Paradigms & Global Perspectives
Overview articles to read 1
L1 - On Medicalisation vs Normalisation and the Community Psychology perspective 3
L1b - Community pedagogy for an agentic and hopeful generation 5
L2 - Securitization and dialogic pedagogies 7
L2b - Polarization and dialogue in education and beyond 9
L3 - The neoliberal paradigm and its alternatives: Education and youth care as a
commodity or public good? 13
L3b - Systems of secondary education and inequality 15
L4 - Paradigms in international development and beyond: Modernization vs
post-colonialism 18
L4b - Albinism in Tanzania 20
L5 - The monocultural, multicultural and intercultural paradigm in education 22
L5b - Teaching in culturally diverse urban classrooms 25
L6 - The technocratic paradigm, critical pedagogy and the pedagogy of hope 28
L6b - Government, (good) Government and Public Policy Making 30
L7 - Multilingualism and Migration: Spotlight on different educational paradigms 34
,Overview articles to read
L1:
● De Winter, M. (2012). Socialization and Civil Society. How parents, teachers and others
could foster a democratic way of life. Sense Publishers. Chapter 3 (10 pages) and 4 (20
pages).
●
Moritsugu, J., Vera, E. G., Wong, F. W., & Grover Duffy, K. (2014). Community
psychology (5nd Ed.). Pearson Education. Chapter 1
60 pages
L2:
● De Winter, M. (2012). Socialization and Civil Society. How parents, teachers and others
could foster a democratic way of life. Sense Publishers. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (20
pages)
● Kaulingfreks, F. (2016). Senseless violence or unruly politics? The uncivil revolt of young
rioters. Krisis, Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, 2(1), 4–21. (17 pages)
● Sukarieh, M., & Tannock, S. (2018). The global securitisation of youth. Third World
Quarterly, 39(5), 854-870. https://doiorg.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1080/014
36597.2017.1369038 (16 pages)
●
Aiello, E., Puigvert, L., & Schubert, T. (2018). Preventing violent radicalization of youth
through dialogic evidence-based policies. International Sociology, 33(4),435-453.
https://doi.org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1177/0268580918775882 (18 pages)
71 pages
L3:
● Chapter 5 from de Winter (12 pages)
● Overton, J., Stupples, P., Murray, W. E., Gamlen, A., & Palomino‐Schalscha, M. (2020).
Learning journeys: Five paradigms of education for development. Asia Pacific Viewpoint,
61(2), 366-380. https://doiorg.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1111/apv.12283 (14 pages)
●
Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on
schooling. The Handbook of Global Education Policy, 128-144. (16 pages)
42 pages
L4:
● Ansell, N. (2017) Children, Youth and Development (2nd ed.). Routledge. see:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203829400 , Chapter 1 (36 pages)
1
, ● Philipps, J. A. (2018). Global generation? Youth studies in a postcolonial world.
Societies, 8(1),14. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc80100142 (12 pages)
●
Van Esch, R., & De Haan, M. (2017). Implementing parenting programmes across
cultural contexts: A perspective on the deficit narrative. European Journal of
Development Research, 29(5),983-998. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0102-7 (16
pages)
64 pages
L5:
● Hajisoteriou, C., & Angelides, P.(2016). Chapter 3: Conceptions of intercultural education
from around the globe, In: Hajisoteriou, C., & Angelides, P. (2016). Globalisation of
Intercultural Education (28 pages)
● Hajisoteriou, C., & Sorkos, G. (2023). Towards a new paradigm of “Sustainable
Intercultural and inclusive education”: A comparative “blended” approach. Education
Inquiry, 14(4), 496-512. (17 pages)
●
Leeman, Y. (2017). Whither cultural diversity and intercultural education in the
Netherlands?. In: Global teaching: Southern perspectives on teachers working with
diversity (pp.17-33). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. (17 pages)
62 pages
L6:
● De Winter, M. (2012). Socialization and Civil Society. How parents, teachers and others
could foster a democratic way of life. Sense Publishers. Chapter 6 (20 pages)
● Rajala, A., Cantell, H., Haapamäki, K., Saariaho, A., Sorri, M., Taimela, I. (2023).
Engaging with the political in learning: Possible futures, learning and agency in the
anthropocene. In: Patrick, P.G. (eds) How People Learn in Informal Science
Environments. Springer, Cham. (18 pages) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13291-9_6
●
Webb, D. (2013). Pedagogies of hope. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32,
397-414. (17 pages)
55 pages
Lecture Wieger Bakker:
● Jann, W. & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In Fischer, F. , Miller, G., &
Sidney, M. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp.
43-58). CRC Press.
16 pages
2
,L1 - On Medicalisation vs Normalisation and the Community Psychology perspective
Paradigms are defined as theoretical perspectives, a set of coherent ideas for a philosophy that
helps us to understand a phenomenon or a field and informs professional actions.
● Paradigms are based on a natural science perspective (Khun): no linear progression but
also based on consensus, scientific revolutions, new insights by the scientific community.
○ Paradigmas can be incommensurable (but not always be).
● Paradigms according to a social science perspective (Latour): no linear progression but
paradigms are also political.
○ Total objectivity is an illusion. The production of knowledge cannot be separated
from politics (and thus from the notion of multiple interests and perspectives), but
complete relativism should also be avoided.
Thus, consequences of political and non-linear nature of the development of scientific
knowledge in social sciences:
● Multiple different paradigms operate next to each other.
● Paradigms have important consequences for practice.
● They often are developed in interaction with particular normative positions in the society
and are never exclusively based on scientific knowledge or perspectives.
Context: normalization versus medicalization in the public debate
‘Longer waiting times for youth help’ is not the same as children suffering more from bad
conditions.
- Medicalization is when you help a child from their regular circumstances where they notice an
illness (being more cautious). This means that there can be overprotection and also
professionalization/ individualization.
● Thus: medicalization, overproduction and individualization/professionalization.
Medicalization is the process by which previously nonmedical problems become defined and
treated as medical problems, usually as diseases or disorders.
● E.g.: ADHD, alcoholism, addiction, eating disorders → not medical problems in the past.
● It gives certain advantages (not having to work) and disadvantages (not facing
challenges like the mainstream).
Some saying about medicalization from Conrad:
● Medicalized categories are elastic and can expand or contract (ADHD, PTSD, hysteria).
● The medical categories change over time.
● Medicalization exists next to de-medicalization (e.g. homosexuality).
- Conrad states four ways on what is driving medicalization:
● Not always a physical biological base (people within society).
● The medical profession
● Biotechnology (the pharmaceutical industry, genetics, and forms of medical technology).
● Care system: consumers, and managed care (including all kinds of health insurance).
Three questions:
● Is medicalization part of a/our culture?
○ De Wachter: Our times are defined by psychiatric diseases and vice versa.
Psychiatry is the mirror of the world we live in.
3
, ○ It is based on our cultural norms on happiness
● Is being traumatized not a ‘normal reaction to a traumatizing world?’
● Why do we declare the person ill, and not the system?
○ E.g: Students with stress? → hire more psychologists. Why not look at the
university? - Sarah Ahnson
- Wolfgang von Goethe: Speaking for myself, I too believe that humanity will win in the long run;
I am only afraid that at the same time the world will have turned into one huge hospital where
everyone is everybody else's humane nurse.
● Real troubles are made into individual diseases.
-Verhaeghe: We pathologize behaviors because they go against the norm.
● E.g.: we don’t accept hyperactivity → ADHD is abnormal and thus medicalized.
● It is a misconception that the diagnostics according to the DSM 5 is based on scientific
evidence, it basically reflects our norms on normality, and the practice associated with it.
○ What is normal is context and time dependent.
● After Focault: The discourse of normality (the good child) defines how we see the
deviant/ill child.
The opposite paradigm of medicalization is de-medicalization or normalization. This could be
done with the community psychology approach.
= Instead of having a problem solved by professionals, you can also make your
community stronger.
○ Increase: prevention, own responsibility of citizens and normal parenting.
○ Decrease: specialized care.
- In context of the increasing demand for youth care/ youth welfare despite that the prevalence
of problems is stable: using the community psychology approach.
● Thus: re-establishing authority to the parent and civil society, and parent communities.
Community psychology as opposite of medicalization:
● Community/ecological approaches
● Human competencies are best viewed/understood/fostered in their social contexts.
● Active collaboration between all levels of the community is required.
● Empowerment is needed (strength, competencies, resources of the community are
stressed).
● Focus lies on prevention, not therapy.
Summary:
● No universal self-evident way to look at the care for children. Care is organized
according to different paradigms.
● Medicalisation and normalization are opposite tendencies and depend on the norms of
a particular society (none of these are inherently bad).
● Deviant child ↔ the normal, the good, successful child.
● What is the deviant/normal child is time and context specific.
● It is important to study these developments and keep up to date as an academic/
professional.
4
