The paper explores the concept of social justice in Health andPhysical Education (HPE) as constituted and addressed acrossthree different countries – Sweden, Norway and New Zealand –and how HPE teaching practices for social justice may beunderstood from regulative, normative and cultural/cognitiveperspectives. Although much has been written about social justicein the field of HPE over the last three decades, there is littleresearch that has examined how teachers operationalise teachingfor social justice. Drawing on the experiences and insights gainedfrom an international collaboration project, that sought to addressthis knowledge gap, this paper examines what constitutespedagogies for social justice in HPE across different contexts. Theaim of this paper is to discuss: (i) our conceptualisation of socialjustice; and (ii) how this can be understood in relation to HPEpractice across different contexts. We conclude that what isregarded as important content for the teaching of social justicevaries from one context to another although there are also similarapproaches. Additionally, there is much to learn by seeing ‘it’, thatis, the nature of social justice and how this is played out in schoolHPE – from the ‘others’ perspectives’.

The way school Health and Physical Education (HPE) is conceptualized and taught will impact on its ability to provide equitable outcomes across gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion and social class. A focus on social justice in HPE is pertinent in times when these ideals are currently under threat from neoliberal globalization. This paper draws on data from the initial year of an international collaboration project called ‘Education for Equitable Health Outcomes – The Promise of School Health and Physical Education’ involving HPE and Physical Education Teacher Education researchers from Sweden, Norway and New Zealand. The data in this paper record the researchers’ presentations and discussions about issues of social justice and health as informed by school visits and interviews with HPE teachers in the three different countries. The analysis of the data is focused on what is addressed in the name of social justice in each of the three countries and how cross-cultural researchers of social justice in HPE interpret different contexts. In order to analyse the data, we draw on Michael Uljens’s concepts of non-affirmative and non-hierarchical education. The findings suggest that researching social justice and health (in)equality across different countries offers both opportunities and challenges when it comes to understanding the enactment of social justice in school and HPE practices. We conclude by drawing on Uljens to assert that the quest for social justice in HPE should focus on further problematizing affirmative and hierarchical educational practices since social justice teaching strategies are enabled and constrained by the contexts in which they are practised.

The aim of this article is to discuss ethical dilemmas that occur in doing research on social entrepreneurial sport ventures. Three cases that highlight ethical dilemmas in research on social entrepreneurship and sport are presented and ethically reflected upon. The data comprise interviews with representatives, field notes from observations and analyses of documents concerning the ventures. Three things make research in this area extra problematic: first, ‘social good’ in social entrepreneurship and sport implies a normative perspective. It is permeated by ideology and ethics. Second, what is considered as ‘social good’ may differ between sectors of society as the entrepreneur crosses boundaries. What is valid as a resource and capital in one sector might not be so in another one, and what is legal within one sector may be illegal in another. Third, social entrepreneurs may have their own intentions with regard to participating in research, which may challenge our credibility as researchers. Therefore, we need, as professionals, to take a step back and be both critical of our work and make this criticism visible, which is to some extent what we are doing by writing this article.

Although school Health and Physical Education (HPE) has the potential to contribute to lifelong health and well-being, the way HPE isconceptualized and taught will impact on its ability to provide equitable outcomes across gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion and socialclass. The genesis of this symposium comes from the ongoing international collaboration project - Education for Equitable HealthOutcomes - The Promise of School Health and Physical Education (EDUHEALTH) consisting of Physical Education Teacher Education(PETE) teachers and researchers from Sweden, Norway and New Zealand. The aim of the EDUHEALTH project is to contribute to theunderstanding of how teachers of HPE teach for social justice by examining the teaching practices of teachers. A focus on equity,democracy and social justice in HPE can be seen as particularly pertinent in times when these ideals are currently under threat fromneoliberal globalisation (Azzarito, Macdonald, Dagkas & Fisette, 2017). The research question guiding this project are: (i) How do HPE teachers’ practices address democracy and social justice? (ii) How may HPE practice contribute to greater inclusion and equitable health outcomes for all students? The session will begin with an introduction to the symposium followed by the first part of paper one which will provide a brief overview ofthe background and implementation of the EDUHEALTH project to date.The second paper will then explicate our conceptualisation of the term social justice as concerned with equity, taking account of many variables including gender, sexuality, socioeconomic, and ethnicity, and within the context of HPE, physicality. The discussion on this paper will draw on Bell’s (1997) concept of social justice as both a process and a goal along with Wright’s (2004) claim that a pedagogy focused on social justice embraces emancipatory practices or processes that have the goal of helping students identify, challenge and transform existing unequal power relations relating to physical activity and health. In this paper we will also discuss the different theoretical perspectives that we are considering in relation to understanding and subsequently analysing social justice in HPE as informed by the works of, for instance, Habermas, Bourdieu, Foucault and Uljens. The third paper will then discuss our methodology and methods for generating data involving HPE class observations and teacher interview in the three different countries and employing a critical incident technique (Tripp, 2012) along with stimulated-recall interviews toexplore HPE teaching practices that enact socially-critical perspective of physical activity and health. At the conclusion of the third paper we will return to the first paper and draw on some initial findings of this project to date in terms of the potential, and difficulties, of researching social justice and health (in)equality across different school health and physical education contexts. The potential comes from having outsiders critically examining the societal, educational, and HPE context and offering new insights. The difficulties are in reaching a shared understanding of what it means to be socially critical and applying this understanding in each of the three different contexts. At the end we tentatively suggest that in our ongoing work with this project and by drawing on Freire (2000) and Tinning (2010) that there is no ‘holy grail’ in terms of a social justice teaching method for HPE practice since teaching strategies are enabled and constrained by the contexts in which they are practiced. Finally, a discussant will reflect on the work presented and the nature of the project before opening the floor to the audience for the final 20 minutes of the symposium.