GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: the contribution of development education

Introduction

This paper builds on the work developed by the DEA and a range of universities on the Global University (Bourn,D,MacKenzie,A & Shiel,C, 2005) It will make reference to a framework on Global Perspectives developed at Bournemouth University and other institutions and demonstrate the relevance of development education principles and practices to the debates on internationalisation. It will finally outline through a research project entitled The Global Engineer, (Bourn,D & Neal,I 2008) how development education and global perspectives can contribute to the debates on the future direction of engineering courses within higher education.

Globalisation, Internationalisation, Global Perspectives and Sustainable Development

Over the past decade universities around the world have begun to address their role and relationship to the wider world beyond merely the recruitment of students and the sharing of academic debates. These influences have come in part from the influence of globalisation, the impact of new technology and increased economic mobility, the recognition of the need to address issues around sustainable development

and interest from students in wider world issues.

Within the UK there is evidence from universities as diverse as Bournemouth, University College London, Leeds Metropolitan, Salford, Birmingham, Kingston, Gloucester and Plymouth of policy and curriculum reviews to address global and sustainability concerns (Caruana and Spurling, 2007; UCL 2007; Lamie, 2006; Roberts and Roberts, 2007; Bourn, McKenzie and Shiel, 2006; Dyer, Selby and Chalker, 2006). There is also evidence from elsewhere in the world that universities are re-thinking their role in relation to the impact of globalisation and the environmental challenges of the twenty first century (Abdi, Hannemann and Schultz, 2007; Corcoran and Wals, 2004; Carroll and Ryan, 2005; International Association of Universities, 2005).

These trends cannot be divorced from the recognition by policy-makers, students, employers and increasingly by higher education institutions themselves of the increasing impact of globalisation on people’s lives. Combined with the impact of global terrorism and recognition of the value of the diversity agenda and concerns about climate change and the need to invest in learning to live sustainably, global issues have never been higher on the agendas of policy-makers and practitioners in education. Terms like ‘preparing students to be global citizens’ are becoming part of the vocabulary of higher educational institutions in the UK and elsewhere in the world. (UCL 2007; Richardson, Blades, Kumano, and Karaki, 2003; University of Hong Kong, 2007; Bourn, 2007). Such terms are also being increasingly debated within the discourses around globalisation and citizenship (Apple, Kenway, Singh, 2005; Kenway and Bullen, 2008; Edwards and Usher, 2008; Dower and Williams 2002; Dower 2003; MacIntyre-Mills, 2000; Urry, 2007). As Carter has stated, ‘the idea of world citizenship is fashionable again’ (Carter, 2001).

It is within this wider discourse and policy debates that the discussions on Internationalisation need to be considered. The term ‘internationalisation” could be interpreted as about building links with institutions in other countries and establishing international or global networks. Such relationships in the past have often been influenced by an economic rationale and have not always been strategic (Middlehurst, 2005) in the sense of their contribution to enhancing learning. But if international strategies are seen within the framework of global perspectives, the emphasis can become much more based on collaboration and reciprocity. Staff and student exchanges can enhance the sharing of ideas and perspectives, and development of collaborative research. Networks based on greater mutuality can offer new perspectives and international diversity enriches the experience on campus and contributes to the ‘global in the local’. The international network can in turn, contribute to ‘integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension’ into education (Knight, 2005). In the words of Paul Luker (2006, 12):

‘Let’s work with a range of partners to develop global networks that provide higher education with global perspectives, where having students studying on all continents is seen as diversification of perspectives, not of markets.’

‘Internationalisation’ could also be said to be about developing cross-cultural capability (Killick, 2006b). Similarly, ‘respect and tolerance among peoples…commitment to international solidarity, human security’ and building a ‘climate of global peace’ (International Association of Universities, cited in Black, 2004) are identified as aspects of internationalisation that also contribute to the global perspective. While very few UK students will undertake language learning, what seems critically important is that they have opportunities to learn to communicate across cultures in the context of their subject.

As ‘internationalisation’ is becoming more important for institutions (IAU 2005) resulting in an ‘evident shift from an approach that focuses on a more-or-less narrow range of disparate international or international facing activities to one that seeks to integrate and leverage across activities to add value’ (Middlehurst and Woodfield 2007 .59), it is therefore suggested that there is an opportunity to align agendas under the banner of developing a ‘global perspective’.

However, exercising a cautionary note is also important: the educative goals and aspects of empowerment that sit at the heart of global perspectives may not be fully embraced by those leading the internationalisation agenda. Just as ‘Putting the World into World-Class Education’ is fraught with contradictions in its focus (export and education) the same tensions are apparent at an institutional level, when ‘internationalisation’ buys into the advantages of global perspectives. This could lead to situations where global perspectives are espoused at a surface level, without a full understanding of the roots and connections to critical thinking, range of voices and perspectives and models of learning, rooted in the practice of movements such as those in development education. The need to critique and explore what lies behind these concepts, including education for sustainable development, needs to be given higher prominence within institutions. As Scott and Sterling (2007) have commented, it is often the ‘education’ and the ‘learning’ that has been lost from policies and initiatives. If the debates around Global Perspectives are to recognise their educative roots, then they need to address, as Andreotti (2006) has posed, discussions around approaches to learning and links with questions of identity and culture.

Enabling graduates to develop the appropriate knowledge, skills and values to be effective in a globalised world would seem to be a necessary component of being ‘world-class’ (an aspiration of so many higher education institutions (HEIs). Graduates with a ‘broader world view’ will not only be attractive to employers (Archer 2005) but where they are empowered to challenge inequity, injustice and unsustainable development, they might also contribute to ‘sustainable progress’ for the benefit of all. It is suggested here that higher education has much to contribute and a significant amount to gain: developing a global perspective can enhance the learning experience; enrich campus life; and by maximising opportunities for cross-cultural learning, better prepare graduates for global employability (Shiel and Mann 2005). This in turn, impacts upon recruitment, where the university is seen as more attractive to applicants. However, the benefits of embedding a global perspective across all functions of a university are not only financial but intellectual and cultural. It is suggested that ‘global communities’ enable greater reciprocity in learning and open up possibilities to ‘learn interact, and collaborate, in new and previously incomprehensible ways’ (Pillay 2006.1).

The themes and material referred to in this paper build on research of a project on Global Perspectives in Higher Education initially led by the Development Education Association (DEA). This project included gathering evidence from a range of universities on how they were addressing global perspectives within their institution, dialogue with a range of national stakeholders; and recognising the contribution of the underlying pedagogical approaches behind development education in terms of approaches towards learning about the wider world (McKenzie, Bourn, Evans, Brown, Shiel, Bunney, Collins, Wade, Parker and Annette (2003); Bourn, McKenzie, Shiel, 2006; Lunn, 2006).

Developing a global perspective is seen essentially as being about broadening curricula and incorporating pedagogic approaches that empower students to develop as critical beings who are able to challenge orthodoxy and bring about change. It involves a ‘shift in approach, rather than a radical change of content’ (Shiel and Jones, 2005) and a focus on pedagogy that is more appropriate to the context of diversity (Shiel, 2007). This pedagogic approach aligns well with the internationalisation agenda for those who see ‘internationalisation of the currculum’ as more than just the inclusion of some international case studies.

Framework for Global Perspectives

Underpinning the concept of ‘global perspectives’ developed by the DEA (Bourn et. al, 2005, Shel, McKenzie, 2008) is the interconnectedness of internationalisation, globalisation and sustainable development but with an additional emphasis on critical thinking and a values based approach to education.

Elements of this framework could be found from a reading of ‘Putting the World into World Class Education’ where there is reference to the links between‘sustainability’ and ‘global citizenship’, emphasizing that ‘we live in one world’ and ‘face issues that can only be addressed internationally’ including: ‘sustainable development, climate change, the changing world economy, security and the widening gap between those that have and those who do not’ (DfES,2004). The Sustainable Development Action Plan also stresses that education providers must not only ‘operate in a more environmentally responsible way’, but must ‘teach it [sustainable development] as well’, ensuring that learners are ‘given the opportunities and inspiration to think about and really appreciate their role as world citizens’ (DfES, 2003).

If these documents were considered together the following concepts could be identified as summarising the type of learning outcomes a university might be developing for students to take forward these challenges. Thus a student would be able to:

  • understand what it means to be an active responsible global citizen;
  • understand the importance of social justice as an element of sustainable development but also with regard to improving the welfare of all;
  • understand the need for sustainable development (in the sense used by Brundtland);
  • understand and respect difference/diversity;
  • develop a critical appreciation of values and attitudes, with specific regard to how other parts of the world are perceived and the images held;
  • understand the impact of ‘interdependence’ and our ‘interconnected world’ (the global/local connection);
  • understand how to resolve conflict and promote harmony; and
  • have knowledge of human rights and the UN convention.

Chris Shiel from Bournemouth University one of the main architects of this framework suggests however that a global perspective is more than bringing various policy statements together. It must have learning at its core. A global perspective contributes to enhancing the development of such skills, facilitating students who are:

Self Reliant – whereglobal awareness heightens selfawareness, confidence, the ability to respond positively and proactively to personal and professional change in today's globalised world. Increasing a sense of empowerment and ability to bring about change are developed through a global perspective approach.

Connected global citizens work well as part of a team, recognising the value and role of each member, inspiring others and developing cross-cultural capability and sensitivity to others.

Wellrounded a graduate's range of skills can only be considered as well-rounded when they reflect the global environment in which we all operate.

Critical reflectors – a global perspective requires a student to challenge knowledge, reflect on the economic, social and political contexts that shape experience and adopt a critical pesrpective in analysis and decision-making, reflecting on self and others. (Shiel, Williams and Mann (2005

Bournemouth Example

The work at Bournemouth University (BU) provides an example of a strategic approach that takes account of all the various agendas such as internationalisation, sustainable development and frames the activities within both a learning and an employability context.

There strategy aligns with preparing graduates for global employability but also supports the ethos that ‘We live in one world. What we do affects others and what others do affects us, as never before’ (DfES 2005.5), with a commitment to enabling students to explore their role in the global context.

A variety of initiatives have been taken forward as part of this strategic approach (Shiel, 2007) to change organised around three themes:

  • Corporate responsibility and behaviour – the university as a global citizen.
  • Curricula and pedagogy – embedding global perspectives into the curricula.
  • Extra-curricular activities to support citizenship and international awareness.

At BU, it is suggested that examining a subject or issue through a global perspective means to take a broader approach to the subject that:

  • values methodologies, techniques and academic analysis from other cultures;
  • challenges and discards prejudice;
  • considers with sensitivity the effect of our actions on others locally and globally, both now and in the future;
  • questions Eurocentric, rich world, restricted perspectives and takes into account viewpoints and circumstances from all regions of the world;
  • presents learners with the capacity to calculate the risks of decision making;
  • acknowledges the global forces that affect us all and promotes justice and equality;
  • empowers learners to bring about change;
  • provides an international curriculum and seeks opportunitites to develop students’ international awareness and competence (Shiel 2007)

Within the context of Bournemouth University, this conscious attempt not only to make connections between strands on internationalisation and sustainable development but also to develop a strategy based on global perspectives has already resulted in significant progress. (Shiel, McKenzie, 2008) For example, curriculum change has been influenced through embedding global perspectives within the Learning and Teaching Strategy and through the development of guidelines for course development and review. In the meantime, ‘extra-curricular’ seminars and workshops contribute to the learning experience, filling the gaps and contributing to the ‘University as Global Citizen’ ethos. Extra-curricular seminars provide learning about ‘global issues’ and ‘global processes’ and sustainable development, which is particularly helpful for those subject areas where such concerns are not easily addressed.

Influence of Development Education

The work at Bournemouth and other HEIs that have engaged in the debates on ‘global perspectives’ have been influenced by principles and practices that have emerged from the field of development education.

Development education as a term first emerged in the 1970s as a response to growing public interest in aid and development. Today it is moved from being perceived as ‘learning about development and global issues’ to an educational methodolology, influenced particularly by the thinking of Paulo Friere, that emphasises iunderstanding living in an interdependent world, promotion of critical thinking and empowering people to work towards a more just and sustainable world. (Bourn 2008)

This field of education that overlaps with similar discourses around global education, global citizenship, global learning have at their heart a transformative approach towards learning. (Hicks,2008)

The term global citizenship for example has a number of differing origins including an interpretation of global social activism, a revival of interest in global governance, a recognition of social mobility and complex cultural identities, a response to globalisation or more instrumentally within education, to address inclusion of citizenship within the curriculum. (Carter, 2001; Cogan & Derricott, 2000; Edwards & Gaventa, 2001; Heater, 2002; Mayo, 2005; Osler & Starkey, 2005)

Within the UK probably the leading academic writer in the area of global citizenship over the past decade has been Nigel Dower. His approach to the subject is from an ethical and moral perspective with an emphasis on social responsibility (Dower, 2003). He breaks down the status of being a global citizen to three elements: normative (about how humans should act); existential (relationship to the world); and aspirational (role in the future) (Dower, 2003)

This discourse has influenced a number of bodies in responding to growing public interest in the wider world. In the context of the UK and education, probably the most influential has been Oxfam who first began using the term ‘global citizen’ in the late 1990s as a deliberate precursor to citizenship becoming a curriculum subject within schools.

Oxfam sees the Global Citizen as someone who:

-is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own role as a world citizen

-respects and values diversity

-has an understanding of how the world works

-is outraged by social injustice

-participates in the community at a range of levels, from the local to the global

-is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place

-takes responsibility for their actions (Oxfam 2006)

Global Learning is another term gaining increasing usage. It first emerged within Germany and Austria led Annette Scheunpflug. Central to her thesis is that the term ‘global learning’ is at pedagogical reaction to the development towards ‘a world society’ (Scheunpflug 2008). To her social justice is key to global learning within the context of the challenge of globalisation and to develop a vision for a ‘humanely formed world society’ (Scheunpflug 2008; Hertmeyer,2008). Similar approaches have recently been taken by some NGOs in the UK, notably the West Midlands based network, TIDE in terms of seeing global learning as ‘responding to contemporary events and education visions of the 21st century. These visions were seen to value participation, a learner based curriculum, the idea that the next generation will make a difference.

But perhaps the most influential of theorists in the field of development education and related disciplines over the past few years has been Vanessa Andreotti, a Brazilian educator, who has revived the importance of Freirean thinking. Central to her approach towards development education and related concepts is post-colonial theory and notions of North-South relations that have emerged from the de-colonisation struggles, literary studies on notions of ‘first and third’ worlds and debates in political and social relations in relation to power, particularly Foucault, Derrida and Spivak (Andreotti,2006a,b; 2007).