Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is included in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4.7 and a focus area within UNESCO. However, preceding and alongside this rise to international prominence, a great deal of critical scholarship engages with an unintended outcome of efforts towards GCE, particularly in Global North contexts. GCE can reinforce colonial systems of power through reproducing an ‘us’ who learns about and helps a problematic ‘them’ (e.g., Andreotti, 2006, 2011; Pashby, 2013). Moreover, a proliferation of research has ben seeking to identify different ‘types’ of GCE operating within formal and non-formal education settings. While these have offered conceptual clarity, the amount of typologies and their often purely descriptive nature have arguably reinforced Schattle’s (2008) finding that multiple ideologies overlap and contradict within the field of GCE. We argue most typologies fail to deeply consider the implications of conflations and relations within and between different ‘types’ of GCE identified. This paper draws on findings from an analysis of eleven typologies of GCE published between 2006 and 2015 (Pashby, Costa, Stein & Andreotti, forthcoming) that used social cartography to critically unpack the points of commonality and contradiction inherent to the ways different types of GCE are described within and across typologies. We considered how extant typologies reify dominant ways of thinking about GCE and offer a framework for identifying points of foreclosure and possibilities of alternative approaches. Specifically, the paper focuses on the findings of overlaps and contradictions within what have been described in typologies as ‘critical GCE’ and will apply our analysis to data from an empirical study with secondary and upper secondary teachers who teach global issues. In workshops conducted in 2018, Andreotti’s (2012) HEADSUP was presented to secondary and upper secondary teachers in England, Finland and Sweden who identified as teachers of global issues (Pashby & Sund, forthcoming). HEADSUP applies postcolonial analyses to an acronym HEADSUP identifying seven historical patterns of thinking and relationships that are often reproduced by educational initiatives: hegemony, ethnocentrism, ahistoricism, depoliticisation, salvationism, uncomplicated solutions and paternalism. As the typologies analysed in the social cartography are mainly theoretical and/or based on secondary literature, this paper will consider the extent to which empirical data regarding teachers’ reactions to and applications of HEADSUP to their teaching practice illustrates, provides nuance into or challenges our analysis of how critical GCE is described in typologies. Keywords: Global citizenship education, postcolonial critiques of education, social cartography, classroom research

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft vs. critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable Postcolonial Theory in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Andreotti, V. (2012). Editor’s preface: HEADS UP. Critical literacy: Theories and practices, 6(1), 1–3. Pashby, K. (2015). Conflations, possibilities, and foreclosures: Global citizenship education in a multicultural context. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(4), 345-366. Pashby, K. and Sund, L. (forthcoming). Critical GCE in the era of SDG 4.7: Discussing HEADSUP with secondary teachers in England, Finland, and Sweden. In D. Bourn (Ed.) International Perspectives on Global Learning. Bloomsbury. Pashby, K.; Costa, M.; Stein, S.; and Andreotti, V. (forthcoming). Mapping the Tensions in Typologies of Global Citizenship Education: From Description to Critique. Accepted for presentation at the American Educational Research Association conference in Toronto, Canada. April 2019. Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73-94.