The legitimacy of development nongovernmental organizations as global citizenship education providers in Korea

Abstract

In an era of globalization, social demands for fostering global citizenship are increasing. Global citizens are those who have a critical understanding of interconnectedness, share values of responsibility, have respect for differences, and commit themselves to action. Global citizenship education has recently emerged as a prominent issue in Korea, a nation faced with the inflow of immigrants and international pushing for global citizenship education such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Development nongovernmental organizations have taken up the role of delivering global citizenship education. It is necessary to examine how development nongovernmental organizations’ pedagogic legitimacy has been constructed and exercised in the context of Korea. This article critically discusses development nongovernmental organizations’ roles in global citizenship education and suggests some improvements in the areas of ‘effectiveness and expertise, contextualization, and greater attention to human rights and action for social justice’ to be an alternative to the state-led global citizenship education, which is characterized as assimilation model and ‘us and them’ rhetoric.

Keywords

development education development nongovernmental organization global citizen global citizenship education legitimacy

Introduction

The education sector has responded to social changes created by globalization. Incorporation of the global dimension into education has aimed to educate students to get ready for the global workforce or for new waves of immigrant groups (Goren and Yemini, 2017). The Korean education system is experiencing a shift of focus from the former to the latter on the verge of demographic challenges.

Korea regards itself as a monoethnic society. The monoethnic society has been associated with positive images in Korea, similar to Japan (Banks, 2004). Korean people have lived in the ideology of ‘nationalism’ instead of ‘cosmopolitanism’ (Moon, 2010). However, the growing number of immigrants to Korea proves that the country is not a single-ethnic and homogeneous country any more. In response to such a demographic change, the Korean government revised its nationality law in 1997 and announced the ‘Grand Plan’, which included the principle of raising awareness about cultural diversity (Lee, 2008: 116). The Ministry of Justice introduced the Korea Immigration and Integration Program (KIIP) in 2009, which was designed to support their initial adjustment with a focus on the knowledge of Korean culture and language (Korea Immigration Service, 2016). The Korean government is trying to make KIIP mandatory for all permanent and temporary immigrants. This program aims to make immigrants fit into Korean society, described as ‘a transformation of immigrants into normal citizens of South Korea’ (Kim, 2016: 11). Korean laws and policies have been criticized as ‘one-sided assimilation’ (Corks, 2017). Likewise, state-led education has been based on the notion of assimilation and nationalism as seen in the catchphrase ‘one blood, one culture, and one nation’ (Moon, 2010: 6).

As a counter to such immigrant-targeted and deficit-oriented education for assimilation, Global Citizenship Education (GCE) has arisen out of a debate of how to prepare all citizens to live in a multicultural society and an interconnected world, where diversity and equality are appreciated. As Habermas (2001: 55) argues, ‘transformed consciousness of citizens’ is essential for being prepared for challenges that occur beyond the nation-state territory. Therefore, GCE has been introduced into the formal curriculum in some countries. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) legislated the National Curriculum which incorporated global dimensions by enacting the Education Reform Act in 1988 (Davies et al., 2005).

Unlike the UK, which has dealt with ‘others’ for a relatively long time (Bebbington et al., 2008: 302), Korea has no formal curriculum for multicultural awareness and global citizenship. Discussions about GCE have increased in recent years in South Korea. A systematic review of 255 GCE studies published in South Korea between 1995 and 2016 reveals that the amount of research has rapidly increased since 2010 (Park and Cho, 2016). Early studies on GCE programs in the context of South Korea sought to establish the rationale for GCE based on survey results showing Korean students’ prejudice against foreigners and the examination of global trends in education (Im, 2003; No, 2003). More recent studies have identified demographic change and the rising demands from the international community as underpinning reasons for the increased attention on GCE (Moon, 2010; Pak, 2013).

In Korea, nongovernmental organizations involved in international development and humanitarian aid (development NGOs hereinafter) have taken the role of delivering GCE. Development NGOs insist their expertise in and legitimacy of providing GCE. NGOs’ involvement in GCE has been suggested by some Korean scholars as a way of refining the state model (Moon, 2010; Yoon, 2008). Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also confirmed that GCE is the common goal between the state and NGOs. However, little has been researched about the legitimacy of NGOs as GCE deliverers. Bourdieu and Passeron (1990: 5, 31) argue that education functions to ‘produce and reproduce arbitrary principles’ generated by an ‘arbitrary power’. Therefore, it is important to examine how development NGOs gain and exercise pedagogic legitimacy of GCE.

This article thereby explores if Korean development NGOs are legitimate providers of GCE. The legitimacy analysis will lead to discussions about what is needed to improve development NGOs’ GCE in the context of Korea.

GCE and NGOs’ roles in literature

Key concepts of GCE

GCE has evolved through the integration of diverse agendas and through promotion in varied education settings. It is possible to discern varied names for education which has a global dimension. The names usually specify its focus as seen in ‘development education’ (recently ‘education for sustainable development’), ‘human rights education’, ‘peace education’, and ‘multicultural education’. This article suggests GCE as an umbrella term. Although GCE is still loosely defined and ambiguous (Rapoport, 2010), it encompasses diverse issues such as human rights, peace, social justice, non-discrimination, diversity, and sustainable development (Kim, 2017). Scholars have tried to draw a distinction between GCE and other types of global education. For example, Banks (2004) suggests that GCE is the highest level of multiculturalism and Arshad-Ayaz (2011) argues that GCE should be differentiated from multicultural education which has a narrow focus on only the cultural dimension, with no consideration for social justice and tensions. With regard to differences, education for sustainable development tends to be centered around environmental issues and has been considered as less critical than GCE (Chung and Park, 2016). Compared with human rights education, GCE appears to be apolitical with a focus on citizens’ responsibility (Daniels, 2018).

Even when GCE incorporates diverse concepts, a central question is around who a global citizen is. An earlier attempt to define ‘global citizen’ was made by Korten (1990) as follows:

‘The distinctive quality of the responsible global citizen is found in a commitment to integrative values and to the active application of a critical consciousness: the ability to think independently, critically and constructively, to view problems within their long-term context, and to make judgments based on a commitment to longer-term societal interests’ (p. 107).

Heater (1996) suggests four characteristics of a global citizen: (a) belief in community of mankind, (b) environmental entitlements and obligations, (c) acceptance of moral laws, and (d) contribution toward world government. More recently, Pike (2008) suggests six features from a critical viewpoint: (a) multiple identities and loyalties, (b) critical understanding of both nationalism and globalism, (c) development of global thinking, (d) understanding citizenship as doing, not just being or knowing, (e) acceptance of the moral responsibilities, and (f) understanding citizens’ roles for the health of the planet.

In many countries, GCE has also been implemented by the state as an extension of existing ‘citizenship education’ and ‘civic education’ (Davies, 2006; Davies et al., 2005; Haddad and Wang, 2015). Citizenship education basically involves societal understanding of inclusion and exclusion (Marshall, 2009). Banks (2004: 291) suggests that citizenship education should balance ‘unity and diversity’, which is possible to achieve when democratic values such as justice and equality are cherished (Gutmann, 1999). Civic education is also centered around liberal democracy. Kennedy (2012)’s analysis of civic education curriculum collected from 36 countries identifies that the focus is given to the national legal system despite the necessity for a more global perspective. Compared with nationally bounded civic and citizenship education (Haddad and Wang, 2015), GCE expands the boundary beyond the state.

The international recognition of GCE can be found in the 44th UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Education) Conference in 1995. GCE is defined as education for ensuring peace, human rights, democracy, and sustainable and equitable economic and social development (UNESCO, 1995: 8, 10). Key components of the GCE curriculum are commonly suggested as follows: knowledge and understanding (international issues, interconnectedness, reflection, and awareness), values and attitudes (sense of solidarity, shared responsibility, and respect for differences), skills (political literacy and critical analysis), and actions (active interests in international affairs, commitment to justice, and practice for solving problems) (Davies, 2006: 11; Merrifield, 2002: 30–32; Osler and Vincent, 2002: 124–125; Parekh, 2003: 12–14).

Existing studies identify several types of GCEs with different focuses. Dill (2013) upholds that GCE can take an approach with a focus on either global competencies or global consciousness. Veugelers (2011) suggests three categories of global citizenship: open, moral, and sociopolitical. Each category emphasizes openness, humanity and global responsibility, and equal relations, respectively. Although diversity of GCE programs is noted, its lack of citizen engagement in action has been commonly criticized, given that action is one of the key components of GCE (McCloskey, 2016). GCE could build cosmopolitan solidarity but failed to challenge transnational inequality (Nash, 2008). Therefore, some criticize GCE as depoliticization of development education (McCloskey, 2016; Pérez-Expósito, 2015).

State-run and NGO-run GCE

State-led GCE implies that the state bestows an importance of cultivating global citizens. State-run GCE has strength in higher geographic and demographic coverage than GCE delivered by non-state actors. However, one of the problems involved in state-run GCE is the possibility of indoctrination (Biesta, 2011). Education should be distinguished from indoctrination, which means ‘teaching to accept a system of thought uncritically’, but education often unwittingly molds school children in a specific way (Hocutt, 2005), as observed in Western societies (Blanchette, 2010; Davies, 2011; Hendricks and Howerton, 2011). Gaventa (2002) states that state-run GCE has a limited concept of citizenship since it was generated by a liberal approach as a set of rights and responsibilities defined only by the relationship with the state. GCE in formal education is also missing social justice framework and action-oriented perspective, both of which are necessary to improve political literacy (Bourke et al., 2012; Davies et al., 2005). Political literacy refers to an ability to ‘think critically about what socio-cultural, economic and international politics that generate multicultural society’ (Moon, 2010: 10). A systematic review of empirical studies also reveals that school teachers are reluctant to talk about sensitive and political issues (Goren and Yemini, 2017). Another empirical study suggests shifting the priority of GCE ‘from the formal curriculum to the transformation of school practice’ to promote students’ participation and political ability (Pérez-Expósito, 2015: 251).

In the case of the UK, the National Curriculum was criticized as a ‘safe and non-political alternative to political education’ (Oliver and Heather, 1994: 163–164). Later, the concept of global citizenship was introduced to primary schools in 2000 and to secondary schools in 2002 as a part of the National Curriculum (Demaine, 2002). However, Osler and Starkey (2005: 92) argue that the objective of the UK government is still confined to making students competitive and effective in a globalized system. In addition, Demaine (2002) locates the reason for the ineffectiveness of GCE in the lack of competence and skills of school teachers. Schools in the UK started working with development NGOs including Oxfam, which provided schools with support in terms of resources and curriculum (Marshall, 2009). Likewise, in Europe, Development Education and Awareness Raising (DEAR) programs have been implemented by CONCORD (The European Confederation of Relief and Development NGOs; Lappalainen, 2015).

Development NGOs have been suggested as appropriate providers of GCE. Osler and Vincent (2002) maintain that NGOs can play the most effective role for GCE. This is because NGOs themselves are a part of globalization by linking supporters in developed countries to the needy in developing countries as non-territorial organizations (Desforges, 2004). NGOs have provided development education shaping public awareness on global developmental issues and building public support for foreign aid (Lappalainen, 2015). In addition, development NGOs’ strengths to implement GCE can be found in their value-orientation and vitality. Habermas (2001) presents NGOs as an important actor to institutionalize innovative values. Many NGOs have worked for realizing values such as sustainable development, human dignity, and good governance, which resonate with key elements of GCE as mentioned earlier. In terms of implementation, NGOs are presumed as cost-effective, innovative, and flexible (Dichter, 1999). These traits have legitimated NGOs to involve in GCE.

Expansion of NGOs’ roles in GCE delivery has been also led by internal demands of development NGOs themselves. In developed countries, domestic issues have been relatively neglected by development NGOs as they have focused on service delivery in developing countries (Desforges, 2004). Development NGOs realized the importance of cultivating pro-development culture in a home country. This helps to have knowledgeable and proactive supporters, which in turn can lead to sustainable fund. Furthermore, GCE program can help to be differentiated from other NGOs in a competitive market by improving their brand image. Such NGOs’ motivation for GCE has been criticized as self-serving (Drabek, 1987). In fact, many NGOs suggest donations to them as a way of practicing GCE (McCloskey, 2016). For example, NGOs often associate the concept ‘global citizen’ with child sponsorship, which is an effective fundraising strategy based on a personalized relationship (Fowler, 1992; McGrath, 1997). Child sponsorship sells the image of caring and responsible global citizens.

To summarize, according to Davies’ framework, GCE implemented by the state is suggested as an extension of existing ‘citizenship education’ (Davies, 2006; Davies et al., 2005), while NGOs’ GCE has focused typically on ‘global education’. How ‘global education’ is conceptualized and implemented by a given NGO determines the focus and content of their GCE programs. The identified strengths and weakness of state-run and NGO-run GCE programs are suggested as below.

	State-run GCEs	NGO-run GCEs
Key features	• Citizenship education • Focus on global competitiveness	• Global education • Focus on global consciousness
Strengths	• Nationwide promotion of GCE	• Promotion of universal values • Cost-effective and innovative implementation
Weaknesses	• The possibility of indoctrination • Lack of action and social justice perspective	• Fundraising-driven motivation

Methods

This study focuses on Korean development NGOs’ presentation of their GCE as obtained through NGO documents including reports, web page, and newsletter. Documents offer easy accessibility and low reactivity (Richards, 2009). They are seen as not neutral, but constructed according to the intention. Documents published by an organization usually function to show their distinctiveness from others, and further to promote particular views and activities (Morphew and Hartley, 2006; Prior, 2003). In other words, documents are appropriate for showing how GCE is presented by the NGOs. Acknowledging the limitations of using only NGO documents and the differences between what are stated and what are implemented in reality, collected data were analyzed using content analysis techniques. Content analysis is valuable for studying artifacts with a focus on how, why, and what is communicated (Abbott and McKinney, 2013). Patterns were searched at both manifest and latent levels (Abbott and McKinney, 2013; Boyatzis, 1998).

The context for this study

The aim of this study is to examine Korean development NGOs’ legitimacy as a key player of GCE. This section provides discussion of the context of Korea and Korean development NGOs in relation to GCE.

Why GCE in Korea?

The Korean government faces the necessity for embracing the components of GCE due to the demographic change and the international move.

First, Korea has a rapidly increasing number of foreign residents. According to the Korea National Statistical Office, the registered number of foreigners jumped to 2,049,441 (3.9% of the total population) in 2017, a drastic change in comparison to 206,895 (0.4%) in 1999. The increased heterogeneity is mainly explained by a significant increase in migrant workers and marriage migrants who married Korean nationals. Korea is now one of the major destinations for migrant laborers, who are filling the labor shortage caused by population aging and a low birth late¹ (Korea National Statistical Office, 2015). Marriage migrants increased sixfold from 25,182 in 2001 to 152,374 in 2015, and 72% of marriage migrants are women largely from Vietnam and China (Korea National Statistical Office, 2017). Children of international marriages are correspondingly challenging the traditional concept of ‘nationality’.

Despite such demographic change, Korea’s short history of living with others and prevalent nationalism can result in discrimination against foreign residents. Identified issues include discrimination against female marriage migrants and their children (Chung and Lim, 2016), limited access to the labor market for immigrant women (Yang, 2017), and mandatory foreigner-only HIV/AIDS test (Wagner and Van Volkenburg, 2011). Recent media coverage on children with no registration (Park, 2017) and hardship facing refugees and immigrants (Seong et al., 2017) has provoked discussions about the necessity for awareness raising and policy reforms. Perceptions of immigrants are often based on false information, creating negative attitude, and even fear (Porter and Russell, 2018).

Second, Korea’s promotion of GCE was accelerated by the fact that South Korea became the 24th member nation in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2009 and that it hosted key international conferences on GCE in 2015 and 2016. Korea’s membership of the DAC meant increased financial contribution from Korea to developing countries for development and poverty reduction through Official Development Assistance (ODA). According to the research conducted by the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy in 2005, only 37.1% of Koreans were aware of ODA and 48.8% responded that Korea should maintain or decrease the amount of ODA (Kwon et al., 2006: 226). This demonstrates the Korean’s support for providing ODA is not very strong. This posed an urgent need to raise people’s awareness about international aid, with GCE positioned as an effective way to shape public awareness on global development issues and build public support for foreign aid (Lappalainen, 2015).

In addition, the World Education Forum was held in Korea in 2015. Chung and Park (2016) suggest that the Korean government strongly emphasized GCE while preparing for the Forum, possibly influenced by the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) which was promoted by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, a South Korean, in 2012. The 2015 Forum put GCE high on the global education agenda. The newly emerged focus on GCE confirms the necessity that education should contribute toward peace building and social cohesion (Kim, 2017). In September in 2015, all 193 member states of the United Nations agreed upon the SDGs. The SDGs suggest the most pressing issues to be addressed by 2030, including GCE in Target 4.7. The importance of GCE for sustainable development was emphasized in two international conferences held in Korea in 2016: the International Conference on GCE hosted by the Korean Ministry of Education in partnership with UNESCO and the 66th UN DPI (Department of Public Information) /NGO conference entitled ‘Education for Global Citizenship: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Together’ (Ministry of Education, n.d.). Hosting these conferences enabled the Korean government and Korea-based NGOs to mobilize national efforts for GCE.

GCE-related policies and programs in Korea

A number of policy interventions have strengthened the focus on GCE in South Korea over the past 20 years. Education reform in 1995 acknowledged the importance of young Koreans to be prepared for globalization (Kim, 2017). Following the direction of the reform, the ‘Adapting Education to the Information Age’ policy was introduced in 1998 (Grossman et al., 2008). In 2007, textbooks were revised to remove descriptions that invoked nationalistic and ethnocentric sentiments (Cha et al., 2016). The Revised Curriculum in 2009 aimed to nurture concerning and caring global citizens who can contribute toward development of global community. To meet this aim, the 2009 Revised Curriculum confirmed the necessity of strengthening GCE components in teacher education and training (Kim, 2017). However, GCE suggested by the 2009 Revised Curriculum was limited to an educational strategy for enhancing national competitiveness and for raising awareness of multiculturalism (Lee, 2015). While preparing for the 2015 World Education Forum, the Ministry of Education announced the 2015 Revised National Curriculum with a long-term vision to embrace the key components of GCE (Korean Ministry of Education (MoE), n.d.).

Translating the GCE-related policies into teaching practices is not yet well established in South Korea. Korea has no formal curriculum for multicultural awareness and global citizenship. Instead, subjects such as ‘Morals’ and ‘Social Life’ include a focus on interconnectedness and moral responsibility, but with far greater emphasis on national citizenship than on GCE (Lee et al., 2013; Moon and Koo, 2011). Kim’s (2017) analysis also reveals that Korean moral education encompasses key concepts of GCE to some degree, but commitment to and participation in action is rarely discussed.

Existing reviews of actually implemented GCE programs in South Korea evidence a number of challenges, including ambiguity, low awareness, unequal accessibility, and a lack of action. Global education at primary schools is criticized as too simple and abstract (Park et al., 2007). Park et al. (2007) emphasize that GCE should be linked to communities out of schools to have practical implications. One empirical study shows that less than 30% of primary schools offer GCE and more than 60% of teachers indicate low levels of knowledge with regard to GCE (Lee et al., 2015). Another critical finding is that GCE is more widely performed in schools from affluent areas than in schools from less affluent areas (Lee et al., 2015). This implies a gap in access and exposure to GCE based on socioeconomic status. Lack of action-oriented learning is commonplace in state-led GCE as discussed earlier. In South Korea, for example, GCE tends to be framed with humanity without a focus on political contexts and conflicts of interests (Kim, 2017).

Another issue is that governmental orientation toward GCE has been based on the notion of assimilation (Yoon, 2008). This liberal assimilation is strengthened by Confucian values such as social unity and harmony (Moon, 2010). Confucian beliefs can create tension as well, given that case studies of other Asian countries note tensions between state-oriented education and individual-oriented education (Grossman et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that some studies suggest that Confucian values fit well with GCE because of their humanitarian focus, as observed, for example, in China (Reed, 2004; Xiong and Li, 2017).

Korean development NGOs’ response to GCE

The earlier section discussed an increasing demand for raising awareness on living in a globalized world and promoting GCE in Korea. This demand has been endorsed by some development NGOs. Korean development NGOs have rapidly grown in size for the past 30 years. Their rapid growth is attributed to their involvement in government-funded projects for domestic welfare services and humanitarian aid for North Korea. An empirical study revealed that NGOs’ biggest reason for cooperation with governmental agencies was due to the financial support (Lee and Lee, 2017). These NGOs have played a role as a subcontractor of the government in line with the government’s expectation that NGOs should function as supplementary service providers (Ossewaarde et al., 2008). However, in the area of international development, only 16% of the total income for 2006 came from the government (Han, 2009); this is related to the fact that only 0.36% of Korean ODA was channeled through development NGOs in 2005 (Han, 2007). One of the concerns expressed by governmental agencies is development NGOs’ capacity to carry out funded-development projects (Lee and Lee, 2017). In fact, little is known about the outcomes and impacts of development projects implemented by Korean NGOs. This is explained by their lack of capacity and budget for conducting monitoring and evaluation in a robust way (Park et al., 2015). As a result, development NGOs, and more broadly Korean civil society, grapple with challenges such as financial crisis, lack of citizens’ participation, de-politicization or political biases, and lowered credibility (Cheong, 2008; Suh, 2009). Suh (2009) suggests that Korean civil society should play a leading role in the era of global governance to meet these challenges. Korean development NGOs are also suggested as effective organizations for GCE because of their relevantly abundant experience in developing countries and the possibility of creative and flexible GCE, compared with state-run GCE (Park, 2008).

Korean development NGOs’ GCE is diversified in terms of the focus (global competency/global consciousness, cosmopolitanism/advocacy), operation (within/out of the school system), target group (school children, university student, adults), learning style (lecture, visual tools, volunteering, outdoor activity), and duration (1-day session, several week-long course, long-term project).

In Korea, an initial form of GCE delivered by NGOs took a competency approach. This competency approach is based on the neoliberal perspective that education is to nurture competitive workers in cosmopolitan capitalism (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Lynch et al., 2007). The Korean National Commission for UNESCO, World Vision Korea, and Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation (KCOC) have organized teenagers’ camps for global understanding (KCOC, 2010; UNESCO Korea, 2010; World Vision Korea, 2010). Most participants in these voluntary events were students from foreign-language schools or from a privileged background (Heo, 2017). With less emphasis on moral responsibility and cultural awareness, these camps have misled participants over the concept of a global citizen as a fluent English speaker.

Another type of GCE program is designed for overseas volunteers. Korean organizations put a volunteer program under the category of civic education (Global Civic Sharing, 2010; Good Neighbors International, 2010), as they regard it as an effective way to cultivate global citizens. Overseas volunteer programs involve short-term and long-term participation in international development projects in developing countries, aiming to broaden their understanding of global issues and to gain global perspective. The focus is given to cosmopolitanism, humanity, and global responsibility, which embody moral aspects of global citizenship. Participants in this practice-based GCE are supposed to play an active role as a project worker, not as a passive learner (Kim, 2017). However, their expectation of learning from experience is not always met. Some volunteers reported that they felt unwanted and abandoned as NGO field offices did not provide any proper support and supervision (Lee, 2018).

Recently, some NGOs, mostly big-sized ones with financial and personal resources, started to develop more refined and standardized educational programs to promote global citizenship nationwide. These NGOs offer training to volunteers who can deliver GCE at schools.

It is reported that 21.3% of registered Korean NGOs (122 as of 2015) provide GCE programs (UNESCO Korea, 2015). Global Civic Sharing is the first Korean NGO which launched a development education program titled ‘Global Civic School’ in 2002. Trained volunteers, mostly university students, by this program have taken part in GCE programs in primary or secondary school as a guest teacher. UNESCO Korea, World Vision Korea, and Good Neighbors International are implementing GCE in primary and secondary schools (Good Neighbors International, 2010; UNESCO Korea, 2010). Working with schools is possible because of the reputation and nationwide networks of these organizations. For example, one program of Good Neighbors International (2011), ‘Writing a hope letter’ to poor children living in southern-tier countries, could involve 1,764,221 students from 2414 schools in 2011. Smaller NGOs with no nationwide network have difficulty in gaining access to schools (Yoo, 2015).

Besides, Good Neighbors International (2010) and Korea Food for the Hungry International (2010) have online contents to expand their reach to more children, especially who are living in remote areas. These NGOs are expanding the targets to include everyone in Korean society as well as school students (Good Neighbors International, 2011; World Vision Korea, n.d.).

Behind Korean NGOs’ recent interests in GCE, there was an announcement of KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency) that it would sponsor NGOs’ GCE program (KOICA, 2009). This new plan received a welcome, as it was interpreted as a political will of the Korean government to promote GCE and to encourage small and medium NGOs to get involved in the GCE program. However, government sponsorship of GCE may result in a tradeoff. NGOs can lose their relative advantages of being innovative and progressive when they implement GCE. Fowler (2000) draws attention to the possibility of losing autonomy and creativity when NGOs work too closely with the government. Furthermore, when NGOs’ GCE programs are controlled by the official aid fund, NGOs can be a part of ‘reproducing the dominant values’ (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990) such as a national brand or globalization without questioning existing order. That is why Fowler (2005: 16) is skeptical about NGOs’ roles as ‘agents of change’.

The quest for legitimacy

Although it is hard to deny the important roles of Korean NGOs in GCE, questions about their legitimacy remain unanswered. Legitimacy is ‘a condition reflecting perceived consonance with relevant rules and laws, normative support, or alignment with cultural-cognitive frameworks’ (Scott, 2008: 59–60). Review of the literature suggests three types of legitimacy: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive (Suchman, 1995). This typology rather resonates with the view that sees the legitimacy in terms of justifying the existence of organizations. With a focus on practice legitimacy, this article draws on the typology of NGO legitimacy suggested by Ossewaarde et al. (2008: 44): output legitimacy (effectiveness), cognitive legitimacy (knowledge and expertise), regulatory legitimacy (compliance with international laws), and normative legitimacy (consistency between stated missions and practice). The following discusses each type of legitimacy with a focus on identified themes such as ‘one-off programs by volunteers’, ‘a lack of expertise and contextualization’, ‘a lack of alignment with human rights’, and ‘limited action-orientation’.

Output legitimacy—one-off programs by volunteers

Given the short history of GCE in Korea, it might be too early to talk about the results of GCE implemented by Korean NGOs. The diversity of NGO-run GCEs should be also considered. However, when it comes to the effectiveness, current GCE programs raise the following concerns.

First of all, an effectiveness-related issue is that NGOs’ GCE are mostly delivered on a one-off basis (UNESCO Korea, 2016). An empirical study suggests the importance of long-term programs for effective delivery (Merryfield, 1992). Critical thinking and comprehensive understanding are not likely to be acquired from such a short-term single session. Merrifield (2002) argues that providing information is not enough to deepen understanding. Most Korean NGOs’ GCE programs fail to provide opportunities to link knowledge, attitude, and practice. For example, one evaluation report illustrates changes to students’ perception and attitudes but does not capture any sign of their commitment to action (World Vision Korea, 2015). Since GCE aims to bring out behavioral change based on broaden understanding, current Korean GCE programs are missing the essence of GCE.

Delivery by voluntary instructors can also result in ineffectiveness. Although volunteerism should be encouraged in recognition of its importance as described in Korten (1990) as a ‘key to transformational change’, I’d like to review the use of volunteers in relation to quality in education. The quality of instructors is critically relevant for successful delivery of GCE. Instructors are required to be equipped with knowledge and some skills for facilitating activity-oriented programs. Existing studies show that school teachers in the UK and the United States have difficulty in teaching GCE due to lack of resources, training, and confidence (Davies, 2006; Rapoport, 2010). These limitations deeply affect the contents and the focus of GCE: teachers tend to cover only comfortable issues other than complex ones; teachers prefer depoliticized languages such as ‘caring’, ‘unselfishness’, and ‘cooperation’ to rights talk; cultural differences and conflicts are confined to private life; GCE is presented in a didactic way with simple facts (Davies, 2006: 14–17).

Korea’s situation cannot be better than these. Korean NGOs face difficulty in recruiting and maintaining qualified instructors. Therefore, volunteers, mostly university students, are filling the demand for instructors. There is no intention to degrade volunteer instructors, but it is questionable if Korean NGOs’ cascade training can guarantee the quality of GCE conducted by volunteers.

Output legitimacy also calls for organizations to demonstrate whether they accomplish their goals as intended. Although I acknowledge that it is quite difficult to measure direct effects of GCE as diverse factors should be considered (Xiong and Li, 2017), most Korean NGOs lack a monitoring and evaluation system for GCE (Park et al., 2015).

Cognitive legitimacy—a lack of expertise and contextualization

Development NGOs present themselves as professional organizations with experience and expertise to claim their cognitive legitimacy in GCE (Parekh, 2003). Considering the key components of GCE discussed earlier, this section examines whether Korean NGOs have expertise in the diverse topics and the scholarship of teaching.

Korean development NGOs’ GCE tend to focus on the interconnectedness of global world poverty and cultural diversity based on their specialty in aid and development. Other issues such as human rights, peace, and democracy are covered in a rather superficial way. However, NGOs do not seek for collaboration with other specialized NGOs, insisting that their development activities are quite relevant to those issues. In addition, it is critical that NGOs examine the particular ways of teaching and learning that are apt for GCE, including connecting with students’ experiences of such learning (Breunig, 2016). Some Korean NGOs work in partnership with educational professionals for development and implementation of GCE curricula. However, these NGOs’ low priority for GCE makes it difficult to allocate an appropriate budget for building and maintaining partnership with schools and educational professionals.

The fact that the 25 biggest American NGOs spent only 0.25% of their total income for GCE in 1993 reveals the lack of resources and the will for GCE (Edwards, 1999: 195). Likewise, Korean development NGOs do not regard the GCE as a core program. They allocate very limited resources for GCE. This is possibly because of donors’ preference for tangible projects which makes Korean NGOs feel the burden about spending much for GCE programs instead of spending for field projects in developing countries.

Possibly due to the limited resources, most Korean NGOs with a few exceptions do not have any team dedicated to GCE. Their curriculum and teaching materials were mostly developed by copying some materials published by other renowned international NGOs. It can be a good way to learn from exemplars as late starters. However, these copied programs hardly reflect the social and cultural context of Korea. Although GCE’ key ideas such as human rights and democratic citizenship are universally valued, the concepts of citizenship and human rights can be interpreted differently in non-Western contexts (Thompson and Tapscott, 2010). As a result, Western-rooted and citizenship-focused GCE can appear unfamiliar to Korean people (Kim, 2017). As Merrifield (2002) holds, it is important to consider in which context people learn and apply their learning. GCE delivered by Korean NGOs does not encourage students to identify problems in one’s own society and to find strategies to solve the problems.

Regulatory legitimacy—a lack of alignment with human rights

GCE emphasizes the responsibility as a global citizen drawing upon human rights principles (Moon and Koo, 2011; Myers, 2006). Development NGOs claim their regulatory legitimacy in complying with and in influencing legislation to promote the principles of human rights (Ossewaarde et al., 2008). Human rights have been integrated into the goals and processes of development since the late 1990s (Boesen and Martin, 2007; Hamm, 2001). Development NGOs have shifted their focuses from charity to entitlement and from alleviating symptoms to addressing structural issues which prevent human rights realization (The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2006). However, human rights and social justice are still regarded as distant topics by Korean NGOs. Human rights are often perceived as too political and NGOs fear losing their non-partisan image (Lindenberg and Dobel, 1999). Development NGOs’ reluctance to work on human rights issues is explained by their origin in charity or religious organizations (Lewis, 1999) and by their relationship with the state as public service contractors (Korten, 1990).

Korean NGOs’ distancing themselves from human rights can be attributed to their welfare approach and religious identity. Many Korean development NGOs are taking a charity or welfare approach and the majority of NGO workers major in social work. In a charity or welfare approach, poverty is framed as an individual issue and the solution to poverty is dependent upon outside assistance based on benevolence (Jonsson, 2003). It is distinguished from a human rights-based approach, in which people are regarded as rights holders, not pity-seekers (Slim, 2002). In addition, more than 70% of Korean NGOs are faith-based organizations and most high-profile NGOs are based on Christian belief (Han, 2009). Faith-based organizations are suggested as holding religious beliefs as their core values, unlike some NGOs which accept human rights as their guiding principles (Harris-Curtis, 2003). It is observed that GCE materials produced by Korean faith-based NGOs do not much refer to the international human rights framework.

In addition, Korean development NGOs have positioned themselves as subcontractor of the government. Korean development NGOs could rapidly grow in size because of their service contracts with the government. Therefore, these NGOs do not want to challenge the authority of the state by involving in domestic human rights issues (Kamat, 2004). The involvement of NGOs in human rights advocacy can threaten their partnership with the government.

Korean NGOs’ avoidance of human rights language and political issues results in non-alignment with the international human rights standards. For example, children without registration to the Government of Korea, mostly due to their parents’ illegal stay, are shut out of education (Park, 2017). This violation of child rights has not been tackled by any development NGOs in Korea.

Normative legitimacy—limited action-orientation

Korean NGOs state that their GCE aims ‘to seek justice in helping youths become mature global citizens’ (World Vision Korea, n.d.) and ‘become future leaders of social change’ (Good Neighbors International, 2011: 222). However, their normative legitimacy is questioned as the gap between the stated goals and implementation of GCE is observed. This article suggests that the reason for the gap lies in the fact that their primary purpose is to generate funds through GCE programs.

Introduction of GCE is closely related to intention of attracting potential donors. Oxfam’s case presented in Desforges (2004: 563) illustrates that GCE was one of the responses to an aging society, which brought about a big concern for fundraising, because young generations are less generous with a donation than the aged. From the NGO’s standpoint, raised money from the public is less restricted on the use unlike other types of funds (Desforges, 2004). In Korea, the strongest appeals for donations are based on the history as an aid recipient country in the past (Kwon et al., 2011). This is losing the persuasive power for younger generations who do not share the memory and the moral responsibility in terms of aid that Korea received before. Therefore, Korean NGOs face the necessity to develop new and sophisticated strategies for fundraising, in particular to attract the younger generation.

Korean NGOs have collected money by placing piggy banks in classrooms and shops. In the case of Good Neighbors International, a 10-year lasting campaign named ‘Miracle of 100 Korean won (equivalent amount to 5 pence)’ is a typical example. The campaign aimed to develop a culture of small donation and more than 42,000 people took part in it (Good Neighbors International, 2011). This campaign changed its name to the GCE program in 2008. The only difference is the provision of educational service before collecting money from school children. The amount of money raised from GCE is the most important criteria for internal evaluation (Good Neighbors International, 2009). Korean NGOs suggest that making a donation is a way to be a responsible global citizen. The online GCE program of Korea Food for the Hungry International consists of two parts: learning and sharing. This program is designed to learn the miserable situation of the needy through pictures of bony children and then to give money for starving children as a practice (Korea Food for the Hungry International, 2010).

As denoted above, fund-driven GCE programs can distort key messages of GCE. One of its main goals is to make people respect others’ equal rights, since every human being is equally worthy (Parekh, 2003). However, visually striking materials that were intended to arouse people’s sympathy for the purpose of fundraising degrade people who are living in developing countries as objects of pity. ‘Otherness’ is created when impoverished people are described as helpless, hopeless, and dependent on ‘our’ charitable donations. As Edwards (1999) argues, this will keep the dichotomy between donors and recipients, or the power and the powerless. Korean NGOs’ GCE conveys oversimplified and false messages. Instead of drawing attention to the complexity and power relationships which perpetuate the inequality and injustice, the suggested solution is so simple: ‘give your money to our organization for the poverty-ridden world’.

Discussion and conclusion

This article attempted to examine if development NGOs are legitimate to provide GCE in the context of Korea. Contemporary changes in Korea are increasing the necessity of GCE. Korean NGOs have responded to this social request more rapidly than other actors. However, some critical problems remain to be improved in the following areas: output, cognitive, regulatory, and normative legitimacy.

First, Korean NGOs’ ineffectiveness and failure to conduct an evaluation raise questions about output legitimacy. The ineffectiveness mainly results from the lack of financial resources and the will to improve GCE. Most GCE programs run on a short-term basis by voluntary instructors without any monitoring and evaluation system, since GCE remains a low priority in Korean NGOs’ works.

Second, Korean NGOs are not suitably qualified to claim cognitive legitimacy. The GCE curriculum is not contextualized for the Korean situation as it was largely produced by copying other international NGOs’ programs. Although Korean NGOs do not have expertise in some areas other than development, they are not willing to cooperate with other organizations specialized in human rights, environment, democracy, or peace. Teaching techniques and methods are another area to be strengthened.

Third, Korean NGOs have fundamental limitations to their regulatory legitimacy of working in line with the international laws and norms. Their religious origin, welfare approach, and cooperative relation with the government have led them to keep a distance from human rights issues, in particular domestic ones such as discrimination against immigrants.

Last, but certainly not least, inconsistency between what they say and what they do is problematic in terms of normative legitimacy. Under the guise of cultivating global citizenship, Korean NGOs use GCE as a fundraising strategy by soliciting a contribution for their own organization. This suggests that NGOs’ GCE may be, even partly, driven by a fundraising purpose. When NGOs use GCE as a fundraising strategy, their GCE is likely to be limited in terms of providing diverse options for action.

All these things considered, there is much room for improvement in Korean NGOs’ GCE, although Korean NGOs have contributed toward building global citizenship to some extent. Their GCE needs to be comprehensive beyond their focus on global poverty and aid. It should include emerging national issues such as migration and discrimination to respond to the changing context of Korea. Closer partnership with specialized organizations and school teachers can enrich and diversify the curriculum and teaching skills. More importantly, it is recommended that Korean NGOs position themselves as change agents for bringing a fundamental change to Korean society in line with the core components of GCE. NGOs are expected to play a role in generating alternative ideas, approaches, and methods in GCE.

Korean development NGOs should change themselves first in order to be ‘agents of change’ as they claim to be. GCE may provide Korean NGOs with a good opportunity to reflect on their core missions, to set priorities according to ultimate goals, to internalize key principles of GCE, and to build the constituency that supports their values and works. Then, NGOs’ GCE can be regarded as an alternative to state-driven GCE, which has been heavily criticized for failing to make people proactive global citizens. This article does not intend to suggest that Korean NGOs’ GCE falls short of a comprehensive and adequate framework for fostering global citizenship. It rather emphasizes that development NGOs can play a greater role in GCE when they pursue legitimacy by enhancing improvements in performance and aligning their goals and process of GCE with human rights standards and an action-oriented framework.

It should be acknowledged that this article has limitations. This article focuses on development NGOs in the context of Korea. Caution is required when generalizing the findings of this study to other contexts, although the findings can be relevant and useful to the contexts in which NGOs have promoted and delivered GCE. Another thing to note is that this research is drawn on only available documents published by NGOs, mostly big and renowned ones. A consideration of the limitations leads to suggestions for future research. Relating to the need for more empirical studies, further research concerning perceptions and experiences of people who delivered and received NGO-run GCE is required.

Footnotes

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.

Notes

ORCID iD

Jae-Eun Noh

References

Abbott

McKinney

(2013) Understanding and Applying Research Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Arshad-Ayaz

(2011) Making multicultural education work: a proposal for a transnational multicultural education. Canadian Issues (Spring): 71–75.

Banks

(2004) Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bebbington

Hickey

Mitlin

(2008) Can Ngos Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives. London: Zed Books.

Biesta

(2011) The ignorant citizen: Mouffe, Ranciere, and the subject of democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 30(2): 141–153.

Blanchette

(2010) Education or indoctrination? The development of social studies standards in Texas. Social Education 74(4): 199–203.

Boesen

Martin

(2007) Applying a Rights-Based Approach: An Inspirational Guide for Civil Society. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Human Rights.

Bourdieu

Passeron

(1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: SAGE.

Bourke

Bamber

Lyons

(2012) Global citizens: who are they? Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 7(2): 161–174.

10.

Boyatzis

(1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: SAGE.

11.

Breunig

(2016) Critical and social justice pedagogies in practice. In: Peters

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, pp. 978–981.

12.

Cha

Gundara

Ham

, et al. (2016) Multicultural Education in Global Perspectives. Singapore: Springer Verlag.

13.

Cheong

(2008) Financial crisis faced by Korean NGOs and solutions to the crisis. East and West Studies 20(2): 249–276.

14.

Chung

Park

(2016) A review of the differences between ESD and GCED in SDGs: focusing on the concepts of global citizenship education. Journal of International Cooperation in Education 18(2): 17–35.

15.

Chung

Lim

(2016) Marriage immigrant mothers’ experience of perceived discrimination, maternal depression, parenting behaviors, and adolescent psychological adjustment among multicultural families in South Korea. Journal of Child and Family Studies 25(9): 2894–2903.

16.

Corks

(2017) ‘Damunhwa’ is no multiculturalism: a Congolese refugee reflects on life in South Korea. Korea Exposé. Available at: https://koreaexpose.com/damunhwa-multiculturalism-refugee-life-korea/ (accessed 17 May 2017).

17.

Daniels

(2018) Global citizenship education and human rights in Scottish education: an analysis of education policy. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 17: 85–99.

18.

Davies

Evans

Reid

(2005) Globalising citizenship education? A critique of ‘global education’ and ‘citizenship education British Journal of Educational Studies 53(1): 66–89.

19.

Davies

(2006) Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review 58(1): 5–25.

20.

Davies

(2011) Teaching without indoctrination: implications for values education. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 51(3): 602–606.

21.

Demaine

(2002) Globalisation and citizenship education. International Studies in Sociology of Education 12(2): 117–128.

22.

Desforges

(2004) The formation of global citizenship: international non-governmental organisations in Britain. Political Geography 23(5): 549–569.

23.

Dichter

(1999) Globalization and its effects on NGOs: efflorescence or a blurring of roles and relevance? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 38–58.

24.

Dill

(2013) The Longings and Limits of Global Citizenship Education: The Moral Pedagogy of Schooling in a Cosmopolitan Age, vol. 109. Abingdon: Routledge.

25.

Drabek

(1987) Development alternatives: the challenge for NGOs—an overview of the issues. World Development 15: ix–xv.

26.

Edwards

(1999) Future Positive: International Co-Operation in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan.

27.

Fowler

(1992) Distant obligations: speculations on NGO funding and the global market. Review of African Political Economy 55: 9–29.

28.

Fowler

(2000) NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation? Third World Quarterly 21(4): 637–654.

29.

Fowler

(2005) Aid architecture: reflections on NGDO futures and the emergence of counter-terrorism. INTRAC Occasional Paper no. 45. Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre, 1–39.

30.

Gaventa

(2002) Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. IDS Bulletin 33(2): 1–11.

31.

Global Civic Sharing (2010) Global civic school, volunteer program. Available at: www.gcs.or.kr/ (accessed 28 March 2010).

32.

Good Neighbors International (2009) Good Neighbors International Annual Report. Seoul, South Korea: Good Neighbors International.

33.

Good Neighbors International (2010) GCE program, volunteer program. Available at: www.goodneighbors.kr/gn/main.asp/ (accessed 28 March 2010).

34.

Good Neighbors International (2011) Promise Made 20, Years Ago. Seoul, South Korea: Good Neighbors International.

35.

Goren

Yemini

(2017) Citizenship education redefined–a systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research 82: 170–183.

36.

Grossman

Lee

Kennedy

(2008) Citizenship Curriculum in Asia and the Pacific (CERC Studies in Comparative Education), vol. 22. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

37.

Gutmann

(1999) Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

38.

Habermas

(2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge: Polity Press.

39.

Haddad

Wang

(2015) Participatory global citizenship: civic education beyond territoriality. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 3(1): 26–44.

40.

Hamm

(2001) A human rights approach to development. Human Rights Quarterly 23: 1005–1031.

41.

Han

(2007) Korean development NGO’s activities. In: ODA watch workshop, Seoul, South Korea, 21 February.

42.

Han

(2009) Civil society and development. In: ODA watch workshop, Seoul, South Korea, 29 January.

43.

Harris-Curtis

(2003) Rights-based approaches: issues for NGOs. Development in Practice 13(5): 558–564.

44.

Heater

(1996) World Citizenship and Government: Cosmopolitan Ideas in the History of Western Political Thought. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

45.

Hendricks

Howerton

(2011) Teaching values, teaching stereotypes: sex education and indoctrination in public schools. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 13(3): 587–641.

46.

Heo

(2017) Our village, good neighbor. Available at: http://m.wolyo.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=43570 (accessed 1 April 2017).

47.

Hocutt

(2005) Indoctrination v. education. Academic Questions 18(3): 35–43.

48.

(2003) Korean students’ prejudice against foreigners: an analysis from the perspective of Global Citizenship Education. The Korean Education Research 41: 275–301.

49.

Jonsson

(2003) Human Rights Approach to Development Programming. Nairobi, Kenya: UNICEF ESARO.

50.

Kamat

(2004) The privatization of public interest: theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy 11(1): 155–176.

51.

Kennedy

(2012) Global trends in civic and citizenship education: what are the lessons for nation states? Education Sciences 2(3): 121–135.

52.

Kim

(2017) Global Citizenship Education: Theory and Practice. Seoul, South Korea: Park Young Publishing.

53.

Kim

NHJ

(2016) Naturalizing Korean ethnicity and making ‘ethnic’ difference: a comparison of North Korean settlement and foreign bride incorporation policies in South Korea. Asian Ethnicity 17(2): 185–198.

54.

Korea Food for the Hungry International (2010) GCE program, slogan. Available at: www.kfhi.or.kr (accessed 24 March 2010).

55.

Korea Immigration Service (2016) Overview of the KIIP. Available at: http://www.socinet.go.kr/soci/contents/PgmIntrPurp.jsp?q_global_menu_id=S_SIP_SUB01

56.

Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) (2009) Awareness raising program for international cooperation. Available at: https://www.koica.go.kr/join/notice/1214367_1576.html (accessed 2 April 2010).

57.

Korea National Statistical Office (2015) 2015 census of population and housing. Available at: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=356061&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=

58.

Korea National Statistical Office (2017) Foreign Residents Statistics. Seoul, South Korea: Korea National Statistical Office. Available at: http://www.kosis.kr (accessed 15 June 2018).

59.

Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation (KCOC) (2010) GCE program. Available at: www.ngokcoc.or.kr/ (accessed 24 March 2010).

60.

Korean Ministry of Education (MoE) (n.d.) Major tasks. Available at: http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info.do?m=040101&s=english

61.

Korten

(1990) Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. Hartford: Kumarian Press.

62.

Kwon

Park

Lee

(2006) Overall strategy for Korean ODA reform. Research Paper no. 06–03. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

63.

Kwon

Park

Lee

(2011) Trends in Korean public opinion about foreign aid. Research Paper no. 11–02. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

64.

Lappalainen

(2015) Can global citizenship be a part of the post-2015 agenda? Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review 20: 152–165.

65.

Lee

(2008) International marriage and the state in South Korea: focusing on governmental policy. Citizenship Studies 12(1): 107–123.

66.

Lee

(2015) The current situations of global citizenship education: the 2009 revised curriculum and global citizenship education. Available at: http://ernd.kedi.re.kr/EpnicForum/Epnic/EpnicForum01Viw.php?Ac_Code=D0010102&Ac_Num0=18070 (accessed 15 March 2018).

67.

Lee

(2017) Cooperative relations between South Korean government and development NGOs: different motivations for cooperation. International Development and Cooperation Review 9(4): 83–115.

68.

Lee

Kim

Cheong

, et al. (2015) Current situation and action plan: global citizenship education. Research Report 2015–25. Jincheon, South Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

69.

Lee

Grossman

Kennedy

, et al. (2013) Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and Issues, vol. 14. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media.

70.

Lee

(2018) The voice of the precariat, young people in international development. Webzin Pium. Available at: http://www.pida.or.kr/pium/?q=YToxOntzOjEyOiJrZXl3b3JkX3R5cGUiO3M6MzoiYWxsIjt9&bmode=view&idx=843524&t=board&category=3641lH5214

71.

Lewis

(1999) International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector. London: Earthscan.

72.

Lindenberg

Dobel

(1999) The challenges of globalization for northern international relief and development NGOs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(Suppl. 1): 4–24.

73.

Lynch

Lyons

Cantillon

(2007) Breaking silence: educating citizens for love, care and solidarity. International Studies in Sociology of Education 17(1–2): 1–19.

74.

McCloskey

(2016) Are we changing the world? Development education, activism and social change. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review 22: 111–130.

75.

McGrath

(1997) Giving donors good reason to give again. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2(2): 125–135.

76.

Marshall

(2009) Educating the European citizen in the global age: engaging with the post-national and identifying a research agenda. Journal of Curriculum Studies 41(2): 247–267.

77.

Merrifield

(2002) Learning citizenship. IDS Working Paper no. 158. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

78.

Merryfield

(1992) Preparing social studies teachers for the twenty-first century: perspectives on program effectiveness from a study of six exemplary teacher education programs in global education. Theory & Research in Social Education 20(1): 17–46.

79.

Ministry of Education (n.d.) International conference on global citizenship education. Available at: http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=294&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe&m=0503&opType=N&boardSeq=64606 (accessed 6 April 2017).

80.

Moon

Koo

(2011) Global citizenship and human rights: a longitudinal analysis of social studies and ethics textbooks in the Republic of Korea. Comparative Education Review 55(4): 574–599.

81.

Moon

(2010) Multicultural and global citizenship in a transnational age: the case of South Korea. International Journal of Multicultural Education 12(1): 1–15.

82.

Morphew

Hartley

(2006) Mission statements: a thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education 77(3): 456–471.

83.

Myers

(2006) Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: education for global citizenship in the US. Theory & Research in Social Education 34(3): 370–394.

84.

Nash

(2008) Global citizenship as show business: the cultural politics of Make Poverty History. Media, Culture & Society 30(2): 167–181.

85.

(2003) A study on global citizenship in the pluralistic society and its implications for citizenship education. PhD Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.

86.

Oliver

Heather

(1994) The Foundations of Citizenship. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

87.

Osler

Starkey

(2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education. London: Open University Press.

88.

Osler

Vincent

(2002) Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education. London: Trentham Books Ltd.

89.

Ossewaarde

Nijhof

Heyse

(2008) Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: how organising betrays core missions of INGOs. Public Administration and Development 28(1): 42–53.

90.

Pak

(2013) Global Citizenship Education: Goals and Challenges in the New Millennium. Seoul, South Korea: Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU).

91.

Parekh

(2003) Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. Review of International Studies 29(1): 3–17.

92.

Park

Cho

(2016) An analysis of research trends on global citizenship education in Korea. The Korean Education Research 54(2): 197–227.

93.

Park

Lee

Cho

(2015) Perceptions of Korean NGOs for education and educational development projects. International Journal of Educational Development 45: 31–41.

94.

Park

Cheong

Seo

(2007) The development of community based global education model and program for fostering of global citizenship of elementary students. The Korean Association for the Social Studies Education 14(4): 213–240.

95.

Park

(2008) ODA Empowerment through Humanitarian Development Education—Awarded Articles on International Development Cooperation. Seoul, South Korea: KOICA.

96.

Park

(2017) Immigrants’ children with no registration in Korea. Available at: http://m.catholictimes.org/mobile/article_view.php?aid=279246 (accessed 2 May 2017).

97.

Pérez-Expósito

(2015) Citizenship education in Mexico: the depoliticisation of adolescence through secondary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education 25(3): 225–257.

98.

Pike

(2008) Citizenship education in global context. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice 17(1): 38–49.

99.

Porter

Russell

(2018) Migrants are on the rise around the world, and myths about them are shaping attitudes. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/20/business/economy/immigration-economic-impact.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur (accessed 21 June 2018).

100.

Prior

(2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London: SAGE.

101.

Rapoport

(2010) We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 5(3): 179–190.

102.

Reed

(2004) Multidimensional citizenship, Confucian humanism and the imagined community: South Korea and China. In: Lee

Grossman

Kennedy

, et al. (eds) Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific. Dordrecht: Springer, 239–255.

103.

Richards

(2009) Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE.

104.

Scott

(2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

105.

Seong

Kang

Park

, et al. (2017) No multi-culture in Korea. Available at: http://news.joins.com/article/21454659 (accessed 22 February 2018).

106.

Slim

(2002) Not philanthropy but rights: the proper politicisation of humanitarian philosophy. International Journal of Human Rights 6(2): 1–22.

107.

Suchman

(1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

108.

Suh

(2009) Re-defining political roles of Korean NGOs in the era of global governance. Korean Journal of Political Science 16(3): 47–74.

109.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2006) Frequently Asked Questions on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation. New York; Geneva: United Nations.

110.

Thompson

Tapscott

(2010) Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South. London: Zed Books.

111.

UNESCO (1995) Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/pdf/REV_74_E.PDF (accessed 28 March 2010).

112.

UNESCO Korea (2010) GCE program. Available at: http://www.unicef.or.kr/ (accessed 28 March 2010).

113.

UNESCO Korea (2015) 2015 Professional training on GCE program. Available at: https://www.unesco.or.kr/upload/data_center/%EC%84%B8%EA%B3%84%EC%8B%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%90%EC%9C%A1%20%EC%A0%84%EB%AC%B8%EA%B3%BC%EC%A0%95%EC%97%B0%EC%88%98.pdf (accessed 23 March 2017).

114.

UNESCO Korea (2016) GCE program, English camp. Available at: http://www.unesco.or.kr/ (accessed 28 March 2010).

115.

Veugelers

(ed.) (2011) Education and Humanism: Linking Autonomy and Humanity. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.

116.

Wagner

Van Volkenburg

(2011) HIV/AIDS tests as a proxy for racial discrimination? A preliminary investigation of South Korea’s policy of mandatory in-country HIV/AIDS tests for its foreign English teachers. Journal of Korean Law 11: 179–245.

117.

World Vision Korea (2010) GCE program, organization chart. Available at: http://www.worldvision.or.kr/ (accessed 6 April 2010).

118.

World Vision Korea (2015) Research Report on Effectiveness of Global Citizenship School. Seoul, South Korea: World Vision Korea.

119.

World Vision Korea (n.d.) Global citizenship school. Available at: http://wvschool.or.kr/Main/ (accessed 17 May 2017).

120.

Xiong

(2017) Citizenship education as NGO intervention: turning migrant children in Shanghai into ‘new citizens’. Citizenship Studies 21(7): 792–808.

121.

Yang

(2017) Employment gap between immigrant and native women in South Korea: discrimination in the labor market pre-entry stage. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society 7(2): 99–127.

122.

Yoo

(2015) All key persons at a workshop on GCE organised by Koica. Available at: http://webzine.koica.go.kr/201602/content.php?code=201602_010211&ckattempt=1

123.

Yoon

(2008) The development and characteristics of multiculturalism in South Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology 42(2): 72–103.