Content uploaded by Sobhi Tawil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sobhi Tawil on Jul 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight
07
August 2013
United Nations
Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
woRking
PaPERs
Citizenship: A contested notion
Rights and obligations
The emergence of post-national
forms of citizenship?
Towards cosmopolitan citizenship
Education as a process of civic and
political socialization
Citizenship education: A continuum
of possible approaches
The political dimension of
citizenship education
Integrating global ‘civic
megatrends’ into citizenship
education
Framing concept or learning area?
Possible ethical approaches
Key thematic areas and value
orientation
EDUCATION FOR
‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’:
A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION1
Sobhi Tawil
Senior Programme Specialist
Education Research and Foresight
UNESCO
INTRODUCTION
The notion of ‘global citizenship’ has recently gained prominence in international development
discourse with the recently-adopted United Nations Secretary-General’s Global Education First
Initiative (2012). Among the three priority areas outlined in this global initiative, the third aims to
‘foster global citizenship’.
Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful,
tolerant and inclusive societies. It must give people the understanding, skills and values they
need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st century.2
The notion of ‘global citizenship’, however, remains very broad, if not contested, and consequently
difficult to operationalize in education. There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, it is
unclear whether the very notion of ‘global citizenship’ is a metaphor, a contradiction of terms,
or an oxymoron (Davies, 2006). What does ‘global citizenship’ possibly imply both from a legal
perspective, as well as from that of collective identity, sense of belonging, and civic engagement?
Secondly, when applied to education, the notion of ‘global citizenship’ implies a certain degree
of confusion. Is ‘global citizenship education’ (or ‘education for global citizenship’) merely an
expression of a fundamental purpose of education systems? Does it also refer to a broad area
1 A slightly adapted version of this paper has been published in French in the Revue Internationale d’Education de Sèvres.
2 http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/files/GEFI_Brochure_ENG.pdf
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
2
of teaching and learning? If so, what are the contours of this
domain? How does it relate to other often overlapping areas of
learning associated with civic and political socialization?
CITIZENSHIP: A CONTESTED NOTION
The notion of citizenship has traditionally referred to
membership of an individual to a political community defined
within the contours of the Nation-State. Such membership
involves both a sense of belonging to the national political
community, as well as a form of action. Moreover, as a form of
action, the notion of citizenship has implications for rights and
entitlements, as well as for duties and responsibilities within
the context of the nation-state (Lynch, 1992; Davies, 2006).
Having said this, citizenship is a contested notion, subject to a
variety of interpretations, not only in divided societies, but also
in the case of the relationship between indigenous populations
and other cultural minorities and the State. Moreover, the
rights associated with citizenship are often denied to migrant
groups, in particular to refugees. Any attempt to transpose the
notion of citizenship beyond the nation-State to the global
level thus becomes even more problematic, particularly from
a legal perspective.
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS:
THE LEGAL DIMENSION
Indeed, the transposition of the notion of (national) citizenship
to the global level can be problematic from a legal perspective,
simply because individual citizens are not legal members
of any global polity that fully transcends the judicial powers
of national states (Lagos, 2003). Even if the creation of the
United Nations announced the emergence of a global political
community, it is one whose members are composed of nation-
states, and not of individuals. Having said this, this emerging
global political community also implies certain individual rights
and responsibilities as defined by international normative
human rights instruments, even if these rights are still largely
mediated through the nation-state. As it deals within a
state, the international human rights regime “destabilizes
older notions of exclusive state sovereignty articulated in
international law which posit that matters internal to a country
are solely to be determined by the state” (Sassen, 2002). From a
purely legal perspective then, and the despite the way in which
globalization is affecting traditional conceptions of citizenship
within the contours of the nation-state, the notion of ‘global
citizenship’ remains a metaphor.
THE EMERGENCE OF POST-NATIONAL
FORMS OF CITIZENSHIP?
It is however important to recognize that the traditional
conception of national citizenship is changing under
the influence of the multiple processes associated with
globalization. These include the internationalisation of trade
and finance, greater access to information, knowledge and
values disseminated worldwide through the new digital
media, increased migration and mobility across borders,
environmental degradation associated with global climate
change, as well as the consolidation of international bodies
of global governance. The increased acceleration, complexity,
and interdependence of the multiple processes of economic,
technological, environmental, social, and political change are
all contributing to the expansion of social relations across
the world. Globalization is creating new economic, social and
cultural arenas beyond national borders (Law, 2004) and to “the
emergence of locations of citizenship outside the confines
of the national state” (Sassen, 2002). These “post-national
conceptions of citizenship” are partly linked to transnational
social and political communities, civil society and activism,
and emerging forms of global identification and mobilization.
However, despite these transformations, it is important to
stress that the State remains the most important location for
citizenship, both “as a formal legal status and a normative
project or an aspiration” (Sassen, 2002).
TOWARDS COSMOPOLITAN CITIZENSHIP:
THE PSYCHO-SOCIAL DIMENSION
If the notion of ‘global citizenship’ cannot be expressed in any
legal manner, it can be “expressed in other ways that may have
a significant and profound impact on the development of civic
engagement and citizen-state relations” (Lagos, 2003). Citizens
may, for instance, develop a sense of belonging to a global
political community through identification with the humanistic
values that inspire such principles as equality of rights, respect
for human dignity, social justice, and international solidarity,
upon which the ethos of international normative frameworks
are based. It has therefore been argued that while global
citizens are not legally recognized individuals, they do exist in
practice. Indeed, already in the 1990s, Falk (1994) had proposed
categories of ‘global citizens’ which included transnational and
global activists, or an emerging ‘cosmopolitan community of
individuals’ which was seen as expressing new forms of post-
national citizenship (Keck & Sikkink 1998). More recently, it has
been argued that such categorizations are too restrictive and
that every human being should be considered to be a potential
global citizen ‘by virtue of living on planet Earth’ (Meyer &
Sandy, 2009).
Globalization, and the growing acknowledgement that
individuals around the world are increasingly, directly and
indirectly, interconnected and interdependent beyond
the local communities and nation-States to which they
belong, is making cosmopolitanism not only a reality, but
a necessity (Appiah, 2008). Cosmopolitanism is based on
an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the principle of
universality. Indeed, the principle of universality is fundamental
to humanist, humanitarian, and human rights perspectives
where, in addition to being members of local communities and
citizens of nation-states, individuals are also seen as members
of a global community of human beings.
“To insist on universality is only to say that every human
being has certain minimum entitlements – many of them
expressed in the vocabulary of human rights; and that it is
also the obligation of every human being to do his or her
fair share in making sure that everybody gets what they are
entitled to. “ (Appiah, 2008: 95).
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
3
While the principle of universality is central to cosmopolitanism,
the latter also implies an acknowledgement of difference, a
commitment to pluralism, and to the principles of respect for
diversity. Cosmopolitanism, then, may, as proposed by Appiah,
be seen as ‘universality plus difference’.3 It could therefore
be argued that ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’, rather than ‘global
citizenship’, may be a more accurate and appropriate way of
capturing the transformation of citizenship in the context of
globalization.
EDUCATION AS A PROCESS OF CIVIC
AND POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
Education can be broadly conceptualized as a process of
socialization through the transmission of knowledge, skills and
values. In this broader perspective, a range of social agents and
institutions, such as the family, peers, the media, the workplace,
religious and other civil society organizations, as well as formal
and non-formal education systems are all involved in this
process of socialisation in a more or less explicit manner. While
formal education is by no means the only, or even the most
important, vector for such socialization, educational institutions
remain key to this process for they translate an explicit public
policy at the heart of the reproduction of all societies. Indeed,
beyond socio-economic development rationales, national
education systems have fundamental social, civic and political
functions related to the formation of citizenship, and to the
strengthening of nation cohesion. In doing so, they have a
crucial role in promoting the necessary knowledge, skills, and
values to enable learners:
→to develop a sense of shared destiny through identification
with their social, cultural, and political environments.
→to become aware of the challenges posed to the
development of their communities through an understanding
of issues related to patterns of social, economic and
environmental change.
→to engage in civic and social action in view of positive
societal participation and/or transformation based on a sense
of individual responsibility towards their communities.
CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION:
A CONTINUUM OF POSSIBLE APPROACHES
This social, civic and political function of education is most
commonly explicitly articulated in curriculum policy and design
as citizenship education, not necessarily as an explicit academic
discipline, but often as a broad area of teaching and learning.
This area of teaching and learning also overlaps, to varying
degrees, with subject areas such as geography, history, social
studies, religion, literature, science, environmental studies.
For the purposes of this discussion, citizenship education is
3 This form of ‘moral cosmopolitanism’ based on the assumption of a global
or world ethic is to be differentiated from other more political or economic
conceptions of cosmopolitan global citizenship See Johnson’s (nd) ‘Towards
a Framework for Global Citizenship Education’ for her excellent review of
different approaches to cosmopolitan global citizenship. http://www.ioe.
ac.uk/about/documents/About_Overview/Johnson_L.pdf
understood as an area of teaching and learning, both formal
and non-formal, for children, youth, and adults, which is centred
on the social, civic and political education that is considered to
be an essential part of the formation of citizenship in any given
context.
Having said this, the broad and often contested nature of
citizenship education can lead to a range of interpretations
and approaches. These diverse interpretations represent a
continuum of educational approaches to citizenship that go
from more minimalistic and conservative ones aimed at the
reproduction of the existing social order, to more ambitious
and critical ones aimed at adaptation to change, if not
transformation of existing social dynamics (McLaughlin, 1992;
Kennedy, 1997; Kerr, 1999;). Conservative approaches, often
referred to as ‘civics’ or ‘civic education’, are focused on
teaching and the transmission of information and knowledge
about history of the social order and the functioning of
national institutions. Critical approaches, on the other hand,
more readily referred to as ‘citizenship education’, are focused
on the learner and the development of skills and attitudes
to participate in and contribute to a changing social order.
While ‘civic education’ tends to be largely based on national
and cultural values, citizenship education is inspired by ethical
principles in reference, in part at least, to civil, social, and
political rights. It is important to note that these two approaches
are not necessarily distinct categories but, rather, represent
two extremes in a continuum of possible approaches.
Figure 1 Continuum of approaches to citizenship
in education
From more
conservative approaches
To more
progressive approaches
Civics education Citizenship education
Education about citizenship Education through/for citizenship
Reproductionof social order Transformation/
Adaptation to change
Conformity/Compliance Action & civic engagement
Content-led Process-led
Knowledge-based Principles-based
Didactic transmission Interactive approaches
Critical interpretation
Note: Inspired and adapted from Kerr (1999) & McLaughlin (1992).
THE POLITICAL DIMENSION
OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
Regardless of the approach adopted, citizenship education
remains a key policy domain of national importance. As such,
the scope of citizenship education is very much determined by
the nature of national political systems, power constellations,
and public policy decision-making processes. How are the
social, civic and political functions of public education systems
defined? Which stakeholders take part in the process of
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
4
policy dialogue and who is excluded? How are competing/
conflicting views about the basic social, civic and political goals
of education reconciled? Indeed, as Davies (2006) rightly asks
“who decides what a citizenship curriculum should look like […]
and in whose interests do such definitions operate?” This key
socio-political dimension of education is often overlooked in
international development discourse in favour of a focus on the
more a-political socio-economic purposes of education. This
oversight by international and regional development partners
has traditionally been justified by the fact that the forging of
citizenship through education is a policy domain of national
sovereignty.4 The issue of national sovereignty explains, in part,
the reservations, if not the resistance, that may be expressed by
some when a notion such as ‘global citizenship’ is introduced
in international education discourse. Acknowledging that the
notion of ‘global citizenship’ – in a strictly legal sense – remains
a metaphor, is an important step towards dispelling possible
misunderstandings about a potential global ‘hidden agenda’.
What is arguably more relevant for education are the psycho-
social dimensions of (national) citizenship and forms of civic
engagement which are increasingly being impacted by global
trends.
INTEGRATING GLOBAL ‘CIVIC MEGATRENDS’
INTO CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
Indeed, if citizenship education remains the preserve of
sovereign states, it has been argued that a number of ‘global
trends’ present a set of common challenges for all societies
and countries around the world. The intensification of
globalization is leading to greater collective acknowledgement
that individuals and local communities are affected by global
processes, and, in turn, that they may also affect them. An
international comparison of citizenship education, for instance,
indicated that a number of global trends are perceived to
be impacting citizenship and presenting all sixteen countries
surveyed with common challenges (Kerr 1999).5 Carried out
in the late 1990s, the study indicated a shared concern with
a perception of unprecedented global change across many
of the countries and a resulting common set of challenges,
relative to:
→the rapid movement of people within and across national
boundaries;
→a growing recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples
and minorities;
→the collapse of political structures and the birth of new
ones;
4 Having said this, the emergence of regional organizations in the latter
part of the twentieth century have begun introducing a certain degree of
integration of supra-national content in national curricula in the form, for
instance in the case of Europe, of ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship’
(See Council of Europe).
5 The 1999 international comparison of citizenship education through an
examination of curricula and assessment frameworks covered sixteen
countries, essentially from the North: England, Austria, Canada, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden , Switzerland, and the USA. No countries from the
global South were represented.
→the changing role of women in society;
→the impact of the global economy and changing patterns
of work;
→the effect of a revolution in information and communications
technologies;
→an increasing global population; and
→the creation of new forms of community
Not only do these trends remain valid in the current context,
but many of them have also intensified and become more
complex. This is particularly true of the new emerging spaces
and forms of socialization, learning, and civic and political
mobilization in today’s digital world.
These global phenomena or ‘civic megatrends’ (Kennedy,
1997) are being increasingly acknowledged as constituting
important components of citizenship education in many
countries of the North. In this perspective, rather than use the
more ambiguous term of ‘global citizenship education’ that
may potentially be perceived to be separate from national
efforts in social, civic and political education, it may be more
useful, and less contentious, to refer to ‘education for local and
global citizenship’. ‘Global citizenship education’ is arguably
nothing more than ensuring that this global dimension enriches
and strengthens the relevance of existing national or local
citizenship education. Adapting what was outlined above, it
can be said that education systems contribute to forging local
and global citizenship by promoting the necessary knowledge,
skills, and values to enable learners to develop:
→Identification: a sense of shared destiny both with their
local/national social, cultural, and political environments as
well as with humanity and the global community, as a whole.
→Understanding and awareness: an awareness of the
challenges posed to the development of their communities
through an understanding of the interdependence of patterns
of social, economic and environmental change at the local and
global levels.
→Commitment to act: engagement in civic and social action
in view of positive societal participation and/or transformation
based on a sense of individual responsibility towards their
communities, at the local, national and/or global levels.
EDUCATION FOR ‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’:
FRAMING CONCEPT OR AN AREA OF LEARNING?
‘Education for global citizenship’ then is clearly a framing
concept or paradigm that expresses a collective purpose
of education. It highlights an essential function of education
related to the formation of citizenship in an increasingly
interconnected and interdependent world spurred on by
the multiple processes associated with globalization. It is a
concern with the relevance of knowledge, skills, and values
for the participation of citizens in, and their contribution to,
dimensions of societal development which are linked at local
and global levels. It is directly related to the civic, social and
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
5
political socialisation function of education, and ultimately, to
the contribution of education in preparing children and young
people to deal with the challenges of today’s increasingly
interconnected and interdependent world.
But does this framing concept also refer to a distinct domain of
teaching and learning? If so, what is its specificity and how does
it relate to other domains of learning/programs? Arguably,
concern for various dimensions of citizenship in a globalized
world is also weaved into a wide range of education programs.
These may include programs related to civics, citizenship, values,
human rights, peace, environmental, or global education, and
many others. While a limited number of recent education
programs explicitly refer to the notion of ‘global citizenship’,6
many others may aim towards similar outcomes in terms of
skills and attitudinal orientation while focusing on specific
themes related, for instance, to cultural diversity, human rights,
or the environment. Despite this diversity in thematic focus,
these programs have overlapping concerns in terms attitudinal
orientation and behavioural change in that they all aim for: an
awareness of societal issues considered to be important in a
given context; a sense of personal responsibility towards such
issues, and ultimately; a positive engagement with such issues
beyond the learning environment.
POSSIBLE ETHICAL APPROACHES
As for possible ethical approaches to the global dimension
of citizenship education, it is possible to combine the useful
distinction between ‘soft’ and ‘critical’ global citizenship
education (Andreotti, 2006) with categories of cosmopolitan
global citizenship (Johnson, nd). In ‘softer’ approaches, the
starting point for global dimensions of citizenship education
is of a more moral variety based on the notion of a common
humanity and a global or world ethic. In more ‘critical’
approaches, the ethical starting point is the concept of social
justice as farmed by the international normative instruments
of human rights. A median position is perhaps that of what
Johnson (nd) refers to as ‘environmental global citizenship’
based on the central notion of sustainable development. All
three posit, albeit in different ways, the interconnectedness
of local, national and global realities, as well as individual
responsibility at these various levels. They all arguably imply
a sense of local and global solidarity and a commitment to
action.
6 See, for example, the International Baccalaureat Organization (2011),
Learning Without Borders: A currciuclum for global citizenship, or OXFAM
(2006). Education for Global Citizenshiop: A guide for schools.
Figure 2 Broad ethical approaches to citizenship in the
context of globalization
Ethical
approaches Humanistic Environmental Political
Fundamental
principles
Common
Humanity
Universality in
diversity
Sustainable
Development
Social Justice
Equal rights
KEY THEMATIC AREAS AND VALUE/
ATTITUDINAL ORIENTATION
The themes covered by the educational programmes reviewed
may be clustered into four broad areas. These categories are
not clear-cut and there are obvious interrelations between the
various issues and themes which can either be the main focus
of specific programmes [see examples in parentheses], or
interweaved into other programmes or disciplines.
1. Human rights issues: fundamental human rights and
responsibilities; child’s rights; gender equality; cultural rights;
freedom of expression [human rights education; humanitarian
education…]
2. Environmental issues: sustainable management of natural
resources; impact of patterns of production and consumption;
climate change; biodiversity [environmental education;
education for sustainable development…].
3. Issues of social and economic justice: poverty; health and
well-being; inequality; rural transformation; migration; patterns
of discrimination & exclusion [global education; development
education; health education…].
4. Intercultural issues: identity; cultural diversity; world
heritage; arts; languages; world history; indigenous knowledge
systems; peace and conflict [intercultural/international
understanding; learning to live together; peace education;
conflict resolution7…].
The formulation of learning outcomes in terms of value and
attitudinal orientations are expressed in many different ways
ranging from more modest formulations of value orientations
in terms of “empathy” or “care”, to more committed
formulations in terms of a “willingness to challenge injustice”.8
These various formulations that touch upon the four thematic
areas of human rights, social, environmental, and cultural issues
can be summarized and synthesized in the following manner:
7 It is to be noted that issues of peace and conflict resolution are often
simplistically associated with ‘culture’, when issues of violent conflict are
arguably rooted in issues of control of political, economic, cultural and
natural resources. Cultural identities may serve as ideologies for political
mobilisation in the context of conflicts where the root issues lie elsewhere.
8 See, for instance, formulations of expected learning outcomes in OXFAM
2006.
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
6
→Awareness of the wider world and a sense of own role both
as a citizen with rights and responsibilities, and as a member of
the global human community.
→Valuation of the diversity of cultures and of their languages,
arts, religions, and philosophies as components the common
heritage of humanity.
→Commitment to sustainable development and sense of
environmental responsibility.
→Commitment to social justice and sense of social
responsibility.
→Willingness to challenge injustice, discrimination, inequality
and exclusion at the local/national and global level in order to
make the world a more just place.
Much of this is echoed and neatly summed up in the International
Implementation Scheme for the United Nations Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development which interweaves
the four strands of human rights, social and economic justice,
environmental issues, and cultural diversity.9
→‘respect for the dignity and human rights of all people
throughout the world and a commitment to social and
economic justice for all;
→respect for the human rights of future generations and a
commitment to intergenerational responsibility;
→respect and care for the greater community of life in all its
diversity which involves the protection and restoration of the
Earth’s ecosystems;
→respect for cultural diversity and a commitment to build
locally and globally a culture of tolerance, non-violence and
peace;’
This observation begs the question of the link, and potential
overlap, between ‘Education for Sustainable Development’
and the less well-established notion of ‘Global Citizenship
Education’. Understood in its broad acceptation encompassing
environmental, social and economic ‘pillars’, the term
‘Education for Sustainable Development’ expresses the
ultimate aim of education systems, both in their economic, as
well as in their civic and socio-political functions. As such, all
aspects of education are meant to contribute to sustainable
development, be it through general basic education,
vocational skills development and preparation for the world
of work, or through higher education, research and scientific
innovation. On the other hand, ‘Global Citizenship Education’,
pertains more particularly to the moral, civic and political
socialization function of education. In this perspective, it refers
to the integration of dimensions associated with globalization
into local and/or national civic or citizenship education efforts.
In short, the notion of sustainable development frames the
ultimate aim of education, while ‘local and global citizenship
9 http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esd/documents/ESD_IIS.
pdf
education’ is only one of the means of working towards this
aim.
CONCLUSION
The multiple processes of globalization - whether economic,
technological, environmental, or political – are progressively
transforming traditional conceptions and practices of
citizenship. The consolidation of the international human rights
regime, the greater interconnectedness and interdependence
of individuals and groups across the world, and the emergence
of new forms of transnational or post-national civic engagement
are all expressions of this transformation. However, despite these
transformations spurred on by globalization, the legal basis
for the definition of citizenship, as well as its practice, remains
very much located within the nation-State. It is the tensions
related to this changing reality that explain, at least in part,
the possible confusion and potential resistance encountered
when a notion such as ‘global citizenship’ is introduced
within international education development discourse. In
reality, the notion of ‘global citizenship education’ refers to
attempts to introduce issues of global concern, and elements
of an emerging global civic culture, into existing formal or
non-formal education programs. In short, ‘global citizenship
education’ is nothing more than an adaptation and enrichment
of local and national citizenship education programs, whatever
their approach, to the context of the intensified globalization.
The articulation of local/national and global realities affecting
citizenship are making cosmopolitanism all the more relevant
in the early 21st century: cosmopolitanism that is based on the
principles of diversity/difference in universality. Rather than the
potentially contested notion of “global citizenship education’,
it may perhaps be more appropriate to refer to education for
‘cosmopolitan citizenship’, or to citizenship education in a
global world.
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
7
SELECTED REFERENCES
Andreotti, V. 2006. “Soft versus critical global citizenship
education”. Policy & Practice: A Development Education
Review, Vol. 3, pp. 40-51.
Appiah, K. A. 2008. “Education for Global Citizenship”. In:
Coulter, D., Fenstermacher, G., and Wiens J.R. (eds). Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education. The National
Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 1.
Bivens, F., Moriarty, K., and Taylor, P. 2009. “Transformative
Education and its Potential for Changing the Lives of Children
in Disempowering Contexts”. IDS Bulletin, Vol. 40, No.1,
pp.97-108.
Davies, L. 2006. “Global Citizenship: Abstraction or Framework
for Action?”. Educational Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 5-25.
Davies, L. & Graham, P. 2009. “Global Citizenship Education,
Challenges and Possibilities”. In: Lewin, R. (ed). The Handbook
of Practice and Research in Study Abroad; Higher education
and the quest for global citizenship, New York, Routledge,
pp.61-79.
Davy, I. 2011. “Learners Without Borders: A curriculum for
global citizenship”. IB position paper, Geneva: International
Baccalaureate Organization.
Delors, J, et al. 1996. Learning: The treasure within. Paris:
UNESCO.
Education Above All. 2012. Education for Global Citizenship.
Doha, Qatar.
Evans, M., Broad, K., Rodrigue, A. et al. 2010. “Educating for
Global Citizenship: An ETFO Curriculum Development Inquiry
Initiative”. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
Falk, R. 1994. “The Making of Global Citizenship”, Van
Steenbergen, B. (ed). The Condition of Citizenship. London:
Sage Publications.
Faour, M. and Muasher, M. 2011. “Education for Citizenship in
the Arab World”. The Carnegie Papers, Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace.
Graham, P. 2008. “Global Education”. In: Arthur, J. Davies, J. &
Hahn, C. (eds). The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship
and Democracy, London: Sage Publications, pp.468-481.
Guin, P. 1997. “Education for Global Citizenship”. Analytic
Teaching, Vol. 17, No.1, pp. 59-62.
GTZ. 2008. Learning to Live Together: Design, monitoring and
evaluation of education for life skills, citizenship, peace and
human rights.
Haddad, G. (Forthcoming). Reflections on Progress, Sustainable
Development and Global Citizenship. UNESCO Education
Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers series].
International Implementation Scheme for the Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development.
Johnson, L. (nd). “Towards a Framework for Global Citizenship
Education”. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/about/documents/About_
Overview/Johnson_L.pdf
Keck, ME. & Sikkink, K. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca,
New York: Cornell University Press.
Kennedy, K. 1997. Citizenship Education and the Modern State.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Kerr, D. 1999. “Citizenship Education: An international
comparison”. International Review of Curriculum and
Assessment, Framework Paper 4.
Lagos, T. 2003. “Global citizenship – Toward a definition”. http://
depts.washington.edu/gcp/research_pages/globalization_
biblio.htm
Law, WW. 2004. “Globalization and Citizenship Education in
Hong Kong and Taiwan”, Comparative Education Review,
Vol.48, No.3, pp. 253-273.
Lynch, J. 1992. Education for Citizenship in a Multicultural
Society. London; New York: Cassell.
McLaughlin, TH. 1992. “Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A
philosophical perspective”. Journal of Moral Education, Vol.21,
Issue 3.
Meyer, RM., & Sandy, LR. 2009. “Education for Global Citizenship
in the New Millennium”. International Journal of Diversity
in Organizations, Communities, and Nations, Vol. 9, Issue 1,
pp.59-64.
OXFAM. 2006. Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for
Schools. Oxfam Development Education Programme, U.K.
Pigozzi, M. J. 2006. “A UNESCO View of Global Citizenship
Education”, Educational Review, Vol. 58, No.1, pp. 1-4.
Reimers, F. 2006. “Citizenship, Identity and Education: Examining
the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization.”
Prospects, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3.
Sassen, S. 2002. “Towards Post-national and Denationalized
Citizenship”. In Isin. E., & Turner, B. (eds.) Handbook of
Citizenship Education, pp. 277-291.
Shaw, A., Brennan, M., Chaskin, R. & Dolan, P. 2012. “Youth Civic
Engagement in Non-Formal Education”, IIEP Policy Forum de
Paris. UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, National
University of Ireland, Galway.
United Nations. 2012. United Nations Secretary-General’s
Global Education First Initiative.
Education REsEaRch and FoREsight • woRking papERs
8
To cite this article:
Tawil, S. (2013). Education for ‘Global Citizenship’: A framework for discussion. UNESCO Education
Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 7].
