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 


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






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 

Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

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 


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 


North-America 

040ㆍ041

Chart 5 : Importance attributed to GCED by region 

0.7 

0.6 


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 


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 


Entrepreneurship 

Light Blue 

Decoloniality 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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






비매품/무료 

ISBN 979-11-87819-52-3 (PDF)

Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?