Framing the map of international education (1969-1998)

http://jri.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Research in International

http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/2/123The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1475240905054386

2005 4: 123Journal of Research in International EducationRobert Sylvester

Framing the map of international education (1969-1998)

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Research in International EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jri.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jri.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/2/123.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 11, 2005Version of Record >>

at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 16, 2014jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 16, 2014jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jri.sagepub.com/

http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/2/123

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jri.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jri.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/2/123.refs.html

http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/2/123.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Introduction

The year 1969 was, by all evidence, a landmark year in terms of the litera-ture describing international education in any systematic manner. As notedin the second of three essays on the history of attempts to define inter-national education (Sylvester, 2003), a number of significant studies ininternational education were seen in the decades following the end ofthe SecondWorld War. The first two scholarly and large-scale investigationsinto the emerging field of international education after the Second WorldWar were published in the same year by Becker (1969) and by Leach(1969), who undertook his seminal study of international schoolsaround the world. The remaining decades of the 20th century would be

123

ART I C L E

Framing the map ofinternational education(1969–1998)ROBERT SYLVE STERBridgewater State College, Massachusetts

JRIEJ O URNA L O F R E S E A R CH I N

I N T E RNAT I ONA L E DU C AT I ON

& 2 0 0 5 I N T E RNAT I ONA L

B AC C A L AU R E AT E O R G AN I Z AT I ON

(www.ibo.org)

and S A G E P U B L I C AT I O N S

(www.sagepubl ica t ions.com)

VOL 4(2) 123–151 ISSN 1475-2409

DOI: 10.1177/1475240905054386

Considering the period 1969–1998 andthen building upon the detailedexamination of research documents in theperiod 1893–1969 in two previousarticles, this article seeks to completeconsideration of how internationaleducation has been defined over the courseof a century. Utilizing a matrix involvingthe concepts of international understandingand world citizenship, the article thenseeks to place the major research figuresof that century within a suggestedframework.

KEYWORDS international education, history, 20thcentury

En se concentrant sur la periode allant de 1969 a 1998 et en se

basant sur deux articles precedemment publies qui examinaient en

detail les travaux de recherche effectues entre 1893 et 1969, cet

article tente de completer l’examen des facons dont l’education

internationale a ete definie au cours d’un siecle. En utilisant un

tableau comprenant les concepts de comprehension internationale et

de citoyennete mondiale, cet article tente de placer les principaux

chercheurs de cette periode dans un cadre suggere.

Este artıculo intenta completar el analisis de las formas en que se ha

definido a la educacion internacional durante mas de un siglo,

considerando el perıodo 1969–1998, y basandose en dos artıculos

anteriores que examinaron detalladamente los trabajos de

investigacion llevados a cabo entre 1893 y 1969. Se ha construido

una matriz-marco con dos conceptos principales: entendimiento

internacional y civismo global, y se ha ubicado en este marco a las

figuras mas destacadas en el terreno de la investigacion durante el

perıodo estudiado.

at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 16, 2014jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from


highlighted by the conceptual work of Hanvey (1982), the continuingwork of UNESCO (1974) in supporting education for international under-standing, and the extensive historical work of Heater (1990, 1996, 2002),who was seemingly without peer in the examination of education forworld citizenship. Many others also sought to provide clarity to a fieldwhose rigor of definition continued to elude scholars during the centurysince Charles Dickens (1864) who, writing in the context of a proposalfor a European system of private education, first mentioned both theterms international education and international school in his weekly newspaper. Inthe closing decades of the 20th century the field of international educationcontinued to be described with relatively imprecise terms. Other thanHanvey’s pioneering work, research in the field persisted in its almost com-plete lack of conceptual models from which to build a defensible point ofdefinition.

A few insights into the terms associated with international educationmight be useful at this point. Heater (2002), in reviewing the history ofefforts towards education for world citizenship, suggested a simplifiedallocation to the nomenclature be adopted in this field. Heater noted:

‘Education for world citizenship,’ ‘education for international understanding’and ‘global education’ are terms that became increasingly widely used in thetwentieth century. The first is particularly associated with teaching and relatedactivities in schools in the UK; the second has been used by UNESCO; and thethird has been the favored term in the USA. (Heater, 2002: 165)

For the purposes of this review, global education, education for inter-national understanding and education for world citizenship shall be seento share overlapping territories within the field of international education.Heater’s proposed allocation of a geographically distributed use of theseterms will not be taken at face value and should be considered criticallyin further lines of enquiry. As one of the twin conceptual pillars in defininginternational education (alongside education for international understand-ing), the persistent motif of world citizenship has been extensivelyresearched by Heater (1996, 2002), who has also tracked its progress asa factor in education (Heater, 1990). He outlined the sustaining visionof world citizenship, historically, in the following manner:

World citizenship in the sense of an individual’s consciousness of belonging to acommunity of the whole of mankind emerged in the Graeco-Roman world,especially as an element of Stoic thought. It then resurfaced in the classically-impregnated thought of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In the meantime,the notion of world empire was a product of Roman imperial propaganda and

124

Journal of Research in International Education 4(2)



myth, which were revived in the early Middle Ages and persisted with varyingfortunes down to modern times. In the 20th century the twin themes of worldcitizenship and world government have run in parallel, though democratised inthe mainstream style. (Heater, 1996: x–xi)

This third and final essay on the definition of international education willoutline the remaining significant scholarly attempts to provide a degree ofdefinition to international education in the last three decades of the 20thcentury. It will also bring together the large number of attempts at defini-tion of the field throughout the past hundred years raised in the first twoarticles (Sylvester, 2002, 2003) and propose a conceptual framework forfuture consideration of research in the field. This will include a proposedmatrix model which attempts to portray the territory claimed by thevarious definitions of international education surveyed during the morethan a century of work.

Genuine international education

In the late 1960s, Professor R. Freeman Butts of Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, made a distinction between government-based internationaleducation efforts and what he viewed as ‘genuine’ international education.Butts argued that government-based programs, such as ‘cultural affairs’ and‘information’ programs, were outside the scope of a proper definition ofinternational education. In his view, any definition of international educa-tion should be restricted to ‘formal education in an independent academicsetting’ (Swenson, 1999: 4–5). Butts identified three main elements ofinternational education:

The first [element] is the objective study of other societies in the curriculaof domestic schools and colleges in order to impart accurate knowledge tostudents at all levels . . . The second element is the opportunity for students,teachers and scholars to study at educational institutions outside their owncountries. . . . The third element is the educational assistance given by wealthynations to help improve the health, economy, educational opportunity, andgeneral well-being of poorer nations. (Butts, 1971a: 164–79)

Butts (1969: 7) previously had argued that educational scholarship shouldhave realized that the term ‘international’ was far too provincial in a grow-ing global existence. In an historical survey of 30 years of internationaledu-cational research and publication, Butts (in Shane, 1969a) reviewed thedefining of international education by Brickman (1950), Scanlon (1960)and Spaulding et al. (1968). Butts then went on to stipulate a definition

Sylvester: Framing the map of international education

125



of international education for the Sixty-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education in the following manner:

the writer believes that the term ‘international education’ has emerged in the late1960s as a kind of all-embracing concept to refer to the various deliberate waysin which nations use educational means for educational ends in their effortsto (a) learn from or borrow from one another, (b) influence or assist in thedevelopment of one another, and (c) respond educationally at home to actionsand ideas emanating from outside their borders. (Butts, 1969: 9)

It might be argued that, in the 1960s, international education emergedas a convenient rubric upon which to consolidate educational programsthat were adjunct to development aid. International education was, in thisrespect by definition an outgrowth of a culture of foreign aid in which anunequal exchange of human capital was intended. Later, Butts (1971a)further outlined a more global definition of international education:

International education will be particularly concerned with the study of the roleof education as an international force in the modernization process. . . . Inter-national education will also embrace direct preparation and specialized trainingfor active participation in the international processes. (Butts,1971a: 33–4)

Butts (1971b), like many other researchers involved in international edu-cation, took a long historical view of the conditions in the world that pro-vide an impulse for the aims of both international and comparativeeducation. Butts observed that the ‘unevenness’ of the process of moderni-zation in the world was, in large part, a function of differences in edu-cational opportunities. However, so long as the originating drive forinternational education programs rested with a national program offoreign aid, the territory of international education would be, by defini-tion, sensitive to the circumstances of the existing national political envir-onment. The matrix adopted by this article will reflect the importance ofpolitical sensitivities in the definition of international education.

Large scale studies of international education

In June of 1969 James Becker (1969) of the Foreign Policy Association(US) published a landmark research study of the ‘objectives, needs andpriorities in international education’ in US public schools. The study setout to first answer the question ‘What is international education?’ It alsosought to answer the question ‘How can international education be most

126




fruitfully defined or conceptualized?’ Becker set out through interviews,conferences and meetings to ‘lay the foundation for a continuing and sys-tematic examination of the needs, objectives and priorities in internationaleducation’. Becker described the prevailing conception of internationaleducation in 1969 in the following manner:

A survey of the curriculum guides, teaching materials and approaches used inmany schools suggests the existence of two widely prevailing operating con-ceptions of international education. The first (and the one that seems to havetraditionally dominated much of elementary education) is the idea of inter-national education as education about other lands and peoples. The second(and not unrelated) conception is the perception of international educationas the instruction that occurs in certain specified courses or domains of tradi-tional academic concern such as foreign area studies, international relations,foreign policy, cross-national comparative studies and world history. (Becker,1969: 17)

Becker then critically observed such conceptions as being correct butinadequate. He called for international education that would include amuch higher study of human interdependence. Becker noted that thetraditional concept of international education failed to acknowledge thereality of a growing phenomenon of interdependence in the modernworld. Becker argued that international education should be an approachwhich concerns itself with ‘worldminded frames of reference’ and shouldalso, at the level of curriculum integration, seek to utilize the disciplinesnormally associated with international studies (that is, area studies, foreignpolicy, comparative studies and international relations, among others)which led Becker and his group of associates, at the outset, to develop aprovisional definition:

International or world affairs education refers to the learning experienceswhich children and adolescents undergo both within and outside of theschool, that affect or condition the orientation they develop toward the inter-national dimension of the social environment. (Becker, 1969: 19)

It could be argued that the 1969 report by Becker and the Foreign PolicyAssociation uncovered a mythology of absolute sovereignty at the levelof the nation-state, which was largely reinforced by an abiding sense ofself-sufficiency by the citizens of that nation. The authors noted thatglobal interdependence gradually undermines this mythology of nationalself-sufficiency, and the subsequent erosion of a civic mythology resultsin strident and suitably conservative attempts to save or return to a former


127



state of national pride. This also is associated with a reluctance to view thehuman processes in a global context. As Becker noted:

we confront the hard and complex question of what basic purposes underlieand guide our efforts to educate young humans about the world into whichthey have been cast. Can the underlying purpose of international educationbe legitimately restricted to the development of an aggregated fund of knowl-edge about the different elements that make up the world, or should our ambi-tions extend to the development of some understanding of the world perceivedas a totality? (Becker, 1969: 26)

This struggle between the perceived need to maintain an educationbounded by the intellectual territory of the nation-state and the apparentlycompeting impulse to view the world as a single entity has been a persistenttheme in the literature. The implications of this concept for the problem ofdefining international education were, in principle, clear to Becker:

A definition appropriate to the needs of the time should illuminate the globalinterconnectedness that characterizes the contemporary world and point up thefact that the form of ‘international understanding’ required by tomorrow’s citizensconsists of some understanding of the world perceived as a totality or as awhole. (Becker, 1969: 26)

Becker’s working group later defined international education in the follow-ing manner: ‘International education consists of those social experiencesand learning processes through which individuals acquire and changetheir orientations to international or world society and their conceptionof themselves as members of that society’ (Becker, 1969: 30). The pro-visional definition later became a more refined product upon which theBecker Study proceeded. It was based upon the notion of internationaleducation as education about the world system:

we . . . conceptualize international education as – The social experience and thelearning process through which individuals acquire and change their images ofthe world perceived as a totality and their orientation toward particular compo-nents of the world system. (Becker, 1969: 64–5)

The exposing of several unfolding stages in the defining of internationaleducation by Becker provided a glimpse into the potential layers of tensionthat seem to exist between a politically neutral view of education at alllevels, and a brand of education at all levels which is driven (howeverremotely) by national political considerations.

128




Further attempts at a definition

Robert Leestma (1969), an associate commissioner for International Edu-cation in the US Office of Education, writing in a special issue of AmericanEducation, proposed a working definition of international education:

Perhaps the most fundamental definition of international education is anyexperience that reduces ethnocentrism. In this sense international educationaims at developing an understanding of the values, perspectives and lifespaces (the personal environment of the individual) of those who are differentfrom ourselves – whoever ‘we’ may be. (Leestma, 1969: 6)

Leestma also provided a menu-driven approach to defining internationaleducation. He (Leestma, 1969: 6) proposed six categories that inter-national education would include at the level of curriculum: (1) the studyof other lands; (2) the interdisciplinary study of world affairs; (3) com-parative and cross-cultural studies; (4) educational exchange and studyabroad; (5) technical assistance to educational development in othercountries; and (6) international cooperation in intellectual cooperation.Leestma revised his several elements of ‘global education’ as applied tointernational studies a decade later:

Leestma’s Elements of Global Education

1. Unity in diversity of mankind2. Human rights education3. Global interdependence4. Intergenerational responsibility5. International cooperation.(Leestma, 1979, cited in Vestal, 1994: 14)

Shane (1969b), while reflecting on a report on ‘worldmindedness’ educationfrom 1916, stipulated a definition of international education by firstnoting that it was at best a ‘basket term’ which was associated with severaldifferent meanings and connotations. Having noted that weakness of defi-nition, Shane then went on to stipulate a definition as:

the accumulating body of accurate information and mind-opening experience,selected and directed by the school, which determines the attitudes and theactions of student in matters related to the peoples and policies of nationsbeyond the borders of his own country. (Shane 1969b: 273n9)


129



Deutsch (1970) in his oft-cited study of international education, beganhis work with a detailed consideration of the meaning of the term inter-national education in order to frame his work:

Even a brief review of the literature reveals that ‘international education’ has beenused as a generic term to include: the study of non-Western cultures; educationfor world understanding; American studies abroad; programs of educationalexchange, of both students and teachers; and university programs such as edu-cational technical assistance and institution-building in developing nations.Since the term ‘international education’ has been used so broadly, it would be mean-ingless if not audacious to restrict its use to some very limited area (Deutsch,1970: 1)

Griffin and Spence (1970), in setting out to describe the results of a worldconference on the topic of ‘Cooperative International Education’ held in 1970,offered a wide-ranging definition of the term ‘international education’:

The term international education has been used to refer variously to curriculum con-tent that deals with other countries and societies, with international relationsamong countries, exchange of students between countries, assistance toother countries for educational development, training of specialists for diplo-matic and other international work, cultural relations programs betweennations and the general informing of the public on world affairs. (Griffinand Spence, 1970: 1)

David King, writing in 1971 of the landmark study of international educa-tion by James Becker in 1969, further elaborated on the definition of inter-national education that was presented in a report by the Foreign PolicyAssociation: ‘schools must help children and young people to develop aninternational understanding; and not an international understanding in the waythat we have traditionally used it – the sort of ‘‘strange-lands-and-friendly-people’’ approach. Instead the implication is that students mustbe led toward an understanding of the world as a single unit’ (Becker, 1969:71). As a further clarification of the definition of ‘international education’King noted:

According to the definition of the Study, international education is not designedto foster a sense of world citizenship that competes with the nation-state for theindividual’s loyalty, but to develop citizens who are capable of seeing that thenation is not the only ‘basis of organizing to carry out the functions of society.(King, 1971: 19)

130




King (1971) viewed the goals of international education as embracingthe study of ‘planet-wide society’ which avoided ethnocentric curriculumthemes and emphasized human interrelatedness and future studies.Importantly, King warned that the aims of international education mustinclude the study of a global society ‘that will be characterized bychange, ambiguity, growing inter-relatedness and continued conflict’(King, 1971: pp. 20–1). Years later, in surveying the history of definingthe term ‘international education’, Arum and deWater (1992), notedKing’s (1971) definition [cited above]: ‘. . . the social experience and thelearning process through which individuals acquire and change theirimages of the world’ (1971: 14).Matthews, in an unpublished doctoral dissertation on the model of

international education developed by the Harvard researcher, RobertUlich (1971), drew extensively on both an analysis of Ulich’s body ofwork as well as an in-depth interview held with Ulich in 1970. Matthewscites Ulich’s definition of ‘international education’ from that interview inthe following manner:

In brief, then, Robert Ulich’s theory of international education becomes thefollowing: international education is the attempt to use formal schooling todevelop and [sic] appreciation and acceptance of foreign cultures, a sense ofunity with humanity, and a commitment to its tasks by evoking an inter-nationally extendable sense of openness toward, oneness with, and responsibil-ity for others through a certain scheme of experiential and academic-vocationalinstruction. (Matthews, 1971: 39)

Such an attempt to define international education in such a universalmanner was well within the wide-ranging territory claimed for inter-national education throughout the period of the 20th century.

UNESCO’s role in defining international education

Following the long-term efforts in the 1960s by UNESCO (1972a) tofurther define international education (identified as ‘education for inter-national understanding’), a text was drawn up by a meeting of expertsin August, 1970 under the title of ‘Some Reflections on the Meaning ofEducation for International Understanding and Peace’ (cited in Unescodocument 17C/19, Annex II: 22, found in UNESCO, 1972a) The textagreed to by a meeting of experts reflected, to a large degree, the resultsof research undertaken by Becker (1969), Anderson (1968) and others.


131



It represents a very significant examination of the term, at least from a poli-tical standpoint:

International understanding is taken here to mean the capability of people tocomprehend the complexity and variety of human relationships affectingtrans-national and international relations, whether in cultural, social, economicor political matters; to see these relationships in a world-wide context; and tosee the necessity of adjusting them in such a way as to advance human welfarewithin a peaceful world order. International understanding also involves a feel-ing of oneness with humanity and the initiation of behavior patterns appropri-ate for the furthering of human welfare as awhole. To designate these objectivesUNESCO is urged to find a more pithy and pertinent phrase than education forinternational understanding. (UNESCO, 1972: 23)

The same preliminary UNESCO (1972a) document goes on to present adiscourse on ‘education for international understanding’ by noting thatthe conceptualizing of humanity as a ‘single whole’ is as important asthe notion of universal human rights. The document also encourages theview that cultural diversity represents human capital equivalent to a heri-tage for the entire human population. This type of moral and civic edu-cation, the report urges, should be continuous from the earliest daysof schooling as ‘children and young people respond readily to discussionof issues that cross national boundaries’ (UNESCO, 1972a: 24). ThisUNESCO effort was soon followed by a very significant link made byUNESCO between international education and its central theme of educa-tion for international understanding. At the 1972 General Session ofUNESCO, consideration was given to the development of the term ‘educa-tion for international understanding’ and a brief history of UNESCO’s worktoward defining international education was developed in the officialreport of the General Session’s study of the topic:

In 1950, the expression ‘education for world citizenship’ occurred inUNESCO’s basic programme, and was retained by the General Conference inthe programme which it adopted in 1952 for the following biennium. Butthe emergence of this concept, no less political and legal than it was socialand educational, ‘might be taken to imply direct . . . allegiance to some sover-eign power other than that of the existing States’, whereas the aim was ‘to helptrain people who, faithful to the international obligations undertaken by thatcountry, [would] for that very reason be faithful to the international obligationsundertaken by that country.’ Various reactions demonstrated the reality of thisrisk and prompted the Director-General to propose in 1952 the title ‘Educationfor living in a World Community’, but only the English version of this expres-sion was used in the programme for 1953–1954. In 1954, the expert com-

132




mittee to study the principles and methods of education for living in a worldcommunity strongly urged that this title be replaced by ‘Education for Inter-national Understanding and Co-operation’ which is to be found in the pro-gramme adopted by the General Conference at its eighth session. (UNESCO,1974: 9)

The ‘risk’ highlighted by the working group constituted an apparentattempt to avoid altogether any language that would challenge an underly-ing assumption of sovereignty over education at the national level. Thewidely-cited UNESCO (1972b) Report ‘Learning to Be’ also reflected onthe purposes of international education when it linked a common human-ity with the purpose of education:

Our mission of education is to help men see foreigners not as abstractions but asconcrete beings, with their own reasons, sufferings and joys, and to discern acommon humanity, among the various nations. (UNESCO, 1972b:153)

One of the most globally significant pronouncements in the 20th centuryon the definition of international education came at the UNESCO GeneralConference of November 1974 in Paris. After two decades of detailed con-sideration of the meaning and implications of international education,UNESCO was finally in a position to provide a framework for defininginternational education and expressing its aims and objectives as well. Inthe 1974 document, the General Conference first set about to provide aworking definition of the term ‘international education’:

The terms international understanding, co-operation and peace are to be considered as anindivisible whole based on the principle of friendly relations between peoplesand States having different social and political systems and on the respect forhuman rights and fundamental freedoms. In the text of this recommendation,the different connotations of these terms are sometimes gathered together in aconcise expression, ‘international education’. (UNESCO, 1974: 1)

The General Conference then set out to establish the aims of internationaleducation in the context of the charter documents of that world body:

Education should be infused with the aims and purposes set forth in the Charterof the United Nations, the Constitution of UNESCO and the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights, particularly Article 26, paragraph 2, of the last-named,which states: ‘Education shall be directed to the full development of the humanpersonality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and funda-mental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship


133



among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities ofthe United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (UNESCO, 1974: 2)

The world body then set out to outline the educational objectives of inter-national education in a context similar to that set out by Hanvey’s (1982)conceptual model almost a decade later:

UNESCO Guiding Principles of International Education

1. A global perspective at all levels2. Respect for all people and cultures3. Awareness of growing human interdependence4. Communication ability5. Awareness of human rights and duties6. International solidarity and co-operation7. Individual problem-solving for community, nation and world.(adapted from UNESCO, 1974: 2)

The significance and historical role of the 1974 UNESCO Recommendationwas supported by Burgenthal and Torney (1976) when they observed:‘Given the world we live in, this is a significant accomplishment [1974Recommendations] because it provides a theoretical basis and justificationfor the promotion of international education on a national as well as aglobal basis . . .’ (Burgenthal and Torney, 1976: 20). Significantly, a laterUNESCO effort (UNESCO, 1995) still used the 1974 document as a prece-dent (section 1, paragraph 2) although education for international under-standing was not ‘featured’ in the title of the document. The call of all theUNESCO efforts after the 1950s falls well short, though, of citizenship thatwould be global, in its limiting description of ‘true education for citizen-ship which includes an international dimension . . .’ (IV, no 16). The docu-ment’s proposed role for higher education comes closest to a universalperspective when the document challenges institutions to ‘ensure thatstudents appreciate the interdependence of States in an increasingly globalsociety’ (IV, no 31). These multiple theoretical compromises, driven bythe apparent protection of national sovereignty, are consistently in evidencethroughout UNESCO’s five decades of efforts to define international educa-tion. Institutionally, UNESCO tended to display a high degree of sensitivitytoward political considerations that have been inherent in the notion ofnational sovereignty over educational matters.

134




Following UNESCO’s lead

Lee Anderson of Northwestern University and James Becker of IndianaUniversity provided a rare critical analysis of the prevailing conceptionsof the term ‘international education’ when they presented a workingpaper (Anderson and Becker, 1976) at a UNESCO-sponsored ‘meeting ofexperts’ held at Michigan State University. They began their critique byreflecting on the existing conceptions of international education, whichincluded the study of ‘foreign’ cultures and courses in international rela-tions. Anderson and Becker noted that these two concepts were inadequatein trying to realize the objectives set out by UNESCO in its recommenda-tions related to education for international understanding (UNESCO,1974):

The first conception – international education as the study of foreign societiesand cultures – suffers from at least three deficiencies as judged against thesegoals and objectives [of the 1974 UNESCO Recommendation cited above]:In the first place, this conception of international education builds a ‘we-they’or ‘us-them’dichotomy into the heart of the educational enterprise . . . Secondly,this view of international education obscures the degree to which the study ofone’s own community and nation have important international dimensions . . .Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the concept of international educationas education about foreign peoples and cultures obscures the global characterof human experience in the contemporary world. (Anderson and Becker,1976: 3–4)

Anderson and Becker also were critical of the defining of international edu-cation as that which is involved in the study of ‘foreign societies’ exclu-sively. They believed that the ‘emergence of a world system’ made itnecessary to adopt a systems approach to international education. Theyalso faulted the exclusive focus on national institutions and systems asignoring the contributions that thousands of non-governmental organiza-tions have made to an emergent global system. In their view, internationaleducation should demonstrate the role of the individual in ‘transnationalprocesses, institutions, and problems’ (Anderson and Becker, 1976: 5–7).Following this detailed deconstruction of the prevailing conceptions ofinternational education, Anderson and Becker then offered a simplesolution:

It seems to us that we might usefully view international education as educationfor responsible citizen involvement and effective participation in global society.(Anderson and Becker, 1976: 8)


135



Lee Anderson (1981), in a paper presented to a conference of theNational Council on Education Research (US), provided an extended defi-nition of international education for the purposes of ‘researching inter-national education in schools’. Anderson provided a stipulated definitionin the following manner:

International education can be fruitfully defined as education about the natureof the planet Earth, education about the nature of the human species, andeducation about the nature of the social structure of the world as a whole.(Anderson, 1981: 3)

Such a universal perspective was provided by only a handful of researchers(including Heater, 1990; Leach, 1969; Pike and Selby, 1988) who eachundertook both an ideologically progressive and politically neutralapproach to the definition of international education.

The idealistic and the pragmatic

Burn, writing in 1980 of international education programs in universities,reflected that since the Second World War, ‘international education hastended to react to shifting currents in international relations’ (Burn,1980: 1). Burn also focused on the aspects of perspective and parochialismin the American ‘brand’ of international education. Burn noted that such afundamental concept as ‘global perspective’ could embrace meanings aswidely disparate as examining issues in an international context or at theother extreme, determining that education, at its root, should embrace a‘whole world’ outlook. Burn called for a transformation of the goals ofeducation in a direction which would ensure, at least at the universitylevel, that subjects are presented in such a manner that students becomeaware of the ‘interrelatedness of all nations and the commonality of suchproblems as poverty and discrimination’ (Burn, 1980: 5).

Spaulding et al. (1982) indicated that international education cannot beconsidered ‘a clearly defined professional or disciplinary term’. Theseresearchers, however, noted that it was ‘a useful term to label a widerange of activities and research interests’ (Spaulding et al., 1982: 948).These researchers also outlined two major ‘strands’ or models in inter-national education:

Historically, the field has consisted of perhaps two major strands of interest:the idealistic, which has stressed education and exchange experiences for thepurposes of encouraging international understanding and peace, and thepragmatic, which has stressed the need . . . to prepare internationally sophisti-

136




cated manpower who can more effectively serve the political, economic andsocial needs of the country and the world. (Spaulding et al., 1982: 954)

We have adopted, for the purpose of this mapping exercise, an approach tothe examination of international education in which the twin conceptualpillars of education for international understanding and education forworld citizenship can be viewed in relation to the degree to which nationalpolitical interests are strong or weak influences in the defining of theterritory of the field. While it has been widely considered useful to proposeeither an ‘ideological’ or ‘pragmatic’ focus to the field, what has emergedfrom a detailed consideration of the historical statements of definition isthat they tend to be distinguished either by strong or weak ties or influ-ences to national political interests. Therefore, the twin pillars themselves(education for international understanding and education for world citi-zenship) could be viewed, in the context of this examination, as also denot-ing a pragmatic or ideological perspective which could then be consideredagainst political sensitivities.

Hanvey’s conceptual model

Robert Hanvey, in an essay first presented in 1976, proposed a detailed con-ceptual model of what he termed education for a global perspective. His model hasserved, since that time, as a unique conceptual benchmark in the history ofdefining international education. Hanvey’s (1982) monograph defined thefield in the following manner:

Education for a global perspective is that learning which enhances the individual’s ability to under-stand his or her condition in the community and the world and improve the ability to make effectivejudgements [italics in original] . . . It provides the individual with a realistic per-spective on world issues, problems and prospects, and an awareness of therelationships between an individual’s enlightened self-interest and the concernsof people elsewhere in the world. (1982: 1)

Hanvey’s model was considered seminal by Pike and Selby (1988: 37),who also critically noted that the model was ‘insufficiently forceful in itspromotion of the need for a global perspective’. It did remain, however,one of the few detailed conceptual models related to international educa-tion in the 20th century and one of the most frequently-cited works relatedto international education in the last 30 years. Heater (1990: 155–6) citedHanvey’s conceptual work as ‘especially significant’. Heater also cited themodel proposed by Pike and Selby (1988) as ‘the most recent formulafor education for world citizenship’ (Heater, 1990: 156). By comparison,


137



Hanvey’s work clearly influenced the framework outlined later by Pike andSelby.

In a more recent historical survey of global education programs in theWest (especially in the USA and the UK), Hicks (2003) found the threecommon concepts of interdependence, connections and multiple perspec-tives. He also endorsed the conceptual work of Hanvey (1982), Heater(1990), Pike and Selby (1988) and Tye (1990). Torsten Husen (1985)of the University of Stockholm provided a scholarly framework for thedefinition of international education in the 1985 edition of The InternationalEncyclopedia of Education, Research and Studies:

International education as a scholarly pursuit is a cross-disciplinary study ofinternational and intercultural educational problems in their social context. Ittherefore overlaps to some extent with comparative education but goesbeyond it in its international orientation. International education is, however,not limited to purely academic pursuits, since it includes all educative effortsthat aim at fostering an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes.(Husen, 1985: 2660)

In the same encyclopedia Heater (1985) offered a somewhat different viewof the meaning of international education:

International education or studies is a convenient generalized term to embrace anumber of titles that denote an approach to the subject matter from a particularperspective. Other terms that have been in use at different times or in differentcountries include: education for world citizenship; education for internationalunderstanding; global studies; world studies; and peace studies. (Heater, 1985:2666)

Almost a decade later Husen extended his definition of international edu-cation to include both the ‘objectives of the content’ of education as well asthe ‘institutionalization’ of such work (Husen, 1994: 2972). He proposedthe study of international education from the perspectives of historicaldevelopment, goals and objectives, implementation and institutionalarrangements.

Torney-Purta framed the major research questions about internationaleducation in terms of the common assumptions which are made regardingthe field: ‘The most common approach to international education andviews of other nations seems to be based on several assumptions that arenot usually examined’ (Torney-Purta, 1989: 22). Torney-Purta arguedthat those assumptions would include, first, that the nation state is themost appropriate unit of analysis of the world, second, that it is inherently

138




valuable to encourage children’s interest in other nations and, third, thatit is useful to view nations as independent units, except for perceivedenemies. Torney-Purta later presented a detailed view of a definition ofinternational education through a background statement of ‘goals andvalues’ with regard to a proposed ‘Alliance for Education in Global andInternational Studies’ in North America:

an education with a global perspective develops in students the knowledge,skills, and attitudes required for living successfully and responsibly in a chan-ging nation and world. Global education is multi-disciplinary, offering instruc-tion about a changing world in the arts, humanities, sciences, and technicalsciences, as well as in the social sciences and in foreign languages. (Torney-Purta, 1989: Attachment 1)

The assumption that the nation-state is the fundamental unit of analysisin defining international education would be tested in the 1990s.Practitioners and researchers gave greater attention to the global realitiesof human interdependence and to the broadening and visible influenceof the process of globalization. It became further evident that the risingnumber of non-governmental organizations and the rapid strengtheningof global technologies served to weaken both the perception and the influ-ence of the traditional boundaries of the world’s nation-states.

Voices of the 1990s

In a landmark collection of essays on international education (Jonietz andHarris, 1991) Mattern, the former head of the European Council of Inter-national Schools, ‘ruminated’ extensively on the meaning and implicationsof international education:

If I had a pound for every essay that has been made at defining internationaleducation, I would surely be a good deal richer than I am now. If I had readthem all, however, I am not sure that I would be much further along towardsa comprehensive definition: what constitutes or should constitute an inter-national education remains a complex and controversial matter. Much moreresearch and experimentation are undoubtedly required, but needed evenmore are greater imagination and bolder outreach. (Mattern, 1991: 209)

After reviewing a number of different types of approaches to internationaleducation found among international schools worldwide, Mattern thenpainted a portrait of his view of international education in practice:


139



I believe, indeed, that there can finally be no meaningful or effective teachingabout internationalism which shuns the matter of values. Schools are deludingthemselves and cruelly depriving their students if, no matter what the rest of thecurriculum, they fail to give young people such a firm place on which to stand.

A sense of values is needed to inform both all the rest of their studies andtheir life purposes as well. Without it, they may be clever, knowledgeable,even wondrously creative, but they will never become citizens of the worldnor give it their gifts as should those who have known a true international edu-cation. (Mattern, 1991: 215–16)

Mattern’s concern with a value-laden educational process relates closelywith Heater’s (1990) and Leach’s (1969) work, which were clear examplesof education for world citizenship which focused upon the universal valuesinstilled in such a citizen-being. The following year, Arum and de Water(1992) attempted to provide some conceptual framework to the definingexercise: ‘In the literature on international education there are two typesof definitions: one type discusses the ultimate purpose or rationale forall the people and programs involved in international activities and theother focuses on who is involved, the people and the programs, and howthey are organized and structured’ (Arum and de Water, 1992: 194).Arum and de Water then compared the rise of international educationrelative to other disciplines:

International education is now a general term used in the same manner as bio-chemistry and cultural anthropology, but it does not serve to define an area orsub-unit of an academic discipline. It is seldom used to refer to the internationalaspects of the curriculum, programs and services of a college of education. Itsuse is in a broader framework, referring to the international dimensions of theentire institution’s curriculum and diverse programs, services and activities thatare international in focus. (Arum and de Water, 1992: 200)

Arum and de Water decided, in the end, to stipulate a definition of ‘inter-national education’ which ‘refers to multiple activities, programs andservices that fall within international studies, international educationalexchange and technical cooperation’ (Arum and de Water, 1992: 202).

Stomfay-Stitz (1993), in a history of peace education in the USA, indi-cated that the hidden strands of the history of global education may haveyet to be discovered and treated in a serious fashion. In her view, whatwas considered a progressive attitude in the 1990s toward a globalapproach to international educational planning has its roots in inter-national educational efforts from the Victorian Age:

140




Global education has been described mistakenly as a child of the post-WorldWar II era or even the 1960s. Yet the roots of a global perspective undergirdedthe idea of world citizenship advocated by many peace educators of this era[1901–1930]. Historic parallels between this era and America in the 1990snow seem more logical as events on the world scene change with ever greaterrapidity and highlight the interdependency of nations. (Stomfay-Stitz, 1993:86–7)

In his teacher-training text Gutek (1993) identified a series of academicdisciplines and activities which have, over the past century, been relateddirectly or indirectly to what has been known as ‘international education.’Gutek’s list included:

1. Comparative education2. Foreign policy studies3. Regional or area studies4. International development and development education5. Peace education6. International exchange programs7. Global education8. International business education

Gutek provided one of the many examples of an attempt to stipulate a defi-nition of international education. He detailed international education aseducation that examines:

1) the informal, nonformal, and formal educational relationships amongpeoples of various nation-states; 2) those issues that are global in nature andtranscend national boundaries; 3) the emergent trends that are creating greaterinterdependency and interrelationships among people as members of a globalsociety. (Gutek, 1993: 33)

Gutek then went on to explain the thinking behind the construction of sucha definition:

Such a definition avoids the egocentrism of the older, nationalist view of educa-tion. It also avoids the ‘wishful thinking’ of those who take a view of inter-national education that neglects the reality of the nation-state. It is bothcontent and problem centered. While considering the impact of historicalforces, it also anticipates the emergence of new economic, political, social,and educational configurations. It recognizes the reality that we are all both citi-zens of nation-states and participants in a global society. It further recognizesthat there are and will be inevitable tensions between these two ideational


141



foci of our lives, but also that there are many creative possibilities that grow outof this tension. (Gutek, 1993: 33–4)

Gutek concluded, in his analysis of international education in teacher train-ing contexts, that the tension between citizenship for the nation andcitizenship in a world community ‘are difficult but necessary’. He alsonoted that a maturing of the nationalist impulse ‘may yield to the kindof cosmopolitanism that embraces both national and global identity’ thatErasmus, Tagore and Comenius called for in their teachings (Gutek, 1993:263–4).

Wilson, while President of the Comparative and International EducationSociety (CIES), undertook to provide a genealogy for what he termed ‘thetwin fields’ of comparative and international education. He pointed outthat:

the very nature of comparative education suggests that its historical antecedentsare more clearly identified, since they have been the subject of a great deal morescholarly inquiry. In contrast, the applied nature of international education hasmeant that many of its activities have not been documented, at least not in aform accessible to anyone wishing to study the field. (Wilson, 1994: 454)

Wilson also noted that while there is an abundance of convergent defi-nitions of comparative education in the literature, ‘there is a contradictoryvariety of definitions for international education’ (Wilson, 1994: 480).This examination of the defining of international education has found sig-nificant evidence that, although the territory of international education waswide and deep, much of the domain, in terms of purposes, could be seento be less than completely overlapping.

Altbach (1986) distinguished the work of comparative education andinternational education in the following manner, as part of an extendededitorial in the Comparative Education Review in the 30th anniversary issue:

Traditionally, the comparative educators have been scholars working mainly inuniversities, training graduate students and producing research and scholarlyarticles . . . Internationalists, on the other hand, are considered to be theusers of research rather than the producers of scholarship. This generalization,if indeed it was ever true, has blurred considerably in recent years. (1986: 6)

Vestal (1994), in an oft-cited review of international education at the uni-versity level, described the responses to economic realities that fuel thedevelopment and sustaining of international education programs. In theopening page of Vestal’s historical survey, he immediately confronted thelack of a coherent definition for international education:

142




International education has different meanings for different people. As anacademic subject, the field has been plagued by the use of a multiplicity ofdefinitions. Such terms as ‘international studies’, ‘international programs’,‘intercultural programs’, ‘transnational programs’, ‘foreign area studies’,‘non-Western studies’, and ‘international relations’ are used interchangeably.(Vestal, 1994: 13)

In commenting on issues related to the question of the development ofhuman capacity and consciousness and the associated realm of movingbetween frontiers of the mind, Belle Isle (cited in Hayden and Thompson,1995b) proposed that the fundamental value of international educationwas ‘to respond to the intellectual and emotional needs of the childrenof the world, bearing in mind the intellectual and cultural mobility notonly of the individual but, most of all, of thought’ (Hayden and Thomp-son, 1995b: 338–9). Hayden and Thompson (1995a, 1995b) associatedthe aims of international education with the crossing of both physicaland intellectual frontiers. The pervasive character and scale of thesemental and intellectual frontiers were also alluded to in Thompson’s(1998) modeling of curriculum efforts in international education, wherehe cited the presence of a long-standing attitude of ‘territorial defensive-ness’ associated with the education of children in schools which arephysically located outside of a national context. Thompson identifiedone of the sources of antagonism in the implementation of internationaleducation when he noted:

echoes of such territorial defensiveness still exist and can present barriersto progress in the implementation of international education, both withinnational systems of schools and within international schools situated in aneducationally or politically antagonistic context. (Thompson, 1998: 277)

This territorial defensiveness can be seen to exist at all levels but isespecially evident in relation to the perceived domain of the nation-statein protecting its citizens from the potential influence of a global educa-tional perspective.Mestenhauser (1998a) of the University of Minnesota and former

president of NAFSA-Association of International Educators, presented a50-year review of the activities of international education and reflectedon the ‘place’ of international education in the universe of educationalparadigms:

International education does not fit neatly into the categories and units intowhich our educational system is currently organized. Since the field is


143



‘international’ it covers the entire universe; because it is also ‘education’ it addressesall levels of instruction (formal and informal) in addition to several disciplinesthat inform the educational process. The genuine conceptual confusionsurrounding international education thus places a special burden on inter-national educators to explain themselves and their ‘field’ to others. Their effortsto explain and to define imply that international education fits into a single defi-nition that can be inserted without too much fuss into an existing curriculum.(Mestenhauser, 1998: 3)

To give evidence in support of his concept of ‘international education’ as a‘super goal of higher education’, Mestenhauser provided a listing of a rangeof disciplines and courses needed in any comparative study of societies thatwould be the basis of international education. This list included inter-national affairs, area studies, history, sociology, literature, geography,languages, cultural anthropology, cross-cultural communication, politicalscience, cognitive psychology, anthropology and social psychology.Mestenhauser’s work in reviewing international education, both histori-cally and conceptually, stands as distinctive in the decades following thesecond Great War and is itself worthy of further critical examination.

Creation of a matrix mapping

Having provided a detailed descriptive mapping of the contours of the con-ceputal landscape and territory of international education between theyears 1893 and 1998 (Sylvester 2002, 2003), we are now in a positionto reflect upon the depth and range of the lineage as well as the complexityof the territory which is claimed for international education. The matrixmodeling [see Figure 1] of the defining of international education duringthis 105-year period utilizes an adaptation of the model of Spaulding etal. (1982) (the idealistic and the pragmatic) in the portion of the fieldwhich responds to the notion of education for international understanding(taken here to align itself with the pragmatic) and education for worldcitizenship (taken here to align itself with the idealistic). The matrix alsoreflects a consideration of Kandel’s (1937, 1952, 1955, 1957) repeatedwarnings that international education must grow out of national systemsof education and cannot be transplanted from above or beyond thenation-state. The consideration of whether a definition is politically sensi-tive or politically neutral will provide the other elements of the matrix. Thismatrix itself is a hopeful contribution towards an eventual goal of a defen-sible definition of the field which Scanlon and Shields (1968) saw as the

144





145

Figure

1



preliminary step towards establishing a lineage and developing a concep-tual framework for the field.

The matrix acknowledges the pervasive role of both education for inter-national understanding and education for world citizenship throughout thelast century of attempts to develop the field of international education. Atthe same time it has been observed that the element of political considera-tions (more often at the national level) tended to at least color the definingof the field. Therefore, a number of key individual and institutional pro-tagonists have been considered and placed in the matrix relative to theiroperating definition. It might be noted, at this point, that the constructionof the matrix has avoided any explicit use of terms outside of those relatingto ‘understanding’ and ‘citizenship’ as these two terms alone are usedconsistently through the history of the last century.

The two institutions most closely aligned with the ‘understanding’ con-cept are seen to be the League of Nations and UNESCO. Ironically, theseinstitutions, with the notional ability to attract a more universal definitionof education, were seen to be largely sidelined by political considerationsin expanding the nature of education beyond the widely accepted sphere ofnational sovereignty. A number of individuals and institutions managed tosee beyond the narrow lens of national politics and moved their vision,pragmatically, toward the obligations of international citizenship. Note-worthy pragmatic efforts included the Spring Grove School near Londonfrom the 1860s to the 1890s, the work of the World Federation of Educa-tion Associations between the wars in establishing the Herman Jordan Plan,and the widespread global establishment and practical experience of theInternational Baccalaureate Organization in Geneva during the past severaldecades.

The conceptual research of Issac Kandel stands at the crossroads of thematrix and takes into consideration his attention to both the ‘understand-ing’ and ‘citizenship’ notions while sustaining a concern for both nationaland international political realities. Noteworthy examples of politicallyneutral conceptual models are seen from the time of Comenius. DerekHeater (1990: 155–6) was largely responsible for developing a systematicexploration of the needs of world citizenship in the educational setting.Significantly, Heater specifically valued the work of Becker, Anderson andHanvey as well as that of Pike and Selby.

At this point, it is proposed that, based on the evidence of the pastcentury of attempts to define international education, the emerging modelof international education should accommodate both the ‘soft’ definitionof the field related to international understanding, and at the same time,provide a frame of reference for the ‘hard’ definition of education for

146




world citizenship. However, the reality of the social, political, economic,cultural, scientific and ecological advances of the last century require thefurther consideration of a systems analysis of the planetary processeswhich have emerged. The experience of the last two decades in the processof globalization provides us with fertile evidence of the growing aware-mess of the planetary nature of the human experience. This planetary-systems consideration is in keeping with Hanvey’s (1982) seminal work aswell as the advice of Anderson and Becker to center learning upon the‘global character of human experience’ (Becker, 1976: 3). Even the politi-cally sensitive UNESCO document of 1972 directly connected the consid-eration of the notion of universal human rights with the conceptualizationof humanity as a ‘single whole’. The most influential voice of the 20th cen-tury in defining international education, Issac Kandel, also viewed the roleof education as being the training of the citizen as a human being.The emerging centrality of the human experience at the level of the

planet can be viewed as part of an inevitable process which should informthe opening of the vision of education. While national sovereignty willcontinue to defend its interests in this regard, the universal nature ofhuman knowledge requires nothing less than the most open of views ofthe ultimate purposes of education. With that analysis in mind, it is pro-posed that the most appropriate and sublime definition of internationaleducation in the last century was one offered by Anderson:

International education can be fruitfully defined as education about the natureof the planet Earth, education about the nature of the human species, andeducation about the nature of the social structure of the world as a whole.(Anderson, 1981: 3)

It is further proposed that this matrix and provisional definition be con-sidered a starting point for the further consideration of a conceptual frame-work for research into the emergent field of international education. Therole of education, at any level or locus, in establishing the centrality ofthe human experience, should not be undervalued.As Nussbaum (1997) called for in her examination of the reform of

higher education, we must be willing to cultivate our own notion ofhumanity. This sentiment represents the ultimate heritage of all the peoplesof the earth. Education’s responsibility toward that vision of such a humanheritage and such a human unity may then be viewed as inevitable,progressive and innately understandable to all that inhabit this solitaryblue sphere.


147



References

ALTBACH, P.G.ALTBACH, P.G. (1986) ‘Editorial: the Review at thirty’. Comparative Education Review30(1): 1–11.

ANDERSON, L .F.ANDERSON, L . F. (1968) ‘An examination of the structure and objectives ofinternational education’. Social Education XXXII (7): 639–47.

ANDERSON, L .F.ANDERSON, L . F. (1981) ‘Research on teaching issues in international education’.Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education, National Council onEducation Research, Washington, DC.

ANDERSON, L .F. AND BECKER , J.M .ANDERSON, L . F. AND BECKER, J.M . (1976) ‘The role of social studies in theinternational education of children and young people’. Working Paper for theInternational Meeting of Experts on the Role of Social Studies in Education forPeace and Respect for Human Rights, UNESCO, Paris.

ARUM, S . AND VAN DE WATER, J.ARUM, S . AND VAN DE WATER , J. (1992) ‘The need for definition of internationaleducation in U.S. universities’, in C.B. Klasek (ed.) Bridges to the Future: Strategies forInternationalizing Higher Education. Carbondale, IL: Association of InternationalEducation Administrators.

BECKER , J.M.BECKER, J.M . (1969) An Examination of Objectives, Needs and Priorities in InternationalEducation in US Secondary and Elementary Schools. New York: Foreign Policy Association.

BR ICKMAN, W.W.BRICKMAN, W.W. (1950) ‘International education’, in W S Monroe (ed.)Encyclopedia of Educational Research, pp. 617–27. New York: Macmillan.

BURGENTHAL , T. AND TORNEY, J. V.BURGENTHAL , T. AND TORNEY, J. V. (1976) International Human Rights and InternationalEducation. Washington, DC: US National Commission for UNESCO.

BURN, B.B .BURN, B.B. (1980) Expanding the International Dimension of Higher Education. London:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

BUTTS , R . F.BUTTS , R .F. (1969) ‘America’s role in international education: a perspective onthirty years’, in Harold G. Shane (ed.) The United States and International Education –The sixty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

BUTTS , R . FBUTTS , R .F (1971a) ‘International education: overview’, in Lee C. Deighton (ed.)The Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 164–71. New York: Macmillan.

BUTTS , R . F.BUTTS , R .F. (1971b) ‘Civilization as historical process: meeting ground forcomparative and international education’, in K. I. Gezi (ed.) Education in comparativeand international perspectives, pp. 17–34. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

DEUTSCH, S . E .DEUTSCH, S . E . (1970) International Education and Exchange: A Sociological Analysis.Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.

D ICKENS , C. ,D ICKENS , C. , ed. (1864) ‘International education’, in All The Year Round, A Weeklyjournal, Vol X11, no 281: 106–8.

GRIFF IN, W.H . AND SPENCE , R .B .GRIFF IN, W.H. AND SPENCE , R .B . (1970) ‘Cooperative international education’.Paper prepared for the World Conference on Education, Asilomar, California,March.

GUTEK, G. L .GUTEK , G.L . (1993) American Education in a Global Society: Internationalizing TeacherEducation. Longman: New York.

HANVEY, R .G.HANVEY, R .G. (1982) An Attainable Global Perspective. New York: American Forum forGlobal Education.

HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMPSON, J. J .HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMPSON, J. J. (1995a) ‘International schools andinternational education: a relationship reviewed’. Oxford Review of Education 21(3):327–45.

148




HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMPSON, J. J .HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMPSON, J. J. (1995b) ‘International education: thecrossing of frontiers’. International Schools Journal (25)1: 13–20.

HEATER , D.HEATER, D. (1985) ‘International education: educational programmes’, in T. Husenand T. N. Postlethwaite (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education, Research andStudies, pp. 2666–7. London: Pergamon Press.

HEATER , D.HEATER, D. (1990) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education.Longman: New York.

HEATER , D.HEATER, D. (1996) World Citizenship and Government: Cosmopolitan Ideas in the History ofWestern Political Thought. London: Macmillan.

HEATER , D.HEATER, D. (2002) World Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Thinking and its Opponents. London:Continuum.

HICKS , D.H ICKS , D. (2003) ‘Thirty years of global education: a reminder of key principlesand precedents’. Educational Review 55(3): 265–75.

HUSEN, T.HUSEN, T. (1985) ‘International education’, in T. Husen and T. N. Postlethwaite(eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education, Research and Studies, pp. 2660–6.London: Pergamon Press.

JONIETZ , P. L . AND HARRI S , D.JONIETZ , P. L . AND HARRIS , D. (1991) World Yearbook of Education 1991: InternationalSchools and International Education. London: Kogan Page.

KANDEL , I . L .KANDEL , I . L . (1937) ‘Intelligent nationalism in the school curriculum’, inI. L. Kandel and G. M. Whipple (eds) Thirty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education, Committee on International Understanding (Part II – InternationalUnderstanding Through the Public School Curriculum), pp. 35–42. Bloomington, IL:Public School Publishing Company.

KANDEL , I . L .KANDEL , I . L . (1952) ‘Education, national and international’. The Educational Forum16(May): 397–407.

KANDEL , I . L .KANDEL , I . L . (1955) ‘National and international aspects of education’. InternationalReview of Education 1: 5–15.

KANDEL , I . L .KANDEL , I . L . (1957) ‘Nationalism and internationalism in education’. HarvardEducational Review XXVII (Spring): 75–84.

K ING, D.C.K ING, D.C. (1971) International Education for Spaceship Earth. Washington, DC: ForeignPolicy Association.

LEACH, R . J.LEACH, R . J. (1969) International Schools and Their Role in the Field of International Education.Oxford: Pergamon Press.

LEESTMA, R .LEESTMA, R . (1969) ‘OE’s institute of international studies’. American Education 5(5):5–8.

LEESTMA, R .LEESTMA, R . (1979) ‘Education for a global age: what is involved?’. Vital Issues 28(March): 1–6.

MATTERN, W.G.MATTERN, W.G. (1991) ‘Random ruminations on the curriculum of theinternational school’, in P.L. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education1991: International Schools and International Education, pp. 209–16. London: Kogan Page.

MATTHEWS, R .W.MATTHEWS, R .W. (1971) ‘Education and the vision of one world: an analysis ofRobert Ulich’s concept of international education’. Unpublished dissertation,Loyola University, Chicago

MESTENHAUSER , J.A .MESTENHAUSER , J.A . (1998) ‘International education on the verge: in search of anew paradigm’. International Educator VII(2–3).

NUSSBAUM, M.NUSSBAUM, M. (1997) Cultivating Humanity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

P IKE , G. AND SELBY, D.P IKE , G. AND SELBY, D. (1988) Global Teacher, Global Learner. London: Hodder.


149



SCANLON, D.G. ,SCANLON, D.G. , ed. (1960) International Education: A Documentary History. New York:Columbia University Press.

SCANLON, D.G. AND SHIELDS , J. ,SCANLON, D.G. AND SHIELDS , J. , eds. (1968) Problems and Prospects in InternationalEducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

SHANE, H.G.SHANE , H .G. (1969a) The United States and International Education: The 68th Yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

SHANE, H G.SHANE , H G. (1969b) ‘International education in the Elementary and SecondarySchool’, in Harold Shane The United States and International Education: The 68th Yearbookof the National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 269–97. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

SPAULDING, S . , S INGLETON, J. AND WATSON, P.SPAULDING, S . , S INGLETON, J. AND WATSON, P. (1968) ‘The context ofinternational development education’. Review of Educational Research XXXII (3):201–12.

SPAULDING, S . , COLUCCO, J. AND FL INT, J.S PAULDING, S . , COLUCCO, J. AND FL INT, J. (1982) ‘International education’,in Harold E. Mitzel (ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research, pp. 945–53. London:Macmillan.

STOMFAY-ST ITZ , A .M.STOMFAY- ST ITZ , A .M . (1993) Peace Education in America 1828–1990: Sourcebook forEducation and Research. London: Scarecrow Press.

SYLVESTER , R .F.SYLVESTER , R . F. (2002) ‘Mapping international education: a historical survey1893–1944’. Journal of Research in International Education 1(1): 90–125.

SYLVESTER , R .F.SYLVESTER , R . F. (2003) ‘Further mapping of the territory of internationaleducation in the 20th century (1944–1969)’. Journal of Research in InternationalEducation (2)2: 185–204.

SWENSON, S .R .SWENSON, S .R . (1999) ‘International education and the national interest: theNational Defense Education Act of 1958, the International Education Act of1966, and the National Security Education Act of 1991’. Unpublisheddissertation. University of Oregon.

THOMPSON, J. J.THOMPSON, J. J . (1998) ‘Towards a model for international education’, inM.C. Hayden and J.J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp.276–90. London: Kogan Page.

TORNEY-PURTA , J.V.TORNEY-PURTA, J.V. (1985) ‘American’s knowledge and attitudes about the world:do we know what we need to know?’, in E.B. Gumbert (ed.) A World of Strangers:International Education in the United States, Russia, Britain, and India, pp. 1–26. Atlanta,GA: Georgia State University.

TORNEY-PURTA , J.V.TORNEY-PURTA, J.V. (1989) ‘A research agenda for the study of global/international education in the United States’. Paper presented to AmericanEducational Research Association, San Fransisco, March.

TYE , K .A . ,TYE , K .A . , ed. (1990) Global Education: From Thought to Action. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

UNESCOUNESCO (1972a) ‘Desirability of adopting an international instrument oneducation for international understanding, co-operation and peace’. GeneralConference, 17th Session. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCOUNESCO (1972b) Learning To Be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow. Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCOUNESCO (1974) ‘Recommendation concerning education for internationalunderstanding, co-operation and peace and education relating to human rightsand fundamental freedoms’. General Conference, 18th session. Paris: UNESCO.

150




UNESCOUNESCO (1995) ‘Declaration and integrated framework of action on education forpeace, human rights and democracy’. General Conference, 28th Session. Paris:UNESCO.

VESTAL , T.VESTAL , T. (1994) International Education: Its History and Promise for Today. Westport, CN:Praeger Press.

WILSON, D.N.WILSON, D.N. (1994) ‘Comparative and international education: fraternal orsiamese twins? A preliminary genealogy of our twin fields’. Comparative EducationReview 38(4): 449–86.

Biographical note

ROBERT (BOB) SYLVESTERROBERT (BOB) SYLVESTER has been involved in international education as ateacher and UNESCO teacher trainer in Zambia, principal of an inter-national school in Botswana and an educational leadership consultant inSri Lanka over a period of 25 years. He is currently Assistant Professor ofEducation at Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts, responsible forteaching courses related to literacy and global education.[email: [email protected]]


151



Documents

Framing the map of international education (1969-1998)