navigating the boundaries of active global citizenship

Navigating the boundaries of active globalcitizenship

Benjamin J Lough1 and Amanda Moore McBride2

This paper informs the active global citizenship debate by assessing whether returned international volunteers witha strong belief in the need for global governance also believe that participation in national political and civic spacescan drive global change. Regression models use survey responses from 245 returned international volunteers atthree points in time. Findings indicate no significant difference in volunteers’ conceptions of global citizenshipbefore and after international service. However, volunteers who hold cosmopolitan views about the need for globalgovernance have a higher sense of efficacy that participation in national spaces may affect global change. Inaddition, they are more likely to engage internationally but not locally. Findings suggest that global citizens maymaintain an active civic identity rooted in overlapping locations. In addition, heightened notions of globalcitizenship appear to have a significant effect on returned volunteers’ interest in international affairs and activeengagement across national borders.

Key words International service; volunteering; global citizenship; nationalism; quantitative

1School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USAEmail: [email protected] Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, Gephardt Institute for Public Service, Center for SocialDevelopment, St Louis, MO 63130, USA

Revised manuscript received 18 April 2013

Introduction

Many geographers have expressed concern that youngadults in the Global North are unprepared to meet thedemands of an increasingly globalised society (Drake1987; Haigh 2002; Wade 2001). In a 2010 multinationalstudy measuring world-mindedness and global citizen-ship among university students, more than 40 per cent ofstudents in the UK were categorised as nationalistic orethnocentric (Meyer et al. 2011). Although the UK’srankingwas slightly lower innationalism than in theotherEnglish-speaking countries, many young people believedthe needs of their own country should remain the highestpriority, and agreed that conflict, inequality and exclu-sion are inevitable prices to pay (Meyer et al. 2011).

Exposure to international ‘others’ is viewed as onepathway to lessen nationalistic and ethnocentric atti-tudes while increasing global citizenship and percep-tions of responsibility to people in other nations. Studyabroad, international internships, gap-years, interna-tional volunteerism and other forms of travel andtourism are all promoted as methods to promote globalcitizenship (Abdi and Shultz 2008; Battistoni et al.2009; Oxfam 2006). Although empirical studies con-necting international experiences to global citizenshipare rare, a 2002 report measuring geographic literacyfound that young adults in the highest-scoring

European countries (Sweden, Germany and Italy) werealso those who were the most travelled in the threeyears prior to data collection (Trivedi 2002).

Over the past ten years, there has been a significantincrease in international travel from countries in theGlobal North, with a specific interest in internationalvolunteering to countries in the Global South (Tiessenand Heron 2012; Tourism Research and Marketing2008). It is expected that the market for volunteering,service-learning and other forms of international expe-riential learning will continue to expand (IEE 2011;Lewin 2009). International Volunteer CooperationOrganisations (IVCOs) often tap this market bypromoting international service as a way to educateparticipants about global issues and to raise theirperceptions of global responsibilities and obligations(Bellamy and Weinberg 2006; Davies 2006; Diprose2012; Lewin 2009). This objective has been supportedanecdotally by many returned volunteers who describetheir experiences as ‘transformative’ learning moments(Abram et al. 2005; Grusky 2000; Hunter 2008), oreducational ‘turning points’ in their lives (Machin 2008;Starr 1994). With the exception of a few studiestouching on the subject, little empirical work hasinvestigated the assertion that international service isassociated with heightened levels of global citizenship(ITAD 2011; Tiessen and Heron 2012).

The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion ofthe Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). ISSN 0020-2754 Citation: 2014 39 457–469 doi: 10.1111/tran.12035

© 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

This paper first explores debates surrounding theconcept of global citizenship and its utility as a usefulframework for global learning (Davies 2006). It thenexamines empirically whether international volunteersfrom the Global North change their perceptions ofglobal citizenship following a service placement in theGlobal South. It further investigates potential avenuesfor active global citizenship – assessing whetherreturned volunteers with a strong belief in globalgovernance also believe that engagement in nationalspaces can drive global change. Lastly it examineswhether volunteers act in accordance with these beliefsby engaging in domestic and international civic activ-ities.

Conceptualising global citizenship

Attention to the impacts of globalisation on theemergence of a discernible global citizenship is increas-ing in academic literature, in national and internationalpolicy circles, and in the practices of NGOs, corporateactors, and secondary schools and universities (Oxfam2006; Schattle 2008). The notion of global citizenship isa contested and widely deliberated concept. Citizenshiphas historically been defined as the rights and respon-sibilities between individuals and the governing stateswhere they reside (Machon and Walkington 2000).From this socio-political perspective, many have arguedthat citizenship is theoretically grounded to placebecause of the boundaries used to exclude ‘outsiders’of a particular political state (Davies 2006).

On the other hand, social, economic and politicalchanges at the global level have eroded dependenciesand obligations between citizenship and the state.Many scholars contend that a definition of citizenshiptied strictly to spatial boundaries of a nation is limitingand fails to recognise people’s perception of belongingto, and engaging with, an emerging global community(Davies et al. 2005; Schattle 2008). With this conten-tion in mind, one reason for the tenacious use of theterm global citizenship may be to intentionally highlightthe paradox between cosmopolitan notions of inclusionand parochial notions of exclusion that have tradition-ally been associated with national citizenship andidentity.

This paper will focus on a more circumscribed viewof citizenship as a socio-political construct that isoperationalised as a diminished sense of allegiance to aparticular nation, along with a moral solidarity andexpanded universe of obligation to those in othercountries (Habermas 1992; Held 1995). On the otherhand, it also challenges whether active citizenship mustbe limited to participation within national boundaries.

As a socio-political construct, some argue that ‘thenotion of “global citizenship” is simply a metaphor …We cannot be citizens of the world in the way that we

are of a country’ (Davies 2006, 5). By this logic,although a person’s identity may become more multi-cultural or pluralistic through engagement with diversepopulations, ‘it is not possible to speak of a true globalcitizenship in the absence of a global state’ (McIlwaine2007, 1266). According to this view, in order toconstruct a true global citizenship, there must be anevolution beyond the nation-state towards a one-worldgovernment (Brodie 2004; Hettne 2000; O’Byme 2005;Muetzelfeldt and Smith 2002).

Staeheli (2010) provides a counter-perspective,asserting that citizenship is defined by multiple exclu-sionary borders, and can operate at many different‘sites’ confined by both physical and metaphoricalboundaries. According to this ‘new spatiality of citi-zenship’ (Staeheli 1999, 61), democratic structures area blend of many different institutions, only some ofwhich are affiliated with the state (Held 1995; Staeheli1999). Others agree that changes wrought by globali-sation have altered relationship between states, trans-formed multicultural identities, and expandedopportunities for individual association and actionbeyond nation-states (Dower and Williams 2002;Mitchell 2003; Muetzelfeldt and Smith 2002; Vanden-berg 2000; Wagner 2004).

With the spike in global communication fuelled byelectronic mass media, Habermas projected 20 yearsago that the idea of global citizenship may finally‘become a reality for the first time’ in the comingdecades (1992, 19). However, he argues that this realitywould depend on the presence of functional globalmechanisms for geopolitical engagement and demo-cratic accountability. According to this perspective,identity based on both state and global citizenshipdepend heavily on one’s ability to legitimately influenceglobal policies in the ‘world public sphere’ (Habermas1996, 514).

Global citizens may have no direct democraticcapacity to vote or to formally negotiate legal termson a global scale in the absence of a global governancebody. However, advocacy and action with transnationalNGOs and multilateral institutions may influencehuman rights issues directly and indirectly throughengagement and political pressure – allowing individ-uals to engage indirectly in democratic action. Becauseof the theoretical connection between engagement andcitizenship, notions of a global civil society and activecitizenship feature prominently in contemporary dis-cussions and definitions of global citizenship.

Active global citizenship

Literature on active citizenship often uses a wide lensof global citizenship – referring to citizenship as theapplication of one’s ‘moral responsibility’ to meet theneeds and welfare of others in one’s global community

458 Benjamin J Lough and Amanda Moore McBride

ISSN 0020-2754 Citation: 2014 39 457–469 doi: 10.1111/tran.12035© 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

(Kearn 1992). At the global level, people who identifyas active global citizens develop a cosmopolitan mind-set or a feeling of being at home in the world, with awillingness to take upon themselves obligations andresponsibilities that transcend national boundaries(Schattle 2008). Active cosmopolitanism recognisesthat as people feel greater solidarity with citizens ofother nations, they may exhibit less provincial attitudesor interests and may be more willing to engage andwork for the common good of all people (Lewin 2009;Nussbaum 2008). As a point of clarification, cosmo-politanism as used in this paper refers to one’s belief inthe need for open political governance to meet globalneeds (Held 1995). As such, it is more limiting thanwider conceptions of cosmopolitanism often referencedin the literature (Brennan 1997; Mitchell 2007).

With a cosmopolitan approach to governance, activeglobal citizenship would theoretically require a globaldemocratic body or some form of organised politicalactors in international civil society with the ability toimplement change toward the common good (Held1995). As McIlwaine argues, it is theoretically inap-propriate to apply concepts such as ‘citizen’ or ‘civilsociety’ at the global level unless there is space andplace for global civic engagement or the ‘potential forglobal citizens to operate through a virtual, democratic,global civic space where they could challenge globalpower bases’ (2007, 1265). Consistent with this argu-ment, there may be many democratic structures andcivic spaces outside of the state for fulfilling one’smoral obligation towards a global community.

Globalisation and internationalisation are creatingnew structures, tools and spaces for active globalcitizenship. For instance, international non-governmen-tal organisations (INGOs) may offer meaningful spacesfor expression of cosmopolitan values and the applica-tion of active citizenship that transcends nationalboundaries (Desforges 2004). Transnational social or-ganisations also have the potential to tangibly influencethe domestic policies of nations. While these institu-tions may not provide any real-world governance orenforcement (see Frey 2012), advocacy and involve-ment with these structures is creating an ‘emerginginternational civil society’ that may have a genuineimpact on global policies (Otto 1996, 112).

In addition, nation-states that have the power andlegitimacy to influence global policies may providespace for active global citizenship. While many peoplesee a paradox between utilising the political structuresof a soverign state and the concept of global citizenship(Lizhi 1993), the relationship need not be contradic-tory. Although xenophobic and aggressive expressionsof patriotism and nationalism are certainly at odds withthe spirit of global citizenship and cosmopolitanism(Carter 2001), active global citizenship founded on theprinciples of universal obligation may recognise the

advantages of national political structures for promot-ing global change (Habermas 1992; Nussbaum 2008).Perhaps the most effective active global citizens hold a‘dual citizenship’ – utilising both national politicalstructures and international civic spaces to promotechange.

This paper informs the active global citizenshipdebate by assessing whether individuals who believe inthe need for a global governance body also believe thatengagement in national spaces can drive global change.Second, it assesses whether individuals who identify asglobal citizens participate more frequently in interna-tional activities. To the degree that people believeengagement in national spaces may promote globalchange, they may maintain a civic identity situated inmultiple locations. This would provide support forStaeheli’s assertion that active citizenship can operatein overlapping spaces that form a ‘continuum ofcitizenship’, beginning with tribal and local identityand ending with global affiliations (2010, 397). Becauseterritorial and cultural boundaries are highly permeablein transnational society (Heins 2000), this logic mayhelp determine whether active global citizens believethey can engage in different layers of political space todrive global change (Mitchell 1997).

Although the paper has no solid measure for activeglobal citizenship, individuals with a strong cosmopol-itan mentality may arguably have a keener interest ininternational issues and affairs, as well as higherinternational engagement. To further understand howthese perceptions affect their geographic locus ofengagement (i.e. domestic or international), we furtherexamine whether those who rank highly on cosmopol-itan perceptions of global citizenship are also morelikely to engage in local civic behaviours. To firstconsider how global citizenship can be fostered, thefollowing section discusses why international service isbelieved to be a practical context for strengtheningidentities of global citizenship.

International volunteer service for globalcitizenship

International volunteer service involves participants informal civic service opportunities – defined as ‘anorganised period of engagement and contribution tosociety by volunteers who work across an internationalborder, in another country, or countries’ (Sherradenet al. 2008, 397). With this formal definition in place,there are a broad range of international service modelsthat select and combine multiple goals – only some ofwhich include global citizenship as an intended out-come (Sherraden et al. 2006; Simpson 2004). IVCOsthat facilitate international service span sectorsincluding non-profit, faith-based, public and corporateorganisations. Placements range from short-term ‘vol-

Active global citizenship 459


unteer tourism’ to much more immersive and long-termdevelopment service (Sherraden et al. 2006). Mostinternational service programmes send volunteers fromNorth America and Western Europe to provide serviceto preferred countries in the Global South (Keese2011; McBride et al. 2003).

Across the diverse models of international service,volunteering is often perceived as one avenue forpromoting cosmopolitan attitudes and identities con-sistent with the concept of global citizenship (BaillieSmith and Laurie 2011; Lorimer 2010). It is worthnoting that much of the literature theorising volun-teering and global citizenship references a lesspolitical perspective of cosmopolitan citizenship,focusing rather on the development of interculturalskills, inclusive perspectives and how ‘elite’ or ‘stra-tegic’ cosmopolitanism intersect with volunteer ser-vice (Baillie Smith and Laurie 2011; Jones 2011;Mitchell 2007). In reality, relatively few IVCOsintentionally focus on global citizenship, and evenfewer explicitly regard global citizenship from aHabermasian political perspective. While a handfulof advocacy-oriented IVCOs may aim to challengehuman rights policies in some spaces, the majoritytend to focus on larger social and cultural changes involunteers’ perspectives.

Recognising that not all IVCOs intentionally focuson active global citizenship, well-structured interna-tional service programmes may serve as sites for thedevelopment of, and engagement with, global citizen-ship (Rovisco 2009; Staeheli 2010). As volunteersembedded in new cultures are frequently challengedto rebuild their previously held beliefs (Mezirow 1991),they are often faced with reevaluating exclusionarynotions of citizenship, belonging and affiliation. Inconnection with these changes, they may gain a moreinclusive ‘universe of obligation’ along with expandedresponsibilities to participate in social and politicalactions that promote global change (Messinger andDorfman 2008, 2).

On the other hand, proximity and interaction withinternational ‘others’ do not automatically lead to aheightened sense of global identity and affiliation. Thestructure of volunteer programmes, volunteers’ moti-vations and other external factors may significantlyaffect outcomes. For instance, returned volunteers in aprevious study reported that their national identity isactually reinforced as they live in another country; asone volunteer noted, ‘It totally changed my identity asan American. It made me feel more American andmore positive about my own culture and identity’(Lough et al. 2009, 28). By strict definition (and by theindicator used in this paper), this comment indicates alikely decrease in global citizenship. On the other hand,if employing a less political definition of globalcitizenship, heightened national identity could well be

compatible with an increase in a universal moralobligation (Brubaker 2004).

From a perspective of active global citizenship, howvolunteers understand their position in relation toglobal others may affect how they engage to promotechange. Superficial changes constructed on naïve con-clusions may fail to produce the kinds of engagementthat lead to meaningful change. Previous researchsuggests that lack of clarity about IVCOs’ intent andability to promote global citizenship may result fromcontradictions such as a focus on commonality con-trasted with a respect for difference; a privileging of theself in relation to the other – despite assertions of one-ness and solidarity; and a celebration of commonhumanity combined with an intent to maintain charity-oriented relationships with underprivileged others(Baillie Smith et al. 2013).

In addition, compared with longer-term serviceprogrammes that aim to promote sustainable develop-ment, programmes designed to promote global citizen-ship often recruit younger people who have relativelylow skills and education (Devereux 2008; Jones 2004;Lyons et al. 2012). As one dimension of the debatesurrounding volunteer tourism, a number of scholarsquestion whether volunteers living for a short timeacross borders can sufficiently comprehend theinequality and power relations inherent in North–South relations (Baillie Smith and Laurie 2011; Mitch-ell 2007; Palacios 2010; Raymond and Hall 2008;Simpson 2004).

In this paper, a few of these questions are examinedempirically, aiming to determine whether internationalvolunteers change their perceptions of global citizen-ship following a service placement, and whetherreturned volunteers with a diminished sense of nationalallegiance believe that there are, nonetheless, viableopportunities within national boundaries to engage inactions that promote global change. To control for thepotential influence of service duration on globalcitizenship, empirical models also examine whethertime spent participating in international service altersthe importance volunteers place on global citizenship.

Methods

Description of study sampleThe sampling frame included volunteers from countriesin the Global North who served in the Global Southwith one of two IVCOs. The first is a non-profit civilsociety organisation that currently places over 3000volunteers each year in one of 19 countries in theGlobal South. Placements range from 1 to 12 weeks,with an average duration of four weeks. The majority ofvolunteers are from the United States (82%), while theremaining volunteers have origins in other English-speaking countries. Although the age range of partic-



ipants varies widely (from 16 to 83 years), about 70 percent of volunteers are age 25 or younger. Volunteersare mostly female (80%), and greater than 40 per centare students. During their placement, volunteers typi-cally live in urban settings and cohabit with othervolunteers. Opportunities for cultural learning andexposure, and structured reflection, are minor butexplicit components of the programme. Generally, thisincludes cultural outings, evening guest speakers andapproximately one hour a day for scheduled reflectionand dialogue with staff members and other volunteers.

The second organisation is a non-profit organisationthat provides volunteer opportunities for short- andlong-term placements. It currently places about300 year-long volunteers and 125 summer-long volun-teers in one of 12 countries in the Global South. Thelong-term programmes are 10–12 months in length,and the summer programmes are about two months inlength. Seventy per cent of volunteers serve in the year-long programmes. The Ministry of Education in thehost country generally requests and supports volun-teers, who teach in a variety of educational settings andwork as full-time teachers. The majority of volunteersare from the United States (92%), are young (l =24 years) and female (73%). Volunteers live in bothrural and urban settings and most volunteers live with ahost family or in teacher housing on the school campus.Once volunteers are placed in the host site, structuredtime for reflection is not an explicit feature of theprogramme.

Across these volunteer placements, there is signifi-cant variation in the duration of service, ranging fromone week to 12 months. Because previous researchindicates that even short-term experiences across bor-ders can have a significant effect on volunteers’ mind-sets and attitudes (Lough 2011; Repair theWorld 2010),the analysis includes volunteers that served for anylength of time but controls for the duration of service.

Survey administrationResearchers used items from the International Volun-teering Impacts Survey (IVIS), a primarily close-ended,quantitative survey that assesses volunteer impacts onvolunteers over time (Lough et al. 2012). The surveywas administered to volunteers in three separate timewaves including: (I) an initial baseline in 2008 beforecommencement of service, (II) a post-test survey one totwo weeks after they returned from service and (III) alongitudinal follow-up survey in 2011, two to threeyears after commencement of service. At Wave III,invitations to take the follow-up survey were emailed to598 returned volunteers across the two programmes.The survey was posted on the Internet and allresponses were submitted online. In total, 245completed the survey at Wave III, for a response rateof 41 per cent. A non-response analysis revealed no

significant differences between respondents and non-respondents by age, sex, income or years workedprofessionally. However, those who responded to theWave III survey were slightly more likely to be highereducated than those who completed the baseline(t = 3.46, df = 595, p < 0.01).

Concept measurementPrincipal factor analysis (PFA) was used to determineappropriate indicators for three of the concepts used inone of the regression analyses, including: globalcitizenship, international engagement and communityengagement. All items included in the PFA used aseven-point Likert scale and sufficiently met theassumptions of normal distribution. Factor loadingswere transformed using quartimax rotation with KaiserNormalisation. All factor loadings exceeded the min-imum factor loading threshold value of Λ = 0.40(Jolliffe 2002), and three distinct factors were deter-mined to account for the common variance in the set.The internal consistency of all factors exceeded aminimum reliability coefficient of a = 0.70. Compos-ite variables were then created by averaging the scoreof each item in the factor. Table I summarises thequalities of each composite variable.

Global citizenship: Variations in scholarly conceptuali-sation of global citizenship have been addressed earlier.The survey items in this study represent the notion thata global governance body is needed in addition to auniversal moral obligation. It includes a belief in openborders between countries as well as a willingness topay income taxes to a global governance body. Table Iincludes a full list of items included in the compositevariables. To test for differences in perceived globalcitizenship before and after international service, only asingle item from the composite scale ‘It would be betterto be a citizen of the world than of any particularnation’ could be used as the only consistent indicatoracross all three waves.

International engagement refers to expressions of inter-est in international issues through self-education,reflection and dialogue on international themes. It alsorefers to awareness and involvement with internation-ally-oriented groups or projects. It is important to note,however, that measures of international engagement inthis paper do not indicate whether the direction ofengagement is always towards constructive goals. Ide-ally, research would assess the association betweenidentity as a global citizen and ‘active global citizen-ship’, or active commitment and political participationwith one’s community – whether globally or locally forinternational causes (Dower 2000). For global citizens,geographical dimensions of active citizenship wouldinclude engagement with policies that affect popula-



tions beyond one’s national borders. The compositemeasure of ‘international engagement’ is not analogousto active global citizenship as the political dimension isunderemphasised. However, it does provide an initialindication of engagement with international issues.

Community engagement refers to people’s interest inlocal community participation, along with their inten-tion to make a positive difference in their community.Although the composite variable does not specify howone defines ‘community’, all items are highly correlatedwith ‘interest in joining local groups, projects or clubs’.In addition, because items loading on this factor failedto load on the factor of international engagement, weassume that community is viewed by the majority ofrespondents as local or national.

Interest in national problems: The expected influenceof nationalism or patriotism on global citizenship is not

entirely clear. Some suggest that patriotism is funda-mentally at odds with cosmopolitanism, while othersargue that a cosmopolitan sense of justice can accom-modate nationalist and patriotic commitments (Bru-baker 2004; Carter 1997; Tan 2004; Turner 2002).Although the IVIS does not include a good measure ofnationalism or patriotism to assess the associationbetween global citizenship and one’s interest innational problems and affairs, a single item is includedthat asks respondents how much they agree with thestatement ‘I think a lot about the problems of mynation and how they might be solved’.

Belief in national engagement for global change: Asmentioned earlier, globalisation is creating new spacesfor active global citizenship, not only through transna-tional organisations but also through national politicalstructures and civic spaces. Global citizens who believethat personal actions within the boundaries of theirnation can have global consequences provide supportfor the Heldian notion that, even in the absence of oneworld governance structures, global citizens can drivechange through engagement in a variety of nationalinstitutions, spaces and sites (Held 1995). To assess thisrelationship, respondents rate how much they agreewith the statement ‘I believe I can affect global povertyby changing attitudes and behaviours in my homecountry’. A second survey item measures respondents’scepticism of national engagement for global change byrating their agreement with the statement ‘I believecitizens of one country can do very little to affectpoverty in other countries’. Because a single factor withonly two items would be underdetermined, these itemsare included separately in the regression model.

Analytic methodsThree separate methods were used to inform theresearch questions. A linear mixed model was used toassess whether volunteers’ perceptions of global citi-zenship changed following an international serviceexperience. A separate OLS linear regression was thenused to assess perceived pathways to active globalcitizenship. Finally, open-ended comments from thesurvey helped to explain potential reasons for relation-ships between variables.

Linear mixed model: To understand the longstandingeffects of international service on volunteers’ concep-tions of global citizenships, a linear mixed regressionmodel for dependent measures was used to compareparticipants’ perceptions of global citizenship onemonth before a service placement (Wave I), one monthafter the service placement (Wave II), and two to threeyears after service (Wave III). Because follow-up timeswere not uniform across all respondents (due todiffering durations of service), linear mixed modelling

Table I Factor matrix of composite measures (n = 245)

Λ

Global citizenship (a = 0.79)It would be better to be a citizen ofthe world than of any particularnation

0.04 �0.08 0.71

Our responsibility to people of othernations should be as great as ourresponsibility to people of our ownnation

0.15 0.07 0.62

In addition to paying taxes in mycountry, I would be willing to payincome taxes to a global agency sothat income can be more equitablydistributed across the people of theworld

�0.07 0.39 0.47

As a citizen of the world, I believethat there should be a globalgovernance body

�0.09 0.34 0.42

I believe that there should be totallyopen borders between countries

0.04 0.32 0.47

Community engagement (a = 0.89)I am very interested in joining localgroups, projects or clubs

0.86 0.10 0.02

I am very interested in being a partof my community

0.81 0.18 0.12

I try to find the time to make apositive difference in my community

0.73 0.20 �0.01

I feel I have the ability to make adifference in my community

0.76 0.07 0.06

International engagement (a = 0.82)I discuss international issues andaffairs with my friends or colleagueson a daily basis

0.27 0.86 �0.07

I read about international issuesthrough a variety of media on adaily basis

0.07 0.66 0.00

I often help raise awareness of globalissues

0.23 0.44 0.10

I am involved with an internationally-oriented group, project or club

0.24 0.43 �0.01



with a diagonal covariance structure was considered themost appropriate procedure to estimate treatmenteffects (Hedeker 2004). Of the five items that make upthe global citizenship composite variable, three itemswere added atWave III and the wording on one item waschanged, thereby invalidating its comparability acrosstime. Therefore the test for differences only used a singleitem from the scale: ‘It would be better to be a citizen ofthe world than of any particular nation’. As with mostother items on the IVIS, responses to this item used aseven-point scale to approximate a normal distribution.Because volunteers served for varying lengths of time,weeks of the volunteer placement was also included inthe model, as was an interaction term between globalcitizenship and the length of service.

OLS linear regression: An OLS regression examinedwhether those with higher perceptions of globalcitizenship believed engagement in national spacescan be used to drive global change. It also controls for,and assesses, whether global citizens are more likely toengage with international and local affairs. Because allitems constituting the global citizenship compositevariable were only available at Wave III, an OLSregression was used to analyse these cross-sectionaldata. Prior to entering variables in the regressionmodel, univariate analyses were completed to verifythat assumptions of regression were met. In caseswhere a violation of assumptions was found, variableswere transformed or otherwise corrected. Only twovariables required transformation including: (1) thebase ten log of age due to overall positive skew, and (2)the base ten log of years overseas after age 18 due tohigh kurtosis and skew. The model also controls forrespondents’ sex and country of birth, with males codedas one and those born in the USA coded as one. Allrespondents stating that they were born outside theUSA were residing in the UK or Canada at the time ofthe baseline study. Finally, the model controls foreducational status, where Bachelor’s degree or higher iscoded as one. Although the duration of service and thevolunteer programme were originally included ascontrol variables, neither were significant predictorsof global citizenship, and both were removed toproduce a more parsimonious model. Table II providesa breakdown of demographic variables used in theregression model.

Open-ended comment analysis: In order to flesh outquantitative findings, respondents were given theopportunity to ‘describe the influence of your interna-tional volunteer experience on your life, if any’. At theconclusion of the survey, respondents were also asked ifthey had any additional reflections or comments. Tworesearchers read through these open-ended comments,pulling out any remarks that reflected changes in global

identity or that provided examples of active globalcitizenship. No formal qualitative software or analysiswas used. However, respondents’ comments were cross-referenced with their scores on measures of globalcitizenship and engagement. These comments are usedin the discussion section to help elucidate findings.

Findings

International service and global citizenshipContrary to our hypothesis, there was no significantdifference before service and after service in volun-teers’ perceptions that ‘it would be better to be a citizenof the world than of any particular nation’ at Wave II(t = 1.43, df = 371, p = 0.15) or at Wave III (t = 0.19,df = 215, p = 0.51). In fact, the respondents’ meanscore on this item remained virtually unchanged frombaseline to post-test, and three years after service (x̅ =5.24, 5.26 and 5.28 respectively). Duration of servicealso had no significant effect on perceptions of globalcitizenship (t = 0.01, df = 199, p = 0.92). Based onthese results we retain a null hypothesis of no signif-icant difference in volunteers’ perceptions of globalcitizenship on this item before and after service, andparameter estimates are not interpreted (see Table III).

Active global citizenshipFindings from the cross-sectional regression modelchallenge the assumption that a notion of active globalcitizenship has little utility in the absence of a globalgovernance body or global civic space. Individuals whobelieve they can affect global poverty by changingattitudes and behaviours in their home country havesignificantly higher perceptions of global citizenship(t = 2.47, df = 10, 133, p < 0.05). The regression modelindicates that a one-point increase in a volunteer’sbelief in national engagement for global change is

Table II Select demographic characteristics of cases inthe OLS regression (n = 143)

Continuous variables Mean sd

Age 28.6 11.9Weeks spent overseas after age 18 115.2 174.4

Categorical variables a Frequency %

SexFemale 105 77.2Male 31 22.8

Place of birthBorn outside the USA 23 16.9Born in the USA 113 83.1

EducationLess than a Bachelor’s degree 7 6.0Bachelor’s degree or higher 110 94.0

aThe frequency count of variables does not always equal 143 due tomissing values.



associated with a 0.23-point increase in global citizen-ship (as measured on a seven-point scale). In addition,a one-point increase in a volunteer’s belief that citizensof one country can do little to affect poverty in othercountries is significantly associated with a 0.24-pointdecrease in global citizenship (t = �2.95, df = 10, 133,p < 0.01). Findings from the regression are presentedin Table IV.

Respondents’ behaviours also seem to be consistentwith their perceptions of global citizenship. A one-point increase in international engagement is signifi-cantly associated with a 0.20-point increase in percep-tions of global citizenship (t = 2.63, df = 10, 133,p < 0.05). While engagement with local communities isslightly lower for perceived global citizens, this rela-tionship is not statistically significant (t = �0.92, df =10, 133, p = 0.36). Likewise, although interest innational problems (a weak proxy for nationalism) isnegatively associated with views of global citizenship,this relationship is not statistically significant (t =�1.31, df = 10, 133, p = 0.19). In summary, althoughinternational engagement seems to be higher amongperceived global citizens, it is unclear how this affectsnationalistic mind-sets or local engagement.

Additional control variables included in the modelsuch as gender, age, country of birth and education didnot have significant effects. However, given the lownumber of respondents born outside the USA, greaterstatistical power may indicate that individuals born inthe UK or Canada rate significantly higher on globalcitizenship (p = 0.08). Future studies that include ahigher number of respondents born outside the USAmay help to clarify this relationship. On the whole,current research on this topic it not sufficientlydeveloped to corroborate lack of differences in demo-graphic categories.

Discussion and implications

This is one of the first studies to empirically investigatethe relationship between international volunteerism

and global citizenship – particularly using longitudinaldata. Although many case studies suggest that interna-tional volunteering increases one’s sense of globalresponsibility and collective commonality acrossnational boundaries, few studies have investigatedthese claims quantitatively. Longitudinal findings fromthis study should only be considered a beginning to thisinvestigation, however, given a number of data limita-tions.

Because only two IVCOs were sampled, findingsfrom this study are limited. Both of the IVCOsincluded in the sample were secular non-profit organ-isations based in the USA. However, internationalservice programmes differ widely in their aims andgoals, their methods of administration and facilitation,their service activities and their country of deployment.Public and corporate programmes are increasinglycommon, as are educational institutions that facilitateinternational service-learning. Arguably, organisationsthat lack an explicit programmatic focus to developglobal citizenship in volunteers would show a weakerimpact in this area.

In addition, the fact that nearly nine out of tenrespondents were US citizens also limits the generalis-ability of these findings. Respondents’ beliefs that theycan change attitudes in their home country are highlycontingent on social and political systems of place. It isplausible, for instance, that individuals from the UKmay have a different level of efficacy in nationalpolitical institutions or local civic spaces. Outcomescould be even more diverse for nations with lowdemocratic or political accountability or with a weakcivil society.

This study also surveys a sample of internationalvolunteers who are already internationally engaged.Thus, findings from this study may not be representa-tive of young people generally. In consideration of

Table III Linear mixed model for repeated measure ofglobal citizenship (n = 245)a

Parameter Estimate SE t p

Intercept 5.16 0.06 91.35 0.00Wave II 0.30 0.21 1.43 0.15Wave III 0.19 0.29 0.67 0.51Weeks volunteered (ln) 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.92Wave II * Weeks (ln)b �0.14 0.13 �1.05 0.29

aThe dependent variable is a single item from the compositevariable: It would be better to be a citizen of the world than of anyparticular nation.bWave I is the reference group (weeks volunteered at baseline = 0);the interaction term with Wave III is excluded because thisparameter is redundant.

Table IV Regression of global citizenship on keyindependent variables

Independent variables b t p

(Constant) 4.91 3.85 0.00International engagement *0.20 2.63 0.01Community engagement �0.08 �0.92 0.36Interest in national problems �0.12 �1.31 0.19Belief in national engagementfor global change

*0.23 2.47 0.01

Scepticism of national engagementfor global change

*�0.24 �2.95 0.00

Sex (male) 0.07 0.30 0.76Age (log) �0.06 �0.08 0.94Born in US �0.46 �1.78 0.08Weeks overseas after age 18 (log) 0.18 1.25 0.21Education (Bachelor’s degree or higher) �0.13 �1.36 0.18

N = 143; F = 4.74 [10, 133]; R2 = 0.26, adjusted R2 = 0.21;*p < 0.01.



potentially higher initial international engagement, theeffects sizes presented in this study are likely smallerthan if a survey would be administered to a represen-tative sample of young people in the general popula-tion.

Developing a global citizenship identityWhile this study found no differences in perceptions ofglobal citizenship before and after volunteer service,only a single item measuring global citizenship wasavailable for longitudinal analysis. This item has beenused in a number of previous studies to measurerelated concepts of ‘global-mindedness’ and ‘world-mindness’ (Hammer et al. 2003; Shah et al. 2004);however, these concepts are somewhat different fromglobal citizenship and do not necessarily include beliefin the need for global governance as a key feature. Inaddition, using only a single item from a compositescale limits the ability to validly detect statisticaldifferences. In addition, people with cosmopolitanmindsets may believe that it is equally important to bea citizen of the world and a particular nation, ratherthan believing it is better to be a citizen of the worldthan of a particular nation (Habermas 1992; Nussbaum2008). Still others may accept the universal obligationelements of global citizenship but may reject a politi-cised perspective; believing that it is best to belong to aparticular nation in order to promote a ‘decent society’through engagement with the democratic institutions ofa nation-state (see Gidwani 2006; Nussbaum 2008, 80).

While the single item measuring global citizenshiphas its limitations, it is possible that these findings dorepresent the influence of international service onpeople’s perceptions of global citizenship. As men-tioned previously, some returned volunteers assert thattheir identification with a particular nation-state isactually reinforced as they live in foreign countries. Afew open-ended comments would support these con-clusions. As one volunteer in this study remarked, ‘Ibecame very attached to my home country and willprobably not travel outside the US again’. Rather thandeveloping a cosmopolitan mindset, some returnedvolunteers internalised their appreciation for ‘all thethings that we have in America: the opportunities, thefreedoms, the transportation, the food, the water, etc.’without a parallel sense of obligation to extend theseprivileges to others. For instance, one volunteerdeclared, ‘I am more appreciative of the opportunitiesin my country and the education I can give the childrenof my country’.

Because the measure of global citizenship used inthis paper is tied to an interest in global governance, itis also possible that returned volunteers feel a greatercompassion for, and obligation towards, global human-ity, while maintaining patriotic attachments. Althoughpatriotism can be divisive, as is often witnessed through

xenophobic attitudes towards immigrants and othernon-nationals, a ‘purified patriotism’ acknowledges thatpeople can maintain national attachments while alsofeeling an enlarged responsibility to humankind (Nuss-baum 2008, 83). Some volunteers expressed anincreased appreciation for their home country inconjunction with a greater obligation to extend theirprivileges to others. As one volunteer noted, ‘I ammore grateful for the things I have in my own countryand it has made me want to work in an internationalfield to further develop programs to aid developingcountries’. In other cases, volunteers may not believe inthe virtue of global governance but may extend theboundaries of their allegiance to the country where theyserved. For instance, one volunteer remarked, ‘I havealready been back to visit twice … I cannot keep awayfrom what now feels like “home” to me’. Indeed,stronger identification with those in other nations isone likely pathway leading to global citizenship. Asexpressed by another returned volunteer:

[International volunteering] enhanced my understanding ofworld issues, and I can now identify with problems eventhough I have never come across them myself. Now I seethrough the eyes of the people I met from those countries.For example, Korea is not just a country on the map. It is acountry where I now have friends and those who are copingwith problems.

Other volunteers expressed similar reflections thatthey are part of one unified human race. As describedby four volunteers who expressed this idea in differentwords: ‘My experience gave me a greater realisation …that the world we live in is part of one human family’; ‘Inow see every nation worldwide as part of a unity,whereas before I tended to think we were all inimita-ble’; ‘The main and most important way [volunteering]affected me was the internal realisation that we are allone’; and ‘My view of Africa was flipped upside down. Irecognised that human nature is the same worldwidedespite country, culture, and religion’. One volunteerwho was born in Bolivia, served in Zambia and lives inCanada described how international service affectedher viewpoints, despite her already multinationalbackground:

It helped me to appreciate more in my life, my family,friends, my country, the world; to know the differences andsimilarities of other communities, to learn of them, and tosee how many cultures and customs we have in the world,but in the end we are the same, human beings.

While these statements seem to reflect a sharedhumanity and an obligation to promote change inbroader context, we also recognise they may be prob-lematic to the degree that they represent a naïve glossingover of differences, including disparities in power andprivilege between the nations and peoples in the GlobalNorth and South (Baillie Smith et al. 2013).



Comments suggest potential differences in volun-teers’ stage of intercultural development. Scholars havelong understood that intercultural learning takes timeto develop into a mature ‘ethnorelative’ understanding(Bennet 1993; Lysgaard 1955; Ogberg 1960). It is likelythat identification as a global citizen may also developin stages, in which case it may be difficult to capture thecomplexities of changes wrought by an internationalvolunteer experience using a single survey item in linearanalysis. For instance, one returned volunteerremarked, ‘I always thought of myself as a globalcitizen, but I actually felt like one after the volunteerexperience’. The survey item in this study does notadequately capture the nuanced but significant differ-ence between thinking and feeling like a global citizen.Various scholars have explored ways to measure thedifferences between cognitive and affective dimensionsof intercultural learning that could also be applied tofuture research on global citizenship (Bennet 1993;Deardorff 2009; Hammer et al. 2003). As a mutableconcept, if global citizenship does occur in stagesrepresenting different levels of maturity, it may alsoaffect the ways that volunteers engage to promotechange.

While the two IVCOs investigated in this study sendvolunteers across borders, they do not have strongprogrammatic or curricular components to promoteglobal citizenship. On the other hand, programmessuch as the International Citizen Service (ICS) scheme,funded by the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment, are specifically structured to facilitatelearning geared toward global citizenship and develop-ment education – as are many other new internationalyouth volunteer programmes emerging worldwide (Al-lum 2012; ITAD 2011). To the degree that globalcitizenship is an intended programmatic outcome,IVCOs can design programmes to prepare volunteers,to support them while in the field, to encouragereflection about the causes and consequences of globalinequality, and to facilitate de-briefing and reintegra-tion on returning (Simpson 2004). Future research oneffective practices can help determine the types ofinterventions and curricular supports that are mostlikely to achieve these outcomes. For instance, post-service debriefing may be particularly helpful to bridgevolunteers’ experiences with the context of theireveryday life, to help support the narrative of theexperience and to help them continue to engage locallyon return (Machin 2008).

Active global citizenshipFindings from the cross-sectional regression modelchallenge the assertion that ‘it is not possible to speakof a true global citizenship in the absence of a globalstate’ (McIlwaine 2007, 1266). Although the findingsare not able to empirically determine whether engage-

ment in national political and civic spaces can trulyalter global outcomes, they do challenge the perceptionthat global citizenship is limited to engagement inglobal space and with international institutions. Due tothe nature of the data, these findings are based onsubjective opinions and are only suggestive; however,they indicate that people who hold viewpoints aboutthe need for global governance may maintain a civicidentity situated in overlapping locations – includingnational spaces. They are, in fact, more likely than theirmore nationalistic peers to believe that engagement innational spaces may affect global change.

Findings also suggest that heightened notions ofglobal citizenship and universal obligation have asignificant effect on interest in international affairsand active engagement across national borders. Thosewho view that ‘our responsibility to people of othernations should be as great as our responsibility topeople of our own nation’ are more likely to learnabout, to raise awareness of, and to become moreinvolved with international groups and projects.Because the regression is based on cross-sectionaldata, it is unknown whether global citizenship amongvolunteers influences discussions and involvement withinternational affairs, or vice versa. However, it revealsthat a diminished sense of exclusive affiliation to anation-state is associated with greater global awarenessand engagement.

We also recognise that measures of engagement donot have the capacity to capture the direction or intentof engagement. While the volunteers may reporthelping to raise awareness of global issues throughinvolvement with international initiatives, it is unknownwhat type of actions they are engaged in. Although wemight assume that volunteers are contributing tohumanitarian aid and relief, they could also bepromoting military interventions, paternalistic foreignpolicies or other less constructive initiatives. Futureresearch will want to be more specific about the typesof, and intentionality towards, global engagement.

Those rating highly on perceptions of global citizen-ship were no more likely to show interest in, or maketime for, engagement in their local community. Thus,engagement at the domestic level may not be influ-enced by global citizenship in the aggregate – partic-ularly when the concept is tied to a global governanceframework. However, most individual items in thecomposite measure of community engagement do notspecify whether the respondents’ ‘community’ is alocality-based construct. While strong correlationsamong factored survey items suggest that respondentsperceive of their community as locally or domesticallyembedded, we cannot accept this assumption as fact.With this caveat, findings indicate that higher notionsof global citizenship may not have a significant impacton local community engagement. On the other hand,



some open-ended responses suggest that there may bea connection at the individual level, if not in theaggregate, that connects community engagement tointernational engagement. For instance, one respon-dent illustrates what may be a virtuous circle betweeninternational service and more localised communityengagement, which is not yet well understood orarticulated in this paper:

[Through volunteering], I developed a greater love andcommitment to my local community, and to local andinternational education efforts. Upon returning to my homecountry, I … have been working locally, with plans to returnto my volunteer country in the future to again offerassistance.

More empirical research is needed to understandthe relationship between patriotic attitudes, manifest asthe heightened appreciation for one’s community andcountry, and global action (Nussbaum 2011). Under-standing this relationship is particularly importantconsidering the many public dollars invested in inter-national volunteer programmes that aim to promotevolunteers’ local or national engagement on return totheir home country (Diprose 2012; ITAD 2011; Machin2008). Without evidence linking policies to outcomes,stakeholders may make

the odd assumption that an international volunteeringexperience awakens latent capacity for participation in one’slocal community, with no attempt to link the two throughdiscussions of domestic development challenges or localmanifestations of global issues. (Diprose 2012, 191)

Future studies may want to more carefully articulatethe relationship between global citizenship and locally-based community engagement, recognising that per-ceived global citizens seem to believe that global impactis possible through actions in both local and interna-tional spaces.

It might also be worth bringing in greater analyses ofsubaltern cosmopolitanism to better understand howlocal engagement with non-elite or ‘ordinary’ cosmo-politans might affect global action and engagement(David 2000; Gidwani 2006; Kothari 2008; Mitchell2007). Relatedly, with a few exceptions, research thatdocuments perspectives from host communities in theGlobal South is largely missing in the literature (seeLough 2012; Perold et al. 2011; Sin 2010). Conse-quently, the current state of research in this area couldbe more critical in its examination of the concept ofglobal citizenship and international service. Whilerecently published literature on this topic does providea critical lens (Baillie Smith and Laurie 2011; Gidwani2006; Jones 2008; Lyons et al. 2012; Perold et al. 2011;Simpson 2004), it is likely that many of the dominantassumptions, definitions and practices surroundingthese concepts remain unchallenged.

A conscious recognition of disparities in social statusand life chances may also affect northern volunteersand their hosts in southern countries in drasticallydifferent ways, and we cannot assume that hosts inreceiving communities benefit equally from interna-tional service in most cases. Although the perceptionsof host community members are not a focus of thisstudy, we recognise this as an important area of inquirythat should not be overlooked. Future research thatseeks to understand the impact of international serviceon the global perspectives of host community memberswould help to clarify whether global citizenship can bereciprocally achieved or whether it primarily benefitsmore privileged volunteers.

Acknowledgements

The authors express thanks to the Ford Foundation forproviding support for this research. They also wish tothank four anonymous reviewers for their helpfulsuggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Abdi A A and Shultz L 2008 Educating for human rights andglobal citizenship State University of New York Press, AlbanyNY

Abram F Y, Slosar J A and Walls R 2005 Reverse mission: amodel for international social work education and transfor-mative intra-national practice International Social Work 48161–76

Allum C 2012 Youth international volunteering and development:an opportunity for development, international understanding orsocial inclusion? International Forum on DevelopmentService, Ottawa

Baillie Smith M and Laurie N 2011 International volunteeringand development: global citizenship and neoliberal profes-sionalisation today Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 36 545–59

Baillie Smith M, Laurie N, Hopkins P and Olson E 2013International volunteering, faith and subjectivity: negotiatingcosmopolitanism, citizenship and development Geoforum 45126–35

Battistoni R M, Longo N V and Jayanandhan S R 2009 Actinglocally in a flat world: global citizenship and the democraticpractice of service-learning Journal of Higher EducationOutreach and Engagement 13 89–108

Bellamy C and Weinberg A 2006 Creating global citizensthrough study abroad Connection: The Journal of the NewEngland Board of Higher Education 21 20–1

Bennet M J 1993 Towards ethnorelativism: a developmentalmodel of intercultural sensitivity in Paige R M ed Educationfor the intercultural experience Intercultural Press, YarmouthME 21–71

Brennan T 1997 At home in the world: cosmopolitanism nowHarvard University Press, Boston MA

Brodie J 2004 Introduction: globalization and citizenshipbeyond the national state Citizenship Studies 8 323–32



Brubaker R 2004 In the name of the nation: reflections onnationalism and patriotism Citizenship Studies 8 115–27

Carter A 1997 Nationalism and global citizenship AustralianJournal of Politics and History 43 67–81

Carter A 2001 The political theory of global citizenship Routl-edge, London

David H 2000 Cosmopolitanism and the banality of geograph-ical evils Public Culture 12 529–64

Davies I, Evans M and Reid A 2005 Globalising citizenshipeducation? A critique of global education and citizenshipeducation British Journal of Educational Studies 53 66–89

Davies L 2006 Global citizenship: abstraction of framework foraction? Educational Review 58 5–25

Deardorff D K 2009 Understanding the challenges ofassessing global citizenship in R Lewin ed Handbook ofpractice and research in study abroad Routledge, New York346–64

Desforges L 2004 The formation of global citizenship: inter-national non-governmental organisations in Britain PoliticalGeography 23 549–69

Devereux P 2008 International volunteering for developmentand sustainability: outdated paternalism or a radicalresponse to globalisation Development in Practice 18 357–70

Diprose K 2012 Critical distance: doing development educationthrough international volunteering Area 44 186–92

Dower N 2000 The idea of global citizenship: a sympatheticassessment Global Society 14 553–67

Dower N and Williams J eds 2002 Global citizenship: a criticalintroduction Routledge, New York

Drake C 1987 Educating for responsible global citizenshipJournal of Geography 86 300–6

Frey B S 2012 Flexible government for a globalized world inArchibugi D, Koenig-Archibugi M and Marchetti R edsGlobal democracy: normative and empirical perspectivesCambridge University Press, Cambridge 150–9

Gidwani V K 2006 Subaltern cosmopolitanism as politicsAntipode 38 7–21

Grusky S 2000 International service learning: a critical guidefrom an impassioned advocate The American BehavioralScientist 43 858–67

Habermas J 1992 Citizenship and national identity: somereflections on the future of Europe Praxis International 12 1–19

Habermas J 1996 Between facts and norms: contributions to adiscourse theory of law and democracy MIT Press, CambridgeMA

Haigh M J 2002 Internationalisation of the curriculum:designing inclusive education for a small world Journal ofGeography in Higher Education 26 49–66

Hammer M R, Bennet M J and Wiseman R 2003 Measuringintercultural sensitivity: the Intercultural DevelopmentInventory International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27421–43

Hedeker D 2004 An introduction to growth modeling inKaplan D ed The Sage handbook of quantitative methodologyfor the social sciences Sage, New York 215–35

Heins V 2000 From new political organizations to changingmoral geographics: unpacking global civil society Geojournal52 37–44

Held D 1995 Democracy and the global order: from the modernstate to cosmopolitan governance Polity Press, Cambridge

Hettne B 2000 The fate of citizenship in post-WestphaliaCitizenship Studies 4 35–46

Hunter A 2008 Transformative learning in internationaleducation in Savicki Ved Developing intercultural competenceand transformation: theory, research, and application ininternational education, Stylus, Sterling VA 92–108

IEE 2011 Open doors: report on international educationalexchange Institute of International Education, Leetsdale PA

ITAD 2011 Evaluation of DFID’s International Citizen Service(ICS) Pilot Stage ITAD, UK Department for InternationalDevelopment, London

Jolliffe I 2002 Principal component analysis Springer, New YorkJones A 2004 Review of gap year provision Department forEducation and Skills: School of Geography, BirkbeckCollege, University of London, London

Jones A 2008 The rise of global work Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 33 12–26

Jones A 2011 Theorising international youth volunteering:training for global (corporate) work? Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 36 530–44

Kearn A J 1992 Active citizenship and urban governanceTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17 20–34

Keese J R 2011 The geography of volunteer tourism: placematters Tourism Geographies 13 257–79

Kothari U 2008 Global peddlers and local networks: migrantcosmopolitanisms Environment and Planning Development:Society and Space 26 500–16

Lewin R 2009 Introduction: the quest for global citizenshipthrough study abroad in Lewin R ed The handbook ofpractice and research in study abroad: higher education and thequest for global citizenship Routledge, New York xiii–xxii

Lizhi F 1993 Patriotism and global citizenship in Brecher J,Childs J B and Cutler J eds Global visions: beyond the newworld order Black Rose Books, Montreal 279–82

Lorimer J 2010 International conservation ‘volunteering’ andthe geographies of global environmental citizenship PoliticalGeography 29 311–22

Lough B J 2011 International volunteers’ perceptions ofintercultural competence International Journal of Intercul-tural Relations 35 452–64

Lough B J 2012 Participatory research on the contributions ofinternational volunteerism in Kenya: provisional resultsInternational Forum on Development Service, Fitzroy,Australia

Lough B J, McBride A M and Sherraden M S 2009 Perceivedeffects of international volunteering: reports from alumniCenter for Social Development, Washington University, StLouis MO

Lough B J, McBride A M and Sherraden M S 2012 Measuringinternational service outcomes: implications for interna-tional social work field placements Journal of Social WorkEducation 48 479–99

Lyons K D, Hanley J, Wearing S and Neil J 2012 Gap yearvolunteer tourism: myths of global citizenship? Annals ofTourism Research 39 361–78

Lysgaard S 1955 Adjustment in a foreign society: NorwegianFullbright grantees visiting the United States InternationalSocial Sciences Bulletin 7 45–51

Machin J 2008 The impact of returned international volunteerson the UK: a scoping review Institute for VolunteeringResearch, London



Machon P and Walkington H 2000 Citizenship: the role ofgeography? in Kent A ed Reflective practice in geographyteaching Paul Chapman, London 179–91

McBride A M, Ben�õtez C and Sherraden M 2003 The formsand nature of civic service: a global assessment Center forSocial Development, Washington University, St Louis MO

McIlwaine C 2007 From local to global to transnational civilsociety: re-framing development perspectives on the non--state sector Geography Compass 1 1252–81

Messinger R and Dorfman A 2008 Am I my brother’s keeper ifmy brother lives halfway around the World? in Rose O N,Kaiser J E G and Klein M eds Righteous indignation: aJewish call for justice Jewish Lights Publishing, WoodstockVT

Meyer L H, Sleeter C E, Zeichner K, Park H-S, Hoban G andSorensen P 2011 An international survey of higher educa-tion students’ perceptions of world-mindedness and globalcitizenship in Lindsay B and Blanchett W J eds Universitiesand global diversity: preparing educators for tomorrow Routl-edge, Abingdon 179–92

Mezirow J 1991 Transformative dimensions of adult learningJossey-Bass, San Francisco CA

Mitchell K 1997 Transnational discourse: bringing geographyback in Antipode 29 101–14

Mitchell K 2003 Educating the national citizen in neoliberaltimes: from the multicultural self to the strategic cosmopol-itan Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28387–403

Mitchell K 2007 Geographies of identity: the intimate cosmo-politan Progress in Human Geography 31 706–20

Muetzelfeldt M and Smith G 2002 Civil society and globalgovernance: the possibilities for global citizenship Citizen-ship Studies 6 55–75

Nussbaum M C 2008 Towards a globally sensitive patriotismDaedalus 137 78–85

Nussbaum M C 2011 Patriotism and cosmopolitanism in HeldD and Brown G W eds The cosmopolitanism reader PolityPress, Cambridge MA 155–62

O’Byme D J 2005 The dimensions of global citizenship:political identity beyond the nation-state Taylor and Francis,Portland OR

Ogberg K 1960 Cultural shock: adjustment to new culturalenvironments Practical Anthropology 7 177–82

Otto D 1996 Nongovernmental organizations in the UnitedNations system: the emerging role of international civilsociety Human Rights Quarterly 18 107–41

Oxfam 2006 Education for global citizenship: a guide for schoolsOxfam Development Education, Oxford

Palacios C M 2010 Volunteer tourism, development andeducation in a postcolonial world: conceiving global connec-tions beyond aid Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 861–78

Perold H, Mavungu E M, Cronin K, Graham L, Muchemwa Land Lough B J 2011 International voluntary service inSouthern African Development Community (SADC): Hostorganisation perspectives from Mozambique and TanzaniaVolunteer and Service Enquiry Southern Africa (VOSESA),Johannesburg

Raymond E M and Hall C M 2008 The development ofcross-cultural (mis)understanding through volunteer tourismJournal of Sustainable Tourism 16 530–43

Repair the World 2010 The worth of what they do: the impact ofshort-term immersive Jewish service-learning on host commu-nities BTW Consultants, Berkeley CA

Rovisco M 2009 Religion and the challenges of cosmopolitan-ism: young Portugese volunteers in Africa in Nowicka M andRovisco M eds Cosmopolitanism in practice Aldershot,Ashgate 181–99

Schattle H 2008 The practices of global citizenship Rowman andLittlefield, Toronto

Shah M B, King S and Patel A S 2004 Intercultural dispositionand communication competence of future pharmacistsAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 68 1–11

Sherraden M S, Stringham J, Costanzo S and McBride A M2006 The forms and structure of international voluntaryservice Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary andNonprofit Organizations 17 163–80

Sherraden M S, Lough B J and McBride A M 2008 Effects ofinternational volunteering and service: individual andinstitutional predictors Voluntas: International Journal ofVoluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 19 395–421

Simpson K 2004 ‘Doing development’: the gap year, volun-teer-tourists and a popular practice of development Journalof International Development 16 681–92

Sin H L 2010 Who are we responsible to? Locals’ tales ofvolunteer tourism Geoforum 41 983–92

Staeheli L A 1999 Globalization and the scale of citizenshipGeography Research Forum 19 60–77

Staeheli L A 2010 Political geography: where’s citizenship?Progress in Human Geography 35 393–400

Starr J M 1994 Peace Corps service as a turning pointInternational Journal of Aging and Human Development 39137–61

Tan K-C 2004 Justice without borders: cosmopolitanism,nationalism, and patriotism Cambridge University Press,Cambridge

Tiessen R and Heron B 2012 Volunteering in the developingworld: the perceived impacts of Canandian youth Develop-ment in Practice 22 44–56

Tourism Research and Marketing 2008 Volunteer tourism: aglobal analysis ATLAS, Barcelona

Trivedi B P 2002 Survey reveals geographic illiteracy NationalGeographic News 20 November (http://news.nationalgeo-graphic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html) Accessed 4 February 2013

Turner B S 2002 Cosmopolitan virtue, globalization andpatriotism Theory, Culture and Society 19 45–63

Vandenberg A 2000 Citizenship and democracy in a global era StMartin’s Press, New York

Wade R 2001 Global citizenship: choices and change inLambert D and Machon P eds Citizenship through secondarygeography RoutledgeFalmer, London 161–81

Wagner A 2004 Redefining citizenship for the 21st century:from the National Welfare State to the UN Global CompactInternational Journal of Social Welfare 13 278–86



navigating the boundaries of active global citizenship

Documents