Ana Werkstetter Caravaca, a PhD candidate with the SCRIPTS cluster of excellence and an expert who has worked with Paeradigms and remains on its roster of experts, recently co-authored the thought-provoking publication, Why and how they listen: on the (im)possibility of inclusion in the global governance of education. The authors Walter Fritsch, Tobias Berger, Florian Waldow and Ana Caravaca examine global education governance through the lens of inclusivity and co-creation. By analysing UNESCO’s Futures of Education initiative and the OECD’s Future of Education and Skills 2030 project, the authors challenge whether international organisations (IOs) are truly embracing transformative governance.
The findings shed light on the complex dynamics of inclusion and the difficulties of achieving co-creation in practice, resonating deeply with the principles of equity and participation that underpin the Just Transition. For Paeradigms, this article is highly relevant to its commitment to advancing equitable governance in education as part of a broader "Just Transition" agenda.
Additive versus disruptive inclusion: the limits of tokenism
At the core of the article is a distinction between two forms of inclusion: additive and disruptive. Additive inclusion brings new voices into established frameworks but leaves
dominant power structures intact. While it provides the appearance of inclusivity, it rarely results in substantive change. The authors argue that such additive inclusion can often amount to tokenism, where participation is symbolic rather than substantive. Tokenism creates the illusion of change by incorporating marginalised voices without granting them the influence to challenge or reshape decision-making processes.
By contrast, disruptive inclusion requires a redistribution of power and challenges the fundamental assumptions that underpin governance systems. It seeks to empower marginalised groups to meaningfully shape outcomes and decisions.
The authors argue that IOs like UNESCO and the OECD often default to additive inclusion.
“While international organisations claim inclusivity, their efforts often fail to disrupt entrenched governance paradigms. Such practices may serve to legitimise IOs without significantly transforming their approaches to policy and decision-making.” |
For instance, UNESCO’s consultations for the Futures of Education initiative engaged over one million participants, yet the inputs were filtered through institutional layers, resulting in a report that largely reinforced pre-existing narratives. Similarly, the OECD’s Learning Compass 2030 prominently references indigenous knowledge but in a way that isolates it from the broader framework, limiting its impact.
This reliance on additive inclusion highlights a critical limitation: while these organisations claim inclusivity, their efforts often fail to disrupt entrenched governance paradigms. The authors suggest that such practices may serve to legitimise IOs without significantly transforming their approaches to policy and decision-making.
The co-creation dilemma: challenges in practice
Co-creation, a central concept in contemporary governance, promises to bring diverse voices together to shape policies collaboratively. However, the authors argue that co-creation is often constrained by practical and institutional challenges.
First, co-creation necessitates challenging entrenched hierarchies and redistributing decision-making power. This can provoke resistance within organisations that are deeply invested in maintaining their authority and coherence. The authors note that these challenges are compounded by the competitive dynamics of global governance, where IOs strive to safeguard their legitimacy and distinct organisational identities.
Second, co-creation requires significant time and resources. Genuine collaboration involves iterative dialogue, trust-building, and capacity development, all of which are resource-intensive. For IOs operating under tight budgets and deadlines, these demands often lead to truncated or superficial engagement.
The tensions outlined in the article reflect broader challenges organisations seeking to adopt co-creation as a practice face. Navigating these tensions requires IOs to reimagine their processes and priorities fundamentally.
Solutions: enabling transformative inclusion
Based on this article, Paeradigms’ experiences on co-creation suggests several pathways for overcoming the barriers to transformative inclusion and moving beyond tokenistic inclusion:
(a) Rethink power structures and epistemologies
Transformative inclusion demands confronting entrenched power dynamics and rethinking underlying epistemologies. Organisations must create space for dissent, embrace alternative perspectives, and empower marginalised voices to influence decisions meaningfully.
(b) Invest in time and resources
Co-creation is time-intensive and demands sustained investment in participatory processes. Organisations need to prioritise long-term planning and secure funding to support inclusive methodologies.
(c) Adopt reflexive and inclusive methodologies
Reflexivity, or the ability to critically evaluate one’s assumptions and practices, is essential for genuine co-creation. Methodologies such as participatory action research and consensus-building workshops can help foster equitable collaboration.
Conclusion: moving forward
The authors’ critique of global education governance is both timely and challenging. It highlights the limitations of additive inclusion and the complexities of implementing co-creation in practice. While IOs like UNESCO and the OECD have made strides in promoting stakeholder engagement, their efforts often fall short of disrupting existing hierarchies and achieving transformative governance.
For organisations committed to equity and inclusion, such as Paeradigms, this research underscores the importance of addressing these challenges head-on. However, the paradigm shift required for genuine co-creation is not without its difficulties. Paeradigms has found that co-creation is often constrained by limited resources, tight timelines, and resistance to change—challenges echoed in the authors’ findings. Moreover, navigating power dynamics in diverse governance contexts remains a persistent struggle.
Despite these barriers, Paeradigms’ experiences also affirm the transformative potential of co-creation when implemented thoughtfully. Small but meaningful shifts—such as co-designing projects with communities or embedding participatory principles into organisational culture—can lay the groundwork for larger change. Though challenging, these incremental steps are essential for advancing the Just Transition and fostering governance systems prioritising equity, inclusion, and sustainability. Moreover, Paeradigms’ experiences reinforce the idea that each of us, as individuals, holds agency within these systems and is responsible for using that agency to advocate for and support transformative practices.
The article serves as both a critique and a roadmap, reminding us that achieving transformative governance requires vision and the courage to challenge entrenched systems and invest in long-term change.
About SCRIPTS
The SCRIPTS cluster of excellence (Contestations of the Liberal Script) is a renowned interdisciplinary research initiative based in Germany, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). It examines the global challenges and contestations faced by liberal democracies, focusing on political, economic, and social dimensions. SCRIPTS provides critical insights into the evolving dynamics of global governance and societal transformation by engaging scholars from diverse disciplines and fostering collaboration across academic and policy communities. https://www.scripts-berlin.eu/
Reference
Fritsch, W., Caravaca, A. W., Berger, T., & Waldow, F. (2024). Why and how they listen: on the (im)possibility of inclusion in the global governance of education. Globalisation, Societies and Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2024.2431833