Search

Purpose: We develop a positive but critical appreciation of the nature and meaning of impact as current constituted as UK universities prepare for the government-led evaluation of research quality in REF2021. Methodology: We describe and then discuss impact (generally, and then specifically in relation to one recently completed project). That project was funded by the Leverhulme Trust and titled Youth activism, engagement and the development of new civic learning spaces (see:https://www.york.ac.uk/education/research/cresj/researchthemes/ citizenship-education/leverhulmeyouthactivism/). Findings: Currently, there is potential for corporate arguments about impact to have a negative effect on UK universities. It would be preferable to consider impact in relation to general arguments about strengthening societal culture by generating greater respect for knowledge and clarifying its relationship with society; and by knowledge based arguments in that a specific evaluation of impact would allow us to know more about the nature of the research-practice interface.

In this paper, we discuss core ideas arising from research undertaken in a Leverhulme Trust (IN2016-002) funded international network project. The project examined youth activism, engagement and the development of new civic learning spaces within and across six countries (Australia, Canada, England, Hungary, Lebanon and Singapore). Arising from interactions with activists and educators and by reviewing literature, we argue that four areas are important for assisting a critical analysis of the fundamental complexities that researchers, teachers, youth workers and youth themselves, are grappling with within and through their activism. These areas that address ways of characterising and developing the relationship between education and activism focus on: engagement with context; engagement with meaning; engagement with diversity; and engagement in reflexivity. We do not present these areas as a simplistic typology; each involves complexities that cannot be easily or readily resolved.

This article critically explores how laws and practices of states and international organisations attempt to control refugees, drawing upon conceptions of 'biopower' and 'technologies of anti-citizenship' (Foucault 1972). This is examined in the Lebanese context, which has an estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees (HRW 2016a), in an overall population of approximately 6 million (Worldometers 2018) -- including approximately 500,000 long-term Palestinian refugees (UNRWA 2018). Firstly, I consider how 'embodiment' and 'vulnerability' relate to constructions of the 'citizen' in law, where refugees are constituted as vulnerable bodies 'out of place'. Secondly, I examine how public, legal and policy constructions affect the lived experiences of refugees in Lebanon. This entails a recognition of the multiple axes of exclusionary intersectionalities, where the ideal citizen is constructed as adult, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, 'intellectually competent', economically productive, as well as holding a legal status as a national of the state. Thirdly, I examine two refugee initiatives that aim to address the discriminations faced in education and society. Drawing on these different sources of evidence, the article advances the argument that through global technologies of 'human security' promoting (neoliberal) individual self-reliance, exclusion is nevertheless perpetuated through depoliticised discourses and practices of vulnerability and (non-) citizenship.

This article examines the inter-relationships among citizenship, class and disability through the methodological juxtaposition of critical policy analysis of constructions of disability and an autobiographical sociology of global middle-class parental strategies in school admissions processes in the Middle East. The author advances the theoretical case that disability is mediated through class and citizenship, and she elucidates the role of affect in the construction of disability and its relation to citizenship. Recognising emotion as a social, cultural and political practice, she proposes that this, in turn, has implications for reclaiming affect in the production of new knowledge on disability and citizenship in the Middle East.

This introductory piece highlights key themes raised by Sir Bernard Crick and Professor Tariq Ramadan. Firstly I consider why citizenship is on the agenda and how these discourses are increasingly linked to discourses of diversity and identity. Secondly, I consider understandings of integration, especially with respect to Muslims, and thirdly, multiple identities and the public/private sphere debate. I propose the concept of "institutional multiculturalism" which entails firstly, a recognition that public institutions are not culture-neutral domains, and secondly, promoting the process of a diverse "authoring" in public sphere institutions to reflect the UK's diversity today. (Contains 1 note.)

In this article, I argue that it is now particularly pertinent to examine the implications for diversity of different conceptions of citizenship, given the current socio-political climate globally, as well as the current national context in the United Kingdom. I have categorised conceptions of citizenship into four main categories--"moral", "legal", "participatory", and "identity-based" conceptions. This categorisation is based on original empirical research which examined conceptions of citizenship in the policy and curriculum development process of citizenship education in England, held by the "key players" involved, and supported by analysis of key policy and curriculum documentation (QCA, 1998, 2000, 2001). I examine the implications for ethnic and religious diversity of each of the conceptions. I argue that citizenship education's dominant "participative" model will not be able to achieve an inclusive citizenship unless it is coupled with a modified "identity-based" model. I propose the concept of "institutional multiculturalism", constituted as process. This focus on a consideration of the process by which shared values can then be achieved has typically been neglected by those calling for shared values in multicultural societies. In conclusion, I outline some implications for policy, curriculum and pedagogy. (Contains 7 notes.)

Multicultural societies such as the UK typically claim to embrace a model of "participative", "inclusive" and "democratic" citizenship. In this article, I examine conceptions of participative citizenship, democracy and diversity and how they inter-relate in the citizenship education policymaking process in England. I illustrate that the dominant model of citizenship is "participatory", linked to the concept of democracy. However, "diversity" is not explicitly addressed within the participatory conception, nor in relation to democracy. I discuss some of the theoretical tensions between participation, democracy and diversity. Drawing on Young's (2000) concept of "deliberative democracy", I highlight two themes--the public-private sphere distinction, and "shared values" which are particularly pertinent in considering citizenship in ethnically and religiously diverse contexts. I conclude by proposing that citizenship education should focus on the "process" of inclusive communication and collective problem-solving, rather than a privileging of a substantive "common good" or "shared values". (Contains 5 notes.)

In this article, I propose an inclusive model of citizenship, drawing both on empirical data collected on "constructions" of citizenship in the English citizenship education policy process, and also developing certain themes raised in the politico-philosophical literature on citizenship. This model consists of two main components: the concept of "institutional" multiculturalism, constituted as process; and that citizenship education must redirect its emphasis to the citizen-state relationship, relative to the emphasis on the relationship between individuals and groups from different backgrounds and cultures, the predominant focus of "interculturalism" (Gundara, 2003; Kymlicka, 2003). Implications for policy and practice are considered. (Contains 4 notes.)

Human rights discourses are increasingly being coupled to discourses on citizenship and citizenship education. In this paper, I consider the premise that human rights might provide a theoretical underpinning for citizenship. I categorise citizenship into five main categories -- moral, legal, identity-based, participatory and cosmopolitan. Bringing together theoretical and documentary evidence, I argue that human rights cannot logically be a theoretical underpinning for citizenship, regardless of how citizenship may be conceptualised. This is because human rights discourses are located within a universalist frame of reference, in contrast to that of citizenship, which is located within a more particularist frame. Human rights are conceptually distinct from citizenship, and the conflating of human rights with citizenship not only is conceptually incoherent, but may actually obstruct the empowerment and active participation of individual citizens in the context of a political community.

The Covid‐19 pandemic has disproportionately affected disabled people across the globe. This review article maps the impact of the pandemic on disabled people in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) during the first ten months of the pandemic, based on a semi‐systematic review of 113 articles of empirical and “grey” literature. We highlight the multiple exclusions faced by disabled people across the sectors of health, education, economy, community, and pandemic management. Following this, we discuss the broader issues arising from the literature, including the systematic de‐prioritisation of disabled people in emergency planning, the ongoing framing of disability as a medical rather than a social or human rights issue, a recognition of how the complexity of societal structures creates systematic disadvantage, and local, national, and global policymakers’ lack of engagement with disabled people during pandemic management. We identify the need for both stronger quantitative evidence on disability in LMICs to inform planning and policy processes, and the need for equitable collaboration with disabled people from LMICs across research, policy, and development programming, in the spirit of “Nothing About Us Without Us.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]