The continuous time of hybrid schooling. Minimal ethnography of possibilities and inclusive misalignments in digital ecologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61007/QdC.2025.4.370Keywords:
hybrid school, inclusive education, digital ecologies, ethnography, educational technologies, relational inequalitiesAbstract
The article investigates the everyday practices and social effects generated by the use of digital school tools in the educational relationships of a small community in South-Eastern Italy. The study focuses on a hybrid context where the spatial and temporal boundaries of schooling extend beyond the physical institution, permeating domestic life. Its aim is to understand how institutional applications, communication platforms and digital tools – including AI – shape dynamics of inclusion and exclusion within education. The theoretical framework combines Goffman’s (1959, 1963) and McLaren’s (1986) dramaturgical perspectives, Slee’s (2011) critical approach to inclusion, Floridi’s (2014) concept of the onlife condition, and Wellman and Rainie’s (2012) paradigm of the networked society, in order to read the school as a performative and relational space where inclusion is enacted – or denied – through everyday rituals and digital practices. The methodological design, inspired by ethnographic microanalysis (Erickson, 1992) and a narrative-thematic approach, integrates non-participant observation, analysis of digital communication channels, and in-depth interviews with parents, a teacher responsible for inclusion, and a school psychologist. The findings show how the digitalization of educational processes generates new asymmetries, widening the gap between families with and without technological skills and resources, and affecting students’ responsibility, autonomy, and participation. The analysis identifies the category of hybrid extended time – the continuous expansion of school activities into family life – as a key to interpreting the new boundaries of inclusion. The study highlights the need for educational policies and formative practices capable of guiding the digital transition without sacrificing the relational and community dimensions of the educational pact.
References
Alexander, J. C. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological theory, 22(4), 527–573.
Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & talk, 28(3).
Barba, E., & Savarese, N. (1991). A dictionary of theatre anthropology. The secret art of the performer. London: Routledge.
Bazzoli, N., Dagnes, J., Carbone, D., & Barberis, E. (2021). La didattica a distanza nell’Italia diseguale: criticità e differenze territoriali durante la prima ondata Covid-19. Rivista geografica italiana, 128(3), 36–58. DOI: 10.3280/rgioa3-2021oa12531.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
CNR-IFC. (2025). Report ESPAD® Italia 2024 – Cyberbullismo. Pisa: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In
M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego: Academic Press.
Floridi, L. (2014). The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319- 04093-6.
Foucault, M. (2006). Utopie, eterotopie. Napoli: Cronopio. (Opera originale pubblicata 1966).
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net Children Go Mobile: Risks and opportunities (2a ed.). Milano: Educatt.
McLaren, P. (1986). Schooling as a ritual performance: Towards a political economy of educational symbols and gestures. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Navas-Bonilla, C. R., Guerra-Arango, J. A., Oviedo-Guado, D. A., &
Murillo-Noriega, D. E. (2025). Inclusive education through technology: A systematic review of types, tools and characteristics. Frontiers in education, 10, Articolo 1527851. DOI: 10.3389/ feduc.2025.1527851.
Perla, L., Vinci, V., & Soleti, P. (2021). The impact of educational and organisational variables on the INVALSI School Effect: Findings from Puglia. Giornale italiano della ricerca educativa, 14(26), 67–87.
Przybylski, L. (2020). Hybrid ethnography: Online, offline, and in between. London: SAGE Publications.
Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2022). The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and informatics, 72, Articolo 101852. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele. 2022.101852.
Salzano, D., Scognamiglio, I., & Battista, D. (2023). La rispazializzazione digitale nelle aree interne del Sud Italia. H-ermes. Journal of communication, 24, 51–72. DOI: 10.1285/i22840 753n24p51.
Schechner, R. (1985). Between theater and anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/97802 03831564.
Tummons, J. (2020). Online, offline, hybrid, or blended? Doing ethnographies of education in a digitally-mediated world. In M. Ward & S. Delamont (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (2nd ed., pp. 178–189). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre. The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications.
Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Community Notebook. People, Education and Welfare in the Society 5.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.




