Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

Europe and

North America

Regional GCED

Network

Research Report

With the support of

Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

Research Report

PUBLISHERS

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU),

Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens (BKMC),

Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research, University of Alberta (CGCER), and

International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education, University of Bologna (IRC-GloCEd).

EDITORS

Lynette Shultz (Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research, University of Alberta)

Massimiliano Tarozzi (International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education, University of Bologna)

Carrie Karsgaard (Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research, University of Alberta)

Carla Inguaggiato (International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education, University of Bologna)

COPYRIGHT

APCEIU, BKMC, CGCER, and IRC-GloCEd, 2021

All rights reserved.

ISBN (e-book): 979-11-87819-52-3

COVER DESIGN/LAYOUT ARTWORK

Cover Design by Vielle Serraon, USA

Layout Design by Most9, Republic of Korea

CONTACT

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU)

120, Saemal-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 08289

Tel: (+82-2) 774-3956 Fax: (+82-2) 774-3958 Email: info@unescoapceiu.org

Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens (BKMC)

P.O. Box 0018, 1037, Vienna - Austria

Email: office@bankimooncentre.org

Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research, University of Alberta (CGCER)

7-104 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada T6G2G5

Tel: (+1-780) 554 2333 Fax: (+1-780) 492-2024 Email: cgcer@ualberta.ca

International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education, University of Bologna (IRC-GloCEd)

Department for Life Quality Studies, University of Bologna, Corso D'Augusto 237, Rimini, Italy 47921

Email: IRC-GloCEd@unibo.it

DISCLAIMER

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is correct

at the time of publication, the author shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions,

inaccuracies or accidents that may have occurred.

Hyperlinks to other websites are provided for the user's convenience. APCEIU, BKMC,

CGCER, and IRC-GloCEd do not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or

completeness of the third-party information contained herein.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this book are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily represent the views of APCEIU, BKMC, CGCER, and IRC-GloCEd. The author is

responsible for the choice and presentation of facts contained in this publication. The pictures,

and symbols presented do not imply any opinions on the part of APCEIU, BKMC, CGCER, and

IRC-GloCEd.

RR-ERI-2021-013

Europe and



Network

Research Report

Edited by

Lynette Shultz, Massimiliano Tarozzi, Carrie Karsgaard, Carla Inguaggiato

Acknowledgment

This report is based on a research project funded by the Asia-Pacific Centre of

Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) and Ban Ki-moon Centre

for Global Citizens (BKMC) led by Lynette Shultz (Centre for Global Citizenship

Education and Research, University of Alberta) and Massimiliano Tarozzi

(International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education, University

of Bologna) as Principal Investigators. The research team was composed of

Carrie Karsgaard and Carla Inguaggiato, with the support of Kester Muller and

Francis Owusu.

BOLOGNA, MAY 2021

CONTENTS

006

007

007

008

008

009

010

011

013

015

016

016

017

019

019

020

020

022

022

023

024

027

028

034

035

036

036

List of acronyms

Executive Summary

Studying GCED as a Social Network

Overview of Methodology

Social network analysis of GCED actors

Digital Networks of GCED actors

Relevance and Recommendations

Introduction

About Studying Networks

References

Exploring Global Citizenship Education (GCED)

Through Social Network Analysis (SNA)

Defining GCED

Mapping GCED definitions

Studying GCED as a Networked Sector

Research Questions

Conclusion

References

Research design and methodological procedures

1) A relational approach to GCED Europe and North America network

2) Methodology Overview

3) Social network analysis as a methodological approach to study relations

4) Digital methods

5) Procedures for data collection

6) Social networks data analysis

7) Methodological limitations

8) Concluding remarks

References

039

039

042

047

055

062

062

064

064

064

065

067

075

076

078

083

083

085

088

095

098

Social network analysis results

1) Organizations interviewed

2) Network patterns and organizations' characteristics

3) Comparing the three networks' overall characteristics

4) Qualitative Analysis of GCED Conceptual Communities


References

GCED Crawling Across EUNA

1) Overview

2) Hyperlink analysis

3) Twitter analysis

4) Findings

5) Conclusion and further questions

References

Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix A: List of Organizations and Short Names

Appendix B: Twitter Handles and Count of Tweets

Appendix C: Questionnaire

Appendix D: Question 14 Answers

Appendix E: Vademecum


List of Acronyms

ACF

APCEIU

COE

E-I index

ESD

EU

EUNA

GCED

LLP

NA

NGOs

OECD

QAP

SDG

SNA

UIS

UNESCO

UNFCCC

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding

under the auspices of UNESCO

Council of Europe

External-Internal Index

Education for Sustainable Development

Europe

Europe and North America

Global Citizenship Education

Lifelong Learning Platform


Non-Governmental Organizations

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Quadratic Assignment Procedures

Sustainable Development Goals

Social Network Analysis

UNESCO Institute for Statistics

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

006ㆍ007

Executive Summary

Global citizenship education (GCED), perhaps more than any other

educational issue, is the result of conceptual, political, and even pedagogical

negotiations. It follows non-linear processes of policy implementation, the

contextual development of innovative educational practices, the circulation

of information among key institutions, and the conceptual co-construction of

GCED ideas through networks. GCED is shaped both through global policy

and according to local needs, moving across geographic scales, through

various systems, and according to the work of diverse actors.

Studying GCED as a Social Network

Due to these elements, GCED research requires the use of relational data. It

is not sufficient to understand educational phenomena as isolated from social

relations. This study addresses an important gap in GCED research by exploring

how GCED is constructed and moves across networks of actors, including

governments, NGOs, researchers, and educational institutions, among others.

While in recent years, some research has explored the role of both offline and

digital networks (Twitter in particular) in shaping educational policy, this is the first

study to apply social network analysis to GCED educational policy and practice.

Social network analysis (SNA) appears to be one of the most appropriate

methods for analyzing the structural and functional effects of those phenomena,

where social relationships prevail over organizational characteristics.

The first chapter of the report reviews relevant literature in GCED and presents

three categories of GCED definitions – neoliberal, liberal and critical. Chapter

2 introduces the relational approach to research and illustrates the research

design and methodological procedures, following two parallel methodological

approaches: SNA and digital methods. Chapter 3 presents the main results of

the SNA study, describing global and local patterns of the networks and the

main characteristics of the sample and GCED conceptualizations in relation to

participant organizations. Chapter 4 explores networked relationships using

data available on organizational websites and Twitter. Our conclusion provides

a summary of findings and a set of recommendations that will inform the work

of global citizenship education policy, educational practices in formal and nonformal

education organizations, and further research.


Overview of Methodology

To systematically map relationships among key GCED actors, we followed two

parallel methodological approaches: social network analysis and digital methods.

First, using data from structured interviews with organizations' representatives, we

mapped the relationships of mutual cooperation, technical and scientific information

exchange, and meetings between GCED actors. Secondly, drawing on data from

organizational websites and Twitter, we mapped digital networks among actors,

which enabled us to see actors and relations that might otherwise be hidden,

ignored, or disregarded.

Social network analysis of GCED actors

We began our sample selection at an international meeting of GCED practitioners

in Montreal. We started from the list of organizations that participated in the

Montreal exercise and the organizations they named as collaborators. In total,

54 organizations constitute our study sample. Of these, we interviewed 45

organizations, 26 from Europe and 19 from North America - a response rate of 83%.

We studied three networks that emerged in the data, based on the relations and

activities of the actors: mutual collaboration, technical information sharing, and

meetings between organizations.

• Key global and local network patterns and organizations' positions in the

network were analyzed. Our research found that organizations based in

the same geographical area tend to have more relations, especially for the

meeting networks. However, for scientific and information exchange, actors

tend to interact at almost the same levels with organizations outside and

inside their geographical area (see Graph 1, 2, 3 in appendix A). The relations

were most dense in knowledge sharing activities, indicating an important

feature of the network and GCED in the European and North American region.

• Regarding the three types of networks analyzed, data showed that meetings

and information exchanges have a low level of overlap. This means that

the organizations that exchange technical and scientific information do not

necessarily meet to discuss GCED related topics.

• The structure of the network reflects a core-periphery model of interaction

where there is:

- High density of connection at the centre and lower level of

connection in the periphery.

- Low level of clustering: the network cannot be easily divided into

smaller subgroups based on common characteristics of the

organizations. This suggests that even though there are differences

in the number of connections among organizations at the centre of

the network and those with fewer connections, it was not possible to

divide the network into smaller subgroups based on common

008ㆍ009

characteristics. This network structure is called core-periphery

(Borgatti, Everett, 1999). This provides support for the notion of the

network acting as a whole, in addition to the work that individual

organizations carry out. We also noted that the organizations on

the periphery were not necessarily less influential but occupied a

unique and different position in the network, possibly because of the

type of educational work they do. This provides important information

given the strong role of knowledge sharing in this network.

• The organizations that operate at a multiscalar level (local, national, and

international) are the ones that tend to be at the centre of the network

• Organizations tend to have a higher number of outgoing than incoming ties.

This indicates that actors in this sector view having other organizations in the

network connecting to them as important. Viewing the 3 different network

maps (see Graph 1, 2 and 3) of activities helps identify how this works.

We used qualitative data analysis and a bipartite organization-keyword graph based

on definitions gathered in interviews to understand how actors conceptualized

GCED. Within the network as a whole, GCED definitions included an intermixing

of goals, actions, concepts, orientations, issues, and future visions. We saw no

overarching guiding or shared definition of GCED, although there were some

harmonies evident through organizations' use of language pertaining to SDG 4.7

and Agenda 2030; however, many organizations appear to be developing individual

or nuanced definitions of GCED, and we were able to identify 9 conceptual

communities visible in the network (see Page 52 for full description).

Digital Networks of GCED Actors

Using data available on organizational websites and Twitter, it is possible to show

relations in the digital realm. By identifying websites that are frequently linked to,

we could better understand what organizations were viewed as authorities in the

network. Hyperlink analysis revealed a relatively distributed network, with UNESCO

emerging as the most frequently linked to, though many links were within UNESCO

itself. The network exhibited few ties between Europe and North America, with

further separations within the North American continent, some of which may be

connected to language differences (i.e., French-speaking Canada).

A Twitter analysis examined the patterns of hashtag use by GCED organizations

to explore discursive connections, which exhibited some similar patterns to the

conceptual communities described above; for instance, a number of organizations

collected around hashtags relating to SDG 4.7 and Agenda 2030. The Twitter

analysis also revealed the prevalence of hashtags pertaining to the Global South,

particularly within the centre of the network, perhaps showing evidence of an

ongoing preoccupation of the Global North with the Global South in GCED,

according to development, humanitarian, or benevolent impulses ingrained in

Western society.


Relevance and Recommendations

This research was undertaken to understand the potential of the network of GCED practice

and practitioners to support the work of GCED in Europe and North America. The study

provides an important contribution to understanding better how GCED "works" across

different locations that are linked less by geography than by history, knowledge systems, and

well-established relationships. The findings support insights shared by practitioners early in

the planning stages of the research that Europe and North America are not often conceived

of as one region, at least to people within these areas. However, the findings also highlight

a strong knowledge network formed around the work of GCED. Dense knowledge-sharing

relations were evident in the network maps. Some organizations were positioned as central

actors, particularly because of their multiscalar relations. Other organizations work on what

SNA calls the periphery. In these positions, organizations worked with fewer relations. When

we bring together the core-periphery maps with the data, indicating a range of conceptual

communities formed, we can see the importance of the organizations working outside

the centre. New ideas and experiences can be moved into the network from positions on

the periphery. While research is needed to fully understand how ideas move within the

network, we can recommend that organizations and network actors attend to the network

that has been created out of their shared work. Practitioners in this study expressed this

in their definitions that included goals, actions, concepts, orientations, issues, and future

visions. It is the nature of GCED to be a shifting notion. Previous studies aiming to define

global citizenship support this range and that GCED provides multiple ways to respond to

urgent and diverse conditions, events, systems, and histories of the world. As ideas flow

within this network, actors can pay particular attention to new ideas, many that emerge from

organizations working on the periphery of the network.

It was also clear that organizations that were multiscalar in their work, linking locally, nationally,

and internationally, had more dense relations and greater reach. With an enhanced sectorwide

networked approach to GCED, where small and mid-size organizations intentionally

nurtured networked relations of collaboration, we would see a dynamic flow of new ideas

and a deep understanding of how GCED impacted local communities. The strength of the

already existing knowledge exchange of this network could be further strengthened with

broad and more inclusive participation of, particularly, local and smaller organizations.

Participants were enthusiastic about the research and interested in finding ways to enhance

collaborations and information sharing. Efforts to strengthen the network without forcing a

homogenizing agenda on GCED could contribute to stronger GCED work by individual

organizations and the wider sector. Using the data from this study, the range of ideas linked

to GCED will provide important organizational learning that will benefit the sector as a whole.

Multi-stakeholder collaborations seem to be well established in this network. This

collaborative environment can be used to deepen and extend the important contributions of

GCED to education policy and practice.

Given that there have been no other network analyses done in the GCED sector, we have

produced a detailed vademecum (study handbook) that will use this SNA approach

accessible for other regions and networks.

010ㆍ 011

Introduction

This report presents the results of a research work that started more

than two years ago, which aimed to investigate how the key players in

the global citizenship education (GCED) implementation process in EU

(Europe) and NA (North America) interact with each other. The inquiry

was designed to identify the actors and how work is done among them.

Overall, the research lies at the intersection of three interrelated factors:

1. An accidental circumstance. We were asked by APCEIU to

design an investigation to understand Europe and North America

as a network to build and further develop collaboration and

partnership for GCED. The two principal investigators agreed

that the priority was to inquire into the network, especially the

relationship between the EU and NA.

2. An epistemological positioning. We are both in line with those

research approaches and theoretical frameworks in social

sciences, and especially in political science, which believes

that reality is relational, and the social sphere can be better

investigated by highlighting relationships and networks, rather

than by studying the substantive characteristics of individual

actors in isolation.

3. The very nature of the GCED phenomenon. In particular, GCED

as a research object compared to other similar objects can be

better investigated throughout a study on networks. The nonlinear

processes of policy implementation, the development of

innovative educational practices, the circulation of information

among key institutions, and the conceptual co-construction of

GCED ideas take shape through networks.


Based on these premises, this current research project emerged from the

discussions at the UNESCO APCEIU meeting of what was described as

North America and Europe Regional Network in Lisbon in 2018. Following

this meeting, a steering committee was launched by APCEIU that proposed a

research project aimed at addressing the following purpose of this group:

provide a networked approach to sharing information and knowledge, enabling

new collaborations, peer evaluations and support, and cost-effective research

and program implementation and dissemination.

This resulted in a follow-up meeting in Montreal, Canada, in 2019, where

we conducted a Social Network Analysis (SNA) exercise to test SNA as

an appropriate way to answer the questions posed by the EUNA Network

committee. The results of the Montreal SNA exercise were systematically

presented in the preliminary report issued in November 2020. In addition, we

used the social network actors list to conduct an initial web-based exploration

of the public representation of connections among some of the key actors. The

initial findings were also presented in the preliminary report.

After extensive data collection, which included interviews with all the key actors

in NA and EU and digital analysis of their websites and Twitter accounts, we

present the study data and analysis that maps the relationships that connect

them as a network. We also identify key institutions and individuals within the

network and/or associations between them. Social Network Analysis and digital

methods have allowed us to understand how actors involved in implementing

GCED in EUNA cooperate, especially which actors are involved, how they are

linked, and how the network is structured. This provides insights into not only

understanding how these organizations are currently linked in GCED work but

also where the network can be strengthened and supported in the future.

To conduct this research, the two principal investigators made up a research team

by contracting two Research Assistants, Carla Inguaggiato and Carrie Karsgaard,

who both have expertise in social network analysis and digital research methods.

Two additional research assistants, Francis Owusu, a University of Alberta

doctoral student working in the areas of policy network analysis, and Kester

Muller, a graduate student expert in ICT, have been hired by the University of

Alberta and Bologna University. Unfortunately, the progress of this project was

limited by the global pandemic and the restrictions that it placed on our personal

and professional lives. This impact continued during data collection and made

the completion of interviews particularly challenging. In addition, working across

time zones and with differing institutional practices and norms was incredibly

complex. Despite this, we have developed a very cohesive research team and

successfully completed all data collection and analysis (interviews and internetbased

analyses), with the exception of qualitative follow-up. However, we expect

to complete the qualitative part of the research by conducting two focus groups

with representatives of the participants by the end of June 2021.

012ㆍ 013

About Studying Networks

As mentioned earlier, the very nature of GCED phenomena can be better

understood by paying attention to relational bonds rather than to substantial

dimensions of isolated actors or actions. Thus, the social network perspective we

adopted in this research seems particularly suitable because it shifts the unit of

analysis from individual actors towards the relations between them and the overall

network these relations constitute (Jörgens, Kolleck, and Saerbeck, 2016).

We observed that it is possible to gain an important understanding of GCED

and its transformation into coherent policies and practices by studying the

relations among GCED actors for various reasons:

• GCED is conceptually weak and controversial, and therefore seeking to

understand GCED through agencies' definitions and GCED statements is

less effective in creating strong educational practices.

• GCED has been imposed in the educational discourse and policy agenda

as a consequence of UN initiatives rather than responding to concrete

educational needs.

• A multi-stakeholder approach is considered and explicitly suggested as

the more efficient GCED enabling strategy.

• Europe and North America are often described as a region that shares

GCED practices, and a network analysis made it possible to find out if that

is, in fact, the case.

For all these reasons, GCED, more than other educational issues, is the result

of conceptual, political, and even pedagogical negotiation processes and

therefore requires the use of relational data.

According to a social network perspective, a social, political, or educational

phenomenon cannot be understood if segmented or isolated from social

relations (Kadushin, 2012; Knoke & Yang, 2008). Therefore, social network

analysis appears to be one of the most appropriate methods for analyzing

the structural and functional effects of those phenomena, such as GCED,

where social relationships prevail over organizational characteristics. In

addition, according to this perspective, which acknowledges the value of

social relationships, the social capital dimension generated by the set of social

relationships becomes key to understanding the GCED community. According

to Bourdieu (1986), social capital corresponds to the set of resources triggered

by the possession of a stable network of relationships or by being part of a

group and sharing the capital collectively owned. Here, we understand the

rewards of successful relations within the network of organizations provide

material benefit or forms of social, cultural, or economic capital. We worked

to identify the extent to which the network of GCED key actors constitutes a


source of social capital for its members and the symbolic dimensions through

which they represent it. In this study, we found the social space of GCED in EU

and NA seems to be shaped by social capital, maybe more than other social

spaces, resulting in securing additional economic, cultural, and social capital

by particular agencies. In addition, our analysis not only describes the social

maps of key actors but provides insights into how the network can be used for

implementing GCED. Our goal was to enable an informed use of the network

for implementing GCED for policymakers, organizations, and educators.

The report is organized as follows. In the first chapter, Exploring Global

Citizenship Education (GCED) Through Social Network Analysis (SNA), the

relevant literature in GCED is reviewed, and three ideas and definitions of

GCED – neoliberal, liberal and critical – are presented through a relational

reading of how these political contexts impact GCED policy and practices.

Within this contested map, the present study is positioned within UNESCO's

conceptualization, which defines GCED as a framing paradigm. Moreover,

the network science approach is reviewed, and gaps are identified in current

understanding, which highlights the significance of this present study. Finally,

research questions guiding this study are presented.

Chapter 2, Research Design and Methodological Procedures, introduces

the relational approach to research and illustrates the research design and

methodological procedures, following two parallel methodological approaches:

social network analysis and digital methods. First, the main features of these

two approaches are outlined, and then strategies for data collection and

analysis are carefully described.

Chapter 3, Social Network Analysis Results, presents the main results

of the social network analysis study, the sampling construction, and the

characteristics of the participants. Moreover, the key global and local patterns

of the networks are analyzed using some key network measures such as

density, connectedness, and a core-periphery model of interaction. Finally,

GCED conceptualizations are examined in relation to participant organizations.

In Chapter 4, GCED Crawling Across EUNA, networked relationships are

explored using data available on organization websites and Twitter. After further

analysing the hyperlinking patterns between websites, the chapter examines

connections among GCED actors, along with the patterns of GCED hashtag

discourses that coordinate these connections.

Our conclusion provides a summary of findings and a set of recommendations

based on these findings that will inform the work of global citizenship education

policy, educational practices in formal and non-formal education organizations,

and further research.

014ㆍ 015

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press.

Jörgens, H., Kolleck, N., & Saerbeck, B. (2016). Exploring the hidden influence of

international treaty secretariats: Using social network analysis to analyse the Twitter

debate on the 'Lima Work Programme on Gender'. Journal of European Public

Policy, 23(7), 979-998.

Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts and

Findings. Oxford University Press.

Knoke, D. & Yang, S., (2008). Social Network Analysis. Sage Publications.


Exploring Global Citizenship

Education (GCED) Through

Social Network Analysis (SNA)

This section positions our research by articulating the definition of GCED

used by our research team, contextualizing this in relation to the ranging

definitions used across the sector. As there is significant conceptual ambiguity

surrounding GCED, a significant body of research delineates the types of

GCED, as summarized here. However, little research has yet been done to

explore how GCED is constructed and moves across networks of actors,

including governments, NGOs, researchers, and educational institutions,

among others. To address this gap, we situate our study in relation to recent

scholarship exploring networked policy development in other educational

sectors, providing a rationale for our research, and leading into our research

questions. Finally, we articulate how we bring social network analysis (SNA) to

address these questions through offline and digital methods.

Defining GCED

A key component of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4

Target 7, global citizenship education (GCED), remains a key educational

agenda and is a site of ongoing attention by educators, policymakers, and

researchers. Drawing on diverse methods and ideas behind other wellestablished

educational concepts, including human rights education,

peace education, education for sustainable development, and education for

international/intercultural understanding (UNESCO, 2013, p. 3; see Monahagan

and Spreen, 2017), GCED promotes diverse aims in education such as justice,

peace, respect for diversity, and solidarity (UNESCO, 2017), accounting for

responsibility to both human and non-human planetary relations.

Following UNESCO (2014), we understand GCED to be "a framing paradigm

which encapsulates how education can develop the knowledge, skills, values

and attitudes learners need for securing a world which is more just, peaceful,

tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable" (UNESCO, 2014, p. 9). Connecting

local and global, GCED presents learners with an understanding of our planet

as interdependent, interconnected, and relational. UNESCO's core definition

of GCED encompasses cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral dimensions

of learning, and it is claimed as "transformational." As cognitive, it supports

016ㆍ 017

knowledge development and critical analysis of issues across interlocking

local, national, and global scales. The socio-emotional dimension fosters not

only a sense of belonging to a global community but also student self-reflexive

engagement with multiple and marginalized perspectives that support empathy,

solidarity, and respect for difference. Behaviorally, GCED does not prescribe

behaviors but instead promotes ethical action towards a more sustainable

and peaceful world. By fostering critical thinking, dialogue, cooperation, selfreflection,

and intercultural skills to connect across divides, GCED enables

learners to thoughtfully consider complex issues and take informed and ethical

action according to a sense of shared responsibility for the future.

Mapping GCED Definitions

Despite the prevalence of this central definition, GCED remains a contested

concept according to various situated theories and practices and in relation to

various ideological, geographical, and cultural differences. The contestation

of GCED conceptions has resulted in the periodic creation of typologies that

map current and emerging definitions and expressions (Andreotti, 2014; IBE-

UNESCO/APCEIU, 2018, p. 35-36; Marshall, 2011; Oxley & Morris, 2013;

Pashby et al., 2020; Shultz, 2007; Stein, 2015). We understand there to be

three principal types of definition, though Pashby et al. (2020) have recently

mapped the internal differences and interfaces between these, some of which

we address briefly here.

Neoliberal

A neoliberal GCED orientation works to prepare learners for an increasingly

globalized society. Through standardized or instrumentally competency-based

approaches (Schattle, 2008), learners are prepared as individuals with the

knowledge and competencies to compete in a global economy and employment

market. While they recognize the relative consistency across this type, Pashby and

colleagues (2020) emphasize that some neoliberal expressions of GCED interface

with neo-conservativism by emphasising basic skills and a recentering of the

nation as a site for peace, security, and global market competition.

Liberal

Liberal GCED orientations focus on individual development and universal rights

and values within a global society. Liberal orientations thus tend to cohere around

the principles of democracy (Gaudelli, 2009), universal human rights, and a moral

framework based on a sense of common humanity (Andreotti, 2014; Stein, 2015).

Familiar to many as "soft" global citizenship education, according to Andreotti's

(2006) influential early typology, liberal expressions of GCED tend to be grounded

in thinking from the Global North, which dictates a singular trajectory of "progress"

or "development" according to western norms. Unsurprisingly, many liberal

orientations thus tend to support international consensus-building and international

policy as means to support cosmopolitan ideals, though a more critically minded

liberal periphery decries the inadequacies of international bodies to address

structural inequalities and their maintenance of the Westphalian nation-state as the


foundation for global relations (Pashby et al., 2020).

Liberal GCED interfaces with neoliberal orientations particularly emphasising

individual rights and competencies within a global system. Drawing particularly

on the work of Oxley and Morris (2013), Pashby and colleagues (2020) show

that while liberal orientations promote an ethical stance towards "others" and a

critique of western cultural dominance, in some cases, the ultimate onus is on

the "individual to become more culturally competent rather than on significant,

systemic changes to the status quo" (p. 152). Further, they point out that liberal

orientations stop short of exploring onto-epistemic possibilities beyond a

modern/colonial imaginary, including how this pervasive imaginary might be

informing critiques of western dominance.

Critical

We thus turn, therefore, to critical GCED orientations, which Pashby and

colleagues (2020) have shown to be the most internally diverse category.

Broadly, critical orientations acknowledge and seek to address social

injustices (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016; Tarozzi, 2021). In efforts to reverse the

legacy of colonialism, much critical GCED thus questions hegemonic

"structures, systems, assumptions, power relations and attitudes that create

and maintain exploitation and enforced disempowerment" (Andreotti, 2014,

p. 6), providing opportunities for students to face their complicity in injustice

and acknowledge the contextual and historical nature of their knowledge and

identities (cf. Andreotti & de Souza, 2008) and how such knowledge shapes

their engagement with people in other positions. Some critical expressions

are particularly anti- or decolonial, taking active steps to expose the epistemic

violence of colonialism, which creates an abyss (de Sousa Santos, 2007)

between those who are constructed as knowable, inferior, or undeveloped

and those who set the terms of knowability according to western norms.

By encouraging students to "challenge dominant ideologies, disassemble

hierarchies of power, and question curricula and pedagogy" (Lapayese, 2003,

p. 500), much critical GCED is transformational, seeking to establish "new ways

of negotiating between local and global actions and agenda, resolving conflict,

and acting in solidarity" (Shultz, qt. in Pashby, 2009, p. 61). At the same time,

Pashby and colleagues indicate a number of interfaces between critical and

liberal orientations, according to the extent to which each position "offer[s] an

alternative to extant structures, systems, and subjectivities (more critical) or

more strongly align[s] with universal morally liberal commitments (more liberal"

(Pashby et al., 2020, p. 156). Due to the interfaces between these two more

prevalent GCED orientations, we use our analysis to explore their overlaps and

divergences among the networks.

As our research is situated in the Global North, we are also interested in the

presence or absence of what Pashby et al. (2020) drawing on Stein (2015)

and Andreotti (2014) to term critical-postcritical GCED - an expression that is

rarely found in practice in the Global North and in fact may be "unimaginable

018ㆍ 019

from within the modern/colonial imaginary that currently frames most GCED

approaches" (Pashby et al. p. 157). Drawing on decolonial critiques, criticalpostcritical

GCED seeks to imagine diagnoses, alternatives, and futures

alternative to those available through modernity and colonialism.

Studying GCED as a Networked Sector

While typologies map the ranging expressions of GCED in academic literature,

policy, and practice, little work has yet been done to explore the ways GCED

is shaped by and moves through networks of actors, such as policymakers,

educators, researchers, and NGOs. Recent scholarship has highlighted the

role of both offline and digital networks in shaping educational policy (Kolleck,

2016; Kolleck & Yemini, 2020; Kolleck et al., 2017; Schuster et al., 2021),

though not GCED specifically. Using offline data gathered through mixedmode

interviews with a standardized questionnaire, for instance, Kolleck

(2016) reveals the prominent contributions of NGOs and governmental actors

to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), which she demonstrates to

have a far greater impact than schools on the sector. Schuster and colleagues

(2021) trace the Twitter dialogue and information sharing among diverse

political and private actors advocating for disability education over time,

showing how Twitter can help identify actors that are easily neglected or hard

to reach under traditional research methods. Combining offline participant

observation and Twitter analysis, Kolleck and colleagues (2017) explore the

role of networks surrounding the UNFCCC in the formation of climate change

education policy, tracing the ways that educational innovations such as climate

change education are negotiated and moved forward at a global level. While no

studies to date focus on the networked formation of GCED, Kolleck and Yemini

(2020) combine social network analysis and discourse analysis to trace shifts in

central and peripheral concepts at the intersection of GCED and environmentrelated

education over time.

In sum, considering the lack of studies that analyze educational policy and

practice by drawing from models and methods of SNA, this study is timely and

relevant to the field of educational research.

Research Questions

Based on the conceptualization mentioned above of GCED and the need to

approach it by investigating it as a social network, the following questions have

guided our research:

• To what extent is GCED constructed through social networks?

• How is GCED conceptualized through social networks?

• How can understanding GCED providers in the EU and NA as a regional

network assist in strengthening GCED efforts?

• How do actors involve in the implementation of GCED in EUNA cooperate?

• How are the connections between individuals and patterns of relations

connecting persons and groups?


Conclusion

To address these research questions, we utilize social network analysis based

on structured interviews with key representatives of each organization and

digital data. The next chapter details our methodological choices and the

precise research process.

References

Andreotti, V. (2014). Critical and transnational literacies in international

development and global citizenship education. Sisyphus-Journal of Education,

2(3), 32–50.

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy

and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–45. https://www.

developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-3/soft-versus-critical-globalcitizenship-education

Andreotti, V., & 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.

Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards

curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68-85.

IBE-UNESCO/APCEIU. (2018). Training Tools for Curriculum Development: A

Resource Pack for Global Citizenship Education (GCED). IBE-UNESCO.

Kolleck, N. (2016). Uncovering influence through Social Network Analysis: The

role of schools in Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Education

Policy, 31(3), 308–329.

Kolleck, N., & Yemini, M. (2020). Environment-related education topics within

global citizenship education scholarship focused on teachers: A natural

language processing analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4),

317–331.

Kolleck, N., Well, M., Sperzel, S., & Jörgens, H. (2017). The Power of Social

Networks: How the UNFCCC Secretariat Creates Momentum for Climate

Education. Global Environmental Politics, 17(4), 106–126.

Lapayese, Y. V. (2003). Toward a critical global citizenship education.

Comparative Education Review, 47(4), 493-501.

Marshall, H. (2011). Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the

contested space of global citizenship education in schools. Globalisation,

Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 411-426. doi:10.1080/14767724.2011.605325.

020ㆍ021

Monaghan, C., & Spreen, C. A. (2017). From human rights to global citizenship

education: Movement, migration, conflict and capitalism in the classroom. In

Globalisation, Human Rights Education and Reforms (pp. 35-53). Springer

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing

its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301-325.

Pashby, K. (2009). The Stephen Lewis Foundation's Grandmothers-to-

Grandmothers Campaign: A model for critical global citizenship learning.

Critical Literacy : Theories and Practices, 3(1), 59-70.

Pashby, K., Costa, M. da, Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of

typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144–164.

Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological

pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73-94.

Schuster, J., Jörgens, H., & Kolleck, N. (2021). The rise of global policy

networks in education: Analyzing Twitter debates on inclusive education using

social network analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 36(2), 211–231.

Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and

understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3).

de Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to

ecologies of knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Centre), 45-89.

Stein, S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. Journal of College and Character,

16(4), 242-252.

Tarozzi, M. and Torres, C. A. (2016). Global Citizenship Education and the

Crises of Multiculturalism. Bloomsbury.

Tarozzi, M. (2021). Educating for global Citizenship in diverse and unequal

Societies. In Conversations on Global Citizenship Education (pp. 89–102).

Routledge.

UNESCO. (2017). The ABCs of Global Citizenship Education. UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2013). Outcome Document of the Technical Consultation on Global

Citizenship Education: Global Citizenship Education: An Emerging Perspective.

UNESCO.


Research Design

and Methodological

Procedures

This chapter presents the research design and methodological procedures

for analyzing the GCED network in Europe and North America. This chapter is

composed of seven parts. First, the main objectives of the study are described,

highlighting the connections with the preliminary part of the research. Next,

the overall methodological approach is introduced. Third, the main features of

the social network analysis approach are described. Fourth, digital methods

are outlined. Fifth, the main procedures for data collection and research ethics

procedures are detailed. Sixth, the main steps followed for data analysis are

presented. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary.

1) A Relational Approach to the GCED Europe and North America Network

The present study aims at understanding the characteristics of the GCED

network in Europe and North America (NA). We map multiple ties among active

promoters of GCED in Europe and NA, where promotion is understood broadly

to include funding, education, programming, policy development, networking,

research, and teacher education.

To this end, we adopted two parallel methodological approaches based

on a relational approach to research. First, we conducted a social network

analysis (SNA), focusing on a closed list of policy actors where participation

in the network is defined by very specific criteria (which are explained in detail

in sections 5.1 and 5.4). The other component of our study applies digital

methods to trace the links between GCED actors on both (a) organizational

websites and (b) Twitter, using crawler techniques.

This study constitutes a continuation of the preliminary research-based

Montreal meeting, where we carried out a social network analysis exercise

with the meeting participants. The present research allows us to overcome

the limitations present in this preliminary research. The Montreal research only

allowed us to map the connections among 12 organizations that are key policy

actors in GCED implementation and promotion. That typology of research

design (egocentric) and based on open-ended name generator questions

presented some limitations. An egocentric network design is when selected

022ㆍ023

informants are required to nominate alters to which they are connected. First,

we do not know if the 59 organizations named are also associated with the 12

institutions interviewed nor how the 59 remaining organizations connect among

them. Therefore, we could not explore the overall characteristics of the network

due to the lack of information referred to above. Second, only a small sample of

institutions invited by APCEIU and AFS were interviewed. Last, the formulation

of the question on further names as an open-ended question created different

interpretations. Some indicated names, while others simply named categories

(such as NGOs, education institutions etc.). In this way, we lost some information,

such as the vision of alters. If node A nominates X, but it is not in our sample,

we cannot know if X is connected to A. Furthermore, while these results were

meaningful, we could not build an accurate picture of the connections among all

actors.

Instead, the current study allows us to understand who the key actors are and

map relationships connecting them as a network of GCED providers and policy

actors. We used the most common instrument in social network analysis to

identify links, referred to as a "roster" (Butts, 2008). All respondents were asked to

indicate, among the same list of entities provided, to which they were connected.

2) Methodology Overview

We apply two complementary means of understanding the relations between

GCED actors in Europe and North America.

1. Social network analysis. This quantitative approach allows us to

systematically map and describe the relationships among key actors

in GCED in North America and Europe according to representatives

from organizations we have identified through research as central to

the sector. A structured interview was administered to GCED actors to

understand how ideas connect and groups formed within the network

of GCED actors in Europe and North America. Specifically, relationships

of mutual cooperation, technical and scientific information exchange,

and meetings between GCED actors, were explored. These relations

were analyzed with reference to key attributes of the GCED actors,

such as typology of organization, geography, and GCED definition and

emphasis.

2. Digital methods. The other component of our study applies digital

methods to trace the links between GCED actors on both (a)

organizational websites and (b) Twitter. Digital methods complement

the network mapping enabled by structured interviews by allowing us

to see actors, networks, and relations that might be outside our familiar

sphere or may be hidden, ignored or disregarded by ourselves or our

study participants (whether purposefully or inadvertently).

The following two sections outline the main characteristics and assumptions of

social network analysis and digital methods.


3) Social network analysis as a methodological approach to study relations

Social network analysis has interdependency as a point of departure. The

starting assumption of this methodological framework is that individual

characteristics (attributes) are not enough to capture the complexity of the

phenomenon we aim at observing.

Social network analysis is a research body that aims to measure and describe

the structure of relations among social entities. It can be applied to a range of

domains and disciplines. Our study uses social network analysis to describe

and identify patterns in relational contexts (Scott and Carrington, 2011).

Networks vary along two core dimensions: the structural pattern according

to which public power is shared among the members and the degree and

patterns of integration among the members (International Encyclopedia of the

Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001).

Key issues in social network analysis are network definition and data collection.

Particularly important is the choice of boundary definition, visualization, and

network measures.

Social network analysis methodology and analytical tools applied to the study of

the relations between actors working on GCED promotion and implementation

in Europe and North America allow us to study in-depth the structural

characteristics of the network and therefore understand the main features of

the pattern of collaboration, information exchange, and meetings among these

actors. This could allow us to understand the constraints and positive elements

of this GCED network and possible pathways to strengthen this network.

The introduction to SNA starts with key concepts and properties that are

recognized in the literature. Most of the language comes from graph theory, as

it aims at describing the social structure of phenomena (Butts, 2008, p. 13).

3.1. Social network analysis terminology

In SNA, graphical visualization of networks displays actors as nodes and links

or interactions as ties (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Example of network graph visualization

Nodes are entities or actors displayed in

a network graph. Examples are people,

political parties, organizations, countries,

tweets, webpages, and authors.

Ties are links or interactions among nodes in

a network graph. Examples are relationships,

trade flows, affiliation, hyperlinks on the web,

road traffic, and citations.

024ㆍ025

Possible examples of typologies of networks are disease transmission,

collaboration patterns, scientific communities/co-authorships, the influence of

social media, and political networks. There is an important body of literature

that investigates political networks (Victor, Montgomery, Lubell, 2017). The

study of political networks is characterized by analysis of the relations among

political actors (individuals, organizations, and/or institutions), events relevant

to individuals' political biographies, and the use of digital communication

technologies within political dynamics. Thus, ties can consist of exchanges of

resources, information, symbols, collaborations, and communications that may

occur both online and offline.

Ties can be directed, meaning that we take into consideration whether A

declares a connection to B and whether B also indicates a connection. Ties

can also be binary, meaning that they indicate only the presence or absence of

a tie. Finally, weighted ties indicate the intensity of the tie on a scale and may

be assigned meaning, whether positive and negative.

In our study, three one-mode networks (actor to actor) were created based

on direct ties identified at a single point of time by all the organizations inside

the boundary of our study. These are the key relationships usually studied in

policy network studies (Howe, Adam C., Stoddart, Mark C. J., & Tindall, David

B., 2020). The three networks we investigate are: 1) Technical information; 2)

Mutual collaboration, whereby one organization provides support on a policy

issue for another organization, receiving similar support in return; and 3)

Meeting to discuss GCED related topics. In addition to mapping networks of

relations, we also gathered information on perceived influence.

3.2. Key network properties and research questions

Social networks can be analyzed using different perspectives, according

to overall network structural characteristics, sub-groups, dyads, or role and

position of the nodes in the network. In the literature, a number of network

properties have been codified and recognized as relevant to understanding

relational patterns.

We focus on some of the most important network properties in social network

analysis literature as they provide us with instruments to measure structural

properties and interpretative tools to answer our research questions.

We investigated several dimensions in which actors collaborate in GCED

implementation to understand the characteristics of connections and patterns

of relations among organizations, resulting in three one-mode networks that

each represent a different typology of collaboration pattern between actors

(information exchange, mutual collaboration, and meetings, as outlined above).

It is recognized in the literature that social interaction includes different types

of relationships, for different objectives and within different spheres. Therefore,

only by capturing several of them can it be more comprehensive to understand


the phenomenon we aim to describe. This property is called multiplexity, and it refers

to the fact that relationships are not generic or of only one type (Robins, 2015).

A key theoretical foundation for the study of relations among actors is that

of social influence/diffusion, which describes the phenomenon where actors

change certain attributes (opinions, behaviors) to accord with those of their

partners. Certain characteristics of a node (e.g., disease, innovation) may

therefore diffuse through the network. However, network structural properties at

the global and local levels impact the ease or difficulty of social influence and

diffusion. For this reason, it is crucial to investigate several socio-metrics such

as clustering, core-periphery, small world, brokerage, reciprocity, closure, and

centrality measures, as articulated in more detail in Chapter 3. These measures

allow identification of the difficulties and strengths of the network in favoring the

diffusion of information and knowledge.

In this study, these structural properties of the networks are analyzed to

understand the role of the regional network of GCED providers in the EU and

NA to assist in strengthening GCED efforts, as these structural properties

impact information flow. For instance, reciprocity is the tendency of actors to

reciprocate relationships when the tie is significant and stable. Closure refers

to triangulation in networks or the propensity to operate in small groups. These

properties relate to a theory in psychology called balance theory (Heider

1958), which has become embedded into network theory (Davis 1967). For

example, balance theory predicts that ties that are not reciprocated tend not

to last. Network brokerage analyses the actors that bridge (broker) others that

otherwise would not be connected.

We looked at centrality measures of the actors in the network (in- and outdegree

centrality) and the organizations' self-articulated roles to understand

how actors involved in the implementation of GCED in EUNA cooperate.

We also looked at whether actors tend to collaborate with others that

share the same characteristics. This property is called homophily, and

it describes the propensity for actors with the same attribute to form ties

(McPherson et al. 2001). In our study, we examine homophily based on

organizational characteristics, as well as in relation to their respective GCED

conceptualizations and objectives.

3.3. Typology of network design

There are two main approaches to network design: whole and egocentric

network studies. A whole network design requires the definition of a list of actors

within a well-defined network boundary. The data includes the ties that are

present among all actors within this boundary (Robins, 2015, p.36). By contrast,

an egocentric network design is when selected informants are required to

nominate alters to which they are connected. The limitation of this design is that

it does not allow mapping the connections between the different ego networks.

026ㆍ027

We adopted a whole network design, as it allows for the determination of both

local and global social network properties (Butts, 2008, p.18).

We used as network representation an adjacency matrix (n x n) where there is a

1 when there is a link reported and 0 otherwise.

4) Digital Methods

To complement the social network analysis conducted via structured interviews,

we also draw on digital methods in order to identify networks of connections

in the public sphere both among our list of organizations and beyond them,

including connections that the interviewees may not recognize. By drawing on

digital data sources for social network analysis, we acknowledge the increasing

digitization of the social world, including the digital structuring of information

sharing and networked connections.

Further, links embedded in digital data sources such as institutional websites

and social media enable us to empirically observe the GCED network across

geographic regions and involving multiple types of actors, such as NGOs,

governments, researchers, and others who all interact online. In this way, we can

attain a view of how the GCED actors interact with one another "in the wild" of

the digital sphere, even as we learn of their interactions through interviews with

organizational representatives.

Our research draws on digital methods as social and political research (Marres,

2015; Rogers, 2014) to map the actors and GCED discourses associated around

the same actors interviewed using a structured survey. For digital methods, the

digital is the social (Rogers, 2014). In mapping social actors, digital methods

assume the digitization of society, whereby digital technology is "affecting most

if not all areas of social life, and is itself generative of new social practices, ties,

and relations" (Marres, 2015, p. 25). Due to the increasing digitization of society,

"electronic interactions have become so pervasive that they can no longer be

conceived as a separate social space. No longer limited to a specific sector,

digital interactions are now woven throughout the fabric of collective existence"

(Venturini, 2012). In the case of GCED actors, it is key to recognize how digital

technologies are not only reflective but also "generative of new social practices,

ties, and relations" (Marres, 2015, p. 25), as actors interact in the virtual sphere.

Rather than relegating digital data to a digital realm, digital methods take

advantage of the "accessibility, aggregability, and traceability of the statements

and literature as well as their connection to actors and of actors to each other"

(Rogers, Sánchez-Querubín, & Kil, 2015, p. 44), which can be visualized for

social research. Digital methods repurpose digitally native objects, such as

hyperlinks, URLs, and hashtags for social science research. By tracing the digital

associations among the GCED actors, it is possible to see the contestations

and alliances that form and which discourses dominate. Such patterns can be

identified through digital traces such as inlinks and outlinks on websites, follower


networks and mentions on social media, and the frequency of keywords or

hashtags in social media posts. Patterns of activity can be identified, clustered,

mapped, and visualized to trace the structure of relations among social entities,

drawing attention to centrality, hierarchy, and homophily or heterophily among

actors and discourses, along with the directionality and strength of ties.

In working with data structured by existing websites and social media platforms,

digital methods recognize the entanglement of platform dynamics and social

dynamics, which makes it difficult to differentiate between the two (Marres,

2015; Marres & Moats, 2015; Marres & Weltevrede, 2013; Venturini et al., 2018).

The analysis, therefore, demands attention to "which effects belong to media

technologies, which to the issues, and which to both" (Marres & Moats, 2015, p.

6-7). For instance, communication on Twitter is structured by a limited character

count, informed by cultures surrounding posting and retweeting, shaped in

relation to trending topics and hashtags, and embedded in an attention economy

where Twitter users may use particular hashtags or mention other users to

gain a wider audience. Such effects must be kept in mind even as we interpret

Twitter data to understand GCED networks. Due to these complexities, therefore,

we draw attention to digital biases and traces in our analysis of Twitter data,

remaining attentive to how the platform affordances and cultures are entangled in

the GCED network.

To trace GCED networks in the digital realm, we apply the dual methods of

(a) hyperlink analysis, based on the patterns and hierarchies of links across

organizational websites, and (b) actor-hashtag analysis, analyzing patterns in

hashtag use across organizational Twitter accounts.

5) Procedures for Data Collection

To study the complex arena of GCED networks in Europe and North America,

we adopted a structured questionnaire, which identified three typologies of ties

and collected the different understandings of GCED among respondents. We,

therefore, combined a study of network topology (Berardo et al. 2016, Bodin et

al., 2009) with the analysis of actors' own visions on GCED. The data collection

instrument adopted for our survey also incorporated a section with 3 open-ended

questions (see the questionnaire in Appendix C).

5.1. Defining the list of actors

We built a list of actors, where participation in the network was defined by the

following criteria:

• Geographical : work in NA and/or the EU, or at the global level but

including these two geographical areas

• Influence : shape governance of GCED implementation in the EU and NA

• Conceptualization: play a role in the GCED conceptualization or definition

• Promotion: disseminate, promote, and foster GCED

• Education: provide courses in GCED at any level of education

028ㆍ029

The goals for the SNA are to define a complete list of nodes (GCED institutions)

and map the direct interaction (links) among them. We take a whole network

approach, which means interviewing every actor that is present in the boundary

we have defined. This is the methodologically strongest approach in network

theory as it allows collecting a complete picture of the social/policy space that

we aim to analyze. It provides a description of the overall characteristics of the

network (network measures) such as density, clustering, and core-periphery, but

also the characteristics of every single actor in the network, such as centrality,

brokerage, and relations between the actor's position on the network and the

activity of other specific actors (Butts, 2008). It also can allow us to infer the

network formation (i.e., why the network has the characteristics we observe)

using statistical models such as Exponential Random Graphs Models.

SNA can also allow comparison between different networks to understand if

different typologies of interactions produce different outcomes. Furthermore, by

combining interaction among actors (mapped through the network survey) and

beliefs, we can identify advocacy coalitions (Weible et al., 2019; Sabatier and

Jenkins-Smith 1993).

5.2. Definition of ties and attributes

We mapped the following direct ties among all the organizations that are inside

the boundary of our study. These are the key relationships usually studied in policy

network studies (Howe, Adam C., Stoddart, Mark C. J., & Tindall, David B., 2020).

1. Technical information exchange: the organizations whose materials the

organizations regularly peruse for technical/scientific information about

GCED (i.e., newsletters, websites, social media).

2. Ongoing mutual collaboration: sometimes, one organization provides

support on a policy issue for another organization, receiving similar

support in return. These ties are defined as long-term relationships of

mutual support regarding GCED.

3. Meeting to discuss GCED related topics: organizations met in the

last 2 months either virtually or in-person to discuss GCED policy

implementation, promotion, or conceptualization.

4. Perceived policy influence: on a scale from 1 to 4, each organization

indicated the level of influence of the others in the promotion of GCED in

the global North, where 1 = most influence.

Furthermore, as a concluding question, we also asked respondents to reflect on

Europe and North America network as a single region for GCED implementation

and promotion.


5.3. Attributes

One of the key properties outlined in network theory is that actors tend to interact

with similar others. Therefore, we consider the attributes identified below as

potential drivers of connections.

1. Typology of the institution (governmental, non-governmental,

international organization, thematic network, educational institution)

2. Salience of GCED to the organization on a scale from 1 to 5

3. Scale of action of organizations activities (local, international, multiscalar)

4. Importance attributed to GCED

5. Percentage of resources devoted to GCED

6. Different visions of GCED: conceptualization and goals of GCED

5.4. Building the dataset

To identify the organizations that are part of the interview sample, we started

from the list of organizations that participated in the Montreal exercise and the

organizations they named (71 in total), but we excluded the ones that have the

following characteristics (n= 32):

• Universities that do not have a specific research centre, department, or

programme on GCED: University of Bamberg, University of Newcastle,

University of Oulu, UPENN, Youth University

• Organizations that are based outside of the geographical area of focus

(North America and Europe): Al-farabi University Tsyllha, eduinclusiva.cl,

Ward.edu.ar, KOICA, OSCE Youth Engagement, Africa EU Commission,

BKM TUSOG Beijing, BKMC Seoul, UNESCO Chair on Inclusive Education

Cameroun

• Organizations that are too broad and do not have a specific focus on

GCED : Council of Europe, EU, EU Commission, OECD, UN, CTBTO, UN

Youth Envoy, UNOCD

• Organizations that we were not able to identify clearly: Centre EREE,

Cincinnati Montez, AFS.network, IB-Link Education, CIVICUS, Momondo,

Camarim Commission, Mesa de Aciccum, GLEN, UNESCO Task Force for

Education Agenda 2030

• European organizations that did not take part in any of the following key

GCED multi-stakeholder meetings, namely: Europe and North America

Regional GCED Network Meeting 21-22 November 2018, Lisbon (pt);

030ㆍ031

DEAR Multi-Stakeholder Group meeting, Brussels, 19 February 2020;

UNESCO 2019 Forum on Education for Sustainable Development and

Global Citizenship, 2 – 3 July, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; Ottawa, Canada 6 to 10

March 2017; ENVISION 4.7, Helsinki, November 5-7, 2019

We then complemented the initial list by including other actors from NA as there

was some imbalance between the two continents. We complemented the list of

the NA organizations with others that took part in global and NA GCED multistakeholder

meetings (n=17).

Overall, we define the SNA dataset according to 4 different types of

organizations: civil society organizations, thematic networks, intergovernmental

organizations, and governmental bodies. In Table 1, we present the distribution.

11 organizations did not take part in the study.

Table 1 : Typology of organization by region

Europe North America Total

no response 2 9 11

Civil society organization 15 7 22

Education institution 3 6 9

Governmental body 2 1 3

Intergovernmental

organization

3 3 6

Thematic network 3 2 5

Total 28 28 56

5.5. Timeline for the research

The organization of data collection was organized over 5 phases.

1. September to October 2020: definition of data set; preparing the

questionnaire; ethical approval

2. November: 4 pilot interviews to test the questionnaire

3. December 2020 to March 2021: data collection

4. March to April 2021: data analysis

5. April to May 2021: report writing

During the entire duration of the project, we held a weekly research team meeting

(in the middle of a pandemic) that allowed us to work together as a whole team


instead of dividing the work into two subteams.

5.6. Research ethics procedures

The plan for this study has been reviewed by a Research Ethics Board at the

University of Alberta. The interviews have been administered on a secure Zoom

link and not recorded. Instead, participants' responses were documented in a

survey tool. Thus, there was very limited risk to organizations as participants in

this study. The team has taken care in storing the information provided. While the

respondents' personal information will be reported anonymously, the names of

all organizations will be made public in the research through the visual mapping

of networked relations and in the discussion of the European – North American

network. This information could benefit all organizations working in GCED in the

region.

The respondents' participation was voluntary, and even if organizations chose

to participate, they could change their minds later. After that, the research

team began to aggregate the data; it is no longer possible to remove specific

information.

All data will be stored in a safe, password-protected, encrypted computer file

for 5 years. It will only be used by members of the study team for a report for

the Asia Pacific Centre for Education and International Understanding and for

the work of the principal researchers leading the study. In addition, findings

will be presented in a report for organizations working in GCED and academic

writing and presentation to the international academic community.

When invited to the interview, all respondents received a copy of the ethics

information and consent form so that they could confirm their acceptance of the

ethics guidelines for the research.

5.7. Data collection procedures

The data collection team consisted of six researchers: two senior faculty and

four research assistants, three located in Europe and three in North America.

Data collection procedures were fully recorded in a vademecum (Appendix

D) for reference by all researchers to ensure consistency and to preserve

methods for further research. All documents were shared digitally, allowing

ongoing collaboration and transparency. Here, we outline our main choices and

procedures in data collection.

5.8. Designing the questionnaire

We developed the questionnaire across multiple iterations to ensure that it

captured both the attributes of and relations among organizations in support of

our social network analysis and according to the methods described above. The

creation of the questionnaire has been inspired by a survey instrument used in

policy network study (Gronow & Yla-Anttila, 2019).

032ㆍ033

We conducted four pilot interviews with the questionnaire; the initial two tests

involved external volunteers, and the final two refining tests were conducted with

two members of our team, who also represented two of the organizations that

were part of the study. After each test interview, we shared feedback and issues

among the team and refined questions to ensure questions (a) matched our

research objectives, (b) were clear for all six interviewers, and (c) were structured

and streamlined for concise and straightforward use with participants. Further, we

together clarified how we would respond to common questions from participants

and developed the vademecum accordingly. The final questionnaire took 20-50

minutes to complete, depending on the extent to which interviewees preferred

informal discussion throughout.

5.9. Interviewee selection

Interviewees were selected according to their positions in each organization. The

aim was for each respondent to hold a key role in the organization and access

to key information about the institution's strategy, aims, mission, activities, and

partnerships. Depending on the size of the organization, the respondent was

the director, manager, or press agent. For those organizations with which we

were familiar, the contact person was obvious. In other cases, we conducted

web-based research or leveraged networks to connect with the appropriate

representative.

5.10. Interview management process

Each regional team was responsible for interviewing organizations within their

region (28 North American and 28 European organizations). In the case of

intergovernmental organizations, the region was determined by where the

organization was based (i.e., registered office, head office, or similar).

After an initial invitation email from the two senior researchers, interviewers

independently followed up with their assigned organizations to schedule

interviews, tracking all correspondence in a shared Google Sheet. Once an

interview was confirmed, each interviewer sent a preparatory email to the

respondent, including the Zoom link, research ethics information, and key

elements of the questionnaire so that respondents could prepare.

Interviews were conducted between January and March 2021. Throughout this

period, the team regularly debriefed interviews at weekly meetings. The team

also recorded information and reflections from the interviews not captured in the

structured questionnaire in a shared research log. These weekly discussions and

documented reflections supported data analysis and raised questions for focus

groups and further research.

5.11. Conducting interviews

Although this research utilized a structured interview, it was important to

carefully plan the interview to ensure consistency and meet ethics requirements.

Furthermore, it was very important to ensure that each typology of the tie was


understood in the same way by respondents. All interviewers, therefore, followed

the vademecum in carrying out interviews. The vademecum provided guidance

on introducing the research and research team, addressing research ethics,

conducting the interview, responding to common questions, troubleshooting

issues, and safely storing data.

The interview has been organized into 5 parts:

1. Description of the organization

2. The views of the organization on global citizenship education

3. The organization's relationships with other key actors

4. The organization's affiliation to regional networks

5. The organization's values and beliefs about GCED

5.12. Addressing language diversity

As the interview was conducted with many non-native English speakers, we

ensured that respondents could choose to (a) draft and copy responses to openended

questions into the Zoom chat box rather than expressing them aloud on

the spot, or (b) send supplementary answers to open-ended questions via a

follow-up email.

6) Social Networks Data Analysis

For the sake of this study, we adopted UCINET (Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and

Freeman, L.C. 2002) and Gephi, which allow us to produce a visualization of

network graphs but also to analyze properties and patterns of network data.

Given the dataset available, relevant outcomes can be extracted from the data

collected.

From the survey results, the following objects were produced to allow for data

analysis:

• three adjacency matrices, one for each network collected

• one matrix with attributes of the organization

• one matrix with textual data containing the answers to open-ended questions.

Some of the attributes required some preliminary analysis to make them compliant

with network analysis.

Adjacency matrices made it possible to visualize network graphs using the

package Netdraw in UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, 2002). The attributes of the

organizations were displayed in the network graphs to help make visible the

034ㆍ035

possible patterns of proximity.

The main socio-metrics described in the next chapter were calculated using

UCINET to identify the main structural characteristics of the network. These

socio-metrics were then analyzed also in combination with the attributes of the

organizations.

The main objectives were to identify the presence of sub-groups, identify the

presence of homophily patterns, classify the network according to the main global

patterns indicated in network literature, and test whether specific attributes of the

organizations are associated with network metrics.

7) Methodological Limitations

In this last section, we present some of the methodological limitations of this study.

Design Limitations

We are conscious that a quantitative method of data collection has some

limitations in terms of capturing meanings and ways in which they are generated

and socially negotiated. A quantitatively derived model of social relations,

based on rigorous statistical analysis, does not explain social relationships

comprehensively and consistently. Since we know that meanings play an

important role in how they are negotiated across actors and how individuals

interpret social structures, we will complement these results with a subsequent

qualitative inquiry.

Limitations in Digital Research

While we use a layered approach to digital methods, analyzing networks based on

institutional websites and networked Twitter conversations, we recognize the limits

in the nature of ties explored in this study. For example, on Twitter specifically,

organizations can form ties not only through hashtag use, as explored in this

report (Chapter 4), but also through follower networks among Twitter accounts (who

follows whom) and mentions (who mentions whom in the body of Tweets). At the

time of research, access to follower networks is unfortunately unavailable through

the digital crawling tool we are using for the study (ScrapeHero, 2021). We do

plan, however, to analyze the mention networks in a future stage of this research.

Social Network Analysis Limitations

The choice of a questionnaire to elicit social networks based on a roster with a

predefined list of organizations allowed us to have a whole network design. This

very design provided a more comprehensive analysis; however, it might have

some limitations in the selected organizations. We tend to select organizations

that are the most prominent in the sector as they participate in the main GCED

international fora; therefore, we might exclude less visible organizations in the

international arena.

The second limitation is that we collected ties at one point in time. We, therefore,


have a very detailed and accurate picture of a complex system of relations, but

we do not know these relations evolve over time. Time is a crucial element in

providing a more comprehensive understanding of position in policy networks

(Ingold, Fischer, Christopolous, 2021).


In this chapter, the research design and methodological procedures followed

for the data collection analysis of GCED networks in Europe and North America

were presented. In addition, this chapter described the main characteristics

of the methodological approach taken for this study. It uses a combination of

social network analysis and digital methods.

A detailed report of the procedures followed for data collection, and data

analysis has been provided. In the next chapter, the results of the data analysis

will be presented.

References

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software

for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies.

Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis: A methodological introduction. Asian

Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 13-41.

Davis, J. A. (1967). Clustering and structural balance in graphs. Human relations,

20(2), 181-187.

Gronow, A., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2019). Cooptation of ENGOs or treadmill of production?

Advocacy coalitions and climate change policy in Finland. Policy Studies Journal,

47(4), 860-881.

Heider, Fritz. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley. http://content.

apa.org/books/2004-21806-000k

Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Christopoulos, D. (2021). The roles actors play in policy

networks: Central positions in strongly institutionalized fields. Network science, 9(2),

213-235.

Marres, N. (2015). Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method.

Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 655–686.

Marres, N., & Moats, D. (2015). Mapping Controversies with Social Media: The Case

for Symmetry. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 2056305115604176.

Marres, N., & Weltevrede, E. (2013). Scraping the Social? Journal of Cultural

Economy, 6(3), 313–335.

036ㆍ037

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily

in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415-444.

Robins, Garry. 2015. Doing Social Network Research: Network-Based Research

Design for Social Scientists. SAGE.

Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. MIT Press.

Rogers, R., Sánchez-Querubín, N., & Kil, A. (2015). Issue Mapping for an Ageing

Europe. Amsterdam University Press.

Scott, John, & Carrington, Peter J. (2011). Social Network Analysis a Handbook Of.

SAGE.

Tindall, D. B., Stoddart, M. C., & Howe, A. C. (2020). Social Networks and Climate

Change Policy Preferences: Structural Location and Policy Actor Support for Fossil

Fuel Production. Society & Natural Resources, 33(11), 1359-1379.

Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital

methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812.

Venturini, T., Bounegru, L., Gray, J., & Rogers, R. (2018). A reality check(list) for

digital methods. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4195–4217.

Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford Handbook

of Political Networks. Oxford University Press.

Weible, C. M., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & Jenkins&Smith, H. C. (2020).

Sharpening advocacy coalitions. Policy studies journal, 48(4), 1054-1081.


038ㆍ039

Social Network

Analysis Results

In this chapter, the main results of the social network analysis study are

presented. This chapter is composed of four parts. In the first, we describe

the general characteristics of the organizations interviewed. Second,

we study how the characteristics of the organization relate to network

patterns. Next, we describe the overall properties of the networks. Fourth,

we interpret how the network measures affect the functioning of the GCED

network in North America and Europe. Finally, we conclude with a summary

of the main results.

1) Organizations Interviewed

In total, 56 organizations constitute our sample. However, two organizations

declared that they did not want to take part in the study because they

considered GCED not to be at the core of their activities and mission. They

are therefore considered out of sample, reducing the total to 54. Of these, we

interviewed 45 organizations, 26 from Europe and 19 from North America, for a

response rate of 83%.

It is important to stress that the large majority (73%) of the respondents are in

Table 1: Profile of the interviews' respondents

Europe North America Total

no response 2 9 11

staff 6 6 12

leadership 20 13 33

Total 28 28 56

leadership positions within the organization (Table 1).

Chart 2 illustrates the distribution of organizations by region. The large majority

of the organizations are civil society organizations, which are particularly

prevalent in the European part of the sample.


Chart 2 : Typology of organization by region

North-

America

Europe

Civil society organization

Education institution

Governmental body

Intergovernmental organization

Thematic network

Table 3 illustrates the distribution of the scale of action across the typologies of

organizations we have interviewed. Civil society organizations and educational

institutions operate at three levels: international, multiscalar, and local level. We

define multiscalar organizations as those that operate at local, national, and

international levels. Only a minority of organizations are operating mostly at the

local level.

Table 3 : Typology of organization and scale of action

Local International Multiscalar Total

Civil society organization 5 8 9 22

Education institution 2 6 1 9

Governmental body 1 2 3

Intergovernmental

organization

5 1 6

Thematic network 3 2 5

Charts 4 and 5 show the distribution by region of the number of resources

devoted and importance attributed to GCED. The height of the bar is the ratio

of organizations for each region.

Chart 4 : Resources devoted to GCED distributed by region

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

less than 20%

resources

between 20% and 50%

resources

more than 50%

resources

Europe

North-America

040ㆍ041

Chart 5 : Importance attributed to GCED by region

0.7

0.6

Europe

North-America

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

most

important

somewhat

important

not very

important

least

important

not

applicable

Charts 4 and 5 show that there is consistency between the level of importance

attributed to GCED and the percentage of resources organizations devote to

this topic. There are only a few exceptions: 2 institutions declare that GCED

is most important but dedicate less than 20%, and 3 institutions declare that

GCED is most important, yet they dedicate between 20% and 50% resources.

A possible interpretation for this is that these are large institutions that operate

on a global scale, with GCED as a distinct, yet ringfenced activity. Or, they may

be academic institutions that simply do not have sufficient resources.

Chart 6 shows, by typology of organization, the number of resources attributed

to GCED. The height of the bar is the ratio of organizations for each class of

resources.

Chart 6 : GCED importance by typology of organization

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

less than 20%

resources

between 20%

and 50%

resources

more than 50%

resources

0.2

0.1

0

Civil society

organization

Education

institution

Governmental

body

Inter

governmental

organization

Thematic

network

In summary, our sample is composed mostly of civil society organizations. Most

organizations operate at international and multiscalar levels, while a minority

operate only at the local level. Our respondents are mostly in leadership

positions. This element suggests that the organizations considered the research

relevant. More than 48% of the organizations interviewed allocate more than

50% to GCED.


2) Network Patterns and Organizations' Characteristics

In this section, we analyze key attributes of the organizations in relation

to three networks. This allows us to investigate how actors involved in the

implementation of GCED in EUNA cooperate. We focus on each organization's

geographical location, resources devoted to GCED, and whether an

organization was interviewed, as these attributes prove to be relevant in

showing network patterns.

We study three networks (mutual collaboration, technical information, meetings),

as only by analyzing multiple dimensions of interactions is it possible to capture

the complexity of the phenomenon.

Graph 1, 2, 3 Mutual cooperation, Information exchange and Meetings Network

Making Sense of Graphs 1, 2, 3: One-mode Networks

What is included in Graphs 1, 2, 3?

Nodes

- Organizations, listed according to short names (e.g., CGCER,

Oxfam UK, NSC, etc.). Note: short names are listed for reference in

Appendix A.

Ties

- Lines in the graph represent the presence of relations among organizations

- Each graph represents a different typology of relations (tie) among

organizations : Mutual cooperation (Graph 1), Information exchange

(Graph 2) and Meetings (Graph 3)

Typology of networks

Directed: A could name B, but B could not name A. For example,

in the meeting network (Graph 3), there is a tie between A and B if

organization A declared to meet with organization B.

How to read Graph 4 : Size, space, and color

- Node colors indicate the same geographical region: European

organizations are colored dark blue, and North American are colored red.

- Node size indicates the percentage of resources allocated to

GCED. A larger node indicates that the organization devotes more

than 50% of its resources to GCED.

- Node shape indicates whether the organization was interviewed:

the squared nodes are the ones that were not interviewed.

The round nodes were interviewed.

042ㆍ043

- Node position is determined by the number of ties (links with the

other organizations). The nodes with a higher number of ties are the

most central in the network. Therefore, the organizations (nodes)

that are in the periphery are the ones with fewer ties.

- The graph is spatialized according to the Multi-Dimensional Scaling in

UCINET, which overlaps organizations that have similar patterns of ties.

Graph 1 : Mutual collaboration network

Graph 2 : Technical/scientific information network


Graph 3 : Meeting network

These three networks show some clear patterns. First, the division of two

geographical areas is clearly visible in the network graphs; nodes of the same

colors are closely located. Second, the organizations that did not respond,

represented as squared nodes, are mostly located at the periphery of the

network. This is the case for two reasons. First, they did not name ties as they

were not being interviewed; therefore, their out-degree (number of outgoing

neighbours) is 0. Second, few of the respondents named them as their ties, so

their in-degree is very small (number of incoming neighbours). Third, there is no

clear pattern between the dimension of the node (resources devoted to GCED)

and its position in the networks. This suggests that the centrality in the network is

not a function of the resources devoted to GCED.

Chart 7 : Organization centrality and resources to GCED

GCED resources and network centrality

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

between

less than 20%

20% and 50%

more than 50%

Q1 centrality

Q2 centrality

Q3 centrality

Q4 centrality

044ㆍ045

Chart 7 shows the distribution of institutions according to their beta centrality (Bonacich

power), calculated on cooperation network, by resources devoted to GCED. We have

organized the institutions in 4 quartiles as it allows us to understand the distribution of

centrality better as it relates to resources. In the first quartile (Q1) are institutions that

have the lowest level of beta centrality as they are below the median. The second

quartile (Q2) contains those with a median value. The third quartile (Q3) is the

middle value between the median and the highest value. The fourth quartile (Q4) is

composed of institutions that have the highest value of beta centrality.

The main attribute that emerges as relevant in observing network characteristics is

the geographical location of the organizations. In particular, organizations tend to

create ties with others with the same geographical location.

We systematically assess whether organizations tend to create more ties within

the same geographical area by focusing on homophily. Homophily is a property

commonly acknowledged in social network analysis literature. It refers to the fact

that ties tend to be created with others that share similar characteristics (McPherson

et al., 2001, Krackhardt, 1988).

We measure homophily with the EI index: a measure of in-and-out-group preference.

It subtracts the number of out-group ties from the number of the in-group ties, divided

by the total number of ties (Everett & Borgatti, 2012). An EI score of -1 signifies

complete homophily, i.e., the node has relationships only with in-group actors. A score

of 1 signifies complete heterophily, i.e., the node is connected only with out-group

actors. A score of 0 signifies a balanced number of connections inside and outside

the group.

In Tables 9, 10, and 11, a node (organization) is defined as homophilous when it has

an EI index score ranging from -1 to -0.6, as heterophilous when it ranges from 0.6 to

1 and balanced when it lies between -0.5 and 0.5. The three tables below show how

the geographical area EI index varies by typology of the organization across the three

networks.

Table 9 : Meeting network homophily by typology of organization

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Civil society

organization

Education

institution

Governmental

body

Inter

governmental

organization

Thematic

network

balanced

heterophilous

homophilous


Table 9 shows that the majority of thematic networks meet within their own

geographical area, while intergovernmental organizations are more balanced.

Table 10 : Mutual collaboration homophily by typology of organization

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Civil society

organization

Education

institution

Governmental

body

Inter

governmental

organization

Thematic

network

balanced

heterophilous

homophilous

Table 10 shows that all typologies of organizations are mostly balanced, as they

collaborate both with organizations inside and outside their own geographical

area, with the exception of education institutions.

Table 11 : Scientific/technical information exchange EI index based on

geographical area and Typology of organization

1.2

1

balanced

heterophilous

homophilous

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Civil society

organization

Education

institution

Governmental

body

Inter

governmental

organization

Thematic

network

Table 11 shows that all typologies of organizations are balanced in relation to

information exchange. In particular, intergovernmental and education institutions

exchange technical and scientific information with organizations both inside and

outside their own geographical areas.

Comparing the tables above shows that organizations are most likely to meet

with those in their geographic area but are otherwise quite balanced in their

collaboration and information exchange within and across geographic areas.

046ㆍ047

We also analyzed whether organizations tend to be more familiar with

organizations of the same geographical area. Table 12 shows how many

organizations, on average, are not known in the entire sample (n=56). On average,

European organizations are more known than North American organizations.

Table 12 : Knowledge of the other organizations

Average number of

orgs do not know it

Average number of

orgs it does not know

Europe 23.5 29.2

North America 28.2 22.5

In this section, we showed how attributes are displayed in the networks. Overall,

organizations tend to connect with others from the same geographical area. However,

the close analysis provided via the homophily propensity index (E-I index) reveals that

organizations, in fact, connect at almost equal levels within their own geographical

areas and outside when it comes to mutual collaboration and information exchange.

3) Comparing the Three Networks' Overall Characteristics

To understand the connections between individuals and patterns of relations

among GCED actors, in this section, we analyze the key global and local

patterns of the networks and their nodes' positions. We compare how those

features vary in the three typologies of networks. We present first a short

definition of each socio-metric, and then we look at the comparison between

the networks (Table 13).

The reason why it is important to focus on such network properties is because

they have important implications for understanding how information flows and

organizations interact. We present below the definitions of some key network

measures with some examples explaining their interpretation.

Density is the number of observed ties divided by the number of possible ties.

Average degree is the average number of ties belonging to each node.

Connectedness is the proportion of actors that are reachable through the

network (Krachkart 1994).

Network closure indicates when everyone is connected such that no one

can escape the notice of others (Burt, 2001 p. 37).

Average distance is the mean distance of each node from the others in the network.

The overall clustering coefficient is the mean of the clustering coefficients of

all nodes in the network. Ego networks consist of a node ("ego") and

the nodes to whom ego is directly connected (these are called "alters") plus


the ties, if any, among the alters. The clustering coefficient is the proportion

of links between the nodes within an actor's ego-network, divided by the

number of links that could possibly exist between them (Watts, 1999).

Another way of portraying this network property is to ask the following

question : what fraction of my friends are friends?

A network characterized by high density and low average distance is a network

where information can flow more easily than a network with a high clustering

coefficient and with a high level of closure. In networks with high clustering

coefficients and with high closure, the role of nodes bridging others that otherwise

would not have been connected is key. These actors are called honest brokers.

A network has a "small world" property when there is a lower average distance

(average path length) between nodes but a relatively high clustering coefficient

compared to random networks. A small-world network is characterized by high

reachability with few steps (degree); therefore, information can circulate better

(Watts, 1999). An index of small worldness that scores 3 or higher indicates that a

network can be considered a small world (Humphries & Gurney, 2008).

Strong ties refer to interactions that are strong in content and high in frequency.

In terms of structural characteristics, they tend to have high levels of clustering

and closure, while weak ties have high levels of connectedness and low

average distance (Granovetter, 1973). Furthermore, weak ties are characterized

by low information redundancy and high efficiency (Burt, 2000). Weak ties play

a key role in connecting different parts of the network.

Table 14 shows the above-presented socio-metrics that describe our

three networks. The network with the highest number of relations among

organizations is the technical and scientific information exchange network,

while the one with the fewest connections is the meetings network. A possible

interpretation of the lower density of the meeting network is that this type of

interaction requires a higher investment from the organization while consulting

information available online is less demanding.

Information exchange and cooperation are the networks that have the smallest

average distance and higher connectedness. This could imply that information

can circulate easily. However, we have to look at the metric called "closure" that

measures how much information flows among nodes that are already indirectly

connected (Burt, 2005). As the information exchange network has the highest

level of closure, it suggests that this network is characterized by a high level of

embeddedness and redundancy (Moran 2005). This element is strengthened

by the fact that information exchange has a lower value than cooperation

networks in the small worldness index (Milgram, 1967, Watts, 1999).

We ran the Quadric Assignment Procedure (QAP) test to understand better

whether the networks actually represent different dimensions of social

048ㆍ049

interaction. Table 13 illustrates the results of the QAP test (Krachardt, 1987).

Meeting and information exchange networks have the lowest correlation (0.382),

while cooperation and meetings have the highest level (0.589). This suggests

that organizations that have mutual cooperation relations are also likely to meet

whether information exchange does not imply that organizations meet.

Table 13 : Correlation among the three networks (QAP test)

technical/scientific

information exchange

Mutual cooperation

technical/scientific

information exchange

0.465 -

meetings 0.589 0.382

Table 14 : Comparison of the characteristics among the three networks collected

Mutual

cooperation

Technical

/ scientific

information

exchange

Meetings

# of nodes 56 56 56

# of ties 362 590 201

Average Degree 6,464 10,536 3,589

Density 0,118 0,192 0,065

Connectedness 0,768 0,786 0,63

Closure 0,352 0,429 0,304

Average Distance 2,213 1,929 2,879

Overall clustering

coefficient

Small worldness

index

0.412 0.431 0.435

3.180 2.127 2.096

3.1. Analyzing core-periphery patterns

Identifying network formation drivers allows the analyst to understand patterns

of relations and how specific policies and practices function. Understanding

how the actors connect in the network means understanding how specific

policy and practice spaces function. A closer analysis of these mechanisms

allows us to explore the extent to which GCED providers in the EU and NA

function as a regional network and perhaps assist in strengthening GCED

efforts.

One of the key characteristics of a network is its partitioning into groups based

on network features or attributes. For example, in a network characterized by


several closed sub-groups, referred to as cliques, information is easily shared

within the cliques. However, broker intermediation is needed between cliques.

This implies that the nodes occupying the brokering position have a lot of

power, as they could use their network positions to their own advantage.

These networks, however, do not stand out for their level clustering and

triangulation in cliques, as revealed by the measures presented so far. It is also

difficult to separate the network into homogenous groups based on attributes or

triangulation patterns. Therefore, our interpretation is that we can classify these

networks as core-periphery (Borgatti & Everett, 2000). The main characteristic

of core-periphery is to have a densely connected group of actors at the centre

of the network, called the "core," and a loosely connected group of actors that

are in the least central position of the network, called the "periphery."

In Table 15, we present the core-periphery model results for the three networks

based on the core-periphery algorithm (Borgatti & Everett, 1999) present

in the software UCINET 1 . Table 15 shows that the metrics of the studied

networks matches how core-periphery typically functions. First, the number of

organizations in the core is smaller than in the periphery. Second, the density,

which is a function of the number of ties, is smaller in the periphery. Finally, the

meeting network is less close to the core-periphery model as it has a smaller

fit. This is consistent with the results presented in Table 13, where the meeting

network has an overall density too small to fit with a core-periphery model.

Table 15 : Core-periphery model results

Network

Core/

Periphery fit

(correlation)

#

organizations

core vs

periphery

#

ties core vs

periphery

Density core

vs

periphery

Information 0.5275 23 33 237 40 0.468 0.038

meeting 0.4417 14 42 64 34 0.352 0.020

cooperation 0.5256 13 43 92 78 0.590 0.043

This core-periphery model allows us to investigate further the function of the

GCED network. It is therefore important to identify the characteristics of the

organizations in the core and periphery. This is crucial, as the organizations

that are at the core of the network generally benefit from the dense flow of

information exchange, collaboration, and meetings.

Comparing the composition of core-periphery groups in regard to resources,

areas and typology of organizations did not show significant patterns. The

element that proved to be significant is the level of action of the organization.

1

NETWORK > CORE/PERIPHERY > CATEGORICAL(Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002)

050ㆍ051

Table 16 shows that the vast majority of organizations that are in the core part

of the three networks are multiscalar. We defined multiscalar organizations as

those that operate at local, national, regional, and international levels. Instead,

organizations that operate mostly at the local level are at the periphery of the

networks.

Chart 16 : Organization scale of action and core of the three networks

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

local

international

multiscalar

core in the 3

networks

core in the 2

networks

core in the 1

networks

core in no

networks

Graph 4, 5, 6 Mutual cooperation, Information exchange and

Meetings displaying core-periphery

Making Sense of Graph 4, 5, 6: One-mode Networks

What is included in Graph 4, 5, 6?

Nodes

- Organizations, listed according to short names (e.g., CGCER,

Oxfam UK, NSC, etc.). Note: short names are listed for reference in

Appendix A.

Ties

- Lines in each graph represent the presence of relations among organizations

- In each graph, we represent a different typology of relations (tie)

among organizations : Mutual cooperation (Graph 4), Information

exchange (Graph 5) and Meetings (Graph 6)

Typology of networks

Directed: A could name B, but B could not name A. For example,

in the meeting network (Graph 6), there is a tie between A and B if

organization A declared to meet with organization B.



- Node colors indicate whether an organization is in the core or in the

periphery of the network: the organizations that are at the periphery are in

green, and the ones that are at the core are in orange.

- Node shape indicates the scale of action of the organization: a triangle

shape highlights organizations that are multiscalar while all others have

the shape of a circle in a box.

- Node position is determined by the number of ties (link with the other

organizations). The nodes with a higher number of ties are the most

central in the network. Therefore, the organizations (nodes) that are in the

periphery are the ones with fewer ties.

- The graph is spatialized according to the Multi-Dimensional Scaling in

UCINET, which overlaps organizations that have a similar pattern of ties.

Graph 4 : Mutual cooperation network core periphery

052ㆍ053

Graph 5 : Technical/scientific information exchange network core periphery

Graph 6 : Meetings network core periphery


Organizations that are at the core have the advantage of being embedded in a

denser system of relations (table 15). However, being at the core of the network

does not imply that these organizations are necessarily more influential or

powerful. More sophisticated analysis of network centrality measures is needed

to determine what role these actors play in the network, whether they are policy

entrepreneurs, policy brokers, or truly exceptional agents (Christopolous,

Ingold, 2015; Ingold, Fischer, Christopoulos, 2020). Furthermore, being at the

periphery could also be related to the choice of some organizations to have

specific conceptualizations of GCED that are not mainstream.

To further investigate the behaviour of the multiscalar organizations that appear

at the centre of the network, we look at main indicators of centrality (in-degree

and out-degree). In-degree of a specific node measures how many actors

declare a tie direct to that specific node. The out-degree of a specific node

measures how many actors a specific node declares to be connected. We,

therefore, calculated the difference between out-degree and in-degree for each

organization. Table 17 presents the average difference for each category of

the scale of action. A positive value indicates that the out-degree is higher than

the in degree. It means these organizations declare more ties with others than

others declare to have with them. This tendency towards out-degree implies

that not all declared ties are reciprocated and that organizations want to be

connected with many others. This seems to be consistent with the stated role

of many of these organizations, namely, to create ties in the domain of GCED

policy and practice.

Table 17 : average difference between out-degree and in-degree by the scale of action

cooperation

network

information

exchange

network

meetings

network

local 0.43 -3.71 -1.14

international -0.35 3.00 0.09

multiscalar 1.67 1.93 1.53

This pattern of higher out-degree than in-degree is common across the core of

the three networks. The actors in the core always have a value of out-degree

higher than in-degree, while in the periphery, we observe the opposite: indegree

higher than out-degree. This constitutes a distinctive feature of this

specific network where many of the actors at the centre of the network tend

to declare to be in contact with a high number of organizations. This seems

to indicate that having a large network is considered a positive value in this

policy and practices space. This means that social capital is crucial in this field.

However, further investigation is needed to shed light on the several dimensions

of social capital, particularly the concept of redundancy and efficient size

described above (Burt, 1992).

054ㆍ055

3.2. Summary of main results

In this section, key global and local networks patterns and organizations'

positions in the network were analyzed. First, we studied how the three

typologies of networks varied based on some key socio-metrics. The data

showed that meetings and information exchanges, in particular, have a low

level of overlap. This means that the organizations that exchange technical and

scientific information do not necessarily meet to discuss GCED related topics.

Second, the network cannot be easily divided into smaller subgroups based

on common characteristics of the organizations. By analyzing the different

attributes of the organizations, it is evident that organizations that are based in

the same geographical area tend to have more relations. This is especially true

for the meeting networks, while for scientific and information exchange, actors

tend to interact at almost the same levels with organizations outside and inside

their geographical area. This has significant implications for understanding the

limits of the current GCED network across the EU and NA.

Third, the structure of the network reflects a core-periphery model of interaction.

There is a small group of closely connected actors in the centre of the network

and a larger group of actors in the periphery, characterized by a lower level of

exchange. The key feature that emerges is that the organizations that operate

at a multiscalar level are the ones that tend to be at the centre. This is probably

related to the nature of the mission of this type of organization, which tends

to seek to promote ties with others, as also shown by the higher number of

outgoing than incoming ties. The promoters of this approach aim to connect

as many organizations as possible in their work. This might also be related

to the nature of this subnascent policy field. GCED is a relatively new topic in

education policy and practices. In particular, literature on advocacy coalition

framework (ACF) using social network analysis shows that it is crucial to study

drivers of coordination among different beliefs (Weible et al. 2020). In our study,

beliefs can be interpreted as the different GCED conceptualizations. In the next

section, we focus on how GCED conceptualizations position in the networks.

4) Qualitative Analysis of GCED Conceptual Communities

In order to address the research question, "How is GCED conceptualized

through social networks?", this section analyzes the network of GCED

conceptualizations in relation to participant organizations, according to the

organizations' own definitions. By visualizing networks of organizations and

GCED keywords, it is not only possible to see overall patterns in GCED

conceptualization but also to identify what we term "conceptual communities,"

or those organizations that share common GCED definitions. As shared in

the structured interview, the GCED conceptions expressed by organizations

were carefully articulated, reflecting the intentional choice of language. For

instance, definitions expressed underlying ideologies and positions (such as

neoliberalism, cosmopolitanism, or anti-colonialism), links to global goals such

as the SDGs, or particular organizational aims. By exploring the overlaps and


divergences in GCED definitions among organizations, we can see patterns

of conceptual relations among GCED actors, which can be analyzed in

conjunction with the other relations described above.

4.1. Method: Networked keyword analysis

This analysis draws on an open-ended question from the structured survey

(Q12): What is the understanding of GCED that you use in your organization?

We considered integrating responses to Q13: In your organization, what

are your goals for GCED? However, this question resulted in very diverse

responses that would not be comparable within a networked keyword analysis.

For example, responses pertained to overarching goals for GCED, educational

outcomes, program aims and metrics, ideological aspirations, and more. As a

result, we decided to focus our analysis on Q12.

Respondents answered this question either by providing a written organizational

definition or articulating it aloud for the interviewer, who transcribed the text into

the survey tool during the interview.

4.1.1 Keyword tag development

Based on responses to Q12, keyword tags were developed that captured each

organization's conception of GCED. Keyword tags were developed manually

according to the following protocols:

• Noun forms were used (i.e., "inclusivity," "democracy" for "inclusive,"

"democratic") as it is necessary to harmonize data for analysis.

• GCED educational actions were summarized using verb forms (i.e.,

"prepare" or "equip" rather than "preparation," etc.).

• "Global challenges" was used for all similar articulations, such as "global

issues" or "global problems."

• The tag "sustainable development" indicates the exact use of this phrase.

Other terms such as "environment," "nature," "human and non-human life"

were kept in order to show differences in how ecological issues were

conceptualized in relation to GCED. As a note, "sustainable development"

was often used in relation to SGDs.

• "Social justice," "global social justice," and "justice" were kept separate.

• The term "action" encompasses "active citizens" and other references to

taking action on global issues.

056ㆍ057

4.1.2 Organization-keyword network graph

A bipartite organization-keyword graph (Graph 4) was created in Gephi in

order to visualize discursive networks among GCED actors. In the network

graph, nodes are sized according to the number of times the keyword tag is

used across the set. The graph is spatialized according to the frequency with

which different organizations use similar keyword tags. A modularity algorithm

was applied in order to color clusters according to similar keyword tag use;

more specifically, colored clusters evidence the frequent use of similar keyword

tags. In this way, colors enable an analysis of conceptual "communities," which

can be named and described as below. Both organizations and keywords are

colored according to modularity and are thus not visually separated.

Note : not all responses to Q12 are equal in length, so organizations are each

linked with a different number of tags. Therefore, the GCED conceptualizations

of organizations with brief responses may not be fully represented here, or the

organizations may be marginal to the graph.

Graph 7 : Bipartite Organization-Keyword Network

Making Sense of Bipartite Organization-Keyword Network Graph

What is included in Graph 7?

There are two kinds of nodes:

- organizations, listed according to short names (e.g., CGCER, Oxfam

UK, NSC, etc.). Note: short names are listed for reference in Appendix A.

- keyword tags

Edges indicate which keywords are used by which organizations.


- Keyword nodes are sized according to how many organizations use that

keyword. So, a quick glance at the network reveals that many organizations

reference global challenges, sustainability, action, peace, knowledge,

skills, etc.

- The graph is spatialized to show overlaps in keyword use by actors. So,

we see more frequently used keywords in the centre of the graph, linking

multiple organizations. Less frequently used tags are generally arrayed

around the periphery, indicating marginal GCED language. Some less

frequently used keywords appear in the centre of the graph in cases where

an organization has used them along with some of the common keywords.

- Node colors indicate similarities in keyword use by particular organizations.

A difference in color, therefore, indicates a difference in the keywords used

by organizations when defining GCED. These colored clusters underlie our

understanding of "conceptual communities."


058ㆍ059


4.2. General Network Features

In examining the network as a whole, it is clear that GCED definitions as shared by

the organizations include an intermixing of goals, actions, concepts, orientations,

issues, and future visions. There is much diversity in the language used by

organizations, indicating diverse positions and rather than an overarching guiding

definition, in keeping with research that identifies conceptual "fuzziness" or flexibility

in GCED. Some harmonies are evident through organizations' use of language

pertaining to SDG 4.7 and Agenda 2013; however, many organizations appear to

be developing individual or nuanced definitions of GCED.

4.3. GCED Conceptual Communities

As indicated by the modularity algorithm, a number of GCED conceptual

communities are evident within the network. It is important to note that these

communities are not exclusive; organizations are linked with tags outside of their

modularity clusters as well, indicating overlap between GCED conceptualizations.

However, some trends emerge, as summarized in Table 15.

Table 15 characterizes each conceptual community by providing:

• A name that summarizes the conceptual community and the color it

appears in the network graph

• A list of organizations linked together within that conceptual community

• A brief description of the conceptual community based on keyword use

Table 15 : CGED conceptual communities

Conceptual

Community

(and color)

Organizations

Description

Global

Community

for Justice

and

Sustainability

Green

*AQOCI

*Ban Ki-moon

Centre

*Brookings

*CISV

*Concord

*CPRMV

*Gene

*IEA

*LLP

*Oxfam UK

*Solidar

*Swoliya

*UNESCO

HQ

*UNESCO

Suisse

The largest cluster spans the centre

of the network and includes the most

frequently used tags for "sustainability,"

"global challenges," and "action."

Key terms in this cluster range from more

liberal-oriented "inclusivity," "sustainability,"

"intercultural understanding,"

"empowerment," and "global community"

to more critically oriented concerns with

"solidarity," "equity" and "justice."

This cluster is proximal to the

"International Policy" (pink) cluster, with a

number of ties between the two, perhaps

indicating a similar grounding in SDG 4.7

and Agenda 2030.

060ㆍ061

International

Policy

Pink

No Easy

Answers

Blue

Individual

Development

and

Entrepreneurship

Light Blue

Decoloniality

and

Interconnection

(Canada)

Orange

Democracy

Black

Global

Competencies

Dark Green

*Fingo

*SDSN

*Think Equal

*UNESCO

LLL

*Gesturing

Towards

Decolonial

Futures

*North-South

Centre

*Aflatoun

*CCUNESCO

*CGCER

*CMEC

*Bridge 47

*Facing

History

*Platforma

*ACGC

*AFS

*Global

Education

Conference

Network

Referring directly to SDG 4.7

and Agenda 2030, this cluster is

characterized by language associated

with these international policies,

including "sustainable development,"

"violence" (referring to ending violence),

and "gender equality." This cluster also

references "knowledge," "skills," and

"shared values," with a focus on GCED

as student development.

Rather than focusing on specific

issues, this community orients

GCED towards "reciprocity," and

questions naively empowering and

action-oriented GCED discourses

by highlighting difficult aspects of

learning, including "complexity,"

"accountability", "deconstruction," and

"painful change." Notably, the keyword

"anti-modern" positions this community

outside of many common GCED

discourses pertaining to notions of

modern progress/development.

As the only community involving one

organization, this cluster shows that

Aflatoun has a unique conceptualization of

GCED centred around transitioning youth

to adulthood by focusing on "responsibility,"

"self-esteem" and "economic literacy." The

emphasis on economics and the inclusion

of the word "enterprising" also points to a

focus on entrepreneurship.

This cluster, composed of only Canadian

organizations, is characterized by

decolonial/anti-colonial orientations, along

with an ecological emphasis on both

human and non-human life.

This cluster reflects a focus on

addressing issues through government

and democratic participation, with an

emphasis on "fairness," "equality," and

"civics."

A competency-based approach is evident

in this cluster through language referencing

the "global marketplace," along with

GCED as connected to "behaviors" and

"intercultural" or "cultural awareness."


Cooperation of

Individuals

Mustard

*APCEIU

*Human

Rights

Centre

This is a small cluster focused on links

between individuals according to a sense

of "mutuality" and "interdependence." This

cluster thus connects individual "care" and

"empathy" to "cooperation" and "collective

action."

Satellites

*Angel

*UNESCO

UCLA

These two organizations are disconnected

from the main cluster due to short GCED

definitions.

5) Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, the main results of the social network analysis study are

presented. The analysis focused both on the network global and local

properties and on the analysis of GCED conceptualizations.

References

Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M.G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures.

Social Networks, 21(4), 375–95.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows:

Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures.

Social networks, 21(4), 375-395.

Burt, Ronald S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.

Harvard University Press

Burt, R. S. (2017). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In

Social capital (pp. 31-56). Routledge.

Burt, Ronald S. (2005). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital.

Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies Series. Oxford University Press.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in

organizational behavior, 22, 345-423.

Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected?

Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policymaking. European political science

review, 7(3), 475-498.

Krackardt, D. (1987). QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. Social

Networks, 9, 171–86.

Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple

062ㆍ063

egression analysis of dyadic data. Social networks, 10(4), 359-381.

Krackhardt, D. (2014). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations.

In Computational organization theory (pp. 107-130). Psychology Press.

Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2012). Categorical attribute based centrality: E–

I and G–F centrality. Social Networks, 34(4), 562-569.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of

Sociology, 1360–80.

Hanneman, Robert, & Riddle, Mark. (2005). Introduction to Social Network

Methods. Book Introduction to Social Network Methods.

Humphries, M. D., & Gurney, K. (2008). Network 'small-world-ness': a quantitative

method for determining canonical network equivalence. PloS one, 3(4), e0002051.

Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Christopoulos, D. (2021). The roles actors play in

policy networks: Central positions in strongly institutionalized fields. Network

science, 9(2), 213-235.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:

Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415-444.

Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and

managerial performance. Strategic management journal, 26(12), 1129-1151.

Watts, D. J. (2003). Networks, dynamics and the small world phenomenon.

American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 50-59.


GCED Crawling

Across EUNA

1) Overview

In addition to a social network analysis based on a structured interview, we

conducted a study of information about networked relationships using data

available on organization websites and Twitter. Digital data sources are used

to understand GCED networks acknowledges the increasing digitization of the

social world, including the increasing prevalence of information communication

technologies for information exchange and networked connections. Further, digital

data sources enable us to empirically observe the GCED network, particularly

as it crosses geographic regions and involves multiple types of actors (NGOs,

governments, researchers, etc.) who all operate together in the digital sphere. We

drew on digital methods as social and political research (Marres, 2015; Rogers,

2014) to map GCED actors and their relations across Europe and North America,

as well as the GCED discourses that coordinate these associations.

Our analysis involved two different methods for research: (1) co-hyperlink analysis

of website connections between the actors and (2) hashtag-actor analysis of

Twitter data. The second analysis was predicated on the first, which identified

social media, including Twitter specifically, as a common site for activity among

many of the actors. The resultant network graphs were read and analyzed

according to established research in reading networks (Venturini et al., 2015).

2) Hyperlink Analysis

A long-established form of network analysis maps the hyperlinking patterns

between websites involved in a particular social issue area or sector (Bruns,

2007; Rogers, 2013, 2017), including NGOs, funders, governments, researchers,

and think tanks, as well as online objects such as publications, databases, and

widgets. By mapping hyperlinks, it is possible to see the politics of association

among actors, as well as the missing links. Specifically, those websites that

are frequently linked to (measured with in-degree) tend to be understood as

authorities.

While this analysis was presented in our preliminary report, we have summarized

it again here to provide context and comparison for the Twitter analysis.

064ㆍ065

2.1. Methods and data set

To understand the presence, connections, and hierarchies of regional GCED

actors, we conducted a hyperlink analysis using a network mapping software

called the "Issuecrawler" (Issuecrawler, n.d.; Rogers, 2013). Using the list of

GCED actors interviewed, we conducted an Issuecrawler data scrape that

produced a Snowball Map (Figure 1) of organizational connections using the top

200 mentions on organizational homepages and links pages. Via a "snowball

analysis," the Issuecrawler crawls an initial list of sites (seeds), retains pages

receiving at least one link from the seeds, and creates a network based on

these links. For our seeds, we used the URLs for the home pages of each of the

actors identified for study, along with any links pages (resources, partnerships,

sponsors) associated with each site. (Note: the two organizations missing from

the crawl were the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS)

and Youth for Exchange and Understanding, which we added to the list of

organizations to survey after the crawl was complete. In addition to showing the

relations between our actors as the seed sites, a snowball analysis is helpful for

revealing actors that we may not have identified in our initial set.) The resultant

network highlights the prominence and centrality of actors according to the

politics of hyperlinking. Specifically, those sites that are most frequently linked

to (in-degree) are more likely to be seen as authorities, though the nature of

that authority must be explored. Therefore, the size of a node is revealing, as

it visualizes the number of links received by the site or organization during the

crawl, indicating its authority. The placement of the nodes on the map is also

significant, as it is relative to the significance of the node to other nodes. Finally,

the colors of nodes indicate the domain type, visualizing the geographical

regions (.ca, .eu) or type (.com, .edu) of the site.

3) Twitter Analysis

Twitter is a social media platform that enables users to share information, engage in

debate, and connect with other users by publishing tweets, short messages with up to

280 characters. One of the most popular social media platforms globally, Twitter currently

has 192 million daily active users (Lin, 2021), and all but two of the GCED actors involved

in our study have Twitter accounts. Twitter affordances enable users to publish original

content or share the content of others (by retweeting), networking their messages to

others using hashtags (i.e., placing a hash, "#," in front of a word). They can also directly

connect with other users by mentioning them (using the @-symbol with a username) or by

replying to them by mentioning them at the beginning of a tweet. In these ways, tweets are

not only visible to a user's own follower network, but they can be multiplied networked for

various purposes of information exchange, public dialogue and debate, and promotion of

particular messages.

We have selected Twitter for our study for a number of reasons. First, as a social media

platform dedicated to information sharing and networking, it fits for an analysis of GCED

networks, not only among actors but also in relation to related GCED discourses and

issues. Further, as reflected in the Issuecrawler analysis below, Twitter was identified as

a frequently used social media platform among the GCED actors in our study. The other


platforms mentioned include YouTube, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Of

these, YouTube and Pinterest would not likely provide helpful information for understanding

GCED networks, and privacy policies make Facebook and Instagram more difficult to

study. LinkedIn holds the potential to explore professional networks among GCED actors;

however, Twitter is better positioned to reveal links among discourses, issues, initiatives,

education, and information. Finally, while growing interest is emerging on policy networks

expressed on social media, Twitter analyses are still underused in studies focusing on the

educational policy specifically.

Our social network analysis works with Twitter affordances to analyze connections among

GCED actors, along with the patterns of GCED hashtag discourses that coordinate these

connections, in keeping with recent research on Twitter in relation to the education sector

(Kolleck et al., 2017; Sam, 2019; Schuster et al., 2019; Schuster et al., 2021).

3.1. Methods and data set

As a basis for our analysis, we harvested all tweets for 53 of the 56 actors included

in our research; two actors, namely Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures and

Youth for Exchange and Understanding, do not have Twitter accounts, and the

UNESCO Associated Schools Network Canada uses the same account as the

Canadian Commission for UNESCO (@CCUNESCO). Twitter data were collected

for six months (October 22, 2020 - April 22, 2021) using ScrapeHero (ScrapeHero,

2021), a data company that provides access to historical tweets through a paid

account. Tweets were collected in the original language posted. The resultant set

included 16,750 tweets distributed across the various GCED actors according to

the chart in Appendix B.

The links between the actors and discourses in the data were visualized using the

software Gephi (Bastian et al., 2009) in a bipartite actor-hashtag network (Figure

2). Established digital methods regarding hashtag analysis inform our research

(Axel Bruns & Burgess, 2015; Highfield & Leaver, 2015; Marres & Moats, 2015),

which recognizes the strategic and connective use of hashtags in rendering posts

searchable and emphasizing key messages. Due to the strategic and connective

use of hashtags by users interested in participating in a topical dialogue, "cooccurrence

of hashtags can be read as discourse" (Sánchez-Querubín, 2017, p.

100) within networks of actors. Therefore, the bipartite actor-hashtag network draws

on the hashtags used by the set of GCED actors to show the issues and discourses

that link the actors in the GCED network and the clusters of issue orientations that

emerge.

In the bipartite actor-hashtag map, Gephi's ForceAtlas2 algorithm visualizes

associations through proximity and thickness of edges between nodes, according

to the frequency with which hashtags are used in conjunction and by particular

actors. Nodes are colored according to type, where actors (accounts) are in blue

and hashtags in pink. The node size and size of the accompanying text indicate the

actor's prevalence (blue) among the data set or the frequency with which a hashtag

(pink) is used. Hashtags with a frequency of five or less have been removed for

066ㆍ067

ease of reading and to identify patterns. After a brief overview of the full network

graph, we zoom in to key components to conduct a more detailed analysis.

4) Findings

4.1. Hyperlink analysis

A hyperlink analysis (Figure 1) of organizational websites suggests that

organizations do not demonstrate significant regional networked relations. This is

indicated in the analyses based on both geography and organization type. This

data also provided insights into the reciprocity of relationships in the region and

highlights what organizations might be viewed as authorities.

The data suggest that UNESCO to UNESCO relations form a densely

interconnected cluster (bottom right, in pink), with multiple links to various UNESCO

sites. UNESCO links out to the European Commission and is interlinked with OECD

via UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), forming what appears to be a triad. Only

one Canadian non-UNESCO site showed links to UNESCO. Two European sites,

the European Association for the Education of Adults and the European Network for

Education and Training, both link to UNESCO.

The map indicates the Council of Europe (COE) also forms its own isolated cluster

of interlinked COE sites but does not show links to any other organizations except

social media sites.

Generally speaking, Canadian sites form an isolated cluster (bottom, in red).

American organizations are linked (see green line on left) through .com (commercial)

to each other but not to other organizations.

In Europe, there appear to be a collection of hubs. These include The Lifelong

Learning Platform (LLP) as a central hub in Europe, linking out to a number of

organizations. A notable number of organizations link back to LLP. A few smaller

hubs also exist. The European University Continuing Education Network, European

Students' Union, European Association of Institutes for Vocational Training, Solidar

Foundation, European Association for Education of Adults, Digital Learning

Network, and DS Consulting Education Services appear on this map.

Hyperlink analysis leaves us with a question about the role of social media and if it

is relevant to this study. The digital map shows that social media sites are a primary

link between clusters and nodes. In this, social media is the networking connection

and not other forms of partnership or collaboration that leave a footprint on the

organizations' outward, online face - their websites. While social media sites are not

relevant to our research question, their prominence may indicate further research:

are our selected actors connected over social media? As Twitter is central to this

network graph, we thus extend our digital analysis through this platform.


Figure 1 : Hyperlink analysis

068ㆍ069


4.2. Twitter analysis

The Twitter actor-hashtag analysis largely indicates disconnection among the

hashtag discourses used by various GCED actors across Europe and North

America, with a few exceptions.

Figure 2 : Twitter actor-hashtag network

070ㆍ071


In the centre of the graph (see also Figure 3), a number of organizations are very

densely connected, namely UNESCO HQ, Oxfam, Global Citizen, and UNICEF USA.

In addition, UNESCO UIL, Enabel, Aga Khan, Charles Hopkins (UNESCO Chair

in Reorienting Education Towards Sustainability), CMEC, IEA, Teach for All, and

WAGGS are also closely linked. The cluster contains a heterogeneous set of Englishlanguage

hashtags encapsulating events and campaigns (#worldwildlifeday,

#motherlanguageday, #ethicalfitnesschallenge) and references to diverse issues

(#stopbullying, #endchildmarriage, #poverty, #hunger, #biodiversity). Rather than

referencing locations where the organizations are situated in Europe and North

America, hashtags reference locations primarily in the global South (#burkinafaso,

#yemen, #tanzania, #kenya, #uganda, #afghanistan, #malaysia, #argentina). Linked

with the campaign and issue-related hashtags, these location tags indicate a focus

on global issues "elsewhere" rather than at home. Notably, however, a strong tie

among many of these organizations is the hashtag #covid19, a generic hashtag

that shows concern with timely issues but does not necessarily indicate harmony

in GCED approaches, campaigns, information sharing, projects, or aims. Other

key links include the general hashtag for #education; campaign event hashtags

such as #worldwaterday, #worldhealthday, and #internationalwomensday; and

generic social media hashtags like #wednesdaywisdom and #thursdaythoughts.

Interestingly, global issue-related hashtags (for instance, relating to climate change,

gender equality, genocide) do not form prominent links. In fact, upon closer

examination of the central cluster, it becomes clear that most organizations are

surrounded by a star-like array of idiosyncratic hashtags, largely disconnected from

the tags of others.

Figure 3 : Central cluster

072ㆍ073

Another set of interconnected organizations located just north of the central cluster

includes the Lifelong Learning Platform, CONCORD, Solidar, Platforma, Bridge

47, SDSN, and the Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens (Figure 4). While there

are clear separations between these organizations, as with the central cluster,

they are also interconnected and more narrowly focused than the central cluster.

Unifying the cluster are hashtags surrounding the Sustainable Development Goals,

such as #sdgchallenge, #sdg5, #sustainabledevelopment, #agenda2030, and

#2030agenda. However, the unique orientations of each organization are evident,

with the LLL Platform tagging #skills and #euvocationalskills; Solidar linking to

justice- and solidarity-oriented hashtags like #solidarity, #socialjusticeday, and

#internationalsolidarity; and the Ban Ki-moon Centre focusing on sustainability

and climate justice through such tags as #climateresilience, #climatejustice4all,

and #foodsystems. Few promotional hashtags common to social media, such as

the #wisdomwednesday tag used in the central cluster, are evident here, perhaps

indicating less appetite or savvy for strategically promoting tweets to a wider public.

Figure 4 : Northern cluster

Arrayed around the periphery of the network graph are clusters of hashtags

around individual organizations that remain largely isolated from one another and

from the central clusters (Figures 5 & 6). Some organizations are isolated due to

the use of hashtags in languages other than English; Fingo, for instance, applies

Finnish hashtags, and a cluster of AQOCI, Cooperation Canada, and ICN all

apply hashtags in French, as do Info-Radical (CPRMV), the CTF, and Equitas.

Interestingly, all of the French hashtags are used by organizations located in

Canada, where French is one of two official languages, and language is linked

with significant historical, cultural, and political dynamics. The aspect of language

is a key consideration for the GCED network, as language differences may factor

into the extent to which organizations collaborate both across regions and within


countries such as Canada.

Other differences between organizations are linked with the use of promotional

hashtags, such as the use of #aflatounfamily and #aflatounnetwork by Aflatoun,

#thinkequal by Think Equal, and #unesco by the Swiss Commission for UNESCO.

Still, others are isolated according to very specific mandates, such as the emphasis

on #radicalization and #violence by CPRMV or #diversity and #pluralism by the

Global Centre for Pluralism.

Some peripheral clusters do not centre on a single actor but contain multiple

organizations with similar orientations. For instance, the Brookings Institution and

Facing History are linked through the common use of hashtags surrounding the

2020 US presidential election (#election2020) and Black History Month, indicating

their focus on the US context. By contrast, Angel, GENE, and the Development

Education Research Centre are linked through a similar focus on global education

and shared materials and events (#digest2020, #angelconference2021). In this

case, the overlapping use of very specific hashtags may evidence close relations

among organizations that are not evident elsewhere in the network.

Figure 5 : Periphery (a)

Figure 6 : Periphery (b)

074ㆍ 075

5) Conclusion and Further Questions

Overall, the Twitter actor-hashtag network graph may be interpreted according

to a core-periphery structure (see Chapter 3 for background on core-periphery

according to social network analysis). Here, however, we do not see a single

densely interconnected core but a dual-core surrounded by a distributed

periphery. The central core is constructed according to a number of factors:

frequent Twitter use by the central actors, resulting in a high number of

hashtags; use of promotional tags (campaign tags, social media tags) that

densely interconnect actors, though not necessarily in relation to GCED; and

use of the timely #COVID19 hashtag, which links tweets to a current issue.

In these ways, the central core appears to emerge in relation to the Twitter

platform itself, as organizations have a strong Twitter presence and reflect

Twitter-savvy posting. The northern core, by comparison, appears to be more

interconnected according to similar GCED orientations and aims, as reflected

through repeated references to the SDGs and Agenda 2030. In the meantime,

the periphery reflects a diversity of organization-specific aims, issues, and

agendas, linguistic differences, and internal foci. The spatialization of the

network into this particular dual core-periphery raises further questions for

research.

1. Competition and Collaboration: The prevalence of promotional

hashtags, particularly among the centre of the network graph, including

campaign hashtags and social media-specific hashtags, may indicate

collaboration on global campaigns. Alternatively, it may point to

competition for resources and/or for audience attention. Do those more

densely interconnected organizations at the core benefit from improved

information circulation, more substantial policy influence, and/or more

successful fundraising? These hashtags raise questions about the

extent to which GCED goals and initiatives are driven by an attention

economy, where public participation is understood to be a scarce

resource. If GCED is interconnected with an attention economy, this may

impact the extent to which GCED actors compete or collaborate.

2. Global Policy and Local Initiatives. Global policy discourses (SDGs,

Agenda 2030) create cohesion among the northern cluster. Meanwhile,

local and specific organizational discourses are located within the

periphery, though these organizations are also linked to the core. This

spatialization raises questions about the interface between global goals

and local efforts, including the directionality of movement. To what

extent are global goals driving local initiatives? Or are local initiatives

informing global goals?

3. Language: The peripheral position of French and Finnish hashtags, and the

significant discursive division of French from English, particularly among

Canadian actors, raises questions about how language diversity impacts

GCED networks across the global North and within Canada specifically.


4. Geographic Orientation Towards the Global South: The prevalence of

hashtags pertaining to the Global South, particularly within the centre

of the network, is perhaps evidence of an ongoing preoccupation

of the Global North with the Global South in GCED, according to

development, humanitarian, or benevolent impulses engrained in

western society. Despite the local-global connection theorized within

much GCED literature, including UNESCO's prominent formulation,

only a few hashtags show interest in local issues, and these tend to be

peripheral. For instance, "Canada" is tagged in the French-speaking

set, the EU is referenced periodically by European organizations, and

as aforementioned, Facing History and Brookings are engaged with the

local US election. By contrast, hashtags linking to locations in the Global

South are much more frequent and central to the network, raising further

questions regarding how organizations understand the work of GCED

within the EUNA region, along with to what extent "othering" discourses

persist in GCED within the Global North.

References

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An Open Source Software for

Exploring and Manipulating Networks. Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs

and Social Media, 2.

Bruns, A. (2007). Methodologies for mapping the political blogosphere: An exploration

using the IssueCrawler research tool. First Monday, 12(5).

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In

Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks (pp. 13–28).

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First

Monday, 20(1), 1–11.

Issuecrawler. (n.d.). Govcom.org. https://www.issuecrawler.net/

Kolleck, N., Well, M., Sperzel, S., & Jörgens, H. (2017). The Power of Social Networks:

How the UNFCCC Secretariat Creates Momentum for Climate Education. Global

Environmental Politics, 17(4), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00428

Lin, Y. (2021). 10 Twitter statistics every marketer should know in 2021 [Infographic].

https://www.oberlo.ca/blog/twitter-statistics

Marres, N. (2015). Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital

Method. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 655–686. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0162243915574602

Marres, N., & Moats, D. (2015). Mapping Controversies with Social Media: The Case for

Symmetry. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 2056305115604176.

076ㆍ 077

https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115604176

Rogers, R. (2009). Mapping public Web space with the Issuecrawler. In C. Brossard & B.

Reber (Eds.), Digital cognitive technologies: Epistemology and knowledge society (pp.

115-126). Wiley.

Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. MIT press.

Rogers, R. (2017). Digital methods for cross-platform analysis. The SAGE Handbook of

Social Media (pp. 91–110).

Rogers, R., Sánchez-Querubín, N., & Kil, A. (2015). Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe.

Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089647160

Sam, C. H. (2019). Shaping discourse through social media: Using Foucauldian discourse

analysis to explore the narratives that influence educational policy. American Behavioral

Scientist 63(3), 333–350. doi:10.1177/0002764218820565.

Sánchez-Querubín, N., Schäfer, M.T., van Es, K., & ASCA (FGw). (2017). Case Study:

Webs and Streams–Mapping Issue Networks Using Hyperlinks, Hashtags and (Potentially)

Embedded Content. In The Datafied Society (pp. 95–108). Amsterdam University Press.

https://doi.org/10.5117/9789462981362

Schuster, J., Jörgens, H., & Kolleck, N. (2019). Using Social Network Analysis to Study

Twitter Data in the Field of International Agreements. SAGE Publications.

Schuster, J., Jörgens, H., & Kolleck, N. (2021). The rise of global policy networks in

education: Analyzing Twitter debates on inclusive education using social network analysis.

Journal of Education Policy, 36(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.166

4768

ScrapeHero. (2021). https://www.scrapehero.com/

Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., & Pereira, D. (2014). Visual network analysis. Sciences

Pomedialab, 1–20.


Conclusion

This research project investigated the network of organizational actors working

in the area of global citizenship education across North America and Europe.

We chose a methodology that surfaced various information about how relations

among actors work to create shared understandings and practices of GCED. We

identified characteristics of the network that worked to influence individual actors

and how networked relations sustained organizations, some occupying a central

position while others worked on the periphery of the network. We worked to identify

the extent to which the network of GCED key actors constitutes a source of social

capital for its members and the symbolic dimensions through which they represent

it. In this concluding chapter, we provide a summary of the findings and make

some recommendations as to how these findings might inform policy and practice

to strengthen GCED in this region.

GCED is a relatively recent educational focus, and there is significant conceptual

ambiguity surrounding it. A significant body of research delineates the types of

GCED to help clarify how global citizenship contributes to educational goals and

to students' capacity to "read the world." This research addresses an important

gap in GCED research by exploring how GCED is constructed and moves across

networks of actors, including governments, NGOs, researchers, and educational

institutions, among others. We have located our work in relation to recent

scholarship exploring networked policy development in other educational sectors,

providing a rationale for our research, and leading into our research questions.

This study draws on network theory as well as understandings of how social capital

works within social spaces, influencing and materializing other forms of capital,

including cultural and economic. One of the main research questions that guided

this inquiry was: "How do actors involved in the implementation of GCED in EUNA

cooperate?" Because ties in social networks are more impactful if they are mutually

constructed, we studied the characteristics of these ties. A key characteristic

of a network is how it partitions actors into groups based on network features or

attributes. The research indicated that in GCED in Europe and North America,

being part of the network provides every member with the support of a collective

capital that appears to be vital, more vital than in other similar educational fields.

Moreover, while these attributes are described in detail in the previous chapters,

078ㆍ079

in this summary, we would like to highlight three main features of organizations'

positioning in the map: 1) Regarding the three types of network analyzed, data

showed that meetings and information exchanges have a low level of overlap. This

means that the organizations that exchange technical and scientific information do

not necessarily meet to discuss GCED related topics. 2) The network cannot be

easily clustered into homogeneous subgroups based on common characteristics

of the organizations. However, organizations located in the same geographical

area tend to have more relations. This is especially evident for the meeting

networks, while for scientific and information exchange, actors tend to interact at

almost the same levels with organizations outside and inside their geographical

area. 3) The overall structure of the network reflected a core-periphery model of

relations. There is a small group of closely connected actors in the centre of the

network and a larger group of actors in the periphery, characterized by a lower

level of exchange. Table 16 shows that the vast majority of actors that are in the

core part of the network are multiscalar. We defined multiscalar organizations as

those that operate at local, national, regional, and international levels. Instead,

organizations that operate mostly at the local level tend to be at the periphery of

the network. This is probably related to the nature of the mission of this type of

organization, which tends to seek to promote ties with others, as also shown by the

higher number of outgoing than incoming ties. The promoters of this approach aim

to connect as many organizations as possible in their work. Organizations at the

core of the networks were also identified as having a shared conceptualization of

GCED.

We then used qualitative data analysis and a bipartite organization-keyword graph

gathered in interviews to understand how actors conceptualized GCED. Here

we saw that looking at the network as a whole; its GCED definitions included an

intermixing of goals, actions, concepts, orientations, issues, and future visions.

We saw no overarching guiding or shared definition of GCED, although there were

some harmonies evident through organizations' use of language pertaining to SDG

4.7 and Agenda 2030; however, many organizations appear to be developing

individual or nuanced definitions of GCED.

We were able to identify 9 conceptual communities visible in the network. We

assigned the following descriptors to the conceptual communities:

1. Global Community for Justice and Sustainability

2. International Policy

3. No easy answers

4. Individual Development and Entrepreneurship

5. Decoloniality and Interconnection

6. Democracy

7. Global Competencies

8. Cooperation of Individuals

9. Satellites

(See full chart on page 52)


The largest conceptual community consists of organizations located at the

centre of the network. Key terms in this cluster range from more liberal-oriented

"inclusivity," "sustainability," "intercultural understanding," "empowerment," and

"global community" to more critically-oriented concerns with "solidarity," "equity"

and "justice." This cluster is proximal to the "International Policy" cluster (n.2),

with a number of ties between the two, perhaps indicating a similar grounding

in SDG 4.7 and Agenda 2030. As central actors in the network, their influence

on the overall work of GCED is significant.

In addition to a social network analysis based on a structured interview, we

conducted a study of information about networked relationships using data

available on organization websites and on Twitter. This form of network analysis

maps the hyperlinking patterns between websites involved in a particular social

issue area or sector, including NGOs, funders, governments, researchers, and

think tanks, as well as online objects such as publications, databases, and

widgets. We looked for evidence of relations and associations among actors.

By identifying websites that are frequently linked to (measured with in-degree),

we could better understand what organizations were viewed as authorities in

the network.

The analysis of digital data presented several important findings:

1. The organizations in this network do not demonstrate significant regional

networked relations.

2. The data suggest that UNESCO to UNESCO relations form a densely

interconnected cluster with multiple links to various UNESCO sites.

Only one Canadian non-UNESCO site showed links to UNESCO. Two

European sites, the European Association for the Education of Adults

and the European Network for Education and Training, both link to

UNESCO.

3. The data indicates the Council of Europe (COE) also forms its own

isolated cluster of interlinked COE sites but does not show links to any

other organizations except social media sites.

4. Generally speaking, Canadian sites form an isolated cluster. American

organizations are linked through .com (commercial) to each other but

not to other organizations.

5. In Europe, there appears a collection of hubs such as GENE, Bridge 47,

Concord, ANGEL.

6. This data points to a dual-core or centre surrounded by a distributed

periphery. How this related to the SNA data that identified a somewhat

more unified core should be studied further.

080ㆍ081

While some qualitative results emerged from the analysis of open-ended

questions, there are several areas of interest that we look forward to discussing

with research participants in future workshops/ focus groups to support their

use of this study's findings and to contribute to enabling an informed use of the

network for implementing GCED. These areas include:

1. Competition and Collaboration: Do those more densely interconnected

organizations at the core benefit from improved information circulation,

more substantial policy influence, and/or more successful fundraising?

The hashtag research raised questions about the extent to which

GCED goals and initiatives are driven by an attention economy, where

public participation is understood to be a scarce resource. If GCED is

interconnected with an attention economy, how might this impact the

extent to which networked GCED actors compete or collaborate?

2. Global Policy and Local Initiatives. Global policy discourses such as

SDGs and Agenda 2030 create cohesion among some actors in the

network. Meanwhile, local and specific organizational discourses are

located within the periphery, though these organizations are also linked

to the core. This spatialization raises questions about the interface

between global goals and local efforts, including the directionality of

movement. To what extent are global goals driving local initiatives? Or

are local initiatives informing global goals.

3. Geographic Orientation Towards the Global South: In the hashtag

research, the prevalence of hashtags pertaining to the Global South,

particularly within the centre of the network, is perhaps evidence of an

ongoing preoccupation of the Global North with the Global South in

GCED, according to development, humanitarian, or benevolent impulses

engrained in western society. How do organizations understand the

impact of the work of GCED on communities and organizations working

in the Global South? To what extent do "othering" discourses persist in

GCED within the Global North?

In addition, we submit the following recommendations based on our findings:

1. Participants were enthusiastic about the research and interested in

finding ways to enhance collaborations and sharing information. Efforts

to strengthen the network without forcing a homogenizing agenda

on GCED can contribute to stronger GCED work at the individual

organization level as well as a sector.

2. We produced a detailed vademecum (study handbook) that will use

this SNA approach accessible for other regions and networks. While

building and further developing collaboration and partnership for GCED

across Europe and North America is important, it is also critical to use


evidence to facilitate relationships with other regions of the world. To

replicate a similar SNA in other regions of the world could represent an

important step forward for comparative research.

3 . While the work at the periphery of the network contributes important

ideas and practices to GCED, a task for the network as a whole should

be to provide more conceptual clarification. By using the data from

this study, the range of ideas linked to GCED provided important

organizational learning that will benefit the sector as a whole.

4 . Multi-stakeholder collaborations seem to be well established in this

network. This collaborative environment can be used to deepen and

extend the important contributions of GCED to education policy and

practice.

5 . Social capital is a key dimension of the social space, and it can

influence policy and practice together with economic and cultural

capital. Research clearly shows how much the resources of a single

actor are related to the possession of a sound network of relationships

more or less institutionalized. Future research is needed to understand

how social capital is bridging or bonding (Burt, 2001). By having a

closer look at multiple network centrality measures and power structures

inside the GCED EUNA network, social network analysis allows us to

closely and accurately investigate social capital, which can be used as

an ambivalent concept.

6 . We found that the centre of the network largely reflects what GCED

typologies describe as mainstream/liberal/cosmopolitan GCED, along

with GCED linked with international policy. The flow among these

conceptual communities is unclear. Future research could explore

to what extent these mainstream conceptions shape thinking around

GCED as other organizations take them up, appropriate, or resist them?

082ㆍ083

Appendices

Appendix A: List of Organizations and Short Names

Organization Name

Academic Network on Global Education & Learning - ANGEL

Aflatoun International

AFS International

Aga Kahn Development Network Canada

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International

Understanding under the auspices of UNESCO

Association quebequois des organismes

de cooperation international

Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens

Belgian Development Agency - ENABEL

BRIDGE 47

Brookings Institution

Canadian Commission for UNESCO

Canadian Teachers' Federation

Centre de prévention de la radicalisation menant

à la violence (CPRMV)

Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research,

University of Alberta

CISV international

Commission Suisse pour l'UNESCO

Cooperation Canada (formerly CCIC)

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC)

Short Names

ANGEL

Aflatoun

AFS

AgaKahn

APCEIU

AQOCI

BKMC

ENABLE

BRIDGE47

Brookings

CCUNESCO

CTF

CPRMV

CGCER

CISV

UNESCOSuisse

CC

CMEC


Development Education Research Centre, University

College London Institute of Education

Engagement Global

Equitas - International Centre for Human Rights Education

European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL)

European NGO Confederation for Relief

and Development - CONCORD

Facing History and Ourselves

Finnish Development NGOs – Fingo

Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures

Global Centre for Pluralism

Global Citizen

Global Education Conference Network

Global Education Network Europe - GENE

Human Rights Research and Education Centre

Institut Canadien d'Éducation des Adultes (ICÉA)

Inter-Council Network

International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement

International Civic and Citizenship Education Study

Learning Teacher Network

Lifelong Learning Platform

North South Centre

Oxfam UK

Pan-European Coalition of Towns and Regions - PLATFORMA

Solidar Foundation

Soliya

Sustainability and Education Policy Network

Sustainable Development Solutions Network

Teach for All

Think Equal

UNESCO Associated Schools Network Canada

DERC

EG

Equitas

EFIL

CONCORD

FacingHistory

Fingo

Gesturing

GCP

GC

GECN

GENE

HRC

ICEA

ICN

IEA

ICCES

LTN

LLP

NSC

OxfamUK

PLATFORMA

Solidar

Soliya

SEPN

SDSN

TeachforAll

ThinkEqual

UNESCOASNC

084ㆍ085

UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship

and Transformative Education

UNESCO Chair in Global Learning and

Global Citizenship Education, UCLA

UNESCO Chair in Reorienting Education Towards

Sustainability, York University

UNESCO HQ

UNESCO Institute for Life Long Learning

UNICEF USA

United Nations Association in Canada

Worldwide Association of Girl Guides and Scouts

(WAGGGS)

Youth for Exchange and Understanding

UNESCODCMET

UNESCOUCLA

UNESCOYork

UNESCOHQ

UNESCOLLL

UNICEFUSA

UNCanada

WAGGS

YEU

Appendix B: Twitter Handles and Count of Tweets

Name and Handle

Tweet Count

Aflatoun International 196

@Aflatoun

AFS Intercultural Programs 139

@AFS

AKDN 480

@akdn

ANGEL Network 119

@angelnetworknet

AQOCI 109

@AQOCI

Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens 459

@bankimooncentre

Bridge 47 121

@Bridge47_

Brookings Institution 1972

@BrookingsInst

CCUNESCO 158


@CCUNESCO

Charles Hopkins 32

@hopkinschuck

CISV International 7

@CISVofficial

CMEC 192

@CCMEC

CONCORD 194

@CONCORD_Europe

Cooperation Canada 346

@cooperation_ca

CTF/FCE 440

@CTFFCE

Development Education Research Centre 69

@ioe_derc

EFIL 22

@EFILafs

Enabel 257

@Enabel_Belgium

Engagement Global 127

@EngGlobal

Equitas 269

@EquitasIntl

Facing History 539

@facinghistory

Fingo 285

@FingoFi

GENE_GlobalEd 18

@GENE_GlobalEd

Global Centre for Pluralism 152

@GlobalPluralism

086ㆍ087

Global Citizen 3610

@GlblCtzn

GlobalEd Events 8

@globaledcon

ICN | RCC 50

@ICN_RCC

IEA - Education 198

@iea_education

INFO-RADICAL 221

@info_radical

Int. Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 10

@ICCS_DE

LLLPlatform 210

@lllplatform

North-South Centre 33

@NSCentre

Oxfam 988

@oxfamgb

PLATFORMA 566

@Platforma4Dev

SDSN 197

@UNSDSN

SEPN 17

@SEPNetwork

SOLIDAR & SOLIDAR Foundation 248

@Solidar_EU

Soliya 77

@Soliya

Teach For All 483

@TeachForAll

Think Equal 104


@thinkequalorg

UNACanada 87

@UNACanada

UNESCO Switzerland 34

@UNESCO_ch

UNESCO 1531

@UNESCO

UNESCO-UIL 217

@UIL

UNICEF USA 758

@UNICEFUSA

uOttawa CREDP 112

@uOttawaHRREC

World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts 289

@wagggsworld

Appendix C: Questionnaire

088ㆍ089


090ㆍ091


092ㆍ093

All organizations (as per list in Appendix A) are then listed in the same style.


094ㆍ095

Appendix D: Question 14 Answers

Alan Smith (UofUlster), Karel Francipane at UNESCO, David Edwards at

Education International, Felisa Tibbitts

Members of the editorial board of the International Journal of

Development Education & Global Learning.

Alexander Leicht (UNESCO)

Andreas Schleicher (OECD/PISA)

Chandrika Bahadur (SDSN)

Sam Loni (Global Schools)

Mick Sheldrick (Global Citizen)

Radhika Iyengar (SDSN)

Siva Kumari (IB)

Daniel Obst (AFS CEO)

Ahmad Alhendawi (WMOS – Scouts)

Vibeke Jensen (UNESCO)

Stefania Giannini (UNESCO)

Fernando Reimers (Harvard)

Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia)

Marcelo Sanchez -Sorondo (Holy See)

Irina Bokova (UNESCO)

Ambassador Hahn Choonghee (Korea)

Owen Cotler

Alex Neve

Senator Mary Lou McPhedran.

Daniel Perell (active in the ngo major group); Lars Dietzel (melton

foundation)

Fernando Reimers (harvard); mission for 4.7 initiative to promote GCED

there is a long list of people that are relevant (refer to mission4point7.org)

Prof. Arian Wallis

Lynette Shultz. Aaron Benavot. Fernando Reimers. Karen Pashby. Andre

Sandoval Hernandez. Antonia Wulff (EI)

Jennifer Klein (consultant in Colorado), Ed Gragert (used to be

executive director of iEarn), Julie Lindsay (Australia), Cleary Vaughan

Lee, Anne Mirtschin (Australia)


OSW

Or Angel, Bridge 47

Rilli Lappalainen.

Prof. Toh Swee-Hin, emeritus at University of Alberta

Karen Pashby, Rilli Lappalainen

Vanessa Andreotti, Karen Pashby, Veli-Matti Värri,

Daniel Schugurensky (Arizona State University), Massimiliano Tarozzi,

Greg Misiaszek, Lynette Shultz, Lauren Jones Misiaszek, Ratna Gosh,

Giardelli, N.Dri Lumumba, Antonia Teodoro, Jose Beltran, Luis Miguel

Lazaro Lorente, Regis Malet, Cristian Perez Centeno, Umberto Munoz,

Moacir Gadotti, Roberto Fernandez Lamarra, Werner Wittestrasse,

Benno Werlen, Sylvia Smelkes

Jan Harm friecke (freelance consultant)

Charlene Bearhead, Canadian Geographic

Philippe Tousignant of Educonnexion

Carine Nassif Gouin of Université de Montréal

Jeffrey Sachs, Sustainable Development Systems Network; youth

advocates within the UN (Youth Advisory Committee); platform of

international NGOs affiliated to the UN, they regularly organize GCED

events; Group of Friends for GCED, led by ambassadors to the UN

(semi-formal network of countries that are allies, committed to GCED)

– Qatar and Korea are the two current chairs; Group of Friends on the

Prevention of Violent Extremism (apply GCED to PVE); Group of Friends

on Human Rights Education (based in NY) – chaired by Qatar and

Korea

096ㆍ097

Enabel; Engagement Global, GENE also works with over 60 Ministries

and Agencies of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and

Development, and Education from over 30 European countries. UNECE

– which has responsibility for ESD within the European region and

whose ESD Committee works well with GENE-promotes a balanced

approach that encompasses all aspects of GE. Aravella Zachariou is

the chair.

OECD–DAC: the DAC Peer Review process engages in a habitual

review of OECD countries ODA programmes, including the monies

spent and the policies contributing to GE/DEAR; while the Development

Centre facilitates the DevCom of national development communication

managers – not unrelated to GE/DE - AR

OECD–Education (PISA, CERI, etc.). – Again a part of the picture.

Dirk van Damme.


Appendix E: Vademecum

RESEARCH

VADEMECUM OF

“EUROPE AND NORTH

AMERICA REGIONAL

GCED NETWORK”

November 2020

Document developed by

Lynette Shultz and Massimiliano Tarozzi,

Principal Investigators

098ㆍ099

CONTENTS

100

100

100

101

101

101

101

101

102

102

103

103

103

104

104

104

105

105

106

108

108

108

108

108

108

109

109

109

109

114

117

118

1. Objective of research vademecum

2. Research question

3. Research objectives

4. Timing

5. Definitions

5.1 Social network analysis

5.2 Node, ties and networks

5.3 Relationships we aim at mapping

5.4 Attributes of the organization we aim at mapping

Further readings on SNA

6. Methodology

6.1 Sampling. Criteria for data set building

6.2 Building the dataset

6.1.1. How to select the reference person

6.2 Data collection tools

Interview schedule spreadsheet (ISS)

Structured interviews

A. Planning the interview

B. Conducting the interview

At the end of the interview:

After the interview

Joint Research Journal

Language issue

Supervision meeting

7. Ethical issues

8. Storing and sharing data

8.1 Where to store data collected

9. Annexes

9.1 Questionnaire

9.2 Informed consent form

9.3 Invitation letter

9.4 Interview preparation letter


1. Objective of research vademecum

This vademecum aims at the following objectives:

• Providing shared research tools and procedures for the

conduction of online interviews.

• Sharing some theoretical assumptions underpinning research

practice and having a common vision of the methodology

because it has important practical implications on data collection

and analysis.

• Providing practical instructions and guidelines for collecting data

and storing them.

This research vademecum does not provide strict guidelines but it

aims to provide shared research tools to standardize procedures and

facilitate the exchange of research materials across different national

contexts and different researchers.

2. Research question

Overall goal of the EUNA GCED Network research project:

This research aims to study Europe and North America as a social

network in order to identify the parameters, relationships, and activities

in the field of GCED. It is designed to identify the actors and how work

is done within this network. We would also like to explore whether and

to what extent Europe and North America can be considered a real

network beyond the UNESCO’s regional organization.

This main aim will be explored through a mixed methods research

design including 4 main steps:

1. Preliminary social network exercise conducted in Montreal,

October 2019, in order to test procedures and identify initial data

set for SNA

2. Web-based investigation of networks using (a) organizational

websites, using the software, Issuecrawler, and (b) Twitter

3. Social network analysis survey

4. Qualitative data collection (interviews with key informants and

focus groups) with participants of phase (2) and (3) to inquire

sense-making processes of data

This vademecum refers exclusively to step 3, Social Network Analysis

3. Research objectives

1. How can understanding GCED providers in the EU and NA as a regional

network assist in strengthening GCED efforts?

a. Who are the actors involved in the network and how are they linked?

b. Who is missing in the network?

c. What are the connections and disconnections among actors, actions,

and beliefs?

100ㆍ 101

2. How do the actors work individually and with others?

a. Who is needed to do this work?

b. What is the potential of the network for future GCED?

3. How can individual and regional organizations’ work be improved through

a more robust network?

4. Timing

• September-October 2020: definition of data set; preparing the

questionnaire

• November: 4 pilot interviews

• December 2020- pilot interviews

• January - March 2021: data collection

• April- May 2021 writing the report

5. Definitions

5.1 Social network analysis

Social network analysis also referred to as “network theory” or “network science”

has interdependency as a point of departure. The starting assumption of this

theoretical and methodological framework is that individual characteristics

(attributes) are not enough to capture the complexity of the phenomenon we aim

at observing.

5.2 Node, ties and networks

In SNA, graphs visualization of networks displays actors as nodes and links or

interactions as ties.

Nodes are entities or actors displayed in a network graph. Examples are people,

political parties, organizations, countries, tweets, webpages and authors.

Ties are links or interactions among nodes in a network graph. Examples are

relationships, trade flows, affiliation, hyperlinks on the web, road traffics and citations.

Possible examples of typology of networks are disease transmission, collaboration

patterns, scientific communities/co-authorships, Influence of social media.

Ties we collect are directed meaning that they take into consideration the direction of tie

therefore A says that is connected to B and B also indicates whether they are connected.

Ties are binary meaning that they indicate only the presence or absence of tie.

We have a whole network design, implying the definition of a list of actors within

a well-defined network boundary. The data includes the ties that are present

among all actors, in this boundary (Robins, 2015, p.36).

5.3 Relationships we aim at mapping

We aim at mapping the following direct ties among all the organizations that are


inside the boundary of our study. These are the key relationships that are usually

studied in policy network studies (Howe, Adam C., Stoddart, Mark C. J., &

Tindall, David B., 2020).

a. Technical information exchange: the organizations whose materials the

organizations regularly peruse for technical/scientific information about

GCED (i.e. newsletters, websites, social media).

b. Long-term policy support: Sometimes one organization provides support

on a policy issue for another organization. The organization also provides

similar support in return. Please indicate the organizations with which your

organization has such a long-term relationship of mutual support regarding

GCED.

c. Meeting to discuss GCED related topics: organizations met in the last 2

months either virtually or in person to discuss GCED policy implementation,

promotion or conceptualization.

d. Perceived policy influence: in a scale from 1 to 4 the level of influence of

each organization in the promotion of GCED in the global North, where 1 =

most influence.

Furthermore, as a concluding question we also asked respondents to reflect on

Europe and North America network as a single region for GCED implementation

and promotion .

5.4 Attributes of the organization we aim at mapping

One of the key properties outlined in network theory is that actors tend to interact

with similar others. We have identified the ones below as we consider one of

these characteristics can be a driver of tie form.

1. Typology of institution (governmental, non- governmental, international

organization, thematic network, educational institution)

2. Salience of GCED to the organization on a scale from 1 to 5

3. Place where the organization is based

4. Source of funding (governmental, private donations,..)

5. Different visions of GCED: conceptualization and goals of GCED

Further readings on SNA

Borgatti, S.P., Foster, P.C., 2003. The network paradigm in organizational

research: a review and typology. Journal of Managment 29, 991–1013.

Borgatti, S.P., Jones, C., Everett, M.G. (1998). Network measures of social capital.

Connect 21, 27–36.

Brandes, U., Robins, G., McCranie, A., & Wasserman, S. (2013). What is network

science? Network Science, 1(1), 1-15.

Kadushin, C. (2012) Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts and

Findings. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

102ㆍ 103

Knoke, D. & Yang, S., (2008). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage

Publications. Robins, G. (2015). Doing Social Network Research. Sage: London

6. Methodology

6.1 Sampling Criteria for data set building

We built a list of policy actors where the participation in the network is defined by

the following criteria:

• Geographical: working in NA and/or Europe or at global level but including

these two geographical areas

• influence, at different level and degree, the governance of GCED policy

implementation in Europe and NA

• play a role in the GCED conceptualisation or definition

• Disseminate and promote and foster GCED

• provide courses in GCED in any level of education

The goal for the SNA part is to define a complete list of nodes (GCED institutions)

to be able to map the direct interaction (link) among them. We take a whole

network approach, which means interviewing every actor that is present in the

boundary we have defined. This is the methodologically strongest approach in

network theory as it allows collecting a complete picture of social/policy space

that we aim at analysing. It allows us to describe the overall characteristics of the

network (network measures) such as density, clustering, core-periphery, but also

the characteristics of the single actor in the network such as centrality, brokerage

and relate their position on the network with the outcome of the activity of the

specific actors.

It also can also allow us to infer on the network formation (i.e. why does the

network has the characteristics we observe) using statistical models such

as Exponential Random Graphs Models. Furthermore, combining interaction

among actors (mapped through the network survey) and beliefs we can identify

advocacy coalition (Weible et al, 2019; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993).

6.2 Building the dataset

To identify the organizations that are part of the sample of organizations that

we aim at interviewing we started from the list of organizations that participated

to the Montreal exercise and the organizations they named (71 in total) but we

excluded the ones that have the following characteristics (n= 32):

• Universities that do not have a specific research centre, department or

programme on GCED: University of Bamberg, University of Newcastle,

University of Oulu, UPENN, Youth University.

• Organizations that are based outside of the geographical area of focus

(north America and Europe): Al-farabi University Tsyllha, eduinclusiva.cl,

Ward.edu.ar, KOICA, OSCE youth engagement, Africa EU commission,

BKM TUSOG Bejiing, BKMC Seoul, UNESCO chair on inclusive education


Cameroun.

• Organizations that are too broad and do not have a specific focus on

GCED: council of Europe, EU, EU Commission, OECD, UN, CTBTO,

UNESCO, UN Youth Envoy, UNOCD.

• Organizations that we were not able to identify clearly: Centre EREE,

Cincinnati Montez, AFS.network, IB- Linkr Education, CIVICUS, Momondo,

Camarim Commission, Mesa de Aciccum, GLEN, UNESCO task force for

education agenda 2030.

• European organizations that did not take part of any of the following key

GCED multi stakeholders namely (Europe and North America Regional

GCED Network Meeting 21-22 November 2018, Lisbon (pt); DEAR Multi-

Stakeholder Group meeting, Brussels, 19th February 2020; UNESCO 2019

Forum on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship,

2 – 3 July, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; Ottawa, Canada 6 to 10 March 2017;

ENVISION 4.7, Helsinki, November 5-7, 2019).

We then complemented the initial list by including other actors as there was

some unbalance between the North American and European organizations, we

complemented the list of the North American organizations with others that took

part in global and North American GCED multi stakeholders meetings (n=18).

Overall, we define the SNA dataset of 58 organizations representing 4 different

typologies of organisations:

1. Civil Society Organizations,

2. Thematic network,

3. Intergovernmental Organizations,

4. Governmental bodies.

6.1.1. How to select the reference person

The reference person should have a key role in the organisation, as well as

access to key information about the institution’s strategy, aims, mission, activities,

and partnerships.

Depending on the size of the organisation, it may be the director, the manager,

the press agent.

6.2 Data collection tools

Data is collected using a questionnaire administered through a structured oral

interview.

The full questionnaire is reported in appendix 1

Interview schedule spreadsheet (ISS)

An important tool for sharing relevant information about the interviewees,

allocated interviewers and interviews dates is the

It can be a shared Excel file with the following columns:

104ㆍ 105

Name of organization

Code (es 01EU, where Eu means Europol)

interviewer

replied to 1° invitation email interview date

to do (if something is not completed, es. Open ended questions sent via email later)

contact person

email

position

phone

contact 2

email

position

website

notes about interview

date of 1 mail sent

date of 2 mail

Structured interviews

For each organisation, a formal interview will be conducted with the reference

person. These interviews should be conducted via Zoom, and they should not be

audio- recorded. Rather, responses should be recorded directly in the Google form.

Type of interview: structured interview

The interview is not an informal conversation, but it is always a professional

conversation that aims at a specific objective. The professional research interview

is not an equal dialogue among partners, but it foresees a specific power

asymmetry as the interviewer defines ways, controls the sequence, and uses

results for his/her objectives.

The interview follows these steps described below:

A. Planning

B. Contacting the participants, and ethical agreement

C. Conducting

D. Storing

E. Analysing

A. Planning the interview

Each team will be responsible for interviewing specific organizations. The criteria

is geographically driven as the sample was built in order to be balanced between

the two areas (31 North American and 30 European) as visible in the ISS present

in Google Drive. In case of intergovernmental organizations, the listed region is

associated with where the organization is based.


Steps:

1. Send the invitation to participate in the online interview. The invitation can

be found in the appendix.

2. If there is no response after one week, contact the respondent by email to

ask when the interview can take place. We must take into consideration

that several phone calls or emails may be needed before the contacted

person will respond.

a. Note: For the organizations that we foresee more difficult to be interview,

we could indicate in the invitation letter that they will be interviewed by a

professor, if we consider this could be an incentive.

3. After the date has been set, identify who will do the interview and send the

Zoom link for the interview. Record the interviewer’s name, along with the

date and time of the interview, in the spreadsheet. Send the Information

and Informed Consent letter regarding ethics, available in the Appendix,

along with the open-ended questions so that interviewees have time to

prepare.

Based on the effort required to contact the organizations, and the importance

of having a response rate higher than 85% to ensure meaningful results, it is

important you would take a last close look at the organizations listed in the google

survey so that we can drop organizations which are key GCED actors.

B. Conducting the interview

Although this is a structured interview where questions are pre-set and only the 2

final questions are open-ended, it is important to carefully plan the interview and

to manage the relationship with the participant in an appropriate way.

Before starting the interview:

• Introduce yourself and your position on the research team.

• Declare the aim of the interview as part of the greater research project, and

answer every question if possible.

This research aims to study Europe and North America as a social

network in order to identify the parameters, relationships, and activities

in the field of GCED. It is designed to identify the actors and how work

is done within this network. We would also like to explore whether and

to what extent Europe and North America can be considered a real

network beyond the UNESCO’s regional organization.

Data collected by administering an interview with the organizations within

the region, as we are doing here today. Data will be processed through a

SNA software (Ucinet or Network Canvas) and results will provide systematic

relational mapping on cooperations, partnerships, resource flows.

106ㆍ 107

• Explain that the interview will not be audio recorded. However, the

responses will be recorded in the Google form.

• Remind the respondent that the interview is not anonymous, as the

identities of the various organizations are key to the research. However,

the focus of the research is on the organization and not the individual, and

identities of individuals will not be disclosed.

• Make clear that data is only accessible to the core research team,

according to university ethical protocols, and it will be destroyed at the end

of the research.

• Before conducting the interview, ensure the respondent verbally consents

to participate, and indicate consent by clicking the appropriate field in the

first question in the Google form. The full information and informed consent

form is available in the Appendix.

• Gesture towards those who are not native English speakers by reassuring

them that they can send supplementary answers to open-ended questions

via a follow up email if necessary.

Box 1: Relational issues

The relationship with the respondent is not random but it has a specific

goal that should be communicated and managed in a conscious way.

The interviewer should be aware that the relationship interviewerrespondent

is asymmetric in nature.

• Remember to fill out YOUR EMAIL in the email field, so you are sent a

copy of the responses. This should be filed in case it is requested by

the interviewee.

• Duration: the interview should last about half an hour.

• Clearly explain the questions to elicit relational data: it is important that

all respondents understand the questions in the same way, otherwise

they will describe a different type of relationship and data would not be

comparable.

• Take particular care explaining Question 10: With ‘ENGAGEMENT AND

INTERACTIONS’, the respondent should select ALL that apply, not just

choose one. That is why it has been noted that respondents may have a

tendency to try to choose one only.

• Be sure to intermittently remind the interviewee that they should be

considering the views and position of their organisation, rather than of

themselves as an individual. This is important as a lot of people are prone

to drifting between the two viewpoints.


At the end of the interview:

• Kindly thank the respondent

• Inform the respondent that they will be informed of the development of

the research and can always reach the research team to add further

information or opinion. Contact information for the research team is

available on the ethics information letter (se appendix).

• Note: the research team will download results from Google once a week in

order to ensure back-up storage.

After the interview

• Record the interview as ‘Complete’ in the shared ISS

• Check replies are recorded in the relevant file

• Complete the Joint Research Journal (see below)

Joint Research Journal

This tool is useful to share among the interviewers reflective and observational

notes during questionnaire administration. It could be a shared document

where researchers title each entry with the organization’s code as listed in the

spreadsheet, along with the name as the interviewer (i.e. 23NA - Name Surname).

Once all of the interviews are complete, download the full set of results

and name the files according to this protocol:

• Code (specifying: ....

o e.g. Name Surname = 01.CGCER.EI.18Nov20.CK

Language issue

Data is collected in English but not all the respondents and the interviewers are

English native speakers. One of the issues is that non-native speakers may find it

hard to formulate a concise answer to an open-ended question when put on the

spot. You can give them the option to write their answer in the Zoom chat, or even

to send them as a follow up email.

Supervision meeting

A weekly supervision meeting with the whole team is advisable in every step of

the research to follow up and discuss research questions, questionnaire design,

piloting survey, data collection and data analysis.

7. Ethical issues

In Appendix a model of informed consent letter is provided. Considering the

nature of our case study, for some research institutions it might be required

a written consent or ethical approval. To simplify procedures and to keep the

relationship with participants more informal, if not explicitly required it could be

108ㆍ 109

advisable to skip the formal ethical approval.

8. Storing and sharing data

8.1 Where to store data collected

Upload in the google drive platform (web URL) all of the data that constitute the

materials for our analysis:

9. Annexes

9.1 Questionnaire

EUNA GCED Survey

We are inviting you to participate in a research project that will identify how

organizations are networked in their Global Citizenship Education work. This

study will focus on the European and North American region as defined by

UNESCO. Your organization has been identified as a contributor to GCED and

we hope you will agree to a short interview about this work. The findings from

this study will be used for a report for the Asia Pacific Centre for Education and

International Understanding and the work of the principal researchers leading the

study. Findings will be presented in a report for organizations working in GCED

as well as in academic writing and presentation to the international academic

community.

We want to assure you that participation is voluntary and even if you choose to

participate, you can change your mind later. You can opt out of the interview any

time.

The plan for this study has been reviewed by a Research Ethics Board at the

University of Alberta. If you have questions about your rights or how research

should be conducted, you can call (780) 492-2615. This office is independent of

the researchers."

Email

I give my consent to participate in the study.

o Yes

o No

Part 1: Description of the Organization

Please respond to all questions in this survey according to your organization's

understanding of global citizenship education (GCED), rather than your personal

understanding.

1. What is your name?


2. What is the name of your organization?

3. What is your role in the organization?

o leadership / direction

o staff

4. What is the typology of your organization:

o Education institution

o Civil society organization

o Governmental body

o Intergovernmental organization

o Thematic network

5. Rank the main role(s) of your organization, where 1 = most important. Rank

as many or as few roles as are relevant to your organization:

Mark only one oval per row.

1 - most important

2

3

4 - least important

110ㆍ 111

Policy development & decision making

Organization Name

Research funding support

Formal education

(schooling)

Teacher education

Non-formal education

Advocacy / lobbying

Network development

Policy development &

decision making

Research funding support

Formal education

(schooling)

Teacher education

Non-formal education

Advocacy / lobbying

Network development

most

important

least

important

1 2 3 4

n.a.

6. Rank the primary level(s) of operation of your organization, where 1 =

most important. Rank as many or as few as are relevant:

Mark only one oval per row.

1 - most important

2

3

4 - least important not applicable

Organization Name

local

regional

national

international

most

important

least

important

1 2 3 4

n.a.


7. How important is GCED for your organization on a scale 1 to 7 (where 1

is the highest)?

Mark only one oval.

1 - very important

2

3

4

5

6

7 - not important at all

8. What percentage of resources does your organization dedicate to

GCED?

o less than 20%

o between 20% and 50%

o more than 50%

Part 2: The views of your organization on global citizenship education

Please respond to all questions in this survey according to your organization's

understanding of global citizenship education (GCED), rather than your

personal understanding.

9. Rank the following statements according to their priority for GCED, where

1 = most important and 6 = least important. Use each ranking number

only once.

Check all that apply.

making the world a better place

providing students with the skills to

compete in a global labor market

developing global competencies

addressing global injustice

post-colonial or decolonial

transformation

fostering harmony and tolerance

1 2 3 4 5

10. Below we have listed organizations are related with GCED promotion in

Europe and North America.

Please consider the following questions while going through the list:

ENGAGEMENT

A: We expect that you will not be familiar with all of the organizations. It is as

important to us which organizations are known as which are not known.

112ㆍ 113

B: Sometimes one organization provides support on a policy issue for another

organization. The organization also provides similar support in return.

Please indicate the organizations with which your organization shares a

long-term and deeply collaborative relationship of mutual support regarding

GCED.

C: Please indicate the organizations whose materials your organization

regularly peruses for technical/scientific information about GCED (i.e.

newsletters, websites, social media).

D: Please indicate with which of the organizations below you have met in

the last 2 months either virtually or in person to discuss GCED policy

implementation.

INFLUENCE

1-5: Please rate the current level of influence of each organization in the

promotion and implementation of GCED in Europe and North America.

11. Do you or other representatives of your organization also represent

other organizations on the list above? If so, which ones?


Part 3: Concluding Open-Ended Questions

These questions are your opportunity to provide further detail. Again, the focus

of the questions is your organization's understanding of GCED, rather than your

personal understanding.

12. What is the understanding of GCED that you use in your organization?

13. In your organization, what are your goals for GCED?

14. Are there other organizations, not included in this survey, that are

influential in the promotion and implementation of GCED? If so, please

indicate the name(s) of the organization(s).

15. In some cases, individuals may be more important in promoting and

implementing GCED than organizations. Aside from organizations,

are there key individuals who you work with in GCED? If yes, please

indicate who they are. *

16. In relation to the provision of global citizenship education, to what

extent can Europe and North America be regarded as a single region?

9.2 Informed consent form

We are inviting you to participate in a research project that will identify how

organizations are networked in their Global Citizenship Education work.

Previous research suggests that such networks generally facilitate the

movement of ideas, people, policies, and practices. This study will focus

on the European and North American region as defined by UNESCO. Your

organization has been identified as a contributor to GCED and we hope you

will agree to a short interview about this work. The findings from this study will

be anonymously used for a report for the Asia Pacific Centre for Education and

International Understanding and the work of the principal researchers leading

114ㆍ 115

the study. Findings will be presented in a report for organizations working in

GCED as well as in academic writing and presentation to the international

academic community.

If you are interested in being interviewed, please reply via email to either Dr.

Lynette Shultz (Lshultz@ualberta.ca) or Dr. Massimiliano Tarozzi (Massimiliano.

Tarozzi@unibo.it). We will go over the details of the study and the consent form

before we begin the interview.

Your Participation in the Study

We are inviting you to participate in a short interview of about 20 minutes

that will help us understand your organization’s work in GCED. In addition to

interviewing people, we are using dironald s burt This will help us identify the

main “hubs” for dissemination of information. The interview will explore your

organization’s connections in this map. We will be interviewing about 50 people

in the region.

The interview will be organized in 5 parts:

• Description of the organization

• The views of your organization on global citizenship education

• Your organization relationships with other key actors

• Your organization affiliation to regional networks

• Your organization values and beliefs about GCED

The interview will be conducted on a secure Zoom link and be recorded to

allow us to capture the information correctly. Your interview recording will be

stored on a personal computer and/or on a cloud service in either Canada or

the Italy used by the researchers. We will transcribe the information and return

a copy to you for checking. At this time, you have an opportunity to clarify or

redact any information from the interview. We hope for a quick turn-around for

this task and within a week, we should be working to compile all the interview

data. The research reporting will begin as soon as our analysis has been

completed. We would be happy to provide a copy of the final report for you and

your organization.

There is very limited risk to you as a participant in this study. We can assure you

that we will be very careful with the information you provide. While your personal

information will be reported anonymously, the name of your organization and all

organizations will be made public in the research through the visual mapping

of networked relations and in the discussion of the European – North American

network. This publicness, we believe, is of benefit to all organizations working

in GCED in the region.

We want to assure you that participation is voluntary and even if you choose to

participate, you can change your mind later. You can opt out of the research


any time up to 1 week after the transcript has been returned to you for

checking. It is at this point that we begin to aggregate the data and it is not

possible to remove specific information at this point and beyond.

All data will be stored in a safe, password protected, encrypted computer

file for 5 years. It will only be used by members of the study team and for the

purpose we have outlined in this letter. Members of the Study Team are the

researchers (listed above) and the Directors of the Asia Pacific Centre for

Education and International Understanding (APCEIU) and the Ban Ki-moon

Centre.

"The plan for this study has been reviewed by a Research Ethics Board at the

University of Alberta. If you have questions about your rights or how research

should be conducted, you can call (780) 492-2615. This office is independent

of the researchers."

Consent Statement

There are two options for giving consent. You can either:

a) give it verbally when prompted during the interview session, or

b) complete the below and return it to your interviewer to receive a written

record.

I have read this form and the research study has been explained to me. I have

been given the opportunity to ask questions and my questions have been

answered. If I have additional questions, I have been told whom to contact.

I agree to participate in the research study described above. I will receive a

copy of this consent form after I sign it.

Participant’s Name (printed) and Signature

Date

Name (printed) and Signature of Person Obtaining Consent

Date

116ㆍ 117

9.3 Invitation letter

Dear

My name is and I am [my

position] at the [affiliation]. I am writing to you as member of an international

research team headed by Professors Dr. Lynette Shultz at the University of

Alberta in Canada and Dr. Massimiliano Tarozzi at the University of Bologna in

Italy that is investigating global citizenship education. The project is funded by

the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU)

at UNESCO, and the Ban Ki-moon Centre.

The research project is inquiring into the networks of actors across Europe and

North America that participate in the field of global citizenship education. We

seek to understand the relationships, activities, and networks that structure

global citizenship education in these regions. In order to do so, we are

contacting institutions and organizations that can be regarded as key actors

in global citizenship education. The purpose of the research is not to evaluate

organizations but to describe relationships within the network, including how

these function according to geography (regional, national, continental, crosscontinental).

We would be grateful if you would accept to be interviewed online according to

a brief structured questionnaire, which will take approximately 20 minutes. We

can connect via a secure Zoom link at a time that is most convenient for you

during the period of December 9th to 19th, 2020.

NOTE: If you believe someone else from your organization could better speak

to these topics, I would greatly appreciate to be put in contact with this person

instead.

The interview is organized in 5 parts:

• Description of the organization

• The views of your organization on global citizenship education

• Your organization relationships with other key actors

• Your organization affiliation to regional networks

• The vision of your organization on GCED

The interview will be recorded and conducted according to ethical research

protocols that protect your privacy and freedom to withdraw. I will send the

details prior to the interview. Once the research is finished, I will be also happy

to send the main research results, if you are interested.

Please let me know if you have any questions. The principal investigators and I

are fully available to provide any further information you need.


If you are interested, please indicate a few dates/times between December

9th to 19th, 2020 that work best for you, and I will send you further information

about the project, along with our ethical research protocols and consent form.

Thank you in advance for your support of this research

9.4 Interview preparation letter

Hi ,

Thank you so much for taking the time to be part of this research project on

global citizenship education (GCED). My name is , and I am part

of the research team. I am emailing to set up your interview and share relevant

information to help you prepare.

Interview Scheduling and Logistics

Based on your email, I have booked your interview at with

. Please join the interview via Zoom at the link:

I will also send you a calendar request with the Zoom link embedded.

Ethics Information

I have attached an introduction to the research project that includes all of the

ethical information, including how your data will be used and protected. As

you will note, the interview will not be recorded, but we will be noting your

responses in a Google form. Please take a few moments to read this information

in advance of the interview, at which time you will be asked to provide your

verbal consent to these terms.

Preparation for the Interview

While most of the interview questions are brief and closed-ended, there are a

few open-ended questions. Two of these ask you to share your organization’s

(a) understanding of and (b) goals for GCED. If you like, you can prepare

responses to these questions in advance of the interview.

You may also want to reflect on the key partners and networks that influence

GCED in your region. Finally, you may want to reflect on whether you consider

Europe and North America to work together towards the provision of GCED.

Questions?

If you have any questions in advance of the interview, please email me anytime.

Thank you again for your time, and we look forward to the interview.

All the best,

118ㆍ 119

Europe and



Network

Research Report

비매품/무료

ISBN 979-11-87819-52-3 (PDF)

Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?