In this article, dialogue as a tool was used in a retreat meant to define Global Education for emergent researchers in Finland. Our 3 days dialogue allowed us to question what we know and encourage the development of inclusive and contextually-relevant approaches to knowledge-creation that ultimately contribute to a more just, peaceful, and environmentally friendly global society.
It is often the case that we do not know our own thoughts until we give voice to them. That is, in order to understand what we are thinking we must express our thoughts to others. This action elicits feedback which, when taken into account, can be used to develop our original ideas in a collaborative process of knowledge creation called dialogue. Though they certainly did not invent the art of dialogue, the ancient Greeks recognised that two minds working together to solve a question is better than one. The term itself combines dia, meaning “through”, and logos, which refers to “the word” or “thought” (Jenlink & Banathy, 2005, p. 5). Dialogue enables us to question and expand our understanding of objects of thought, thus becoming a means of inquiry “with emphasis on the subject of discussion” (Jazdzewska, 2013, p. 23). The nature, then, of dialogue is constructive, as it aims to come to a common understanding. However, it is important to note that for dialogue to take place, each participant must be willing to deviate from their initial point of view, hence the emphasis on common. Engaging in dialogue means having your ideas tested by others. Leaving unilaterally constructed ideas unchecked or suppressing or ignoring other perspectives while elevating a single one to higher status paves the way for hegemonic discourses. As a counterbalance to hegemonic structures, be they institutions, people, or policies, dialogue offers space for multiple voices to be heard in the pursuit of a shared purpose. Learning collaboratively together, building meaning as a group, and mapping this meaning for the future is a clear example of how concepts can be expanded, beyond already established, and perhaps outdated institutional definitions.
It is in a similar spirit that, starting on the ninth of December 2021, researchers from across Finland met during a three-day scholarly retreat in Konnevesi. This was organised by the Global Education Research in Finland group (GERIF). As an emerging theme in Finland, global education research benefits from being laid bare, discussed, and shared. Just as a single mind struggles to solve a problem, research benefits from being reviewed and amended by peers. Consisting of five workshops, the retreat at Konnevesi provided the opportunity for emerging scholars to engage in dialogue with the aim of building a better understanding of global education and how to teach in schools. The theme of collaboration and participation was central to the participants’ own research and the presentations thereof, thus embodying the principles of constructive dialogue. With the subject of discussion being globalisation in the context of education, and perhaps vice versa, a brief exploration of the topic of globalisation and its relation to education is in order. I do this by framing global education as the result of the consideration of both globalisation in the context of education and education in the context of globalisation. In general terms, the former considers how globalisation can be integrated within educational approaches aimed at creating ‘global citizens’. Acting as a response to the latter, this dimension presupposes that education also exists within a global context and as such, is affected by global forces. This relationship between education and globalisation highlights two interrelated issues that advance the need to shape a common understanding of global education and what it means to be(come) a global citizen.
The first issue touches upon the nature and origin of globalisation and can be considered in light of the dimension of education in the context of globalisation. Any effort to frame global education requires an interpretation of what ‘globalisation’ means. Otherwise, global education would simply be synonymous with education and exist out of context. However, defining globalisation and identifying its effects has proven to be elusive. Because of its scope and varying impact in different places across the globe, a consensus has yet to be reached. Consequently, globalisation is subject to an ongoing debate between sceptics, who consider globalisation to be an “ideological construction” and globalists, for whom globalisation is a historical process of structural change at the social, economic, political, and cultural level (Held & McGrew, 2000, p. 5). Furthermore, the terms in which one interprets globalisation will determine its cause and temporal point of origin. Judging globalisation in economic terms as “the integration of international commodity markets”, O’Rourke and Williamson (2002, p. 25) argue that the world became globalised in the nineteenth century. From a more social perspective, globalisation as a process of developing and intermingling cultural beliefs, values and identities was facilitated by the rise of the Roman Empire (Witcher, 2000). Alternatively, Conversi (2010, p. 49) identifies Americanisation as “the broader historical context encompassing various phases of military, cultural and economic expansion, of which globalisation is the latest incarnation”, situating its roots in the post-war period and its definite rise in the 1980s. In short, globalisation still remains clouded by obscurity. It is by being aware of its various interpretations that a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to global education can be achieved.
Conceptual ambiguity, while presenting an opportunity to provide clarity and identifying room for improvement, also allows dominant discourses to manifest. This brings us to the second issue regarding globalisation in the context of education. As globalisation is interpreted differently by nation-states across the globe, the purpose and implementation of global education will also differ (Ho, 2018). This can lead to divergent ways of organising global education. On the other hand, streamlining approaches to global education by accepting a single dominant definition may overlook local contexts, thus creating an imbalance in educational provision and outcomes which can exacerbate inequality. Connoly, Lehtomäki and Scheunpflug (2019) identify different approaches to global education and argue that the ideological foundations of these approaches must be clarified. In addition, further research in combination with cooperative knowledge creation fosters a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to global education. In this case, globalisation, as experienced locally, is given a meaningful place in education as opposed to being the main force that determines its purpose.
In light of these considerations, it is no surprise that the first workshop of the retreat broached the subject of defining global education and did so specifically by encouraging dialogue. The workshop’s leaders assumed a critical approach and provided the space for participants to reflect on their own thoughts about global education. Recognizing the ambiguity of the concept of globalisation and complexity of the task of attempting to define it, the workshop had as key principles that: (1) everyone brings to the space valid and legitimate knowledge constructed in their own contexts, (2) all knowledge is partial and incomplete, and (3) all knowledge can be questioned. Established definitions such as those of the Maastricht Global Education Declaration, OECD, UNESCO, GTDF (Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures), and Vanessa Andreotti (2006) were also subject to these principles as their underlying assumptions were questioned and limitations discussed. Rather than attempting to reach consensus, the workshop acted as a platform from which to reflect upon our presumptions and to try to take into account multiple perspectives while striving to come to a common understanding of the state of global education.
An alternative way to go about discussing and defining global education is to determine what it is not. Building on the insights gained from the first workshop, the second meeting prompted the participants to probe at the limits of global education. The workshop refrained from providing any prescribed content and was a mainly participant-driven process of inquiry facilitated by Timeout dialogue. The Timeout method is a way to organise and structure dialogue on equal footing between participants from various backgrounds (Timeout Foundation, n.d.). Dialogue that follows the Timeout method allows for dealing with sensitive and potentially polarising topics. Here, globalisation and the challenges it brings is an ideal subject of discussion. As a means of guidance, participants of the workshop were asked to reflect on the following questions: (1) What are the limits of global education? (2) What are the limits of growth, the earth, human rights? (3) Where do I set the limit? (4) What limits am I willing to overstep? The aim was not to set limits, i.e., what global education should and should not be about, but to understand issues, one’s own perspective and others’ perceptions. Listening to yourself and others fosters an awareness of what people think and why they think the way they do while also avoiding polarisation. When multiple voices are heard and recognised it becomes more difficult to substantiate normative classifications that, if left unchecked, can become hegemonic.
Corresponding to the idea of dialogue as a cooperative and constructive learning process, the third workshop framed knowledge creation in terms of divergence, emergence, and convergence. Collaborative learning spaces imply that there exists among learners an awareness of a connection through which co-creation and collaboration can take place. This notion also applies to interculturality. Globalisation necessitates communication between people from different cultural backgrounds. Yet, focussing on dynamic interculturality, the fourth workshop pointed out that there exist both a static and a dynamic approach to interculturality and intercultural education. The dynamic approach is exemplified in the study by Piipponen & Karlson (2021) where schoolchildren from two different countries engaged in intercultural exchange from which emerged a “shared narrative culture”. Thus, in the moment of divergence, people from various backgrounds meet with the aim to come to a common understanding. What emerged was a shared narrative culture, at which point both groups converged upon a common understanding. It is important that collaborative learning processes are purposeful. In other words, that the process is meaningful to the participants so that they can recognise their contribution. Furthermore, recognising connectivity, diverse perspectives, and the relationship between people who gather with a shared purpose can be empowering. The process of emergence coincides with a “groan phase”, a moment of tension as the mind is trying to transcend its understanding and accommodate new insights. It is precisely in this moment that a perspective different from our own can shed new light onto the subject of discussion. Then, minds converge, and a shared understanding is created. Both intercultural dialogue and the process of divergence, emergence, and convergence incorporate the essential elements of inquiry, reflection, listening, and collaboration that were part of the first two workshops.
Shifting focus to the more cognitive level, the final workshop introduced the dimension of critical thinking. Aside from creating an environment where thinking can take place, it is also necessary to understand what kinds of thought processes are active within the mind. In the context of finding common ground on the purpose and content of global education, critical thinking becomes indispensable. Critical thinking differs from reason and logic in that it is tied to a specific purpose. The ultimate aim of critical thinking is to spur action whereas reason is a way of thinking that involves drawing conclusions from available information. Logic, subsequently, can be considered the means by which one comes to a rational decision. Another important distinguishing factor between critical thinking, and reason and logic, is context. A rational thinking process that applies logic is not necessarily contextual. For critical thinking it is the context that sets the standards by which its purpose is achieved. In the context of education, critical thinking is promoted in support of teaching democratic values which underpin citizenship education (Pettersson, 2020). The question for global education then, is which values it should be constituted upon. With the aim of avoiding favouring one formulation over another, critical thinking has a gatekeeping role in questioning whether certain beliefs are justified. However, a critique of critical thinking is that it only takes place within the individual mind. Critical thinking as a Western model lacks the element of interconnectivity which, for example, most Indigenous knowledges possess. The workshop, therefore, proposed a shift to organic thinking, involving moving away from anthropocentrism and including a concern for non-human life. The idea is that thinking should be connected to others and the environment as a whole. As such, thinking becomes a collective activity that converges to a common understanding.
Conclusion
The GERIF retreat allowed emerging research on global education in Finland to be shared and brought to light. It is important that research is made visible so that it can be questioned and used to further enhance our understanding. Academic research is also supposed to serve the public, in which case it benefits from being part of a cooperative system of inquiry, review, and dissemination. Because global education involves the elusive ‘global’ component, the need to include diverse viewpoints is essential. This need is further intensified by the importance of context. For global education to make sense in a Finnish context it must overcome the challenge of merging the local with the global while avoiding ready-made normative frameworks that are supposedly flexible enough to incorporate local demands. Bearing this in mind, through its workshops, the retreat highlighted the following key considerations: (1) all knowledge is incomplete and can be questioned, (2) acknowledging that diverse perspectives can help overcome obstacles, (3) knowledge and knowledge-creation is contextual, (4) transcending anthropocentric thinking by shifting to organic thinking. This report set out by introducing dialogue as the main concept that encapsulates the constructive and collaborative approach to reaching a common understanding expressed throughout the retreat. If dialogue provides the means to develop our common understanding of global education, both concepts share a common purpose. In parallel to global education, dialogue ultimately becomes “an invitation to test the viability of traditional definitions of what it means to be human, and collectively to explore the prospect of an enhanced humanity” (Bohm, 1996, p. viii). A collective effort makes it more difficult for certain philosophies to become dominant. Moreover, with enough traction, diverse ideas emerging from dialogue can even challenge hegemonic structures and ideologies. The combination of dialogue and a shared purpose can help us question established definitions of global education, not to add to the list of definitions or dictate the norms, but to encourage the development of inclusive and contextually-relevant approaches to knowledge-creation that ultimately contribute to a more just, peaceful, and environmentally friendly global society.
References
Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40 – 51.
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue (L. Nichol, Ed.) (1st ed.). Routledge.
Conolly, J., Lehtomäki, E., & Scheunpflug, A. (2019). Measuring global competencies: A critical assessment. ANGEL Briefing Paper.
Conversi, D. (2010). The limits of cultural globalisation. Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, 3, 36 – 59.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2000). The global transformations reader (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Ho, L. C. (2018). Conceptions of global citizenship education in East and Southeast Asia. In I. Davies, L. C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. L. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp. 83-95). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Jazdzewska, K. (2013). From dialogos to dialogue: The use of the term from plato to the second century ce. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 54(1), 17-36.
Jenlink, P. M. & Banathy, B. H. (2005). Dialogue: Conversation as culture building and consciousness evolving. In B. H. Banathy & P. M. Jenlink (Eds.), Dialogue as a means of collective communication (pp. 3-5). New York, NY: Kluwer academic/plenum Publishers.
O’Rourke, K. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2002). When did globalisation begin? European Review of Economic History, 6(1), 23-50.
Pettersson, H. (2020). The Conflicting Ideals of Democracy and Critical Thinking in Citizenship Education. Philosophy of Education Archive, 355-368.
Piipponen, O., & Karlsson, L. (2021). 'Our stories were pretty weird too' - Children as creators of a shared narrative culture in an intercultural story and drawing exchange. International Journal of Educational Research, 106, [101720]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101720
Timeout Foundation. (n.d.). What's Timeout about? Timeout. https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/whats-timeout-about/
Witcher, R. E. (2000). Globalisation and Roman Imperialism : perspectives on identities in Roman Italy. The emergence of state identities in Italy in the first millennium BC. London: Accordia Research Institute, University of London, pp. 213-225.
