Capacity Building for Citizenship Education: Global Hegemony and the New “Ethics of Civilization”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The concept of capacity building has seen a swell of support in recent years. Many, varying from community-based practitioners to multinational institutions, have leveraged the concept in their work. By investigating the ethics (the normative positions), the explanations (the explanatory positions), and what evidence people use to measure capacity (the empirical positions), this research uses a Critical Discourse Analysis to investigate the relationships that are formed by employing capacity building for citizenship education. After investigating multinational policy documents and interviewing participants in Jamaica and Canada, I argue that capacity building for citizenship education has vastly disparate and contrasting manifestations. While Capacity Building is widely understood as an effort to emphasize local agency, it becomes quickly evident that the nature of that agency is often circumscribed by dominant institutions of the global market economy. Take, for example, the World Bank, which propagates crippling structural adjustment policies in Jamaica, but at the same time is also one of the most active policy makers in the field of capacity building. There are, however, many voices that appear through the interviews that are critical of this process. These voices question the ability, and appropriateness, of capacity building when used by many policy makers, and the resulting intervention into people’s lives. This disparate condition of capacity building has been brought about by the articulation of three conjoined processes: The first – my critique of the explanatory position – is that the emphasis on the capacity for action unrealistically privileges agency at the expense of our understanding of social structures; the second – my empirical argument of the nature of capacity building – is that the movement has become intertwined with global political economic discourses thereby providing the “spirit” of global capital; the third – my critique of the normative position – is that capacity building has attempted to provide an ethical project which stresses incorporation, as opposed to exclusion, as a form of hegemony. When these three positions are read together, I argue that capacity building has provided a complex policy matrix in forming the hegemonic relationship of global capital; what is referred to here as the new ethics of civilization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».