Hatley, J.

(2019) ‘Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of

global citizenship education: A multimodal critical discourse analysis’.
International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning,
11 (1): 87–102. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.11.1.06

Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness

of global citizenship education: A multimodal
critical discourse analysis
Jenny Hatley* – University of Worcester, UK

Abstract
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO)
approach to global citizenship education (GCE) includes a set of values termed
‘universal values’. These social ideals include peace, justice and sustainability,
and are normatively considered a common good. A multimodal critical discourse
analysis of universal values within key UNESCO texts reveals that rather than
moving societies towards genuine mutual human well-being, a central theme
of GCE, universal values are counterproductive to the achievement of GCE. To
enable GCE to achieve its aims, UNESCO needs to incorporate a diverse concept
of values that allows for motivations and actions towards global citizenship more
relevant to local contexts.

Keywords: global citizenship education; multimodal critical discourse analysis;

universal values; UNESCO; sustainable development goals; world values survey

Introduction
Target 4.7 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promotes
global citizenship education (GCE) as a vehicle to develop the skills, values and
attitudes of learners so that they may work towards the resolution of the interconnected
challenges facing the world today. Concentrating on the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) approach to GCE, this article draws
on a multimodal critical discourse analysis of eight UNESCO documents that are
central to the organization’s approach. Focusing on the position of ‘values’ within the
texts, this article examines the influence that UNESCO’s ‘universal values’ have within
GCE, and asks whether UNESCO’s GCE can be effective in achieving its aims.
I argue that the approach taken to universal values within the texts contributes
to socializing learners towards UNESCO’s agenda at the expense of values and forms
of global citizenship more relevant to local contexts. Further, I argue that universal
values potentially cannot achieve their aims within GCE because they are abstract and
disconnected from social reality. As such, universal values are counterproductive to the
achievement of UNESCO’s GCE.
To analyse the texts, I used Fairclough’s (2003) concept of relationships of
equivalence and difference. The significance of these relationships lies in their
potential to fix meaning within texts. A fixed meaning influences the set of possibilities
that exist for constructing meaning from texts. This can influence the thoughts and
actions of social agents, and contribute to changes in social identities, such as those of
global citizens. Analysis of the texturing of relationships of equivalence and difference
shows that UNESCO has instantiated a strict sense of institutional values, termed

*Email: j.hatley@worc.ac.uk ©Copyright 2019 Hatley. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
88 Hatley

‘universal values’, with the implication that successful global citizenship is defined by
the powerful. Other values are positioned as outdated and invisible, further reinforcing
universal values as the only values that make an acceptable global citizen. For GCE to
achieve its purposes, the texts must take account of context and incorporate a more
diverse conception of values that can increase the possibility that the aims of GCE can
be achieved.
First, I discuss the contested nature of GCE and the vague nature of its definitions,
which potentially leave GCE open to being co-opted by those in power. I then explore
the role of values, adopting the position that values motivate action and are used
to evaluate actions deemed worthwhile. I highlight the interplay between education
and values, as education promotes, transmits and amplifies values. With values as
motivators of action and as the basis on which actions and choices are evaluated as
worthwhile, which values are played out through education and how this may influence
motivation and action towards global citizenship become vital questions. Following
the exploration of values, I present an analysis arguing that universal values potentially
become counterproductive to the achievement of UNESCO’s GCE. For GCE to achieve
its purposes, the texts must take account of context and incorporate a more diverse
conception of values that can increase the possibility that the aims of GCE can be
achieved.

GCE as a contested concept

Global citizenship and GCE are terms often heard but rarely clearly defined. Citizenship
in national terms, signifying membership of a bounded state, often with associated
legal rights, is better understood, but when it comes to the global space, institutions
of governance that may afford ‘global citizens’ similar citizenship status and associated
legal rights, such as participating in voting, do not exist (Fraser, 2010). A global
citizen is not a citizen in this legal sense, and yet the concept of global citizenship
is accompanied by an expectation that citizens will nonetheless participate towards
the aim of mutual human well-being and across national borders – at least that is the
idea. How one may participate, and towards whose ideals of well-being, are less well
defined and tend to rest on concepts of a universal and shared humanity.
While a definition of global citizenship remains contested, there is wide
agreement that being a global citizen includes three main elements: a sense of acting
for peace and justice, a pluralism to be open to diverse perspectives or a common
humanity, and knowledge and action for global problems such as climate change.
Barrow (2017: 164) supports the wide acceptance of this definition, summarizing that
at its core, global citizenship recognizes a shared humanity.
While the common aims of GCE are widely accepted, the lack of a clear
definition has been problematic. Leduc (2013: 394) states that the interpretation of
GCE is dependent on the ‘point of view and purpose of the user’ and Sigauke (2011:
81) argues that its meaning is ‘subject to differential interpretations and agendas’.
Some of the difficulties in interpreting GCE may also be seen in the many contested
concepts within GCE (Oxley and Morris, 2013; Wang and Hoffman, 2016). This is partly
why engaging with global citizenship has been described as a ‘struggle’ (Gaudelli,
2016: 5). This is not surprising when one considers that the multiple conceptions of the
words ‘global’, ‘citizenship’ and ‘education’ can raise different and often competing
meanings. As Tully (2014: 4) expounds:

When ‘globalisation’ and ‘citizenship’ are combined, they not only bring
their contested histories of meanings with them, their conjunction brings

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 89

into being a complex new field that raises new questions and elicits
new answers concerning the meaning of, and relationship between,
global governance and global citizenship. When we enquire into global
citizenship therefore, we are already thrown into this remarkably complex
inherited field of contested languages, activities, institutions, processes
and the environs in which they take place.

Education blurs this further, and is often left unexamined. Gaudelli (2016) reminds
us that the pedagogies and processes for engaging learners with content are often
assumed, while inordinate attention is paid to what the terms ‘global’ and ‘citizenship’
mean. As he says, it is ‘as if to say that content/information matters, while the processes
or pedagogy for engaging content is simply given’ (Gaudelli, 2016: 6).
Efforts to clarify these diverse meanings have been made (Tye, 2014; Tarozzi and
Torres, 2016). However, these still raise questions about what it means to educate for
GCE in practice. Gaudelli (2016: 7) has stated that educating for global citizenship
includes:
1. An aspirational sense of being human as a universal condition coupled
with openness to the plurality of peoples and their environs
2. all people have the capacity and access to participate in multiple
communities, often simultaneously, at a wide range of scales from local
to global and
3. students learning about the world they inhabit and gaining experience
and reflective insight to act.
He further states that GCE must be accompanied by common themes ‘expressed
as desires to live peaceably, justly, sustainably and in robust, engaged communities’
(Gaudelli, 2016: 7).
These themes are echoed in UNESCO’s (2014a: 15) own conception of GCE:

GCE aims to empower learners to engage and assume active roles, both
locally and globally, to face and resolve global challenges and ultimately
to become proactive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant,
inclusive, secure and sustainable world.
While these descriptions of GCE may constitute the most widely accepted definitions,
they are not without their issues. Not only are the terms ‘global’, ‘citizenship’ and
‘education’ vague and contested, but the language in the above definitions is also
vague. ‘Learning about the world’, ‘gaining reflective insight to act’ and being a
‘proactive contributor to a more … secure world’ could mean learning about poverty
and deciding to act towards poverty alleviation, or learning about terrorism and
deciding to retreat into one’s own world due to feeling overwhelmed by the problems.
How one should act and be a ‘proactive contributor’ is also not stated. Should one
be autocratic, democratic, individual or collective? What does it mean to be ‘open
to a plurality of peoples’? Does it mean passively holding an attitude of tolerance, or
actively engaging with each other? After all, one can hold attitudes and even emotions
indicative of a global citizen, but never do anything to act (Davies, 2006). With meanings
left vague and ill-defined, they are left open to being co-opted by those in power to
further their own agendas, a ‘common strategy’ of those in power (Biccum, 2010: 87),
and a potential ‘blank slate for nation states to inscribe their own political values on
their citizenry’ (VanderDussen Toukan, 2018: 62).
Due to its position as the lead institution for global work towards the SDGs
(UNESCO, 2019a), UNESCO is a dominant voice in GCE and prescribes its own

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

90 Hatley

meaning to aspects of it, namely ‘universal values’. I adopt the position that values
motivate action, and that they are used to evaluate actions deemed worthwhile. I will
now explore how enacting these values may arguably serve UNESCO’s agenda.

Values as motivators and evaluators of action

Dutt (2009: 86) asserts that ‘values are important, as they are the well-spring of
human action’. Moreover, Joas (2000: 17) states that ‘action orientations ... result from
internalised values’. In addition to motivating action, values also play a part in how
people evaluate which actions are worthwhile. People’s values will lean towards actions
that are ‘felt and considered to be justified’ (Joas, 2000: 17). Values are central to the
effectiveness of GCE, which espouses acting towards the benefit of mutual human
well-being across national borders. Education is a key site in the interplay between
values, the individual and society.
Education promotes, amplifies and transmits values, both within education itself
and within wider society (Welzel, 2013; Fives, 2013; Vaughn and Walker, 2012). The
individual, motivated by their values towards actions that they deem worthwhile, will
subsequently act within society. Society, with a prevailing values emphasis, may also
influence an individual’s actions towards those considered desirable, influenced perhaps
through social pressure to conform or through social confirmation of values seen as
desirable (Schwartz, 2006; Welzel, 2013). These values then influence how people are
motivated to act as citizens, and how actions as global citizens are confirmed. Values
act as social regulators of action. Further, Welzel (2013) asserts that education tends
towards emancipation, and that emancipation occurs through social cross-fertilization.
The more education there is in a society, the more values will be communicated through
social interaction. This also influences those who are less educated, as they adapt their
values to keep up with social change: the ‘elevator effect’ (Welzel, 2013: 110). Where
the focus is on universal values, education can potentially be used to influence not just
learners but wider society towards the agenda of UNESCO. In promoting a particular
set of values that make an appropriate global citizen, other values and ways of doing
global citizenship, such as those originating within negotiation at the local level
(Tully, 2014), are implied to be inappropriate and unable to produce successful global
citizens. This privileges one view at the expense of others. VanderDussen Toukan (2018)
suggests that, to avoid this, the contributions of grass-roots efforts in local contexts
should be considered before policymakers adopt guidelines from elsewhere.
It is not that universal values are necessarily bad or antisocial. UNESCO’s
position is to treat values as ‘forward looking’ to try to predict future troubles and
how to remedy them (Bindé, 2004: xv). Further, UNESCO talks of universal values as
humanistic values that, in line with its future-orientated approach, have been created by
imagining a better alternative to situations of human misery (Spijkers, 2012). Universal
values may be well intentioned, and those such as justice, peace and sustainability
are normatively considered a common good. In fact, the elevator effect applied to
universal values may be positive in nations whose values may not currently align with
mutual human well-being. Vaughn and Walker (2012: 497) acknowledge that:

communities might choose educational values that are not to the benefit
of all (e.g. girls), so either there needs to be some core of universal values
arising from the goal of ‘human development’, and/or a process that
subjects a particular community’s or society’s reasoning about education
to impartial scrutiny.

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 91

Pigozzi (2006: 2) agrees that ‘shared values may not always be positive’, and supports
the promotion of universal values. Tarozzi and Torres (2016) agree that universal
values have a place within GCE, and they also support the inclusion of diversity. But
UNESCO is critiqued as a vehicle for Western powers (Biccum, 2010). If particular
identities as successful global citizens are confirmed through universal values, this
potentially serves the agenda of UNESCO and is also in danger of considering inferior
anyone not currently aligned with the organization’s idea of success. Attempts to
bring others up to that standard risk reproducing the worst of Western dominance.
Postcolonial approaches to GCE hold promise through the development of a ‘critical
consciousness’, which can help to address power imbalances (Howard et al., 2018:
502), but to be successful, these would ‘require avoiding essentialist attitudes that seek
to develop identities through the unification of values’ (Howard et al., 2018: 512). In
other words, universal values are unlikely to redress power imbalances, and instead are
likely to further instantiate UNESCO’s view. Through the analysis that follows, I argue
that UNESCO’s universal values are counterproductive to the achievement of GCE.

Method
I analysed eight core documents representing UNESCO’s key messages about GCE.
These were:
• 1st Global Capacity-Building Workshop on GCED: 19 June–2 July 2016, Seoul
and Gwangju, Republic of Korea: Final report (UNESCO, 2016a)
• Final Report: Second UNESCO Forum on Global Citizenship Education:
Building peaceful and sustainable societies, UNESCO Paris, 28–30 January 2015.
(UNESCO, 2015b)
• Global Citizenship Education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st
century (UNESCO, 2014a)
• ‘Priority #3: Foster global citizenship’ (UNESCO, 2016b)
• ‘Global Education First Initiative: The UN Secretary-General’s global initiative on
education’ (UNESCO, n.d.a)
• ‘Outcome document of the Technical Consultation on Global Citizenship
Education: Global citizenship education: An emerging perspective’
(UNESCO, 2013)
• Global Citizenship Education: Topics and learning objectives (UNESCO, 2015a)
• ‘The ABCs of global citizenship education’ (UNESCO, n.d.b).
These documents were available on the main UNESCO GCE website, that of its
precursor the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) and the website found through
the hyperlink for GCE on the GEFI page, since this also focused on GCE. They are all
published by UNESCO. There were four documents on the website that were excluded
from analysis. This is because they were either not focused on GCE (UNESCO, 2014b),
did not mention values (GEFI, n.d.) or could not be said to represent the views of
UNESCO (Tawil, 2013).
The eight documents are situated within a wide history of consultation, and
reflect the specific goal for GCE ratified at the World Economic Forum in Incheon in
2015 (WEF, 2015). While UNESCO owns the copyright of the documents, a disclaimer
states that they do not commit themselves to the opinions of the authors. However,
UNESCO (2019b: n.p.) states that GCE is ‘UNESCO’s response’ to global challenges,
and that it is a ‘strategic area of UNESCO’s education sector programme’, and further
that the concepts of GCE were ‘developed by UNESCO’. In so doing they communicate

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

92 Hatley

ownership of GCE. Further, given that UNESCO owns the copyright, and that UNESCO’s
official documents hold weight when key messages concerning GCE are sought,
and given that authorship is not attributed elsewhere, I have treated the documents
as reflecting UNESCO’s position. This approach was also followed by Wickens and
Sandlin (2007), who found similar disclaimer statements on UNESCO documents within
their study on literacy education. Furthermore, VanderDussen Toukan (2018: 56), in her
analysis of three UNESCO texts, comments that such a discourse analysis can help to
‘better understand the discursive environment that UNESCO expects ministries and
educators to navigate across the diverse range of its member states’, situating the
discourse within UNESCO.
I have analysed the position of values using critical discourse analysis (CDA). To
contribute methodologically to an area that is under-researched (Rogers et al., 2016),
I have also conducted a multimodal analysis so that all the resources available within
the text for constructing meaning can be considered. Applying a multimodal approach
resists the hegemony of the few dominant voices in CDA by ‘attending to the dynamics
between meaning making resources’ (Rogers et al., 2016: 1215) and not relying on
one method. This overcomes a limitation of traditional CDA, which only focuses on
language. My approach combines methods from three areas: linguistic (Fairclough,
2003), visual grammar (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006) and logical (Ledin and Machin,
2015), which goes beyond complementing the linguistic with the photographic, for
example. CDA is generally concerned with power relations between authors and
receivers, but through considering how the logical may make discourse even more
resistant to challenge, a deeper understanding of how the powerful may control
discourse as a tool of social regulation is gained. This adds nuance to CDA, enhancing
its contribution to social analysis.
I analysed relationships of equivalence and difference within the texts (Fairclough,
2003). Structuring values in relations of equivalence has the effect of reducing the
difference between values and other items. Items are of ‘equal status’ (Matthiessen
et al., 2010: 132) and difference is subverted (Lapping, 2008). This foregrounds what
is common and can make difference invisible (Khoja-Moolji, 2016). However, because
difference is subverted, this can come at the expense of identity (Lowrie, 2007). The
particular is removed, creating space for the universal (in this case, universal values) to
dominate. Semantically, I analysed equivalence through ‘additive relations’ (Martin and
Rose, 2007: 118), where items are considered to have equal status. Additive relations
included being positioned in lists (Morrell and Hewison, 2013; Fairclough, 2003) and
use of the conjunction ‘and’ (Martin and Rose, 2007). I also analysed whether one item
in the sentence (values) may be dependent on another. Items are equivalent if they are
not dependent. This means that the order of clauses can be reversed without changing
the meaning or logic of the sentence (Martin and Rose, 2007). Structuring values in
relationships of difference also communicates meaning, because these relationships
define what values are not. I analysed relations of difference through seeing where
values were in contrast, in opposition to, or as opposite to other items, which highlights
rather than reduces difference (Fairclough, 2003; Feldman et al., 2004). By highlighting
difference, the particular is foregrounded, which could help to resist the dominance of
the universal and give room to identity and context.
I analysed whole documents using both a manual search for the word ‘values’
in graphic images and an analysis of the concordance of the word ‘values’ in the text
via the computer programme AntConc (www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/).
A manual search was necessary because AntConc did not account for mentions of
values in diagrams or pictures. Each mention of the word ‘values’ was then viewed in

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 93

its context within AntConc, and the full sentence was placed into Excel spreadsheet.
De Felice and Janesick (2015) state that Excel is an appropriate tool for making sense
of text. In Excel, I first made general observations on the context for each statement to
ensure interpretation of the use of the word ‘values’ was accurate. I then analysed the
statements individually to see if and how values were placed in relations of equivalence
and difference. Since this is a multimodal analysis, I then analysed each sentence in
relation to its visual grammar (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006) and sense of logic (Ledin
and Machin, 2015).
Equivalence and difference separately can provide insight, but it is the texturing
of equivalence and difference together that can illustrate how meaning is fixed and
what possibilities for constructing meaning exist for social actors. This is because fixing
meaning can contribute to ‘new configurations of discourses’ that can also ‘produce
changes in knowledge, social relations, and social identities’ (Fairclough et al., 2002:
8). In the words of Biccum (2010: 16), ‘how the discourse is constructed informs the
horizon of possibilities of what can become’.

Analysis
Relationships of equivalence
Out of 128 sentences that mention ‘values’ with other items, values are placed in
relationships of equivalence 100 times and in relationships of difference 11 times.
Remaining statements either do not meet the criteria for assessing equivalence and
difference, or values are mentioned alone.
When analysing the items that were in relationships of equivalence with values,
these could be grouped under two headings: ‘Reducing difference and privileging
commonality’ and ‘Being disconnected from social reality’. Each theme will now be
discussed.

Theme 1: Reducing difference and privileging commonality

My analysis revealed that there are 45 items structured as equivalent to ‘values’ (see
Table 1); for example, in sentences such as: ‘GCE aims to be transformative, building
the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to enable learners to contribute to a more
inclusive, just and peaceful world’ (UNESCO, 2015a: 15), equivalence is measured
where values are placed in a list (Morell and Hewison, 2013; Fairclough, 2003) and the
conjunction ‘and’ is used with the items not dependent on each other (Martin and Rose,
2007) (see Table 1).
The most common items equivalent to values are skills, attitudes and knowledge.
Which skills, attitudes or knowledge is left undefined. Their meaning is vague. In fact,
all items in Table 1 are arguably vague in meaning. Placing values in relationships of
equivalence subverts the difference between values and other items (Lapping, 2008).
Placing values in relationships of equivalence with so many different items dilutes that
difference to the point of eliminating difference almost completely, arguably leaving
nothing unique about values. This suggests that equivalence has been privileged to the
extent that difference is almost completely gone (Lapping, 2008). Without uniqueness,
values can be applied regardless of context, and are then considered ‘universal
values’. For example, ‘In conflict and in post-conflict settings, GCE can support nation-
building, social cohesion and positive values in children and youth’ (UNESCO, 2014a:
16). Notwithstanding the controversial nature of nation building, seen as a vehicle to
pursue national self-interest, rather than assisting nations towards competent self-

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

94 Hatley

governance (Smith and Shrimpton, 2011), values are linked to the national and social.
In addition to being linked to the national and social, elsewhere in the documents,
universal values are placed as equivalent to both local context and global issues. Taken
together, placing values as equivalent to the global, local, national and social reduces
the difference between them and assists in instantiating the universal nature of values,
applied everywhere.

Table 1: List of items in equivalence with values in order of frequency

1 attitudes 16 critical thinking 31 awareness of living

(including critical together
empowerment)
2 skills (Including soft, 17 factors 32 practical capacities
communication, social
and emotional)
3 knowledge 18 perceptions 33 common humanity
4 behaviour 19 world views 34 social context (including
structure, cohesion)
5 beliefs and belief 20 ethics 35 role of young people/
systems support for youth
6 views 21 transformation 36 global issues
7 acceptance of universal 22 respect 37 global identity
human rights
8 principles (including of 23 responsibilities 38 practices
communication)
9 ideas 24 teamwork 39 emerging issues
10 goals 25 achievements 40 spirit
11 competencies 26 impact on community 41 holism
12 identities 27 sharing 42 nation building
13 diversity of people 28 dialogue 43 willingness to help
others
14 culture 29 equality 44 mainstreaming
education
15 ways of life 30 sustainable 45 interests
development

However, difference is recognized in the influence of national policies, cultural norms

and values – these are not ignored – and UNESCO (2014a: 22) asserts that these
should be considered by educators and learners for GCE to be effective, perhaps
indicating that the universal has not come to dominate completely: ‘training on
participatory and transformative pedagogical practices that ... recognize cultural
norms, national policies and international frameworks that impact on the formation
of values’. But the response is passive: the impact is only recognized. UNESCO then
articulates that it is the ‘core values of GCE’ that policy and curricula should include,
suggesting that, while the aforementioned difference is recognized, universal values
should predominate: ‘While the modality of delivery may not be a major issue, the
core values of GCE must be reflected in and supported by education policy and
the curriculum in order to deliver GCE effectively’ (UNESCO, n.d b: 4, Question
10). Equivalence is privileged over a recognition of difference. The universal nature

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 95

of values, applied regardless of context, dominates. This can be seen as a way of

minimizing or avoiding national and local complexities in favour of a universal view.

Theme 2: Disconnected from social reality

Privileging commonality and the universal offers an appearance of unity. Laclau and
Mouffe (2001) assert that an appearance of unity occurs when items are abstract
(the 45 equivalent items in Table 1 are abstract), but that this disconnects them from
their underlying social reality. For example, ‘belief systems’ as an abstract item does
not acknowledge the reality of working out how to achieve harmonious interactions
between different religious groups. ‘Values’ as an abstract item does not acknowledge
the challenges of dealing with conflicting values. Values become disconnected from
their social reality. The effects of privileging commonality and making difference
invisible can be seen in the example of the Sankofa Elite School in Ghana. Howard
et al. (2018) report that this school’s approach to GCE forbids students to discuss their
differences, in the belief that focusing on what they have in common is the best way
to achieve the idealized version of a global citizen that is defined by Western ideals.
However, this denies the social realties within which students live, and has resulted in
students becoming dissociated from their unique national identities.
UNESCO (2015b: 7), however, does acknowledge a disconnect between
universal values and the reality of their implementation in social life, viewing it largely
as a problem with policy:

During the Forum, it was acknowledged that often there is a gap between
teacher policies and practice. This is due to the lack of conceptual clarity
in policy formulation, lack of coherence in policy implementation and lack
of appropriate support for teachers.

But UNESCO’s solution to the problem is more universal values: ‘While the modality
of delivery may not be a major issue, the core values of GCE must be reflected in
and supported by education policy and the curriculum in order to deliver GCE
effectively’ (UNESCO, n.d.b: 4, Question 10). However, because values are abstract,
this can only contribute to the problem because they are disconnected from social
reality. An implication of this concerns whether values can achieve the purposes (or
motivate and evaluate action towards them) within GCE that they have been set. These
purposes are to:
• ‘resolve interconnected challenges of the 21st century and establish peaceful
and sustainable societies’ (UNESCO, 2015b: 10, 11)
• ‘secure a just and sustainable world’ (UNESCO, 2014a: 7)
• ‘secure a world that is more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and
sustainable’ (UNESCO, 2014a: 9)
• ‘facilitate international cooperation and promote social transformation’
(UNESCO, 2014a: 9)
• ‘build a more just, peaceful and sustainable world’ (UNESCO, 2014a: blurb)
• ‘promote social transformation and build cooperation between nations’
(UNESCO, 2014a: blurb)
• ‘contribute to a more inclusive, just and peaceful world’ (UNESCO, 2015a: 15)
• ‘live together peacefully’ (UNESCO, 2015a: 37).
Values are to contribute to achieving global peace, sustainability, justice, tolerance,
inclusion and security. Values are also to contribute to enabling resolution of challenge,
facilitating international cooperation and achieving a measure of social transformation.

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

96 Hatley

The use of verbs positions values as active – they are to have an effect and achieve.
Yet these purposes are themselves abstract. They are ‘vague yet powerful social ideals
that cannot be clearly defined but are normatively charged’ (Laclau and Mouffe, in
Renner, 2014: 267). Acknowledging the disconnect between universal values and their
implementation in social life is subsumed within more abstract ideals. Universal values
remain disconnected from social reality and cannot achieve the purposes for which
they are set.
The purposes of GCE as social ideals privilege an ‘idealised future’ (Mowles,
2007: 407). Privileging an idealized future may not be problematic in itself – this is,
after all, the mission of UNESCO, which describes its purpose as ‘building peace in
the minds of men and women’ (https://en.unesco.org), and which began its work, and
established values, based on imagining a future better than human misery (Spikjers,
2012). But promoting abstract ideals can also be a way of avoiding the challenge and
complexities involved in everyday reality (Mowles, 2007). An appearance of unity is
maintained, but this is only surface level. Positioning values in the abstract, arguably
as ways of avoiding difference and social reality, is counterproductive to achieving the
purposes of GCE, resulting in a position on values that is self-defeating.

Relationships of difference
Relationships of difference include putting values in contrast, in opposition or as
opposite to other things, which, in contrast to relations of equivalence, highlights
rather than reduces that difference (Fairclough, 2003; Feldman et al., 2004). Analysis of
relationships of difference reveal values as doing something ‘new’. UNESCO implies
that any prior conception of values is old, suggesting they are not fit for modern times.
This leaves values open for a new definition, creating space for UNESCO to ascribe
its own meaning to values. Relationships of difference create this space in three ways:
by implicitly contrasting with an ‘old’ education, by placing values in opposition to
cognitive skills and by situating values as the solution to unresolved global challenges.
In so doing, values prior to GCE are positioned as invisible and outdated, and their
shortcomings are seen as the cause of global problems. Ultimately, relationships of
difference do not challenge the privileged commonality of equivalence, and instead
reinforce it. This will now be explored.

A ’new’ education: Values as outdated

Values are placed in a relationship of difference to what UNESCO implies is the old way
of doing education. In discussing the increasing importance of GCE in today’s world,
previous UNESCO Director-General, Irina Bokova, stated:

We need new skills for new times – to foster greater respect and
understanding between cultures, to give learners tools to make the
most of diversity, to develop new values and behaviours of solidarity and
responsibility, to harness the energy of young women and men for the
benefit of all. (UNESCO, 2015b: 5)

Stating that the world is in ‘new times’ that require ‘new values’ positions GCE and
values as something new in contrast with something ‘old’. GCE and its values are in a
relationship of difference to ‘old’ styles of education, creating space for UNESCO to
define what is needed for these new times. There is space for UNESCO to ascribe its
own meaning to ‘values’.

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 97

From a multimodal perspective, in the context of the original document,

UNESCO provides further emphasis through the positioning of this quotation in a box.
Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) consider this to be an element of framing, giving the
quotation salience. The eye is drawn to the box, and the quotation is also in italics,
adding additional emphasis. Not only does UNESCO pave the way for something
new through contrasting it with the old through relationships of difference, it adds
importance to the message through the use of visual grammar.

Knowledge and cognitive skills: Values as invisible

In addition to being placed in a relationship of difference to an ‘old’ education,
values are further placed in relationships of difference to knowledge, reading,
writing, counting and cognitive skills as these two quotes illustrate: ‘It is not enough
for education to produce individuals who can read, write and count. Education must
be transformative and bring shared values to life’ (UNESCO, 2016b: n.p.); ‘It [GCE]
also acknowledges the role of education in moving beyond the development of
knowledge and cognitive skills to build values, soft skills and attitudes among learners
that can facilitate international cooperation and promote social transformation’
(UNESCO, 2014a: 9).
In moving beyond transmission of knowledge and cognitive skills, UNESCO
implicitly positions them as part of the old education. GCE has new goals – the
development of values for the purposes of international cooperation and social
transformation. This does not suggest that cognitive skills and knowledge are not to
be included in the new education, but alone they are not enough.
Values are only mentioned as part of the new educational goals. At no point are
values mentioned as part of the old education, even though ‘old’ values, in particular
those stemming from human rights, have formed part of UNESCO’s educational efforts
for decades. Previous values are rendered invisible. This further allows UNESCO to
position values as new and ascribe their own meaning – there is, after all, apparently
no prior or alternative meaning of values to contend with.

Values as the answer to global challenges

In addition to situating values as part of a ‘new’ education and rendering prior values
invisible, values are portrayed as the solution to unresolved global challenges. This
implies that universal values can achieve resolution where previous attempts have
failed, additionally suggesting something ‘new’ will occur. For example, values are
implied to be an answer to school violence:
The values of peace, human rights, respect, cultural diversity and justice
are often not embodied in the ethos of schools. Instead of empowering
students to learn and thrive, schools often replicate social inequalities
and reinforce social pathologies by tolerating bullying and gender-
based violence and subjecting children to physical and psychological
punishment. (UNESCO, 2016b: n.p.)

This statement implies that an absence of values in the ethos of a school bears
some responsibility for school violence. Bullying, physical and psychological harm
are aspects of school violence, described as a ‘global problem’ that impacts upon
educational outcomes, quality and the physical, emotional and mental health of
students (UNESCO, 2017). Values are implicitly linked to empowerment and thriving,
opposites of the impacts of school violence, and are posited as the solution to this

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

98 Hatley

global challenge. Values are explicitly named here. These particular values – defined
by UNESCO – are the ones that will bring the solution.
The multimodal analysis also shows a relationship of difference. As has been seen
in the quotation from Irina Bokova (UNESCO, 2015b: 5), and is also seen in Figure 1,
placing elements in a box frames them as standing out from the text, and gives them
salience, drawing the eye.

Figure 1: Framing devices contribute to relationships of equivalence and difference

Source: UNESCO (2015: 15)

In addition to the use of a box, the use of different colours for each dimension (blue
for cognitive, pink for socio-emotional and green for behavioural) additionally draws
the eye. This distracts from a linear reading of the text and contributes to scan reading
– taking in the salience of this image first and not reading the detail of the text (Lazard
and Atkinson, 2015; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006). ‘Values’ is mentioned once as
part of the socio-emotional dimension. Separating the dimensions makes them
into discrete units, potentially obscuring links between them that may be useful for
professional practice (Ledin and Machin, 2015). This sets up a relation of difference
between values and other dimensions of learning, suggesting that values do not have
a place in cognitive or behavioural learning of global citizenship. This is emphasized
by repeating the domains in bullet points in a separate section (UNESCO, 2015a:
15). Further, the image is placed on the left side of a double page spread and its
‘information value’, which assigns significance to the placement of a visual element
(Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006: 177), suggests that the separation of values in this way
is a given, an unquestioned norm. While the text does state that the domains are
mutually reinforcing, it is the visual that carries more persuasive impact than language
(Lazard and Atkinson, 2015). The use of bullet points and separation into discrete
units contributes a sense of logic to the text, which in addition to taking precedence
over the language, also adds legitimacy to the discourse and makes it more resistant
to challenge (Ledin and Machin, 2015). The multimodal analysis reifies ‘values’ and
emphasizes relationships of difference that reinforce the suggestion that it is UNESCO’s
universal values that are the only values that can make a successful global citizen. With
universal values as abstract and divorced from local contexts, this potentially reduces
the effectiveness of UNESCO’s approach to GCE.
The use of multimodal analysis has exemplified the contribution it can make to
overcoming the dominant voices within critical discourse analysis, which arguably focus

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 99

on language. Without it, the interpretation of texts would have been swayed towards
the language, missing the greater persuasive aspects of the visual. Taken together, the
multimodal analysis affords a more complete analysis of texts by considering all the
elements that communicate meaning.

Summary
Values are placed in relationships of equivalence with many other items, effectively
diluting difference to the extent that there is almost nothing unique about values –
they have been emptied of meaning. This has created space for UNESCO to fill ‘values’
with their own meaning. My analysis of relationships of difference has reinforced this.
UNESCO arguably positions universal values as new, and any prior values as outdated,
invisible and their lack potentially the cause of global issues. Through creating space
for something new and subverting uniqueness almost completely, a conception of
values has been presented that can be applied in any context. Values can be considered
universal.
As discussed, values can act as social regulators of people’s actions, such
that they serve the agenda of the powerful. In this case, having defined a particular
set of universal values that have achieved social dominance, people are potentially
socialized to think and act in ways that serve UNESCO’s agenda. This then arguably
furthers Western dominance and, with universal values suggested as the only values
that can achieve success as a global citizen, carries the danger of attempting to bring
up to standard those not considered as meeting UNESCO’s ideals. GCE becomes not
a vehicle for mutual human well-being as espoused, but one for the social regulation
of action and the potential moulding of the ‘other’ as citizens in UNESCO’s image.
I have also shown that through privileging what is common, universal values
are abstract, avoiding the complexities of social reality. UNESCO may possibly
‘discover commonality’ as a way to move forwards in their global work in the face of
complex differences between cultures and nations (Khoja-Moolji, 2016: 761), but while
commonality may give an appearance of unity, this is only surface level. Considering
that GCE promotes the enacting of values, their disconnection from social reality
has resulted in universal values that are self-defeating because they arguably
cannot achieve their aims. In practice, being abstracted from social reality has led to
citizenship education being resisted by local communities, who perceive that universal
values are being imposed rather than chosen, and are not relevant to them (Koya,
2010), reinforcing the potentially self-defeating nature of universal values. A potential
benefit can be found in taking account of evidence from the World Values Survey
(www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp) that values exist in distinct cultural zones around
the world, and that values do not always remain static. Applying values universally
and indiscriminately without consideration of context is likely to continue to lead to
resistance in different cultural zones, as universal values are perceived to lack relevance,
arguably reducing the effectiveness of UNESCO’s GCE.

Implications
For values to contribute to making GCE more effective, it is important for UNESCO to
take account of context and incorporate a more diverse conception of values. This can
increase the possibility that the aims of GCE can be achieved, but in ways more suited
to local contexts. Local realities and values are mentioned in a recent publication
(UNESCO, 2018), but they are seen as useful only in so far as they support UNESCO’s

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

100 Hatley

concept of GCE. If they do not, they are not recognized as legitimate ‘entry points’ for
GCE, potentially reinforcing UNESCO’s view of what makes a successful global citizen.
As stated a possible way forward would be to acknowledge evidence from the World
Values Survey (www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp) that values exist in distinct cultural
zones, and recognize that a universal approach is counterproductive. There may still
be a place for promoting social ideals such as peace, justice and sustainability, which
can provide aspiration, but perhaps not as values. Because values act as regulators
of social action such that people serve power, because values act as motivators for
and evaluators of action deemed worthwhile, and because education elevates those
without education towards emphasized values of a society, values are arguably too
important not to be focused on the everyday realities faced by communities.
One group of values that may potentially aid this diverse conception is that of
emancipative values (Welzel, 2013). Emancipative values include choice, voice, equality
and autonomy. If these values were to be a part of the textual discourse that forms
the set of possibilities for constructing the meaning of GCE, then that education may
arguably consider how social ideals can be interpreted in light of individual and local
context. Biccum’s (2010) horizon of possibilities of what may become expands. Further
research is needed to analyse the potential impact of including emancipative values,
but nonetheless it provides a start in considering how GCE, as espoused by UNESCO,
can be used not as a potential vehicle for the continued dominance of Western powers,
but one for the promotion of genuine mutual human well-being.

Notes on the contributor

Jenny Hatley is Lecturer in education at the University of Worcester, UK. Her interest
in global citizenship began when she worked as an aid worker, managing education
projects in areas of post-conflict and natural disaster. For many years, Jenny continued
to advocate for global learning in UK primary schools, and she now pursues her interest
through research and teaching in higher education.

References
Barrow, E. (2017) ‘No global citizenship? Re-envisioning global citizenship education in times of
growing nationalism’. High School Journal, 100 (3), 163–5.
Biccum, A. (2010) Global Citizenship and the Legacy of Empire: Marketing development. London:
Routledge.
Bindé, J. (ed.) (2004) The Future of Values: 21st-century talks. New York: Berghahn Books
and UNESCO.
Davies, L. (2006) ‘Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action?’. Educational Review,
58 (1), 5–25.
De Felice, D. and Janesick, V.J. (2015) ‘Understanding the marriage of technology and
phenomenological research: From design to analysis’. Qualitative Report, 20 (10), 1576–93.
Dutt, S. (2009) ‘Striving to promote shared values: UNESCO in the troubled world of the twenty-first
century’. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 65 (1), 83–95.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B. and Sayer, A. (2002) ‘Critical realism and semiosis’. Alethia, 5 (1), 2–10.
Feldman, M.S., Sköldberg, K., Brown, R.N. and Horner, D. (2004) ‘Making sense of stories:
A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis’. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 14 (2), 147–70.
Fives, A. (2013) ‘Non-coercive promotion of values in civic education for democracy’. Philosophy
and Social Criticism, 39 (6), 577–90.
Fraser, N. (2010) Scales of Justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Gaudelli, W. (2016) Global Citizenship Education: Everyday transcendence. New York: Routledge.

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

 Universal values as a barrier to the effectiveness of global citizenship education 101

GEFI (Global Education First Initiative) (n.d.) Using the Transformative Power of Education to build a
better future for all. Paris: UNESCO.
Howard, A., Dickert, P., Owusu, G. and Riley, D. (2018) ‘In service of the Western world: Global
citizenship education within a Ghanaian elite context’. British Journal of Educational Studies,
66 (4), 497–514.
Joas, H. (2000) The Genesis of Values. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Khoja-Moolji, S. (2016) ‘Doing the “work of hearing”: Girls’ voices in transnational educational
development campaigns’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
46 (5), 745–63.
Koya, C.F. (2010) ‘Civics education in Fiji: Contradiction or “pedagogy of hope”?’. In Kennedy, K.J.,
Lee, W.O. and Grossman, D.L. (eds) Citizenship Pedagogies in Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, 245–68.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2006) Reading Images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a radical democratic
politics. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
Lapping, C. (2008) ‘The ethics of interpretation: The signifying chain from field to analysis’.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29 (1), 69–83.
Lazard, A. and Atkinson, L. (2015) ‘Putting environmental infographics center stage: The
role of visuals at the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s critical point of persuasion’. Science
Communication, 37 (1), 6–33.
Ledin, P. and Machin, D. (2015) ‘How lists, bullet points and tables recontextualize social practice:
A multimodal study of management language in Swedish universities’. Critical Discourse Studies,
12 (4), 463–81.
Leduc, R. (2013) ‘Global citizenship instruction through active participation: What is being learned
about global citizenship?’. Educational Forum, 77 (4), 394–406.
Lowrie, A. (2007) ‘Branding higher education: Equivalence and difference in developing identity’.
Journal of Business Research, 60 (9), 990–9.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2007) Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. 2nd ed.
London: Continuum.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Teruya, K. and Lam, M. (2010) Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics.
London: Continuum.
Morrell, K. and Hewison, A. (2013) ‘Rhetoric in policy texts: The role of enthymeme in Darzi’s review
of the NHS’. Policy & Politics, 41 (1), 59–79.
Mowles, C. (2007) ‘Promises of transformation: Just how different are international development
NGOs?’. Journal of International Development, 19 (3), 401–11.
Oxley, L. and Morris, P. (2013) ‘Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple
conceptions’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61 (3), 301–25.
Pigozzi, M.J. (2006) ‘A UNESCO view of global citizenship education’. Educational Review,
58 (1), 1–4.
Renner, J. (2014) ‘The local roots of the global politics of reconciliation: The articulation of
“reconciliation” as an empty universal in the South African transition to democracy’. Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 42 (2), 263–85.
Rogers, R., Schaenen, I., Schott, C., O’Brien, K., Trigos-Carrillo, L., Starkey, K. and Carter Chasteen,
C. (2016) ‘Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature, 2004 to 2012’. Review
of Educational Research, 86 (4), 1192–226.
Schwartz, S.H. (2006) ‘A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications’.
Comparative Sociology, 5 (2–3), 137–82.
Sigauke, A.T. (2011) ‘Citizenship and citizenship education: A critical discourse analysis of the
Zimbabwe Presidential Commission Report’. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice,
6 (1), 69–86.
Smith, M.G. and Shrimpton, R. (2011) ‘Nation-building interventions and national security: An
Australian perspective’. Global Dialogue, 13 (1), 126–39.
Spijkers, O. (2012) ‘Global values in the United Nations Charter’. Netherlands International Law
Review, 59 (3), 361–97.
Tarozzi, M. and Torres, C.A. (2016) Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism:
Comparative perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Tawil, S. (2013) Education for “Global Citizenship”: A framework for discussion (ERF Working Paper
7). Paris: UNESCO Education Research and Foresight. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxlfvthw
(accessed 10 March 2019).

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019

102 Hatley

Tully, J. (2014) On Global Citizenship: James Tully in dialogue. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Tye, K.A. (2014) ‘Global education: A worldwide movement – An update’. Policy Futures in
Education, 12 (7), 855–71.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (n.d.a) ‘Global
Education First Initiative: The UN Secretary-General’s global initiative on education’. Online.
www.unesco.org/new/en/gefi/home/ (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (n.d.b) ‘The ABCs of
global citizenship education’. Online. https://tinyurl.com/y53kd35w (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2013) ‘Outcome
document of the Technical Consultation on Global Citizenship Education: Global citizenship
education: An emerging perspective’. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxq523dw (accessed
10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2014a) Global
Citizenship Education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/y6c5t2vs
(accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2014b) Learning
to Live Together: Education policies and realities in the Asia-Pacific. Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/y4y4d8c7 (accessed
10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2015a) Global
Citizenship Education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxojzfmf (accessed
10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2015b) Final Report:
Second UNESCO Forum on Global Citizenship Education: Building peaceful and sustainable
societies, UNESCO Paris, 28–30 January 2015. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/y3k2mm39 (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2016a) 1st Global
Capacity-Building Workshop on GCED: 19 June–2 July 2016, Seoul and Gwangju, Republic of
Korea: Final report. Seoul: Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding.
Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxj674rz (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2016b) ‘Priority #3:
Foster global citizenship’. Online. www.unesco.org/new/en/gefi/priorities/global-citizenship/
(accessed 31 August 2017).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2017) School Violence
and Bullying: Global status report. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yy4j6vos (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2018) Global
Citizenship Education: Taking it local. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxrkkkj7 (accessed 10 March 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2019a) ‘Education
transforms lives’. Online. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education (accessed 13 April 2019).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2019b) ‘Global
citizenship education’. Online. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced (accessed 27 January 2019).
VanderDussen Toukan, E. (2018) ‘Educating citizens of “the global”: Mapping textual constructs of
UNESCO’s global citizenship education 2012–2015’. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice,
13 (1), 51–64.
Vaughan, R. and Walker, M. (2012) ‘Capabilities, values and education policy’. Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities, 13 (3), 495–512.
Wang, C. and Hoffman, D.M. (2016) ‘Are we the world? A critical reflection on selfhood in US global
citizenship education’. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24 (56), 1–18.
WEF (2015) Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action: Towards inclusive
and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. Online. https://tinyurl.com/zvdewud (accessed
10 March 2019).
Welzel, C. (2013) Freedom Rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wickens, C.M. and Sandlin, J.A. (2007) ‘Literacy for what? Literacy for whom? The politics of literacy
education and neocolonialism in UNESCO- and World Bank-sponsored literacy programs’. Adult
Education Quarterly, 57 (4), 275–92.

International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) 2019