Institutionalizing Global Citizenship

Abstract

While higher education internationalization efforts have traditionally been associated with the expansion of study abroad experiences, the recruitment of international students and scholars, as well as the growth of area studies and language programs, the past decade has seen an increase in a variety of multi-disciplinary approaches to “global citizenship” programs. These programs typically involve international service learning, international internships, study abroad, and academic study, which all work to provide students with “global” experiences. The aim of these experiences is to enhance students’ academic, professional, and personal development and expand their horizons to prepare them to function effectively in the “global” world. Building on Andreotti’s concept of critical global citizenship, this study examines how universities institutionalize global citizenship in their curricula by analyzing program mission statements, goals, and curriculum materials. Focusing on degree- and certificate-granting global citizenship programs, the study examines the different ways of conceptualizing “global citizenship” and discusses their implications for social justice and equity at both the theoretical and programmatic levels.

Keywords

globalization and international higher education internationalization of the curriculum internationalization of higher education institutionalization of global citizenship programs global citizenship

Introduction

Internationalization has become a growing trend in higher education worldwide. While internationalization efforts have traditionally been associated with the expansion of study abroad experiences, the recruitment of international students and scholars, as well as area studies and language programs, the past decade has seen an increase in a variety of multi-disciplinary and curricular approaches to campus-wide internationalization such as “global citizenship” programs. Such programs aim to enhance students’ academic, professional, and personal development to help them better navigate a more globalized world.

Many schools approach global citizenship as something to be earned through completing a checklist of requirements, rather than a critically reflexive mind-set and skillset to be developed. Zemach-Bersin (2012) describes the nature of global citizenship programs in the U.S. context as a “license” that universities “give out” to students who study abroad (p. 95). Given the expansion of global citizenship programs in universities worldwide, it is crucial to understand how higher education institutions are promoting these programs and what exactly the credentialing (i.e., granting certificates, credits, and degrees) of “global citizens” entails. As the term continues to gain popularity in the field of international education both as a field of study (in which one can major in global citizenship) and an obtainable status (in which one can become a global citizen), it becomes increasingly important to understand the implications of university-promoted concepts such as global competency and global citizenship.

Drawing on a critical analysis of texts and illustrations, this article analyzes mission statements and curricula of global citizenship programs in a sample of universities. Our goal is to examine different ways of conceptualizing global citizenship and their implications for social justice and equity. We argue that global citizenship programs may replicate the existing power inequities but they also have the potential to transform students’ understanding of their own context, others’ contexts, and the power relations that continue to divide North and South, as well as developed and developing worlds.

Conceptualizing Global Citizenship: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The meanings of “global citizenship” in the education field have, thus far, been both fragmentary and heavily debated. Theoretically, they reflect the broader debates about the meanings and conceptualizations of globalization processes (see McGrew, 2000) and could be loosely organized around three dominant approaches, including a neoliberal approach, a radical/conflict approach, and a critical/transformationalist approach (Shultz, 2007). Although these approaches are highly interconnected, each of them offers “a distinct understanding of the role for the global citizen, as well as particular normative, existential, and aspirational claims regarding global citizenship” (Shultz, 2007, p. 249). Programmatically, these approaches are operationalized through a wide array of experiences and practices. They range from foreign language study and short-term international experiences to enhance students’ competitiveness in a global market, to practically applied programs where students are called upon to enact radical change in global institutions or to self-reflect on their own roles and contributions to the increasingly globalized world. A careful examination of what theoretical approach and a pedagogical intent global citizenship programs adopt would thus reveal what kind of “global citizens” higher education institutions aim to produce and what implications these approaches may have for social justice and equity.

Neoliberal, Radical, and Critical Approaches to Global Citizenship Programs

Most internationalization efforts in higher education institutions have centered on the goal of preparing students for the global economy, which is increasingly understood as knowledge-based and service-oriented (Rizvi, 2007). Increasingly, this approach has been reflected in the institutionalization of global citizen programs. In this context, the focus is on developing “global competencies” that would enable students to become internationally mobile and readily employable in a variety of cultural contexts. The assumption is that individuals should be able to move freely throughout the world, enjoying the rewards regardless of national or other boundaries (Shultz, 2007). For example, study abroad programs may serve as a gateway to the global marketplace because learning new languages, extending professional networks, and developing intercultural competence (such as adaptability and confidence) would therefore increase student competitiveness in a global marketplace. As Shultz summarizes, the neoliberal view of global citizenship is focused more on the drive “to increase transnational mobility of knowledge and skills” with the goal of linking global citizenship directly to global economic participation (p. 252). More broadly, the task of global citizenship within the neoliberal imaginary could extend from individual benefits to addressing the concerns of the nation-state in a global marketplace, whereby global citizenship programs are expected to “buttress America’s position of global power, advance economic interests and defend homeland security by producing a new generation of globally competent Americans” (Zemach-Bersin, 2012, p. 92). In both cases, economic benefits and competitiveness drive the demand for and interest in global citizenship programs.

Notwithstanding the role of global citizenship in increasingly economic competitiveness, recent research shows that it can potentially increase stratification between those who have the opportunity to participate in these programs and those who do not, reproducing asymmetrical power relations within the world community (Rizvi, 2007). In line with this critique, Andreotti (2006) describes that global citizenship programs may have the tendency to become “civilizing missions,” where students develop the perspective that they need to save the world (p. 41). Caruana (2014) also describes the notion of elite cosmopolitanism, identifying those who are only able to relate to transitory groups, unable to interact with groups in local and national contexts, describing them as “mov[ing] within self-enclosed enclaves and transnational networks” (p. 89). In other words, without awareness of power dynamics and unequal relationships, global citizenship education framed within the neoliberal perspective can perpetuate existing inequalities, while encouraging students to assume that “their position of privilege is a natural position and a sign of success” (Shultz, 2007, p. 252). The main critique of this approach is thus rooted in the taken-for-granted assumption that everybody has an equal chance to compete and succeed in a global knowledge economy.

Recognizing the existence of global power dynamics and inequalities, there have been efforts to expand the concept of global citizenship beyond merely a competitive and economic pursuit. This is reflected in a radical (or conflict) perspective of global citizenship, which is based on the analysis of global structures that serve to perpetuate global inequalities and deepen the North-South divide (Shultz, 2007). Rather than focusing on building economic relationships across the globe (as in the neoliberal approach), the role of the global citizen from a radical (conflict) perspective is to challenge the hegemony of economic globalization and build solidarity across marginalized groups to fight oppression. Viewed through the lens of social justice and human rights, global citizenship is thus understood as an active and proactive pursuit, with civic engagement constituting a central element of institutionalized programs, at both the global and local levels (Caruana, 2014; Sperandio, Grudzinski-Hall, & Stewart-Gambino, 2010; Stoner et al., 2014). Global citizenship programs conceptualized from this perspective commonly include such programs as international service learning or local volunteer service work. The critique of this approach is that global relations are narrowly dichotomized—global/rich/democratic (oppressor) versus local/poor/undemocratic (oppressed)—whereas the various experiences of oppression are far more complex. As Rizvi (2007) explains, students need to learn to see “our problems as inextricably linked to the problems of others,” which demands the development of skills and attitudes that would enable students “to imagine our collective futures, for humanity as a whole” (p. 399). In other words, understanding the complexity of the global power dynamics, as well as our own place in the global economic marketplace, is necessary to work toward the social justice agenda.

This is the goal of the transformationalist/critical global citizenship programs, which view globalization as more than a new form of imperialism or the only path to a single global market economy (Andreotti, 2006; Larsen, 2014; Shultz, 2007). In particular, critical global citizenship education considers the underlying problem to be one of “inequality and injustice,” stemming from a series of “complex structures, systems, assumptions, power relations and attitudes that create and maintain exploitation and enforced disempowerment and tend to eliminate difference” (Andreotti, 2006, p. 46). In particular, Roman (2003) exemplifies tackling these power relations by describing the importance of teaching students the need to understand not only whose voices are heard in various contexts, but also who is even allowed to speak and be heard, through coining the term “relational genealogist” (pp. 282-283). Within the framework of relational genealogists, educators and learners are taught not only about different cultural contexts, but also how power relations affect the development and voices heard within different contexts. A goal within this framework is to erode the conception of a binary North and South and further pushes for the recognition of Souths within the Norths and Norths within the Souths.

Importantly, the critical global citizenship approach acknowledges that there is a necessity to transform not only institutions and systems but also personal and cultural mind-sets (Andreotti, 2006). For example, Shultz (2007) emphasizes the importance of building relationships at the local and global levels as well as creating spaces for dialogue and change, to engage participants in action based on an understanding of their common humanity and shared concerns. Boni and Calabuig (2015) argue that it is necessary to provide opportunities for “reflexive learning process,” which allows students to become active and responsible through exposure to situations with people different from themselves (p. 6). Similarly, Larsen (2014) proposes a dual framework consisting of two main strings: awareness/analysis (including difference awareness, self-awareness, global awareness, and responsibility awareness) and engagement/action (including self-action, civic action, and social justice action). In other words, critical global citizenship has a clear focus on self-reflection, awareness, and action, which are all necessary for challenging, rather than perpetuating, global power structures. It is both a skillset and a mind-set.

The ability to understand one’s own presence and context, and in turn, interpret other’s context, demonstrates a critical development in an individual’s mind-set and is therefore difficult to institutionalize and measure compared with tangible skills, such as learning foreign languages and cultures, or developing communication skills. This leads us to the main goal of this study, which is to identify which approaches have become institutionalized in higher education degree programs (e.g., neoliberal, radical, or critical approaches), examine which approaches appear to be more dominant, and discuss the implications for social justice and equity.

Analyzing Global Citizenship: Methodology

The sample of higher education institutions selected for this study was identified based on the following criteria: (a) explicit use of the term global citizenship in the program title or mission statement, (b) credit or certificate bearing programs, (c) undergraduate-student focus, and (d) English-language curriculum. After performing a web-based search of universities and colleges that met all the above characteristics, we identified a pool of 24 institutions (Table 1) in five countries that offer global citizenship programs. The focus on English-speaking programs is obviously a limitation, which significantly confined the scope of the analysis. Yet, we believe that the study could be extended to include a more diverse sample at a later stage.

Table 1.

List of Universities Offering Global Citizenship Programs.

Country	University
Australia	Deakin University
Canada	Humber College, University of British Columbia-Vancouver, University of Alberta, University of Guelph, Wilfrid Laurier University
South Africa	University of Cape Town
United Kingdom	University College London
United States	Becker College, Chapman University, Drake University, Eastern Connecticut State University, Florida State University, Franklin Pierce University, Lehigh University, Mesa Community College, Stonehill College, University of Charleston, University of Missouri Honors College, University of North Carolina Wilmington, University of South Florida, Villanova University, Washington University, Webster University

We took an inductive analytical approach to data collection, paying specific attention to program descriptions, goals, and objectives; curriculum foci and content; and expected outcomes and measurement of global citizenship (i.e., credits, competencies, experiences). All data were collected online through accessing institutional websites. Data were analyzed using Fairclough’s (2013) approach to critical discourse analysis (CDA). This method of CDA operates on three dimensions. First, textual and visual elements are described by the researcher (micro-level or discourse as text). At this stage, we examined how global citizenship programs describe themselves through their web pages and in curricula. Second, the descriptions were then interpreted to make connections between language and greater social structures (meso-level or discourse as discursive practice). In particular, we examined what approaches to global citizenship were reflected in program mission statements and curricula and whether they also reinforce particular notions of globalization. Finally, we extended the analysis to the macro-level (discourse as social practice) to reveal the larger social issues through the analysis of the text as a framing tool.

To analyze the data, we conducted consensual qualitative research (CQR) analysis (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997) to meet standards of “rigor of scientific inquiry” and increase interrater reliability (p. 519). The research team consisted of five graduate students and one faculty member from the Lehigh University College of Education. All the data were first reviewed and broken down into broad themes or “domains” by the student coders. Next, each response was labeled and placed into its relevant domains. Each of the aspects of the data that reflect a larger domain was then identified and defined to create “core ideas” within each theme. Finally, the core ideas within each theme were be reevaluated and compared to identify patterns. Upon completing each of these steps, the results were reviewed by the faculty auditor, and any discrepancies were reevaluated until consensus was reached. The CQR method allowed us to explain how domains interact and fit together, while taking steps to ensure results were reliable and consistent. As a result of the CQR process, the following core themes were identified: (a) international travel, (b) language proficiency, (c) engagement and service learning, and (d) learning outcomes and curriculum content.

Institutionalizing Global Citizenship: Data Analysis and Findings

Of the 24 universities in the analysis, more than half of the institutions were public (14), while the rest were private (10). The programs varied significantly among these institutions as to where these programs were housed at the university. One fourth of all programs (six) was housed in a department specifically dedicated to global citizenship. This illustrates that global citizenship is a growing field, which may be developing into an academic discipline. Other programs were dispersed in the Arts and Sciences (three), International Offices (two), Honors Colleges (two), and Education Colleges (two), while the rest of the programs were dispersed in other areas of the university: Humanities, Undergraduate office, Seminary, School of Business, Cultural Science, Global Studies office, Academic and Student Affairs, Centre for Open Learning, and College for Applied and Human Services.

Although the majority (19; 79.2%) of the programs require more than one academic year to accomplish the goal of becoming certified as a global citizen, the time to completion and coursework requirements varied significantly. Some global citizenship programs entailed a cumulative curriculum over the four years, while a small number (two) lasted only one semester or less. All programs offered a form of recognition (credits toward degree, certificate, or awards) on completion of the program and only four programs provided bachelor degrees in global citizenship. The majority (16; 66.7%) of institutions granted certificates to supplement academic degrees in other fields.

From the data collected, four common characteristics emerged across the various global citizenship programs, including requirements for international travel, language proficiency, engagement/service learning, and curriculum content area(s).

International Travel

We analyzed each program’s curriculum to see if there was a requirement to study abroad or travel to another country for service learning, research, or internship and whether the required travel was long-term (a semester or year or short-term; 1-12 weeks). Of the 24 institutions examined, only six (25%) required international travel to complete the global citizenship program. As one of the institutions, Lehigh University, noted, “Travel is the distinctive element . . . [it] will take students to destinations where they experience the challenge of negotiating otherness and will confront them with the human face of globalization” (n.d., “Travel” section, para. 1). As this quote points out, often international travel is framed in a comparative fashion, highlighting the “otherness” of the foreign culture against the familiarity of the student’s home culture. The importance of the “global,” even in the absence of a travel requirement, reflects the belief embedded in both radical and critical global citizenship theories that global citizenship skills cannot develop solely in a classroom setting, but need to be practiced and challenged in a “real-world” setting. Furthermore, research suggests neither academic content nor international travel alone would lead to the development of global citizenship; rather, it is a thoughtful integration of both elements that can make a difference. As Tarrant, Rubin, and Stoner (2014) find,

. . . study abroad alone is not optimal for nurturing a global citizenry but it has the potential to do so when the academic content and pedagogical delivery is offered in a synergistic fashion (see also Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002). (p. 155)

Although 18 institutions (75%) did not require international travel, most universities actively encouraged having an international experience. Logistical factors such as academic and financial restrictions may factor into the lack of mandatory travel. In this case, a requirement versus an option could be viewed as prohibitive for students with strict academic schedules or limited financial resources, creating a recruitment challenge for the programs and narrowing the possibilities of who can become a “global citizen.” By making study abroad optional, the programs can circumnavigate this problem but may, in the process, create a space for those inequalities to thrive, allowing some (arguably more affluent students) to have experiences that other (less privileged) students may not able to have. Therefore, it is important to investigate what subsidies or financial packages higher education institutions offer to high-need students for study abroad, what alternatives exist for students with rigid academic requirements, and whether institutions with a required travel component include a pedagogical and self-reflective framework that increases the likelihood of developing global citizenship skills (Caruana, 2014; Stoner et al., 2014; Tarrant et al., 2014).

Language Proficiency

A review of the global citizenship programs in terms of the requirement of learning (or speaking) another language besides English showed that foreign language proficiency was optional for the majority of institutions. Of the 24 institutions examined, 17 (71%) did not require the study of a foreign language, although many recommended it. While seven (29%) institutions did have language requirements, most of them did so superficially, either counting what was already required for earning a BA degree toward the global citizenship requirement or grouping language study into the broader idea of “communication.” For example, Eastern Connecticut State University only requires language if students choose a foreign language as their concentration, while University College London (UCL, 2015) provides “taster lessons in one of six Danubian languages” (“UCL Grand Challenges Courses” section, para. 5). None of the programs explicitly talked about the importance of knowing more than one language or discussed it as essential to being a global citizen.

Some of the programs that required language proficiency highly emphasized the benefits of global citizenship in regard to employability upon completion of the program. University of Charleston (2015), for example, states that “graduates from this program will have greater opportunities in international business and other careers with an international component” (“Careers and Beyond” section, para. 1). The focus on foreign language learning as a skill individuals can gain to become more competitive in the global marketplace frames global citizenship as both a personal and economic pursuit, aligning with Shultz’s (2007) neoliberal global citizen.

The dominance of English could be partially explained by the powerful role higher education institutions in Anglophone countries have played in university internationalization efforts, as well as the adoption of English as the lingua franca in fields such as the sciences, international business, and international education (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Wilkins & Urbanovič, 2014). However, the hegemony of English language can also have adverse consequences such as restricting communication among different linguistic groups (Bennett, Volet, & Fozdar, 2013), increasing economic disparities globally, and contributing to the extinction of other languages (see Mohta, 2015; Pattanayak, 1996; Phillipson, 1992). In fact, the hegemony of English is often discussed in terms of “cultural imperialism” that is “a form of soft imperialism which imposes ‘Western’ ways of thinking, doing, and acting” on other cultures (Marginson, 1999, p. 19; see also Phillipson, 1992). In this context, it can be argued that knowledge of more than one language is an important aspect of global citizenship, especially the critical/transformational global citizenship, which enables the creation of spaces for dialogue and multicultural practice despite linguistic boundaries.

These results pose several questions that warrant further exploration. For example, would a mandatory language requirement limit who can become a global citizen given students’ academic capacity and limited flexibility of their academic schedules? Would the results for language proficiency look the same if we included non-Anglophone universities in our sample? If language is only under-emphasized in Anglophone universities, does that imply that English is perceived—either implicitly or explicitly—as the de-facto language of global citizenship? Finally, if English is the de-facto language of global citizenship, does this linguistic superiority further stratify international inequalities, strengthening the divide between the Global North and South, East and West?

Engagement and Service Learning

Overall, 17 (71%) of the programs list a dual-focus on both global and local engagement, two (8%) focus on global engagement only, and five (21%) do not mention a requirement for any engagement. The overwhelming focus on both global and local engagement shows that global citizenship is an active pursuit, not a purely academic or theoretical endeavor. According to the University of Alberta’s (2015) website, “[global citizenship education] involves linking local and global issues and perspectives and may include such topics as human rights, social justice, and citizenship education, sustainable development, and globalization” (“Position Statement” section, para. 4). The most common form of engagement was service-learning. A majority (16, 67%) of programs list service-learning as an optional component, and eight (33%) list it as required. Within those that have listed service-learning as optional, several use service-learning interchangeably with international travel/study abroad experiences, each fulfilling the same certification requirement. This underscores the earlier discussion on the subjectivity of global citizenship. It is important to recognize, however, that several institutions promote international service-learning as part of the global citizenship programs and therefore give equal weight to both the global education and citizenship education that, when combined, form the foundations for global citizenship programming. Mesa Community College (2015) says of their engagement activities as follows:

Through a combination of coursework and experiential learning, students will develop skills in critical thinking, inquiry, and discourse while becoming more informed, socially responsible, and engaged citizens in their communities, country, and world. (“Global Citizenship” section, para. 2, emphasis added)

Similarly, the University of Missouri Honors College (2015) states,

A global citizen possesses a sense of her own role as a citizen of the world. She respects diversity, demonstrates a keen understanding of global issues, participates in both local and global communities, and feels a moral responsibility to understand and help improve the lives of those around the world. (“Global Citizenship” section, para. 1, emphasis added)

However, the nature of service-learning and engagement activities requires closer examination. Certain types of engagement, for instance, may carry the potential to replicate social inequalities and promote, rather than dispel, damaging stereotypes. This becomes especially concerning considering the growing popularity of university-level global citizenship programs in “developed” Western countries. These programs stereotypically see highly educated, economically stable, predominantly Caucasian individuals attempting to “save the world” by offering their services to “helpless” children in less developed Third World countries. Although not systematically analyzed, many of the images publicized on the websites of universities we examined supported this “save the world” stereotype. Arguably, this aligns more with the neoliberal global citizenship approach and the “civilizing mission” that Andreotti (2006, p. 41) warns against. The transformationalist/critical global citizenship approach recognizes that not all service learning and international experiences are created equal, so it is important to understand which types of engagement prove to be the most transformational for students rather than replicating or strengthening power dynamics.

In addition, our analysis demonstrated that 21% of the programs had no requirement for local or global engagement, a necessary component of action to challenge global power structures. While this finding may reflect the programs’ philosophy to develop individuals who are capable of understanding the global context, which can be arguably learned without active engagement, an understanding alone would not be enough from a critical/transformationalist perspective. As Dei (2008) argues, the strength of global citizenship programs lie in their “inherent foundation to facilitate learning through collective and community action” (p. 489). In other words, the critical/transformationalist global citizenship approach (Andreotti, 2006; Larsen, 2014) requires students to not only understand but also reflect on their own context and culture, question the their own positions in the world in relation to others, and act to address myriad oppressions in a society.

Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Content

We then examined what educational benefits and/or outcomes were being advertised by the program to the participants. We found six areas of learning outcomes, the most common being self-reflection (18; 75%), which mentioned the importance for students to take time to think about their place in the world and their role as global citizens. The second most frequently mentioned learning outcome was social responsibility (16; 67%). Programs emphasizing social responsibility outcomes included topics of striving for world peace, ethical/conscious living, and engagement in globally interdependent issues. Programs focusing on employability as the learning outcome (14; 58%) emphasized that participation in the program would give their students the edge when they compete with other entrants into the job market because employers are increasingly calling for globally competent employees. Programs emphasizing leadership (9; 38%) expected their students to take an active role in globally focused projects and activities. Problem solving (8; 33%) was mentioned by several programs, which included projects with unanticipated challenges that students must complete to meet the needs of a certain community. Finally, entrepreneurship-oriented programs (2; 8%) discussed the importance of divergent thinking for new ideas and processes.

When considering the meaning of the various learning outcomes of global citizenship programs, it is important to understand the nature and focus of these outcomes, such as hard versus soft skill development and internal versus external manifestations. This divide is evident in the data, where 18 of 24 (75%) programs emphasize self-reflection and 16 (67%) focus on social responsibility. While both are soft skills, self-reflection is internally geared while social responsibility is necessarily concerned with the well-being of others (externally geared). Several programs promote both of these learning outcomes, indicating that they are not mutually exclusive, but rather symbiotic. Critical self-reflection is essential to the successful pursuit of social responsibility and vice versa. Arguably, both are required for students to develop a global citizenship mind-set and skillset. For example, Eastern Connecticut State University (n.d.) intertwines both responsibility and reflection, in stating,

As students take in the complexity of the global culture, they begin to fully understand their roles and responsibilities as global citizens, and critically reflect on the profound interdependencies between their community, their country and the rest of the world. (p. 2, emphasis added)

Furthermore, Lehigh University (n.d.) states,

The Global Citizenship program prepares students for engaged living in a culturally diverse and rapidly changing world. Emphasizing critical analysis and value reflection, the program structures educational experiences through which students learn to negotiate international boundaries and develop their own sense of personal, social, and corporate responsibility to the global community. (Mission Statement, para. 1, emphasis added)

Although employability is not the most common learning outcome across all universities in the study, 14 (58%) still had a marketed emphasis on students’ competitiveness in the global marketplace upon completion of their respective global citizenship program. This could be due to the hook that employability provides in attracting students to take part in programs, considering the high rate of unemployment and instability of available jobs in the U.S. and wider Anglophone context. For example, Deakin University in Australia (2015) writes,

In an increasingly globalised world, today’s employers and businesses are looking for people with global experiences. When you finish your Deakin studies, you will want to show that you are globally aware, culturally sensitive, and able to live and work independently. (Global Citizenship Program, para. 2, emphasis added)

When examining the curriculum content, the most common area was social justice/human rights (15; 63%), which was defined as coursework that included ideas about economic, political, and social rights and opportunities for all people. The second most common area was business/economics (14; 58%), defined as coursework that had a business, market, or economic focus. The remaining three content areas—sustainable development, politics/international relations, and area studies—were all equally present among the programs in this research, at 54% of programs. Sustainable development was defined as coursework that included the topics of sustainability and environmental concerns and practices. Area Studies included the study of specific regions of the world as well as language courses. Finally, politics/international relations included the study of governance and relationships between countries. In considering students’ career choice after university, it is important to recognize that many of these global citizenship programs are designed to complement and supplement students’ major areas of study. Students skills gained from these programs are designed to be applied in a wide range of professional settings. Franklin Pierce University (2015) states that students will develop

a global perspective that will serve you well in your personal and professional life no matter what career you choose. (“Global Citizenship Program” section, para. 2, emphasis added)

Although the diversity of content areas addressed by global citizenship programs may reflect the ambiguity of global citizenship discourse (Trede, Bowles, & Bridges, 2013), it is also a reminder there is no single interpretation or recipe of what constitutes “global citizenship.” Across the university sample, there is neither common nor formulaic curriculum for global citizenship and, most likely, the learning outcomes (as well as curriculum content) are crafted according to the needs and strengths of the university and its stakeholders. Perhaps if the learning outcomes and curriculum content were too concretely defined, it would then further limit who can participate in the program and designate certain content areas as more applicable for global citizenship than others. Importantly, however, most global citizenship programs conceptualize global citizenship as both a skillset and mind-set, focusing on social justice issues and critically questioning global power dynamics. Furthermore, self-reflection and social responsibility are commonly identified as important learning outcomes, thus, demonstrating promising advancements in curriculum efforts also noted in previous research (Andreotti, 2006; Larsen, 2014).

Table 2.

Program Overview (N = 24).

	% (n)
Award type
Certificate	66.7 (16)
Degree (bachelor’s)	16.7 (4)
Other/award	16.7 (4)
Program duration
More than one academic year	79.2 (19)
One year	4.2 (1)
Semester or less	8.3 (2)
Not specified	8.3 (2)
Program location
Own department (Global citizenship)	25 (6)
Arts and Science	12.5 (3)
International office	8.3 (2)
Honors college	8.3 (2)
Education	8.3 (2)
Other	37.5 (9)

Conclusion

The findings of the study demonstrate the wide range of definitions of global citizenship, the different paths toward achieving this recognition, and various motivations for pursuing these types of programs. Yet, common to all the programs was the notion that global citizenship is not only something that could be learned but also something that has to be earned. While earning a global citizenship certificate or degree can be valuable, it may also be problematic. Credentialing of global citizenship can overshadow the actual transformation that should take place within those individuals who participate in the programs and undermine the goal of critical engagement and action. Furthermore, credentialing has the potential to stratify those who are enabled to call themselves a global citizen based on the “award” of the degree or certificate rather than practicing a particular skillset and mind-set. Similarly, the variation in the program length—from less than a semester to 4 years—raises a question whether short-term programs lasting under 16 weeks allow enough time for students to develop the mind-set representative of a transformational/critical global citizen. These short-term programs may focus only on the skillset, leading to the institutionalization of the neoliberal global citizen approach. With regard to the curriculum content and learning outcomes analysis, the most common content areas and learning outcomes were social justice/human rights and self-reflection. Even though the programs we analyzed have the potential to perpetuate global inequalities, there appears to be a focus on these two very important content areas and learning outcomes needed to acknowledge the unequal global power dynamics, reflect on students’ own place in the global world, and ultimately address social injustice.

Due to the fact that our data were based on only publicized web pages and materials, we were limited in the depth and scope of our data collection, which resulted in an over representation of U.S. universities. Further research is needed to diversify the sample, as well as to examine the long-term and contextual impact of global citizenship programs on students, including culturally/linguistically diverse, comparative, and longitudinal studies. Future studies can build upon this preliminary research to provide further insight into the institutionalization of global citizenship in university settings, while also investigating the implications of these programs for social justice and equity.

Universities have the liberty to structure global citizenship programs to fit their academic strengths, existing resources, and vision for institutional advancement. This research revealed that programs often include components of service learning, international internships, study abroad or volunteer experiences, in addition to academic curriculum. Theoretically, both the radical and critical global citizenship approaches require active engagement. In particular, acting critically is an important component of the critical/transformationalist global citizenship approach as it enables students to question global power structures influencing both local and global communities, while opening opportunities for students to reflect on their own place in the world. As global citizenship programs continue to be developed in higher education institutions, it is imperative that these complex considerations are taken into account.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the support of their colleagues Jodeen Gemmel, Dana Raber, and Sarah Spiegel.

Authors’ Note

The authors are listed in alphabetic order and contributed equally to the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Fatih Aktas is currently a doctoral candidate in the Comparative and International Education program at Lehigh University. He also obtained his master’s degree in the same program as a Fulbright scholar from Turkey.

Kate Pitts completed her M.Ed in Comparative and International Education at Lehigh University in January, 2016. She currently resides in Pennsylvania and works as a University and Student Relations Manager for Study Abroad Italy.

Jessica C. Richards obtained her Bachelors degree in 2012 from Jacobs University Bremen in Germany. She is currently a Masters Candidate at Lehigh University in the Comparative and International Education Program, with an interest in global student mobility.

Iveta Silova is professor and director of the Center for the Advanced Studies in Global Education at Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University.

References

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.

Andreotti

(2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice—A Development Education Review, 3, 40-51.

Bennett

R. J.

Volet

S. E.

Fozdar

F. E.

(2013). “I’d say it’s kind of unique in a way”: The development of an intercultural student relationship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17, 533-553.

Boni

Calabuig

(2015). Education for global citizenship at universities: Potentialities of formal and informal learning spaces to foster cosmopolitanism. Journal of Studies in International Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1028315315602926.

Caruana

(2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanism, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, 68, 85-104.

Deakin University. (2015). Global citizen program. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/global-study-opportunities/global-citizenship-program

Dei

(2008). Antiracism education for global citizenship. In Peters

M. A.

Britton

Blee

(Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory, and pedagogy (pp. 477-490). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Eastern Connecticut State University. (n.d.). Global citizenship [PDF document]. Retrieved from www1.easternct.edu/internationalstudyabroad/files/2014/08/GCPBrochure10noflipLo.pdf

Fairclough

(2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Franklin Pierce University. (2015). Global citizenship certificate. Retrieved from http://www.franklinpierce.edu/academics/ugrad/programs_of_study/humanities/global_citizenship/

11.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 517-572.

12.

Larsen

(2014). Critical global citizenship and international service learning: A case study of the intensification effect. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4, 23-64.

13.

Lehigh University. (n.d.). Global citizenship: Welcome cohort x. Retrieved from http://www.lehigh.edu/~ingc/

14.

Lutterman-Aguilar

Gingerich

(2002). Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 41-82.

15.

Marginson

(1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of Education Policy, 14, 19-31.

16.

McGrew

(2000). Sustainable globalization? The global politics of development and exclusion in the new world order. In Allen

Thomas

(Eds.), Poverty and development into the 21st century (pp. 345-364). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

17.

Mesa Community College. (2015). Global citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.mesacc.edu/departments/cultural-science/global-citizenship

18.

Mohta

(2015). Race, empire, and English language teaching: Creating responsible and ethical anti-racist practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

19.

Pattanayak

D. P.

(1996). Chance, language and the developing world. In Coleman

Cameron

(Eds.), Change and language (pp. 145-152). Clevedon, UK: BAAL/Multilingual Matters.

20.

Phillipson

(1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

21.

Rizvi

(2007). Internationalization of curriculum: A critical perspective. In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(Eds.), Research in international education (pp. 391-403). London, England: Sage.

22.

Roman

(2003). Education and the contested meanings of “global citizenship.” Journal of Educational Change, 4, 269-293.

23.

Shultz

(2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53, 248-258.

24.

Sperandio

Grudzinski-Hall

Stewart-Gambino

(2010). Developing an undergraduate global citizenship program: Challenges of definition and assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 12-22.

25.

Stoner

Tarrant

Perry

Stoner

Wearing

Lyons

(2014). Global citizenship as a learning outcome of educational travel. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 14, 149-163.

26.

Tarrant

M. A.

Rubin

D. L.

Stoner

(2014). The added value of study abroad: Fostering a global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 141-161.

27.

Trede

Bowles

Bridges

(2013). Developing intercultural competence and global citizenship through international experiences: Academics perceptions. Intercultural Education, 24, 442-455.

28.

University College London. (2015). UCL global citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-citizenship/programme/grand-challenges

29.

University of Alberta. (2015). Global citizenship curriculum development. Retrieved from http://www.gccd.ualberta.ca/AboutGCCD/PositionStatement.aspx

30.

University of Charleston. (2015). Global citizenship certificate. Retrieved from http://archive.ucwv.edu/majors/global_citizenship_certificate/careers.aspx

31.

University of Missouri Honors College. (2015, February). Global citizenship. Retrieved from http://honors.missouri.edu/global/

32.

Wilkins

Urbanovič

(2014). English as the lingua franca in transnational higher education: Motives and prospects of institutions that teach in languages other than English. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 405-425.

33.

Zemach-Bersin

(2012). Entitled to the world: The rhetoric of U.S. global citizenship education and study abroad. In Andreotti

Souza

L. M.

(Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 87-104). New York, NY: Routledge.