for and acceptance of all races and creeds, which promotes the welfare of other members of the society. This is not the same as unilateral freedom from constraint, rather is tempered with protection of human rights.” Mary, a White high school principal, notes, “. . . all people have a birthright to be treated fairly and are therefore, entitled to equal rights and responsibilities regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, class, sexual orientation or other identifiable trait, characteristic, or position of birth.” The ideals of freedom and birthright shared by Iris and Mary reflect basic ideals and beliefs integral to a democratic society.

Jason, a White superintendent in a rural district, explains social justice, as “Society’s perception of what is moral/ethical especially as it relates to socio-economic condition, race, gender, age and other human differentiation.” Grace, an African American principal in an urban high school, who has been in her current position 8 years, explains that social justice is the “act of re-addressing institutionalized inequality and systemic racism.” Toni, a White director of educational renewal, furthers this discussion by noting that “social justice involves the equal treatment of all members of society, all people being regarded as individuals, all members having a fair chance, and all members enjoying social and economic benefits, even those considered to be disadvantaged.” Whereas Grace focuses more on issues commensurate with a recognitive perspective of justice, Toni incorporates notions of distributive and recognitive justice. Wyatt, a White rural superintendent, shares that social justice may mean “having a voice”, “providing affirmative action policies for historically marginalized groups”, or “equality of outcomes.” For Wyatt, there are different perspectives on social justice, and yet he focuses on the nature of injustices that often define the educational setting. For Wanda, a White middle school principal, social justice “is an intervention against power over and the mistreatment of others because of race, gender, poverty, or because of anything that makes that individual different from others.”

Deidra, an African American high school principal, reflects that in her school, populated with Hispanic and African American students, she believes social justice means “being fair and equal to all ethnic groups, promoting democracy, so that all races have a fair and equal opportunity to succeed.” She explicitly states her belief that social justice is connected to democracy. Clark, a White assistant principal working in an urban population center, takes the position that social justice is “equality of access to both distributional and relational justice. In other words, social justice is the ability for all members of society to have fair and equal access to the material possessions of society as well as the non-material items such as respect, dignity, and value.” The tenets of social justice introduced by Clark reflect a concern for distribution of opportunities, but also extend his belief that the process of acquiring social goods is important as a defining element of social justice.

In reflection the common threads of equity and fairness run through the educational leader’s understanding of social justice. Embedded in the voices of educational leaders is recognition that social justice is concerned with addressing the injustices that define, in part, the educational experiences of students. Defining elements of the ideological statements reflect implicit and explicit concern for democracy, and the distribution of material goods as well as social goods against a backdrop of difference. What appears to surface through the voices of the participants is a gravitation of the discourse towards the issues of asymmetrical power relationships and the need for leadership practices that are concerned with mediating the distribution of goods as well as a concern for recognition of how practices work to construct cultural identity of students and others, with the latter more pronounced in answer to the ideology question and in relation to defining a social justice stance for the educational leaders.

Extending the examination of ideological underpinnings and understandings of social justice into examining the nature of socially just practice brings into specific relief how educational leaders understand social justice as stance interpreted through or by their practice. Reading across the responses in consideration of “what is socially just practice,” common terms emerge that define the nature of or characterize the doing of socially just practice. Included is equity in treatment, interaction with others, ethnic groups, concern for well-being, being sensitive to culture, recognizing and eliminating prejudice, increasing awareness, facilitating change, and to building inclusive communities.

Cordell reflects on the question of “what is socially just practice,” sharing that for him socially just practice requires “understanding how social injustices breaks the human spirit. Many times these injustices will predicate whether or not a human being is successful and can live a productive life.” For Cordell, it is important to understand the nature of social injustices as a precursor to understanding socially just practice. He shares, “One is socially unjust when factors of race, gender (etc) are not considered as an important part of dealing on a day-to-day basis with humans.” Cordell states, “I am socially just when I understand that humans act in a certain manner in accordance with their social standing or their race or gender.”

Carrie, a White high school principal, who states that a socially just practice “involves all individuals in the education of students, staff and community”, exemplifies what distinguishes the educational leaders perspectives on socially just practice. She then deconstructs the “doing of” socially just practice by explaining that you “first step in, providing a socially just environment to parents and students is to recognize the culture they bring to your school.” Her explanation that “failure to recognize this fact means” that parents and students “are not important.”

Importantly, Carrie notes that the “language used in this process is an integral step in the formation of a just practice.” She then explains that the “second step is what you do with specific programs to meet the needs of the learning community. Identifying the needs of specific students and providing instruction to meet those needs is providing a positive environment to learn.” Following, Carrie shares that the “third step is to empower the individuals within the learning community.” Explaining that “empowerment comes with the acquisition of knowledge and then using that knowledge to educate self or others and have a voice in the processes of schools True learning occurs in socially just environments.” Carrie’s discussion of socially just practice reflects a pragmatic perspective, one concerned with recognition of others. Here it is important to note that Carrie is speaking to the need for leadership that is also a public pedagogy focused on creating just learning communities.

John posits a more pragmatic perspective, sharing that socially justice practice is a “practice that works to fairness, equity, or adequacy depending on the situation. Only after participation in informed study of societal perceptions of morality/ethicality can one know if they are being just.” Sophie, a White central office administrator in a 5A district responds that, “Socially just practice occurs when each person has an equitable opportunity to develop to his/her fullest potential in all areas (emotionally, socially, intellectually, academically, creatively, and physically).”

Joanna, an African American principal in a large urban high school, explains, from her experience, that socially just practice requires “looking at all situations through an adjustable lens.” There is no one best perspective. She explains, “one is socially just when prejudices are put aside so that the most appropriate solution is derived based upon individual differences and needs.” In contrast, Joanna explains that one “is not socially just when he/she has not taken the time nor made an effort to deal with people and the situations they face any differently than mainstream problems.”

Wanda, a White principal in an urban elementary school, explains that for her, socially just practice means, “ensuring that all individuals and groups voices are heard. It is being a democratic leader. When practicing social justice, you will not always be the most popular individual.” For Wanda, as a educational leaders, she believes one knows when one is engaged in socially just practice “when you begin to question why we allow injustices to take place and then begin to do something about it.” As she further explains, “you do not just stand by watching injustices take place, but look to see how to inform others and end the injustices taking place.” Both Joanna and Wanda bring relief the importance of seeing the world and questioning actions in relation to socially just practices. Focusing on the work of democratic leader, Wanda acknowledges the difficult nature of leading a school through socially just practice. The language used by both principals acknowledges an understanding of the importance to an active stance on social issues; the educational leader as public intellectual recognizes the need for social action and the need to mediate tensions in “the social”.

Donna, a White high school principal in suburban setting, notes that in educational settings, “socially just practice implies that the policies of the school and the actions of educational leaders promote and foster a climate of justice and ethicality. Socially just practice promotes equal opportunity, democratic governance in a forum where all participants have a voice.” Toni, in her role as director of renewal, contributes to this discussion of the leaders actions by noting, “socially just practice is an on-going action that involves the general safeguarding of all individual rights, as well as the personal examination of each action and any self-correction needed in light of inequitable deeds.” As she explains, actions “should not be left to a select group of individuals elected to serve in some political office; but is a personal responsibility of all citizens.”

Kelley, a White principal in an urban high school, adds a new dimension to the discussion by noting that practice is socially “in which respect is given to each individual, every voice is heard and advocacy for a democratic society is evident represents a socially just practice.” As she further explains, “one knows that they are socially just when change begins to take place, people become aware of their biases through their own reflection and acknowledgement in attitudes of superiority and the prejudices towards others are eliminated.” In contrast, Kelley notes that “one is not socially just when they continue to accept the status quo, silence the voices of minorities and disadvantaged and do not speak up when others exhibit socially unjust attitudes.” Here we find Donna, Toni and Kelley sharing beliefs and values of democracy and leadership, accentuated by the importance of “voice” and the need for all participants to be involved. Concern for asymmetrical power and disadvantaging of others surface as a critical concern for the educational leaders, directing attention to the need for the leader as public intellectual to examine hegemony of ideologies and cultural politics that often define conditions for those who are victim to silencing of voices.

Extending the discussion, Iris explains that socially just practice requires “putting action with philosophy: acting on a philosophy of equity and democracy. Speaking out about inequity, instituting policies of social justice,” then taking action. Iris notes the importance of continuing “to utilize a lens of criticality in all thoughts and actions, continually overturning layer upon layer of judgment and bias.“ Sharing a similar belief concerning criticality, Sally explains that to “know one is being socially just requires evaluating situations and one’s placement in the situation; as well as knowledge and understanding of the core precepts of social justice.” The educational leaders, Sally adds, who has the ability “to peruse a situation, synthesize the setting and the implication of action will be able to act/react in a socially just manner.” Iris and Sally both denote the importance of a critical lens, and implicitly recognize the need for inquiry to examine the nature of injustices and inequities.

In reflection, the analysis of leader voices suggests that common threads of equity, fairness, self-reflection and self-criticality, and difference and diversity connect the discussions of socially just practice. The perspectives shared by the educational leaders suggest a strong affiliation with a social justice concerned with recognition of cultural and identity politics, tempered by a sense of social justice that is concerned with democratic practices that work to rearticulate conditions and relationships within the school setting. Social action that is concerned with justice as a precursor of social change is juxtaposed with concern for the asymmetrical nature of power as experienced the educational leaders. The educational leader as public intellectual and the value of bringing a critical lens to the examination of what problematizes the school surface as defining features of leadership as a public pedagogy.

When the ideological question is extended to the larger project of democracy, the educational leaders’ perspectives reflect values, beliefs and assumptions about the function of education in a democratic society. The question “What Do You See as the Role/Relationship of Your Work in Defining What Society is as a Democracy?” concerns the stance on social justice one takes in relation to moving the democratic project forward in society.

As well, the voices of participants reflect the practitioners’ beliefs about the positionality in the process of making schools socially just, and therein, democratic practices play an important part. Positionality interpreted as leader identity, and dispositional aims of socially just leadership, are defined by the educational leader’s work and social responsibilities. Notable, however, is that democracy and social justice are not necessarily treated synonymously, that is, social justice is an aspect of democracy yet not a requirement.

Analyzing the discourses of participants identified what emerges as common elements of language, including democracy, diversity of individuals, working together, dialogue, tools of democracy, politics of difference, caring, equity, learning as a educational leaders, educate students, teachers, parents about democracy, self-criticality, and research practices. What seems, from both the participants’ and researchers’ perspectives, to extend the theorizing of an educational leader stance on social justice is the importance of realizing that democracy is an unfinished project, and therein the educational leaders must be continuously at work to understand her/himself in relation to fostering change, guided by practice that is socially just.

Jason, from his perspective as district superintendent, offers a pragmatic response to the question: “I see two roles. One as student of democracy where I continue to enhance my understanding in order to carry out the second role as an advocate for democracy.” Sophie, from the central office, states that for her “it is my moral responsibility to facilitate the creation of conditions under which all persons can learn well in a socially just and democratic context, resulting in the attainment of their fullest potentials as well as the functioning of responsible citizens whose actions will serve to further a democratic way of life. The moral purposes of schooling are social justice and democratic community.”

Kelly, from her experience as building principal, explains that her “first responsibility as a leader is to critically reflect” on her own practice as a leader, “especially in relation to social justice, equity and democracy. It is important that I am critically aware of my own biases. As a leader one of the most important ways to have an impact with others is to lead by example.” She goes on to note that another responsibility in relation to democracy and social justice, as a leader, “is to create an environment that respects each person as an individual and advocates moving beyond the status quo toward change and renewal.

Communicating to staff, as Clark explains, “that injustices will not be tolerated and that it is vital that we strive toward a social justice school environment and society and the benefits that it will provide to students is another responsibility as a leader.” Clark further explores the responsibility of reflection, explaining that for him, “constant reflection of my own practices as well as critical inquiry into the policies of the school, district, state, and nation” are important. He explains that with a “heightened sense of ‘critical consciousness,’ I will act once I perceive social oppression.” He also believes that “formal educational leaders should create policies/practices that eliminate social injustices and hone teachers’ abilities to incorporate socially just practices within their classrooms” as part of fostering democratic citizenship.

Grace, sees her role as that of “an advocate for change and growth.” She explains further, noting that “Education shapes America. How America looks in the future will depend on how educators advocate for social justice and democracy.’ For Grace, her work responsibility is focused on “impact of education in her community and school, contributing to the larger project of a democratic society. Carrie, in concert with Grace, sees her role as being “more along the lines of the educational system in a democratic society.” She explains, “I am still not sure we are living in a democratic society. I think that democracy is a construct that we are continually striving to achieve. At this point and time I see some tremendous power structures that are not working toward democracy and equity.” Carrie has deconstructed the nature of America’s democratic society, recognizing that democracy is never complete. She further shares, “the idea that students can walk into our campus and see and feel the democracy in action is always a goal.” However, she knows that she will have to help students understand “that when they walk out of school they will not always” experience “equity, justice and ethics of care. The key is teaching them that they can make a difference in that society.”

Nancy, a White building principal, explains: “my role is to model the characteristics of equity, justice, the ethic of caring, democracy, and community bonding. I must speak out against inequities and seek to change those things that diminish social justice and the ethic of care. I must promote an educational system that bond with the community and cultures of all within the community.” Offering a perspective similar in nature, Janet, a White middle school principal, explains that as educational leader, she “must be aware of social inequities, and must remain educated about these issues.” Importantly, Janet notes that with respect to the project of democracy, “we know the shortcomings of a democratic society where injustices exist, and we know the opportunities democracy can provide for people.” In this sense, Janet sees the educational system as a tool, “it is perhaps the most profound and important tool for students to use. It is the catalyst that can propel them to success, but it can also doom them to failure if not utilized correctly.” Janet understands education’s function in society, explaining that for her, education “is powerful, and the educational leaders must educate others to maintain the importance of education in our society.”

Wanda, from her perspective as principal in an urban school, also understands that democracy is an ongoing project, sharing “I believe that although we say that we live in a democratic society, this is not always true in education. Educators, often times, silence students and do not listen to their individual voices.” This requires, as Wanda explains, that as “ educational leaders, we must educate others and ensure that voices are heard. We must encourage others to also become educational leaders by our example. If we become more democratic in our own leadership, this will extend down to others.” In concert with Janet and Wanda, Mary furthers the discussion by stating that the “educational leaders has the obligation to formulate their own understanding of democracy and to be true to their belief and convictions that guide their decisions and personal actions.” Concerning responsibility, Mary notes that it “is important that the educational leaders continue to grow as a scholar and to refine their beliefs and conviction and to have the courage to challenge injustice and undemocratic societal conditions when they are encountered.”

Toni carries the discussion forward, explaining the challenges aligned with connecting the work of an educational leader and that of defining the educational system in a democratic society. She further explains, “I believe that successful schooling is impossible without social justice; and without an adequate educational experience, our country hinges on extinction.” She sees as necessary the work ahead as a educational leaders, “to develop and grow young minds . . . encourage them to question and entertain ideas, to seek out new knowledge and to look at existing problems with a fresh lens.” Toni brings the focus direct on the challenge of the educational leader, “If our country is to strengthen its conceptualization of democracy, the foundation must be strong and solid, and be representative of all races and cultures that comprise it.” The discourse provided by the leaders in this study directs us to the importance of continuing to grow with respect to understanding one’s work as a public intellectual, and in particular with respect to engaging in forms of inquiry that shape social discourse and practice that in turn serve as public pedagogy, and equally important, that shapes the work of creating a more democratic society through education.