Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and the OECD PISA Global Competence Framework

Abstract

Globalisation has become increasingly important in education, and national systems are no longer defined only by the nation-state. The role of intergovernmental organisations such as the OECD has also become increasingly important, particularly through the development of the PISA tests and the publication of international comparison tables. With a growing recognition of educating for an international and globalised future, the OECD assessed global competence for the first time in 2018, with results released in October 2020. The power that the OECD exerts over its member states, and indeed further, in the field of education through the global competence assessment demonstrates social reproduction. This article examines the OECD’s 2018 Global Competence Framework from a Bourdieusian perspective. An analysis is undertaken of the framework using Bourdieu’s thinking tools of habitus, field and capital, and the mechanisms of pedagogic authority, pedagogic action and pedagogic work, demonstrating an unconsciously agreed power differential between social groups. The OECD, as well as policy-makers at a national level, must consider such implications in anticipating future policy developments in order to enable systemic injustices to be overcome and educational equality to be achieved.

Associations Between Global Competence and Right-Leaning Population: Evidence From PISA 2018 and European Social Survey

“…The main critical interrogation of the global competence framework stems from critical theory and postcolonial body of thought. Researchers claim that the global competence framework in its current form enables social reproduction (Vaccari and Gardinier, 2019), the perpetuation of global inequalities (Andrews, 2021), reinforces the us-them divide, and promotes neoliberal hegemony (Robertson, 2021), silences the voices and theories from the global South (Grotlüschen, 2018), also critical observations are expressed regarding insufficient instrument validation, theory-building, Western bias and a lack of intercultural comparability (Sälzer and Roczen, 2018). In the following, we review some of these concerns.…”

“…Similarly, Andrews (2021) deducts that OECD's global competence framework is enabling social reproduction. According to the author, the OECD's global competence framework can counteract the intent of the framework and could contribute to the reproduction of inequality within society because it lacks conceptual clarity and was developed without any diversity in expert groups.…”

“…According to the author, the OECD's global competence framework can counteract the intent of the framework and could contribute to the reproduction of inequality within society because it lacks conceptual clarity and was developed without any diversity in expert groups. According to Andrews (2021), Global competence reproduces the habitus of an Anglosphere elite. The author calls for reforming the framework to one that encourages changing the world rather than just reacting to a changing world (Andrews, 2021).…”

“…According to Andrews (2021), Global competence reproduces the habitus of an Anglosphere elite. The author calls for reforming the framework to one that encourages changing the world rather than just reacting to a changing world (Andrews, 2021).…”

Differences in the Level of Global Competence: A Case of Visegrad and Baltic Countries

“…One of the most recently developed approach in this regard is the global competence framework, introduced by the OECD´s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018. Since the OECD considers the concept of global competence to be a key issue for education systems around the world, it highlights own dominant status in evaluating such key interest (Andrews, 2021). The OECD global competence framework itself as well as the outcomes of evaluation published in October 2020 (OECD, 2020) evoked extensive academic discussion in this regard (e.g.…”