Towards a just and inclusive global higher education area? The UNESCO global convention within mobility and internationalisation debates

The Politics and Economics of Comparison

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.

One of the most important challenges in the educational system is effectively engaging young people to become educated and concerned citizens actively working on finding solutions to today’s pressing issues, from Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change and environmental pollution, to maintaining peace and security through development and communication. Recent work (UNESCO, 2015) suggests that global citizenship education (GCE) is increasingly becoming one of the tools not only for educating youth on global challenges, but also for involving them in implementation of SDGs, volunteership, and civil society activities. The purpose of this article is to analyze the evolving approaches in conceptualizing GCE, and incorporating it into curricula and extracurricular activities, using the example of Kazakhstan. The article addresses three research questions: First, how are researchers and educators conceptually redefining GCE in the learning environment of national higher education institutions (HEIs), educating youth on globalization and global challenges, and harmonizing the concepts and perceptions of national and global citizenship? Second, how do educators perceive the place of GCE in the traditional education programs within universities, and define the conceptual focus of different aspects of globalization and GCE within their teaching practice? And third, how do educators in the developing world integrate GCE into the existing traditional educational programs within universities, specifically in the case of Kazakhstan? This research offers a nuanced approach to the introduction of GCE in higher education institutions in the context of developing countries. Key words: Global Citizenship Education, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Higher Education Institutions (HEI), Kazakhstan

Over the last 20 years the European Association for Education in Electrical and Information Engineering (EAEEIE) has proven itself to be a strong organization aiming to support Electrical and Information Engineering (EIE) education across Europe. EAEEIE members participated in several EU projects (i.e. ELLEIEC, THEIERE) with recognized contribution to EIE education process. Its new Strategic Alignment of Electrical and Information Engineering in European Higher Education Institutions (SALEIE) EU supported project aims to provide higher education models in the EIE disciplines that can respond to the key global technical challenges. This paper deals with the last results within the SALEIE project work package WP3 (Global Challenges). After defining the global challenges that the EIE graduates may face, a survey has been conducted to identify existing models in EIE higher education and their degree of response to key global technical challenges.

Education has long been characterized as a central requirement for national economic development and political democratization in the contemporary world. Moreover, international benchmarking has been identified as the “basis for improvement. . . . It is only through such benchmarking that countries can understand relative strengths and weaknesses of their education systems and identify best practices and ways forward” (OECD 2006, 18). Statements such as this example signal an international consensus that has emerged— at least among “developed” countries—about the legitimacy and, even more so, the necessity of international testing and national assessment. As David P. Baker and Gerald K. LeTendre (2005) observe, both international testing and national assessment are linked to efforts to reform educational systems and are often themselves stimuli for further cycles of reform. The results of international testing, they note, will fuel further interest in national assessment. Here we develop an argument about the global forces that have led to the explosive growth of national educational assessment and international testing. In particular, we argue that the international acceptance of testing comes from key ideological forces in the world polity that are associated with the accelerating globalization of national and international cultural, economic, and political structures. As we develop and warrant this argument, we also qualify it by pointing out that national adaptations to this larger world culture may vary depending on the presence and capacities of international organizations and regional associations that act to mediate and adapt these changes to conditions in individual countries. In addition, we consider the effects of subnational movements in introducing pressures for change that may favor more national assessment.

The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted global education, leading to a surge in online education, a pressing need for global online educational resources, a balanced focus on K12 and higher education, widespread adoption of new technologies in education, and rapid development of specialized education platforms. These changes have posed numerous challenges and triggered multidimensional transformations in educational philosophies, models, assessment methods, teaching resources, and the integration of education with new technologies. Additionally, the formation of an international educational community and the reconstruction of educational ecosystems have become key considerations. To address these challenges, this paper proposes the rapid transformation of educational concepts, from traditional views to a future-oriented perspective that caters to the unique learning needs of each individual, enabling education that is accessible, continuous, and personalized through leveraging advanced technologies like the Internet, big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. The paper also suggests increasing investment in educational resources, enhancing network infrastructure and facilities, improving top-level designs for educational resources, promoting international exchanges and resource sharing, and establishing a comprehensive policy and guarantee system to tackle the structural insufficiency of high-quality educational resources. Furthermore, diversified teaching methods, such as blended learning and flipped classrooms, are proposed to meet the diverse learning needs. The paper emphasizes the importance of enhancing teachers' information technology application capabilities to align with the developmental needs of schools. It also advocates for increased participation of China in global education governance and the promotion and implementation of innovative Chinese educational ideas on a global scale. Initiatives such as leading post-pandemic global education and education informatisation plans are suggested to drive the formulation of relevant standards, international conventions, and the advancement of domestic education governance, thus enhancing China's contributions and influence in global education governance.

L'objectif des auteurs de cet article est double. Il s'agit d'une part de presenter une etude exploratoire sur les tendances actuelles temoignant de l'emergence d'un nouvel activisme non gouvernemental dans le champ de l'education et d'autre part de dresser un cadre analytique afin d'evaluer l'importance de cet activisme, en elaborant des concepts bases sur les recherches ayant porte sur les nouveaux mouvements sociaux et les debats theoriques actuels a propos de la societe civile mondiale.

Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education

By emphasizing that the Japanese government started to make higher education a core part of national economic and fiscal policies around the turn of the 21st century, Yonezawa (2023) investigates how these policies have been developed, what the main points of these policies are, and how they have impacted Japan's higher education. Yonezawa (2023) is clearly structured and rich in content. The explanations of the failure of Japanese higher education and the concluding remarks on the value of the policies created by the Abe Cabinet are impressive and interesting. According to existing research (Kaneko, 1995; Nakamura, 1978; Pempell, 1978), since the late 1950s when Japan set the basic goal of economic policies to achieve economic development, higher education was placed in a strategic position for growth. Higher education was expected to train the human resources needed to achieve this goal. In the late 1950s, higher education was treated only peripherally in the economic plan as the “promotion of science and technology,” but in the 1960 Doubling Income Plan, it was placed under the title of “Chapter 3: Human Capacity Building and Promotion of Science and Technology.” The “Report of the Education and Training Subcommittee,” which was annexed to this plan, was further included under the title of “Report of the University Committee on Education and Training” and the “Report of the University Committee on Science and Technology.” The “Report of the Subcommittee on Education and Training” even proposed an increase in the number of university science and engineering faculties and technical high schools. From the late 1950s to the 1960s, the idea of higher education as an investment rather than a mere consumption was introduced to Japan, mediated by such keywords as “human resources,” “human investment,” “educational investment,” and “manpower.” Since then, though differing in degrees over time, Japan's higher education has been expected to play a significant and decisive role in facilitating economic development and fostering manpower and professionals, particularly by the government and industry. The impact of economic and fiscal policies on changes in Japan's higher education may have become more significant and considerable since the 21st century, but there is little doubt that the development of higher education was already conceived as one important part of Japan's policies of economic growth, science, and technology since the late 1950s. Also, when compared to other East Asian countries like China and South Korea, Japanese higher education is characterized by its closer partnership between higher education, government, and industry, and especially a stronger influence from industry on shaping national higher education policies and undergraduate education. It is difficult to precisely evaluate the effectiveness of a specific policy unless it can be qualitatively defined and/or quantitatively measured. The changing economic policies, economic policies associated or mixed with other ideological, or policies of social welfare, and completely opposing economic policies for the last two decades, whether drastic or modest, can make the evaluation and analysis of the impact of economic policies on higher education very complicated and almost impossible. For example, as the higher education policies adopted by the Democratic Party of Japan in 2009 seem to be quite different from those of the Liberal Democratic Party, it would undoubtedly be of greater value to judge how significantly these policies impacted changes in Japan's higher education and whether they have led to the failure of Japan's higher education, as the Yonezawa argues. Apparently, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of economic and fiscal policies on higher education, especially when no clear proof or evidence can be found to judge the consequences of the development of Japanese higher education taken as a whole. Truly, some trends in Japan's higher education are clear. However, can we say that Japan has failed in achieving academic excellence just because 10 Japanese universities cannot be listed among the top 100 in major global university tables by 2023? What constitutes the core part of the academic excellence of Japan's higher education, and what criteria should be taken into consideration when evaluating the level of the global competitiveness of Japan's higher education? Moreover, a more convincing study should be conducted to judge whether any achievements have been made in developing globally competitive human resources, in what sense it failed, and why. Finally, as long as there are any indirect and long-term impacts on higher education from these policies, the evaluation can only partially portray the outcomes of these policies or merely limit to some levels or aspects of higher education that are impacted by these policies. Various factors are presented to interpret the failure of Japan's higher education, but it is hoped that a more comprehensive discussion should be made regarding what extent any factors are related to economic and fiscal policies.

The multiple processes of globalization of the 1990s have drastically changed the context in which governance of education takes place, altering the relationship between sovereignty and territoriality in the education policy development, and transforming education policy spaces, content, and the governance processes, actors and structures. Over the past decades, scholars have tried to explore new frameworks through which to examine the current complex field of power relations in education, and specifically to understand better the role of intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations in it. In the context of the historical turn for international cooperation characterized by the efforts of achieving Sustainable Development Goals, this understanding could be instrumental for finding effective solutions to educational challenges, and for re-orienting educational policies in the light of sustainable development. Proposing innovative theoretical and methodological frameworks which required an interdisciplinary approach which draw from international relations theories, political economy, philosophy, pedagogy, sociology, and global education studies, applying the global governance theory to education, the research aims to investigate the complex landscape of the global governance of education, focusing on the role of intergovernmental organizations in it and, in particular, it examines the evolution of priorities of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the agenda-setting process. By means of a mix methodology of content and discourse analyses, the main political and flagship publications of UNESCO are studied throughout a period that begins in 1990 and extends until 2017, since this timeframe encapsulates the timeline of particular international education agendas (Education for All and Sustainable Development Goals) and is marked by the rise of globalization and its effect on the governance of education. The research identifies the evolution of UNESCO?s role in the global governance of education connecting it with the endogenous and exogenous changes of the period selected; it explains how a specific mechanism of agenda-setting has gained relevance in UNESCO?s global governance role; and it illustrates the dialectic relationships between UNESCO?s priorities and those of the global education agendas that the Organization has helped shape. In so doing, this exercise could be useful as it not only provides a fresh outlook on the ways in which education governance can be analysed in contemporary interconnected world, but it also creates new perspectives for studying the role of intergovernmental organizations in global education policy. The findings of this research are a fresh contribution to the field that could be also utilized by governance actors such as UNESCO in order to reflect on, review and problematise their positioning within global governance.

Problem setting. Modern global challenges have significantly changed the landscape of higher education and intensified the process of its internationalization, the consideration of which has become one of the most discussed scientific problems in the field of higher education. Socio-philosophical understanding of the internationalization of higher education allows us to present it not only as an effective tool for improving the competitiveness of universities, but also as a basis for their social responsibility, a significant factor in improving the quality of higher education. This is extremely relevant to the study of the process of internationalization of higher education in a globalized world. Recent research and publications analysis. The study of the problems of internationalization of higher education belongs to the sphere of scientific interests of both Ukrainian and foreign scientists. Among modern domestic researchers who deal with theoretical and methodological issues of internationalization of higher education and analysis of the peculiarities of internationalization of higher education in Ukraine in the context of global challenges should be noted such scientists as Boychenko M., Verbytska A., Voronkova V., Gorbunova L., Debych M. , Zinchenko V., Kiykov A., Krasovska O., Kurbatov S., Mishchenko M., Nitenko O., Sbrueva A., Sikorska I., Stepanenko I., Terepyshchy S., Shipko O. and others. Significant contribution to the theoretical development of ideas for the internationalization of higher education in the context of globalization has also made foreign scientists ‑ Altbach F., Bergmann H., Branderburg W., Brooks R., Wang M., H. de Wit., Geissler M., Knight J. , Robertson S., Scott P., Hudzik J., Hundt S. et al. Despite the fact that the scientific literature has widely reflected the understanding of various problems of internationalization of higher education, still remain debatable a number of issues that need to be constantly considered. Paper objective. The aim of the article is to study the essence of the concept of internationalization of higher education in modern socio-philosophical discourse; consideration of methodological approaches to the analysis of internationalization of higher education; identifying the prerequisites for the development of internationalization of education in a globalized world; disclosure of the national strategy for the internationalization of higher education in Ukraine. Paper main body. The development of modern higher education takes place in the context of global challenges, among which the most important, as stated in the founding document of UNESCO "Higher Education in a Globalized Society", are: the growing importance of the knowledge society / knowledge economy; development of new trade agreements, which include, inter alia, trade in educational services; innovations in the field of information and communication technologies; the growing role of the market and market economy. To date, according to many scholars, the most comprehensive and scientifically sound of the existing definitions of the internationalization of higher education is the definition given by H. de Wit and F. Hunter. According to them, the internationalization of higher education is a deliberate process of integrating the international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and methods of higher education in order to improve the quality of education and research for all students and staff and make a significant contribution to society. Experience shows that in the field of internationalization of higher education there are two institutional models: traditional and complex. The first model includes components such as academic mobility; internationalization of the curriculum; international cooperation in the field of scientific research; partnerships with foreign higher education institutions. The comprehensive model of internationalization of higher education includes academic mobility; internationalization of the curriculum; international cooperation in the field of scientific research; partnerships with foreign higher education institutions; international educational programs of joint / double / multilateral diplomas; branches abroad; online / electronic training courses. Currently, the main ideas of the strategy of internationalization of the market of educational services in Ukraine are: 1. strengthening international competitiveness in higher education and research; 2. active participation of Ukraine in the development of European higher education; 3. expanding the opportunities of Ukrainian higher education institutions to enter the European educational market; 4. positioning Ukraine as a leader in the international market of educational services; 5. expanding opportunities for improving the system of higher education and research infrastructure of universities; 6. development of cross-border higher education. Conclusions of the research. For leading Ukrainian universities seeking to become competitive members of the global education market, internationalization has already become an imperative and has become one of the most important tools for innovative development of higher education in Ukraine, its successful integration into the European and global educational space.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of Global Education (GE) from a “theory of action plan” and an “evolutionary and systems theory” approach as an educational perspective to cope with globalisation – more specifically, the challenges of globalisation. Moreover, an additional aim is to analyse the linkages of GE according to global society, global citizenship and transformative learning concepts. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a literature review regarding the challenges of globalisation combined with the theoretical pattern of GE separated into the following dimensions: objective/issues, temporal, spatial and social based on Lang-Wojtasik (2012), which will be further complemented with approaches from Selby and Rathenow (2006). Findings – GE is an educational perspective to cope with globalisation in consideration of different definitions and approaches of GE. The methods of GE, such as promoting a holistic view on the world, are designed based on the challenges of globalisation and, as a result, GE can provide perspectives for coping with globalisation. Originality/value – The challenges of globalisation are more and more noticeable in daily life. Therefore, it seems meaningful to the authors to resume an educational concept dealing with these challenges.

Global university rankings have existed for only a decade and yet they have received unprecedented attention from higher education policy experts and scholars, as well as from politicians and the general public (Cheng and Liu, 2006, 2007; Erkkilä and Kauppi, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2008; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007; Salmi and Saroyan, 2007; Salmi, 2009). Previous analyses of global university rankings have concentrated on the methodology they use and their social effects from the perspective of efficiency and quality assurance (Dehon, Vermandele and Jacobs, 2009; Shin, Toutkoushian and Teichler, 2011), their impacts on higher education institutions (HEIs) (Hazelkorn, 2011) and their ability to reshape the higher education landscape in terms of its diversity (Kehm and Stensaker, 2009). There are also studies on the global governance of higher education that identify university rankings as one of its elements (King, 2010; Shin and Kehm, 2013).Global university rankings have existed for only a decade and yet they have received unprecedented attention from higher education policy experts and scholars, as well as from politicians and the general public (Cheng and Liu, 2006, 2007; Erkkilä and Kauppi, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2008; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007; Salmi and Saroyan, 2007; Salmi, 2009). Previous analyses of global university rankings have concentrated on the methodology they use and their social effects from the perspective of efficiency and quality assurance (Dehon, Vermandele and Jacobs, 2009; Shin, Toutkoushian and Teichler, 2011), their impacts on higher education institutions (HEIs) (Hazelkorn, 2011) and their ability to reshape the higher education landscape in terms of its diversity (Kehm and Stensaker, 2009). There are also studies on the global governance of higher education that identify university rankings as one of its elements (King, 2010; Shin and Kehm, 2013).

For the last two decades The European Association for Education in Electrical and Information Engineering (EAEEIE) has been dedicated and continue to support the Electrical and Information Engineering (EIE) education in Europe. SALEIE (Strategic Alignment of Electrical and Information Engineering in European Higher Education Institutions) is one of its new EU projects which coagulate a global team aiming to provide higher education models in the EIE disciplines that can respond to the key global technical challenges. The SALEIE project's work package WP3 (Global Challenges) is related to: state-of-the-art in implementation of the Bologna recommendation for Bachelor and Master, EIE connected technical, existing models in EIE higher education and their degree of response to key global technical challenges as well as some examples of curriculum models which see the day light during the SALEIE workshops. That is the subject that the proposed paper deals on.

Climate change, energy poverty and security, health security and disease, food and nutrition security, and ensuring safe access to water and sanitation are some of humanity's major challenges. They can lead to poverty and inequality within a world population projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050 and can have a powerful negative impact on economic and social development and on the natural environment. These challenges are also and will increasingly become underlying reasons for injustice, conflicts, and wars. Addressing such challenges in a sustainable manner requires strategic research investments, international collaboration, collective resources, and knowledge exchange between diverse communities. There is increasing awareness that solving such problems requires an interdisciplinary approach: the natural sciences and technology cannot solve these issues alone and must integrate with the social sciences and humanities to identify viable solutions and to ensure that knowledge is informing policy and practice. How communities prioritize research objectives and communicate with one another may determine how effectively humanity can tackle these major global challenges. Our firm belief is that research policy and funding should be heavily influenced towards the global challenges with more interdisciplinary research, multi‐sectorial approaches, cross‐border collaboration, and a clear focus on relevance for national and global policy making leading to the widespread adoption of best practice.<br><br>In response, we are excited to announce the launch of Global Challenges , Wiley's new premium interdisciplinary open access journal. Global Challenges will publish high‐quality research papers, reviews, editorials, and commentaries spanning research and practice related to these global challenges. The aim is to mobilize debate and leadership regarding these challenges and to create a platform for directing and setting the research, policy, and practice agendas. In doing so, we provide a new centre for an emergent community of cross‐disciplinary collaborative stakeholders. <br><br>Global Challenges will initially focus on five major challenges: Climate Change, Energy, Water, Global Health, and Food, Agriculture & Nutrition, with each subject area overseen by Chief Editors (see accompanying editorials). Each area has an Editorial Board working alongside the respective Chief Editor in order to attract and select the highest quality papers. Global Challenges will publish cutting‐edge research, selected through a strict, transparent, and fair reviewing process. We intend to demonstrate to funders that the research they fund has impact, with each research article containing an impact statement and a more detailed impact box. The intention is to put the research into context for a broadly based group of stakeholders. We will also encourage rigorous research synthesis through systematic reviews that can summarize the total body of research on a question with the aim to inform policy and practice in an unbiased manner. In addition, editorials and commentaries will identify priorities both for research and policy and initiate debate on how best to address global challenges. <br><br>We are very aware that, to make measurable progress in the mitigation of global challenges, we need to encourage multidisciplinary conversations between scientific fields and between natural scientists, technologists, social scientists, and those in the humanities, not just act as a venue for broadcasting results and findings. We want to advance dialogue and research and enable decision‐makers to base policy and practice on scientific evidence. Our intention is to consult regularly and widely with stakeholders on how best to achieve this aim.<br><br>It is important to state that open access plays a central role in this initiative. Funders invest in research to encourage discovery and innovation and to progress economic development. Open access, and therefore open digital knowledge, advances research by maximizing the extensive use and interrogation of data and information, enabling researchers and other stakeholders to deliver an accelerated return on society's investment in research. We should also recognize that open access enables us to reach into communities central to addressing the global challenges, communities not normally exposed to cutting edge research. Practitioners as well as policy makers will be an essential component in driving the debate.<br><br>Global Challenges will not simply be another journal; it will be a different kind of journal, worthy of the best manuscripts. By embracing policy‐relevant work, including applied research and analysis, Global Challenges will bridge the typical divide between “science and technology” and “policy and practice” that most current journals impose. By embracing interdisciplinary work, along with the full range of disciplinary traditions, it will be the venue for publishing cross‐sectoral research that addresses several challenges simultaneously. It is important to note that the journal is the first building block; our aim is to build on the scope of Global Challenges to embrace flexible and innovative communication technologies, enabling us to maximize dissemination reach and influence global events. <br><br>We hope you are equally enthused, challenged, and mobilized by this initiative, and we welcome thoughts, input, and suggestions. We also hope you will join us on this mission by bringing your expertise, ideas, opinions, and voice. We want not only to create a journal but also to create a global community with a global mission.<br>