By showing how they can be re-interpreted and maybe relabeled to fi t the grid- group force-fi eld, I hope I make a useful step towards a greater conceptual clarity, while avoiding the pitfall of killing the debate by adhering to one defi nition only. In Appendix 1, end of this chapter, a number of well-known typologies of citizenship education (and of citizenship, if they were directly linked to educa- tion), is placed in the force-fi eld as described above. Th is is my reading only and in no way a rigorous measurement of ‘compatibility’ or ‘similarity’ of the actual labels created by authors and the ideal types in the force fi eld. What I hope to make clear is that grid-group theory can serve as a meta-theoretical framework to organize the discourse on citizenship education, without the need to super- impose preferences or to operate on implicit assumptions. Most of all, I hope to show that the diversity of views on citizenship education forma a common semantic fi eld which does have its boundaries; and within it discussion of various goals, approaches, and ideals is possible. In the next chapter, I will show how, through using Q methodology, I embarked upon a similar systematization of teachers’ views as well.
In the following paragraphs, I will discuss only a few of the typologies quot- ed in the scheme, without any claim on exhaustiveness. Th e examples are meant as an illustration of the possible advantages of re-reading other analytic schemes in terms of grid-group theory.
Th e book of “Th e Good Citizen” (Schudson, 1998) deserves a place in this section with the title already. Schudson traces the development and the range of the concept of citizenship throughout modern American history with three distinct types that could roughly fi t the grid-group scheme. Among the many contributions of his work, the most relevant for this discussion is the warning against unrealistic defi nitions of citizenship that actually hurt democracy. Schud- son’s plea for a mixed model and diff erent ways of distributing responsibilities and models of participation support the idea to employ culture theory to map the possible constellations of co-existing orientations, without placing a price-tag and a ranking order on any of them.
Th e typology by Van Gunsteren (Van Gunsteren, 1992) is included here for two reasons. First, because it has been infl uential in shaping at least the Dutch discourse on citizenship education and consequently, through policy advisers drawing on his work (Veldhuis, 1997), the European one; and sec-
ond, because his classifi cation is explicitly based on grid-group theory. He discusses the positive and the negative sides of each type of citizenship and the ways they keep each other in balance. Th e calculating citizen pertains to the liberalistic idea of citizenship, with two versions – profi t maximizing and self-interest promotion. Th e downside of this position is the diffi culty to engage in collective action when necessary. Th e republican form is very much concerned with the idea of educating the citizen, with the initiation of members of society to the relevant rules and procedures. Th e downside of this orientation is that it can lead to an extremely hierarchic, military type of order and more importantly, can be limiting to individual exchange and diversity. Finally, ‘the individual as a member of a community’ falls into a hy- brid enclavist thought style, where loyalty and good manners are cherished. An important implication for education is that the individual is seen as capa- ble of growth only if supported and directed by a community. Th e downside of this type of citizenship is that it requires small-scale relationships, which are not easily maintained in a modern society. Moreover, in such communi- ties, the support can come at the price of limiting freedom.
An empirical study under Dutch teachers uses this typology as a starting point. Leenders et al. (Leenders et al., 2008) depict three types of views among Dutch teachers, related to three diff erent types of educational activities. Note that the preference of teachers is not considered in terms of their perceived role, but linked to the type of citizens they envision as a product of their eff orts. Th e adapting citizen is oriented towards discipline and fi nds independence less im- portant. Th e calculating citizen is the individualistic, self-interest- and market- oriented citizen, and the critical democratic citizen is considered, again, somehow superior and the only one linked directly to a (value-oriented) form of democ- racy. Th e adapting citizen exhibits many features of the hierarchic thought style, the calculating one fi ts the individualistic type and the critical democratic citizen is associated with the egalitarian one. However, in the force-fi eld, the critical orientation can also be manifest, though in another form, in the individualistic thought style. And the unsuccessfully adapted citizen becomes suddenly visible in the isolate’s quadrant, while it is missing in the study. Th e study misses that, because it is focused on calculating prevalence of one view or another instead of detecting possible hybrids or unique perspectives.
Kymlicka (Kymlicka, 1996) is one of the most quoted scholars in the fi eld of citizenship education and his ideals and models have found their way in many policy and curriculum documents. Th e most important in his writings for the purpose of this study is the idea of ‘minimal’ and ‘maxi- mal’ citizenship, which are repeated in many diff erent versions afterwards. Th e important implication of this type of thinking is that it presumes some
kind of a linear progress, starting from a simple, liberal, legally oriented idea of citizenship, linked to teaching as informing students about their rights, which will inevitably evolve to higher, richer, more just and more inclusive types of citizenship. As a theoretical idea, also based on the historical devel- opment of the concept of citizenship and particularly its link to democracy in modern times, this is a fruitful line of thought. Th e trouble begins when it is used to prescribe teachers to aspire to the ‘higher’ forms of citizenship, as they are considered inherently more valuable. In terms of grid-group theory, all forms and positions are valuable as they keep each other in check. With a bit of a stretch maybe, the three virtues defi ned by Rawls, that from the underground of Kymlicka’s typology could fi t the grid-group scheme. Justice would refer to hierarchic thinking (rules, law), tolerance (called civility by Kymlicka) refers to Individualism and public spiritedness to the enclavist position. Public spiritedness is defi ned as ‘the ability and the willingness of people to engage in public discourse about matters of public policy, and to question authority” (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994, p. 4)
Th e classifi cation of Kymlicka becomes problematic, when skills required to exercise citizenship are fi rmly linked to a particular type. It could be argued that people in the hierarchical position would also engage in public discourse and the persons with individualist orientation will also be prepared to question authority. Kymlicka’s main concern are minorities and their representation in dominant types of citizenship, which makes matters more complicated. It could even be argued that the lack of attention for a fatalist (isolates) thought style eff ectively blocks the way to examining the ways to emancipate groups that are excluded by dominant modes of citizenship.
In a frequently quoted article, Westheimer and Kahne (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) depart from theoretical models and explore teachers’ views, which are eventually also grouped in two types along the low group – high group axis, highlighting two aspects: goal (good vs. critical citizen) and focus (knowledge vs. attitudes). Th us, one group of teachers they found adhered to ‘personally responsible citizenship’, law abiding, participating in the commu- nity, respectful and patriotic. Th e other group was less commonly pursued, ‘justice oriented,’ with an accent on critical social analysis, and more likely to address systemic change. Th ese two views can be labeled hierarchic and egalitarian, respectively. I suspect, based on the descriptions, that the indi- vidualist thought style was lost due to the focus on one dimension only. A third type was labeled as ‘participatory.’13
Th e authors discuss some ‘inherent confl icts’ in the typology. Th ey see the diversity of views as ‘dual goals’, where understanding of social and political 13 Th e three types were confi rmed in a later study by (Patterson et al., 2012).
issues is not always compatible with fostering participation. I think that these can be addressed if their fi ndings are placed in the grid-group scheme. Rather than addressing only low and high group, it is possible to see the two versions of the ‘personally responsible citizen’ as hierarchic (patriotic character educa- tion) and a hybrid between hierarchical and egalitarian (‘participatory citizen’). Both value membership in a community, but the latter one is more equity and improvement oriented.
Similarly, the infl uential Eurydice evaluation reports (Eurydice, 2005, 2012) use a classifi cation consisting of four areas: political literacy, followed by critical thinking and analytic skills, then values, attitudes and behaviors, and fi nally active citizenship, which is seen as the proof of the pudding: the result of the successful implementation of the elements in the other areas. Th ese areas, however, acquire diff erent meanings in the context of the grid-group thought styles. For each of these four areas, the accents will be diff erently chosen. Critical and analytic skills are taught by all, but with diff erent purposes and in diff erent contexts, as already discussed. Th us, comparing approaches to teaching critical skills among teachers adhering to diff erent thought styles cannot be a one-step procedure. Since these four areas are used as a basis for monitoring and evaluat- ing citizenship education activities, placing them in the grid-group force-fi eld could prevent a great deal of confusion.
C
ONCLUSIONIn this chapter, I presented the advantages of grid-group theory as a framework for mapping teachers’ views. In particular, I explained why the framework is so suitable for a cross-country comparison at the level of individual teachers. I also demonstrated how this framework builds upon other research and ty- pologies by providing them with a solid theoretical background and a check for completeness. I also introduced the force-fi eld of diff erent aspects within which any possible type of teachers’ views could be positioned. Th e ascribed meanings of the aspects as well as their mutual connections and tensions was outlined. Th e four ideal types of teachers’ views emerging from the particular ways to resolve these tensions was described. Th e chapter ended with an il- lustration of the possible use of the force-fi eld typology to map the existing discourse on citizenship education.
Now that the force-fi eld is described in its main aspects, it can be used as a common context for a conversation with teachers to explore their position on these aspects, and to fi nd common denominators and signifi cant diff erences in their views. In the next chapter, I will describe the research design based on Q methodology as the most suitable tool to build upon the theoretical model.
Appendix 1 T ypologies of ci Ɵ z enship educ aƟ on in the grid-gr oup f o rce fi eld
Th e references correspond to the numbers of the scheme 1. (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001)
2. (Hoskins, Villalba, & Saisana, 2012) 3. (Heater, 2004)
4. (Dejaeghere & Hooghe, 2009) 5. (Kerr, 1999)
6. (Banks & Nguen, 2010) 7. (Evans, 2006) 8. (Bron, 2006) 9. (Marshall, 1950) 10. (Schudson, 1998) 11.(Frazer, 2009) 12. (Frazer, 2000) 13. (Kymlicka, 1996) 14. (Crick, 1998)
15.(van Gunsteren & voor het Regeringsbeleid, 1992) 16. (Putnam, 1995)
17. (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) 18.(Leenders, Veugelers, & De Kat, 2008)
19. (Anderson, Avery, Pederson, Smith, & Sullivan, 1997) 20. (Myers, 2007)