Search results

The overarching purpose of this paper is to empower K‐12 educators, colleagues in teacher education programs, and educational leadership personnel to address social justice issues within communities where divergent perspectives abound.

The authors use a discursive method to uncover the historical and theoretical differences between global education and inclusive education, identify the ways in which the two fields are complementary, and propose strategies for education leadership personnel that build on the commonalities and best practices of both fields.

The authors argue that the two fields have essential elements that can and should inform each other. They term this intersection “inclusive global education”. They integrate the concepts from global education and inclusive education to define inclusive global education as a pedagogical and curricular stance, a way to honor the diverse cultural, linguistic, physical, mental, and cognitive complexities of all people, and a process that puts problematization of social justice issues at the center of leadership and teaching/learning activities.

Whereas global educators traditionally focus on learning to understand and come to respect the cultural, social, and political “other”, the traditional focus of special educators is to empower students to gain self‐respect. The authors argue that the first step involves a discourse that allows people with equally compelling but different views to learn to problematize issues of social justice. Once this first step is taken, inclusive global educators can come to agreements within diverse communities as to how to address local or global social justice issues. The authors further argue that global educators and special educators combine their knowledge of both fields. Together, global inclusive educators can forge pedagogical content knowledge that bridges the gap between affirming one's own identity and maintaining unity with the whole, and exemplifies a robust notion of social justice.

The authors believe this is the first attempt to integrate the conceptual and theoretical assumptions of two divergent knowledge bases (global education and inclusive education).

The purpose of this study is to present the development of justice-oriented worldviews among three New York City public school global history teachers and its manifestations in their curriculum and practice.

This qualitative study, part of a larger study, relied on interviews centering around participants' backgrounds, international experiences and global perspectives, along with observations of their teaching.

The findings show that participants' experiences, particularly with global issues such as climate change, capitalism, and global inequality influenced their worldviews to focus on justice. As a result, there were direct connections of their justice-oriented worldviews in their teaching of global history.

This study highlights the ways in which global history teachers' worldviews influence their teaching practice. Presenting justice-oriented teaching allows for veteran and future teachers to consider this type of instruction in their world history and global studies classroom. Additionally, this study provides insight into the intersections of world history and global education taking place within secondary classrooms that focus on justice rather than traditional world history content teaching.

This paper will identify and further explore the ideals versus realities of learning poverty and the consequential effects on our moral obligations and responsibilities. The wealthy nations are now under further pressure to recognise and realise their moral obligations to enabling social justice in the context of access, and distribution, of vaccines for the poorer nations. Learning poverty has always been a feature of our global economic, and institutional order, and has become an increasingly important factor in achieving justice.

The study focusses on a human rights approach to learning poverty and the ideals versus the realities of what we are beginning to see in the times of a global pandemic. The major challenges to justice is inherent to the recognition that wealthy nations continue to have a pivotal role in the reduction of poverty. The identified major challenges in the context of learning poverty are: “nation states and the global pandemic”, “international interactions and learning poverty” and “global institutions and learning inequalities”. In particular, the authors explore the concept of ideals versus realities through three “challenges”, which continues to challenge any semblance of justice in the current global vaccine distribution. Nation states and borders, international interactions and global institutions remain barriers in overcoming what is becoming a reality of learning poverty.

This paper seeks to look beyond the economics of vaccine trade and seek a way to accept a moral claim of justice for all. The authors consider how wealthy nations are active participants in the emergence of learning poverty for many nations.

By exploring the ideals versus realities of learning poverty, and human rights, the authors highlight some of the challenges, and wealthy nations moral obligations, through the emergence of a new dimensional indicator of poverty, learning poverty.

US universities are increasingly addressing issues of equity and social justice through global learning programs with international partners. Growing numbers of universities now prioritize the development and implementation of international programs such as study abroad, and service learning to fulfill components of missions and visions focused on educating global citizens. This chapter discusses how global citizenship goals intersect with social justice education through global learning programs such as study abroad and global service learning. It also describes the conceptual frameworks that inform teaching and learning in this domain and highlights current examples of partnerships and overseas institutions that focus on goals of social justice and developing the global citizen. Finally, this chapter will discuss future challenges for US universities in further developing international partnerships for social justice.

The paper explores the notion of worker voice in terms of its implications for supply chain justice. The paper proposes the value of the recognition perspective on social justice for framing workers’ experiences in global supply chains and identifies opportunities for the advancement of the worker voice agenda with recognition justice in mind.

The paper adopts a conceptual approach to explore the notion of worker voice in supply chains in terms of the recognition perspective on social justice.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) scholarship has considered worker voice in terms of two key paradigms, which we term communication and representation. To address recognition justice for workers in global supply chains, the worker voice agenda must consider designing worker voice mechanisms to close recognition gaps for workers with marginalised identities; the shared responsibilities of supply chain actors to listen alongside the expectation of workers to use their voice; and the expansion of the concept of worker voice to cut across home-work boundaries.

The paper offers conceptual clarity on the emerging notion of worker voice in SSCM and is the first to interrogate the implications of recognition justice for the emergent worker voice agenda. It articulates key opportunities for future research to further operationalise worker voice upon a recognition foundation.

The purpose of this paper is to address questions policymakers, working in a global marketplace, might ask about ethical and theological considerations of ambiguities or uncertainties of justice issues in the global markets in which they operate.

The paper draws on earlier research and published works in examining four specific questions about ambiguities of justice, from ethical and theological perspectives, and their relevance for policymakers in the global marketplace.

Justice, including social justice, is a significant value impacting on decision and policymakers in government and other types of organizations in a global marketplace. However, the value “justice” exhibits ambiguity or uncertainty. Even if a claim that economic policies developed through prudential judgement are not subject to the moral or ethical code is accepted, it does not absolve individual participants in the policymaking and administrative processes from ethical and moral responsibility if the outcomes of the policies are deemed to be selfish and unjust.

This paper is limited by the ability to examine all the literature in the field at a greater depth. However, this has been ameliorated by examining a sufficient sample of theological and social scientific literature and relating these to the writings of the theologian, Paul Tillich, on questions about the four ambiguities of justice.

This paper provides a useful appraisal of the various social justice issues that might be encountered by managers working in a global marketplace. It provides some definitive alternatives from which policymakers may select a course of action for their organizations in individual and collective markets throughout the world.

An identified need is fulfilled in this paper in that it supports executives and managers who may have doubts about ethical and theological justice issues that arise through the policies adopted and processes employed in their operations in the global marketplace.

Central to Martha Nussbaum's development of the capability approach into a theory of social and global justice is her addition of the notion of a capability threshold below which no dignified human life can be lived. This capability threshold identifies a standard for distributive justice that any decent political order must secure for all citizens. It is this threshold that is the intended focus of this paper.

Examining her most recent statement of the capability approach, Nussbaum's arguments that the threshold should be locally set by each nation in accordance with their history and traditions, and that all nations currently fail to satisfy the threshold condition, are assessed.

This paper shows that if Nussbaum's arguments are accepted, then the central function of a threshold as a tool of discrimination is undermined. If all nations fail to meet their locally set threshold, then there is no clear basis for the global redistribution that Nussbaum regards as necessary. Indeed, what basis there is could even justify counter‐intuitive redistribution from poorer to richer nations.

This paper concludes that if the capability approach is to be developed into a theory of social justice, then, rather than being set locally at different levels, the capability threshold may need to be a genuinely global one. Only then can the threshold discriminate between unjust political orders and those that are at least minimally just.

The purpose of this paper is to develop principles through which the global economic structure could become more equal and just; it begins by demonstrating that world poverty is pervasive, and that the global economic structure is very unequal.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical arguments in welfare economics, utilitarianism, Sen's capability approach, and Rawlsian theories of justice to argue that none of those theories can lead to a more equal global economic structure. Thus, the development of more egalitarian principles is needed.

Arguing that the principles that Rawls developed in his 1999 The Law of Peoples are more egalitarian than the other theories, the paper still finds them less than adequate. However, the principles developed in the paper can lead the world toward a more just and much more egalitarian economic structure.

Since the principles developed in the paper are more egalitarian, helping toward ending world poverty and extreme inequality, the paper and its findings constitute an original and a valuable contribution.

Injustice is perceived, experienced and articulated. Social movements, and their constitutive parts, frame and re-frame these senses of injustice. Two often-overlapping accounts of social movements are in focus in this chapter. Human geography has been flooded with movement-based analyses of environmental justice (EJ). Sociology (more appropriately political sociology) has provided insight into social movements in the form of ‘contentious politics’ (CP). Building on both sets of literature, this chapter seeks to advance thought in human geography through a detailed exploration of master and collective action framing. It argues, firstly, that framing analysis challenges activist researchers to retain ‘spatial constructs’ as their central focus, rather than discourse. It calls, secondly, for us to unbind injustice as much as justice in our analysis of framing. And lastly, it demands a multi-spatial perspective on framing beyond simply scalar accounts.