developing education policies for a global society: distributed leadership, language, and...

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 08(06):523–538 (2015)

DEVELOPING EDUCATION POLICIES FOR A GLOBAL SOCIETY:

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP, LANGUAGE, AND GLOBALIZATION

Sirous Tabrizi

University of Windsor, Canada

The world is now in a state of continual change, with the effects of globalization leading to an

increasing degree of connection, coalescence, and collision between various cultures and ideologies. In

the process of globalization, some cultures are more dominant and can assimilate others, especially

when they have power over others. The dominance of these cultures can also depend on their leadership

style. It is not important whether these groups are a majority or minority worldwide; their strategy is to

develop force, repression, coercion, corruption, discrimination, and abuse. However, this strategy can

result in violence that is embedded within a society, unrecognizable to and unconsciously performed by

many of its citizens. In multilingual, multicultural, and multinational countries, a central government

prefers to use globalization from above; powerful or influential individuals or groups act on others so as

to integrate them into a global society, regardless of whether this global society exists at a national or

international level. These governments make many different limitations, such as language, religion,

culture, and so on. This paper presents a comprehensive view of these issues, and proposes a solution

through creating policies in the context of education. To create such policies, a country could engage in

policy borrowing, policy learning, and policy dialogue. If appropriate policies were chosen, the social

and democratic condition of the country could be improved. As an example of how this could be done,

a comparison will be conducted on two territories that are socially similar (the European Union and

Iran). In this comparison, the distribution of their leadership and their micropolitical situation will also

be discussed. The International Baccalaureate will also be presented as a solution for policy

development.

Keywords: Globalization, Educational policies, Micropolitical, Distributed leadership, Language.

1. Introduction

The world is now in a state of continual change. Globalization is increasing the degree of connection,

coalescence, and collision between various cultures and ideologies. To be a productive and successful

country, with a positive effect on the international global society, it may be beneficial to have an

education system that not only provides relevant skills and knowledge but also promotes mutual

understanding and cooperation. Language and policies are an important consideration for such an

education system. Conflict and contention can occur between speakers of different languages, and

students who cannot use their native language in school may lose motivation and eventually drop out.

Government policies about education and language can be developed, and implemented in different ways,

that affect the country’s success in international affairs and the quality of life for its citizens. Therefore,

education policies should be developed that mitigate potential problems arising from differences in

523

524 Developing Education Policies For A Global Society: Distributed...

language as well as promote mutual respect and cooperation. One method of doing so is through

distributing leadership among these other languages and groups. However, such distribution requires

significant skill, especially in the context of today’s educational places such as schools. Additionally,

power is an important issue as well as how a leader can delegate his/her authority.

The structure of this paper is as follows. First, a brief literature review is presented on the topics of

globalization, distributed leadership, language, and symbolic violence. Second, language policies,

leadership, and power structures for education in Iran and the European Union are examined and

compared. Third, policy borrowing is discussed as a method through which developing countries could

create their own education policies. An example of policy borrowing is presented, in which the

International Baccalaureate programme is used as source of inspiration. This paper ends with a summary

and some suggestions for moving forward.

2. Literature Review

This section will briefly review some of the literature on the topics of: globalization and a global society,

distributed leadership and micropolitics, language, and symbolic violence.

2.1 A Global Society

The term ‘global society’ typically refers to humanity as a whole (Guibernau, 2007), or to the wider

society that is emerging from the interaction of all countries in the world. However, it can be difficult to

analyze the global society to detect problems and to develop solutions. It may be preferable to look at

models of a global society to gain insight into how the global society can be better developed. A global

society is characterized in two ways. On one hand, it includes a diversity of language, cultural, religious,

and ethnic groups. On the other hand, there is interdependence, communication, and cooperation of these

groups as well as economic, cultural, and political conflict between the same groups (Cotesta, 2008). For

example, the European Union and countries such as Canada, the United States, Iran, and India are models

of a global society due to their diversity of language and cultural groups as well as differences in

influence which these groups have.

Globalization can be defined specifically as the organization and integration of economic activity

which transcends national borders (Jones, 1998). However, globalization can also be defined more

generally as the totality of substantial changes in the context of one’s life, which results from the growing

interrelationships between different parts of the world (Jones, 1998). Thus, globalization is the

transformation of a local society into a global society. The wider global society of our planet has been

created through the integration of multiple countries. Any specific country that is a model of a global

society has been created through the integration of multiple diverse parts. The process of globalization

can occur in two ways: globalization from above, and globalization from below (Falk, 1999).

Globalization from above refers to powerful or influential individuals or groups acting on other

entities, so as to integrate them into a global society (Ritzer, 2009). In contrast, globalization from below

refers to the mobilization of individuals or groups as a reaction or counter-movement to globalization

from above (Ritzer, 2009). Rather than allowing one influential group to create the global society,

globalization from below encourages the willful and democratic participation of many groups to create a

global society (Buttimer, 2001). These two methods of globalization can be, respectively, compared to a

non-democratic and a more democratic approach to policy instrument and implementation.

2.2 Micropolitics and Distributed Leadership

In today’s educational institutions, particularly schools, major issues revolve around leadership,

delegation of leadership power and authority, and the power itself. To analyze such things in more detail,

Sirous Tabrizi 525

it can be useful to look at the micropolitical structure of a school. Blase (1991) created a very general

definition of micropolitics, where micropolitics refers to the use of formal and informal authority by

groups and individuals to achieve their objectives in organizations. Perceiving differences between groups

and individuals, motivational factors, and using authority to protect and/or influence others can all be seen

as political actions. “Although such actions are consciously motivated, any action, consciously or

unconsciously motivated, may have political ‘significance’ in a given situation. Both cooperative and

conflictive actions and processes are part of the realm of micropolitics” (Blase, 1991, p. 11).

A major component of these political actions is the power involved. Rowlands (1997) introduced

four types of power: power over, power with, power to, and power within. The most popularly

distinguished form of power is ‘power over’. This has some negative connotations for people, such as

force, repression, coercion, corruption, discrimination, and abuse. It is seen as a win-lose relationship. In

other words, having power involves taking it from someone else, and thus someone is using it to prevent

and dominate others from gaining it. As a political approach, people who are able to control resources and

decision making have power over. Additionally, people who are denied access to essential resources such

as jobs, land, and health care suggests that ‘power over’ perpetuates inequality, poverty, and injustice.

The problems associated with ‘power over’ have also been discussed by Sorensen (2007):

In the absence of alternative models and relationships, people repeat the ‘power over’ pattern in

their personal relationships, communities and institutions. This is also true of people who come

from a marginalized or ‘powerless’ group. When they gain power in leadership positions, they

sometimes ‘imitate the oppressor.’ For this reason, advocates cannot expect that the experience of

being excluded prepares people to become democratic leaders (p. 109).

The second model of power is ‘power with’. This kind of power is meant for finding common

ground among diverse interests to build collective strength. Based on mutual support, ‘power with’

multiplies individual knowledge and talents, collaboration, and solidarity. ‘Power with’ is able to reduce

or transform social conflict and improve equitable relations by helping to build bridges across different

interest. Support groups build coalitions and seek allies drawing on the concept of ‘power with’ (Alsop,

Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006).

The third model of power is ‘power to,’ which refers to the unique power/potential of individuals to

model his life and world. “When based on mutual support, it opens up the possibilities of joint action, or

‘power with’. Citizen education and leadership development for advocacy are based on the belief that

each individual has the power to make a difference” (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014, p.291).

Finally, ‘power within’ focuses on a person’s sense of self-knowledge and self-worth. It includes a

capacity to identify individual diversity while respecting others. “‘Power within’ is associated with the

capacity to imagine and to have hope; it affirms that there is a common human endeavour for dignity and

fulfilment” (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014, p.291).

Some researchers (Fullan, 1991; Kreisberg, 1992; Malen & Ogawa, 1988) have argued that “school

restructuring is driven by both conflictive-adversarial [‘power over’] and cooperative-consensual [‘power

with’] political processes despite the participatory/democratic rhetoric stressing the latter” (Hargreaves,

2005, p. 265). Micropolitical structures and processes are thus more beneficial for some groups and

individual than others. Additionally, the political power of groups and individuals is taken for granted

because it is sunk in cultural and organizational structures that act to preserve the status quo (Blase, 1991;

Cusick, 1992; Duke, 1976; Gronn, 1986; Lukes, 1974; Rollow & Bryk, 1995; Sarason, 1990). Such issues

need to be considered when it comes to creating and implementing educational policies.

2.3 Language

Language refers to specific instances of a complex system of communication, such as the English

language or the German language. Language is the primary mode of communication between people and

institutions. However, it is so integral to societal life that it becomes an important issue in politics,


economics, and education (Rosman, Rubel, & Weisgrau, 2009). This is especially true in a global

society, as linguistic diversity greatly complicates any language issue.

In politics, language issues are primarily about the legal rights or privileges that are given to a

language and, by extension, to speakers of that language (Colón-Rios, 2011; De Schutter, 2008; Dinstein

& Tabory, 1992; Kymlicka & Patten, 2003). Since language is linked to the cultural and social identity of

groups, the ability to use a language in public life can easily become a source of conflict and tension

(Highmore, 2002). Linda King, the Senior Programme Specialist with the United Nations Economic,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization's [UNESCO] Division for the Promotion of Quality Education, has

stated that “Every decision about language is political” (UNESCO, 2003).

In economics, language is connected to the economic potential of an individual or business and can

even be extended to the idea of language itself as having ‘value’ (Grin, 2002; Kontra, Phillipson,

Skutnabb-Kangas, & Varady, 1999). For example, the ease of communication between people affects

how easily goods and services can be produced and sold to others. Given the political desire to improve

the economic conditions of a society, the issues of language in economics are tied to similar issues in

politics.

In education, the primary language issue is the main language in which public education should be

given and whether alternative languages should be included (May, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Given

the connection language has with identity, and that learning a language directly relates to its propagation,

the language in which education is performed is a large source of controversy and socio-political tension.

In addition, the inability of students to use their native language in school greatly affects their motivation

and increases the likelihood of them dropping out of school (Behrangi, 1964; Hunt, 2008; Lloyd, Mensch,

& Clark, 2000; UNESCO, 2005; 2010). Thus, language in education is not simply another political issue

but is directed tied to the quality of education and to changes in the socio-economic state of a society.

2.4 Symbolic Violence

The concept of symbolic violence is expressed in different ways depending on the aspect of society

through which it occurs (Heilmeyer & Hagan, 2003). Violence can refer to the acts that are performed for

the purpose of exerting control or domination over others. Pierre Bourdieu identified violence being

embodied in the concepts, language, and systems of symbols within a society (see Bourdieu, 1972; 1977).

In other words, domination or control of one group over others was expressed through and maintained by

social constructions, such as language. However, this violence is so embedded within a society that it is

unrecognizable, accepted rather than challenged, and even unconsciously used by the very people who are

being oppressed (Bourdieu, 1994).

Johan Galtung similarly saw violence in the culture of a society, such that cultural acts and forms are

used as means through which domination can be performed and justified (see Nwokeafor & Langmia,

2010). The moral connotations of actions are changed so that actions and facts which previously were

considered violence can be considered acceptable (Heilmeyer & Hagan, 2003). Religion, ideology,

language, art and science are particularly effective media through which this violence can be created and

justified.

In general, then, symbolic violence is a method for controlling or dominating other groups through

social and cultural constructs. These same constructs can then be used to legitimize symbolic forms,

prejudice and discrimination, and even physical violence. For example, individuals can be classified by

their cultural heritage, be it history, values, traditions, crafts, arts, or language. This classification is then

associated with inferiority or undesirability, effectively marginalizing anyone who associates with that

culture (Sue, 2003). Unless this association is recognized, members of this culture then perpetuate their

own oppression simply through participating in the culture. For example, a person who speaks a language

associated with the inferior culture becomes identified and treated as inferior simply due to their

language.

Sirous Tabrizi 527

3. Discussion

In this section, two territories will be compared in terms of their education and language policies, as well

as the power structures associated with the creation and implementation of those policies. Afterward, a

brief discussion will be presented on developing policies in a global society and an example using the

International Baccalaureate (IB) program.

3.1. Analysis of Some Existing Policies

In this sub-section, I will provide some policy examples so as to better understand the implications of

effective policy development on education and, ultimately, the social development of a state. First, there

will be a discussion of some policies of Iran and the European Union (EU) regarding language in

education. After this discussion, there will be a comparison between the policies to see their method of

implementation and their implications for language allowances and symbolic violence.

In Iran, there lives a diverse group of people from a variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious

backgrounds (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011). Although the EU is a political and economic union of

several countries within Europe, it is still a mosaic of many language and cultural groups (Ardila &

Ramos, 2007; Bjarnason, 2010; McCann, 2010). Given the diversity of peoples in both Iran and the EU,

they can both be considered models of a global society. As such, policies implemented in either can be

useful for understanding policy possibilities in other states and possibilities for effectively developing the

global society of the planet.

3.1.1 Policies of Iran

According to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the “official language

[of Iran] is Persian and the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for

teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian” (IRI Const. ch. 2, art. XV.).

However, Article 16 is an additional clause: “Since the language of the Qur’an and Islamic texts is Arabic

it must be taught in school from elementary grades until the end of high school” (IRI Const. ch. 2, art.

XVI.). From these statements it is clear that the official language of Iran is Persian, that Arabic is a

necessary language to learn in school due to its religious importance, and that other languages can be used

for social, cultural, and educational purposes.

Although the implementation of Article 16 was very quick, the full implementation of Article 15 has

been much slower. In the Iranian education system, Persian is used as the primary language of instruction

in all levels (Elementary, Secondary, and High School). Arabic is learned, through teaching the Qur’an, at

the Elementary level and used as a secondary language of instruction is other courses from the Secondary

level onward. English is also taught as a third language starting at the Secondary level. However, when

comparing the native languages of the Iranian population it is clear there are many people who speak

languages other than Persian or Arabic, and that other languages are large minorities (see IRI Constr.,

1980). In most areas though, there are no teachers who use other languages in instruction and in some

areas students are discouraged from using their native language to speak and write in school (Kheiltash &

Rust, 2009). The first major attempt to implement Article 15 has been only recently. A project started

Turkish at specific Universities in major in 2009 by the Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution is

offering a one semester course on urban centers (AzarNEWS, 2011). According to the secretary of this

Council, “The teaching [of these classes] may be carried out only as part of the Supreme Council’s

project. The classes must be overseen by the culture center for Persian language and literature”

(AzarNEWS, 2011). This project is to be extended to other languages, but there is some concern that such

a project is a poor and very limited implementation of Article 15 (e.g., see AzarNEWS, 2011). Thus,

Article 15 has been implemented in the education system only to the extent that Persian is used. A more

complete implementation has not been performed.


3.1.2 Policies of the European Union

Here, I will discuss the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 165 of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union. The Institutions of the EU are capable of creating laws and policies

to which the other member states agree or dispute. As such, both of these policies are created at the

Institution level but are implemented through the government of member states.

The European Charter of Fundamental Rights affords legal and political protection to all minority

and regional languages, along with defining these specific languages (Ehlers, 2007). There are 23 official

languages in the EU, but more than 60 regional and minority languages (Craith, 2010). An official

language is the majority or dominant language of a member state. Regional languages are not a majority

or dominant language for a member state, and typically are only spoken in an internal region or cross-

border region of member states. Languages spoken by a minority group that is distributed across multiple

member states are also considered regional languages. This charter has been implemented through various

policies that encourage the learning of non-native languages (Byram, 2004; Knapp & Seidlhofer, 2009)

that ensure one can use a native language which is not an official language (Council of Europe, 1992),

and that any official language can be used for legal and governmental purposes (Arzoz, 2008).

This Charter is complemented by Article 165, in which cooperation between member states for the

purposes of education is encouraged (see Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union). Each member state is responsible for managing its own education system, but the Institutions of

the EU are responsible for encouraging and supporting cooperative action between the member states as

well as providing any supplementary action that is necessary. Article 165 outlines how the EU should

support the creation of joint study programs between member states, host conferences to facilitate

information exchanges between member states, and encourage and allow the movement of citizens from

one member state to another. This article has been implemented through programs that encourage and

allow students to learn languages of other Member States (Knapp & Seidlhofer, 2009), and through

various meetings and conferences held each year for educational ministers and associated members of

each Member State to discuss common problems and solutions (Van Oudenaren, 2005). Both of these

initiatives are developed, managed, and supported by the EU Institutions to offer intra-state support for

whatever program individual member states have developed.

3.1.3 Comparison of Policies

The policies of Iran and the EU regarding language in education will now be compared in terms of three

concepts: globalization, language, and symbolic violence.

Globalization. The method of instrumentation and implementation of policies in Iran and the EU can be

compared to the two methods of globalization (from above and from below). A policy can be

implemented such that it is similar to globalization from above, in that the policy is developed and

managed by a central group and then forced onto the rest of the populace. This is similar to the method

used in Iran. For instance, the citizens of the Azerbaijan region of Iran may want Turkish to be available

for use in schools. However, the languages used for instruction are managed by the Iranian government

and the local region cannot act otherwise. Even the development of non-Persian language classes are

managed by a department whose goal is the promotion of the Persian culture and language (AzarNEWS,

2011).

A policy can be implemented similar to globalization from below. In such a case, a policy may be

developed by a central group but is then implemented by local groups as best fits their region or situation.

This is similar to the method used in the EU. The policies are developed and discussed at the level of EU

institutions, in which delegates from each Member State participate, but are then implemented by each

Member State. Although an institution of the EU can dictate what policy should be adopted, they can only

provide suggestions on its implementation and cannot control how a specific Member State implements it.

Sirous Tabrizi 529

Distributed leadership. Leadership could be examined in governmental context (i.e., education policy

development, or school boards) or within individual schools. In either case, we can look at leadership

both in terms of leaders monitoring policies or policies defining the role of leaders in an organization.

According to Tabrizi & Kabirnejat (2013), educational leadership in Iran is uses a top down model;

educational policies are developed by the central government, is then pushed to other levels, and those

other levels can only follow the policy. In such a system, leadership is highly centralized. Only

individuals within specific areas have influence or power. For example, a principal of a school has control

over what the teachers in the school can teach but not over larger educational policies; this control is

entirely in the hands of a central government, and the principal’s requests or comments tend to be

ignored. Similarly, the micropolitical structure of the education system is dominated by ‘power over.’ In

contrast, the EU has a more distributed leadership structure. Different groups within a country can make

requests, and can have their issues considered at a higher level. Hence, the authority and power of leaders

is given, to some degree, to others at lower levels of the education and social hierarchy. It is not

completely distributed of course, but much moreso than in Iran. Likewise, the micropolitical structure

encourages ‘power with’, such that the various member nations try to find common ground among their

diverse interests to build collective strength (Alsop, Bertelsen, & Holland, 2006).

Language. In both Iran and the EU, the official language policies allow multiple languages to be used in

school. However, the two differ in terms of how they implement these policies. In Iran, government

institutions actively limit the languages allowed in school to only three languages: Persian, Arabic, and

English. Even in this case, there is an emphasis on Persian over the others. Such a limitation results in

several problems. For example, students whose native language is not Persian experience severe difficulty

in school. The requirement to learn a new language and being unable to use their native language has

been identified as a fundamental cause for academic failure, especially so at the elementary level

(Behrangi, 1964). Many such students drop out of school, reducing the educational level of the state’s

citizenry. Another problem that arises is tension between language groups. The active restriction of

languages for large minorities is considered by these minority groups as unfair and encouraging inequality

(AzarNEWS, 2011). As a result, these groups feel threatened and create nationalist organizations to

protect their interests. However, since such organizations have been identified as a threat to the stability

and legitimacy of the government, the government does not want to align itself with or empower these

organizations by promoting their language of choice.

On the other hand, the institutions of the EU actively promote a diversity of languages for use in

Member States and encourage the learning of non-native languages. Language tensions are not as big a

problem, and attempts to equalize differences in educational opportunities between member states are

being attempted. However, a different problem arises for the EU. The large number of official and

recognized languages puts a heavy resource strain on allowing their use in political and educational

situations. At the institution level, large numbers of translators are needed to ensure that any official

language can be used (Arzoz, 2008). In specific Member States though, it is not financially pragmatic for

every language to be available in school, especially among the poorer member states. Non-native

languages are available for learning and use in school, unlike the situation in Iran, yet the specific

language available differs depending on the State. Thus, even official languages of the EU cannot be used

in all parts of each Member State, giving some languages more influence and utility in specific regions

over others. The superiority of one language over others is still a problem in the EU, yet it arises due to

the number of languages and lack of resources to accommodate them, unlike in Iran where it arises as an

intentional result of government policy.

Symbolic Violence. In both Iran and the EU there are political reasons for creating and implementing their

respective policies. In Iran, policies are developed and implemented to provide greater power and

influence for members of one group over others. This results in the oppression, through symbolic

violence, of these other groups. In contrast, policies are developed and implemented in the EU to

encourage cooperation and understanding between various groups, without giving any advantage to one


group over others. This approach has the potential to reduce symbolic violence, and at the very least does

not actively encourage it.

In Iran, the suppression of non-official languages in school, regardless of the size of the number of

speakers, can be considered an example of symbolic violence. However, another example is the textbooks

that are used in school. A grade 5 social education textbook is written such that the Persian people are

portrayed as inherently superior to other people (see Khalilifar & Hadad-E-Adel, 2012, p. 102). Similarly,

a grade 8 social education textbook describes the problems that non-Persian people created for the

country and the achievements of the Persian people, but does not include any achievements of non-

Persians nor problems that resulted from Persian people (see Kheirandish & Abbasi, 2011). Additionally,

both the textbooks mentioned here made no distinction between Iranian and Persian, simply stating that

the Persian people were Iranian. This creates a strong contrast between the Persian and non-Persian

groups, implying that these other groups are somehow not part of the country of Iran and ignores rather

than celebrates the country’s multi-national and multi-cultural heritage.

In the EU, knowing one or more non-native languages makes it possible for people to move or work

in other member states, improving the ability to create jobs and stimulate growth in the whole union

(Byram, 2004; Knapp & Seidlhofer, 2009). However, knowing other languages also promotes better

communication, cross-cultural engagement, and mutual understanding, all of which are necessary for

peaceful and mutually prosperous integration. Based on a survey conducted by Eurobarometer, a majority

of the participants agreed with the linguistic diversity promoted by the EU and thought people should

learn foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue (2006). Despite the desire to promote linguistic

diversity though, half to two-thirds of those surveyed in several member states do not know any foreign

languages (Eurobarometer, 2006).

The creation of symbolic violence in Iran has the potential to lead to physical violence (Warrier,

2011). Although the political reasons for such policies may be to increase the power and influence of one

group, there is great possibility that such an attempt may end in failure. In the EU there are similar

possibilities for failure. For example, some people in Germany and France may hold a negative opinion of

the citizens and governments of Greece, Spain, and Italy due to their contributions to the recent economic

problems. Similarly, member states lack the resources to allow all official languages and instead focus on

the official language used by the richer or more successful states, such as the English language.

Therefore, although the policies of the EU do not promote symbolic violence as they do in Iran, they

cannot remove it either. At most, the EU can help to protect the diversity of languages.

3.2 Developing Policies in a Global Society

In developing new educational policies, there is a long and at times controversial history of comparing

existing policies of various countries (Zymek & Zymek, 2004). Policy-makers are interested in

developing the best policy, and can therefore engage in examining other experiences or other policies so

as to find the best policy. For developing the best education policy, in light of the topics and examples

discussed above, a three step process will be mentioned. First, policy-makers can engage in policy

borrowing, so as to find an appropriate policy. Second, policy-makers engage in policy learning, so as to

extract the best aspects of the chosen policy rather than merely develop a copy. Lastly, policy-makers

should engage in policy dialogue to create a policy that not only uses ideas from the learned policy, but is

also appropriate for their country and takes into account local differences. These three steps will be

examined in more detail below, followed by an example.

3.2.1 Policy Borrowing

There are many different ways in which policies can be transferred between countries. These different

ways form a continuum in terms of the degree to which the giving and receiving country have power over

the resulting policy. On one end are the methods categorized as ‘policy lending,’ in which one country

Sirous Tabrizi 531

imposes an existing policy on another, while the other end of the continuum contains ‘policy borrowing’

methods, in which one country voluntarily examines the policies of another and accepts theirs (see Ochs

& Phillips, 2004). By using policy borrowing methods, policy-makers can examine the experiences of

other groups, determine which of these experiences are the most appropriate for them, and then ‘borrow’

those for use in their own country. This process is not simply copying another policy, but a longer process

involving several steps. Each step of the process is equally important, such that the combined result of

each step determines the success of the whole process. First, there is analysis of the initial desire to seek

out another policy, followed by decision-making, and then implementation and internationalization of the

policy (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Policy borrowing in education: Composite Process. Source: Phillips & Ochs, 2003.

Policy borrowing was practiced long before globalization was an issue (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012).

However, globalization and the state of the international global society has increased the degree of policy

borrowing, as well as the amount of research being conducted on it. Education policies lend themselves

particularly well to policy borrowing, since they can be examined in a de-territorialized and de-

contextualized form and thus can be more effectively used regardless of the source or target (Steiner-

Khamsi, 2004).

Simply engaging in comparison between one country’s education policies and those of another

country can provide insight into how better policies could be developed (Philips, 1989). Yet, a country

can engage in policy borrowing to simply adopt another policy assumed to be better without a proper

analysis (see Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). In other words, policy borrowing can be conducted along with deep


and proper analysis, in a manner that just copies what they think are the best practices (Chakroun, 2010).

Hence, policy borrowing is important for education but is insufficient.

3.2.2 Policy Learning

Since something more than policy borrowing is needed to ensure a borrowed policy will be effective in

the new context, policy-makers can also engage in policy learning. Policy learning refers to the analysis

of policies for use many different contexts (Chakroun, 2010). Such contexts could include identifying

issues with new policies, but it could also include existing policies so as to better understand them,

identify potential issues, and determine alternatives. Hence, policy learning could be used to analyze what

aspects of another country’s education policy would be appropriate for one’s own country. In creating

better educational policies then, policy borrowing may be the first step but policy learning must also be

conducted; through policy learning, the borrowed policy can be improved and more effectively applied.

3.2.3 Policy Dialogue

Despite the value of policy learning, there can still be problems with the creation and implementation of

the new policy. Policies can be developed with centralized leadership or with more distributed leadership.

From a centralized perspective, the new policy is developed by a single group who determines the best

policy and does not necessarily consider the interests or needs of others. A more distributed approach

would engage others outside of this central group to get a wider variety of opinions on the quality of the

policy. This distributed approach is more commonly known as policy dialogue.

Policy dialogues are discussions regarding issues of policy. These discussions could be performed in

person, through writing and exchanges of documents, or through online means (Davies, McCallie,

Simonsson, Lehr, & Duensing, 2009; Joshee & Johnson, 2005; Winton & Pollock, 2009). An important

aspect of these discussions is that they do not involve only policy-makers; specific stakeholders and

ordinary citizens can also participate in these discussions and thus engage with policy-makers. In the

context of education, policy dialogues allow students, teachers, parents, and other people within the wider

community to share their stories (Winton, 2010). Hence, through policy dialogue, students, teachers, and

parents can be involved in analyzing education policies and offering suggestions for improvement. Some

evidence suggests that policy dialogues are quite effective, and that ordinary citizens are able to engage in

such discussions without much difficulty (Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004; Hart & Livingstone,

2009).

Since the citizens of a democratic society are supposed to be engaged in the functioning of their

government, citizens need to be involved in critically analyzing public policy (Solomon & Portelli, 2001).

Although this is a benefit of policy dialogue, greater potential exists when the dialogue involves a

diversity of individuals who are interested, motivated, and very capable of participating (Winton, 2010).

In reality, this rarely occurs; normally individuals with higher education, income, and understanding of

politics are the only citizens who are involved in policy dialogue even though others may be interested or

motivated to participate (Levine, Fung, & Gastil, 2005; Young, Levin, & Wallin, 2008). Therefore, policy

dialogue can provide the context in which policy learning can occur, but simply creating the opportunity

for such dialogue is insufficient; leaders need to encourage more participation in these dialogues to ensure

the views, interests, and needs of other stakeholders are actually reflected in policy.

3.3 Example Scenario using the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program

In the models of a global society discussed above, two problems can be identified. In Iran, symbolic

violence and its promotion by the government is a problem. In the EU, the lack of resources for equal

accommodation of all languages in each member state is a problem. An education policy that promotes

critical reflection and mutual understanding between groups, so as to reduce symbolic violence, is

Sirous Tabrizi 533

important. However, this policy also needs to consider the diversity of languages in the society, and be

respectful and fair towards all languages. What is needed is an educational policy that is multi-cultural,

multi-national, and multi-lingual in scope in addition to teaching typical skills and knowledge. Global

societies, such as Iran and the EU, could engage in policy borrowing and learning of the International

Baccalaureate (IB) program, as it could be an effective instrument for such a policy.

The IB is a non-profit educational foundation that offers an international education program

(International Baccalaureate Organization [IBO], 2011). By international education is meant the

acquisition of skills, knowledge, and flexibility for engaging in a global economy as well as engendering

values that lead to greater intercultural understanding and cooperation (Bentley, 2000; Cambridge &

Thompson, 2004). As such, the IB program aims to create inquiring, knowledgeable, reflective, and

caring people who are active and lifelong learners (IBO, 2008). The full list of attributes and values which

students of the IB program should have after graduation are shown in Tables A1 and A2, respectively, in

the Appendix. Its implementation is meant to be flexible and appropriate to the local context. The

International Baccalaureate learner profile (IBLP) is a tool developed for this purpose, providing a

common shared vision and language through which teachers, students, administrators, and the community

can build, evaluate, and improve an implementation of the IB program (Hayden & Thompson, 2000).

In light of the issues discussed above, and the utility of policy borrowing, learning, and dialogue, the

IB program could act as an instrument in the following manner. A global society, such as Iran or the EU,

could create an education policy in which there is a shared goal, vision, and evaluation process but which

is implemented and evaluated at the local level. Policy dialogue could be used, such that the education

policy itself is evaluated and not just the school curriculum. A common language would provide a way in

which all its citizens could communicate, but by including secondary languages in the education program

it allows students to learn in their native language and allows local schools to determine which specific

language to use based on population and teacher availability. Of the attributes and values which the IB

program aims to teach students, mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation, as well as critical

reflection, are all important in the reduction of symbolic violence.

4. Conclusion

This paper has examined the relationships between globalization, leadership, language, symbolic

violence, and education policy. Two territories were examined in terms of their education and language

policies. They were then compared in terms of policy implementation, language effects, and symbolic

violence. In Iran, the leadership was centralized, using a ‘power over’ and ‘globalization from above’

approach. In this case, policies restricted language usage in schools and promoted symbolic violence. In

the European Union, the leadership was more distributed, using a ‘power with’ and ‘globalization from

below’ approach. As such, policies promoted multilingualism and had the potential to reduce symbolic

violence. From this comparison I concluded that, in a global society, policies for education could be

implemented in a manner similar to globalization from below and focus on multilingualism; that is to say,

an inclusive, multi-linguistic policy is adopted and then implemented by the individuals living in specific

regions as best fits their circumstances. This overcomes the lack of resources which was problematic for

the EU, and overcomes the problem in Iran of poor motivation and student attrition in schools due to the

inability of students to learn in their native language.

For countries to be successful members of the global society, it is necessary for them to have similar

or identical criteria for education. Otherwise, it is difficult for citizens to move from one country to

another and have their education be equivalent in value. Yet, language is also an important factor. With a

common language among countries, communication barriers and language-based prejudices can be

overcome. Although this common language can be taught in school, it need not replace the native

language of anyone nor replace the diversity of languages that may exist among multiple countries.

Policies that result in the superiority of one language over the others lead to contention and can fracture a

country. Similarly, policy-makers who emphasize centralized leadership, ‘power over,’ and ‘globalization


from above’, and who do not engage in policy dialogue, are not characteristic of a democratic society.

Hence, to be a democratic society, it is necessary to engage in practices that allow policies to be analyzed,

compared against other policies or ideas, and improved through discussion with and feedback from

ordinary citizens.

References

1. Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation.

World Bank Publications.

2. Arzoz, X. (Ed.). (2008). Respecting linguistic diversity in the European Union. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John

Benjamins Publishing Co.

3. Ardila, A., & Ramos, E. (Eds.). (2007). Speech and language disorders in bilinguals. New York, NY: Nova

Science Publishers, Inc.

4. AzerNEWS. (2011, Dec 27). Azari may be taught in Iranian Universities. Retrieved from

http://www.azernews.az/azerbaijan/39884.html

5. Behrangi, S. (1964). Kand o kav dar masayel-e tarbiati-e Iran [An exploration of educational issues of Iran].

Tabriz, Iran: Shams Publishing.

6. Bentley, T. (2000). Learning beyond the classroom. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,

28, 353-364. doi:10.1177/0263211X000283008

7. Bjarnason, M. (2010). The political economy of joining the European Union: Iceland’s position at the beginning of the 21st century. Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.

8. Blase, J. (1991). (Ed.). The politics of life in schools.” Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1994). The field of cultural production. R. Johnson (Ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University

Press.

10. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press. (Original work published 1972).

11. Buttimer, A. (Ed.). (2001). Sustainable landscapes and lifeways: Scale and appropriateness. Cork, Ireland:

Cork University Press.

12. Byram, M. (Ed.). (2004). Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. New York, NY:

Routledge.

13. Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international

education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34, 161-175. doi:10.1080/

0305792042000213994

14. Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]. (2011). The CIA world factbook 2012. New York, NY: Skyhorse

Publishing, Inc.

15. Chakroun, B. (2010). National qualification frameworks: From policy borrowing to policy learning. European Journal of Education, 45, 199-216. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01425.x

16. Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research . SAGE.

17. Colón-Ríos, J. (2011). Law, Language, and the New Latin American Constitutions. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 42, 367-386. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1837063

18. Cotesta, V. (2008). Global society and human rights. (M. D'Auria, Trans.). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill

Academic Publishers.

19. Council of Europe [COE]. (1992). European charter for regional or minority languages. Retrieved from

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm

20. Craith, M. N. (2010). Linguistic heritage and language rights in Europe. In M. Longfield, W. Logan & M. N.

Craith (Eds.), Cultural diversity, heritage and human rights: Intersections in theory and practice (pp. 45-62).

New York, NY: Routledge.

21. Cusick, R A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school.” Studies of three schools. New

York: Longman.

Sirous Tabrizi 535

22. Davies, S., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J. L., & Duensing, S. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives

on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338-

353. doi:10.1177/0963662507079760

23. De Schutter, H. (2008). The linguistic territoriality principle—A critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25,

105-120. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00397.x

24. Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and

citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.

doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630

25. Dinstein, Y., & Tabory, M. (1992). The protection of minorities and human rights. Dordrecht, Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

26. Duke, J. T. (1976). Conflict and power in social life. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

27. Ehlers, D. (Ed.). (2007). European fundamental rights and freedom. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

28. Eurobarometer. (2006). Europeans and their language. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf

29. Falk, R. (1999). Predatory globalization: A critique. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

30. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

31. Grin, F. (2002). Using language economics and education economics in language education policy.

Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/grinen.pdf

32. Gronn, R (1986). Politics, power and the management of schools. In E. Hoyle (Ed.), The world yearbook of

education 1986.” The management of schools (pp. 45-54). London: Kogan Page.

33. Guibernau, M. (2007). The identity of nations. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

34. Hargreaves, A. (Ed.). (2005). Extending educational change . Dordrecht and New York: Springer.

35. Hart, D., & Livingstone, D. (2009). The 17th annual Ontario Institute for Studies in Education [OISE] survey: Public attitudes towards education in Ontario 2009. Retrieved from

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/About_OISE/OISE_Survey/17th_Survey.html

36. Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (Eds.). (2000). International schools & international education: Improving teaching, management & quality. New York, NY: Routledge.

37. Heilmeyer, W., & Hagan, J. (Eds). (2003). International handbook of violence research. Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

38. Highmore, B. (Ed.). (2002). The every day life reader. New York, NY: Routledge.

39. Hunt, F. (2008). Dropping out from school: A cross-country review of literature. Pathways to Access, Research

Report No 16. Falmer, United Kingdom: Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and

Equity [CREATE]. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/1864

40. International Baccalaureate Organization [IBO]. (2008). Towards a continuum of international education:

Primary years programme, middle years programme and diploma programme. Cardiff, United Kingdom:

International Baccalaureate Organization.

41. International Baccalaureate Organization [IBO]. (2011). International Baccalaureate language policy.

Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/mission/languagepolicy/

42. Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). (1980). Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unofficial abridged

English translation available here: http://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/Const-Iran(abridge).pdf

43. Jones, P. W. (1998). Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world education.

Comparative Education, 34, 143-155. doi:10.1080/03050069828243

44. Joshee, R., & Johnson, L. (2005). Multicultural education in the United States and Canada: The importance of

national policies. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International

handbook of educational policy (pp. 53-74). Drodrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

45. Khalilifar, H., & Hadad-E-Adel, G. (2012). Ketabeh olumeh echtemaei 5 ebtedaei [Social education textbook

for grade five of the elementary level]. Tehran, Iran: Offset.

46. Kheiltash, O., & Rust, V. D. (2009). Inequalities in Iranian education: Representations of gender,

socioeconomic status, ethnic diversity, and religious diversity in school textbooks and curricula. In D. B.

Holsinger and W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspective (pp.

392–416). Hong Kong, China: Comparative and Education Research Center.


47. Kheirandish, A., & Abbasi, J. (2012). Ketabeh olumeh echtemaei 2 rahnemaei [Social education textbook for

grade two of the secondary level]. Tehran, Iran: Offset.

48. Knapp, K., & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of foreign language communication and learning.

Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

49. Kontra, M., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Varady, T. (Eds.). (1999). Language, a right and a

resource: Approaching linguistic human rights. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.

50. Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power. Domination, empowerment and education. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

51. Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (2003). Language rights and political theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 3-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190503000163

52. Levine, P., Fung, A., & Gastil, J. (2005). Future directions for public deliberation. Journal of Public

Deliberation, 1(1), 3. Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol1/iss1/art3/

53. Lloyd, C. B., Mensch, B. S., & Clark, W. H. (2000). The effects of primary school quality on school dropout

among Kenyan girls and boys. Comparative Education Review, 44, 113-147. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/447600

54. Lukes, S. (1974). Power. A radical view. London: MacMillan Press.

55. Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils:

A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 (4), 251 270.

56. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Routledge.

57. McCann, D. (2010). The political economy of the European Union. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

58. Nwokeafor, C. U., & Langmia, K. (Eds.). (2010). Media and Technology in Emerging African Democracies.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

59. Ochs, K., & Phillips, D. (2004). Processes of educational borrowing in historical context. In D. Phillips & K.

Ochs (Eds.), Educational policy borrowing: Historical perspectives. Oxford studies in comparative education

(pp. 7-23). Oxford, United Kingdom: Symposium Books.

60. Philips, D. (1989). Neither a borrower nor a lender be? The problems of cross-national attraction in education.

Comparative Education, 25(3), 267-274. doi:10.1080/0305006890250302

61. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical

devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451-461.

62. Ritzer, G. (2009). Globalization: A basic text. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.

63. Rollow, S. G., & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Politics as a lever for organizational change. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

64. Rosman, A., Rubel, P. G., & Weisgrau, M. (2009). The tapestry of culture: An introduction to cultural

anthropology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

65. Rowlands, J. (1997). Questioning empowerment: Working with women in Honduras. Oxfam.

66. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education–or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

67. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

68. Solomon, R. P., & Portelli, J. P. (2001). Introduction. In J. P. Portelli & R. P. Solomon (Eds.), The erosion of

democracy in education: From critique to possibilities (pp. 15-27). Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises.

69. Sorensen, J. (2007). Challenges of unequal power distribution in university-community partnerships .

ProQuest.

70. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). Lessons from elsewhere: The politics of educational borrowing & lending.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

71. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding policy borrowing and lending: Building comparative policy studies.

In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending

(pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Routledge.

72. Sue, D. W. (2003). Overcoming our racism: The journey to liberation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

73. Tabrizi, S., and Kabirnejat, M. (2014). Policy Communities and Networks, Management, Education and

Governance. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.7, Issue.1, pp. 56-71.

Sirous Tabrizi 537

74. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2003, July-September). The

mother tongue dilemma. In Education Today (pp. 4-7). Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/education/education_today/ed_today6.pdf

75. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2005). Education For All

[EFA] global monitoring report 2005: The quality imperative. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University

Press. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/

efareport/reports/2005-quality/

76. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2010). Education For All

[EFA] global monitoring report 2010: Reaching the marginalized. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-

agenda/efareport/reports/2010-marginalization/

77. Van Oudenaren, J. (2005). Uniting Europe: An introduction to the European Union (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

78. Warrier, M. (Ed.). (2011). The politics of fair trade: A survey. New York, NY: Routledge.

79. Winton, S. (2010). Democracy in education through community-based policy dialogues. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 114, 69-92.

80. Winton, S., & Pollock, K. E. (2009). Teaching comparative policy analysis: A transborder distance learning

initiative. In Annual Distance Teaching and Learning Conference. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-

Madison. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/09_20054.pdf

81. Young, J. C., Levin, B. R., & Wallin, D. C. (2008). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to

educational administration. Toronto, Canada: Nelson Education.

82. Zymek, B., & Zymek, R. (2004). Traditional–national–international. Explaining the inconsistency of

educational borrowers. In D. Phillips & K. Ochs (Eds.), Educational policy borrowing: Historical perspectives. Oxford studies in comparative education (pp. 25-35). Oxford, United Kingdom: Symposium Books.

Appendix

Table A1. Attributes of the International Baccalaureate Learner Profile (IBO, 2008)

Attribute Description

Inquirers They develop their natural curiosity. They acquire the skills necessary to conduct

inquiry and research and show independence in learning. They actively enjoy

learning and this of love of learning will be sustained through their lives.

Knowledgeable They explore concepts, ideas and issues that have local and global significance. In so

doing, they acquire in-depth knowledge and develop understanding across a broad

and balanced range of disciplines.

Thinkers They exercise initiative in applying thinking skills critically and creatively to

recognize and approach complex problems, and make reasoned, ethical decisions.

Communicators They understand and express ideas and information confidently and creatively in

more than one language and in a variety of modes of communication. They work

effectively and willingly in collaboration with others.

Principled They act with integrity and honesty, with a strong sense of fairness, justice and

respect for the dignity of the individual, groups and communities. They take

responsibility for their own actions and the consequences that accompany them.

Open-minded They understand and appreciate their own cultures and personal histories, and are

open to the perspectives values and traditions of other individuals and communities.

They are accustomed to seeking and evaluating a range of points of view, and are

willing to grow from the experience.

Caring They show empathy, compassion and respect towards the needs and feelings of

others. They have a personal commitment to service, and act to make a positive

difference to the lives of others and to the environment.


Risk-takers They approach unfamiliar situations and uncertainty with courage and forethought,

and have the independence of spirit to explore new roles, ideas and strategies. They

are brave and articulate in defending their beliefs.

Balanced They understand the importance of intellectual, physical, and emotional balance to

achieve personal well-being for themselves and others.

Reflective They give thoughtful consideration to their own learning and experience. They are

able to assess and understand their strengths and limitations in order to support their

learning and personal development.

Table A2. Values of the International Baccalaureate Learner Profile (IBO, 2008)

Value Description

Benevolence Helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal responsible, true friendship, a spiritual life, mature love

Self-direction Creativity, curiosity, freedom, choosing own goals, independence

Universalism Protecting the environment, a world of beauty, unity with nature, broadmindedness,

social justice, wisdom, equality, a world at peace

Achievement Successful, capable, ambitious, influential, intelligent

Security Clean, national security, social order, family security, reciprocation of favors, health,

sense of belonging

Conformity Politeness, honoring parents and elders obedience, self-discipline

Hedonism Pleasure, enjoying life

Stimulation A varied life, daring, an exciting life

Tradition Devoutness, accepting one's portion in life, humbleness, moderation, respect for tradition

Power Preserving one's public image, social recognition

developing education policies for a global society: distributed leadership, language, and...

Documents