Search

In this article, the authors focus on three relatively concrete reform efforts now being implemented in a number of schools of education that took part in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) study: (1) the establishment of a core of educational courses; (2) significant changes in the preparation of educational researchers; and (3) new initiatives for developing educational professionals, only some of whom will eventually work in the academy. The authors award so much attention to these three because they conjecture that three different--and mutually exclusive--conceptions of the doctorate underlie the various reforms. Each conception entails a different curriculum; each suggests its own characteristic set of recommendations for change. These conceptions call into serious question the meaning of faculty mentoring, the role of preliminary or qualifying examination, and the place within doctoral programs of traditional course work. While these topics are germane to every doctoral program, regardless of discipline, the authors believe that the field of education addresses them in more fundamental and urgent ways. They believe that the discussions that have emerged through the CID project and the reform efforts being conceived by their colleagues in participating departments and schools of education are much more fundamental in nature than the general doctoral reform literature might suggest. As the authors show, these discussions reflect a deeply rooted commitment to the types of reform characteristic of maturity in the field of education. The authors have articulated the three competing conceptions of the doctorate to underscore the fact that the reforms under discussion are not superficial but deep, rooted in difficult questions about what a doctoral education should be.

Background: In many countries, working towards a truly inclusive national citizenship means deconstructing hegemonic structures that are deeply entrenched. Moving outside of the borders toward a global citizenship hints at giving up on what has been a long road toward multicultural citizenship. A balance between including and empowering diverse populations within borders as a part of citizenship education is critical. Likewise, future citizens must be prepared to conceive of a borderless world and interact with cultures different from their own. Literature that empirically examines the relationship between global citizenship and multicultural citizenship is sparse. This paper explores this tension, using the case of Germany. Purpose: The overall aims of this study were to explore German teachers' values and beliefs about citizenship education in light of new citizenship and immigration laws, and in light of European and global influences, as well. Design/method/sample: A qualitative research design was employed to capture a range of German social studies teachers' views on citizenship, diversity and education. Interviews were conducted with 43 teachers from five different states across Germany. The constant comparative method of analysis was used to analyse these data. Findings: The analysis suggests the existence of four major themes: "Peaceful Europe", and "Rejection of Europeanisation", "Christian like us" and "Multicultural = European". Taken as a whole, these categories show that the teachers did engage with both multicultural and global citizenship ideas, but they did so in a manner that created limits on both concepts. European citizenship emerged as a means of comfortably addressing diversity and, perhaps unintentionally, disenfranchising non-ethnic Europeans present in the classroom from accessing this concept of citizenship. (Contains 5 notes.)

Since 1989, large numbers of "ethnic returnees" have settled in Germany and Japan. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, 2.8 million "Aussiedler," or ethnic German returnees, came to Germany from the former Soviet Union. In Japan, immigration reform driven by low-skill labor shortages induced nearly 300,000 "Nikkeijin," or people of Japanese descent, to come from South America in the 1990s. This article analyzes the development of language education at the local and national level for the "Aussiedler" and "Nikkeijin" since 1989. In particular, the authors investigate how the policy makers and educators have problematized the returnees and in what ways discourses of national identity, citizenship, and belonging have (not) adapted to the slow integrations of the "Aussiedler" and "Nikkeijin" into the larger German and Japanese communities. The return of large numbers of "Aussiedler" and "Nikkeijin" to Germany and Japan, respectively, in the 1990s challenged the foundations of ethnic identity in both countries. The development of language education policies for the returnees over the past 15 years also illustrates how national and local officials have problematized return migration and how notions of multiculturalism and national identity have evolved. The authors' analysis of these policies suggests that the comprehensive national policy framework in Germany has not resulted in substantially better outcomes for the "Aussiedler" than the local and nongovernmental implementation framework they found in Japan. Further, the authors show that in the case of "Aussiedler" and the "Nikkeijin," whose heritage are tied to the notion of Germanness and Japaneseness, respectively, the returnees' inability to speak their ancestral language is consistently offered as the primary reason for their lack of integration. (Contains 4 footnotes.)