A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

Abstract

This paper reports on a reflexive exercise contributing a meta-mapping of typologies of GCE and supplementary analysis of that mapping. Applying a heuristic of three main discursive orientations reflected in much of the literature on GCEneoliberal, liberal, and criticaland their interfaces, we created a social cartography of how nine journal articles categorise GCE. We found the greatest confluence within the neoliberal, greatest number within the liberal, and a conflation of different 'types' of GCE within the critical orientation. We identified interfaces between neoliberal-liberal and liberal-critical orientations as well as new interfaces: neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal, criticalliberal-neoliberal, and critical-post critical. Despite considerable diversity of GCE orientations, we argue GCE typologies remain largely framed by a limited range of possibilities, particularly when considered as implicated in the modern-colonial imaginary. In a gesture toward expanding future possibilities for GCE, we propose a new set of distinctions between methodological, epistemological, and ontological levels.

Od kolonialnega učenja do izobraževanja za trajnostni razvoj

“…V Angliji in Severni Ameriki se je izoblikoval koncept globalnega izobraževanja, ki je bil z namenom širjenja človekovih pravic, TR, aktivnega državljanstva ter medkulturnega razumevanja in miru najbolj razširjen v 80. in 90. letih 20. stol. (Bourn, 2014;Pike, 2000). Na evropski ravni je bil na podlagi podobnih vrednot ter s težnjo po širjenju demokracije, človekovih pravic in vladavine prava tudi na druge kontinente leta 1989 v okviru Sveta Evrope ustanovljen Center sever-jug (Svet Evrope, 2020).…”

Toward a framework for assessing the ‘global’ and ‘citizen’ in global citizenship education in Australia and beyond

“…Four important tensions exist within this call for globally-engaged citizens, however, and the demands of that need. First, as noted in the abundant literature on GCE, there is strong dissonance between global education that supports an international agenda dominated by a privileged regime and one that responds to the injustices of that regime (O'Connor & Zeichner, 2011;Pashby, da Costa, Stein, & Andreotti, 2020). Motifs related to these tensions have been asserted repeatedly, though expressed differently by different scholars:…”

“…Utilitarian vs philanthropic (Salter & Halbert, 2017) . … or, rather cynically, cosmopolitan outlook vs transformative cosmopolitanism (Rizvi, 2009) Other typologies exist (see Pashby et al, 2020), but this provisional list highlights the persistence of these contrasting purposes, and the challenges of navigating competing goals amidst a generic call for globally-minded citizens, where GCE could become 'merely a slogan or buzz-word' (Yemini et al, 2019, p. 83). If educational institutions participate in the construction of 'global imaginations' (Burawoy, 2000) by adopting a global stance merely to attract funding or students, but fail to consider what the global means, then the project of better understanding the world becomes meaningless.…”

Planning and Validating a Curriculum of Global Citizenship Education in Elementary Schools of Iran's Educational System

“…Since the turn of the twenty-first century, there has been increasing attention to both the usefulness of global citizenship as an agenda for education and its inherently contested nature. As global citizenship education is taken up around the world as part of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4, Target 7, it is vital to be studied (Pashby, Costa, Stein & Andreotti, 2020). Also, Social changes created by globalization in the twenty-first century have caused a paradigm shift in the role that schools play in socializing students.…”