Encounters with the Other: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the OECD’s Framework for Global Competence

• In Event: Highlighted session: Critical reflections on the development, use and policy impact of international large-scale assessments in education

Proposal

Education for global competence has gained increasing conceptual and policy relevance in the past decade, and it has been currently highlighted by several international organizations. One key example is the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 measure of global competence, which focuses on global competence as a cross-curricular domain that aims to develop a set of skills and attitudes that enable students to lead success in a globalized environment. The OECD (2018) defines global competence as “the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development” (p. 7). Due to the growing influence of globalization processes, such as the increased cross-border mobilities, including the influx of refugees and immigrant groups, as well as the development and circulation of information and communication technologies, the emphasis of global competence is on the specific proficiencies an individual ought to possess to establish respectful relationships with people from different cultural backgrounds and engage in peaceful and sustainable societies. Likewise, there is an emphasis both on competitiveness and collaboration in a global economy, whereby individuals must be able to work with others and effectively communicate with individuals from different cultural backgrounds, as well as take action on global problems. Accordingly, aspects such as team-spirit, learning, and appreciating different cultural traditions; avoiding stereotypes and prejudice; and considering the consequences of one's own behavior are discussed as central topics in the PISA 2018 framework.

Building both theoretically and empirically from previous research on the framing and messaging of global education policy at national and international levels, this paper critically explores the OECD’s framework of global competence in PISA 2018. We contextualize our study by exploring key debates and discussions historically framing both the move towards global competency measurement and the fraught and assumed relationship between education for diversity at national and global levels. These include scholarship on cosmopolitan capital, the PISA effect in global education policy governance, and the overlap between education for global citizenship and intercultural/multicultural education. We draw on critical discourse analysis of the PISA 2018 global competence framework, which employs the study of language in use to reveal patterns and hidden rules of how language is used and narratives are created, relying on Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional “dialectical approach,” which includes description, interpretation, and explanation. We focus on identifying and describing the linguistic features and the discursive practices in the text, in an attempt to interpret and understand them in their social contexts and in terms of a particular theoretical orientation towards issues of ideology and power relations. We pose questions, including: What language is the author (OECD) using to frame the primary rationales for global competency? What is included and what is hidden in the grammatical and vocabulary arrangements?

Our paper organizes findings on two major themes: Encountering the “other” and taking action. The linguistic analysis reveals that thriving in an interconnected world and managing the increasing prevalence of daily intercultural encounters is heavily stressed. Moreover, this mediated discourse is committed to a project of moral imperative to consider global problems and take social actions with the global other to manage conflicts and ensure an understanding of human rights and developing constructive attitudes of living together. Our paper will discuss these findings in greater detail.

Based on these findings, we argue that the PISA framework for global competency evokes and reproduces an inherent and dynamic paradox of pushing intercultural and global relations for a moral good while championing and asserting nation-states as key actors. While it is an important move towards inclusion of competencies outside of traditional mathematics, science, and reading/writing, the OECD claim to measure global competencies constructs a particular form of cosmopolitan capital (Weenink, 2007). It is important to consider hidden and important tensions in the assumption that global competencies inherently promote equitable relations between diverse and differently positioned groups. Given that national and local contexts shape how teachers and students take-up global issues in relation to local and national issues, the framework seems to overlook local, regional or national forms of othering, particularly as related to race and ethnicity, which are intricately linked to global trends and vice versa. Thus, it is important to question the presumed neutral and positive link between promoting global competencies as encountering the other and deep divisions at the national level between who is and who is not considered a citizen. This issue is particularly significant for critically examining the way the action discourse circulates within this larger paradox.
 
References
 
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. (London, Longman).
 
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018).  Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World. The PISA global competence framework.  Paris: OECD Publishing.
 
Weenink, D. (2007). Cosmopolitan and Established Resources of Power in the Education Arena. International Sociology 22(4): 492–516.

Authors

• Hajar IDRISSI, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, GWU

• Laura Engel, George Washington University

• Karen Pashby, Manchester Metropolitan University