In this paper we emphasize the constructional and historically determined character of social categories such as “culture” and the intersectionality of different dimensions of diversity, social relations and the multidimensionality of human experiences and power entanglements (Gross & Messina Dahlberg, 2024) in order to rethink how it has shaped educational histories, narratives and its entanglements in practice. For instance, in the ongoing debate on culture, there has been a significant shift away from traditional perspectives that depict culture as a closed and homogeneous container. Within the framework of post- and decolonial theories, culture is understood as a hybrid, flexible, and dynamic social construct (Bhabha, 1994). A reflexive and critical perspective is crucial to counteract othering and culturalization, and with it, generalized knowledge, ideas and images (Said, 1978). Nevertheless, close examination of the everyday and scientific use of the term reveals a persistent presence of so-called “dominant imaginaries” (López García, 2021) based on coloniality (Quijano, 2005) and scientific nationalism (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002) and the dominance of a Eurocentric perspective. Dominant imaginaries find themselves in a struggle with emergent imaginaries that seek to reimagine dominant concepts such as culture from a critical perspective as open, diverse, and complex. Furthermore, decolonizing categories is crucial for increasing empowerment, reflecting on hegemonic practices, and challenging the cultural normalization of dichotomies (Mecheril, 2018) to foster more equal and diversity-friendly school cultures and educational practices (Gross, 2022). Therefore, in this paper we bring together examples from our experiences as researchers working in Mexico, Italy and Germany. We will present cases from our studies and reflect on them through the use of post- and decolonial theories. Our aim is to raise awareness for challenging dominant imaginaries from a critical-decolonial-diversity-sensitive perspective in order to interrogate educational histories, narratives, and consequences for educational policy, practice, and research. The latter is complicit in creating and re-creating these narratives, especially through the boundaries that emerge from the scientific structure itself, as well as from the used dominant categorizations and generalizations. Educational research is entangled with educational policy, which at the same time, uses scientific data to (re)construct its own narrative to stabilize educational practice. A position where knowledge is considered as an in-between space in which dichotomizing concepts and issues are negotiated, implies a shift from an idea of knowledge as a dialectical space that stands between the binary structures of colonial representations on the one hand, and minority, marginalized perspectives on the other (Bhabha, 1990). In view of the dominant Western production of knowledge and Spivak's (1988) concept of epistemic violence, it is the task of researchers and educational practitioners to work on the hegemonic traditions and subjectivities that influence them.

The phenomenon of sending students abroad has been continuous in the Ottoman-Turkish modernization experience. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, within the framework of warm relations with Germany, this country was mostly preferred for sending students abroad.This research was conducted within the framework of an intergovernmental agreement between the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which aimed to enable Turkish students to study pedagogy at German universities so that they could use their knowledge in the interests of the Porte. Halil Fikret Kanad, one of these students, studied pedagogy at Berlin Humboldt University between 1912-1915. After returning home, he held administrative positions in the Turkish education system. In order to deepen the phenomenon of sending students abroad, which is mostly examined through the concept of modernization in the literature, it is aimed to address the issue on the axis of diversity and intersectionality. The Turkish actor's higher education experience will be taken as an institutional backdrop and the knowledge network he developed with his German professors and his work after returning home will be analyzed on a fluid basis. Within the framework of intersectionality theory and practice the research will examine the case study in its historical perspective. Race, transnationality, transfer of pedagogical knowledge, and colonialism implicitly support the basic theory of the research.The study will be conducted through document analysis, one of the qualitative research methods. The interaction between Turkish actor and their German teachers will be analyzed through social network analysis.Data sources and evidence-materials: The publications of the Turkish actor and the German teachers as well as Turkish-German archival documents are used as sources for the study. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the Turkish actor created a knowledge network with German teachers in the institutional environment and transferred this pedagogical knowledge to his country. This situation will be discussed with a focus on diversity and intersectionality practices, taking into account the adaptation and use processes of knowledge. This study approaches a historical case from a new perspective and examines the phenomenon of being a foreign student abroad through the concepts of diversity, intersectionality and the circulation of pedagogical knowledge. The role of actors in the intersectional clusters in materializing the transnational repercussions of the university as an institution will provide different perspectives on similar contemporary situations.

The present work aims to investigate the contributions of Josef Brozek (1913-2004) to the dialogue between the Soviet psychology and the Western world in the second half of the 20th century and how this presence manifested in the university educational scenario. Brozek was a Slavic professor and researcher who emigrated to the United States in 1939, amidst the context of World War II, where he established himself as a researcher in the History of Psychology. In this country, he played an important role in institutionalizing the subject as an autonomous area of research, as evidenced by the creation of Division 26 of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the founding of the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, both in 1965. In the 1960s, as a delegate of the APA, Brozek participated in the second congress of the Psychological Society of the Soviet Union, in Leningrad. At that time, Brozek was heading the Department of Psychology and Education at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The interest in Soviet production, the prominent institutional positions Brozek held and the funding provided by the National Science Foundation were relevant both for the dissemination of Soviet production in Psychology within the United States and for scientific exchange between those countries involved in the Cold War. This had an impact on the educational field of Psychology in some regions, such as Brazil, due to the author's classes and lectures, through which Brozek promoted the research undertaken on Soviet production. Thus, the connection between education and scientific dissemination is seen from a transnational perspective. Moreover, this is a representative case of the importance of ethnic immigrants for the consolidation of scientific research and higher education in the United States.

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo investigar as contribuições de Josef Brozek (1913-2004) para o diálogo da Psicologia soviética com o Mundo Ocidental, na segunda metade do século XX, e de que forma isso se fez presente no cenário educacional universitário. Brozek foi um professor e pesquisador eslavo que emigrou para os Estados Unidos em 1939, no contexto da Segunda Guerra Mundial, onde se firmou como pesquisador em História da Psicologia. Neste país, ele desempenhou um importante papel na institucionalização do tema como área de pesquisa autônoma, como pode ser visto na criação da Divisão 26 da American Psychological Association (APA) e na fundação do Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, ambos em 1965. Na década de 1960, como delegado da APA, Brozek participou do segundo congresso da Sociedade Psicológica da União Soviética, em Leningrado. Nessa época, Brozek esteve na direção do Departamento da Psicologia e Ensino na Universidade de Lehigh, na Pensilvânia. O interesse pela produção soviética, os importantes postos institucionais que Brozek ocupou e os financiamentos dados pela National Science Foundation foram relevantes tanto para a divulgação da produção soviética em Psicologia dentro dos Estados Unidos quanto para o intercâmbio científico entre esses países, envolvidos pela Guerra Fria. Isso repercutiu na área educacional de Psicologia em algumas regiões, como no Brasil, por conta das aulas e palestras do autor, pelas quais Brozek propagava a pesquisa empreendida sobre a produção soviética. Vê-se, portanto, a ligação entre a educação e a divulgação científica em uma perspectiva transnacional. Além disso, esse é um caso representativo da importância de imigrantes étnicos para a consolidação da pesquisa científica e da educação de nível superior nos Estados Unidos.