Socio-Educational Ambivalence in Intercultural Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of Teachers and Students in Mapuche Schools

1. Introduction

Intercultural education in Chile is a field marked by persistent epistemological tensions, especially in territories with a historical presence of indigenous peoples, such as the Mapuche people in the Araucanía Region. Despite the implementation of policies such as the Intercultural Bilingual Education Program (PEIB) since 1996, various studies agree that these initiatives have had a limited impact on the transformation of pedagogical practices, curricular content, and power relations in the school system (Quilaqueo et al., 2016; Quilaqueo & Torres, 2022). In this context, the school continues to operate predominantly under a monocultural rationality with a Eurocentric matrix, which reproduces forms of coloniality of knowledge. In this scenario, the school experience in Mapuche contexts cannot be understood only from indicators of academic access or achievement, but requires considering the cultural, cognitive and affective tensions that emerge from the coexistence of different knowledge systems: the dominant school knowledge and the Mapuche educational knowledge present in the family and the community. These tensions have been conceptualized as socio-educational and cultural ambivalence, understood as the coexistence of potentially contradictory value, epistemic, and affective orientations in educational actors.

From a classical sociological perspective, ambivalence constitutes a structural disposition derived from the coexistence of incompatible normative expectations (Simmel, 1971; Merton, 1968). In the intercultural educational field, this phenomenon is expressed as a tension between differentiated educational rationalities, where subjects must simultaneously adhere to dominant school norms and sustain their own cultural references (Quilaqueo et al., 2016; Quilaqueo & Torres, 2022). Empirical evidence suggests that this ambivalence is not restricted to students, but rather crosses different actors in the school system. Teachers, for example, face tensions when trying to incorporate indigenous knowledge into a curricular framework that does not fully recognize its legitimacy, while families experience contradictions between school expectations and their own educational conceptions. However, despite its theoretical relevance, there is a paucity of comparative quantitative studies that analyze how ambivalence is distributed among educational actors in intercultural contexts. Therefore, the present study aims to compare the socio-educational and cultural ambivalence between students and teachers in Mapuche school contexts, considering its expression in different dimensions of the construct. Specifically, it seeks to identify differences in the levels of ambivalence according to role and ethnicity, contributing to a more precise understanding of the intercultural dynamics that shape the school experience in indigenous territories.

1.1. Intercultural Education in Mapuche Territory: Structural Tensions of the School System

Intercultural education in Chile has been defined as a process aimed at promoting respectful pedagogical relations between the school and indigenous peoples. However, the accumulated evidence shows that its implementation has had a limited scope in terms of structural transformation of the education system (Sotomayor et al. 2014; Luna, Bolomey, & Caniguán, 2018; Becerra-Lubies et al. 2024). Various studies have pointed out that the intercultural approach promoted by the State in Latin America has operated fundamentally as a complement to the curriculum, without questioning the epistemological bases that organize modern schooling (Walsh, 2005; Tubino, 2013; García et al., 2018). In this sense, institutionalized interculturality has not implied a reconfiguration of the education system, but rather its superficial adaptation to contexts of cultural diversity (Estermann, 2020). The dominant school model continues to be structured around a monocultural rationality, which privileges abstract, decontextualized, and universalist forms of knowledge, reproducing what various authors have characterized as persistent forms of coloniality of knowledge (Santos, 2009; Fornet-Betancourt, 2018). This rationality not only defines curricular content, but also the criteria for validating knowledge, the forms of teaching, and evaluation mechanisms (Bertely, & Gasché, 2011; Olivé, 2009).

In the case of the Mapuche people, this situation acquires a particular historical density. The school has operated as a device for cultural assimilation since its installation in the territory, first through missionary projects and later through the state public system. The incorporation of Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) since the 1990s has not reversed this logic, as its implementation has been fragmented, dependent on local initiatives, and sustained by peripheral figures such as the Traditional Educators (ELCI) (Quilaqueo et al., 2016).

As a result, the education system configures a scenario in which heterogeneous forms of knowledge and educational practices coexist—without effective articulation. This coexistence is not neutral, but is organized hierarchically, privileging the dominant school knowledge and subordinating Mapuche educational knowledge. Consequently, intercultural education does not eliminate tensions, but rather reconfigures them within the school space, producing structural conditions of conflict that run through the educational experience.

1.2. Double Educational Rationality

The notion of double educational rationality allows us to understand more precisely the nature of these tensions. This approach states that in the Mapuche school context two systems of knowledge coexist with differentiated epistemological foundations: On the one hand, Western educational rationality, characterized by abstraction, disciplinary sequencing, and universality; and on the other, Mapuche educational rationality, based on relationality, territoriality, orality, and community experience (Quilaqueo et al., 2016; Quintriqueo & Quilaqueo, 2019). This coexistence does not imply complementarity, but rather configures a structural epistemic conflict. While the school system requires the internalization of decontextualized content and adherence to universal criteria of validity, Mapuche knowledge is organized around situated practices, linked to the territory and to forms of community life such as the küme mongen. The divergence between these rationalities is not limited to content, but crosses the ways of learning, teaching and understanding the world.

In this framework, educational actors do not operate in a homogeneous space, but in a stressed field in which they must simultaneously respond to partially incompatible logics. This structural condition forces the development of adjustment strategies that, far from resolving the conflict, tend to reproduce it in daily practice. In this way, double rationality is not only a feature of the educational system, but also the foundation of the tensions that are expressed in the experience of the subjects, such as socio-educational ambivalence. It is in this scenario that socio-educational and cultural ambivalence is configured as a central analytical category. From classical sociology, ambivalence has been understood as a structural disposition derived from the coexistence of contradictory normative expectations (Simmel, 1971; Merton & Barber, 1963). In modern societies, this condition is not exceptional, but constitutive, insofar as individuals must articulate divergent orientations in their social action (Tabboni, 2007).

Transferred to the intercultural educational field, ambivalence can be understood as the subjective and practical expression of the epistemic conflict that emerges from the double educational rationality. In this sense, it is not an individual contradiction or a cognitive deficit, but a structural condition of the education system, in which actors must operate simultaneously from different frames of reference (Quilaqueo & Torres, 2022).

This ambivalence manifests itself at different levels. At the cognitive level, it implies the coexistence of divergent interpretative schemes; at the affective level, it is expressed in identity and value tensions; and at a practical level, it translates into pedagogical decisions, forms of participation and modes of relationship in the classroom. In this way, ambivalence not only reflects the existence of two rationalities, but also the structural difficulties for their articulation in the school context. A fundamental element in understanding socio-educational ambivalence is its differential distribution according to the position of the actors in the school system. In line with the sociological theory of roles, normative expectations and institutional demands are not distributed homogeneously, but depend on the location of subjects in the social structure (Merton, 1968).

In the case of Mapuche students, ambivalence is configured at the intersection between processes of school socialization and community socialization. These actors must adapt to a system that tends to devalue or make invisible their family knowledge, generating tensions between cultural belonging and school success. This condition can translate into processes of identity negotiation, displacement of cultural practices or forms of symbolic resistance (Quilaqueo et al., 2017).

In the case of teachers, ambivalence takes on a different and, in many cases, more complex configuration. From their professional role, teachers are in a position of mediation between knowledge systems, facing the need to incorporate Mapuche knowledge into a curricular framework that does not fully recognize them as valid. This situation is aggravated by the limited intercultural training in initial teacher training, which restricts the tools available to manage these tensions (Gay, 2010; Sleeter, 2011). Consequently, teachers’ ambivalence reflects cultural tensions, and institutional and professional contradictions.

For their part, Mapuche families experience ambivalence in the relationship between school and community educational practices, facing the need to support their children’s school trajectory without renouncing their own forms of knowledge transmission (Quilaqueo et al., 2022). However, unlike students and teachers, their position in the education system is indirect, which configures a different relationship with structural tensions.

Based on the above, the comparative analysis between students and teachers acquires a central relevance to understand the configuration of ambivalence in the educational system. Rather than identifying descriptive differences between groups, this approach allows us to analyze how the structural tensions of the system are distributed and intensified depending on the position of the actors. In particular, comparing both groups allows us to assess whether ambivalence is concentrated in the actors who must actively mediate between knowledge systems – such as teachers – or if it is expressed more intensely in those who directly experience the tension between cultural identity and school demands – such as students. It also makes it possible to distinguish between dimensions of ambivalence that respond to identity processes and those that are linked to the institutional organization of the school.

In this sense, ambivalence can be understood as an individual or group experience, in addition to being an analytical indicator of the structural tensions of the educational system, whose distribution allows us to understand the intercultural dynamics in Mapuche school contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 546 people participated, of which 52.0% were students (n = 284) and 48.0% were teachers (n = 262), from primary and secondary schools located in the regions of La Araucanía (85.1%) and Los Lagos (14.9%). The age of the teachers ranged from 23 to 72 years (M = 42.32; SD = 10.37), while that of students was between 10 and 18 years old (M = 13.52; SD = 1.98). The distribution of participants according to gender, ethnic descent, and region, differentiated by role, is presented in Table 1. The sample size is considered adequate for the analyses performed, allowing stable estimates in multivariate procedures (Hair et al., 2019).

In terms of composition, a differentiated distribution between groups is observed: in the case of teachers, the non-Mapuche population predominates, while in the group of students there is a higher proportion of participants who identify as Mapuche. This configuration is consistent with the intercultural character of the selected establishments.

The selection of the establishments responded to a criterion of intercultural relevance, considering schools with a significant enrollment of Mapuche students (at least 10%), according to records from the Ministry of Education and the National Census (INE, 2025). For the teachers, the inclusion criterion was to work in these establishments. In the case of students, their belonging to courses between 8th grade and 4th grade was considered, and their voluntary participation through informed consent.

2.2. Instruments

The Socio-Educational and Cultural Ambivalence Scale (EASC) was used, developed and validated in the context of intercultural education in Chile by Riquelme et al. (2026). This instrument was designed to assess the coexistence of potentially contradictory cultural, cognitive, and affective orientations in the relationship between dominant school knowledge and Mapuche educational knowledge. From a conceptual point of view, the scale is based on the articulation of two complementary theoretical traditions: (a) the model of double educational rationality, which proposes the coexistence of a Western-matrix school rationality and a Mapuche community rationality (Quilaqueo et al., 2016; Quilaqueo et al., 2022), and (b) the approach to educational ambivalence as an expression of cognitive, affective, and normative tensions in the face of conflicting value systems (Gasché, 2013a, b; Tabboni, 2007).

The EASC was constructed through a qualitative-quantitative sequential design, which included a conceptual and semantic exploration phase with educational actors (teachers, students, and families), followed by a psychometric validation process. This process made it possible to operationalize the construct of ambivalence as a structural arrangement that reflects tensions between epistemic systems in intercultural school contexts (Riquelme et al., 2026).

The instrument has three conceptually equivalent versions, adapted to the role of the participants in the educational community: EASC-D (teachers); EASC-E (students); EASC-P (Parents/Caregivers).

In the present study, the versions of the scale for teachers and students were used, which maintain conceptual equivalence, with minimal differences in the wording of the items, relevant to the characteristics of each group (Riquelme et al., 2026). It is a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The structure of the instrument is organized into six dimensions, which capture different expressions of ambivalence in the educational context:

1). Integration of contextual and cultural knowledge: evaluates the incorporation of Mapuche knowledge into the school curriculum.

2). School-community linkage and knowledge mobilization: examines the relationship between school, family and community in the transmission of knowledge.

3). Equal treatment and recognition of cultural diversity: analyzes the valuation of cultural diversity in the school environment.

4). Cultural identity and resistance to homogenization: evaluates the preservation of cultural identity in the face of pressures of uniformity.

5). Intercultural education and deepening of traditional knowledge: measures the depth with which Mapuche knowledge is addressed in teaching.

6). Participation in cultural ceremonies and hybridization spaces: explores participation in cultural practices as intercultural meeting spaces.

Examples of items include: Students: “I like it when we use examples from the Mapuche community to understand the subjects”; Teachers: “I try to include local Mapuche knowledge in the teaching of school content.”

In psychometric terms, the validation of the scale reports adequate confirmatory factor adjustment indices for both the adult and student populations (CFI between 0.93 and 0.98; RMSEA ≈ 0.07), as well as satisfactory levels of internal consistency (ω between 0.70 and 0.97), which supports the structural validity and reliability of the instrument (Chen, 2007; Muthén & Muthén, 2017, 2024; Cheung, & Rensvold, 2002). Likewise, scalar invariance has been demonstrated between adult groups, which allows comparisons between educational actors (Riquelme et al., 2026).

Overall, the EASC constitutes a valid and reliable instrument for the analysis of the epistemic and cultural tensions that shape educational dynamics in intercultural contexts, allowing its operationalization in comparative studies between school actors.

In this study, the dimensions of the EASC were used as dependent variables to analyze differences in ambivalence according to role and ethnicity.

2.3. Procedure

The study was developed in coordination with the participating establishments. The application of the scale was carried out in face-to-face mode, during school days previously authorized by the managements. Each participant received written information about the objectives and procedures of the study, signing consent or informed assent as appropriate, in accordance with the ethical standards of research in education (Sánchez, 1992; Aréchiga, 2004). Administration was collective, in groups of 15 to 30 people, under the supervision of a researcher and a trained assistant. The average duration was 25 minutes. The data were recorded anonymously and encrypted in a secure database, safeguarding the confidentiality and integrity of the participants. The process also considered the return of partial results to the educational communities involved, as part of the ethical dimension.

2.4. Analysis Plan

First, the average scores for each of the six dimensions (F1 to F6) of the instrument were calculated, which were treated as continuous variables in the subsequent analyses. An exploratory analysis of the data was performed by inspecting histograms and Q-Q graphs, complemented by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012; Razali & Wah, 2011), in order to evaluate the distribution of variables. Subsequently, a two-step cluster analysis was applied using the six dimensions as clustering variables, with the aim of identifying ambivalence profiles. The procedure was based on the algorithm described by Chiu et al. (2001). The selection of the optimal number of clusters was made using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), favoring solutions with lower value. The quality of the solution was assessed by the silhouette measurement, which estimates internal cohesion and separation between groups (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 1990).

The differences between the clusters were analyzed by one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the dimensions. Since more than two groups were compared, post hoc comparisons were made using the Bonferroni adjustment, in order to identify specific differences between the ambivalence profiles.

In a second stage, the differences in the dimensions of ambivalence according to role (students vs. teachers) and ethnicity (Mapuche vs. non-Mapuche) were evaluated through a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) factorial 2×2, considering the six dimensions as dependent variables. This analysis allowed estimating the main effects of each factor and their interaction. Since Box’s test indicated a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices, the Pillai Trace was used as a multivariate statistic, due to its greater robustness against this type of non-compliance (Olson, 1974).

Subsequently, univariate analyses (factorial ANOVA) were performed for each of the dimensions, in order to identify in which specific variables the effects observed in the multivariate analysis were expressed. No post hoc comparisons were made in these analyses, since the factors considered corresponded to dichotomous variables. Effect sizes were reported using partial eta square (η²p). All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26). The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail, while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.

Research manuscripts reporting large datasets that are deposited in a publicly available database should specify where the data have been deposited and provide the relevant accession numbers. If the accession numbers have not yet been obtained at the time of submission, please state that they will be provided during review. They must be provided prior to publication.

Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

In this section, where applicable, authors are required to disclose details of how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been used in this paper (e.g., to generate text, data, or graphics, or to assist in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation). The use of GenAI for superficial text editing (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting) does not need to be declared.

3. Results

3.1. Identification of Ambivalence Profiles

A two-step cluster analysis including the six ambivalence dimensions (F1–F6) yielded a three-cluster solution as optimal (BIC = 1990.40; silhouette = 0.40), indicating good cohesion and separation. The clusters were labeled Low, Medium, and High ambivalence. As shown in Table 2, the three profiles differed significantly across all six dimensions (p < .001), exhibiting a clear monotonic gradient (High > Medium > Low). This pattern supports the existence of structured ambivalence profiles rather than random variation.

3.2. Cluster Composition

Cluster membership varied systematically by social position (see Table 3). The High ambivalence profile concentrated a higher proportion of Mapuche participants and teachers, whereas the Low ambivalence profile was more strongly associated with students and a comparatively lower proportion of Mapuche participants. Chi-square tests confirmed that cluster membership differed significantly by role, ethnicity, and gender (p < .001)

To explain these profiles in terms of social position, a two-way MANOVA was conducted with role (teacher vs. student) and ethnicity (Mapuche vs. non-Mapuche) as independent variables and the six ambivalence dimensions as dependent variables. Given the violation of the homogeneity of covariance matrices assumption (Box’s M = 210.99, p < .001), Pillai’s Trace was used as a robust statistic (see Table 4).

These results indicate that role and ethnicity independently structure ambivalence, with role showing the largest effect size. Follow-up ANOVAs were conducted for each dimension (see Table 5).

Significant differences were observed in five of six dimensions for Effect of role (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6; all p < .001), with teachers reporting higher ambivalence than students. No significant effect was found for F5 (p = .103). Ethnicity significantly affected most dimensions (F1, F2, F4, F5, F6; all p < .001), with Mapuche participants consistently scoring higher than non- Mapuche participants. F3 did not reach significance. Although the multivariate interaction between role and ethnicity was not significant (see Table 3), univariate analyses revealed small but statistically significant interaction effects in specific dimensions, particularly F4 and F6 (see Table 4). However, effect sizes were small (η²p ≈ .02), and inspection of descriptive patterns suggests that these differences reflect minor variations in slope rather than substantive changes in the relationship between role and ethnicity. Therefore, interaction effects were interpreted as localized and not central to the overall structure of ambivalence.

Across dimensions, Mapuche participants consistently showed higher mean scores than non-Mapuche participants, a pattern that remained stable after controlling for role.

The results show a high degree of convergence between analytic approaches: a) The cluster analysis identifies discrete profiles of ambivalence (Table 1 and Table 2) b) The MANOVA and ANOVAs explain these profiles as a function of role and ethnicity (Table 3 and Table 4). Importantly, the absence of a significant multivariate interaction indicates that ambivalence profiles are not driven by specific combinations of role and ethnicity, but rather by additive effects of social position. This pattern suggests that ambivalence is systematically distributed across the educational system, varying in intensity according to actors’ positions rather than emerging from isolated group configurations.

4. Discussion

The results show that ambivalence is not homogeneously distributed among school actors, but is organized in a differentiated way according to their position in the education system. The most relevant result indicates that teachers present significantly higher levels of ambivalence than students in most dimensions, which positions the role as the main structuring axis of this phenomenon. Indeed, ambivalence is defined as a structural disposition derived from the coexistence of educational rationalities in tension, particularly between dominant school knowledge and Mapuche knowledge (Riquelme et al., 2026). The result of the coexistence of contradictory norms and expectations does not constitute an individual inconsistency, but a structural form of social experience.

The results allow us to deepen this conceptualization by showing that this structure is not experienced in a homogeneous way, but is intensified in those positions that involve active mediation between knowledge systems. As Riquelme et al. (2026) suggest, teachers are placed in a space of tension where they must simultaneously articulate curricular demands, institutional expectations, and demands for cultural recognition. The empirical evidence presented here confirms that this position is not only conceptually ambivalent, but also translates into higher levels of observable ambivalence, which reinforces the idea that role constitutes a key axis in the organization of the phenomenon.

This finding allows us to partially shift the focus of intercultural literature, which has tended to place students—particularly indigenous people—as the main bearers of cultural tension. Although the results confirm that ethnicity is a relevant factor, with Mapuche participants showing higher levels of ambivalence in most dimensions, the role effect is more robust. This suggests that ambivalence cannot be explained solely in terms of cultural identity, but must be understood in relation to the structural conditions of schooling, in line with critical approaches to interculturality (Dietz, 2012; Walsh, 2010).

Along these lines, the greater ambivalence observed in teachers can be interpreted in the light of the concept of incompatibility of role expectations (Merton, 1968), insofar as these actors must simultaneously respond to partially contradictory educational logics. On the one hand, the school system promotes a universalist rationality, based on the standardization of knowledge; on the other hand, intercultural education requires the incorporation of situated and culturally specific knowledge (Quilaqueo et al., 2016; Gasché, 2013). This tension configures a structural condition of pedagogical practice in intercultural contexts, where ambivalence emerges as a form of adjustment and mediation (Kasa, Brunila & Toivanen, 2023).

On the other hand, the absence of a significant interaction between role and ethnicity at the multivariate level reinforces the idea that ambivalence constitutes a transversal structure of the education system, rather than the result of specific configurations of actors. The present study provides an additional element by showing that this shared structure is expressed in a differential way, varying in intensity according to the position of the actors in the educational field.

This articulation between common structure and empirical differentiation allows us to move towards a more complex understanding of socio-educational ambivalence, understood as a phenomenon that is simultaneously shared and stratified. In this sense, ambivalence not only reflects epistemological tensions, but also power relations and institutional conditions that shape the educational experience in intercultural contexts.

From an applied perspective, these results have relevant implications for the development of intercultural education. First, they suggest that intercultural practices cannot focus exclusively on students or be limited to the incorporation of cultural content, but must address the structural conditions in which teachers develop their practice. Second, they reinforce the need to move towards models of interculturality that do not operate as a peripheral complement to the curriculum, but rather transform the epistemic bases of schooling (Tubino, 2007; Walsh, 2010; Schmelkes, 2024). In this context, ambivalence can be understood not only as an indicator of tension, but also as a potential space for change in pedagogical work, insofar as it makes visible the contradictions of the educational system.

In short, the results also support the usefulness of the EASC (Riquelme et al., 2026) as a methodological tool for the analysis of ambivalence in intercultural contexts. As proposed in its validation study, the scale allows empirically operationalizing tensions that have traditionally been addressed from qualitative approaches. The present study extends this contribution by demonstrating its ability to identify systematic differences between educational actors, contributing to the development of an empirical field around socio-educational ambivalence. However, these findings must be interpreted considering certain limitations. Firstly, the study is based on a cross-sectional design, which prevents the evolution of ambivalence over time or at different stages of the school trajectory to be analysed. Second, although the sample size is robust, the territorial concentration in regions of southern Chile may limit the generalization of the results to other intercultural contexts with different sociocultural configurations. Likewise, the use of self-report measures may be influenced by social desirability biases, particularly in the case of teachers, whose discourses may be aligned with institutional normative frameworks. In addition, although the EASC has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, the validation study itself warns of the need to continue deepening aspects such as discriminant validity and semantic adequacy in bilingual or culturally diverse contexts. This is especially relevant if one considers the complexity of the ambivalence construct and its sensitivity to contextual variations.

Based on these limitations, various projections for future research are opened. First, it is necessary to develop longitudinal studies that allow analyzing the stability and transformation of ambivalence over time, particularly in relation to teacher training processes and educational trajectories. Second, it is recommended to extend the analysis to other intercultural contexts in Latin America, in order to assess whether the construct is generalizable and to compare patterns of ambivalence in different sociocultural configurations. Likewise, future research could deepen the analysis of teacher ambivalence through mixed approaches that integrate quantitative measurements with qualitative analyses of pedagogical practice, allowing us to understand not only the levels of ambivalence, but also their forms of expression and management in the classroom. Finally, from an applied perspective, the use of EASC in initial and continuing education programs could contribute to identifying epistemological tensions in teaching practice and to designing more pertinent support strategies in intercultural contexts.