Living Together: Education and Intercultural Dialogue

229 Pages·2009·6.341 MB·English

by  Suzanne Majhanovich, Christine Fox (auth.), Suzanne Majhanovich, Christine Fox, Adila Pašalić Kreso (eds.)

Suzanne Majhanovich · Christine Fox ·
Adila Pašalic´ Kreso
Editors
Living Together
Education and Intercultural Dialogue
Previously published in International Review of Education, Volume 54, Issues 3–4, 2008
123
Editors
Suzanne Majhanovich Adila Pašalic´ Kreso
Faculty of Education Faculty of Philosophy
University of Western Ontario University of Sarajevo
1137 Western Road F. Rac(cid:1)kong No. 1, Sarajevo
London, ON Bosnia and Herzegovina
Canada N6G 1G7 E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Christine Fox
Faculty of Education
University of Wollogong
New South Wales
2522 Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Control Number: 2009922620
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9816-1
ISBN 978-1-4020-9815-4 eISBN 978-1-4020-9816-1
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, B.V.
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
menas, elec tronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, reocrding or otherwise, without the written
permission from the Publisher, with the exception of anymaterial supplied specifically for the purpose of
being entered and executed on a computer system, for the exclusive use by the purchaser of ther work.
springer.com
Acknowledgements
The Editors acknowledge with thanks the following for their support in the development of
this volume:
Harmen van Paradijs, Publications Editor, Springer
Christopher McIntosh, Executive Editor, International Review of Education, UNESCO
Institute for Lifelong Learning
Hannah Mowat, Assistant Editor, International Review of Education, UNESCO Institute for
Lifelong Learning
Mark Bray, International Institute for Educational Policy, UNESCO
Crain Soudien, President of WCCES, University of Cape Town
Barry van Driel, International Association of Intercultural Education
Bob Adamson, Hong Kong Institute of Education
Mark Ginsburg, University of Pittsburgh
Terri Kim, Brunel University, UK
Jing Lin, University of Maryland
Sharzad Mojab, Ont. Inst. for Studies in Educ., Univ. of Toronto
Douglas Morgan, University of South Australia
Shin’ichi Suzuki, Waseda University, Tokyo
Teresa Tatto, Michigan State University
We also wish to thank the following reviewers of the paper for the issue:
Ali Abdi, University of Alberta
Beatrice Avalos, University Alberto Hurtako, Chile
Jennifer Chan, University of British Columbia
Lynn Davies, University of Birmingham
Cecille DePass, University of Calgary
Erwin Epstein, Loyola University
Grace Feuerverger, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Univ. of Toronto
Dominique Groux, Past President, AFDECE
Ruth Hayhoe, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Univ. of Toronto
Yvonne Marie Hebert, University of Calgary
Christian Horst, Danish Pedagogical University
Victor Kobayashi, University of Hawaii
Wolfgang Mitter, German Institute for International Education Research
Giovanni Pampanini, University of Catania
Allan Pittman, University of Western Ontario
David Radcliffe, University of Western Ontario
Nombuso Dlamini, University of Windsor
David Turner, Glamorgan University
Javier Valle, Spain, Past President of CESE
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
S. Majhanovich & C. Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–11
The WCCES and Intercultural Dialogue: Historical Perspectives and
Continuing Challenges
M. Bray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13–31
Bridging Cultures and Traditions for Educational and International
Development: Comparative Research, Dialogue and Difference
M. Crossley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33–50
Complex Societies, Common Schools and Curriculum: Separate is not
Equal
J. Gundara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–66
The War and Post-War Impact on the Educational System of Bosnia
and Herzegovina
A.P. Kreso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67–88
Engaging Youth in Community Development: Post-War Healing and
Recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina
L. Kasumagic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89–106
Le «harcèlement entre pairs» ‘á l’école élémentaire tchèque: une
question d’interprétation
M. Kohout-Diaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107–122
Core Elements of the European (Higher) Education Policy: Market-
Driven Restructuring or Impetus for Intercultural
Rapprochement?
E.G. Starkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123–139
vi Contents
Teacher Education and Development Policies: Critical Discourse
Analysis from a Comparative Perspective
M.E. Pini & J.M. Gorostiaga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141–157
Towards an indigenous African Educational Discourse: APhilosophical
Reflection
P. Higgs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159–172
Nurturing Relationships and Honouring Responsibilities: A Pacific
Perspective
K.H. Thaman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173–187
Convergence of Monastic and Modern Education in Bhutan?
B.D. Denman & S. Namgyel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–205
Frontiers of Education: Japan as “Global Model” or “Nation at Risk”?
D.B. Willis, S. Yamamura & J. Rappleye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207–229
INTRODUCTION
SUZANNEMAJHANOVICHandCHRISTINEFOX
OriginallypublishedinthejournalInternationalReviewofEducation,Volume54,Nos3–4,287–297.
DOI:10.1007/s11159-008-9097-9(cid:1)SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2008
The papers in this collection have been selected from over 800 presentations
given at the XIIIth World Congress of Comparative Education Societies,
held at the University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, from 3 to 7
September 2007. The Congress was hosted on behalf of the WCCES by the
Mediterranean Society of Comparative Education and in association with
the International Association of Intercultural Education. For such an inter-
national gathering, it was appropriate that the theme chosen was ‘‘Living
Together: Education and Intercultural Dialogue’’, providing scope for con-
tributions by participating scholars, policy makers and practitioners in edu-
cation from some 70 countries. The presenters approached contemporary
educational issues with knowledge and insights about a world characterized
by the tensions and demands of global and local interests, by regional con-
flicts and post-conflict deliberations, and by the global diaspora, with cul-
tural, religious and linguistic diversity within both small and large states.
Only a very few papers could be included for this collection, but they repre-
sent some of the key topics under discussion during the Congress. The
papers were selected from the recommendations of the convenors of the 13
Thematic Groups, the keynote addresses and several symposia.
Intercultural dialogue
Before providing an overview of the contents of this volume, consideration
must be given to the nature of intercultural dialogue and the implications for
education. This volume provides theoretical insights and practical examples
of intercultural dialogue in a variety of educational settings.
The Council of Europe has defined intercultural dialogue as follows:
Intercultural dialogue is a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange
between individuals, groups and organizations with different cultural backgrounds
or world views. Among its aims are: to develop a deeper understanding of differ-
ent perspectives and practices; to increase participation (or the freedom to make
choices); to ensureequality; andto enhancecreative processes.(CoE 2008)
Aspirations for respectful and tolerant intercultural exchanges are widely
held, and yet in the modern globalized world these aims have proven to be
elusive and difficult to achieve. As the impact of globalization has expanded
with transnational accords and multi-national economic unions, the influence
and importance of national states have appeared to diminish. As Randy
Kluver comments: ‘‘In a globalized world, the political abstraction known as
S.Majhanovichetal.(eds.),InternationalReviewofEducation.
DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-9816-1_1 1
2 Suzanne Majhanovich and Christine Fox
nations are becoming increasingly irrelevant, while the symbolic systems
known as culture are continually in flux.’’ (Kluwer 2008: 6) In reaction, per-
haps because of a natural anxiety among ethnic groups of loss of identity
and fear of being swallowed up in the wake of sweeping global forces,
nationalism has been on the rise. It is little wonder then that those groups
that have not particularly benefited from the changes brought by globaliza-
tion feel threatened, and find that values they have always lived by are being
questioned, devalued or rejected outright. Manuel Castells claims:
The crisis of political legitimacy threatens to undo the democratic system, and
with it, the ability to manage the problems and issues of a world in tur-
moil...There is a growing gap between the space where the issues are defined
(global) and the space where the issues are managed (the nation state). (Castells
2005:10)
Increasingly, ethnic groups have been clamouring for recognition of what
they deem to be historic rights of territory and power, often at the expense
of their neighbours. Over the last decades of the 20th century various
regions of the world have undergone vicious ethnic wars and conflicts, often
resulting in the displacement of populations, migration and resettlement in
new areas with a resulting increase in the diversity of the cultural, religious
and linguistic makeup of the state. The manner in which the state reacts to
growing diversity is significant and vital to basic human rights.
Education as a positive or negative catalyst in intercultural understanding
and dialogue
Peace-building through education was a significant area for discussion at the
Sarajevo Congress, exploring strategies to support post-conflict societies.
Gallagher found in his study of Northern Ireland education systems that
there is a tendency to over-privilege difference rather than exploring com-
mon goals (Gallagher 2005: 439). As many of the discussions during the
Sarajevo Congress recognized, educational experiences, both inside and out-
side the formal educational system, can play a role either to exacerbate
problems or to mitigate them and to promote an intercultural dialogue of
reconciliation and tolerance. Coulby (1997) has cautioned against the prac-
tice of states that have responded to diversity in their society by using the
educational system to segregate, stratify or naturalize their citizens. Indeed,
Coulby and Jones (1995) have demonstrated how education can be orga-
nized to differentiate students and often marginalize minority groups. Yet
effective cross-cultural communication can be fostered to counteract the
ethnic violence that characterized the past. Jagdish Gundara expresses the
issue in the strongest possible way:
The present century has left a legacy of intolerance and hatred but the dominant
voice of the new millennium has to be in relation to systems of reconciliation
Introduction 3
equity and the strengthening of the civic domain. The replacement of class strug-
gles, despite vast levels of destitution, by religious, ethnic and cultural conflicts,
heraldsevendeeper divides – a new barbarism.
Human societies will require the pooling of all their ingenuity, resources and tech-
nologies to obviate some of the conflicts, exclusions and deep cleavages that may
occur. Intercultural education can assist this process, particularly in building a
civic culture in the context of a civil society. Such a process can help in the social-
ization of groups of people, and in developing a common shared value system and
socialcohesion indiverse communities. (Gundara1997:208)
OneeffectivestrategyinthefieldofhighereducationhasbeentheERASMUS
programme in Europe, which demonstrates a changing role in student mobil-
ity. The purpose of Erasmus is ‘‘to improve the quality of higher education
and strengthen its European dimension. It does this by encouraging transna-
tional cooperation between universities, fostering the European mobility of
students and teachers, and contributing to improved transparency and
academic recognition of qualifications and studies throughout the European
Union’’(ERASMUS2008).
The issue of linguistic diversity and how the state deals with it is also of
importance. Euan Reid has noted that despite the multilingual reality of
most major cities in the world, ‘‘it is striking that [a] ‘monolingual ideology’
is still so powerfully evident in education systems in almost every part of the
world’’ (Reid 1997: 27). Reid concluded that ‘‘the promotion of linguistic
diversity in general, and in particular as part of ‘national standard language
education’, is crucial to any serious attempt to realize intercultural educa-
tion’’ (36). As Rassool has pointed out, the stability of the monocultural and
monolingual metropolitical nation-state ‘‘has been fractured by the poly-
got...of transmigratory groups’’ (Rassool 2004: 211). He noted that the lin-
guistic repertoires of groups who have undergone multiple transmigrations
need to be accessed and celebrated for their ‘‘vibrant cultural experiences
across time and space [including the] ongoing maintenance of cultural identi-
ties’’ (207). Sociolinguists such as Skutnabb-Kangas and Cummins (1988),
and Thomas (1991) have shown that, rather than being a rare occurrence,
bilingualism (one might add multilingualism) is quite widespread and com-
mon among whole societies. Skutnabb-Kangas, with Garcia and Torres-
Guzma´n (Garcia et al. 2006) have produced a vision for multilingual schools
in various political and geographical contexts. Skutnabb-Kangas has consis-
tently promoted the preservation of local languages as a human right, in the
face of what she sees as linguistic genocide in the globalized world.
Intercultural dialogue and human rights
Many of the papers at the Sarajevo Congress were focused on the role of the
UN, and in particular UNESCO, in fostering the human rights dialogue.
The United Nations has consistently recognized the need to remind nations
4 Suzanne Majhanovich and Christine Fox
of their responsibilities to promote human rights through education and the
dialogic process of sharing information, understanding and peace. At the
UN World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, this
responsibility of nations was affirmed in clause 33:
33. The World Conference on Human rights reaffirms that States are duty-bound,
as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in other international
human rights instruments, to ensure that education is aimed at strengthening the
respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The World Conference on
Human Rights emphasizes the importance of incorporating the subject of human
rights education programmes and calls upon States to do so. Education should
promote understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations between the
nations and all racial or religious groups and encourage the development of
United Nations activities in pursuance of these objectives. Therefore, education on
human rights and the dissemination of proper information, both theoretical and
practical, play an important role in the promotion and respect of human rights
with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind such as race, sex,
language or religion, and this should be integrated in the education policies at the
nationalaswell asinternational levels….
The Council of Europe in a follow-up meeting in Vienna prepared a ‘‘Plan
of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance’’
in which they acknowledged the diversity of and within European states and
committed to launching ‘‘an urgent appeal to European peoples, groups and
citizens, and young people in particular, that they resolutely engage in com-
bating all forms of intolerance and that they actively participate in the con-
struction of a European society based on common values, characterized by
democracy, tolerance and solidarity’’ (1993).
In September 2000, the United Nations Millennium Summit set out a
number of Millennium Development Goals related to Education for All
among other goals: MDG2 was to achieve universal primary education by
2015; MDG 3 was to promote gender equality and empower women, with
the target of eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary educa-
tion by 2005 and in all levels of education by 2015. The MDG agenda
involves human rights and capabilities, and agency, making hope real
(Unterhalter 2005: 112). The MDG Medium Term Strategy (2002–2007)
approved by UNESCO in 2002 has concentrated on the needs of African
women, youth, the prevention of HIV/AIDS through national education
plans (UNESCO 2002). The Education for All Global Monitoring Report
(UNESCO 2007) is the most recent of the annual reviews of the progress of
EFA, a significant topic during the Sarajevo Congress.
The role of comparative education
One of the main goals of the WCCES is ‘‘to advance education for interna-
tional understanding in the interests of peace, intercultural co-operation,
mutual respect among peoples and observance of human rights; and to