Influence of UNESCO Chairs Program Partnerships in HK & the U.S.A. on International Mindedness among University Students

• In Event: Institutionalizing policies in higher education

Proposal

Introduction
In this increasingly globalized world, global citizenship education infused with the elements of universal values, such as social justice, respect for diversity, and global awareness, is imperative to be included in the educational systems. The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, encourages fostering global citizenship to shape a sustainable future with peace, mutual respect, and environmental care (Global Education First Initiative, 2014). On the updated post-2015 sustainable development agenda, one of the proposed targets for inclusive and equitable quality education is to ensure the implementation of global citizenship education by 2030 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, 2014). These reveal the importance of having global citizenship education universally. However, there is no binding effect on the national leaders to follow the U.N. declaration about Global citizenship (GC); one of the reasons of resistance is that global citizenship could pose a threat or challenge to civic education in the nations (Davies & Pike, 2009). It has created tension between global and local dynamics, which in return has posed great challenges on educational policies and reforms, especially in dynamics of citizenship, democracy, human rights, and multiculturalism (Torres, 2002). It is critical for policy makers to strike a balance between all of these elements.

Problem/Issue
The role of tertiary education has been strongly emphasized by the former United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon. From this point of view, UNESCO Chairs Program is one of the main initiatives to create a platform for tertiary institutions to work on the mandate of the United Nations through global citizenship education. Therefore, it is important to study how the internationalization of tertiary institutions is in line with the UNESCO Chair Program’s statements to facilitate university students’ international mindedness, which is scarce in research. This is also aligning with UNESCO’s definition of global citizenship education, with partnerships as one component, which empowers individuals with international mindedness, multicultural understanding, awareness of global issues, acceptance of diversity, community engagement, perspective consciousness, problem-solving skills, and interpersonal communication skills. These skills are critical to construct an inclusive, just, and peaceful society with sustainable development (UNESCO, 2014). These elements are especially imperative under the current political climate in the United States, Brexit in the United Kingdom, and the countries which are in conflicts or wars.

Significance
This research is to investigate possible ways to improve strategic university partnerships with international organizations, like the UNESCO Chairs Program, and to discover ways to improve the experiences of university students as a result of the partnerships. This study can give a broader perspective to the participants about different structures of the UNESCO Chairs Program in other higher education institutions. It may help different stakeholders to compare how various contextual factors impact the UNESCO Chairs Program in different contexts.

Theoretical Framework
This study will be mainly framed by the lens of coercive power in the neo-institutional theory (Beckert, 2010; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Ostrom, 1986; Powell, 2007; Wiseman, Astiz & Baker, 2014) and postcolonial theory (Nichols, 2010; Said, 1993). The elements from these two theories can explain why neo-institutional theory and postcolonial theory can be applicable to some parts of the study.

Research Methods
In this study, qualitative research methods will be chiefly used, including the frameworks of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and qualitative content analysis (QCA). To combine CDA and QCA, QCA is utilized alongside as a secondary function of critical-interpretive attitude underlying discourse analysis and systematizing the findings (Schreier, 2002).

Results
The results show that the establishment of the UNESCO Chairs Program in the four selected institutions relates closely to personal relationships between the Chairholders and the UNESCO. From this partnership, not only the institutions enjoy being part of the worldwide network of UNESCO, but also the Chairholders can broaden their research scopes through it. The themes of each institution also rely heavily on the expertise of the faculty members in the departments where the UNESCO Chairs Program are housed. Additionally, four different institutions have different pillar activities to influence international mindedness of university students. These evidence support the arguments of coercive power and contextualization within neo-institutionalism. Nevertheless, the researcher needs to broaden the samples of the institutions of the UNESCO Chairs Program in the future to further investigate the elements of post-colonial theory within this partnership.

References
Beckert, J (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. MPIfG Journal, 28, 150-166.

Davies, I. & Pike, G. (2009). Global Citizenship Education: Challenges and Possibilities (p.p.61-77), in Lewin, R. (Ed.) (2009), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and quest for global citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge and the Association for American Colleges and Universities.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Association, 48, 147-160.

Global Education First Initiative (2014). Statement from the Secretary-General. Retrieved from http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/289.htm.

Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Chicago Journal, 83, 340-363.

Nichols, R. (2010). Postcolonial studies and the discourse of Foucault: Survey of a field of problematization. Foucault Studies, 9, 111-144.

Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choices, 48(1), 3-25.

Powell, W.W. (2007). The New Institutionalism: To appear in the international encyclopedia of organization studies. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf

Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London, United Kingdom: SAGE.

Torres, C.A. (2002). Globalization, education, and citizenship: Solidarity versus markets American Educational Research Journal, 3 (2), 363-378.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for sustainable development. (2014). Sustainable development knowledge platform. Retrieved from http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/owg13.htm

Wiseman, A.W., Astiz, M.F., and Baker, D.P.(2014). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: a review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare, 44(5), 688-709.

Author

• Angel Oi Yee Cheng, Lehigh University