Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text


Showing 1 through 5 of 15,309 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 3062 - Next  Jump:
2017 - Comparative and International Education Society CIES Annual Meeting Words: 739 words || 
1. Misiaszek, Greg. "Development? : Teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) through critical questioning “Development” and “Sustainable Development”" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society CIES Annual Meeting, Sheraton Atlanta Downtown, Atlanta, Georgia, Mar 05, 2017 <Not Available>. 2019-06-16 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Historically, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), emergent from Environmental Education (EE), was constructed to teach socio-environmental issues to understand and determine development actions that are sustainable without (or minimizing) negative socio-environmental issues, with particular attention to long-term negative consequences. EE models were often critiqued for overlooking social issues that stem from environmental issues and vice versa. However, ESD models have been increasingly taken over by the “development” framing of ESD (“esD”) with excessively centering economics. Economics, especially economic justice, is a very important aspect to development, but is problematic when: 1) economics is the sole factor of analysis; 2) economics is measured within a neoliberal framing in which sustaining and/or increasing hegemony rather than economic justice is sought; and 3) development is non-contextually, singularly framed as Western development largely affected by globalization. This paper provides an ecopedagogical (e.g., critical) analysis of reinventing ESD for transformation with inclusivity of all the world’s diverse societies and populations, as well as factors of livelihood as determinants of what is “development”? Rooted in critical theories and popular education movements in Latin American, through reinvention of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy, ecopedagogy is transformative teaching in which educators dialectically problem-pose the politics of socio-environmental connections through local and global lenses. To question esD vs. ESD, ecopedagogues center the questions “What is?”, “For who?”, and “Who defines?” the terms of “development” and its “sustainability” in teaching and conducting research.

The paper utilizes two qualitative, comparative education research studies on: 1) ecopedagogy in Brazil, Argentina, and USA and (2) the dis/connections between citizenships (local to national to global to planetary spheres), environmental pedagogies, and globalizations (from above/below). The paper provides recommendations on reinventing current environmental pedagogical models by questioning the politics of education as a tool for “development”, with specific attention to critical analysis of ESD.

Emergent Themes
Throughout the paper I discuss the following themes that emerged from the two research studies
Teaching to De/Reconstruct Progress and Development
Notions of development and striving towards development in order to “progress” is often seen as the root of problematic environmental issues. It is not that progress is negative; instead, progress needs problem-posing multi-perspective, multidisciplinary socio-environmental analysis to determine positive and negative aspects. Although development is a key universal goal of education (Olmos & Torres, 2009), definitions and acts towards development are always political, historical and contextual, especially when concerning socio-environmental wellness. However, environmental teaching often occurs as though it is apolitical, ahistorical, and acultural.

Teaching Socio-Environmental Reflection, Not Environmentalism
The goal of ecopedagogy is for students’ actions towards ending socio-environmental oppressions; however, what if students’ praxis (actions emerging from deep critical reflection) is not framed socio-environmentally “good?” A conundrum exists within environmental pedagogies in that critical teaching should not teach students how to think (Author, 2009); however, it is impossible for a teacher or a learning space to be apolitical (Freire, 2000), as an environmentalist (Author, 2009).
Teaching Development: A Colonial Past and Globalizations Possible Futures
Teaching various connections with colonialism are important to understand oppressions which are inherently historical (Apple & Au, 2009; Gadotti, 1996; Held, 1980); including the systematic connections between teaching what development is, and its associated actions, and how this relates to colonialism in an increasingly globalized world?
Teaching Development Locally and Globally
Critical problem-posing the deeper aspects of and rationales for developmental goals from various perspectives - rather than a singular universal one - in learning spaces is essential. Gadotti (2008), in his writings in The Earth Charter, described the need for “universal” environmental pedagogies to be not fixed (i.e., static) in detail but rather for them to provide common socio-environmental goals to help guide locally constructed environmental pedagogies; applying this, the determination of a society’s development must not be globally fixed only by global aspects of development but by locally contextual aspects, as well. As discussed previously, within and increasingly globalized world, the contested terrain of globalization both helps and hinders such a bottom-up defining of development, and thus constructs of sustainable development.
Countering False Environmentalism-Development Ideologies
My research on ecopedagogy in the Americas highlighted the need for a paradigm shift in understanding development as it relates to one’s relation to livelihood and environmental wellbeing, and both of these as they relate to multiple spheres of spheres of citizenship (e.g., local, national, global, planetary) (Author, 2011, 2016). In later research, I found that connections between critical Global Citizenship Education (GCE) and ecopedagogy are increasingly needed in an increasingly globalized world (Author, 2015).

2011 - SASE Annual Conference Pages: unavailable || Words: 7228 words || 
2. Cameron, John. "Connecting Developments in Corporate Human Resource Development Thinking to the Capability Approach in International Development Research" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SASE Annual Conference, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, Madrid, Spain, Jun 23, 2011 Online <PDF>. 2019-06-16 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper offers a framework for understanding and evaluating Human Resource Development activities in larger organisations.
There is a growing literature on international human resource management (IHRM) targeted at people studying management in large organisations. This has encouraged an element of cultural sensitivity in HR practices?
• ‘the concept of HRM itself, like all social constructs, takes its character and quality, if not its very existence, from the socio-cultural and political economic context which gave birth to it’ (Tayeb, 2005: 204)
• ‘MNCs may not always be able to devise and implement company-wide global HRM strategies and policies …. Notions such as ‘modifications’, ‘adaptations and ‘local variations’ rather than ‘global’, ‘international’ and ‘universal’ more accurately characterize HRM in multinational companies.’ (Tayeb, 2005: 209)
• The Burke and Cooper (2005) collection of articles can be seen as representing the optimistic universalistic approach to HRM that ‘endorses … balance: healthy people and healthy organizations’ (ibid: 5).
Human Resource Development thinking tends to start from asking why do people underperform in a workplace? Relevant factors may include some or all of the following:
• Poor recruitment – under-qualified or over-qualified for tasks given?
• Personal negative characteristics, e.g. laziness, indiscipline
• Monetarily under-rewarded
• Poor physical environment, health and safety risks
• Bullying managerial style, lack of consultation/deliberative processes
• Boredom – no opportunities for expression of imagination/creativity
• Perception of absence of long term developmental/career opportunities
• Limited or negative social ‘peer’ relationships in work and lack of positive ‘spread’ effects to wider life
• Feeling undervalued personally and/or group cultural alienation
This paper is concerned with demonstrating how the capability approach can help integrate the last five factors into a holistic, humanist framework of a well-lived life.
To move towards an HRD image of improvement and a positive language, the paper then sets out differing perceptions of employer-employee relationships, initially dichotomised into more mutually conflictual perceptions paired with more synergistic relationships (Table 1 will show these perceptions).

Table 1
Universalist models of employer–employee relationships

More negative perceptions
• Conflictual absolute income seeking
• Bored alienation
• Socially negative relationships
• Hierarchical quantitative performance measurement
• Domination
More positive perceptions
• Mutual additional income seeking
• Creative expression
• Socially positive relationships
• 360 degree qualitative developmental assessment
• Appreciation

The concepts of human exploitation (more negative) and raising returns to human capital (more positive) as over-arching models will be briefly summarised and their limitations discussed.

Table 1 is then discussed in terms of realities in which employer-employee relationships are complex mixes of these characteristics (most jobs contain some times, spaces and activities in which either more conflictual or more synergetic elements dominate). The role of Human Resource Development can be seen as seeking to change the mix towards more positive characteristics, though within cost and authority constraints set by the employer and the insecurity of the employee.

From this perspective, HRD interventions can be analysed and evaluated as to how far it connects to the international Human Development agenda and the general improvement of human well-being in which the economic dimension is important but not exclusive. This agenda has some of its roots in Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach which has been widely used to understand local level changes in well-being, though often neglecting the quality of employment experiences.

For the Capability Approach, it is important to take into account the potential impact of HRD on employees in their lives both inside and outside the confines of the organisation where the HRD was active and the specific tasks of the employees. How does the HRD intervention affect the agency (or power) of the employees receiving it and what potential impacts are produced: e.g.
• improving valued specific skills and competence in their current jobs
• providing a more general capability to gain promotion
• helping employability in other organisations or take up sustainable self-employment
• becoming a more effective agent in wider civil society or political processes

The Capability Approach can be seen as an umbrella framework that includes human exploitation and human capital will be shown in Figure 1.


The Capability Approach has developed a comprehensive conceptual framework which will be summarised in Figure 2. This framework appears very demanding in terms of a check-list of potential capability impacts that a HRD intervention could offer. But as a checklist, it does allow identification and prioritisation of areas of either real gains or actual damage to capability and can be used as an analytical and evaluative framework for HRD interventions.


The conclusion will include practical examples of the framework being used to analyse examples of HRD interventions

Indicative bibliography
Burke, R.J and C.L.Cooper (2005) ‘The Human Resource Evaluation, why putting people first matters” Reinventing Human Resource Management, Routledge, London and New York, pp 3-16 .
Mok, K and J.Tan (2004) ‘Introduction’ Globalization and Marketization in Education, Edward Elgar, pp 1-7 (read on to end of chapter in ISS library)
Nussbaum, M (2006) ‘Education for democratic citizenship’. Public lecture presented at ISS on 10 March 2006, Den Haag, ISS
Ozbilgin, M (2005)’Aspects of International Human Resource Management’, International Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan, London and New York, pp 21-28.
Price, A (1997) ‘Researching Candidates’ Human Resource Management in a Business Context, International Thomson Business Press, Boston and London, pp 241-249 and 338-349.
Sen, Amartya (1997) “Human Capital and Human Capability.” World Development 25 (12), pp. 1959-1961.
Sen, Amartya (2000) “Work and Rights.” International Labour Review139 (2), pp. 119-128.
Sen, A (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press
Sparrow, P, C.Brewster, and H. Harris (2004) ‘Developing Global Themes” Globalizing Human Resource Management, Routledge, London and New York, pp 120-128.
Tayeb, M.H. (2005) ‘International of HRM Socio-cultural Contexts’ International Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21-31.

2007 - American Sociological Association Pages: 19 pages || Words: 7370 words || 
3. Weinstein, Liza. "Developing a Consensus: Authoritarian Development, Participatory Planning, and Negotiational Politics in Mumbai's Dharavi Development Project" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2019-06-16 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the process by which a consensus was reached and approval was garnered for the Dharavi Development Project, a billion dollar initiative to redevelop Mumbai’s most infamous residential and industrial squatter settlement. Initiated in the context of neoliberal politics and devolved municipal governance, technocratic planning schemes – with their roots in both the British Civil Service and Nehruvian Soviet-style planning – are no longer political viable and a certain degree of local support, if not direct community participation, is required to secure both state backing and private investment. Employing a cadre of Community Development Officers (CDOs), the state government recognized neighborhood-level political support to be a prerequisite for the project’s successful implementation. Utilizing the neighborhood’s institutional infrastructure – including ward-level politicians, social service providers, and professional and worker collectives – CDOs spent more than three years convincing constituents and making side payments to build consensual support for the project. Although a certain amount of resistance remains, the opposition has been marginalized as institutional support expanded. This paper examines both the rationale and the process by which this consensus was secured for Dharavi’s current redevelopment. It uses this case to examine the prevailing practices and theories of authoritarian development, on one hand, and participatory planning, on the other, and identifies the rise of “negotiational politics” as a political third way. Drawing upon Selznick’s classic study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, this paper argues that “negotational politics” (similar to what Selznick called cooptation) remain an important, though currently under-theorized, aspect of development.

2007 - Southern Political Science Association Words: 443 words || 
4. Chen, Liang-chih. "Development First, Democracy Later? Or Democracy First, Development Later? The Controversy over Development and Democracy" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel InterContinental, New Orleans, LA, Jan 03, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-06-16 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The central research question in this paper is to investigate the sequence of economic development and democracy in the process of democratization of developing countries. Basically, at least, there are five theoretical models arguing the issue of the priority of development and democracy: First, modernizationists, such as Seymour Lipset, argue that economic growth would lead to democracy, so that “development first, democracy later.” Second, however, Samuel Huntington proposes an alternative explanation of democratization from the perspective of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to political decay; then the political system under instability would move toward democracy after institutionalization. Third, in contrast to modernization theory, scholars, who support “democracy first, development later,” such as Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin, argue that democracies consistently outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic development in developing nations. Forth, some scholars, such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, argue that although politics indeed influences economic performance, the impact of regime type might not be significant on states’ economic growth; and people do not know whether democracy improves or limits economic development. Fifth, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs find that in the case of China, the result of economic development would not lead to democracy because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid political liberalization on the other. Their finding runs counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the necessary result of economic development.
After reviewing these five models above, this paper would not have any inclination of supporting any specific theoretical position but attempts to point out that the controversy over the priority of development and democracy should depend on particular cases. In other words, in some cases development leads to democracy: South Korea and Taiwan; in others, democracy is prior to development: India, Dominican Republic, and Mozambique. In addition, this study would attempt to pre-hypothesize that the shift of the international system—from the Cold War to the post-Cold War—is the key to influence the debate of development and democracy: “development first, democracy later” in the era of the Cold War; then “democracy first, development later” under the period of the third wave of global democratization, the post-Cold War, and Anti-terrorism War. Finally, according to these debates above, what would be the implication of American foreign policy of promoting democracy in the world? To the underdevelopment world, should the U.S. assist to develop economy first or to improve democracy first? Or should the U.S. do these two simultaneously?

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 3062 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy