As an education able to address global challenges, like those in the 2030 Agenda, Global Education (GE) is increasing in Europe (Hartmeyer & Wegimont, 2016). Besides a dedicated goal and target, education plays a paramount role on all sustainable development goals (SDGs). Global Education is key for envisioning future education and research, amidst complexity and uncertainty (Bourn, 2015). It is also relevant in the appeal to reconstruct citizenship beyond national(istic) and simplistic imaginaries and promote a global awareness, belonging and action, often translated in the idea of being a global citizen (Sant et al., 2018). However, scholars express concern with GE discourse being mobilized with substantially different intents and effects, accommodating at once humanist, critical, neoliberal or even neo-colonial views (Andreotti, 2011). Critical perspectives of GE are useful in recognizing theses nuances and promoting social justice, questioning inequalities, working as a platform for a situated, self-aware and politicized understanding of current challenges and discourses (including the 2030 Agenda itself). A critical understanding of globalization effects in education (Burbules & Torres, 2000) and postcolonial implications are pertinent in all levels of education (Crossley & Tikly, 2004; Andreotti & Souza, 2012). This symposium aims for making this case, providing critique to the critical and postcolonial as well (Rizvi, Lingard, & Lavia, 2006). Mostly focused at higher education where GE is expanding (Horey et al., 2018) and the global dimension has multiple layers (Haigh, 2004), the symposium offers a dialogue between research and pedagogical experiences from England, Finland, Poland and Portugal. 

Pashby intersects theoretical and empirical inputs, based on work developed with colleagues worldwide. She discusses and applies a social cartography of typologies of GE to empirical work with teachers in England, Finland and Sweden. She offers critique to the critical stance, by addressing overlaps and contradictions within ‘critical global citizenship’, and how empirical data reinforces or troubles the cartography developed. 

Lehtomäki, based on a thematic review of research concerning all levels of education, reflects on how GE is integrated in education in Finland and which gaps emerge. She discusses trending (likely conflicting) GE approaches coexisting in Finland, highlighting the importance of system-level holistic approaches.

Coelho and colleagues analyse pedagogical experiences on GE with teachers and results from a survey of students’ views and experiences in public higher education in Portugal, in the scope of the 2030 Agenda. Grounded on critical perspectives in the field, significant elements regarding current and future GE experiences, from teachers and students’ points of view, are addressed.

Kuleta-Hulboj, reflects on mega-trends in (global) education as a starting point to discuss the Polish context as semi-peripheral that, regardless of not having a colonial past, embodies many substantive (post)colonial concerns. Grounded on the teaching experience in higher education with pedagogy students, she presents Poland as needing a strong investment in GE and argues for a critical and transformative conceptualisation, that itself needs to be stand for critically.

This symposium fosters a discussion between scholars from northern, eastern and southern Europe countries with significantly different socio-historical and political backgrounds and standpoints regarding GE itself, of value for the dialogue at stake. Working under critical or postcolonial perspectives of GE, invited speakers are well aware of the importance of self-critique as part of making the GE debate and practices move forward. Combining pedagogical and research experience, their comprehensive understanding of GE approaches and the role higher education plays in deconstructing or reinforcing ideas is useful for promoting more just and sustainable modes of living and relating. We argue this debate is of utmost relevance, namely in the scope of a 2030 Agenda aiming to be structurally transformative.

Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable Postcolonial Theory in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Andreotti, V. & Souza, L.M. (eds.) (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education. A pedagogy for global social justice. Oxon: Routledge. Burbules, N. & Torres, C. (2000) (eds.). Globalization and education: critical perspectives. New York: Routldege. Crossley, M., & Tikly, L. (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and international research in education: a critical introduction. Comparative Education, 40(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000231329. Haigh, M. (2004). From Internationalisation to Education for Global Citizenship: a Multi-Layered History. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1): 6–27.DOI:10.1111/hequ.12032 Hartmeyer, H. & Wegimont, L. (eds.) (2016). Global education in Europe revisited. Strategies and structures. Policy, practice and challenges. Münster: Waxmann. Horey, D. et al. (2018). Global Citizenship and Higher Education: a scoping review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(5): 472–492. Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Lavia, J. (2006). Postcolonialism and education: negotiating a contested terrain. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 14(3), 249-262. doi:10.1080/14681360600891852 Sant, E., Davies, I., Pashby, K., & Shultz, L. (2018). Global citizenship education: a critical introduction to key concepts and debates. London: Bloomsbury.