Abstract:
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is a sub-field of educational research and practice which has gained increasing attention over the last two decades. It is a broad field, encompassing such subjects as pluralism, multiculturalism, peace, economic productivity, and climate action. Championed by UNESCO, embedded within the Sustainable Development Goals, and assessed in the form of a competence by PISA 2018, GCED is now a central dimension of the global educational landscape. And yet, accompanying this exponential growth has been a considerable fracturing of what exactly the term entails. GCED is, at its core, ideational. Many view it as a framework through which to make sense of and critique the world, or to (re)imagine possible forms of citizenship both within and beyond national borders. Less is understood about how ideas grounded in GCED contribute to conflict-affected education.
This presentation critically engages with conceptual foundations within GCED, specifically around its potential to promote peace, in order to interrogate its assumptive value for higher education in contexts impacted by armed conflict. My focus on higher education acknowledges the sector as a key site where ideas are generated and contested, and as a central educational sector in post-conflict constructions of the State. I ask, how might conceptualisations of GCED be understood within conflict-affected higher education? And to what extent might GCED represent a solution to conflict, or act as catalyst? To explore these questions, I draw on data from policy documents and semi-structured interviews with a range of actors engaged in higher education in conflict-affected contexts, including ministry officials, researchers, consultants, and multi-lateral aid organisation officers. This presentation brings these data into productive conversation with GCED research which focuses on peace. While emergent, findings suggest two broad themes. Firstly, that conflict-affected higher education operates within a highly contested political landscape. GCED’s ideational function to critically examine these landscapes is found to be limited, with potential to exacerbate tensions underpinning violent conflict. These concerns relate to contestations over just how ‘global’ GCED is. Secondly, conflict-affected higher education is regularly and predominantly positioned within narratives of economic growth. GCED’s ideational function is found to offer potential benefits when advocating for higher education’s non-economic dividends following armed conflict. Each emergent theme holds implications for future GCED research which challenges its potential moral governance from some countries towards others, and which intentionally considers the pivotal position of higher education within constructions of the State in conflict-affected contexts.
This presentation critically engages with conceptual foundations within GCED, specifically around its potential to promote peace, in order to interrogate its assumptive value for higher education in contexts impacted by armed conflict. My focus on higher education acknowledges the sector as a key site where ideas are generated and contested, and as a central educational sector in post-conflict constructions of the State. I ask, how might conceptualisations of GCED be understood within conflict-affected higher education? And to what extent might GCED represent a solution to conflict, or act as catalyst? To explore these questions, I draw on data from policy documents and semi-structured interviews with a range of actors engaged in higher education in conflict-affected contexts, including ministry officials, researchers, consultants, and multi-lateral aid organisation officers. This presentation brings these data into productive conversation with GCED research which focuses on peace. While emergent, findings suggest two broad themes. Firstly, that conflict-affected higher education operates within a highly contested political landscape. GCED’s ideational function to critically examine these landscapes is found to be limited, with potential to exacerbate tensions underpinning violent conflict. These concerns relate to contestations over just how ‘global’ GCED is. Secondly, conflict-affected higher education is regularly and predominantly positioned within narratives of economic growth. GCED’s ideational function is found to offer potential benefits when advocating for higher education’s non-economic dividends following armed conflict. Each emergent theme holds implications for future GCED research which challenges its potential moral governance from some countries towards others, and which intentionally considers the pivotal position of higher education within constructions of the State in conflict-affected contexts.