essay

a meta review of typologies of global citizenship education

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

• DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352
• Corpus ID: 213812015

A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

• K. Pashby , M. D. Da Costa , +1 author V. Andreotti
• Published in Comparative Education 13 February 2020
• Education, Political Science

151 Citations

Interfaces of critical global citizenship education in research about secondary schools in ‘global north’ contexts.

• Highly Influenced
• 16 Excerpts

Reproducing hierarchisation and depoliticisation: exploring discursive micro processes in global education

Critical perspectives on internationalization in higher education: commercialization, global citizenship, or postcolonial imperialism, the onto-epistemic foundations of global governance and global education policies: a decolonial analysis of global citizenship education in hawai‘i, the university and the crisis of twenty-first-century citizenship: towards a global citizenship education to disrupt populist nationalism, advancing global citizenship and cosmopolitanism in an age of globoskepticism: insights from the world order models project, global citizenship education practices in singapore and australia: tensions between educational and market rationales, framing the global: assessing the purpose of global citizenship education in primary geography, learning from the streets: a state-of-the-art review about linguistic landscapes and global citizenship education, bridging theory and practice: conceptualisations of global citizenship education in dutch secondary education.

• 15 Excerpts

38 References

Global citizenship: a typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions.

• Highly Influential
• 22 Excerpts

An ideology critique of global citizenship education

What type of global community and citizenship tangled discourses of neoliberalism and critical democracy in curriculum and its reform, conflations, possibilities, and foreclosures: global citizenship education in a multicultural context, education for global citizenship: illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation.

• 13 Excerpts

Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools

Local histories/global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking, related and conflated: a theoretical and discursive framing of multiculturalism and global citizenship education in the canadian context, delinking global issues in northern europe classrooms, critical and transnational literacies in international development and global citizenship education, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

• et al. See more

This article is free to access.

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 GCE–neoliberal, liberal, and critical–and 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, critical-liberal-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.

Author supplied keywords

• Global citizenship education
• postcolonial critique

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

CITATION STYLE

Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education , 56 (2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352

Readers' Seniority

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 86

Lecturer / Post doc 26

Researcher 18

Professor / Associate Prof. 14

Readers' Discipline

Social Sciences 95

Arts and Humanities 25

Linguistics 6

Computer Science 5

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

• Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
• Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.

A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

Comparative Education

Related Papers

Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education

Robert Coelen

Calls for global citizenship education (GCE) in primary education have been making themselves heard in recent literature in different national and international contexts. Primary school teachers must be equipped with the necessary competencies required to carry out this broader task appropriately. This article seeks to understand how experienced teachers and teacher educators look at GCE andrelated global teaching competencies. A global citizenship typology provides the article’s theoretical frame for the investigation. This study used the Delphi method to reach consensus on a definition of GCE and what a globally competent primary school teacher should do to support the learning of diverse learners and engage them in GCE. The results show an extensive profile with foundational, facilitation, and curriculum design competencies and a definition of GCE which corresponds most with a moral and cultural global citizenship description.

Globalisation, Societies and Education

Felipe Guimaraes

In the current scenario of dispersed knowledge authorities and uncertainty brought by the Covid-19 pandemic, a critical reflection on the nationalist and anti-global climate is necessary to support the promotion of alternative ways of Global Citizenship Education (GCE). This paper addresses some of the criticism raised at the concept of GCE to discuss Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) as an alternative Thirdspace for promoting intercultural encounters in the internationalisation of higher education, in order to cope with local, national and global tensions in this process, with a ‘glonacal’ view that accounts for the role of individuals, local/national governments and higher education in it.

HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Citizenship education (CE) has become popular with various descriptors at different levels of education. In higher education, it has gained status with the title of global CE (GCE). Although the ways of delivery of GCE vary within and across universities, research suggests that the prevailing ideology of neoliberalism that promotes a notion of de-contextualised and individualistic citizenship seeps into all forms of GCE. Therefore, attempts have been made to strengthen alternative conceptualisations of GCE that challenge inequalities and facilitate the participation of marginalised identities. This study reports on the curriculum development of an alternative form of GCE underpinned by the theories of cosmopolitan citizenship. Empirical evidence (interviews, observation notes, evaluation data and other course materials) is drawn from three iterations of a GCE course taken by 124 students at a Russell Group university in the UK from 2016 to 2018. The study concludes that the prevalence of neoliberal GCE may be effectively challenged by recognising the significance of collective action and integrating a strong practical dimension to the curriculum.

European Educational Research Journal

Su-ming Khoo

This article begins with the proposition that inter- and transdisciplinarity offer an important methodological grounding for collaborative HE research addressing complex agendas such as HE internationalization. Internationalization acts as a figure for the ‘troubled’ nature of higher education; hence we begin with the larger problem, discussing the current crises of disciplinary knowledge as the background question. We set out a framework for understanding and conceptualizing inter- and transdisciplinarity as a meta-theoretical approach that problematizes reductive and disciplinary approaches, in favour of research and analytical strategies which can work with, and across, differences. To work further through and operationalize different possibilities offered by inter-and transdisciplinary approaches to HE internationalizations, we discuss the use of tools such as social cartography to do ‘bridging work’ across different disciplinary and theoretical backgrounds and contexts. A non-f...

Meeri A Hellstén , Su-ming Khoo

This article begins with the proposition that inter- and transdisciplinarity offer an important methodological grounding for collaborative HE research addressing complex agendas such as HE internationalization. Internationalization acts as a figure for the ‘troubled’ nature of higher education; hence we begin with the larger problem, discussing the current crises of disciplinary knowledge as the background question. We set out a framework for understanding and conceptualizing inter and transdisciplinarity as a meta-theoretical approach that problematizes reductive and disciplinary approaches, in favour of research and analytical strategies which can work with, and across, differences. To work further through and operationalize different possibilities offered by inter and transdisciplinary approaches to HE internationalizations, we discuss the use of tools such as social cartography to do ‘bridging work’ across different disciplinary and theoretical backgrounds and contexts. A non-formal practitioner–collaborator project is discussed to highlight emergent dimensions of collaboration that might otherwise be overlooked. Inter- and transdisciplinarity are not pre-specified specialized ‘methods’ but, rather, are orientations that may take reductive, convergent, divergent or emergent pathways. Inter- and transdisciplinarity can perhaps be best treated as a problematizing and open-ended methodological approach that foregrounds plurality and contestation,

n Policy Futures in Education

Karen Pashby

This paper examines the main rationales for and possible implications of the policy of increasing international student numbers in higher education (HE). Drawing on critical discourse analysis, we map key themes emerging from two sets of data—university strategy documents and interviews with staff—collected at eight universities in four national contexts in Europe as a part of a larger project focused on ethical internationalism in HE. In our analysis of the data, we apply social cartographic mapping to consider overlapping, competing and absent discourses related to the push to increase international student numbers by using a heuristic developed in the larger project. We found the imperative to increase international student numbers to be largely driven by economic rationales across different national contexts, reflective of a corporatization trend. Where more civic rationales are presented, these discourses are ultimately framed and mediated by neoliberalism. The findings contribute insight into the complicated discursive terrain of internationalising HE. The mapping makes visible what can be taken for granted or is left unexamined. It serves as a jumping-off point for reflection on the policy, practice and research of internationalisation in HE, promoting the formulation of key questions around the assumed benefits and ethics of internationalisation

Geographical Research

In 2017, as part of a restructuring of the Bachelor of Arts degree, Massey University introduced the compulsory second-year citizenship course Tū Rangaranga: Global Encounters. Tū Rangaranga is a Māori word meaning to weave together or establish connections. The course explores citizenship from a global perspective with a focus on rights and responsibilities. In the course, students are encouraged both to reflect on the multiple factors shaping their identities, including Aotearoa New Zealand's colonial past, and to locate themselves in relation to complex global problems. This decolonial approach to curricula and pedagogy enables a greater commitment to Māori perspectives related to citizenship. This commitment is reflected in the weaving together of Māori and Western epistemologies in the course design and content. The course was developed in the context of a university that subsequently expressed a commitment to becoming a Tiriti-led university and to abide by its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, recognising the indigeneity and rights of Māori people. The decolonial imperative underscoring the teaching of this course was to enhance forms of collective reflection and action to address issues of cultural exclusion and disadvantage associated with colonial legacies that privilege Western epistemologies within curricula and pedagogy.

Sharon Stein , Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti

This chapter presents an approach to "educating for global citizenship" that the authors call global citizenship otherwise. This approach to global citizenship education (GCE) invites learners to decenter themselves, deepen their sense of responsibility, and disinvest from harmful desires so that we might learn to (co)exist differently on a shared planet. Global citizenship otherwise is partly inspired by decolonial, postcolonial, and Indigenous critiques that denaturalize the harmful underside of the shiny promises offered by nation-states, global capital, universal knowledge, and separability, which we have summarized as the primary dimensions of the metaphorical "house modernity built".

SFU Educational Review

Gabriela Freire Oliveira

The present paper provides a reflection on global citizenship education (GCE) in the internationalization agenda. With that aim, the internationalization of higher education (IHE) is discussed from a critical perspective, mainly informed by postcolonial and decolonial studies. More specifically, the paper addresses GCE issues related to criticisms that have been raised against it in terms of (1) its different educational approaches, (2) its cosmopolitan bias with its (3) ideological frame of the so-called “global citizen”. Some alternatives to mainstream approaches to GCE and IHE are offered in the conclusion, based on the contributions of Stein (2017), Andreotti (2015) and Fiedler (2007), who advocate for the otherwise approach and/or postcolonial learning spaces.

Education and Society

Jeannie Kerr

As societies face unprecedented challenges that are global in scope and “more-than-wicked” in nature, the usual educational response has been to emphasize the need for more knowledge, better policies, and more compelling arguments, in order to effectively convince more people to change their convictions, and, as a consequence, their behaviour. This approach guides policies on compulsory and higher education, including teacher education ‘for the 21st century’, on both sides of the Atlantic. Our research collective, however, has been experimenting with a different educational orientation that does not see the problems of the present primarily as rooted in a methodological challenge of better strategies (i.e. the call for more effective policies and communications), nor in an epistemological challenge of knowing (i.e. the call for more data, information or perspectives). Rather, we propose that the problems are rooted in an ontological challenge of being (i.e. the call to address how we exist in relation to each other and the planet). From this educational orientation, intercultural education acquires an existential dimension oriented towards an expansion of social and ecological responsibilities beyond categories associated with markets and nation states. In this paper we will share analyses and social cartographies that illustrate a different way of approaching what enables and constraints our possibilities for co-existence and discuss implications for interculturality in teacher education in Canada and the UK in times of unprecedented global challenges.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti , Sharon Stein , Karen Pashby

Peterson, Andrew; Stahl, Garth; Soong, Hannah (Eds.)The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education

Sara Franch

Cash Ahenakew

Teaching and Teacher Education

Felisa Tibbitts

Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti , Karen Pashby , Paul Tarc

Kumari Beck

IBE-UNESCO Prospects (Springer)

Dr. Emiliano Bosio Ph.D.

Dalene Swanson

Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti , Sharon Stein , Rene Suša

UNESCO Prospects (Springer)

Hans Schattle , Dr. Emiliano Bosio Ph.D.

Massimiliano Tarozzi

Charlene Tan

April Biccum

Sharon Stein

Global Citizenship Education Critical and International Perspectives

Abdeljalil Akkari

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) for Unknown Futures - Mapping Past and Current Experiments and Debates

Comparative and International Education

Carrie Karsgaard

Postcolonial Directions in Education

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning

adeela Arshad-Ayaz

Chenyu Wang , Education Policy Analysis Archives , Diane Hoffman

Aamna Pasha

Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti

Dalene Swanson , Karen Pashby

2020 RA-UN Paper

Jülide Asci , Helena Hornung

Nicholas Palmer

Suraiya Hameed

Historicizing Curriculum Knowledge Translation on a Global Landscape

Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education

Canadian Journal of Higher Education

Sharon Stein , Rene Suša , Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti

Globalisation Societies and Education

Review of Higher Education

Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education

Tiffany Viggiano, Ph.D.

Educational Review

Abdeljalil Akkari Kathrine Maleq Editors

Dominique Demelenne

Global Education Review

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Collections

A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education

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 GCE—neoliberal, liberal, and critical—and their interfaces, we created a social cartography of how 9 journal articles categorize 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, critical-liberal-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.

Item Type:	Article
Peer-reviewed:	Yes
Date Deposited:	10 Feb 2020 11:36
Publisher:	Taylor & Francis (Routledge)
Additional Information:	This is an Open Access article accepted for publication by Taylor & Francis in Comparative Education.
Divisions:
Subject terms:	Global citizenship education, postcolonial critique, modernity, ontology, Social Sciences, Education & Educational Research, Global citizenship education, postcolonial critique, modernity, ontology, CURRICULUM, DISCOURSES, Education, 1303 Specialist Studies in Education
URI:
ISSN

Impact and Reach

Additional statistics for this dataset are available via IRStats2 .

If Altmetric statistics are available for this item, they will be visible below.

Repository staff only

Edit record

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Transformative Agreements

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

Comparative Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Literature Analysis

Over the past two decades, a wide range of research literature emerged in the field of Comparative and International Education ( cie ) engaging in comparing Global Citizenship Education between nations. However, there is scant analysis that explores the research trends and findings in those comparative inquiries focusing on the theorizing and implementation of gce in different national contexts. Through a systematic review of 12 research papers drawing from major cie journals and relevant databases, the current inquiry will assist the international community of cie in understanding the contribution and limitation of this important body of research, and its implications for future comparative studies on gce . The analysis shows that the comparison reference in the existing literature on comparative gce tends to be curriculum documents and frameworks while underrating the experiences and perceptions of individuals involved in the teaching and learning process. Moreover, the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. This trend limits the possibility to decolonize and transform cie scholarship, which could be reversed with inclusion of new and diverse perspectives and knowledge in future gce research.

In the face of an increasingly globalized and unpredictable world, the relevant role of education in helping learners grasp global issues and respond to global challenges is emphasized ( UNESCO, 2015 ). As an educational response to the increasing international connectedness and deep concerns of global challenges, Global Citizenship Education ( gce ) was prompted to help learners build a sense of belonging to a broader community with essential knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors developed at a global dimension ( UNESCO, 2015 ). Specifically, gce refers to an educational framework that aims to develop learners’ awareness of the local, national, and global interconnectedness, sense of belonging to a broader community, and engagement in actions to resolve challenges the world is facing today ( UNESCO, 2015 ). Although the idea of building citizenship in a global term has become prevalent in policies, practices, as well as research, the discursive and contested nature of gce framework rendered its conceptualization and practice dissimilar in different national contexts. In view of the important role that the national education system plays in responding to global changes, a wide range of research papers appears in the last two decades engaging in comparing education for global citizenship in contrasting national contexts. However, there is scant analysis that explores the research trends and findings in those comparative inquiries focusing on the conceptualization and implementation of gce in different national settings. To fill this lacuna, this article conducts a critical literature analysis focusing on the academic empirical studies that compare gce between two or more nations published since 2000, when gce -related research began to flourish in Comparative and International Education ( cie ) scholarship. Through searching literature database and relevant education journals, the author identified 12 research papers published between 2004 to 2020 featuring a comparison on how gce is framed and practiced differently or alike across contrasting national settings, among which several important trends, dilemmas, and discussions emerged when a systematic review is applied. After outlining the theoretical framework of postcolonial theory and critical gce , this article first discusses the literature on the nation-state as a core and useful unit in comparative studies of education, divergent approaches to gce , and a nation’s interpretation and adoption of gce discourses. The methodology section elucidates the criteria and process for searching relevant research articles, followed by a short note of limitation implied in the inquiry. A discussion on overall findings and salient themes identified in the research process will be illustrated next, and the article will conclude with implications for future research in comparative gce . The current analysis shows that the comparison reference in the existing literature on comparative gce tends to be national curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and university programming documents while underrating the experiences and perceptions of individuals involved in the teaching and learning process. Moreover, the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. This trend limits the possibility of decolonizing and transforming cie scholarship, which could be reversed with an inclusion of new and diverse perspectives and knowledge.

• 1 Theoretical Framework

Focusing on power and inequality implicit in a Eurocentric approach to education research, the postcolonial theory illuminates the rise of research on comparing gce across different national settings. As Tikly and Bond (2013) assert, postcolonial research ethics in cie allow researchers to interrogate the engrained “basis of Western rule” and a range of hegemonic forces that continuously shape and re-shape the basis of education in a postcolonial world. Postcolonial thought guides the author to carefully ponder over the power relations between the Global North and the Global South when the complex process of globalization overwhelmingly affects the postcolonial world. For the current analysis, it decenters Eurocentrism in analyzing different types of comparative inquiries of gce and recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive understanding of citizenship development at both national and global levels.

Critical gce provides another useful theoretical frame to guide the analysis. The discursive and contested nature of gce framework runs the risk of reinforcing inequalities and turning gce into another colonial project in education ( Andreotti, 2010 ; Pashby & Andreotti, 2015 ). The critical mode of gce , according to Andreotti (2006) , contrasts with a soft approach in that it deconstructs normative structures and calls for critical engagement in addressing social inequities. It also highlights a postcolonial view of gce that encourages historical reflections and critical perspectives for students “to unlearn, to listen, to learn with others, and to reach out ready to work in solidarity with others” (Pashby & Andreotti, 2015 , p. 10). Seeing global citizenship as a commitment to the collective good, Torres (2017) argues that gce should be “framed within a social justice education framework” (p. 17) and entail the development of ‘conscientization’ or critical consciousness by Paulo Freire, which is in accordance with the mission of gce ( Torres & Bosio, 2020 ).

2 Literature Review

• 2.1 Nations as a Comparison Unit in Comparative Education

As stated by Bray and Mason ( 2014 ), geographic entities traditionally act as a major focus of cie analysis, and they encompass a variety of levels ranging from macro (i.e., world regions) to micro (i.e., classrooms). Comparison categories like policies, curriculum, or pedagogy in the field of education are inextricably tied to one or more specific places, and therefore exploring an education matter across different locations is deemed essential and relevant ( Bray & Mason, 2014 ). Among the wide-ranging geographic units in comparative education research, nation-state became a core and useful unit because the sector of education in many countries is centralized at the national level and education documents as well as other materials will be most available on a nation basis. In contrast to studies of individual countries, comparative studies in principle conduct a simultaneous comparison of more than one country ( Bereday, 1964 ), which is the searching criteria for literature to be analyzed in the article. Large-scale comparisons involving a great number of countries around the world are also included in the analysis, as long as education for global citizenship is a major focus of comparison. The purpose of comparing an educational issue in different places varies. However, whether it employs an interpretive approach to fully grasp the issue or a causal-analytic method to examine to what extent the causation and outcome of education are different or alike in contrasting places, the underlying contextual features are at the center of analysis and deserve full attention from cie researchers ( Bray & Mason, 2014 ).

• 2.2 Global Citizenship Education and its Contrasting Approaches

As the desired outcome of gce , global citizenship is arguably contested in nature, considering both ‘global’ and ‘citizenship’ are open to debate with regard to their meanings and implications. The component of education within gce , according to Hatley (2019) , “blurs this (global citizenship) further and is often left unexamined” (p. 89), which raises another important question about what globally oriented citizenship is and how to teach it. When mapping out the discursive terrain of gce , Pashby et al. (2020) identified neoliberal, liberal, and critical as three prominent typology orientations for gce -related frameworks. Based on economic rationale and competition-oriented approach, neoliberal types of gce stress education’s role in accumulating human capital to gain personal advantage and national prosperity ( Andreotti, 2006 ; Stein, 2015 ). Education within this neoliberal orientation tends to be instrumental, market-driven, and standardized ( Gaudelli, 2009 ; Camicia & Franklin, 2011 ), which has been often questioned in research. Liberal oriented gce , by contrast, draws on cultural or moral insights and is more likely to advocate cultural diversity ( Andreotti, 2006 ), democracy, and universal values such as human rights ( Oxley & Morris, 2013 ) with less response to West-centrism and global inequality. Critical gce finds the status quo oppressive and aims to address social injustice and challenge the Eurocentric perspectives on modernization, international relations, and global citizenship.

• 2.3 Nation-States and Global Citizenship Education

In response to the challenges brought by globalization and international exchange, nation-states became a crucial policymaker and actor in the field of global education, and research also finds it encourages the inclusion of global citizenship related content in the curriculum ( Goren & Yemini, 2017 ). It is crucial to point out that gce is a contingent notion ( Andreotti, 2010 ), the meaning and implementation of which can only be fully understood and explained in a specific geographic context, and in this case, the nation-states. Considering that those in power have great authority in formulating and implementing gce policies, Hatley (2019) , Swanson and Pashby (2016) contend that gce tends to be co-opted and endorsed by national government and institutions to further their own agendas and political interests. Therefore, the nation-state is a stakeholder of gce and will develop a particular type of global citizenship aligning with their interests and desired values. Literature suggests neoliberal informed gce is the dominant form found within the most nation-level gce discourses. Irrespective of social justice concerns, neoliberal gce emphasizes competitive workforce development ( Cho & Mosselson, 2018 ; Hamdon & Jorgenson, 2011 ) and university’s internationalization goals, which systematically reproduces inequality and marginalization. Another nation-centric view on gce prioritizes national security and foreign policies. For example, Frey and Whitehead (2009) state that the expansion of international education in the United States is mainly for local concerns, especially pertaining to the issues around national security and economic interests rather than global aspirations, and this trend for prioritizing local needs will impede the research agendas and especially the transformative potentials of gce ( Parmenter, 2011 ). The recent rise of xenophobic nationalism ( Pashby et al., 2020 ) and populist nationalism ( Dorio, 2018 ) further complicates the relationship between nation and globe and makes the analysis of studies comparing gce between nations necessary and timely.

• 3 Methodology

Since the goal is to explore the trends, development, and major discussions of comparative studies of gce , the author turns to electronic databases and education journals to search literature that compares gce in at least two contrasting national contexts. Large-scale research that involves a great number of countries is also included. This analysis does not intend to make an exhaustive list of all relevant literature, so the search has mainly focused on empirical, peer-reviewed publications after 2000 when research on gce is flourishing in cie scholarship. Keywords used in the search include ‘global citizenship’, ‘education’, and ‘comparison’ (searched in combination) and their similar descriptors like ‘globalization’, ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’, ‘comparing countries’, etc. and these key terms are searched in the most commonly used databases in the field of education such as jstor , eric , and EBSCOhost. Literature is also searched in several cie journals such as Comparative Education Review , Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, and Research in Comparative and International Education to increase the number of results. One inclusion criterion is that gce needs to be the key comparison theme of the research, considering that global citizenship might be a trivial topic for studies focusing on other aspects of citizenship.

Sometimes comparatists focus on a sub-national geographical or administrative area as a point of comparison, for example, comparing the province of Alberta in Canada and Scotland, as a country and part of the United Kingdom (see, e.g., Swanson & Pashby, 2016 ) or comparing Singapore and Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, (see, e.g., Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016 ). Although these comparative studies are not in keeping with general nation-level comparison, it could be argued that a province or state is heavily influenced by national policies, and thus it is reflective of the ideologies and values a national government has in terms of citizenship education. Therefore, a sub-national comparison of gce is also included in the analysis. All literature that meets the above criteria is then grouped based on their comparison reference, and a summary table that lists all reviewed literature is provided in Table 1 . In terms of limitation, the analysis does not take studies written in non-English language into account, so it cannot give a full picture of comparative studies of gce . In addition, it does not capture the regional and local variations in promoting citizenship beyond the national borders.

Twelve comparative studies of gce are finally included in the analyzing process, and the analysis shows that the comparison references in the existing literature on comparative gce tend to be national curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and university programming documents. A full table of reviewed studies is presented as , and all studies were grouped by their comparison reference. Studies with the same comparison reference were listed following a chronological order by publication dates. Overall, six studies use national curriculum frameworks for comparison, while the rest studies focus on comparing textbooks, university programming documents, and student perceptions, respectively. The search also identified a few recent gce studies making comparisons on teacher education between countries (see, e.g., ; ), which is an emerging area of gce research that looks into how frameworks of gce would inform and be incorporated into teacher education programs. However, considering that this type of research often examines the involvement of multiple stakeholders such as higher education institutions, NGOs (non-government organizations), teacher educators, government authority, etc. and deals with broad aspects from professional standards to structural support ( ), such comparative studies are beyond the scope of the current analysis focusing on single comparison reference. In the same vein, unesco-initiated reports concerned with comparative analysis of gce (see, e.g., Cox, 2017) found in the search are not considered either, given unesco’s unique organizational goal for education monitoring and assessment. These two strands of gce research are worthy of future study.

A vast majority of comparative studies of gce in existing literature focuses on the national curriculum or policy documents of different countries as the key reference of comparison to explore their commonalities or differences for their incorporation of gce, while fewer research efforts were made to compare textbooks, university programming documents, or student perceptions. In terms of methodology, while textbook comparisons use a quantitive approach and are concerned with a cross-national trend in the adoption of gce, the rest literature is more likely to compare only two countries through qualitative methods like document analysis. A significant finding derived from the analysis is that the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries or sub-national areas located in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. Amidst all countries selected for comparison, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong (officially as a Special Administrative Region of China), UK (especially its nation of Scotland) appear multiple times and gce related materials in these places tend to be compared with the counterparts in countries also characterized with privileges and advanced economic development. Under this situation, a few studies turn to the same curriculum documents for analysis. For example, both and use (CfE) to explore Scotland’s national discourses of gce, although the other country of comparison is different. The following section will look into each reference of comparison to better understand the research trends and major findings in comparative studies of gce.

A bulk of studies on comparative gce use national curriculum frameworks to examine the commonalities and differences in the adoption of global citizenship related content for different countries. As an easily accessible reference for comparison, curriculum frameworks reflect a society’s official discourses of citizenship and attitudes that policymakers have toward globalization, diversity, and other social changes. Given that nearly all the six studies focusing on national curriculum comparison employ (critical) discourse analysis or a similar method such as content/textual analysis, a pattern of convergence in terms of research methodology is discerned. Using national curriculum as a focus of comparison, these studies seek to explore how educational frameworks between nations would deal with the tensions between the national and global since they all recognize the vital role that education plays in responding to the economic, demographic, and socio-cultural changes that globalization brought to the society.

Analyzing the notions of cosmopolitanism, cultural diversity, and migration in-depth, these studies strive to understand to what extent and in what ways the idea of global citizenship is discussed in relation to the national relationships within the national curriculum framework. One consistent finding across all six studies is that national/local citizenship is still at the center in the national curriculum of comparison, although the discourse of global citizenship and the importance of respecting differences is discussed frequently in framing what is aspired in a global age. In addition, these studies argue that tensions and ambiguities would increase when promoting a global form of citizenship in a curriculum that prioritizes nation-centric agendas, especially in terms of identity formation and civic engagement ( ). The concerns about preserving national identities and traditions against increasing diversity and uncertainty in societies make the discourse of global citizenship elusive and difficult to grasp, primarily in the compared cases of Asian societies such as Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Another commonality found across the six studies is that the compared national curriculum tends to associate global citizenship with the emphasis on skills and knowledge for learners to engage in the global economy. This leads to a conclusion that the framing of global citizenship in the curriculum of comparison is instrumental and neoliberal-oriented, which lacks critical components to challenge inequality since it expects learners only to adapt to a global environment and accept changes ( ).

Employing primarily quantitative research methods, three studies use secondary-school textbooks as a reference for comparison for gce. Specifically, they conduct a large-scale cross-national analysis on the extent to which the notion of global citizenship and globalization were incorporated in civics, social studies, and history textbooks over the years since 1970. All derived from the same large, longitudinal project founded at Stanford University aiming to map out the content changes in social science textbooks around the world, these three publications reveal an overall increase for years in textbook content to include the topic of global citizenship (or its main aspects such as global awareness, etc.) and of globalization across more than 60 countries. Despite difficulties in knowing the frequency of use and real impact on learners ( ), textbooks serve as a useful and practical reference of comparison since they can reveal a nation’s civic ideals and expectations for future generations.

In addition to showing an increasing trend to include global citizenship related content in textbooks, the three studies disclose the regional variations and national-level characteristics in predicting the content change in textbooks. For example, both and suggest that a country’s membership in INGOs (international non-government organizations) predicts a greater likelihood for its textbooks to have global citizenship content. further implies that democratic countries are more likely to integrate aspects of global citizenship in textbooks than non-democratic regimes. Moreover, some regional variance is observed, and find the textbooks in Latin American countries have a higher chance to include global citizenship content than those in Western nations when a particular statistic model is operated. However, such a result is not consistent and warrants future investigations.

The frequent appearance of gce programs and initiatives within the realm of higher education brings two studies to focus on the university’s documents and policies in which gce is the main theme. Concretely, they compare how higher education institutions in different national contexts incorporate global citizenship related concepts into their educational programs. Considering that the higher education sector worldwide is increasingly exposed to globalization and market forces, these studies are particularly concerned with how programming documents discuss the visions of and rationale for promoting global citizenship and implications it has for future higher education. Overall, those studies observe that the education for global citizenship as an important institutional agenda is inextricably linked to universities’ broader internationalization efforts, the focus of which is often on international student recruitment, study abroad, internationalizing curriculum, international volunteering programs, etc. ( ). When exploring gce programming at universities in Japan and the UK, the study by found programs in both countries highlight the interconnections between people and the needs to address global challenges. More importantly, they converge in their emphasis on learners’ practical skills and employability, which cares more about the production of ‘global workers’ than global citizens. However, their institutional goal differs when considering Japan’s program is to promote national identity and government agendas through gce and the program in the UK is more concerned about enhancing university branding to compete in global higher education. article is the only one among the reviewed papers that especially draws attention to student perceptions, and it compares how college students from the US and Australia develop a global identity as global citizens through study abroad. It finds US students tend to prioritize their national identity and have less affiliation to a broader community, while Australian students have a stronger identification as global citizens.

A growing body of literature emerged over the past two decades in cie scholarship to compare education for global citizenship in different national settings. Although cie and gce research both encompass more than nation-state comparisons and globalization disrupts the national basis of comparative education ( ), the current analysis choose to focus on nation-level comparison because gce is a contingent and country-specific notion ( ; ) and government as a dominant gce policymaker and actor ( ) can mediate and have strong leverage in policy formation and implementation. The current analysis shows that the comparison reference in the existing literature on comparing gce tends to be national curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and university programming documents. These works converge in their observations that the concept of global citizenship is increasingly incorporated in secondary- and college-level education for countries of comparison. However, they also find the idea of global citizenship is adopted to strengthen national and institutional agendas to maximize learners’ competitiveness for a global economy, which is well noted as the sector of education is prone to neoliberal shifts in policies, governance, and regulations. Moreover, the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. With advanced economic development, the societies for comparison form an enclosed group of places that seem to be selected to showcase the ‘best’ practice for gce and act as a reference point to reveal the status quo of citizenship development for a global dimension. This trend, however, must be questioned and counteracted by including more voices and perspectives from the Global South, especially what Misiaszek termed the “hard space” ( ). Facing “unique challenges to conducting gce work,” those hard spaces are either “heavily surveilled and regulated” or suffering from political instability ( , p. 2). The view of hard space resonates with ’s wonderings on the central dilemmas of gce, for both its theoretical and practical development, that is, “can we try to build a global citizenship education when so many nation-states have failed even to build national citizenship education, or when national citizenship building is still an abysmal work in progress?” ( , p. x) Bearing this key conundrum in mind, the hard space deserves more room and presence in future gce research, and global citizenship will never be a goal and action plan for only a couple of countries. Moreover, the reference of comparison should be expanded when exploring the development of global citizenship in different educational settings, and this observation suggests involving more human subjects such as learners and educators in comparative research and analysis of their experiences, perceptions, as well as actions in relation to global citizenship will enrich the gce discourses with a bottom-up approach. Building access to students and teachers in different places also requires a more solid and reliable partnership between researchers and educational stakeholders, which is an important next step for the research community.

When the basis of education is challenged and redefined by local and global forces, education for global citizenship will help us rebuild solidarity and deconstruct unequal power relations. Reviewing and critically analyzing the different types of inquiries on comparing gce between nations, this paper strives to delineate this important research area by identifying major comparison themes, dilemmas, and findings across a number of research papers published between 2004 to 2020. Comparative studies in the future should not only attend to the emergence and development of gce in societies which are the privileged and active players in a globalized world, but also take notice of how (global) citizenship is governed and held back in one place or another, with an emphasis on examining how people perceive their educational spaces and experiences within it. For citizenship education educators and researchers, it is also important “to unlearn, to listen, to learn with others, and to reach out ready to work in solidarity with others” (Pashby & Andreotti, , p. 10) together with learners to make the world more connected and inclusive.

New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.)| false , M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2014). . Hong Kong University Press.

Hong Kong University Press.)| false , P. (2009). Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education: Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970–2008. , 12(1), 33–44.

Routledge.)| false , L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. , 61(3), 301–325.

New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.)| false , L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of global citizenship education. , 9(3–4), 367–380.

A&C Black.)| false , S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. , 16(4), 242–252.

Taylor & Francis.)| false , C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. , 48(3–4), 99–113.

Paris:

UNESCO.)| false ; ; ; ; , , T., & Baildon, M. (2016). Context and curriculum in two global cities: A study of discourses of citizenship in Hong Kong and Singapore. , 24(58).

New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.)| false , M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2014). . Hong Kong University Press.

Hong Kong University Press.)| false , P. (2009). Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education: Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970–2008. , 12(1), 33–44.

Routledge.)| false , L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. , 61(3), 301–325.

New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.)| false , L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of global citizenship education. , 9(3–4), 367–380.

A&C Black.)| false , S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. , 16(4), 242–252.

Taylor & Francis.)| false , C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. , 48(3–4), 99–113.

Paris:

UNESCO.)| false All Time Past Year Past 30 Days Abstract Views 71 0 0 Full Text Views 1727 682 41 PDF Views & Downloads 3301 1110 82

Twelve comparative studies of gce are finally included in the analyzing process, and the analysis shows that the comparison references in the existing literature on comparative gce tend to be national curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and university programming documents. A full table of reviewed studies is presented as , and all studies were grouped by their comparison reference. Studies with the same comparison reference were listed following a chronological order by publication dates. Overall, six studies use national curriculum frameworks for comparison, while the rest studies focus on comparing textbooks, university programming documents, and student perceptions, respectively. The search also identified a few recent gce studies making comparisons on teacher education between countries (see, e.g., ; ), which is an emerging area of gce research that looks into how frameworks of gce would inform and be incorporated into teacher education programs. However, considering that this type of research often examines the involvement of multiple stakeholders such as higher education institutions, NGOs (non-government organizations), teacher educators, government authority, etc. and deals with broad aspects from professional standards to structural support ( ), such comparative studies are beyond the scope of the current analysis focusing on single comparison reference. In the same vein, unesco-initiated reports concerned with comparative analysis of gce (see, e.g., Cox, 2017) found in the search are not considered either, given unesco’s unique organizational goal for education monitoring and assessment. These two strands of gce research are worthy of future study.

A vast majority of comparative studies of gce in existing literature focuses on the national curriculum or policy documents of different countries as the key reference of comparison to explore their commonalities or differences for their incorporation of gce, while fewer research efforts were made to compare textbooks, university programming documents, or student perceptions. In terms of methodology, while textbook comparisons use a quantitive approach and are concerned with a cross-national trend in the adoption of gce, the rest literature is more likely to compare only two countries through qualitative methods like document analysis. A significant finding derived from the analysis is that the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries or sub-national areas located in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. Amidst all countries selected for comparison, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong (officially as a Special Administrative Region of China), UK (especially its nation of Scotland) appear multiple times and gce related materials in these places tend to be compared with the counterparts in countries also characterized with privileges and advanced economic development. Under this situation, a few studies turn to the same curriculum documents for analysis. For example, both and use (CfE) to explore Scotland’s national discourses of gce, although the other country of comparison is different. The following section will look into each reference of comparison to better understand the research trends and major findings in comparative studies of gce.

A bulk of studies on comparative gce use national curriculum frameworks to examine the commonalities and differences in the adoption of global citizenship related content for different countries. As an easily accessible reference for comparison, curriculum frameworks reflect a society’s official discourses of citizenship and attitudes that policymakers have toward globalization, diversity, and other social changes. Given that nearly all the six studies focusing on national curriculum comparison employ (critical) discourse analysis or a similar method such as content/textual analysis, a pattern of convergence in terms of research methodology is discerned. Using national curriculum as a focus of comparison, these studies seek to explore how educational frameworks between nations would deal with the tensions between the national and global since they all recognize the vital role that education plays in responding to the economic, demographic, and socio-cultural changes that globalization brought to the society.

Analyzing the notions of cosmopolitanism, cultural diversity, and migration in-depth, these studies strive to understand to what extent and in what ways the idea of global citizenship is discussed in relation to the national relationships within the national curriculum framework. One consistent finding across all six studies is that national/local citizenship is still at the center in the national curriculum of comparison, although the discourse of global citizenship and the importance of respecting differences is discussed frequently in framing what is aspired in a global age. In addition, these studies argue that tensions and ambiguities would increase when promoting a global form of citizenship in a curriculum that prioritizes nation-centric agendas, especially in terms of identity formation and civic engagement ( ). The concerns about preserving national identities and traditions against increasing diversity and uncertainty in societies make the discourse of global citizenship elusive and difficult to grasp, primarily in the compared cases of Asian societies such as Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Another commonality found across the six studies is that the compared national curriculum tends to associate global citizenship with the emphasis on skills and knowledge for learners to engage in the global economy. This leads to a conclusion that the framing of global citizenship in the curriculum of comparison is instrumental and neoliberal-oriented, which lacks critical components to challenge inequality since it expects learners only to adapt to a global environment and accept changes ( ).

Employing primarily quantitative research methods, three studies use secondary-school textbooks as a reference for comparison for gce. Specifically, they conduct a large-scale cross-national analysis on the extent to which the notion of global citizenship and globalization were incorporated in civics, social studies, and history textbooks over the years since 1970. All derived from the same large, longitudinal project founded at Stanford University aiming to map out the content changes in social science textbooks around the world, these three publications reveal an overall increase for years in textbook content to include the topic of global citizenship (or its main aspects such as global awareness, etc.) and of globalization across more than 60 countries. Despite difficulties in knowing the frequency of use and real impact on learners ( ), textbooks serve as a useful and practical reference of comparison since they can reveal a nation’s civic ideals and expectations for future generations.

In addition to showing an increasing trend to include global citizenship related content in textbooks, the three studies disclose the regional variations and national-level characteristics in predicting the content change in textbooks. For example, both and suggest that a country’s membership in INGOs (international non-government organizations) predicts a greater likelihood for its textbooks to have global citizenship content. further implies that democratic countries are more likely to integrate aspects of global citizenship in textbooks than non-democratic regimes. Moreover, some regional variance is observed, and find the textbooks in Latin American countries have a higher chance to include global citizenship content than those in Western nations when a particular statistic model is operated. However, such a result is not consistent and warrants future investigations.

The frequent appearance of gce programs and initiatives within the realm of higher education brings two studies to focus on the university’s documents and policies in which gce is the main theme. Concretely, they compare how higher education institutions in different national contexts incorporate global citizenship related concepts into their educational programs. Considering that the higher education sector worldwide is increasingly exposed to globalization and market forces, these studies are particularly concerned with how programming documents discuss the visions of and rationale for promoting global citizenship and implications it has for future higher education. Overall, those studies observe that the education for global citizenship as an important institutional agenda is inextricably linked to universities’ broader internationalization efforts, the focus of which is often on international student recruitment, study abroad, internationalizing curriculum, international volunteering programs, etc. ( ). When exploring gce programming at universities in Japan and the UK, the study by found programs in both countries highlight the interconnections between people and the needs to address global challenges. More importantly, they converge in their emphasis on learners’ practical skills and employability, which cares more about the production of ‘global workers’ than global citizens. However, their institutional goal differs when considering Japan’s program is to promote national identity and government agendas through gce and the program in the UK is more concerned about enhancing university branding to compete in global higher education. article is the only one among the reviewed papers that especially draws attention to student perceptions, and it compares how college students from the US and Australia develop a global identity as global citizens through study abroad. It finds US students tend to prioritize their national identity and have less affiliation to a broader community, while Australian students have a stronger identification as global citizens.

A growing body of literature emerged over the past two decades in cie scholarship to compare education for global citizenship in different national settings. Although cie and gce research both encompass more than nation-state comparisons and globalization disrupts the national basis of comparative education ( ), the current analysis choose to focus on nation-level comparison because gce is a contingent and country-specific notion ( ; ) and government as a dominant gce policymaker and actor ( ) can mediate and have strong leverage in policy formation and implementation. The current analysis shows that the comparison reference in the existing literature on comparing gce tends to be national curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and university programming documents. These works converge in their observations that the concept of global citizenship is increasingly incorporated in secondary- and college-level education for countries of comparison. However, they also find the idea of global citizenship is adopted to strengthen national and institutional agendas to maximize learners’ competitiveness for a global economy, which is well noted as the sector of education is prone to neoliberal shifts in policies, governance, and regulations. Moreover, the national settings where the comparative inquiries of gce were conducted are highly limited in scope, mostly the developed countries in West Europe, East Asia, or North America. With advanced economic development, the societies for comparison form an enclosed group of places that seem to be selected to showcase the ‘best’ practice for gce and act as a reference point to reveal the status quo of citizenship development for a global dimension. This trend, however, must be questioned and counteracted by including more voices and perspectives from the Global South, especially what Misiaszek termed the “hard space” ( ). Facing “unique challenges to conducting gce work,” those hard spaces are either “heavily surveilled and regulated” or suffering from political instability ( , p. 2). The view of hard space resonates with ’s wonderings on the central dilemmas of gce, for both its theoretical and practical development, that is, “can we try to build a global citizenship education when so many nation-states have failed even to build national citizenship education, or when national citizenship building is still an abysmal work in progress?” ( , p. x) Bearing this key conundrum in mind, the hard space deserves more room and presence in future gce research, and global citizenship will never be a goal and action plan for only a couple of countries. Moreover, the reference of comparison should be expanded when exploring the development of global citizenship in different educational settings, and this observation suggests involving more human subjects such as learners and educators in comparative research and analysis of their experiences, perceptions, as well as actions in relation to global citizenship will enrich the gce discourses with a bottom-up approach. Building access to students and teachers in different places also requires a more solid and reliable partnership between researchers and educational stakeholders, which is an important next step for the research community.

When the basis of education is challenged and redefined by local and global forces, education for global citizenship will help us rebuild solidarity and deconstruct unequal power relations. Reviewing and critically analyzing the different types of inquiries on comparing gce between nations, this paper strives to delineate this important research area by identifying major comparison themes, dilemmas, and findings across a number of research papers published between 2004 to 2020. Comparative studies in the future should not only attend to the emergence and development of gce in societies which are the privileged and active players in a globalized world, but also take notice of how (global) citizenship is governed and held back in one place or another, with an emphasis on examining how people perceive their educational spaces and experiences within it. For citizenship education educators and researchers, it is also important “to unlearn, to listen, to learn with others, and to reach out ready to work in solidarity with others” (Pashby & Andreotti, , p. 10) together with learners to make the world more connected and inclusive.

New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.)| false , M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2014). . Hong Kong University Press.

Hong Kong University Press.)| false , P. (2009). Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education: Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970–2008. , 12(1), 33–44.

Routledge.)| false , L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. , 61(3), 301–325.

New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.)| false , L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of global citizenship education. , 9(3–4), 367–380.

A&C Black.)| false , S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. , 16(4), 242–252.

Taylor & Francis.)| false , C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. , 48(3–4), 99–113.

Paris:

UNESCO.)| false ; ; ; ; , All Time Past Year Past 30 Days Abstract Views 71 0 0 Full Text Views 1727 682 41 PDF Views & Downloads 3301 1110 82

• 4.1 Compare National Curriculum Frameworks
• 4.2 Compare Textbooks
• 4.3 Compare University Programming Documents and Student Perceptions
• 5 Discussion
• 6 Conclusion

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

Global Citizenship Education for Anti-globalist Communities

• First Online: 31 May 2024

Cite this chapter

• Eric Moffa 39  

Part of the book series: Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research ((GCEP,volume 43))

43 Accesses

This chapter analyses the characteristics of new populism and its anti-global sentiments, reveals their misalignment to prevalent conceptualizations of GCE, and proposes an application of place-based education and reverent listening in GCE. This approach assists teachers in negotiating oppositional stances to globalization by challenging the local–global binary. This place-sensitive approach to GCE esteems, first and foremost, the people and places that perceive themselves as being left behind by globalization, under threat of losing their cultural identity, and upset with the established system’s failure to respond to their needs. This esteemed positioning disrupts the traditional authority of the teacher and curriculum, and embeds a humble spirit of shared, communal learning into GCE to help refine perspectives and acknowledge students’ inherent status as global citizens without sacrificing their fundamental position as local citizens. It is argued that Global Citizenship Education (GCE) faces a rising context-specific challenge—anti-globalist communities. These are localities in the Western world that possess political majorities who, in the past decade, have shown increased support for right-wing populism and its sentiments of distrust of established political systems and discontent with the effects of globalization. This rise in populism stems from a divestment and devaluing of these places in the present political and economic order—places that were once prosperous working or middle-class localities. Rodríguez-Pose (LSE Public Policy Review 1:1–9, 2020) suggests that new populism in specific regions of the United Kingdom, United States, Italy, France, and Germany represents a revenge of the ‘places that don’t matter’ (p. 6). I argue that these communities are at odds with prevalent conceptual understandings of GCE, including neoconservative and neoliberal orientations that are routinely associated with the political right; and I offer a reconceptualized approach to GCE that is sensitive to such communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Albrecht, D. E. (2022). Rural/urban differences: Persistence or decline. Rural Sociology, 87 (4), 1137–1154.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andreotti, V. O. (2014). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Development education in policy and practice (pp. 21–31). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Berman, S. (2019). Populism is a symptom rather than a cause: Democratic disconnect, the decline of the center-left, and the rise of populism in western Europe. Polity, 51 (4), 654–667.

Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Google Scholar  

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism . Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order . Seven Stories Press.

Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker . University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum . University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education . Simon & Schuster.

Dewey, J. (2008). Democracy and education. The MacMillan Company. (Original work published in 1916).

Dobbins et al. (2022). Advancing global citizenship in America . Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1659-1.html

Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined–A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82 , 170–183.

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 619–654.

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2014).  Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. Routledge.

H.B. 2107, 86th WV Legislature, 2015 1st Sess. (West Virginia. 2015) https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2107%20intr.htm&yr=2015&sesstype=RS&i=2107

Kim, Y. M. (2012). The shifting sands of citizenship: Toward a model of the citizenry in life politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644 (1), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456008

Kim, E. J. A. (2021). Global citizenship education through curriculum-as-relations. Prospects, 51 (1–3), 129–141.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender . Polity Press.

Michalopoulos, C. (2022). The rise of populism and anti-globalization. Aid, Trade and Development: The Future of Globalization (pp. 313–339). Springer International Publishing.

Nespor, J. (2008). Education and place: A review essay. Educational Theory, 58 (4), 475–489.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy : Education and transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press.

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61 (3), 301–325.

Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56 (2), 144–164.

Pendharkar, E. (2022, August 18). Bills targeting classroom talk on race and gender identity ballooned this year. Education Week . https://www.edweek.org/leadership/bills-targeting-classroom-talk-on-race-and-gender-identity-ballooned-this-year/2022/08

Pollock, M., Rogers, J., Kwako, A., Matschiner, A., Kendall, R., Bingener, C., Reece, E., Kennedy, B., & Howard, J. (2022). The conflict campaign: Exploring local experiences of the campaign to ban “critical race theory” in public K–12 education in the US, 2020–2021.  Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/the-conflict-campaign

Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33 (1), 91–112.

Rizvi, F. (2022). Education and the politics of anti-globalization. In  Reimagining globalization and education  (pp. 214–227). Routledge.

Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). The rise of populism and the revenge of the places that don’t matter. LSE Public Policy Review, 1 (1), 1–9.

Rud, A. G., & Garrison, J. (2010). Reverence and listening in teaching and leading. Teachers College Record, 112 (11), 2777–2792.

Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13 (1), 73–94.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Nature & Listening, 4 (1), 1–7.

Steinhorn, L. (2022, July 26). The fundamental flaw in ‘Make America Great Again’. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/07/26/fundamental-flaw-make-america-great-again/

Stiglitz, J. E. (2017).  Globalization and its discontents revisited: Anti-globalization in the era of Trump . WW Norton & Company.

Yemini, M., Engel, L., & Ben Simon, A. (2023). Place-based education–a systematic review of literature.  Educational Review , 1–21.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Washington and Lee University, Lexington, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Moffa .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Arts, School of Education, Australian Catholic University, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Joseph Zajda

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Anatoli Rapoport

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Moffa, E. (2024). Global Citizenship Education for Anti-globalist Communities. In: Zajda, J., Rapoport, A. (eds) Discourses of Globalisation, Active Citizenship and Education. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55493-3_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55493-3_3

Published : 31 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-55492-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-55493-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research