NEW AND OLD METAPHORS FOR NEW AND OLD REALITIES
There has always been a traditional metaphor between the fishing world and the successive generations of Development Education. Thus, “care-charity” is compared with giving fish to hungry people. In the second “development-based” generation, the idea was to give the rod instead of the fish. It was the next “critical-solidarity” generation that started to question who had access to the river and who didn’t and who was to get the best fishing places, etc. With the arrival of the fifth generation and a change of paradigm, the fishing simile is no longer of interest as a means for obtaining benefits, but it leaves us with two beautiful metaphors. The first is that the small fry can eat the big fish if they take hold of their power, make sure they don’t allow themselves to be eaten, join together and organise themselves. The second is that in a globalised world, the individualism required for rod fishing does not achieve any significant changes; the biggest and longest-lasting transformations come thanks to the nets.

No individual or institution is a guarantee of change and there is no one single leadership in the construction of a fairer world. However, there is a wide variety of proposals that emphasise different matters and have different focuses. We have often lost a great deal of energy in “fighting” to impose a dominant focus.

GLOBAL NETWORKS FOR GLOBAL REALITIES
Education that is committed to social change is questioning the causes of inequality and the ethical concern that leads to the commitment to justice. It analyses and acts from every sphere of science and technology. It prepares for intervention and carries out proposals for change by the individuals and institutions involved in alternative forms of understanding and experiencing politics, economics, sociology, ethics and ecology, etc. Its strategies are also characterised by a common denominator: they are developed by networks.

There is a growing awareness of the fact that said plurality is a value that allows us to enhance our view of the world with contributions from those who see reality from different standpoints. From there, we will be able to focus the different faces of globalisation: economics, international migration, culture, the environment, energy and telecommunications, etc. and the corresponding “crises” in each of said areas. The phenomena of exclusion, food crises and hunger, the examples of great inequality, the insults to human dignity, the low-level recognition of the human rights of every man and every woman, the armed conflicts in different countries and the destruction of the environment, etc. stand out in a way that cannot be ignored.

Complex realities that can only be changed by working from the various areas involved and with the integration of the initiatives that come from the diversity of proposals, skills, characters, efforts, knowledge and cultures, etc., together with an approach to such a complex reality. In other words, working on plural networks.

In view of the subordination of social goals to economic interests, in view of the weakness of states that confirms the unlimited deterioration of the environment and the evident denial of human rights, the fact that social exclusion and inequality do not belong exclusively to any one region of the world, all that remains is to strengthen civil society and foster the concept of global citizens who call for democracy and good international government. And the NGOs and new social movements have shown themselves to be the most active players in the promotion of this new citizen model through their constitution and their motto of ‘act locally, think globally’.

Indeed, with three years left to the end of the term given to reach the Millennium Development Goals, the time is ripe to remember that the eighth of said goals is “develop a global partnership for development”. We are not in full agreement with what we consider to be a limiting view of the MDGs, since it is our opinion that they have prevented finance for relevant issues that were not included in the priorities. However, we do believe that, when this eighth goal was added, there was an awareness of the essential need for coordination, joint effort, joint will, participation in and the constitution of a large world organisation in which networking stands as an irreplaceable way of working in the fight against poverty. Among other reasons, because knowledge is held by certain individuals and institutions; others have the resources; others take decisions; and many others suffer from exclusion. A coordinated contribution from everyone is what can make this fight effective.

NETWORKS, AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION
 Accordingly, one of the new methods used in Development Education and Global Citizenship is the support, drive, creation and implementation of all kinds of networks to achieve their objectives. And that is why this issue of the Journal is to look at how these networks are connected to Global Education: what characterises them; how relations between the different players in education can be started up and developed (students, teachers, educational institutions, administrations, research projects and centres, civil associations and NGOs, etc.

A first glance shows that educational networks can operate for the exchange of individuals, ideas, experiences and resources and for common actions towards alternative development, looking for new alliances between citizens of the world in their roles as educators, pupils and researchers, etc. willing to make a commitment to equality and justice.

When looking at these networks closely, we can pinpoint three types as useful in education: those used to exercise active citizenship that is committed to social change; those used to exchange experiences and practices in Global Education; and those used for reflection and research in education.

In the first of the three, it is possible to share knowledge and the experience of the good practices that are in place. For example, learning-service experiences, which are contributing to improving local reality at the same time as enabling the learning of the curriculum. Accordingly, these networks are ideal means for such learning and for practice in exercising citizenship, as well as for learning about the surrounding reality and the world as a whole. These networks focus on the principle of working locally as part of a global context of solidarity. With no reference from the global context, we run the risk of losing sight of the real causes of poverty (exclusion) and the solution (inclusion). Without the local approach, we would be uncommitted observers. To achieve the aim of the individual being active and responsible, there is a need for including participatory practices and experiences that foster skills in cooperation and democracy. And networking favours that.

The second type of network has been designed to make use of synergies and improve the impact of the work carried out by the organisations involved in order to bring about social change. They do so in the belief that they share a common horizon: education must focus on building critical citizens who foster a culture of solidarity, justice and the defence of human rights. They share the awareness of it being positive, having a multiplying and, therefore, enriching effect to share learning and experiences gained through socio-educational and political processes, such as training programmes, the revision of knowledge and curricula that are being used to adapt them to this new focus, awareness campaigns, social action and political incidence, etc. in order to collectively build global citizens who become gradually more organised for the creation of societies that are fair, sustainable and inclusive.

Finally, research and reflection networks are crucial for the collective and intercultural construction of knowledge and for acquiring global, plural knowledge of global issues. They make it possible to bring in focuses that are not used by the local academies.

They provide information, data and principles that are not available at great distances.
They allow the exchange of work models and innovative methods in places in which they are not applied. But above all, they enable the collective construction of knowledge, finding global solutions to global problems, even when they appear in different forms in different places of the world. When networks are truly plural and involve adequate representation, they voice the opinions of the individuals and collectives who are excluded in their social contexts, since those who work are integrated in chain fashion in the processes of analysis and exchange.

ÁGORA

Accordingly, Ágora is constituted as part of the Educación Global Research project as a network for research and reflection. Its aim is to become a global learning community among different educational players in research and action in Development Education and Global Citizenship. To do so, it provides a space, along with the electronic journal, to expand the university research stage, allowing for participation at other times and in other research formats.
 The call for participation focuses on all the individuals who take part in one way or another in action-reflection-action processes or in actual research in any of the spheres of Global Development Education and on any of its focuses and approaches or its many philosophies and denominations. Indeed, this diversity and its limits are now one of the first subjects of debate and an opportunity for joint learning and enrichment.

As our position shows, we are convinced that educational research (reflecting on how we learn) is a structural dimension in the development of individuals and social groups and it is one of the essential elements in empowerment and emancipation for individuals and societies.

The network constituted in Ágora needs to be open, participatory and shared by individuals from different organisations, cultures and places around the world. It has room (and we hope that it also has representation) for many levels of research, from the  simplest to the most specialised, but on any level it provides a basic, characteristic feature of our view of Global Development Education. We want to approach it from a standpoint of rigour without being limited by its current limits, but we know that it represents a force for the practice of holistic teaching models that allow for actions on a larger scale.

THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF GLOBAL EDUCATION NETWORKS
 Educational networking allows for greater development of one of its essential features, i.e. its political dimension, by revealing the relationship between knowledge and power: how access to knowledge (or a community’s most significant knowhow) enables access to and the exercise of power. On this socio-political level, studying and intervening in the network reveals the relationship between education and social organisation.

It does so on its levels of organisation (in the group, in the classroom, in the school, in social organisation), but above all in the learning that “takes place in” and “leads to” changes to institutions, a city area, a community, a region or country, etc. Learning to organise ourselves and exercising organised participation can enable and contribute to small social changes and to the transformation of the society we live in. Furthermore, organisation processes involve significant learning that fosters changes in the organised parties themselves, in their groups and in the context. That’s why organisation processes are significantly educational.

Many of the networks still remain in the private sphere. Even when they are open access, the ownership and management of most of the networks are in the hands of the institutions by which they are maintained, for commercial or altruistic purposes. It is time to consolidate and increase the number of networks constituted as public spaces, not only through free access to participation, but also because they are collective spaces for exercising citizenship financed and maintained by the state to ensure progress in the consolidation of the structures that uphold the processes of Development Education and Global Citizenship. Accordingly, we consider that in order to consolidate the networks and processes of Development Education, we must focus on the design and implementation of new and better public policies. For example, those that formalise or ‘officialise’ the many work experiences that are taking place.

It is also becoming more and more appropriate for the networks to include the state as an institution and the individuals it “employs”, the officers of government institutions.

Furthermore, one important role of organised civil society on these networks will be that of mediator. For example, between the state and enterprise; or between the state and the citizens themselves. Always in search of transparency, the surrendering of accounts and greater efficiency in the development of public policies.

The political dimension of Global Education networks can be seen in the following concepts, among others:
• The concept of popular education as an expression and production of teaching that liberates independence. Democratic practices in education require community participation and social organisation processes that must be promoted and accompanied.
• The concept of organised participation and the social protagonism of childhood and youth. This is a democratic exercise of power, participating from the assumption of collective rights and duties.
• The concept of dialectic change. This is a constant dialectic relationship between practice, reflection and the production of knowledge based on said reflection, which takes us back to the reconsideration and reformulation of specific practices in accordance with what has been learned. This includes the possibility of self-change, of change with others and of change of the environment, not only the transfer of knowledge.
• Coherence. The aim is to prevent the structures, processes and results from reproducing the models and attitudes that are to be changed, that favour the capacity for report, political incidence and social mobilisation throughout the process, that affect social change by creating alternative models and acting as a reference for the change model that is being proposed.

THE IMPORTANCE OF “NETWORKING” RATHER THAN “CREATING NETWORKS”
Networking involves a number of benefits for the individual and for the entity taking part. However, at the same time, it is an exercise of generosity since control over the processes, knowledge, tools and even the shared values is given to the common good.

Therefore, when they realise the importance of networking, many entities often decide to create new networks under their own umbrella. This makes it possible to main a certain (low) level of control over contents and processes, but the opportunities offered by working openly on plural networks are reduced.

For our part, we would like to list a number of principles that define how we understand networking and that we would therefore like to see in the Ágora network:
• Networking is a way of doing things that involves “weaving” relations, learning, involvement, advancing “node by node” until a common space is constituted that is open and diversified and that contains new initiatives, proposals and undertakings.
• Networking means emphasising the construction process of spaces for meeting and common action rather than the organisational structure, which plays a secondary role in accordance with the dynamics of the processes and requirements (which are dynamic, multidimensional and complex).
• The driving factor behind networking is marked out by the strategic targets or goals rather than by the networking itself. The network that faces inwards has no sense; the sense comes from what is “networked” outwards, its efficiency and its effectiveness. Accordingly, the form and intensity of the networking process will depend on how far we can help change the initial situation towards the objective that is set.
• Therefore, networking means respecting and making use of diversities. They constitute a factor of strength insofar as they are respected and used and no particularities are imposed on others. Consequently, importance is placed on debate, planning and laying down purposes and actions, as well as task specialisation, to make efforts and skills complementary to each other.
• Promotion of a mutual system and spirit of learning. This implies a willingness to share what each one knows, but also a willingness to listen in order to learn from others. As a result, it is important for there to be a reflexive action that is critical and self-critical, that allows us not only to exchange descriptions or stories of particular experiences, but also to share the teachings left by said experiences. This task is the result of a systematisation process (as a critical reflection of own practice) and it is fundamental for networking since it enables the construction of shared, own thought based on contributions from everyone.

Accordingly, in the words of Paulo Freire, networking means the constitution of conditions and willingness for learning. In each practical context, the creation of a theoretical context that allows the production of critical knowledge of experience: its characteristics, interrelations, roots and demands.

Today’s challenges are huge and go beyond the traditional fight for justice, equality, peace and human rights. In this 21st century, marked by planetary dynamics and contradictions, by the predominance of an economic, social, political and cultural model that is neither universal nor sustainable and sinks into a deeper crisis on a daily basis, there is a need for those of us who believe that another world is possible, who also work with another political culture and build other relations of power in all the lands in which we find ourselves. With other ethics, with the focus placed on human beings and planetary awareness, networking can become an effective and efficient option for making changes on both a local and global scale.

From community work, sector-based organisation, the establishment of electronic communications with the entire world, the constitution of organisations, institutions and social movements, networking (peer-to-peer or connected in cyberspace) comes as a significant option for dealing with social exclusion anywhere on our planet.

THE ARTICLES OF ISSUE 1

 In issue 1, which constitutes the Journal’s first steps towards the objectives set (following an interesting spell from issue 0), we have gathered a series of articles with which we are very satisfied.

First, we wish to inform you of a series of decisions that we have made regarding formal and layout aspects of the Journal:
- Given that our Journal is published in two languages, we have decided to always prioritise the article’s original language. If this were a language other than English or Spanish, it will first be presented in this language and subsequently in both English and Spanish. If it is written in English or Spanish, it will be published in the original language in which it was written.
- We continue to have “childish” front covers with a social sense. These constitute an aesthetically beautiful reminder of the age when we learn the most, when our prejudice levels are down to a minimum and where our open-mindedness might even be more unconditional. This picture is entitled “Winds of Change” and was made by Eneko González Yagúe. The image is rather clear in the way it makes a reference to how girls and boys hold a banner of hope in the world of today, even in the most terrible scenarios.

But let us move on to the Articles. Acting as a hinge between issue 0 and 1, the first article was written by renowned University of London Professor Douglas Bourn, entitled Development Education: from the Margins to the Mainstream. Prof. Bourn is an eminence on Development Education in Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom. From the point of view of his various activities conducted at the prestigious IOE (Institute of Education), in his article, he presents an interesting journey (from a British perspective) from to origins of DE to the present day. We could say that this article complements the one we published in Manuela Mesa’s issue 0, although further expanding on the decade in which the latter was written. In our opinion, this article is a must-read for anyone involved or wishing to engage in DE. Its conclusions take us to the future and prompt us to ponder upon our work.

In this issue, we are joined once again by Oscar Jara, a member of our Editorial Board, from the CEP Alforja in Costa Rica, and with an overall view of Latin America through CEAAL, to take a step further towards standardisation. His article, Standardisation of experiences, research and assessment: three different approaches, proposes different perspectives to assess and learn from social transformation experiences. This perspective he proposes gathers, in a rather current manner, the concerns and tendencies on this matter on both sides of the Atlantic.

Below, Danilo R. Streck, an expert on Freire, from Brazil, presents an amazing article on the mystique surrounding Popular Education: Outra maneira de ler e mudar o mundo: a mística na educação popular. The Brazilian professor, alongside a working group, ponders on the role that the –religious and non-religious– mystique has had with regards to the creation, history and sustainability of social groups. His suggestive ponderings tell us about how intangible matters may have a major role in laying the foundations that give rise to transformative participation.

Fourth, we have a Spanish working team that is closely linked with this Board: Miguel Ardanaz, Journal director and FERE-CECA Madrid member; Cesar García-Rincón, Prosociality Education teacher and Homo Prosocius president; and Belén Urosa, dean at the School of Social Science and Humanities of Comillas P. University. The article presented seeks to show a learning-based alternative to the logical framework approach. We believe that the article’s proposal entitled A proposal for a logical framework for Global Development Education: the GEBL Model may give rise to an entirely different concept of Development Education, from the point of view of planning and assessment. His intuition totally changes the perspective and contextualises the projects in the field of education, with their particularities and idiosyncrasies.

Towards the end of the article section, we have Chilean researcher Edgardo Álvarez’s contribution. The text he presents, entitled Public Policy and Citizen Participation: Eight tensions of Popular Education advocacy, arose from the Chilean movements taking place in recent times with regards to the problems with quality and access to education. Prof. Álvarez ponders on and analyses the learning and participation processes from which these movements were created. The article, very much linked to present-day reality, will help us to ponder on the evolution and development of Popular Education initiatives.

In the Reviews section, we can see three contributions. In the International Document section we can find an interesting commentary and standardisation of DEAR IN EUROPE (Final Report of the ‘Study on the Experience and Actions of the Main European Actors Active in the Field of Development Education and Awareness Raising). This is one of the most significant official documents in Europe on DE, and was published in November 2010. One of its authors, Alessio Surian, from the University of Padua, has worked on it for the purpose of this analysis. 

In the books section we can find a commentary recently published entitled Debates in Citizenship, conducted by Mark Chindler, member of our Editorial Board and citizenship professor at Newman University College (Birmingham, United Kingdom). In the International Meetings section, we can find a written analysis of DEEEP’s Summer School, which took place in the summer of 2011 in Finland. We hereby thank Pepa Martínez, Education coordinator of the Catalan Federation of NGDOs, for organising it.    
 
Last, we will be featuring a Guest Journals section. In knowing and expanding the Global Education Research project network, we have come to know more interesting people and projects. In this respect, we have found “sister” journals that complement ours. Therefore, each issue will present a journal from a different part of the world linked to ours through a common topic of interest. On this occasion, we present you a journal run by one of the authors who collaborated in this issue: Douglas Bourn. We are honoured to share an article from The International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning in our Journal’s first issue. We would like to thank Prof. Bourn and professors Oberman, Waldron and Dillon, of Ireland, who shared the article from their latest issue entitled Developing a Global Citizenship Education Programme for Three to Six Year Olds. The quality of the article together with the lack of resources and research available for this significant age bracket led us to choose this article out of a series of high-quality articles.

So, we wish to end this editorial by encouraging research networking, participating in different places and with different perspectives. In these times of crisis (which seems to be never-ending in some parts of the world), it seems that everyone is trying to “play things down”, but from here, we encourage you all to take risks and step out of our comfort zone. These pages echo Paulo Freire’s words :

“For example, do the people have the right or not to know better what they already know? Another question: Do the people have the right or not to participate in the process of producing the new knowledge?  I am sure that a serious process of social transformation of society has to do that. Of course, it implies a change in the way of producing economically. It implies a much greater participation of the masses of the people in the process of power. Then it means to renew the understanding of power”.

(M. HORTON, P. FREIRE, We Make the Road by Walking, Conversations on Education and Social Change. Temple University Press, 1990, pp. 97.)

 Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

                                                                       01A Bourn English

Abstract

Development education has been a feature of educational practice in most industrialised countries for over 30 years. It has gone under different names at different times and in also variations due to linguistic interpretations. These terms have included education for development, of global education, global citizenship, themes such as the global dimension in education, or more recently global learning.

This article will outline the evolution of development education and its relationship to these other terms. It will demonstrate why this area of education has emerged and what are its distinct features. It will conclude by suggesting that development education could potentially be seen as more than just another  ‘adjectival education’ or as just a response to desire for support to development but also as an approach that has connections to critical pedagogy.

The Emergence of a Global and International Approach to Education

Learning about the wider world has been part of formal education in many industrialised countries for more than a century. What has dominated this learning historically has been the influence of colonialism and in some countries religious and missionary traditions. Knowledge in Europe and North America about continents such as Africa in both the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century was influenced by a view of the superiority of the west and subjugation of the peoples of that continent (Lambert and Morgan, 2010).

A major influence on the break from that mould came in the post Second World War period with the emergence of a number of international institutions including the United Nations and later UNESCO who recognised the need for education to have a more international outlook. (Tye, 1999). In the United States whilst this interest in global and international education came under right-wing attack for being unpatriotic, through the work of academics such as Hanvery, Merryfield and Tye, a discourse emerged that has had influence around the world (Tye, 2009, Fusswood-Tucker, 2009).  In the UK, Robin Richardson (1976,1990) was one of the earliest proponents of this global or world outlook approach to education. He became very influential in developing a methodology for teaching about world issues with a particular emphasis on active learning methods (See Starkey, 1994). With David Selby and Graham Pike (1998) and Dave Hicks (1990, 2003), this approach to ‘world studies’ or ‘global education’ had a strong practice-based focus around a child-centred and world minded approach to education that stressed the importance of attitude and skill development as well as the exploration of a range of global issues.

Elsewhere in Europe, notably in Scandinavia, Netherlands and Germany, and also in Japan, there is evidence from the 1970s onwards of approaches towards education that promote a more international outlook, under themes such as education for international understanding or inter-cultural learning. In some countries there was a strong influence from UNESCO, in others from the increased role of the European Commission or in the case of Japan a conscious move from its imperial past to a more outward looking view of the world (Harrison, 2008, Ishi, 2003,Osler,1994)

The ‘Adjectival Educations’

The emergence of the global education movement had linkages with other traditions that were also emerging in the 1960s and 1970s. These included environmental, peace, multi and inter-cultural, human rights and later anti-racist education. Whilst all of these movements have their own history they often emerged as a response to what was perceived as a weakness within formal education: the need to make connections between learning and society and above all to see education as a vehicle for some form of personal and social transformation (Greig, Pike, Selby,1987).

These traditions or  ‘adjectival educations’ (Huckle and Sterling,1996) resulted in the growth during the 1980s, particularly in North America, Australia and Europe, of networks and organisations promoting their particular approach towards education. Recognising these trends, Pike and Selby, re-defined global education as an over-arching term to incorporate these trends.

A variation on this concept of global education emerged in Europe in the 1990s, promoted by the Council of Europe, that has closer linkages to development education but aims to bring these adjectival educations together because of their perceived interconnectedness and sense of social justice. This definition of ‘Global Education’ emphasises the opening of people’s eyes and minds to ‘the realities of the world, and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all.’ It makes reference to encompassing development, human rights, sustainability, citizenship, inter-cultural and peace education (See Osler and Vincent, 2003, Hoeck and Wegimont , 2003).

The Development Agenda and Development Education

These traditions were influential to development education because they had similar goals and objectives around promoting a broader world-view with an emphasis on participatory forms of learning.  Terms were used interchangeably. What in one country may be called global education or global learning may in another be called development education. In some cases this was for linguistic reasons, in others political but also it was because of a general lack of conceptual clarity as to what these terms meant.

However what came to distinguish development education was the relationship to development and consequent support from aid ministries and international non-governmental organisations with an emphasis on linkages between learning and action within a social justice based perspective. (Krause, 2010)
 
Development education emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s in Europe and North America in response to the de-colonisation process and the emergence of development as a specific feature of government and NGOs policies and programmes. Up until the late 1960s the dominant view in Europe about the ‘third world’ was that it was a problem best left to the churches to help the poor people. The dominant image was of helpless people who needed charity – giving money ‘for black babies’. This meant that in many industrialised countries the medium through which people often learnt about the ‘developing world’ had been via the church.

The de-colonisation approach meant that for countries such as UK, France, Netherlands and Belgium, their relationship to the former colonies would now to be based on economic, social and cultural ties. From the late 1960s onwards in countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Canada and the UK, publicly funded programmes emerged to support aid. To ensure these programmes had public support, resources began to be given to ensure the public was supportive through educational programmes, production of resources and general awareness raising.

In addition to these influences, the drive for public support for aid from both governments and voluntary organisations needs to be added, alongside the promotion of a more internationalist outlook. Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands and Canada and later Japan (Ishii 2003) were some of the first to promote programmes on development education. Their specific relationship to the wider world through international development was a major factor in the decision to develop programmes on development education.

This linkage between an international outlook and the growth of development assistance programmes became an influence on both policy-makers and NGOs. In the UK for example the work of Oxfam, the development and aid agency, provides a typical example of how and why an NGO supported and became engaged in work within schools. These activities have been well documented by Harrison (2008) and behind their motivation was ‘a desire to open up hearts and minds, as well as the purses, to the problem of poverty in countries overseas’

However much of this practice as Hammond (2002) and others have commented was located within an approach that served to educate for support a ‘largely ignorant or disinterested public’ through an information-delivery model of learning. This practice of providing information and resources about third world problems became a feature of development education practice influenced particularly by a climate of ‘informed and committed opinion’ amongst returned overseas volunteers, teachers, schools, churches and academics throughout the late 1960s and 1970s (Starkey 1994). 

The Emergence of a More Critical Stance and a Movement for Radical Change

From the late 1970s there is an emergence within this development education practice of more critical approaches. Practitioners were beginning to question the aid industry and often as a result of personal experience and volunteering were seeing the need for a more social justice based approach. (Harrison, 2008).

In a number of countries third world shops and solidarity groups emerged, partly as a response to political events in Latin America for example or struggles of peoples against continued Portuguese colonisation in Africa but also to hearing about radical educational approaches, notably the work of Paulo Friere. (Cronkhite 2000).

Similar observations can be found in Germany and Austria where OIE (the main development education organisation in the 1980s) questioned the banking method of education (Hartmeyer,2008), and promoted more affective and participatory forms of learning about development.

John Fien, a leading Australian academic in this field stated in 1991:
‘the whole purpose of development education is to promote social justice, to change the world, through understanding, empathy and solidarity with the patterns of life experienced by societies different from our own.  In particular it is concerned with the lives and future well-being of the oppressed, the people who live in the Third World countries of the South or under Third World conditions in the North (Fien 1991, quoted in Starkey ,1994, p.28)

By the 1990s in countries such as UK, Canada, Germany, Netherlands and Japan, there were movements of educationalists, mainly working with NGOs, but with some support from teachers and academics, who were promoting an approach that primarily influenced by critical perspectives on development combined with the pedagogy of Freire (1972) and progressive classroom practices (Walkington 2000). As Regan and Sinclair, two leading figures within the development education tradition from Ireland and England respectively, commented :
From being initially concerned almost exclusively with the ‘third world’  and its problems, development education has now taken on a broader,  wider world  focus which is as much concerned with global awareness,  understanding and  political literacy in the developed world. (Regan &  Sinclair 1986,p.27)

Development education had, as McCollum noted, relied still in the 1990s on the efforts of individual practitioners with minimal guidance and few resources. They had developed their own working practices by trial and error and by working in partnership with teachers and educationalists.  Where funding existed it tended to be focussed on delivering outputs, materials and resources for teachers and educational groups.  While this may have resulted in some well-received and high quality resources, the field did not have a strong theoretical basis or a high educational profile (McCollum, 1996,p. 22).

This apparent superficiality suggested by McCollum was, and remains a major challenge for development education.  This superficiality could be argued to be a result of a reluctance to move beyond occasional references to a more critical and radical approach, when the main drivers and funders were governments with a public support for aid agenda.

There continued to be variations in political support depending on the shade of the government, but an emerging consensus in Europe at least emerged of the value of supporting educational programmes around development and global themes culminating in the 2002 Council of Europe declaration on Global Education. This called on all member states to give funding and to lobby educational bodies to promote learning about global issues (Hoeck and Wegimont ,2003).

The Changing Role of the Media and Emergence of a Campaigning Focus

Earlier in this chapter it was stated that development education first emerged in terms of raising awareness and support for aid and development but that it gradually began to take a more critical stance.

This critical stance has at various times since the 1970s been challenged and in some cases diverted by media campaigns on development issues, often generated by crises, such as famine or other disasters. This has meant that whilst development education has often strived to promote appropriate and positive images of people in continents such as Africa, media images have re-inforced traditional stereotypes. The media has also reduced issues to simple messages that might have helped NGOs and governments but not necessarily educationalists (Burnell,1998).

An example of this was Live Aid in 1985 which based its approach on public perceptions and needs rather than the causes and the issues.  Whilst there is some evidence that the raising of the profile of the Ethiopian famine did result in increased public concern for the poor of the world, development education organisations from the late 1980s onwards had a constant battle to challenge dominant perceptions of poverty (van der Gaag and Nash,1987, McCollum 1996)

Peter Adamson writing in 1993 (Adamson, 1993) stated that whenever he gave a talk in a school or college, the dominant views of children were of poverty and starvation in the developing world because of the influence of the media. The role and influence of the media in understanding development has been the feature of numerous studies (Burnell, 1998, Manzo,2006, Smith,2004) and this area remains a major influence on peoples’ perceptions of third world countries.  The perceptions of Africa, for example, as a continent of helplessness and ‘starving babies’ was still evident in the school classroom in the first decade of the twenty first century (Edge, Khamsi and Bourn .2008, Lowe,2008)

The need to challenge dominant and negative views about the developing world following Live Aid had became a major concern of development and development education organisations.  VSO (2002) noted in its report on public perceptions of development that the Live Aid legacy was still very prevalent in UK society. Whilst at a one level this led to resources and materials being produced for schools, it also led to increased emphasis being given to what became known as public education or communications strategies focussed on promoting messages and visual representations. From the 1990s onwards therefore around Europe there has been increased emphasis on resources been given to media related materials and initiatives encouraging the public to be supportive and engaged in development. As a consequence less attention and resources were given to debating from a more critical perspective the role and contribution of aid and development to combating global poverty.

This move from education to awareness raising, communicating messages, public engagement and campaigning can be seen in both the practice of NGOs and the role and focus of governments. For example terms such as ‘development awareness’ became commonplace in Europe, including the UK where in 1997 a new Labour Government, committed to development education, put equal emphasis on communications and media engagement with development (DFID,1998).

These trends and a growing desire by NGOs to encourage greater active involvement in development culminated in the Make Poverty History initiative of 2005. However this took the practice away from learning and understanding about development and global issues to a focus on action and political engagement (Darnton, 2006). Development and aid were accepted with perhaps a radical tinge around global social justice.

Whilst many NGOs and ‘grassroots’ development education practitioners wanted to retain a more critical stance towards development, the dominant narrative of ‘public support and engagement with development’ and the lure of public funding resulted in some countries in less critical practices and projects emerging (Hartmeyer, 2008, Cameron and Fairbrass 2004, Cronkhite 2000). There is however a danger of overplaying this because there are numerous examples of projects and programmes in UK, Ireland, Austria, and Netherlands particularly that take a critical stance towards development and global issues and not mere deliverers of government agendas (DEA,2010,Regan,2006, O’Loughlin and Wegimont,2005,2006)

The critical perspectives that did emerge were influenced by discourses outside of development particularly in relation to debates around globalisation and the changing role of learning in a global society.

Growing Influence of Globalisation and Learning in a Global Society

During the 1990s the term ‘global’ became to be seen as a more appropriate than development. Programmes, projects, resources and initiatives in countries such as UK, Canada, Germany, Australia and Finland began to refer more to global than development. This was in part for tactical reasons: people no longer, if they ever did, understand what development education actually meant.

There was also increasing use of the term global in response to recognition by policy-makers and practitioners of the influence of globalisation. In Germany for example, Klaus Seitz in 1991 used the term ‘global learning’ in response to globalisation and the needs of a global society. He argued against the ‘third world’ being added to the curriculum. There was a need, he said for a wider horizon for the promotion of a world that had global connections. (Hartmeyer,2008,p.45)

Annette Scheunpflug (2008, with Asbrand, 2006), a key influential figure in this field has challenged the value of the term development education. She states that with the moves towards a more global society, development is no longer an appropriate term.  For her, there are still power centres in the world but their location is less and less defined, The world is much more complex and for her a more appropriate term is ‘global learning’ which she defined as the pedagogical reaction towards a world society with social justice at its heart. Scheunpflug also questions the traditions within development education of promoting individual action for social change (Hartmeyer, 2008)

In a number of countries like USA, Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Netherlands the term ‘global education ‘or ;global learning’ was by the first decade of the twenty-first century, the dominant term within which the discourses around learning and understanding about international development could be found. In some cases like in Central Europe this was due to a combination of the influences of the views of Seitz and Scheunpflug and also by the work of Council of Europe and its recommendations of closer linkages between development, human rights, environment and intercultural learning.  In North America and Australia it was also to do the leading influences coming more from academic discourses and particularly the influence of Selby and Pike, rather than political influences.

In the UK the response to the debates on terminology were in part tactical, the term global being more accessible than development, there was also a need to re-think the whole tradition of development education within the context of globalisation. Examples of this changes can be seen in the publications of the Development Education Association (DEA), the umbrella body for the sector in England (DEA,2002, Damiral and Mackenzie,2002) and publications sponsored by government (DfES,2005, QCA,2008),  ‘Learning in a global society’ became a common phrase.

This questioning of the term development took on a new turn when the DEA in 2008 decided to effectively drop the term development education and replace it with global learning. Whilst this was initially a tactical decision about moving on from a term that was becoming increasingly unfashionable, it provided the space for the Association to re-conceptualise the whole tradition. DEA defined global learning as education that puts learning in a global context, fostering:
  ‘critical and creative thinking;
  self-awareness and open-mindedness towards difference;
  understanding of global issues and power relationships; and
 optimism and action for a better world’ (DEA,2008).

Other influences that led to some partial re-alignments have been the rise in influence of sustainable development as one of the adjectival educations, bringing together environment and development and the increasing emphasis on global citizenship.

These evolving debates around terminology were also increasingly influenced by closer proximity in thinking and practice to similar traditions to adjectival educations already mentioned with a new coming together of these movements around sustainable development and global citizenship.

Education for Sustainable Development  (Scott and Gough, 2004) has in a number of countries (notably Japan, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands) become a major influence on re-aligning development and global education. Global citizenship is another term that has become a popular manifestation of these practices, particularly in North America (see Abdi and Shultz, 2008) and the UK (Oxfam, 2006). This term is often used to make connections to rights and responsibilities but also to demonstrate the global and interconnected lifestyles many people in the Global North.

Moving from the margins to the mainstream

Regardless of discussions around terminology, it cannot be denied that the first decade of the twenty first century witnessed the biggest ever expansion of  interest in and engagement with learning about global and development issues in the leading industrialised countries (Wegimont and Hoeck,2003; Krause,2010). There were four main reasons for this:

Firstly at a policy level the launch of the UN Millennium Development Goals in 2000 put an onus on governments to demonstrate impact and influence  (Schuenpflug and McDonnell). The support of the public for these goals became a political priority for many countries. This drive for support for development goals was given a major boost by the 2005 campaign around Make Poverty History.

Secondly the wider world and developing countries in particular no longer seemed in the Global North to be far away. Globalisation, instant communications, the impact of climate change and the support for campaigns around fair trade for example made learning about global issues part of everyday learning. Examples can be found from a number of countries of educational programmes that recognise the globalised nature of societies and the need for education to respond through changes to the curriculum and in new approaches to learning (Peters,L, 2009, Mundy,K 2007,DfES, 2005, Rasanen,2009).

Thirdly policy makers and practitioners were beginning to demonstrate the value of learning about development issues not only in terms of public support for development but also in educational terms. Therefore in a number of countries such as Australia (AusAid,2008) Austria, (Forghani-Arani and Hartmeyer,2010) and Portugal (IPAD,2010 ) strategies emerged under the label of development awareness, global learning or global education that were owned not only by ministries responsible for aid, but also by ministries of education, with engagement of civil society bodies.

Fourthly, educational institutions were referring to equipping learners for living and working in a global society (Bourn, 2009, Edge, Khamsi, Bourn 2008, Abdi and Shultz, 2008). Schools ,for example, referred to learning about global issues through links with schools in developing countries as part of creating a global mindset (Edge and Jaafar,2008).

What remains less clear is what constitutes the main elements of development education today and whether the use of other terms such as global learning, global citizenship or global education suggests a radical shift in the focus and forms of delivery of this area of learning. Above all has the ever-changing terminology been just a response to a tactical or political need to more effectively communicate a body of practice or a fundamental re-alignment of practice linked to the adjectival educations and the challenges of globalisation.

It is suggested here that regardless of the twists and turns in the use of terminology and alignments to broader educational traditions and social influences, there is need to explore the key principles and practices that could constitute a distinctive pedagogy of development education.

 Development Education and Critical Pedagogy

Development education could be seen as one of the adjectival educations if you see it as an area of educational practice that is located within and around discourses of development.  It could also be seen as an approach towards learning that once had value but should now be subsumed within concepts such as global learning, global education, global citizenship or education for sustainable development.

There is another interpretation of development education that it is a methodology and approach that has relevance to broader theories of learning, particularly critical pedagogy.

The rationale for this third interpretation is that if one looks at the practices of organisations in many countries in the Global North there are some common factors that suggest that development education still has connections to the ideas of Paulo Freire and his emphasis on continuing reflection, questioning of knowledge and dominant orthodoxies, of empowerment and social change(Freire,1972, Darder, Baltodano and Torres,2009).

Henry Giroux suggests that critical pedagogy needs to create new forms of knowledge and break down disciplinary boundaries (Giroux,2005). Mclaren (2009) in defining critical pedagogy emphasises not only the importance of forms of knowledge but also dominant and subordinate cultures and consequent influences of power and ideology. This questioning of dominant myths and ideas, to go beneath the surface and look at root causes and social context lies at the heart of critical pedagogy (Shor,I,1992) .

These theoretical viewpoints relate closely to the practical manifestations of a ‘critical development education’ in terms of making sense of understanding the global forces that shapes one life.

Firstly a key theme of development education practice is the promotion of the interdependent and interconnected nature of our lives, the similarities as well as the differences between communities and peoples around the world (Regan and Sinclair, 2000, DEA,2002)

A second theme is about ensuring the voices and perspectives of the peoples of the Global South are promoted, understood and reflected upon along with perspectives from the Global North. (Budgett-Meakin, 2001, Ohri,1997, Patel,2010) This means going beyond a relativist notion of differing voices to one that recognises the importance of spaces for the voices of the oppressed and disposed (Andreotti, 2008)

Thirdly development education seeks to encourage a more values based approach tow learning with an emphasis on social justice, fairness and the desire for a more equal world (Osler, 1994, Abdi and Shultz,2008).

Finally, development education promotes the linkage between learning, moral outraged and concern about global poverty and wanting to take action to secure change (Oxfam,2006)

If you went into a school classroom in most European countries, at some stage during a school year there would be examples of learning about development issues or some form of activity or project about global issues.

What would firstly distinguish this activity as a ‘development education’ activity would be the extent to which it was moving beyond a traditional view of seeing the Global South as ‘just about poor people’ who were helpless and needed aid and charity. Positive examples would be where there was learning that questioned, challenged assumptions and stereotypes and located poverty within an understanding of the causes of inequality and what people were doing for themselves.

This move from a ‘charity mentality’ to one of social justice remains an underlying theme of development education in practice in schools. A development education perspective would question the emphasis a school might give to raising money unless it was located within broader learning. It would also mean that central to learning would be the promotion of positive images, often through the use of photographs and personal stories.

Secondly development education practice would often include giving space to stories and perspectives from people from the Global South. This would lead on to looking at issues through different lenses. Examples of this are two web-based programmes that have emerged from the work of Vanessa Andreotti (2006). Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry (OSDE, 2006) is a methodology produced by UK based development educationalists that supports the creation of open and safe spaces for dialogue and enquiry about global issues where’ people are invited to engage critically with their own and different perspectives’ (OSDE, 2008). Through Other Eyes, a development of this approach, aims through a range of educational methods to ‘enable educators to develop an understanding of how language and systems of belief, value and representation affect the way people interpret the world’ (Andreotti and De Souza 2008,pp.23-24).

Thirdly development education learning would as Oxfam (2006) has suggested, encourage ‘a sense of moral outrage’, of wanting to take the learning forward through some form of follow up activity.

Finally and central to all development education practice would be the encouragement of participatory learning methodologies (DEA,2000) with clear echoes of the influence of Freire and other radical educationalists from the 1970s and 1980s.

Conclusion

This article has suggested that development education has become an important component of learning for the twenty first century. However the funding driven agenda has resulted in a chequered history within many industrialised countries and a consequent tendency to operate within dominant discourses of development.  While political influences and NGO agendas have contributed to the slow development of (or failure to develop) an independent discourse, there is evidence from the practice of many organisations that a more open and independent approach can be undertaken.

At a time when societies are increasingly globalised and interdependent, learning and understanding about the causes of increased divisions in the world could be argued to be even more important than before. As international bodies such as the UN, G8 and the European Commission put increased emphasis on ‘combating global poverty’, the need to engage the public in these debates becomes ever more important. However unless this engagement is based on opportunities for critical reflection on development and global inequalities development education could be reduced to being the ‘mouth piece’ of policy-makes or large NGOs a major learning opportunity will be missed.

Some commentators (Scheunpflug and Asbrand 2006, Hartmeyer, 2008) have argued that the answer to these challenges has to be a re-conceptualisation of the debates within a new discourse around global learning. Andreotti (2006,2010 recognises the importance of understanding postcolonialism and poses questions about what form of knowledge based society is needed for the twenty-first century.  What cannot be denied is that around the world, educational bodies are addressing global themes and issues more directly. The challenge for proponents of development education is whether it merely follows and responds to these opportunities or sees its engagement as part of a broader ideological debate challenging the influences of dominant neo-liberal agendas with education. If proponents of development education look to theories related to ‘critical pedagogy’ then there is the option of a linkage to a theoretical framework that could take the practice beyond the agendas of policy-makers and NGOs.

Bibliographical notes:

- Abdi, A. and Shultz, L. (ed.) (2008) Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship, Albany, State University of New York Press
- Adamson, P. (1993) Charity Begins at Home, The Independent, 18 May 1993
- Andreotti V. (2006), Soft versus critical global citizenship education, Policy and Practice, 3 , Belfast , Centre for Global Education, pp.40-51.
- Andreotti, V. (2010) Global Education in the 21st Century: two different perspectives on the post of postmodernism’, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2 (2)  5-22
- Andreotti, V. and  de Souza,L.M. (2008) ‘Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project “Through Other Eyes” ‘, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1 (1) 23-36.
- AusAid, GEP, Curriculum Corporation, Asia Education Foundation (2008) Global Perspectives: A framework for global education in Australian schools , available from: http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/engineName/filemanager/pid/122/GPS_ForWeb_150dpi.pdf?actionreq=actionFileDownload&fid=24877
- Bourn D. (ed.) (2008) Development Education: Debates and Dialogue London, IOE
- Budgettt-Meakin,C.(2001) Black Voices in Development Education, London, DEA
- Burnell P (1998) ‘Britain’s new Government: new White Paper, new aid?  Eliminating world poverty: a challenge for the 21st Century’ , Third World Quarterly, 19(4):  787-802
- Cameron,J & Fairbrass,S (2004) From Development Awareness to Enabling Effective Support: The Changing Profile of Development Education in England, Journal of International Development, 16, 729-40.
- Cronkhite, L (2000) Development Education Making Connections North and South’ in Selby, D. and Goldstein, T. (ed.): Weaving Connections, Toronto, 146-167
- Damiral,K and Mackenzie, N. (ed.) (2002) The Global Learning Challenge, London, DEA
- Darder,A., Baltodano, M.P.,Torres,R.d. (ed.) (2009) The Critical Pedagogy Reader, New York ,Routledge
- Darnton,A, (2006) Mass Action and mass education: Make Poverty History in
2005, Development  Education Journal, vol.12.2, Stoke-On-Trent, Trentham.13-15
- DEA (2000) Principles and Practices of Development Education in Schools, London, DEA
- DEA (2002) Young People in a Global Society, London, DEA.
- DEA (2008) Global Matters Learning- Case Studies, London, DEA
Department for Education and Skillls (DFES) Putting the World into World Class Education, London, DFES
- Department for International Development (DFID) (1998) Building Support for Development, London, DFID
- Edge K. and Jaafar,S.B. (2008) North-South Educational Partnerships: Learning from Schools in the UK, Africa and Asia, Research report, Year. London Centre for Leadership in Learning, Institute of Education, University of London
- Edge,K., Khamsi, K. and Bourn, D (2008) Exploring the Global Dimension in Secondary Schools, Research report for DCSF, London, DCSF
- Forghani-Arani, N and Hartmeyer, H (2010)  Global Learning in Austria, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2,2,
- Freire, P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, London, Penguin.
- Giroux,H. (2005) Border Crossings, New York, Routledge
- Greig,S, Pike,.G and Selby,D  (1987)  Earthrights- Education as if the Planet Really Mattered, London, WWF and Kogan Page
- Hammond,B (2002)  DFID’s Invisible Hand- A Challenge to Development Education? Unpublished Dissertation for MA. UEA.
- Harrison, D (2005) ‘Post-Its on History of Development Education’, Development Education Journal, vol.13.1, 6-8.
- Harrison, D (2008) Oxfam and the rise of development education in England from 1959 to 1979, Unpublished PhD, Institute of Education, University of London
- Hicks (1990) ‘World Studies 8-13: a short history, 1980-89, Westminster Studies in Education, 13, 61-80.
- Hicks, D (2003) Thirty Years of Global Education’, Education Review, 265-75.
- Hoeck,S & Wegimont,L (2003)  National Structures for the Organisation, Support and Funding of Development Education, Lisbon, Council of Europe North-South Centre
- Huckle,J and Sterling,S. (1996) Education for Sustainability, London, Earthscan
- Instituto Portugues de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento (IPAD (2010) National Strategy for Development Education 2010 – 2015: Portugal , Lisbon, IPAD
Ishii, Y (2003) Development Education in Japan, New York/London, Routledge
- Kirkwood-Tucker, T.F. (ed.) Visions in Global Education, New York, Peter Lang
- Krause, J (2010) European Development Education Monitoring Report- Development Education Watch, Brussels, European Multi-Stakeholder Forum
Lambert, D and Morgan, J. (2010) Teaching Geography 11-18, Maidenhead, Oxford University Press
- Lowe, B (2008) ‘Embedding global citizenship in primary and secondary schools: developing a methodology for measuring attitudinal change’, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1 (1). 59-64
- Manzo, K, (2006) An extension of colonialism? Development education, images and the media, The Development Education Journal,12.2, 9-12
- McCollum, A (1996) On the Margins? An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Development Education in the 1900s. Ph.D. Thesis, Open University,
- Mclaren, P. (2009)  Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts, in Darder,A., Baltodano, M.P.,Torres,R.d. (ed.) The Critical Pedagogy Reader, New York ,Routledge,61-83
- Mundy, K (2007) Charting Global Education in Canada’s Elementary Schools, Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)/ UNICEF
- O’Loughlin,E. and Wegimont,L (2005) Global Education in the Netherlands- The European Global Education Peer Review Process, Lisbon, North-South Centre
- O’Loughlin,E. and Wegimont,L (2006) Global Education in Austria- The European Global Education Peer Review Process, Lisbon, North-South Centre
- Ohri, A, (1997) The World in Our Neighbourhood, London, DEA
Open Space for Dialogue and Enquiry (OSDE) (2006) OSDE Introductory Booklet, Nottingham, Nottingham University available from http://www.osdemethodology.org.uk/keydocs/osdebooklet.pdf
- Osler, A (1994) Development Education, London, Cassells.
- Osler A.& Vincent,K. (2002) Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education. Stoke –On-Trent
- Oxfam (2006) Education for Global Citizenship. Oxford, Oxfam.
- Patel, S (ed.) (2010) Building Capacity,London, DEA
- Peters, L. (2009) Global Education- Using Technology to Bring the World to Your Students, Eugene Oregon/Washington DC, International Society for Technology in Education.
- Pike, G & Selby, D (1988) Global Teacher, Global Learner, Sevenoaks, Hodder & Stoughton,
- Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2008) The Global Dimension in Action, London, QCA
- Rasaren, R. (2009) Transformative global education and learning in teacher
education in Finland,  International Journal of Development Education and
Global Learning,1, (2) 25-40
- Regan, C. (2006) 80:20 –Development in an Unequal World, Dublin, Ireland
- Regan, C & Sinclair, S (2000) Development Education and Human Rights
Education in Britain and Ireland: Present and Future Challenges: The
Development Education Commission: Final Report, Birmingham ,80:20 & TIDE
- Richardson,R (1976) Learning for Change in World Society, London, World Studies Project.
- Richardson, R (1990) Daring to be a Teacher, Stoke on Trent, Trentham.
Pike G. & Selby D. (1998) Global Teacher, Global Learner. Sevenoaks, Hodden and Stoughton.
- Scheunpflug,A (2008) Why Global Learning and Global Education? An educational approach influenced by the perspectives of Immanuel Kant, in Bourn,D, (eds.) Development Education: Debates and Dialogue, London, Institute of Education.
- Scheunpflug, A & Asbrand, B, (2006) Global Education and education for sustainability, Environmental Education Research, vol.12.1. 33-46.
- Scheunpflug, A and McDonnell (2008) Building Public Awareness of Development:Communicators, Educators and Evaluation, Paris, OECD
Shor, I, 1992, Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
- Smith, M. and Yanacopulos, H.(2004) The Public Faces of Development.,: Journal of International Development, Special Issue, Vol. 16, 5, 657-664
- Smith, M. (2004) Contradiction and change? NGOs, schools and the public faces of development. Journal of International Development, Vol. 16 , 5, 741
- Starkey, H. (1994) Development Education and Human Rights Education, in Osler,A. (ed.) Development Education, London, Cassels, 11-31
- Steiner, M  (1996) (ed.) Developing the Global Teacher, Stoke-On-Trent, Trentham
- Tye,K (1999) Global Education – A Worldwide Movement, Orange,California, Interdependence Press
- Tye, K. (2009) ‘A History of the Global Education Movement in the United States’, in Kirkwood-Tucker, T.F (ed.) Visions in Global Education, New York, Peter Lang Publishers,.3-24
- Van der Gaard, N. and Nash, C. (1987) Images of Africa- The UK Report, Oxford, Oxfam
- VSO (2002) The Live Aid Legacy, London, VSO
- Walkington, H. (2000) The Educational Methodology of Paulo Freire: to what extent is it reflected in development education in the UK Classroom, The Development Education Journal, vol.7.1.15-17.

Contact: CEP- Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones Alforja, Apartado 369-1000 San José , Costa Rica. oscar@cepalforja.org

Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

02B Jara Inglés

What to learn, how to learn, why learn, why and for whom do we learn – and consequently, why and against whom do we not learn – are theoretico-practical and not intellectual issues that we propose regarding the act of learning (…) there are, for this very reason, no neutral specialists, “owners” of neutral techniques… there are no “neutral methodologists”
(PAULO FREIRE – Letters to Guinea- Bissau)

Abstract

 The Systematization of Experiences, as an exercise for the production of critical knowledge through practice, has increasingly gained significance in popular education experiences in Latin America, as well as in other contexts. Many times mistaken as mere data collection or the description of events, or even as the production of a synthesised report of an experience, the conceptualisations concerning the systematisation of experiences have created interesting points of reflection regarding its specific identity. The present article deals with this challenge by proposing the particular features, alongside the common and complementary ones, that the systematization of experiences would have in relation to other exercises of creating knowledge such as evaluation and systematization. It also places this reflection not only in a conceptual but also in a historical frame of reference, since it defines these relationships as a part of the challenge of building new epistemologies which confront the traditional ways of producing scientific knowledge and the dominant ways of producing and spreading know-how.

Three sisters from the same family (1)

One of the most common difficulties we come across when trying to clarify what exactly the systematization of experiences entails is the lack of boundaries defining the difference between social experience, evaluation and research. Thus, we will attempt to explore some of the avenues that may lead to a clarification of this issue.

 Let us begin by highlighting that these three activities are like “sisters from the same family”: they all work towards the same goal of understanding reality in order to be able to change it and all three activities are viewed within the context of learning.

 A second relevant aspect to bear in mind is that we believe evaluation, research and systematization of experiences feed off of one another and that none of the three can replace any other, and therefore we must put them all into practice. In order to make progress regarding the theoretical and practical challenges that popular education, organisation or popular participation projects involve, we cannot afford to forgo any of the activities.

 In a third approach, we shall attempt to highlight some of the similarities and the specific individual contributions of each activity, using the most traditional definitions of evaluation and research as reference, given that many different types and approaches exist in this regard:

 - Evaluation, as with systematization, represents an initial level of conceptual development. Its learning objective is immediate practice by those performing the evaluation. However, the aim of evaluation is not to interpret the logic of the process experienced, but fundamentally to analyse, measure or assess the results obtained, comparing them with the initial diagnosis and the objectives or aims that were initially proposed, highlighting the gaps between what was planned and what was achieved from those plans. Said analysis, measurement and evaluation are also learning processes and are not limited to using quantitative data, but rather aspire to identify the qualitative aspects that are present in the results.

- Both evaluation and systematization involve performing an exercise in abstraction either based on or through practice. However, whilst systematization focuses more on the dynamics and movement of the processes, evaluation places more emphasis on whether or not the results have been achieved. Thus, based on the individual contribution of each one, both become essential factors in building upon our learning experiences.
- This initial level of conceptualisation reached through both evaluation and systematization is the basis for a more extensive and profound process of theorisation. To advance on to further levels of conceptual reflection, it will be necessary to link the knowledge gained directly from individual practices with the knowledge accumulated, synthesised and structured in diverse existing theoretical proposals.

Therefore, evaluation must be considered an educational act that is useful to all those who participate in the experience, rather than a formal task that weighs the differences between costs and benefits, the number of results forecast and obtained, tasks completed or not. As with the systematization of experiences, evaluation must reach practical conclusions and both must feed off one another with the aim of coming together to achieve their common goal: improving the quality of our practices.

In turn, social research (the aim of which is not limited to experience itself, but could cover multiple phenomena, processes and structures) is an exercise that seeks to contribute to the construction of scientific knowledge, characterised in this way because they are based upon a doctrine understood as a combination of essential propositions that aim to understand and explain society’s movements and contradictions and that are permanently confronted and enriched with knowledge gained in a methodical and systematic way. The results of this research can be verified, compared and contrasted in order to create levels of generalisation and transferability.

 The products of scientific knowledge are incorporated into systems that must be constantly enriched with the contributions of the relevant scientific community. Social research gives us an understanding of the experiences within a wider reference framework and enables us to explain the interrelationships and interdependencies that exist in various phenomena from socio-historic reality. In this way, research can enrich the critical interpretation of the direct practice performed by the systematization of experiences, contributing to the knowledge dialogue with new theoretical and conceptual elements. Thus we are able to reach a greater degree of abstraction.

 As with evaluation, research and systematization must feed off of one another, with each activity contributing its own individual characteristics. Each one constitutes a particular way of approaching an understanding of reality and both are irreplaceable. If we were to confuse them we would lose the specific qualities that they offer us. However, we should not play one off against the other either, as neither of them can replace or override what the other does. Therefore, we affirm the extreme importance of both activities. As well as recognising the importance and urgency of fostering systematization processes for our education, organisation or participation experiences, we also reaffirm the no less important need of including the research dimension in our organisations.

 Convergence and divergence, interrogations and research

While what we have discussed above provides us with a general reference framework, in practice we see that on many occasions we encounter “convergences” and “divergences” between these three activities. It therefore makes sense to explain in greater depth the common ground that these activities share and the individual features that each one contributes.  Our primary concern focuses on how to incorporate in an effective, viable and permanent manner processes and products relating to the evaluation, research and systematization of experiences in our everyday jobs and in the dynamics of our organisations and institutions, knowing that in certain situations and depending on the ways they are used, we will find ourselves at crossroads and converging paths in which the three activities mix, since they share the same purpose. For example: Firstly, when we speak about the production of transforming knowledge, we are not describing knowledge with a transforming “discourse”, but a process completed by social subjects with the ability to build a critical understanding linked to the dilemmas of social practice and the knowledge that said social practice produces. Therefore, the social subjects develop, as a component of the practice itself, the ability to foster and think about transforming actions. This can be achieved through specific research or evaluation efforts, or by standardising experiences to the extent that they are linked to the processes and challenges of social practice.

 The integrality of the processes and perspectives

We begin, therefore, with the need for an integral and integrating perspective on social practice in which the discussion regarding the manners of producing knowledge (its epistemology), must always be historically grounded, which in turn demands of us a political position with regards to the type of knowledge that is produced or that needs to be produced in a reality such as that of Latin America.

 In this context, and more specifically, in relation to education, participation and social organisation processes carried out by social movements, NGOs and other bodies, this implies that we must always have an overall perspective of the cycle created by the ties between projects and processes, which normally includes instances of:

a) preliminary diagnosis (linked to broader RESEARCH tasks)

b) PROJECT design or strategic planning,

c) drafting action plans

d) implementation PROCESSES

e) monitoring and tracking the implementation

f) EVALUATION of the project and SYSTEMATIZATION of the experience

 Throughout this cycle, a wealth of diverse information is identified and generated that on many occasions is not properly structured and organised in order to make the best use of it during the production of knowledge and that, in turn, allows useful learning experiences to be built that nurture the organisation’s action. Therefore, we must highlight the importance of having an institutional record-keeping system that enables experiences to be used efficiently as raw material to nurture an institutional culture of reflection and learning. (2)

 However, the central topic of integrality does not lie in organising a sequence of activities taking place in the project-process “trajectory”, as if it were linear, but in the interrelationships and interdependence between all the cycle’s components: upon deciding to perform a diagnosis at a specific place or on a certain topic, options have already been seen and knowledge has already been expressed; the ultimate purpose of the project is now depicted in the way its aims and stages are structured; throughout the implementation unexpected situations and circumstances will arise that will bring up new ideas or opinions that confirm or modify the elements highlighted in the diagnosis or change the scheduled objectives, etc. Therefore, it is naive to think these activities could be divided into completely separate phases: first, research, then, implementation, and subsequently, monitoring, systematization and evaluation, etc. Even though there may be instances where one of these aspects dominates over the others, we will not be able to separate them completely in the reality of the processes, performing them, thinking about them and the context in which they are carried out.

A new knowledge paradigm from “the South”

In order to coherently deal with process integrality, over recent decades, doubts have arisen regarding the traditional ways of understanding research and scientific knowledge production in the West, whose historical decontextualisation and desire to be applied universally has been at the service of colonialism and capitalist globalisation, shifting the focus away from other ways of understanding the world and life and excluding the individuals that create said ways of understanding. As Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2008) highlights (3), a new emancipating political culture must be created, fostering post-capitalist and decolonial thought, in a counter-hegemonic initiative. Therefore, it is essential to assess what has emerged from the social and political movements of the “South” as the bearer of other kinds of knowledge, comprehensive world views, ways of coming to terms with history, that confront traditional positivistic science and the prevalent ways in which knowledge is produced and circulated. In this sense, it is based on these other experiences that must be assessed, communicated and questioned mutually, where other research methods and approaches are conceived that may help in the understanding of and contribution to the construction of other possible worlds.

 This has brought into question the male and predominantly white Western learning method paradigm based on Cartesian rationalism to sustain historicized, intersubjective and “feeling-thought” knowledge and perspectives, which link reason and desire, going beyond the positivistic concept of social research and the abstract universalistic notion of so-called scientific knowledge.

 It has also broken down the traditional dichotomies of nature-culture, reason-emotion, expert knowledge-popular wisdom, manual labour-intellectual work. In particular, it has broken with the essence of these dichotomies: the separation between the subject and the object in research, in which from a hierarchical perspective the production of scientific and true knowledge can only be realised by a handful of individuals named researchers and via a standardised procedure whose rules must be followed scrupulously in order for the research to be considered legitimate (4).

 As highlighted by Marco Raúl Mejía (2009) (5), we are confronted by new realities now perceived in all their complexity, which require new forms and methods of explanation: the ideas of truth and totality have been redefined; there is a change in the idea of time, once viewed as linear, fixed, determined; the essence of disciplinary knowledge is shattered as we move towards inter- and cross-disciplinary perspectives; the traditional conceptual system, rigorous in its procedures, objective, deterministic, which based its reasoning on formal logic and was strengthened by its corroboration, can no longer adequately explain new phenomena.

 Research alternatives linked to popular education processes

Within the research trends that sustain the importance of a qualitative, multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approach, based on the proposition stating that objective reality does not exist, but rather that we become familiar with reality through what we set out to discover, in Latin America there are two proposals that are of particular relevance: thematic investigation and participatory action research.

  Thematic research was suggested by Paulo and Elza Freire as part of their methodological proposal for adult literacy, on the basis of the affirmation of the human being as creator of culture, and language as a means of expressing one’s vision of the world. Said proposal is based on the vocabulary of illiterate people so that, through dialogue with them, those teaching them to read and write can identify what the “generating themes” of subsequent problematisation, critical reflection or “conscientisation” procedures will be. Some “generating words” correspond to these generating themes, reflecting in a particularly meaningful way the contents of the problematisation. Furthermore, they can be structured according to progressive syllabic and syntactic complexity, thus constituting a set of combinations of syllables and phrases that enable the reading and writing learning process to become a conscious, active and living mechanism, but also for it to become a way of “critically reading the world in order to be able to write their own story”.

 Thematic research therefore requires people from outside these communities to be willing to partake in a dialogic learning process and to have excellent listening skills. In the education-research process (as research forms part of the education process rather than being considered a prior step), the distance between those teaching literacy skills and the students will gradually decrease because, even though in theory the generating themes are identified primarily by those organising the literacy programmes, the reflection upon each generating word will depend on those who are learning the literacy skills. In this mutual process of learning, discovery and knowledge, confidence and challenge building Freire’s (1996) assertion will be fulfilled: “The educator learns through teaching and the student teaches through learning”, making research and critical reflection an element, a permanent dimension in the teaching profession (6).

 Participatory action research

The proposals presented to us under this concept have a wide range of approaches and nuances, produced by epistemological stances or ideologies that are different or are marked by the place there were developed (such as an academic environment, or in popular education environments or social movements). We believe, as indicated in the previous chapter, Participatory Action Research to be an approach to research that originated primarily in Latin America, whose aim is the full participation of people from popular sectors in the analysis of their own reality, with the aim of promoting social transformation favouring the following groups of people: the oppressed, discriminated, marginalized and exploited. It is, in this sense, an epistemological, theoretical, ethical, political and methodological option.

 “The Participatory Action Research (PAR) method combines two processes; that of learning and that of acting, involving the population whose reality is discussed in this process. In each PAR project the three elements are combined in varying quantities. a) Research consists of a reflexive, systematic, controlled and critical process, the aim of which is to study a specific aspect of reality with an express practical purpose. b) Action is not only the ultimate purpose of the research, but also represents a source of knowledge, whilst at the same time conducting the study itself is a form of intervention. c) Participation means that it is not only the professional researchers that are involved in the process, but also the project’s target community; that they are not considered as mere research objects but as active subjects that contribute to learning about and transforming their own reality.

 PAR’s purpose is to change the reality of and confront the issues affecting a population by using said population’s resources and participation, which is embodied in the following specific objectives: a) Generating liberating knowledge based on their own popular knowledge, which grows, expresses and structures itself via the research process carried out by the population itself and which the researches simply facilitate by contributing methodological tools. b) As a consequence of this knowledge, a process of empowerment is set in motion or an increase in political power (in a broad sense) and a strategy to bring about change is started or consolidated. c) Connecting this process of knowledge, empowerment and action locally with similar processes in other places, in such a way that it creates a horizontal and vertical framework which enables the process to expand and the social reality to be transformed”. (7)

 In general terms its main characteristics are as follows (8):

• The starting point is the vision of reality as a whole formed by researchers who are engaged in their dilemmas and challenges.

• The processes and structures are understood in their historical dimension.

• Theory and practice are permanently linked, in cycles of action, reflection and action.

• Research is seen as a social process that makes it possible to discern whether or not there is correspondence between the subjects’ practices, their understanding of them and the situations in which they live.

• The people from the communities and those whose role it is to carry out the research define the objectives of the research and jointly produce critical knowledge aimed at social transformation. Therefore, the results of the research are applied to the specific reality.

• The subject-object relationship becomes a subject-subject relationship through dialogue and involves a stance with regards to the themes and issues and a lack of neutrality.
• Research and action become one single participatory process. In this latter sense, it explicitly involves negating those forms of research that involve people from the communities in processes defined by external agents, to highlight the central importance of allowing all the people to assume a decisive role throughout the process.
• The synchronous and quantitative nature of traditional research is replaced by a diachronic focus and the integration of qualitative and quantitative elements.

• It values popular wisdom as a valid form of knowing the world, democratically distributing the power of knowledge.

• This is more complex than traditional research.

• It does not possess a closed methodological model or outline, but instead, it calls for criteria that move us closer to the creation of “an investigative context that is more open and procedural so that the results themselves are reintroduced into the process to make it more extensive” (Villasante, 1994) (9).

 In short, despite all the variations, Participatory Action Research proposals and thematic research have a shared characteristic: concern for the use of research to transform reality, even though they place emphasis on different concepts and have different names.  In this sense, they coincide, as we have shown, with the main aims of the Systematization of Experiences. It would therefore make sense to take popular education, organisation and participation experiences as the approach through which to conduct research processes.

 Thus, while in general terms we could state that the Systematization of Experiences coincides with the foundations of participatory research and action, we cannot restrict it to simply being considered as a branch of participatory research and action, since its object of knowledge is more defined and precise (one’s own experiences) and its process always involves the historical recovery of the process by those who have been its subjects, which is not an essential requirement of participatory action research processes. Both characteristics stipulate the specific, innovative and original contribution of the systematization of experiences, which does not intermingle with but does complement broader investigative processes.

 Systematization of experiences and evaluation: the project and the process
As with research, the analysis of the relationships between systematization of experiences and evaluation involves starting by taking into consideration that different approaches and methods exist with which to make an evaluation, and therefore we can aspire to the creation of general guidance criteria that are of use in our profession rather than abstract conceptual classification.

 The first statement we could make is that in educational and organisational work, social promotion projects and development programmes we normally base our work on action projects that formulate aims, specific and general strategic objectives; goals to be met, and expected results, effects and impacts; they define components, plans for action, the parties in charge of implementing them, measurement indicators, managers, timelines; sources and means of verification, products, required resources, potential risks, budgets, monitoring, tracking and evaluation mechanisms, etc.. These projects are normally structured on the basis of a specific planning method, based on a preliminary diagnosis or study, formulation of the institutional aim and vision and other elements. This method and its instruments are the fundamental foundations for the evaluations. (10)

 However, from the very moment a project is implemented, an unknown element begins to take shape: a process. Said process will ultimately depend on how, in short, the different people involved in the project’s implementation interpret it, how they feel about it, act and behave towards each other. The process emerges, therefore, as the project’s “vital” component, and undoubtedly, unexpected elements will appear in its path that could not be foreseen or planned for beforehand.

 Unexpected elements may come up in any process, but innovation is also generated in relation to the original plans. The project’s framework will continue to serve as a point of reference; however, it is now the pace of the process that will dictate the dynamics and specific directions: resistance factors and propelling factors -with regards to that planned- will arise, some of which originate from elements not involved in the project, and other from within the project itself. Synergies will arise that mobilise actions more rapidly and with greater impact than previously expected, and yet there will also be obstacles that block the path. The logic of a project will always be more linear and prescriptive; that of a process, more complex, dynamic and unpredictable.

 Therefore, we can assert, as a main point of reference, that there must be a dynamic and dialectic relationship between the project and the process. This main point enables a better understanding of how evaluation and the systematization of experiences specifically contribute as factors in a learning process based on practice. (11)

 a) Evaluation is more closely linked to the project and fulfilment thereof. The systematization of experiences is closely linked to the process, its dynamics, vitality and trajectory. We assess the project and standardise the experience undergone during the process.

 b) Evaluation (whatever its approach or type) will always make a value judgement; however, the aim of systematization is to recover the practices and knowledge generated through evaluation, in order to recognise the meanings that are generated through the perspectives of the different participants, without necessarily making a judgement.

 c) In order to make a value judgement, evaluation compares, normally through an institutional framework, what a project was expected to achieve with what it in fact managed to achieve; systematization is not limited to the structure or logic of the project and its aims; instead, it may include other dimensions that arose in the process that may not have had anything to do with the institution’s proposal giving rise to the project.

d) The majority of evaluations are made with the aim of producing information that will aid decision-making. This at times leads evaluation to be primarily an administrative act, involving a controlling and supervisory approach, rather than producing learning processes, above all when presented as external evaluation. Thus, the attitudes that it generates may put some of the subjects on the defensive as they are afraid of the value judgement to be made and its implications.

 e) The systematization of experiences should be free of these administrative ties and enable people to approach the practice with a more critical, self-assessing, thoughtful attitude, where they are keen to learn about what took place during the experience. However, the generation of an atmosphere of confidence and critical analysis will always be necessary, for evaluation as well as systematization, which facilitates transparency and the shared search for learning experiences.

 f) The pace at which evaluations are performed may also vary greatly. Many evaluations have a very limited timeframe due to the need to issue reports and take decisions based on previously established deadlines. The systematization of experiences, intended more through the perspective of problematisation and understanding the experiences of the different participants, compiling their different kinds of knowledge and outlooks, tends to be slower and does not have strict deadlines insofar as it builds on a series of organisational learning experiences beyond the projects’ timeframes.

 g) In many evaluations, the role of the external assessor is often held by an independent actor who publishes his/her opinion. It is becoming increasingly rare for this role to performed entirely externally; instead it is performed by someone who critically and autonomously accompanies a self-assessing reflection by a work team, which does not prevent this person from expressing his/her opinion and evaluations, asking questions and suggesting possible interpretations as part of a dialogic and inter-learning dynamic. Except in very specific cases of serious conflicts or extreme situations, it is pure fantasy to think that a person from outside the organisation can reach a suitable conclusion without having formed part of a collective exchange process with those involved and only based on the information that s/he collects over a short period of time. This role is even more interactive with regards to the systematization of experiences, but it is always carried out entirely based on those who are subject to the experience. It is possible for an individual who does not form part of the organization to assess a group, team or institution undergoing a process of systematization, but s/he does it in a way that supports, guides, advises and promotes critical self-reflection by the different participants involved, and the latter, at all times, are the main protagonists of the systematization of their experience. Therefore, by reconstructing and interpreting their own experience, the different participants are motivated to critically assume ownership of the ways in which they act, think and explain their role and the process, without being restricted to watching the implementation of the project.

h) Due to its origin and certain characteristics linked to its use as a tool to endorse projects funded by both government and non-governmental organisations, evaluation has also become a field of professional specialisation, to the extent that there are now people whose profession is “assessor” and regional and national associations for these specialists exist. On the other hand, however, systematization is seen more as an element that forms part of the processes driven by participants and even though there are many people who work as assessors in this field, none are recognised professionally as “standardisers”. Recently, there has been an increasing tendency to include a “systematization process” in projects funded by international bodies, but this is often restrictively understood as the preparation of a “final report” that summarises what was achieved during the experience. This runs the risk of distorting the ultimate meaning of the term.

 i) Evaluation makes it possible to gather indispensable information on the results obtained, which systematization does not normally provide. The information and evaluation that evaluation provides is essential for the reorientation of projects and future activities. It is also of the utmost importance to have value judgements regarding the goals, results, effects and impacts that are actually achieved, as well as value judgements regarding the reasons explaining why they were accomplished or why they failed, in order to correct mistakes or reiterate what must be done in the future.

 j) Evaluations should attempt to go beyond merely looking at the completion of the proposed objectives or the activities completed in the short term, so as to evaluate the transforming impact of the processes over the medium term. It is therefore important to assess, in educational projects for example, the level of creative adaptation of the programme’s content or the methodological proposal, looking beyond the events themselves, in order to identify changes in the subsequent practice. From there we are able to assess in a more general fashion the different elements that are used: the thematic sequence, techniques, procedures, the role of methodological coordination, organisational and logistical aspects, etc., generating participatory and self-evaluation methods whose learning experiences will nurture the reflexivity that is the aim of systematization of experiences.

 k) It is true that both evaluation and systematization of experiences aim to build learning experiences that transcend the experience or the projects that served as their reference point, and therefore, the learning experiences aim to establish useful criteria for other practices. In this sense there is openness to the replicability of these criteria, but in the sense of creative inspiration to reinvent them and not in the sense of establishing models to copy and reproduce monotonously.

 Towards convergence and complementarity

 Consequently, rather than concerning ourselves with the issues that, in general, separate research, evaluation and systematization, we should focus on how to create, in the specific practice of our projects and processes, the conditions for a fruitful and complementary convergence of these three knowledge-producing exercises, which facilitates their transformation into educational acts and critical learning factors that strengthen our strategic projection capabilities and the enhancement of our practice.

 It is essential, therefore, to face the challenge of generating communication processes with the (partial and provisional) results that are obtained, thus actively, critically and dialogically pledging to the different parties involved that we will be increasingly able to “speak our words” within a framework of reflection, debate, controversy and consensus generation, even using shared languages, but based on the diversity of knowledge and learning experiences that, in turn, call us to joint action.

In our projects and action programmes we must include time and resources in order to generate conditions and a willingness that foster the critical intervention of multiple participants, with our multiple perspectives and sensitivities, in order to make discoveries and find interrelationships that make our perspective of what happens in our practices more complex and open us up to new and creative propositions. Similarly, we are able to aid in the creation of a “culture of reflection based on practices” that reinforces the habit of keeping periodic and timely records; spaces to meet, reflect and discuss; accumulative processes and mechanisms in the institutional sphere in order to build platforms for future action and reflection so that we are not constantly skating over the surface of the same issues but instead making effective contributions for decision-making.

Therefore, when these three activities converge it will always be a process of popular education, i.e. an ethico-politico-educational process that enables us to overcome the superficial and reductionistic explanations, democratising our abilities to produce knowledge and meaning, and therefore, empower more people. As Ricardo Zúñiga said: “Learning from our own practices, strengthening groups, their identities, empowering the subjects, making them part of the decision-making process and enabling them to tell their own story”.

 All of this will also generate a debate about different types of research, evaluation and systematization trends in which it is not possible to discover the fabric of power relationships or develop transforming abilities. Instead, to the contrary, they strengthen hegemonic perspectives, reinforcing the role of specialists that are separate from the popular social sectors, monopolizing the power of knowledge.  In this debate, based on popular education in Latin America, as Esteban Tapella states, we must focus on other contexts such as Europe and the United States, where “there are many approaches to evaluation within the field of formative evaluation that share important similarities with what we call systematization. For example, the concept of quality program evaluation, the concept of cluster evaluation and that of shared learning evaluation”. (12) To this I believe we must add the substantive contributions that the American author, Michael Quinn Patton, has spent a long time developing in this field (13).

 Thus, we are faced with a “challenging” panorama, which calls upon us, as Rosa Marñia Cifuentes states, to “weave and contribute to the weaving of continuity in the midst of the discontinuity of life experiences, exercises, contracts, reflections, in the outlook of the construction of critical, reflexive, strategic and proactive consciousness, in ethical outlooks and democratic, pluralistic and transforming learning policies”. (14) 

Bibliographical notes:

1. This article is a preview of the chapter on this topic in the book “La sistematización de experiencias: práctica y teoría para otros mundos posibles” (The Systematization of Experiences: Practice and Theory for Other Possible Worlds), which is to be published shortly.
2. For this reason, in a business environment (in particular, but not exclusively), the idea of having specialised areas dedicated to “knowledge management” has also become popular. This is related to everything stated previously, but also to the development of an institutional management system that favours the construction of “organisational learning”, taking advantage of the existing knowledge in the institution, encouraging its inclusion in society and acting to leverage the creation of innovation based on accumulated knowledge.
3. Conocer desde el Sur. Para una cultura política emancipatoria, Santiago. Ed. Universidad Bolivariana.
4. In this regard, it is of the utmost importance to remember that positive science works on the basis of considering social phenomena as if they were tangible things and the object being studied (“reality”) is not part of the subject studying it (“thought”), it has its own existence, an independent reality governed by natural laws that whomever researches it should attempt to discover. Consequently, the separation between the researcher and the object being studied is directly linked to the accuracy with which s/he will be able to report his/her findings. Not being involved with the objects being studied (communities, organisations and social movements, farming practices, education, communication, and other processes) would be the maxim of this model. The research process is considered pure and unbiased insofar as this premise is respected, and therefore, the research is considered objective, valid, and legitimate.
5. La sistematización como proceso investigativo o la búsqueda de la episteme de las prácticas, Bogotá, Planeta Paz.
6. In my personal experience as a literacy skills teacher in the northern region of Peru, I directly confirmed that over the two and a half years that I spent there (1972-1974) I learnt from the people of the communities that I “made literate”, perhaps even more than what I was able to teach them. In fact, I can state that it was they who “made me literate” with regards to their world, life and the meaning of popular education, reconfirming to me that the primary attitude of an educator should be that of always being willing to learn and to contribute to creating learning processes. See Freire Paulo: Pedagogía de la autonomía
7. Eizaguirre, Marlen: Diccionario de Educación para el Desarrollo, Hegoa, Bilbao, 2005.
8. To see different contributions related to action-research, participatory research and action-research in education read:
Fals Borda and others (1991) Acción y conocimiento. Como romper el monopolio con investigación-acción participativa, Santafé de Bogotá, Cinep. Elliot, J. (1994). La investigación-acción en educación. Madrid: Morata; De Schutter, A. (1983). Investigación Participativa: Una opción metodológica para la educación de adultos, Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México: CREFAL.  De Schutter A. and Yopo, Boris: Desarrollo y perspectiva de la investigación participativa. Biblioteca Digital CREFAL: http://crefal.edu.mx/biblioteca_digital/index.php Brandao, Carlos R. (2006): Pesquisa Participante. São Paulo. Brasiliense.
9.  “Las ciudades hablan. Identidades y movimientos sociales en seis metrópolis latinoamericanas”, Caracas, Nueva Sociedad.
10. A planning trend exists, with several schools and methodological and conceptual proposals, many of which are included within what are known as “logic models” or “logical frameworks”, almost always considered as planning and evaluation instruments at the same time. It is not the aim of this text to go into depth on this topic, but perhaps the most extensive reference regarding it, its variants and alternatives can be found at: http://www.mande.co.uk/logframe.htm#Logic
11. Some of the points highlighted below were shared in a reflection forum held on the internet by the reference group of the Latin American Programme supporting CEAAL’s Systematization of Experiences, which took place in October 2010, known by the Portuguese term, “ciranda cibernética” (a virtual round table). The forum was attended by : Mariluz Morgan (Peru) Alfonso Torres (Colombia), Iara Lins, Elza Falckembach, Celia Watanabe, Anna Santiago (Brazil), Indira Granda, Rebeca Gregson, Marianny Alves and Belén Arteaga (Venezuela) and Oscar Jara (Costa Rica).
12. Participation in the forum on systematization and evaluation led by RELAC, PREVAL and PLAS CEAAL in May-June 2010, which can be viewed at: http://noticiasrelac.ning.com/group/sistematizacion
13. 2008, Utilization-Focused Evaluation” (4th edition), Sage; 2006, Getting to Maybe: How the World is Changed. Toronto: Random House Canada.  And the recent 2011: “Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use.” Guilford Press New York.
14. RELAC, PREVAL, PLAS CEAAL participated in the highlighted forum.

Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

03C Danilo Inglés

Abstract
The article analyses the role played by mysticism in the context of popular education in Latin America. According to its etymology and the tradition of the classics, mysticism suggests something which is not easily understandable by perception, thus promoting another way of reading the world, living in it or with it. Some remarkable examples of mysticism are our religious groups linked to grassroots Christian communities of the Catholic Church and the Landless Workers’ Movement of Brazil. The meaning of the concept is explained through a confirmation taken from the research work carried out with popular groups in which the following aspects stand out: Empowerment, identity, solidarity, shared values and collective reflection.

But what is characteristic of the human being is loving and knowing. One of the issues being posed in this context is to know what essential happiness is. Some experts will say that it is in love, others in wisdom and even others will say in love and wisdom and these are the ones that are more accurate. We, however, declare that it is not in love or wisdom, rather something in the soul and that is where love and wisdom come from, something that love does not know: the strengths of the soul. Whoever gets to know that something understands what happiness consists of. Something he did not have before and does not expect as he cannot win or lose anything.
(Meister Eckhart, 2004, p.37).

Addressing the issue (1)
It may seem strange at first sight to propose mysticism as an object of reflection in the academic context. Modernity makes divisions under which it seeks a science free from subjectivity. And within subjective factors, mysticism occupies a special place as a result of being related to religiousness (2) if not to esoteric phenomena which usually seem associated with the underdevelopment of rationality or to a subjectivist postmodern thinking.

I will thus start from what “the word” could mean within the general issue of the meeting of the Corredor de Ideas (2011) (3) entitled “Our Latin American face”. Recalling the participation in popular education meetings in Latin America, it is not difficult to verify that what then happened, decisive for many people and important events, is significantly connected to “mysticism”. It could be a simple liturgical celebration, a cultural festival at night or a ceremony celebrated in Guatemala before dawn. But it could also be research meetings with grassroots groups. It is mysticism that helps us to perceive what is behind the diversity of faces we find in Latin America and perhaps it is what best reveals the face of the people as a whole.

The etymological origin of the word is the Greek verb myein which means remaining or permanence, mainly associated with our organs of perception. The exegetes of the New Testament say that the term entails two different meanings: a) it refers to hidden things, concealed to our senses; it is a type of knowledge that faith has; b) it refers to what is not perceived by our senses and only belongs to God (Silva, 1995). Its present use, however, is secular and is only recalled by the great mystics of the history of Christianity, such as Meister Eckhart or Ignatius of Loyola.

In daily life we prefer the term mystery that not only has the same radical but is the noun from which the adjective mystic derives: the mystery of detective novels, the mysteries of the universe, the functioning of our brain and the meaning of our life, among others. Mystery is related to searching, to what makes us “get to the bottom of things”. It is a place of challenges and a place of risks. In a sense, it is also mystery that motivates us in education: as a researcher in this field, I want to know more about what happens when pupils learn or do not learn, or the circumstances in which they learn. An intercultural perspective helps us to understand the blindness that does not allow us to see and recognise the other. Mystery and mysticism have to do with the awareness of our world, our relationship with it.

In this article we are not interested in having a philosophical discussion about knowledge and its production, but rather in pointing out the fact that mystery seems to be what challenges us to want to know. For Paulo Freire, it is the curiosity with which we arrive in the world and which needs to be developed in the educational process, becoming what he calls “epistemological curiosity” inasmuch as becoming acquainted with an object is in itself part of the reflection. In his own words: “The exercise of curiosity makes it more critically curious, more methodically rigorous in regard to its object. The more spontaneous curiosity intensifies and becomes rigorous, the more epistemological it becomes”. (Freire 1997, p. 97)

We will now specifically focus on the central issue to which this work tries to make a contribution: “Latin American popular mysticism”. The title suggests that there are more kinds of mysticism and, thus, popular mysticism is one of them. I understand the term popular as referring to the knowledge and powers outside of resistance and survival, that is, the knowledge of those who do not necessarily need or want to change place, but to create a new one. There is also the mysticism of those who do not want change, with their rituals and liturgies. Mysticism thus has its place in history, within the fights for power. The specification contained in the title (Latin American) also suggests that mysticism in this area shows itself in a different way than in other places of the world. The chants and dances, the silences may have different meanings in different cultures. Even in Latin America, there are multiple types of mysticism depending on the popular groups concerned.

The following three examples illustrate the different places of mysticism. The latter is a constituent part of the grassroots ecclesiastical communities and youth movements within the sphere of the Roman Catholic Church (4). Leticia Da Silva (5) describes the mystic sense of her group of young people as follows:

The mysticism of our group occurs in all the encounters, every time we meet to combine activities, readings, songs, objects; everything is connected and this is what makes the mysticism emerge. We don’t plan if people will cry or laugh, if they will be moved or just participate; we just plan moments and during these moments, participation and emotion spontaneously emerge. Even those who come for the first time to the group comment at the end how pleasant it is to be part of that moment.

Another space where mysticism occupies a prominent place is the MST (Landless Workers’ Movement). Many of the articles concerning the MST deal with this issue, showing its importance for the sustainability of the movement and debates. It is impossible to think about the MST without their flag, their caps, their music and, above all, their marches. Ademar Bogo (MST, 1998, p. 15), one of the leaders of the MST who writes more frequently about this issue, shows the difficulties found when trying to define it:

Mysticism for the Landless people is more than a word or a concept. It is a condition of life which is structured through the relationships between people and the things of the material world. Between ideas and utopias in the ideal world. That is, different motivations we use to keep on fighting for a fair cause, trying to bring the future closer to the present moment.

Mysticism, however, is barely present in the great movements. In a survey carried out with the popular groups linked to the work of the Urban-Rural Training Centre Irma Araújo (CEFURIA), in Curitiba, it was usual to listen to somebody saying “And who is in charge of mysticism?” That is the reason why the research meetings incorporate mysticism to allow the collective search for knowledge. Thus, at the beginning of a session, we try to integrate some physical movements, a popular chant or we make up a mandala where we put objects which had become meaningful for the members of the group during their experience. A book on the cloth in the centre of the circle made by the workers of the community, educators and researchers certainly has a different meaning for an academician who writes books than for an illiterate person who, at that moment, gathers to read and change reality.

The role and place of mysticism
When looking for theoretical definitions and explanations of mysticism, these always seem to be partial, maybe due to the very nature of the phenomenon. Either they emphasise mysticism as a phenomenon connected to the alleged centre of the human being or with transcendence, or as a political instrument, or simply as a group dynamic. I found what I was looking for in the notes of an assessment round that the research group carried out with entities of popular education groups, in this case with a group of Solidarity Economy within the CEFURIA project previously mentioned. When asked about the importance of mysticism in the processes of creation of Solidarity Economy groups, this was the answer we obtained:

Mysticism gives a voice to the person, it´s a sign of our group, it cannot be missing; it brings people closer, makes them think and reflect, awakens other senses, it’s a part of the values. We use sentences of Paulo Freire, food, symbols, the Bible.

We will briefly analyse each one of the parts:
- The mysticism of the voice: Its purpose is to go further, being the voice of the other and allowing and helping it to happen; letting each person to “say his word” (Paulo Freire, 1981). According to Hannah Arendt (2004), this is the first step towards the setting-up of public space. Stephen Stoer (2004) talks about the rebellion of the differences, when they no longer want to “be said” by others, but they say them themselves. In Latin America we see how through the decades, since the appearance of popular education and the liberation theology of the poor and oppressed, different faces and voices emerged and became widespread, such as those of indigenous peoples and groups of young people, women and workers from different areas of the market.

This has important implications in a context where politicians, academicians and clergymen have got used to talk in name of the people. In the field of research this happens when participatory action research or participatory research is recognised. Among its principles is the recognition of the other as a subject capable of producing knowledge concerning his/her life situation and reality, and not only as an informant for a specialist who has to interpret the questions and answers. One of the functions of the research is to serve as an instrument of self-recognition in the community and as a support in carrying out actions for change.
(Brandao and Streck, 2006; Fals Borda, 2009)

- Mysticism is a trademark of our group: Why does the MST put mysticism in its agenda as a matter which is not negotiable? Or what is the CBEs train? Or what is the meaning of the demonstrations and marches of social movements? The answer is that the objective is to look for a “trademark” of the group, its identity. It can be a slogan, chants or prayers, all of them help to build, using sociological language, internal cohesion. And, within this context, they contribute to preparing for action in the world “out there”.

When we talk about “our group” it is understood that there is a plurality of mysticisms, since the objects or symbols come from the reality of the group.  According to the sentence used as a reference for this reflection, this symbol could be a word of Paulo Freire, the Bible, something to eat or any other object that establishes some relationship with daily life. The idea of transcendence is now built from concepts or ideas which come from outside, but emerge when things or events from daily routine are used as a starting point for the reflection and projection of new realities. Leonardo Boff explains the sociopolitical meaning of mysticism as follows: “Mysticism is, thus, the secret motor of all commitment, the enthusiasm that permanently inspires the militant, the internal fire which arouses the individual in spite of the monotony of everyday tasks”. (Boff and Betto, 1994, p. 25).

- Mysticism brings together: Mysticism is related to physical contact: an embrace of fellow men, tuning the tone of the chant, recalling a fellow member who is ill or in difficulties, celebrating the achievements of the members of the group. It is a kind of “foundation” for the establishment of collective spirit. The feeling of communion created does not make the differences disappear, but they are symbolically assumed within the unity.

Talking about our close-knit assessment group, we mentioned some of our greatest thinkers. José Martí wrote that the masters of our America must spread throughout the land tenderness as well as technical knowledge. Why? To pour the coagulated blood into the veins of the people. Paulo Freire talks about being loving as a way of being in the world. However, this is not an idealisation of an alleged loving nature of the Latin American people, but a necessity for the recovery of the oppressed.

- It makes you think and reflect:  It is an error to relate mysticism with an excessive sentimentalism. A research assessment showed that a bakery in one of the outlying communities of Curitiba had an underlying mysticism. The women took elements of their daily life to the meeting: a glass of water, some sugar and oil. What happens when you mix water and sugar? And when you add oil? This makes people think about life and their relationship with the group, with the community; it is a very simple step and becomes an exercise within reach of everybody. Introducing a stimulating and disturbing element not only helps you to think, but it “makes you think”.

A well known biblical scholar said that in the golden times of popular reading of the Bible, the very study of the same was the liturgy. I think that this is the meaning of making you think and reflect. We have heard about grassroots groups which encouraged their etymological curiosity and studied Greek and Hebrew to be able to read the non-vernacular Bible. Furthermore, “making one think” provides elements for the survival of experience through reason. Eymard Vasconcelos talks about his experience as a doctor and a popular educator, having Carl Jung as one of his main references:

The intense dynamism felt in the mystic experience comes from the depth of subjectivity and the unconscious, in which ‘will’ can only agree or disagree to participate. What follows this experience is unpredictable and has a great impact on the lives dedicated to it. Intense feelings and emotions are set in motion, capable of releasing surprising energies of internal transformation and of facing external reality. (Vasconcelos, 2011, p. 35)

Frei Betto and Leonardo Boff (1994, p. 15) express the same conception of mystery and mysticism in relation to thought: Mystery concerns “the dimension of the depth inscribed in each person, each human being and in reality as a whole, of an absolutely indecipherable nature.” Recognising mystery and mysticism does not mean renouncing to look for answers, but recognising the strengths which produce the dynamism of life and the mirror of freedom and knowledge, and being more. The biblical myth of the creation of man and woman casts doubt on recognising good and evil as a punishment to creatures for eating the fruit which would allow them to know their creator. From a secular perspective, it is the recognition of the limits of human intelligence. In the myth of the creation of the Maya-K’iche’ (Popol Vuh), the gods also put a veil over the eyes of creatures so they do not compete against each other for the knowledge of the things of the world. This poses the constant challenge of the act of thinking, knowing that the result of this effort will never be final.

Mysticism awakens other senses: This statement contains an extreme richness, as it points at several possibilities of understanding: 

1. In school we learn from being small that we have five senses. For me it was a surprise to hear a Colombian native say that they have more senses to be connected with the world. Among them, they included dreams, the ability to predict the future. The reason for saying this is that there are many ways of “feeling” the world and giving meaning to the things that surround us.

2. Awakening the senses can be a way of “opening the mind” to the unusual, the different. The mystic’s starting point is the metaphor: water is not just H2O anymore, but also a source of life; a hoe represents work on the land, etc. Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2004, p. 782) criticises technical-scientific reason for its metonymical nature, that is, reductionist for taking the part as everything. Instead of a reasoning that closes (such as the academic discourse), we prefer a logic that opens (probably nearer to the essay).

3. Reference to the other senses can be related to Mário Peresson (1994) and the so-called “other rationalities”. Alongside technical-scientific modern rationality, our popular groups should recognise at least two other rationalities: the symbolic one (the symbol as an element with the capacity to evoke, carry out, provoke and convoke and the wise one (wisdom as a radical knowledge concerning the final meaning of things). Therefore, according to Peresson, we could talk from a popular perspective of a real epistemological break which overcomes modern, scientific and rational logic.

4. Mysticism cannot be separated from art. Music, floral ornaments, poetry, children, the mandalas in the centre of the street. It is not a coincidence that the pedagogy of Paulo Freire is developed in the context of the Popular Culture Movement of Recife, where artists and intellectuals are also involved.

- Mysticism is the exchange of values: A Venezuelan thinker, Alejandro Moreno Olmedo (1993), argues that in popular cultures we can find the homo convivialis (not the modern homo economicus, or the postmodern homo ludens, or even the newest homo zapiens). Now it is easy, from a naive point of view, to idealise popular cultures. The development and extension of values which help survival and resistance in an environment full of difficulties could be sufficient, without an a priori value judgment, for this idealisation. But mysticism is more than that; it contains important teachings for society as a whole.

In the present crisis, identified by some as a crisis of civilization and not only of the model of development, some values (or counter values) practiced by popular mysticism are being considered as signs of hope and not lack of development. Undoubtedly, one of them is solidarity, a value which nowadays is materialised in thousands of Solidarity Economy companies which are struggling between integration in the hegemonic capitalist logic or building alternative ways to produce and consume.

- Mysticism cannot be missing: This is what groups and movements which live mysticism say about it. For us, the academic world, there are still some questions which arise from the reflection previously mentioned: Is this mysticism just a study object? What kind of mysticism feeds us in the academic world? Do we seek or discard contagion with the popular mysticism of our diversified Latin American face? What I call the legacy of Edgar Morin (2000, p.61) argues that having popular mysticism as your main support can be an indispensable condition for the production of transforming knowledge:

The search, the discoveries go ahead in the emptiness, in the void of uncertainty, in the incapacity of deciding. Genius arises in the breach of what cannot be controlled, in that place where madness prowls. Creation arises in the unity between the obscure psycho-emotional depths and the bright flame of conscience. 

As educating elements, mystery and mysticism are essential elements in recognising where what we have learnt develops. The objective is a critical mysticism, that is, one that does not reject intellect and reflection, where certainties step aside to possibilities, where the individual recognises his/her limitations and prefers dialogue with the other, and where teachers and pupils are linked in body and mind to teach and learn.

Bibliographical notes

- ARENDT, Hannah.  A condição humana.  10. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2004.
- BOFF, Leonardo e BETTO, Frei. Mística e espiritualidade. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 1994.
- BRANDÃO, Carlos R. e STRECK, Danilo. Pesquisa participante: o saber da partilha. Aparecida: Idéias e Letras, 2006.
- ECKART, Mestre. Sobre o desprendimento e outros textos. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2004.
- FALS BORDA, Orlando. Uma sociologia sentipensante para América Latina. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores y Clacso,2009.
- FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia da autonomia: Saberes necessários à prática educativa. Paz e Terra, 1997.
- FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia do oprimido. 9. Ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1981.
- MORENO OLMEDO, A. El aro y la trama: episteme, modernidad y pueblo. Caracas: Centro de Investigaciones Populares, 1993.
- MORIN, Edgar. Os sete saberes necessários à educação do futuro. São Paulo: Cortez, 2000.
- MST. Mística: uma necessidade no trabalho popular e organizativo. Caderno de Formação n° 27. São Paulo, 1998, p.15.
- PERESSON, T.( S.D.B.), Mario. Educar desde las culturas populares. Cuadernos de Educación y cultura. Bogotá: Família Salesiana, 1994.
- POPOL VUH (Las Antíguas Histórias del Quiche). Versión Adrián Recinos. México: Editorial Concepto, s.d.
- SANTOS, Boaventura de Sousa. Para uma sociologia das ausências e uma sociologia das emergências. In: SANTOS, Boaventura de Sousa (Org.). Conhecimento prudente para uma vida decente: “Um discurso sobre as ciências”revisitado. São Paulo: Cortez, 2004.  p. 777-815.
- SELL, Carlos Eduardo e BRÜSEKE, Franz Josef. Mística e sociedade. Itajaí: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí; São Paulo: Paulinas, 2006.
- SILVA, Jessé Pereira da. A mística do princípio protestante em Paul Tillich. Cadernos de Pós-Graduação/Ciências da Religião (Pastoral e mística), n. 8, ano XIII, n. 8, 1995. p. 49-66.
- STOER, S.R.; MAGALHÃES, A.M;     RODRIGUES, D. Os lugares da exclusão social: um dispositivo de diferenciação pedagógica. São Paulo: Cortez, 2004.
- VASCONCELOS, Eymard Mourão. A espiritualidade no trabalho em saúde. 2. Ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2011.

Notes
1. The following grant holders for scientific initiation have collaborated in the research for this text: Letícia da Silva (FAPERGS), Jonas Hendler da Paz (CNPq) and Vinicius Masseroni (UNIBIC).
2. The treatment of the issue in modern sociology tends to be limited to the religious field, which according to Sell and Brüseke (2006 p. 151), entails a thematic specialisation, but “eliminates the `critical´ dimension of mysticism as a privileged locus for thinking, from `the other´, from the reason, `condition´ and `contradictions´ of the rationalized modernity of modern times”.
3. The Corredor de Ideas del Cono Sur is a space of encounter and reflection for humanists and specialists of Latin American thinking and cultures, attended by the countries of the Southern Cone and celebrated every year in a different university of the region. The XII Encounter was carried out in September 2011, in the Universidad del Valle de Rio dos Sinos- UNISINOS (Brazil).
4. Medieval mysticism, of which Meister Eckart was a great exponent, can be seen as a rebellion against the theological rationalization of scholasticism. On the relationship between theology, mysticism and magic, see Sell and Brüseke (2006, p. 169-181).
5. Leticia da Silva, graduate in History from UNISINOS and secretary of CLJ Montenegro.

Cesar García-Rincón de Castro is a lecturer, writer and teacher of the Pontifical University of Comillas and the European Business School. He is also a consultant to NGOs and educational centres in the fields related to the human factor, development of people and, most of all, development of prosocial values. He is an expert on school volunteering and prosocial education. He has written more than ten books on education and psychology. His areas of interest are focused on youth education (values and entrepreneurship) and children’s education (emotional and prosocial intelligence), as well as educator’s training. www.cesargarciarincon.com
Contact: Av. de la Comunidad de Madrid, 10, 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid (España) info@cesargarciarincon.com

Belén Urosa Sanz is a professor on Methodology of Research and Educational Innovation in the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences of the Pontifical University of Comillas. She has written several articles and books on Research Methodology and Data Analysis. She has been teaching these subjects in her classes of degree, postgraduate and PhD for 25 years. She has also given many courses, as well as managed and participated in numerous research projects in the educational field. She was the vice-rector of academic planning and teaching staff and at present is the dean of the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences.
Contact: Universidad P. Comillas. C/ Universidad de Comillas, 3-5 28049 Madrid (España) burosa@chs.upcomillas.es

 Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

04B Ardanaz Inglés

Abstract:

This article intends opening a process of practical reflection on the alternatives to the Logical Framework Approach from a perspective based on the learning process. This is the premise from which the article builds a cycle of the project in which its features are adapted to the reality of the educational context. It also provides a reflection and suggests an alternative to the concept of success and quality of the project which, once again, is focused on the building of the learning process of the organisations involved. This process relies on research, investigation and critical thinking as a key element for empowerment and emancipation of human beings and social groups.

Just over a year ago, for teaching-related reasons, the individuals involved in this article reviewed the numerous offers for subsidies for Development Education (DE) projects in Spain. In all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, we encountered a common theme: the exclusion in the study of the teaching-learning elements in the offers themselves. Although this was the impression widely discussed in the sector for years, we were no less surprised to verify that education-specific proposals were completely resigned to not developing an educational plan and assessment of the proposals.

At the heart of these absences is the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), a necessary perspective in the majority of DE project offers throughout the world for the last twenty years. Many have raised concerns regarding this approach, after putting it into practice and experiencing it, attempting to improve it for the overall scope of cooperation or decrying its limitations and demonstrating its incompatibility with DE (1) .

It is odd that after almost forty years (if not more) of DE this topic has yet to be dealt with in depth. We have not even reached a consensus model, or been able to accept several, which from various perspectives meets the specific needs of DE within a context of social transformation. This silence has an impact, on many occasions, on how DE is regarded, in cooperation contexts, both those of the NGOs as well as public and private donation organisations.

With this viewpoint and this concern in mind, we have begun to reflect on a possible Logical Framework Approach specifically tailored to DE and specially focused on issues related to the teaching-learning processes linked to it. Understandably, the task was complex due to the mechanisms acquired through decades of use. Although we were sure about some basic ideas, we were not so sure about others. Perhaps one of the most important problems was and is the lack of definition of the learning processes associated with DE.

To start with, one of the few characteristics of LFA that we wanted to preserve was its outstanding capacity to reflect on what we intended to do, to think, rethink and analyse the idea to be developed, and we kept this at the forefront of our minds. However, there were also many other characteristics that we did not want to preserve, and we wanted to take this into account from the outset. For example, we did not want to create a tool for specialists or a form to be filled out by a technician. However, among the aspects we did not want to preserve, there was one that we were particularly sure about, which represented a radical difference between LFA and our approach: the role of efficiency and the concept of project success. We will discuss all of this during this brief presentation of the GEBL model.

Different beginnings, sound results
When beginning to come up with a DE project, there are many ways of starting, perhaps as many as there are people. This diversity may be related to learning styles, which is one of the most noteworthy elements of the new educational paradigm of our times. We learn in various ways and by the same token, we manage our creativity and project capacity by different means. The diverse models and theories (2)  in existence on learning styles offer a conceptual framework that we must take into account in our planning (although these are not the subject of this article). With this new focus, we hope, at least, to create flexibility in access to it, keeping in mind that creating strong relationships between the different parts is more important than how you get there.

For example, we can think about our DE project on the basis of the set of activities and tasks to be carried out, which we shall call endeavours. Or we can begin with the learning processes we seek. Both approaches are valid provided the connection between the two is aligned and sound.

Fig. 1: Endeavours and learning experiences provide mutual feedback.

With practice, sometimes we can visualise them together and simultaneously; others, one of the two is predominant. In both cases, what we have to do is separate them and study their possibilities and potential. Our experience in DE projects has led us to limit the basic recommendations in learning to two:

- The first is precision in the proposals. Sometimes the definition of the scope of learning is so broad that it becomes impossible to grasp. For example, on occasions we want to “provide DE training” or “teach about Human Rights”. A more graspable scope might be “generating comprehension about the human right to health” or, even more precisely, “generating comprehension about models for transformation and social participation in the fight for women’s rights”. There are numerous possibilities and this is one of the elements we will check when assessing the coherence of our global proposal.
- The second, precisely in the opposite direction, is open-mindedness. We develop this through the use of open learning experiences. An open learning experience is one that is applicable in numerous contexts and situations. A closed learning experience is one that deals with a topic in a restricted way (3) . For example, a closed learning experience would be studying “the second World War”, an open one would be “understanding and analysing the phenomenon of war from different perspectives and eras”.

Therefore, learning experiences and the processes related to them must be specific enough to enable graspable planning and monitoring to be done, but also open in order to generate diverse learning experiences applicable to different contexts. The first condition is technical in nature, but the second also has an ethical dimension. For learning experiences to be complete, they need a dimension of commitment to reality. And as reality is complex and inter-dependent, they must be handled by people with different points of view and situations.

Generative Learning

One essential characteristic of learning experiences in DE is their generativity. From his early writings, Paulo Freire was very specific regarding the importance of this element as something that had a direct impact on the emancipation and empowerment of people and groups of people:

By “coding” and “decoding”, a literacy learner can integrate the significance of the respective generative words into his existential context: he rediscovers the word in a world expressed through his behaviour. He becomes aware of the word as a significance that forms his significant intention, coinciding with the intentions of others that signify the same world. This world is the meeting place for each individual with himself and with others (4) .

Whether the format is words or themes, the fact that learning experiences are generative expresses that the construction of knowledge is dynamic and that they fight against the banking model of learning. The Harvard University School of Education (where Freire spent a short time as a visiting professor and left his mark) discusses generative topics. Thus they express the importance of generativity:

 …provide enough depth, significance, connections and variety of perspective to support students’ development of powerful understandings … (5)

It is precisely this powerful understanding or, in more general terms, the degrees of understanding, that must be subject to planning and assessment in our design and throughout all the project cycles. Generativity plays a key role in this for the rediscovery of the world and coding and decoding experiences in life and the community. Thus, generative learning experiences are similar to a creative, revolutionary engine that completely transforms the role of educational agents.

In the first stage, we must find the Generative Centre (GC) of our project. This is the engine that will generate the set of processes and learning experiences that we have set out to find. This centre must have, at least, the following characteristics:
1) It must be a central theme in the DE field we are working on. If we work on a secondary issue, we give our proposal a certain air of superficiality.
2) It must be related to the local or global reality of the people who are going to participate in the project or should establish ties to this reality.
3) The GC is accessible. There are numerous resources, either through testimonies or other sources. We receive support from diverse fields in order to create processes.
4) The GC generates a network of ideas and relationships between them that are suggestive and promising for the GC.

It is precisely the creation of this network of ideas, which we will call the Generative Network, that is one of the basic planning exercises. It is important not to mistake the GC for a concept or theme, although it may occasionally be one. In practicing with Generative Networks, we have detected that we tend to emulate or “translate” other ways of working: conceptual maps, diagrams, flow charts, objectives and so on.

The reason that the Generative Network exists is to help visualise the potential and connections generated by our GC. Therefore, the important issue for our GC is not to make it a very clear concept or one that generates a large flow of sub-topics, but rather, it must truly feed a dense, interesting and provocative network in order to create cognitive breaks and constructive decoding. For example, below we can see a Generative Network for which the chosen generative centre was Millennium Development Goals. Here, we can see that there are concepts, ideas, activities, actors, etc. This is a heterogeneous network for the numerous GC possibilities. Here we have part of a Generative Network:

However, the Generative Network is made to analyse potential and also to analyse whether we have chosen our GC in a suitable manner. And if necessary, to change it.
Although the GC of the network shown above was the MDGs, for example, in the end, the rural community that was planning the project decided it was not the most suitable generative centre.

 - For the educators of that rural community, the topic was very suggestive, but they felt that by presenting it in this way, it would be received as external to them. Definitively, it lacked meaning and was not motivating.
- Furthermore, although they had some material prepared by UNESCO for the zone, access to information about the MDGs, beyond their own statement, was limited.
- Thus, the educators decided that it was better to use a generative centre with a different viewpoint: What is the history of development in my community? There were many elderly people in the community who were experts in oral tradition, which could be a very useful local resource.
- Through the generative network, we would make way towards the MDGs, thereby ensuring that the project would be meaningful and we all liked the topic. We asked some people in the community if the issue seemed suggestive to them and they all responded affirmatively, and some were even enthusiastic.

With all of this, we have added yet another piece to our diagram. We have endeavours, learning experiences and our generative centre. We observe our generative centre and view its conditions and potential from a Freire-like perspective: regardless of the nature of their understanding and the action prompted by them, in and of themselves they contain the possibility to split into many other topics that, in turn, lead to new tasks (6) …

Fig. 2: The generative centre provides coherence to the endeavours and learning experiences.

The most important part of these three elements is the coherence and alignment between them for the learning aim we are working on. But how should this be done?

Explicit and implicit learning experiences

Within the set of possible learning experiences in human communities, individuals or organisations, there are always visible and invisible ones, and this must be kept in mind when performing any kind of planning. Much has been written on this, through a concept that, in formal education spheres, is called the hidden curriculum. Once we have clarified this, we must review the connections between what is evident and what is not.

Thus, endeavours are not just any set of activities, but rather, they must leave a visible impact for all the participants in the initiative, and especially for the educational agents. On the one hand, the students must be able to see and identify their own decoding and coding, the way their reality is revealed and their ability to make a commitment to it. It is an act towards empowerment and emancipation of uncommon strength. On the other, the educational agents must, in turn, be able to learn about how global, utopian learning represents progress towards self-knowledge that may entail a highly significant step forward in maturity and freedom of different societies.

Going back to the figure of Freire, it is highly interesting to see the bold community and participative work of this Brazilian educator, combining literacy with emancipatory education. It is commonplace to see, in preschool settings, the amazement and naturality in boys and girls when they realise that they know how to read, but it is even more amazing when they become aware of the fact that they are working on thinking about their world and their small-scale reality, which will soon change. Freire embarked on the task of spotlighting and providing resources to extreme communities, but he never ceased to attempt to see how and in what way this happened, knowing that this vision is also part of a creative, critical, scientific and revolutionary exercise.

From this perspective, we must point out two visible or explicit aspects toward the development of learning experiences: these are impacts, or indicators, and research perspectives.

From another perspective, as we were saying, although the endeavours and learning experiences are coherent and aligned, there are invisible aspects that can support or contrast with the process we are working on. While some of them are uncontrollable and we might not be able to work on them, we can work on others. These controllable aspects are essential and we must pay attention to their invisibility precisely so that we can make them visible and include them in the dynamics of awareness and critical analysis of everyday reality. In general, they are related to how we do things and organise ourselves. Specifically, they have to do with the value of participation.

In our dialogue on this matter, taking a step back to gain a better perspective, we asked ourselves whether there are invisible implicit aspects that are inherent to any worthwhile DE project. And participation is perhaps the most important aspect of all the ones we can discuss, due to the fact that it is at the heart of every planning process. For this reason, within the group of implicit learning experiences, we can pinpoint certain minimum configurations such as the development of strategies associated with cooperative learning and, in turn, others linked to the creation of social networks of any kind and size, but always tied to positive mutual inter-dependence.

Going from small to large, from here we can prompt the two elements that we will work on in the implicit, invisible, sphere of DE: those that make the learning experiences truly take hold and the endeavours even more powerful. We are talking about appropriate methodologies and organisation-participation.

Fig. 3 The DE project cycle based on generative learning: GEBL Model

In Figure 3 we can see at a glance the key aspects in designing a DE project, focusing on learning. Its flexibility allows us to begin defining it at the part that best suits our creativity and planning style. As mentioned repeatedly, what is important here is the connection between its different parts. In this diagram, perhaps the CG relationships are missing. Its central position is significant. Each sphere in the circle must respond in some way to the question at the generative centre, or at least attempt to do so.

Finally, we also mentioned that this tool does not require specialisation. Ideally, it is used when groups and people who detect a need work on it as a group and express it in a narrative manner throughout the course of the project with a process for standardisation of experiences. When people standardise and socialise a project, they make it more effective and more conscious.

By simplifying the profound dimensions of the GEBL DE Project Cycle, we can see that they respond to numerous questions:

1. An aspect of DE helps us to change our understanding if… (GC)
2. We make… (Endeavours)
3. And through this we learn from global citizenship… (Learning experiences)
4. … and from our way of learning globally… (Perspectives on Research)
5. … it shows because we made… (Impacts)
6. … and it received support because we were organised… (Organisation-participation)
7. …and we do what we did coherently with…. (Appropriate methodologies)

Perspectives on Research

Research in DE, from our point of view, is not something optional, but an aspect which goes unseen that we try to create more aware in by working with it and letting it exist naturally, especially for ethical reasons. Freire was very explicit in this line of thinking:
The more I research the way the people think with them, the more we teach each other. The more we teach each other, the more research we perform. Education and thematic research, within the problematising concept of education, become elements of the same process (7) .

Therefore, research perspectives attempt to foster this shared journey, and above all, from our point of view, affect the way a key aspect of emancipatory processes is decoded: the way we learn. We must remember that decoding is the critical analysis of our constitutive thought patterns, upon which we base our knowledge (8) . When we research how we learn –in our case the global dimension- we are reeducating the profound dimensions of our being in the world and how we position ourselves.

This gives the impression that from time to time the DE contents are deposited, banking-model style, creating a type of Little Prince Effect. If we recall Saint-Exupéry’s text (9) , at the beginning it set out to, from a child’s perspective, establish what a drawing of what appeared to be a hat actually was. When the “adults” were unable to help, we discover that in actual fact the drawing is a “boa that had eaten an elephant”. However, the Little Prince does not want us to see boas with elephants from now on; instead we are invited to look beyond the image. To look beyond superficial dogmas and appearances. When we only exchange hats for boas we are exchanging banking knowledge, but we do not abandon the banking-model style deposit of knowledge.

Let us return to the topic of research, which we have given the wider term of research perspectives. By giving it this wider term, it becomes more inclusive. Occasionally, there is no need to perform highly qualified research, but rather, we can simply include the investigative initiative in order to develop an activity that is seldom practised in the educational sphere. The idea is to democratise research in some way, for it to be considered a basic tool of our education process, along the lines of Stenhouse and Elliot’s, amongst others, thinking. As we previously stated, from a DE perspective, the importance of research is twofold, since it has both educational and ethical aspects.

We must learn to conduct research with the appropriate models, which range from very simple to very complex. The research methods are well known and there is an extensive bibliography available on the subject. Within our proposal, we recommend, for investigative purposes, performing a series of quantitative analyses at the start and end of the project, for investigative and assessment purposes, either by using questionnaires, scales or other sociometric techniques.

We can also use more qualitative techniques, such as observation, focus groups, casework, etc. However, we recommend, as we shall explain later on, that these techniques should be integrated in the endeavours and become standard in the daily narrative of the project. In this regard, and to cite one example (10)  of working with educational centres that incorporate DE projects linked to the school syllabus, one possibility to bear in mind is to contemplate 8 variable dichotomies that interpret mental or cognitive routes that make up prosocial-global thought patterns and that analyse how much the students’ accounts change throughout the educational process or they are “routered”•(the “humanware” router proves to be a handy metaphor for the facilitation of learning experiences) through these pathways of thought. The practice is put forward to educators in training courses as a treasure hunt (the prosocial impact):

Do we make an impact on our students? How do we judge whether we have made an impact or not? One way of discovering if we have had an impact is by analysing the students’ discourse before and after the DE training experiences or activities. If at the start of the project we define a series of key variables related to prosocial thought, as well as a measurement scale for each of them, defining as a bare minimum the start and end points of said scale, we have a suitable tool that will aid us in assessing the impact of our actions, be they big or small, over a period of months or years.

It only remains for us to add a global approach to all of these. In our opinion, the strategies of participatory action-research are the diagram and essential approach that encompass the key DE research activities.

Finally, a fundamental point that we touched upon at the beginning of the article. We base the success of the project, how much we have “grown” with the project, on the research model. When planning DE learning experiences we take risks and sometimes the events do not pan out as we expected. Throughout the project cycle we ensure cohesion and we move from what’s possible to what’s probable. We identify what’s possible by thinking “something will be left behind” and what’s probable with a majority that will have transformed the way it views the world and will have adapted to their reality and their future.

Adequately planned research yields results from our DE education actions. How does our global dimension grow? The more research we perform the better we become at increasing our global dimension and this allows us to assess whether the project has been a success or not. Thus, the success and efficiency of our project will correspond on a basic level with the findings of the research.

Therefore, we must, throughout each project, question a particular aspect linked to the global dimension processes. What are these processes? There are currently several proposals, all of which are still taking seed, which merit being explored in greater depth. Some are aimed at key concepts (11) , others at processes (12)  and others at skills or abilities (13) . All of this can serve as a basis for analysing how the teaching-learning process takes place, and involve, in our opinion, at least three elements:
- A statement of DE learning processes. i.e. our educational stance.
- A hypothesis or research proposal.
- A rule or set of rules that assist us in evaluating the findings and reaching conclusions.

There are numerous manuals providing educational research proposals, but we are summarising them in order to foster basic research, knowing that when you begin a research project, exploring its greater possibilities is a satisfying experience. In conjunction with the aforementioned research questionnaires, we must ensure that each DE project makes great strides and interesting contributions to the DE corpus.

For example, a group of European NGDOs decides to implement a project whose generative centre is blood diamonds and their relationship with justice in international laws. Included in the project itself is a study on the “justice” process over the course of the project’s lifespan. In order to do this they establish a set of rules and study this process’ development in boy and girls from three countries and with two different ages. The research is based on questionnaires, but they also study online contributions made over the two years and work with case study methodology.

Perhaps the question we should ask when faced with this simple contribution is “Where do the research methods feature?” As we shall see in the following section, the research methods are clearly integrated with the impacts and the endeavours.

Impacts

Impacts are the key elements connecting endeavours and learning experiences. We propose that endeavours are aimed directly at making learning experience impacts. Once again, there are different models and proposals, but here we are going to deal with one, in an attempt to, as before, keep things simple.

For this proposal we will make use of Kolb’s experiential model (14),  which speaks of learning styles, but also the different ways that we learn. We shall modify it slightly to provide a new perspective and we shall structure it in order to configure the endeavours themselves.

Therefore, based on our choice, we understand that learning in the global dimension is complete when these five events take place:

1. We are able to perform specific types of DE activities.
2. We are able to theorise on a DE topic.
3. We are able to extrapolate from DE topics.
4. We are able to propose and implement DE activities.
5. We are able to empathise emotionally with a DE situation.

Kolb specifically spoke of the first 4 activities and we have added the fifth, as a key aspect in our new discoveries regarding learning experiences: if we are not affected emotionally, the learning experience is not complete. This is a very delicate subject in DE, since empathy is often the gateway to processes of social transformation. Throughout history we have seen numerous cases along these lines. Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846), the British abolitionist, was very clear about this and his African Box was famous (15) , with objects and proof of the savageness of slavery, which he took to all his talks and meetings. This has a great deal to do with the processes of creating awareness for development, which when well directed, expand upon this aspect of the learning experience and prepare the landscape for its fulfilment in the DE proposals. In a world overwhelmed by both valid and invalid information, in a complex and interdependent context, we still tend to use Clarkson’s techniques, which were innovative in his time; perhaps the techniques we use to create awareness should evolve based on a more up-to-date, more serious and less random study on empathy.

For example, an interesting way of reaching all types of intelligence and/or learning styles is to propound didactic units as a theme park or thematic route. Garcia-Rincón (16)  has managed this in his school volunteer training proposal called “youth volunteering maps and routes”:

The context or the metaphor of each topic is like a thematic route, an adventure in which you have a well-studied map and you travel around it with hiking boots in order to gain a contextualised vision of the topic. Later a closer look at the map is taken with a magnifying glass in order to get us closer to a specific part of reality that we want to explore in greater detail.
As with all routes, there are some paths that don’t lead to anything: these are dead ends that are worth identifying in order to not get lost, which are symbolised by a barrier. Here, we are going to work on the mental barriers that hinder our commitment and our solidarity: educating through solidarity is to clear pathways, to smooth the paths of justice.
We all have places for interpretation (and almost for prayer) where we reflect and feel things in order to properly calibrate our internal compass. We also have roadmaps or personal itineraries, because all the above propels us towards action in our lives. Finally, and to ensure the learning experiences take root, there is an audiovisual guide that proposes songs and films that deal with the topic. Even though this tool is included at the end of each topic, it can also be used at the beginning, to create a favourable environment. I leave that up to the teacher.
This way of seeing things requires us to work the multiple intelligences (the map seen from different perspectives and experiences) and how they are expressed in today’s basic educational skills. We therefore reach all the learning style types the students display in the classroom or the ways of processing and understanding knowledge.
 

However, returning to our five-part plan, we organise the endeavours from this perspective. Not all the activities in our endeavours need to follow this approach, nor must this take place all at once, but it would be ideal for all of them to be offered. We must, of course, bear in mind the evolutionary development of the target people as well as the group’s characteristics. The general trend, however, must go in this or a similar direction.

In this way we create a table in which we link the three elements that we are developing with these five parameters. We leave space in the tables for more options regarding impacts:

Figure 4. Associating endeavours and learning experiences with certain types of impact.

In each line of this table we link and combine the three aspects involved in the project. Let’s look at an example from a project implemented in different areas by Recreational Activity Schools (escuelas de Tiempo Libre, in Spanish). The generative centre was Can a global monitor (17)  change the history of the world?:

As we have seen, the aim of impact is to bring assessment forward. If the apprentices have carried out this type of endeavour, then we have a certain level of certainty that the learning experience has taken place. The organisations must ensure whether or not these dynamics took place, in any way justifying in each case the reason why something happened.

Appropriate methodologies

The invisible parts of our project boost the learning experience and the power of the endeavours itself. One of these is the use of the appropriate methodologies. This term is based on the term ‘appropriate technologies’, which is often used in the field of cooperation. In this case, these are appropriate for the DE learning experience in the sense that, they, in themselves, contribute, towards coding and decoding in social transformation.

In line with the above, we believe that cooperative learning experience is one of DE’s key methodologies, but there are many others over which we are not going to go into detail. Graphically speaking, we place them to the left of the endeavours, so that we are able to link them to the latter. Let us have a look at an example in line with the above:

Organisation-participation

We are faced with yet another highly significant aspect of the learning experience that probably has a much greater impact than any word spoken or argument given as part of a training proposal. Certain community organisations and groups do make use of this to a certain extent and it turns out to be easier to develop participation proposals, the action of which is end-user focused. However, in terms of formal education, developing this kind of initiative is more complex due to various reasons, over which we will not be going into detail. Out of these, we highlight the loss of confidence by the educators (and even the directors) when faced with more horizontal decision-making situations.

However it may be, an educational project with a global transformative dimension ought to progressively delve further into democratic leadership practices and active participation. And this must be dealt with during the initial planning, by including elements seeking to achieve this. We must say that, in the current context, it is worth pondering on the concept of democracy (18)  and its links with social participation. Popular movements throughout the world have, to a lesser or greater extent, been developing a new sense of rationality, which will slowly be permeating and raising a debate that is to come at some point, and which will perhaps delve into the current democratic approach and help it mature.

By way of contribution to it all, the organisation-participation sub-section may be seen through the research perspectives, in order to find out the manner and basis for the processes to be able to go down the right path, a path where democratic participation and leadership may have a well-focused educational role. Along this line, the organisation-participation proposals appear as a sub-section next to the learning experiences, since these constitute the context where the following are going to take place:

This example is set in a non-formal sphere, but if we were in a context of formal education, the challenges and opportunities would be greater. The organisation-participation aspects will have to do not only with the project, but also with the dynamics of the school’s educational organisation: decision-making, conflict resolution, focus on diversity, etc. Without these efforts, the endeavours would be merely ephemeral recreational initiatives.

Logical Framework for Generative Learning (GEBL Model)

GEBL means Global Education-based Learning, which is an approach that transforms the very foundations of education, with a global perspective. This approach merges various educational trends committed to developing human capacities by thinking outside the envelope and provides a global ethical perspective. We must think outside the box to commit to the environment and attempt to overthrow those hegemonic thoughts that prevent us from performing the symphony of global citizenship in terms of sustainability and social justice, and which displace human beings from the core interests of social transformation.

Still, in view of this general perspective, this approach has several ways to materialise. Most of them are interesting and worth materialising into a common mirror from which we can all learn. The items mentioned in the previous page wish to be neutral so that the various sensitivities can include their approach with some flexibility. The worst thing that could happen to our logical framework proposal would be to become a chain, within a model that oppresses ideas. In our experience as DE educators, we have frequently met with what we call the Procrustes effect. Procustes was a character in Greek mythology who had an ordinary job as hotelier. Apollodorus tells us very briefly of how he engaged in his profession in his Library of Greek Mythology:

Procrustes, owner of a roadside house where he had arranged two beds -one short and one long- invited passing travellers to his home and to have a rest in his bed. When the guest lay down, he stretched him on it, and, if he was too short, he would hammer him to fit in it, and if he was too long, he would chop parts of his body off to make him fit  (19).

Therefore, the LFA is often subject to hammering and chopping off to fit our DE project, thus distorting its original purpose. Also, this effect is used to detect a lack of self-criticism by the students regarding the proposal they make.

From this perspective, the Logical Framework has such a role -to facilitate thought-processes and self-criticism- from a perspective focused on the learning experience of individuals and groups. Let us see the result, which complements what we already had:

Figure 5. GEBL Logical Framework

As we can see, basically, our generative centre has been horizontally added to the top, and the research perspectives to the bottom. Such horizontal allocation shows the cross-sectional nature and significance of both parts.

The project title should probably show the generative centre and, if necessary, a sub-title should be added below it.
The original must be accompanied by at least a series of documents, which seek to show the life, concerns and dreams involved in the project. We have mentioned all of them in this article:
- Daily narrative
- Generative map
- Statement of DE processes
- Research questionnaires (draft)

Conclusion

It is, as mentioned in this article and indicated by its title, a proposal. It is also a two-fold invitation:

- The first is an invitation to further connect the educational world with the world of ED. In education today there are some very advanced planning proposals based on the GEBL model. Any of them is valid and could supplement or follow the intuitions of the model we have presented. The English-speaking world has made significant progress in this respect and we can learn much from it. In Latin American, following Freire’s steps, a major effort has been made for decades, through popular education, transforming the local and global perspective. Still, there remains a gap between both worlds that cannot be justified. The connection should be much more personal and represent something very important in the critical development of education, as well as the educational progress of ED.
- The second is an invitation to change the structures themselves concerning the planning of projects and programmes. Should we not be specialists in that? All stakeholders should get down to work without hesitation. In many cases, the context is reminiscent of a charming yet ludicrous scene from Alice in Wonderland. In the famous 1951 Disney version, Alice follows a path that she believes will lead her somewhere, until it becomes a square (a logical framework?) that is going nowhere until both -the path and even the square- finally disappear. Alice is lost in the woods and cries inconsolably for a while. Pencil birds, hammer birds, umbrella vultures and other wonderful creatures look at her puzzled. The scene would be very useful to make a metaphorical study of our subject. Alice, still crying and singing the following song, that may be suggestive of something (20):

Give myself very good advice, / But I very seldom follow it, / That explains the trouble that I’m always in, / Be patient, is very good advice, / But the waiting makes me curious, / And I’d love the change, / Should something strange begin, / Well I went along my merry way, / And I never stopped to reason, / I should have known there’d be a price to pay, / Someday…someday, / I give myself very good advice, / But I very seldom follow it, / Will I ever learn to do the things I should? / Will I ever learn to do the things I should?

We imagine each reader will have their own critical interpretation of this proposal, as mentioned above, and we should bear in mind that its main aspect is encouragement to being creative and political-educational (21) transformation  beginning with ourselves.

Bibliographical notes:

(1) For a summary of these concerns, see M. ARGIBAY,   El Enfoque de Marco Lógico. La idoneidad de su aplicación a la Educación para el Desarrollo con perspectiva de género, by Several Authors, Género en la Educación para el Desarrollo. Estrategias políticas y metodológicas, Hegoa, 2009, pp. 71-84
(2) For example, see Rita and Kennet Dunn (1972), David Kolb (1976), Bert Juch (1983), Peter Honey and Alan Mumford (1986) and from a different perspective, the approaches of Howard Gardner and his theory of Multiple Intelligences.
(3) S. CLARKE, Active Learning through Formative Assessment, Hodder Education, 2008, pp.82-85
(4) P. FREIRE, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 21st Century, 1999, p. 8
(5)T. BLYTHE, The Teaching for Understanding. Guide, Paidós, 2008, p.53 Our proposal is based partly on the intuitions from this educational proposal.
(6) P. FREIRE. Ibid, pp. 83
(7) P. FREIRE, ibid, pp. 91
(8) P. FREIRE, ibid, pp. 86
(9) A. SAINT EXUPERY, The Little Prince, Juventud, 1999
(10) C. GARCÍA-RINCÓN DE CASTRO. Ejercicio de búsqueda de huellas prosociales. Homo Prosocius training material (www.prosocialia.org), 2011.
(11) DFID, Global Dimension in the Curriculum, 2005
(12) M. ARDANAZ, Identificando la Competencia Utópica: proceso, participación y crisis, in Un Mundo con Iniciativa, Jóvenes y Desarrollo, 2010, 15-17
(13) A. BONI, J. F. LOZANO, M.  WALKER,  La educación superior desde el enfoque de capacidades. Una propuesta para el debate. REIFOP, 2010, 13 (3), pp. 123-131
(14) D. A. KOLB, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, 1984.
(15) M. ASHLEY, Taking liberties. The Struggle for Britain’s Freedoms and Rights, British Library, 2008, pp. 84.
(16) C. GARCÍA-RINCÓN DE CASTRO, Con tu quiero y con mi puedo. Mapas y rutas del voluntariado juvenil, SM, 2011.
(17) In the context of the Recreational Activity Groups, a monitor is an educator in the non-formal area; they are also sometimes called counsellors.
(18) P. A.  WOODS, Democratic Leadership in Education, Paul Chapman Publishing, 2005.
(19) APOLLODORUS, The Library, Alianza Editorial, 2004, Library iii.16.2; Epitome i.4.
(20) The song is titled Very Good Advice.
(21) P. FREIRE, Política y Educación, Siglo XXI, 1995, pp. 5

 Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

05B Edgardo Inglés

Abstract

During the year that is coming to a close, the main issue being discussed at a national level in Chile is the high levels of social mobilisation that country is currently undergoing, revealing the discontent of its citizens with a system of political representation that is in crisis. This political system, organised in such a way as to sustain the advent of democracy, is not capable of responding to the demands of certain social sectors. This national context strongly questions civil society with regards to the role it must play and in particular, its coordination with the social movements that have arisen. It is a new form of understanding power and why Popular Education, in its political and educational capacity, can make contributions to this process.

During the year that is coming to a close, the main issue being discussed at a national level in Chile is the high levels of social mobilisation that country is currently undergoing, revealing the discontent of its citizens with a system of political representation that is in crisis.

This political system, organised in such a way as to sustain the advent of democracy, is not capable of responding to the demands of certain social sectors. The central theme is the divergence between political dynamics and the demands of citizens, the crisis of the model negotiated with the dictatorship that enabled the transition to democracy within a context of economic stability and social peace, deferring the demands of various sectors for the good of the country. The myriad social mobilisations throughout 2011 are thus understood; they have not only focused on Education, but also the fight concerning the environment (for example, the installation of hydroelectric dams in Patagonia with the Hidroaysen project), strikes in the cities in remote areas of the country in order to gain greater participation and decentralisation (for example Arica in the north and Punta Arenas in the south), mortgage holders fighting for homes, millions of citizens who were victims of fraud by an unregulated credit system and the abuse of department stores (the La Polar department store fraud), and spontaneous mobilisations by people cutting off streets in order to demand better public transport (Transantiago) are prime examples of how the formal participation channels in Democracy have been overwhelmed.

The slogan is to democratise democracy. The “discontent” is expressed in a social movement that does not see political leadership as a channel for demanding change. In this regard, social scientists in Chile point out that this unrest is common in societies that are reaching developmental thresholds (for example the European “indignants” in Spain and England).
Social mobilisation, and in particular that based on the defence of Public Education, is indicative of a generation that exercises its right to active citizenship that goes beyond educational matters and instead imposes demands on the political system, with regards to focusing the discussion on the country as a whole. The idea that “the model is falling apart” moves the national political project to a new space for citizenship up to now unknown to the country, which has always situated this discussion in the political sphere.

The situation in Chile strongly questions civil society with regards to the role it must play and in particular, its coordination with the social movements that have arisen. It is a new form of understanding power and why Popular Education, in its political and educational capacity, can make contributions.

Over recent months, a series of projects and research have explored and attempted to identify avenues through which the communities have travelled in the search for or construction of spaces for real, rather than symbolic, citizen participation.
An attempt has been made to define the efforts that social organisations have made with the aim of opening channels for advocacy through the generation of networks and regional committees to foster autonomy and enrich the social fabric. Understanding that strengthening citizenship is underpinned by the possibility of the noble exercise of decision-making regarding aspects that affect daily life, and thus, understanding what is considered public not as an attribute of and belonging exclusively to the State, but instead as the sphere of community life.

In this sense, the efforts made by the numerous initiatives in this country have focused on tackling, at least, two axes of community development. First, incentivising collaboration between organisations, as well as generating networks of organisations in order to foster their involvement in the development of the community and /or generate public interest and second, promoting activities that create awareness about the actions and/or contributions that Public Interest organisations make to the development of our country’s social and democratic fabric.

In both cases, the effort is geared towards the promotion of citizen participation, establishing analysis and debate with the aim of identifying community resolutions to social issues existing in present-day Chile. Therefore, the exploration to which we referred above focuses on being able to identify new ways for citizens to participate in fostering associativity, stimulating the capacities of the community actors and strengthening the existing social organisation. In a democracy void of citizen participation, it is the community itself that has independently built its own spaces for social participation.

Thus, a type of citizen participation is supported, through its communities (neighbourhoods, settlements) and primarily through its social, economic, political and cultural practices that establishes a relationship with the decision-making processes of today’s democracy. In this context, it becomes appropriate to question the contributions of Popular Education in the process of building citizenship and autonomous political subject processes.

Even 22 years after regaining Democracy in our country, and facing new challenges regarding the expansion and increasing relevance of decision-making processes, the efforts made to involve vast sectors of society in the destiny of our society are still insufficient.

Therefore, Chilean democracy is a democracy that is “in debt”. The participation models (if we can really talk about “models”) implemented have been inadequate in strengthening participation and consequently, Democracy. In the end, this has led to weak channels of insertion of popular will in decisions that have an impact on their daily lives, giving rise to a limited degree of association by these people as a valid manner of resolving their issues.

The different existing diagnoses (PNUD, DOS, Sector Reports such as the INJUV Youth report, to name but a few) feature a common denominator: confirmation that the old forms of participation are undergoing a crisis and the need to explore new ways of constructing citizenship, which have arisen in a fragmented, circumstantial manner, and under a dynamic of collective action that must be analysed and highlighted.

The need to “aerate our democracy” includes extending the spheres of participation to these new forms, changing community space, as the national territory for creating an impact on the well-being of our lives, and from there, improving our practices as citizens.

Therefore, the search for new forms of citizen participation lies in highlighting the myriad local community demonstrations where the new citizenship is created, those that are based on the practices of the residents and identify the generation of meaningful learning experiences within the creation of citizenship. It is necessary to examine this thoroughly, highlighting diverse experiences in order to enrich our democracy and foster citizen participation, to create quality resources to develop public policies that promote social participation.

When the protagonists themselves, within their own contexts, identify these practices, it is possible, on one hand, to create knowledge that enriches the debate situation at a national level, and on the other, to highlight the meanings and images of democracy that mobilise this autonomous citizen participation that is independent from the formal channels of public policy.
Discovery of a democracy lacking in citizen participation and a community that is capable of establishing and developing citizen “survival” strategies that go beyond the existence or lack of a public policy that promotes true and complete citizenship, has led to a struggle between two kinds of logic within a single field of advocacy in a mutual attempt to pervade one another. In this regard, we are able to identify a least 8 existing tensions:

1. The struggle for Advocacy by the communities (and also civil society) is in essence a political struggle that unfolds and is implemented in numerous workspaces where community action is developed. The different standardised experiences seen are a good example of proof of the need to diversify the strategies and thus, position advocacy in line with these demonstrations.

2. Demonstrations of Advocacy take place in a community context (referring to the neighbourhood), in a local context (at district or community level) and in a national context (within the public policy space). In each of these fields, there must be clarity with regards to what is expected to be achieved. It is therefore appropriate to make an effort to identify and formulate advocacy indicators that facilitate objective assessments to be made regarding the progress made by the community and civil society in each of these areas.

3. The need to assess Advocacy is based on researching the implementation of the strategies taking place within the community. This enables progress to be made in clarifying (with certain precision) whether Advocacy actually takes place. We can assume that not every social mobilisation necessarily generates advocacy and that questions are posed related to defining the progress made by community projects in the definition of public policy that promotes citizen participation in the internalisation of democracy.

4. The debate instigated by the institutions that form the Chilean branch of the CEAAL Group establishes the need for those working in the public policy sphere to refrain from positioning advocacy in opposition to the lack of public policies. Within the framework of the standardised cases dealt with in the “Popular Education and Citizenship” Seminar (to be studied in greater depth in the following chapters), we can see that on repeated occasions the community (and also civil society, principally the work of NGOs) bases its advocacy on the gaps in public policy.

5. A natural aspect of Advocacy is the development of a set of proposals that sustains the community’s involvement. The quest for advocacy is the quest for the proposal and not the mere anti-Establishment response. Advocacy is proactive and not reactive, which brings us back to reflect upon action solely based on opposition. It is a step forward in development; therefore, it is important for communities to standardise their experiences and initiatives and successfully develop a field of proposals for their communities and regions, as the primary advocacy platform. It is impossible to influence the design of public policy on citizen participation if we do not move beyond the local participation crisis present in the communities.

6. We must confirm the need to foster and delve deeper into the processes used to train the trainers, within a “training for advocacy” context. Said training is intended to highlight the political dimension (through transformation), ethical, educational, epistemological nature of popular education.1 The demand expressed by social organisations over the course of the joint work process places training as a collective, communal space for strengthening their advocacy work and also highlight their appreciation of popular education as the space for this collective learning experience, encouraging educator to review their approaches and practices. Once again, the space occupied in this discussion by the subject of standardisation serving these processes is important.

7. Is Advocacy from the community towards public policy sustainable? The constant tension experienced by communities in relation to access to resources highlights fragility as a relevant aspect of the advocacy actions that are implemented. Understanding that a precarious context does not tend to change over the short and medium term, we must explore formulas that enable a certain level of consistency to be achieved in the advocacy we endeavour to generate. The cases discussed in the aforementioned Seminar, which are published here, provide interesting clues in this regard, since the sustainability of the work carried out by the communities involves generating a local ability to enable people to take control of the implemented experience itself.

8. We must position the communicational aspect of popular education at the service of these community-based creation processes. If we maintain that advocacy is related to the topic of visibility, it is therefore a valid argument to suggest that communicational plans go hand in hand with the different fields of advocacy (point 1). In analysing the Argentinean case, we can see the challenge lies in providing the practices implemented with micromedia actions that gradually position the advocacy that we intend to achieve.

Bibliographical notes:

1. Along the same lines, we find the contributions of Carlos Nuñez in re-reading the thinking of Paulo Freire or the recent invitation by C. Berlanga to debate about popular education practices.

The recent (2011) Development Education and Awareness Raising (DEAR) call for Non State Actors (NSAs) and Local Authorities (LAs) proposals issued by the European Commission provides yet another turn in the European Commission approach concerning its support to information, education and campaigning project in relation to international soldarity. The European Commision policy is still based on the  Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the reference framework established in 2000 by the United Nations that works as a blueprint the European Commission and other international bodies  concerning development policies as well as on an awareness that EU citizens show limited knowledge on these issues and limited support for international solidarity initiatives.

It is not easy to provide a comprehensive picture concerning the actual general attitude of Europeans concerning North-South relations and development issues. The Eurobarometer surveys provide a regular update. The June 2009 data (Eurobarometer 318, 2009, p.14) show that only six out of ten of EU citizens think that the European Union can positively contribute to the global debate on development. Such (limited) positive attitude is not yet based on solid ground: “though Europeans have little understanding of the workings of development cooperation, they have a genuine interest in knowing more” (Eurobarometer 318, 2009, p.5). According to Eurobarometer (2009), only one fourth of the EU population have heard about MDGs: actually only 5% of the population says it knows what MDGs are and 19% is aware that they exist but does not know what they are. It is in Southern Europe that “the number of people responsive to the Millennium Development Goals has increased sharply. Awareness has risen from 12% to 23% in Spain, from 18% to 32% in Italy and from 24% to 35% in Portugal, although understanding of the content of the Millennium Development Goals is somewhat lower” (Euro barometer 318, 2009, p.10). These countries belong to the group of Mediterranean countries (Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Malta and Cyprus) where there are more Eurobarometer respondents thinking that the media coverage about development issues is “too little” rather than “about right”.

Eurobarometer (318, 2009) data also highlight significant differences in terms of the potential population to be involved in DEAR activities. Implicitly these data pose the question of the priorities that should orient the use of the limited DEAR available resources. For example: should DEAR strategies and activities be addressed to young people in the first place, i.e to the population that seems relatively receptive but not yet aware of global issues? “Students (52%) and youngsters tend to think that coverage is lacking. It is noticeable that the majorities in the younger three of the four age groups, the 15-24s (47%), 25-39s (45%) and 40-54s (44%), think there is ‘too little’ media coverage on development issues. In contrast, a relative majority of the oldest age group 55+ (42%) believes the coverage is ‘about right’ ” (Eurobarometer 318, 2009, p.13).

DEAR related polls seem to address two main issues: citizens’ knowledge and attitudes concerning international solidarity and specifically the MDG framework, and the level of citizens’ support of EU foreign aid policies. In other words: to what extent is DEAR necessary and what type of priorities should it be addressing?

DEAR: a provisional map

In reality, DEAR practice is based on a broader focus as is also the case for other “adjectival” / value-focused educations relating to global issues. The following paragraphs present an edited version of some of the key mapping and recommendation provided to the European Commission by the DEAR study (Fricke et al. 2010).

What are DEAR priorities according to NSAs? In order to have a partial an yet significan snapshot about it, the DEAR study invited NSAs representatives in 17 EU Member States to answer to complete the following sentence: “DE is required in my country because …”. NSAs representatives were invited to complete the sentence by participating in a ranking exercise making use of the Diamond Ranking method. Representatives of the DE national network or working group of the national platforms were asked to produce a ranking of the following statements, according to their relative importance:
DE is required in my country because…
…DE contributes to challenge global injustice and poverty (1.6)
…DE challenges misinformation and stereotypes (3.3)
…DE encourages active participation (3.5)
…DE helps to understand globalisation (4)
…DE strengthens civil society (4.1)
…DE provides relevant skills (6.1)
…DE contributes to challenging climate change (6.6)
…DE is informative and supportive of development aid (6.8)

The figures in brackets indicate the average position the statement was given when the results of all 17 groups who participated in the exercise are combined. The result clearly indicates the following tendencies:
-  “Challenging global injustice and poverty” is the top priority.
- “Challenging misinformation & stereotypes”, “encouraging active participation”, “understanding globalisation” and “strengthening civil society” are mentioned as important rationales for DE, too.

All of these statements are ranked above average (= 4.5).
“Informing and supporting aid” is the least relevant rationale for DE, according to European NGDO representatives.
Interpreting these outcomes, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- Challenging global injustice and poverty appears to be the ultimate goal and the defining feature of DE for the European NGDO community.
- The aspects expressed in the statements 2-5 (challenging misinformation and stereotypes, participation, understanding globalisation, strengthening civil society) may be considered as important means how the overall objective of DE – overcoming global injustice and poverty – can be most effectively reached. Some NGO representatives explicitly mentioned such a hierarchy of objectives and a logframe-like link between the first ranking statement and the statements 2-5.
- On the other hand, an approach which considers DE as an (uncritical) PR tool for development co-operation policies is rejected by civil society actors across Europe.

Within this context the DEAR Study  provides suggestions that give “added value to the EC DEAR approach in coherence with the Member States and other major actors interventions.” Its Annexes provide additional and background information, particularly in relation to an analysis of EC supported projects, of major actors in DEAR, of Member State policies, and of approaches to DEAR across the European Unions.
The report finds that in order to provide added value as intended by the EC there is a need for the EC to become more proactive in this field, and not only to rely on the provision of grants in pursuit of such an objective.
The recommended strategies by which the EC can address this issue are based on a situation analysis and an identification of needs. In summary the conclusion is that, in order to provide improved added value in coherence with Member States and other major actors, the needs of the EC’ programme relate to the following in particular:

Externally, in the relationship between the EC and other DEAR actors:
a. the need to develop and apply a DEAR policy and strategy which complements the best of existing DEAR theory and practice, conceptualising DEAR as an effort to enhance citizens understanding, skills and critical engagement on issues that affect development;
b. the need to use available EC DEAR resources effectively, using them to leverage resources from other quarters in order to promote awareness, education and engagement in issues relevant to global development across European society;
c. the need to develop coordination between the EC?s efforts and those of other DEAR initiatives in the EU, in particular but not only between the EC and EU Member States;
d. the need to improve and promote learning from approaches and activities relevant to DEAR and apply such learning to initiatives supported by the EC;
e. the need to go beyond a Eurocentric perspective by relating DEAR initiatives in the European Union to relevant and up-to-date experiences and challenges of „development? in both North and South, to globalisation and in particular to the social dimension of globalisation.

Internally (within the EC) in relation to DEAR:
f. the need for the EC to be better informed of DEAR activities, projects, programmes, and strategies current amongst Member States and other major NSALA actors in the EU;
g. the need to establish synergies between the NSALA DEAR programme and DEAR complementary or relevant programmes operated through other sectors in DG DEVCO or through other DGs (for instance DG Education and Culture, DG Climate Action, DG Environment, DG Economic and Financial Affairs);
h. the need to free up time of current NSALA DEAR programme staff so they develop an appropriate awareness and understanding of European and Member State DEAR initiatives and strategies;
i. the need to simplify the grant application and administration process and make it more transparent and effective;
j. the need to draw learning from EC supported DEAR projects and make this learning available to stakeholders.
4. The situation and needs analyses lead to statements that together provide the suggested core policy of the EC?s efforts in this field. They build on the EU´s regulation which describes the
task of DEAR within the framework of the Development Cooperation Instrument. The
suggestions provide a strategic and conceptual framework that, if adopted, will enable the EC
to offer future interventions, “in coherence with Member States and other major actors interventions”.

The recommended overall objective of the EC´s DEAR programme is expressed as:
a. to develop European citizens? awareness and critical understanding of the interdependent world and of their own role, responsibilities and lifestyles in relation to a globalised society; and
b. to support their active engagement in local and global attempts to eradicate poverty, and promote justice, human rights, and sustainable ways of living.
This overall objective is then set within a conceptual context that aims to provide clarity on the EC’s operation of DEAR. It includes the suggested role for the EC, the principles and qualities of its approach.
Identified needs are then further addressed in the DEAR study through different “intermediate
objectives?. Alternative implementation modes are discussed and specific suggestions are made under each strategic objective that aim to set a course of action both in the short term (the period to the end of 2013) and in the long term (the period from 2014 to 2020).

The five intermediate objectives relate to:
a. the development of coherence and coordination between various DEAR activities on the use of a multi-stakeholder process and structures in this forms a key part of the implementation recommendations;
b. improvements in learning and the sharing of learning (within the EC but also more broadly for the DEAR field) concerning the development of, first, national approaches to the promotion of evaluation frameworks, is complemented by European wide information provision and development of learning
c. the further inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives from across the world into
the operation of DEAR implementation recommendations focus on efforts to support the emergence of a global civil society capable to enhance citizens engagement in North and South;
d. the grants process : three types of grants are envisaged, relating to international projects, organisational capacity building for DEAR, and primarily national mini-grants;
e. the operation of the EC’s own staff unit concerned with the support and promotion of
DEAR implementation recommendations are focussed on the development of an EC structure and knowledgeable staff capable to give efficient and effective support to the programme.

9. Each intermediate objective is then followed by more specific recommendations relating to
what the EC should do. Realising that not everything can happen at once, these operational
objectives are divided into those for implementation in the next three years (i.e. by end of
2013), and those which require longer term investments and development (i.e. for the period
2014-2020).

A summary of the DEAR study observations

Quality of partnership requires time and resources before the project start to meet, get to know each other and prepare the project. Also during project implementation, resources need to be invested continuously in communication and co-ordination meetings. Embedding projects in already existing projects or building them on previous co-operation should be encouraged and supported. Multi-actor partnership should be encouraged, without making it an obligation.

In order to promote participatory approaches in DEAR, the EC needs to clearly spell out its “DEAR” concept, underlining the participatory character and the empowerment purpose of DEAR. It needs to be recognised that intensive learning processes cannot be designed to reach outputs measured by big numbers. Practitioners of DEAR need spaces for exchange on methodologies and approaches in order share learning and to constantly improve the quality of DEAR practices.
In order to strengthen Southern involvement, resources need to be made available for mutual costly visits and partnership building. Good practice is to involve experts from the South in key roles in DEAR projects which enable them to take a real influence on shaping the project. Ideally, Southern organisations participate as full equal project partners (or lead agencies) with DEAR activities in their countries in DEAR projects. In order to facilitate partnership, forums for European and Southern civil society organisations in DEAR need to be created.

In order to be sustainable, DEAR processes mostly require long term engagement on an issue or with a certain audience or stakeholder group. Such long-lasting engagement should be enabled – beyond the horizon of 3 years. More spaces for exchange of experience, good practices and lessons learnt and for common conceptual reflection among DEAR practitioners need to be created. The targeted dissemination of project outputs needs to be supported and organised better.
The EC should spell out clear conceptual guidelines for Campaigning/Advocacy projects.

These should include an appreciation of the long term horizons in which Advocacy processes operate, and the need for such projects to be based on a coherent strategy for concrete change at structural/institutional level.
The EC should spell out clear conceptual guidelines for projects of Global Learning focusing on Formal Education. These should include support for efforts to work on structural changes within the systems of formal education; a request to NGOs to seek for close collaboration with national educational authorities on these issues; an appreciation of participatory, transformative pedagogic concepts; a recognition that education and learning builds on intensive processes and cannot be assessed in a quantitative way by high numbers of “target groups” reached. The training and continuing professional development (CPD) of teachers are essential requirements for establishing quality global learning within the formal education sector.
Corresponding with the need for quality training for and CPD of teachers is the requirement for ongoing training and professional development of those aiming to support teachers, i.e. those engaged in NGOs and in other organisations involved in DEAR.

This needs in-depth training concernng both methodological and content related issues including the development policies regulatory framework. For example, the Spanish national strategy mentions as international regulatory frameworks:
-Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
-Millennium Declaration (2000)
-Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005)
-UN General Assembly Resolution on the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)
-European Consensus on Development (2005)
-European Council Resolution on the Promotion of Education for Development and the Awareness Raising of European Public Opinion (2001)
-Maastricht Declaration on Education for a Global Citizenship (2002) .

Unlike the Spanish national strategy, most national documents and DE practices seem relatively unaware of the other adjectival / value-focused educations programmes and international initiatives. This lack is particularly significant in relation to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) whose three main pillars – environmental, economic, and social – seem particularly relevant (along with the human rights and the cultural dimensions) for DE as well. The major difference is that ESD is being promoted worldwide by UNESCO in collaboration with Ministries of Education in the effort to implement the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), spanning from 2005 to 2014. The German Cross-Curricular Framework for Global Development Education in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development seems to come closer to a shared (DE-ESD) conceptualisation by adding to the ESD three pillars the Good Governance pillar as well. The Framework states that: “The resolutions adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio and its follow-up conferences, such as Johannesburg 2002, have become a part of the political frame of reference of the international community. Central to the process is the Agenda 21, adopted at the UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, after environmental issues had already been considered a priority for some time in the industrialised countries. It is thanks primarily to the developing countries, to development policy, and to dedicated civil-society groups that catalogues of extensive social, economic and development policy measures were adopted in Rio, and to an even greater extent in Johannesburg. The Earth Summit in Rio was the starting point for an international appreciation of the sustainable development model and an awareness of the necessity to coordinate social, economic and environmental target components. These were also emphasised in the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations at the turn of the millennium.

In keeping with the spirit of these decisions in Germany, the political perspective of good governance was added as a fourth component, especially in the BMZ and the Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO)”. To this date, this is probably the most significant acknowledgement of ESD as the likely conceptualisation framework for DE/GE programmes.
However, the sustainability focus is not a quality element in itself: Selby and Kagawa (2011, p.17) have recently suggested  the Faustian bargain metaphor as a way to understand and to reflect upon the depoliticisation that seems to characterise both the development education and the education for sustainable development fields . These authors stress the risk for “collusion with the prevailing neo-liberal worldview in return for some, likely ephemeral, purchase on policy (…) whatever the dystopian future prospects afforded by the growth imperative”.

Current DEAR national strategies

Two common features of the national DE strategies (Krause, 2010) are the focus on poverty and global justice and the attempt to address global citizenship by relating to other adjectival / value-focused educations, although usually not in a systematic way.
Key actors from countries like Sweden and the Netherlands seem beyond the idea of drafting a national DEAR strategy. Their formal education system is decentralised and schools are relatively independent in their choices over balance of curriculum content. A national DE strategy would have a very different role in these countries.
In New Member States (NMSs) like Cyprus, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Slovakia there does not (yet) seem to be any attempt to involve different actors in drafting a DEAR strategy.
Among NMSs the most significant attempts to produce a national DEAR strategy is taking place in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovenia. In Poland and Latvia there are also important multi-stakeholder co-ordination processes going on which might lead to a national Development Education/Global Education (DE/GE) strategy.
In the Czech Republic since 2008 actors in DEAR (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of  Education, FoRS) have been involved in drafting a Global Development Education (GDE) Strategy. The Strategy was initiated by the MFA, elaborated in a MSH process with MFA, CZDA, MoE, Ministry on Environment (not so active), FoRS, civil society, academia. European good practices were included (e.g. through Global Education Network Europe, GENE). It also includes public awareness raising on development, but its main focus is on GDE in the Formal Education Sector. The goal is to provide access to information about development issues to all Czech citizens. The draft GDE Strategy was finalised and it was the subject of an internal discussion process within the MoE during May/June 2010. It is expected that the (amended) Strategy should be approved by the cabinet of Ministers. This will give it a significant political importance. GDE will then be an integral part of the Czech formal education system. The next step will be the elaboration of an Action Plan for implementation.

In Slovenia, the NSAs platform SLOGA is working at drafting a strategy for Global Education since 2008. The process recently led to the setting up of an informal inter- ministerial working group on GE focusing on the formal education system.
In Estonia, encouraged by NSAs, the MoE and the Examination and Qualification Centre are considering GE within the curriculum reform process. Through a project by the Jaan Tõnissoni Institute they are inviting Finish curriculum experts to collaborate with Estonian curriculum experts to discuss and further develop GE.

There is obviously room for improving the level of collaboration among actors involved in drafting and in implementing national strategies at the European level.
The North-South Centre of the Council of Europe with its seminal work in NMSs and the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) could play key roles in this. GENE is a network of ministries and agencies with national responsibility for funding, co-ordinating and supporting Global/Development Education. So far, it involves 20 (MFA and/or MoE) ministries and agencies from 16 countries. It aims at supporting national structures in improving the quality and increasing the provision of GE in Europe. GENE’s main focus is on education rather than awareness raising. It already played a key role in countries like Finland and Portugal and it makes use of effective exchange tools such as:
GE roundtables of ministries and agencies as a platform for sharing, exchanging and learning from each other?s strategies;
GE Peer Review process;
Supporting members through advice, training, briefing and exchange, incl. bilateral exchanges;
Policy research and publications, focused on quality of GE;
Providing a forum for joint positions regarding European DE/GE.

According to GENE:
The co-ordination on GE between the EC and Member States should be improved.
The EC strategy for GE should build on the experience of national strategies.
Member States and civil society should be involved in the process of developing a European DE/GE strategy, as well as in permanent co-ordination and consultation mechanisms of the EC.
GENE is willing to contribute to the EC?s development of a GE strategy/approach.
Following the principle of subsidiarity, the right of initiative should be maintained within the EC?s support for DEAR

DEAR Quality

Between 2004 and 2009 268 DEAR projects were supported by the EC NSAs and LAs DEAR grants. The DEARStudy team carried out a quantitative/statistical overview analysis of these projects, identifying the implementation countries, themes and target groups addressed and methods applied. It also developed an analytical framework allowing to focus the following qualitative in-depth analysis on specific areas of quality of practice and quality of outcome. The team selected 49 projects which seemed to show elements and features of particularly good practice for in-depth analysis.
Based on the initial overview of all 268 projects, conceptual reflections by the DEAR study team, and feedback and suggestions by the DEAR stakeholders and the EC’s DEAR Study reference group, the qualitative project analysis focused on the following 9 aspects/questions concerning potential good practice:

- Quality of partnership: Under what conditions are project partnerships real, deep, based on common work and shared learning?
- Ownership of stakeholders: Under what conditions, do project stakeholders develop high ownership and/or are target groups involved as actors in their own right?
- Personal and social development: What helps the project to focus on the learner, the learning process, and development of competencies?
- Learning from project experience: Under what conditions do organisations learn from project experience and share this learning?
- Southern perspectives: What are good practices in actively engaging with and integrating (the variety of) Southern voices, views and perceptions, including from migrant communities in the EU?
- Framework of the project: What framework conditions (such as organisational cultures, networking contexts etc.) enable good DEAR practice?
- Effectiveness: What factors contribute to the successful achievement of project objectives?
- Impact: What factors contribute to a project effectively making a change within society?
- Sustainability: What factors contribute to lasting effects or lasting practices of a project?

According to the DEAR Study it is crucial to integrate within DEAR project a dimension of direct contacts between European and Southern actors. This can be facilitated through mutual visits, partnership building and twinning projects. The need to invest resources into such activities which require a lot of time, attention, careful reflection and money for expensive journeys must be acknowledged.

Therefore the DEAR Study encourages the involvement of (a) European migrant communities and (b) experts from the South within DEAR projects. These actors should be involved in key roles which enable them to take a real influence on shaping the project.

Projects should allow Southern organisations to participate fully as equal partners (or lead agencies) in DEAR projects; encourage such full involvement of Southern partners; adjust all technical procedures in a way that full participation of Southern partners is made easy.
Forums for European and Southern civil society organisations need to be created: for exchange, development of common visions, getting to know each other, developing Project ideas, initiating partnership.

DEAR Study conclusions

Eradicating global poverty and achieving a world of greater global justice are r the overarching vision of DEAR. The orienting perspective of an “education for change? always needs to be justice and poverty eradication. By supporting citizens to understand global issues in their complexity and to acquire the competencies needed for critical engagement such an awareness raising and education seeks to make an explicit and direct contribution to improved development policies which are understood, critically accompanied and supported through active participation by citizens in development efforts.

A key challenge for DEAR will be to overcome the Eurocentric perspective. Although DEAR put North-South relationships, Southern realities, global connections, multi-perspectivism etc. into the centre, many of the current initiatives in DEAR are almost exclusively led by European actors, using European concepts, building on European experts and so on. This Study in itself – its Terms of Reference, the composition of the Study team, the stakeholders it engages with – perfectly reflects this Euro-centric perspective which is unfortunately characteristic for a wide range of DEAR theory and practice. Moving from Euro-centrism (and from a tokenistic approach to North-South exchange) to multilayered global perspectives, might become the most important challenge for this area of work in the coming years. It would require, for example:
- to conceptualise and implement programmes with full, equal participation of actors from all over the globe;
- to engage with concepts and approaches from all corners of the world and to renounce from reframing everything with European meta-concepts;
- to give up the focus on “the South” as object and the focus on Europe as the subject of education;
- to develop approaches, institutions and practices that strengthen the emergence of a global civil society as a multi-layered and pluralistic but unified actor.

If a renewed framework for DEAR is understood as a concept that seeks to empower citizens to participate in shaping the conditions they live in – by becoming responsible members of their local communities and world society, equipped with the skills and competencies, they need to lead a fulfilling life and to act as agents of social change.

A renewed concept of DEAR involves an explicit appreciation of citizens and of civil society as actors and promoters of change. Adopting such a concept expresses the commitment of the EC to an improved and intensified dialogue with citizens and their associations and a commitment to a deepened European democracy based on the active engagement of empowered citizens.

DEAR Study Recommendations

Awareness raising about and education for development provides differentiated knowledge and information, raises awareness of and creates relevant understandings about globalisation, links between our own lives and those of people throughout the world, geographic and multi-factor interdependence, power and hegemonic relations, global and local development challenges,
global and local environmental challenges, issues of identity and diversity in multicultural contexts, issues of peace and conflict resolution.

The approaches to develop such understandings are based on values of justice, equality, inclusion, human rights, solidarity, respect for others and for the environment.

The learning process to enable its participants to develop relevant understandings and skills for change requires dynamism and creativity. Its methodologies are active and learner-centred, participatory and facilitative, dialogue-oriented and experiential, they involve a multiplicity of perspectives and aim at the empowerment of the learner.

The learning process and the development of understanding relevant to development in a globalised world develops the skills and competencies of the learner, in particular to evaluate and reflect his/her place, role and responsibility in his/her community and in the dynamic and changing globalised world, to change perspectives and critically scrutinise his/her own attitudes, stereotypes and points of view, to form an own opinion, to make autonomous and responsible choices, to participate in decision-making processes, to learn how to learn.

Implicitly and explicitly this work addresses and investigates attitudes and behaviours (of ourselves, and of others), in particular those that encourage and discourage responsible and informed action and engagement in a more just and sustainable world.

Taken together understandings, skills, values, attitudes and the process of engagement with issues and with learning aim to contribute to active citizenship with local and global dimensions:
- it empowers people to participate in public affairs, strengthens civil society and fosters a living demo- – cracy;
- it enhances citizens? active involvement and engagement for social change within their local communities and native societies;
- it promotes a sense of global citizenship and of co-responsibility at the global level of world society.

Alessio Surian taught at University of Padova (Italy). He belongs to the FISPPA (Filosophy, Sociology, Pedagogy, Applied Psychology) Department. He trains and consults on education and participatory policies and is an expert for the Intercultural Cities Programme. He works with the Laboratory of Public Policies and with Urban Popular University of the International Alliance of Inhabitants. He was Programme coordinator for Global Education at the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe.  He co-wrote the DEAR study (2010). He has had numerous publications written in Castilian, including the article “A Comparative Study on the European Policies on Education for Development”  in Papeles de Cuestiones Internacionales, “Urban Popular University” and “Compass. A Manual on Human Rights Education with Young People”.

Contact: Università degli Studi di Padova, via 8 Febbraio, 2 – 35122 Padova, Italia. alessio.surian@unipd.it

Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

06A Alessio Inglés

Bibliographical references
- Fricke, HJ, Davis, P, Krause, J, Rajacic, A, Surian, A, (2010) DEAR in Europe. Recommendations for Future Interventions by the European Commission. Final Report of the ‘Study on the Experience and Actions of the Main European Actors Active in the Field of Development Education and Awareness Raising, available at:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/DEAR_Final_report.
- Krause, J (2010) European Development Education Monitoring Report: “DE Watch”, available at: http://www.deeep.org/dewatch.html
- Selby, D, Kagawa, F (2011) Development Education and Education for Sustainable Development: Are they striking a Faustian bargain?, in Policies and Practice, 12, pp.15-31, Centre for Global Education

Translation: Juan Martínez Segrelles (Universidad P. Comillas)

Debates in Citizenship Education

Edited by James Arthur and Hilary Cremin
Routledge, 2012
ISBN 978-0-415-59766-1

With the challenge of teaching for and about global development education it is worthy to consider the embedding of citizenship education with a school curriculum. The teaching of citizenship in the English National Curriculum is currently compulsory in Secondary education. The Curriculum focuses upon three key concepts of, Democracy and Justice, Rights and Responsibilities, Identities and Diversity. Interwoven with the key concepts are three key processes of critical thinking and enquiry, Advocacy and representation and Taking informed and responsible action.

With the diverse and dynamic nature of Citizenship education at a time of significant global uncertainty this text is most timely in identifying a range of debates which are being played out in many educational settings not only within the UK but on an international stage. Whilst the authors address current debates within the UK, such as the important role that the duty to promote community cohesion plays within the British education system. It explores issues that abound in civic engagement of young people living in areas of socio-economic disadvantage.  The text considers the issues and complexities of such a commentary, offering words of caution in respect of the qualitative and quantitative methods of research often used.

The text explores comparative and international perspectives on citizenship education focusing upon the two interrelated and multi-disciplinary fields of educational theory and research. It further discusses the deepening international and global understanding of citizenship education and its significance in education for modern societies. In addition, it considers the very nature of sustainable citizenship education and offers a practical example of this in practice.

“Debates in Citizenship Education” provides the reader with a brief history of citizenship education in England and Wales whilst considering international perspectives. It explores the social and political context of citizenship education through the context of policy and considers the range of influences on education policy for citizenship education. The authors draw upon the notions of ‘travelling’ and ‘embedded’ policy in outlining cross-national, national/regional and local influences on policy. Whilst identifying some of the tensions in current policy frameworks that contain contradictory messages.

Interestingly, the text continues to explore the competing views of the nature and purpose of school communities as potential sites of social, moral and citizenship learning. Whilst the contested nature of the school as a community leads on to offer a definition andexample of a ‘citizenship-rich’ whole-school approach.

The book concludes with a reflection upon the future of citizenship education and focuses upon what is considered as Active citizenship, where by pupils, should be, and should become, active citizens within their communities. Whilst it also discusses the conceptual contestation and practical issues which remain in ensuring that active citizenship is a meaningful and accessible part of education which is experienced by young people in England.

Overall, “Debates in Citizenship Education” is a thoughtful and engaging text which challenges a wide audience. Whether the reader is concerned with Development Education, the teaching of citizenship, or indeed those involved with initial teacher education, this book will be very interesting. It poses a range of questions for further investigation, and supports this with a wide and comprehensive listing of additional references for exploration.

Translation: Elisabeth Detisova Ringuer (Universidad P. Comillas)

CONTENTS 1. A Brief History Of Citizenship Education In England And Wales John Beck 2. International Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education David Kerr 3. Theoretical Perspectives of Citizenship Education Ian Davies 4. Policy Context of Citizenship Education Rob Hulme and Moira Hulme 5. Schools and their Communities Don Rowe 6. Citizenship Education, Race and Community Cohesion Alveena Malik 7. The Civic Engagement of Young People From Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communites Carolynne Mason 8. Citizenship, Inclusion, Gender and Young People Hilary Cremin 9. Sexualities and Citizenship Education Max Biddulph 10. Peacebuilding Dialogue as Democratic Education Kathy Bickmore 11. Climate Change and Sustainable Citizenship Education Paul Warwick 12. Assessment of Citizenship Education: Challenges and Opportunities Tom Harrison 13. Governing Citizenship Education Hilary Cremin and Moira Faul 14. ICT and Citizenship Education Terry Haydn 15. Values, Ethics and Citizenship Education Mark Pike Conclusion 16. Where Now for Citizenship Education? Andrew Peterson 17. Young people mobilizing the language of citizenship: struggles for classification and new meaning in an uncertain world Jacqueline Kelly and Jo-Anne Dillabough.

Mark Chidler, Senior Lecturer in Humanities and Citizenship Education, Newman University College. Mark has a teaching background in Primary Education working in urban and rural environments in the UK. Since 2005 he has been engaged with Initial Teacher Education focusing primarily upon the development of Geography and Citizenship education. As an experienced field work educator, he leads a number of student centred international experiences annually in West Africa. Current research interests are concerned with Internationalising the curriculum and exploring International school partnerships in a range of overseas localities. Mark currently leads the Undergraduate Humanities and Post Graduate Citizenship courses at Newman University College.
Contact: Newman University College, Genners Lane, Bartley Green, Birmingham, England B32 3NT. M.chidler@newman.ac.uk

Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

07A Chidler Inglés

Since 2003 DARE (1) (Development Awareness Raising and Education Forum) includes a triennial programme, DEEEP whose aims are to strengthen the capacities of NGOs to raise awareness, educate and mobilise the European public, creating a pan-European platform for the participation and support of the work of national Development Education (DE) platforms (spanish CONGDE among them), as well as influencing European policies.

One of the most important events of DEEEP is the Summer School, which every year hosts one of the national platforms and reunites more than 100 people from the 27 European Union countries alongside guests from America, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Organised months beforehand, the event is a space of exchange and reflection on Development Education, structured in plenary panels and specific group workshops, and dynamised by people with experience on the subject.

In past editions, Summer Schools have addressed issues such as the role of DE in schools (Portugal, 2003), in the mass media (Belgium, 2004), in relation to human rights (Sweden, 2005) in sports (Germany, 2006), concerning the MDG (Slovakia, 2007), the eradication of poverty (Netherlands, 2008), as the recognition, motivation and mobilization of young people (Romania, 2009) or the role of schools in global education (Hungary, 2010).

2011: Quality and impact of Development Education

The last edition of 2011, held in June in Finland, addressed “the quality and impact of Development Education”. Starting from the definitions (2) of DARE, Bobby Mkormack presented in plenary sessions the three axes that focused the work: planning, implementation and assessment. Regarding quality planning and impact, the following issues were suggested: the necessity of being aware of the social, cultural and economic context; the roles and participation of the public to whom we are aiming; the appropriateness of the resources we have; the presence of the mission and the vision of the entity in the educational proposal. In relation to implementation, its intimate relationship with design and the preparation phase was emphasised. The plenary sessions were used to encourage awareness raising on what to do and how to promote critical thinking and active citizenship, questioning how learning is generated or the role of multiple intelligences. Finally, four types of assessments were presented (each one of them to measure, describe, judge and improve), and it was stressed that assessment was an essential tool for ongoing learning.

Each axis was also discussed in four working groups: on impact, campaigns and events; on adult education; on non-formal education of young people; and on resources and technologies. In the first one, reflection on quality and impact started by differentiating between lobby, advocacy, campaigns and DE, on the basis of the aims established by each one of them: changes in society (advocacy) or long term changes in people (DE). The adults group agreed that quality education entailed literacy education (broadly speaking) for raising critical awareness and action, while the group of young people asked themselves whether there were specific and different features of their educational interventions in relation to those of adults. Finally, the group of resources focused on the opportunities that new technologies offered for working on global education. The workshops also allowed participants to experience and share methodologies for carrying out campaigns (analysis of actors, change matrixes, indicator elaboration), for transformation (case studies, popular education, theories of change or system thinking), as well as dynamics for entertainment and group building.

The week included a presentation panel by the European Multi-stakeholder Group (3), which intends to be a pressure group for the recognition of DE as a strategy for global citizenship. Perhaps the most interesting moment of the panel was the lecture given by Martin Kirk (4), Oxfam-UK’s campaign manager, on the importance of the frames of reference concerning NGOs communication and education, from which certain values and impacts are promoted (or not).

Exchange experience

One of the main objectives of the event is to promote encounter, the exchange of experiences and knowledge between the different participants and the identification of potential alliances. For this purpose, the Summer School organised a specific space –by way of an exchange market- which provided the possibility of meeting and becoming familiar with other entities and European NGO platforms. Undoubtedly there were other spaces, such as the moments for resting and relaxing, which allowed more informal encounters in which some of the star issues were the European crisis and the movements of protest (Egypt, Spain 15M, Greece) that were taking place in several countries of the Mediterranean region.

Reaching consensus on relatively new concepts –such as DE, quality or impact- between people from different realities, contexts and interests is not an easy task. The School offers an opportunity for encounter, association and feedback of different visions, points of view, conceptions and nuances. This way of building through dialogue and diversity constitutes an invitation to go beyond daily work and an opportunity for identifying ourselves within a common struggle: that of an education for the transformation of global injustices.

This is the reason why the experience is highly recommendable: travelling to another country, listening, comparing other people’s arguments to question one´s one and, why not, becoming aware we can contribute and that our problems and challenges are similar. As in all network organisations, the challenge is that the experience does not stay isolated and is transmitted and linked to the work carried out in national and regional platforms, thus heading towards collective work shared and built together.

More information:
DEEEP: http://www.deeep.org/index.php/index.php

The next Summer School will address “LABORATORY OF CHANGE: Participation of local society in sustainable development”.

Pepa Martínez Peyrats, linked for more than ten years to the development of participatory educational processes and international cooperation, has worked in countries of Latin America and Africa, and in NGDOs of Barcelona. Since 2007, she is the development education expert of the Federació Catalana d’ONGD (FCONGD) and also gives workshops and courses on popular education.
Contact: Federació Catalana d’ONG per al Desenvolupament. C/Tàpies, 1-3 08001 Barcelona (España). educacio@fcongd.org

Arantxa Freire is a journalist who has been working for 12 years in communication for social change in Latin America and Africa. In the last years she has coordinated the Development Education area of CEAR Foundation- Habitafrica and at present is in charge of the Communication department of the same, focusing on communication through social networks.
Contact: Habitáfrica. Plaza Constitución 3, local 15, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid (España)  afreire@habitafrica.org

Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

08A Finlandia Inglés

Bibliographical notes:
1 DARE is the DE working group in CONCORD, the European NGDO platform.
2 “Quality refers to learning to do better what you do well. It includes knowing what needs to be changed to be sure that you meet the needs of the people who use your services or who you work for, in order to improve what you want to improve”. “Impact is “the positive and the negative, what is important and what is secondary, all that in the long term produces significant effects on the life of people and the environment, through the different interventions, direct or indirect, deliberate or without intention”.
3 The European Multi-stakeholder group on Development Education (MSH) was created in 2006 and it is composed of NGOs and civil society, national governments and ministries, trade unions and European institutions, platforms and working groups (CONCORD, DEAR, DEEEP).
4 This lecture is based on the report “Finding Frames: new ways to engage UK public in global poverty”, published in January 2010 and carried out by Martin Kirk and Andrew Damton. More information on: http://www.findingframes.org/

This academic journal first published in 2008 has already established as the leading publication for this debates. The Journal publishes articles that promote greater understanding of the reasons for global inequality and how global issues such as poverty affect people’s everyday lives. It critically explores international development issues so as to help people develop the practical skills and confidence to make positive changes, both locally and globally.

The journal also carries book reviews. The criteria for papers are that they are analytical and critical, and that the ideas being discussed are transferable to other educational systems and cultures and accessible to an international audience.

Recent articles have included:
- Douglas Bourn (UK) – Development Education: Towards a Re-conceptualisation
-  Bob Manteaw (USA) – People, Places and Cultures: Education and the Cultural Politics of Sustainable Development
- Gregor Lang-Wojatasik (Germany) – Differences as a Contribution to Education Theory and Global Learning from a German Perspective: We should learn more about the cultures of foreign children
- Arnfinn Nygaard (Norway) -The Discourse of Results in the Funding of NGO Development Education and Awareness Raising: An experiment in retrospective baseline reflection in the Norwegian context
- Vanessa Andreotti (New Zealand/Finland) – Global Education in the 21st Century two different perspectives on the ‘post-’ of postmodernism

Themes for future issues are:
- Perspectives on Development Education from the Spanish speaking world;
- The Role of International Volunteering;
- The pedagogy of teacher education and global learning;
- Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship;
- Research from multiple epistemologies;
- The relationship between policy and practice.

Organization and contact:
The journal has an internationally renowned editorial board of academics from around the world and will involve civil society bodies and NGOs through specially commissioned articles that review practice in different countries.The Journal is published three times a year and subscriptions are available for both individuals and institutions in both hard copy and online formats. It has been founded at the Development Education Research Centre at the Institute of Education, University of London under its Director, Dr Douglas Bourn

For further details about the Journal and how to contribute contact: d.bourn@ioe.ac.uk

To subscribe go to:
http://www.trentham-books.co.uk/acatalog/International_Journal_on_Development_Education_and_Global_Learning.html

 Versión para Imprimir - Printable  Version

09A FJ LONDON Inglés

Translation: Erik Madsen (Universidad P. Comillas)