Multiculturalism in education: navigating the shift from education for migrants to education for global understanding and inclusivity

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Multiculturalism in education: navigating the shift from education for migrants to education for global understanding and inclusivity

I. Sikorska

Annotation

This article explores the concepts of `multiculturalism' and its implications in education, emphasizing the importance of this concept for promoting cultural diversity in today's increasingly diverse and interconnected world. The article begins by examining the limitations of multiculturalism such as essentializing cultures and reinforcing cultural barriers. The author also analyses how the shift from multiculturalism to interculturalism has occurred and what the implications it has had in academic discourse and educational practices emphasizing the needs for educators to adopt a most appropriate approach in designing curricula, fostering inclusive classroom environments, and preparing students for living and working in a modern globalized world. The shift from an education model that focused primarily on meeting the needs of migrant students to ones that prioritize multiculturalism and global understanding is also presented. The author concludes displaying some of the key principles of multicultural education, including inclusivity, cultural awareness, equity, critical thinking, and a global perspective.

Keywords: multiculturalism, interculturalism, multicultural education, intercultural education, education for migrants, globalized world

Анотація

І.М. Сікорська. Мультикультуралізм в освіті: від освіти для мігрантів до освіти для глобального розуміння та інклюзивності

У даній статті досліджуються концепція «мультикультуралізму» та його значення для освіти, наголошується на важливості цієї концепції для сприяння культурному різноманіттю в сучасному світі, який стає все більш різноманітним і взаємопов'язаним. Стаття починається з дослідження обмежень мультикультуралізму, таких як есенціалізація культур і зміцнення культурних бар'єрів. Автор також аналізує, як відбувся перехід від мультикультуралізму до інтеркультуралізму та які наслідки він мав для академічного дискурсу та освітньої практики, наголошуючи на потребах освітян прийняти найбільш відповідний підхід до розробки навчальних програм, сприяння інклюзивному середовищу та підготовці студентів для життя і праці у сучасному глобалізованому світі. Перехід від моделі освіти, яка зосереджена головним чином на задоволенні потреб студентів-мігрантів, до такої, яка надає пріоритет мультикультуралізму та глобальному взаєморозумінню, також представлена. На завершення автор надає деякі з ключових принципів мультикультурної освіти, включаючи інклюзивність, культурну обізнаність, справедливість, критичне мислення та глобальну перспективу.

Ключові слова: мультикультуралізм, інтеркультуралізм, мультикультурна освіта, міжкультурна освіта, освіта для мігрантів, глобалізований світ.

Introduction

Today's society is characterized by a greater cultural, economic, and religious pluralism under increased flow of people and ideas which became even more interconnected and interdependent due to multimedia and newest technological systems. Modern context of globalization for the socio-cultural challenges for education as there is a process of ruining former hierarchical structures of order in turbulent streams of chaotic interweavement and mixing of changing values and appearing of new values which move through barriers of political national, cultural, ethnical localities (Sharma, 2012). Under these conditions there is an actual need of creating the corresponding education environment, where the interests of any person can be satisfied as well as national interests of the state.

Education always was a response to the challenges caused by culturally diverse society. Within the last decades the ideological agenda has been also developed around the concepts of multicultural in the field of education, which has been transforming into intercultural. These two concepts coexist nowadays.

Problem statement. Multiculturalism appeared to be the first concept that brings culture from a theory to practice, to real life of people with description of cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious diversity of a society. The phenomenon of multiculturalism was abundantly investigated and analyzed in the works of international scholarship mostly in the domains of political and social sciences. Although the expression of multiculturalism varied according to local conditions, its spread and uptake was significantly aided by the global circulation of ideas, international `policy borrowing' by nation-states, and the integration into multiculturalism into international law and international human rights legislation (Kymlicka, 2005). The idea of multiculturalism was to preserve the differences between cultures, and to search possibilities for tolerance and mutual understanding, reducing inequalities and mitigating conflicts. Multiculturalism as a concept means principles, ideas, ideologies, doctrines of public state policy at that, multiculturalism and societal cultural diversity should not be confused to avoid claims and critics towards the concept and politics of multiculturalism, which has no grounds for that. Sometimes multiculturalism as a term is used for description of the culturally diverse society, which comprises diverse ethno-cultural groups, which is not in line with its ideological characteristics, which is beyond its concept. Diverse cultural society bears the characteristics of plural cultural diversity, which reflects its ethno-cultural heterogeneity and presence different cultural groups in a society. The most prominent advocates of multiculturalism proclaims the humanistic ideals of this concept: Taylor's (1994) in “The Politics of Recognition”, Young's (1990) in “Justice and the Politics of Difference”, Parekh's (2000) in “Rethinking Multiculturalism”, Benhabib (2002) in “The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era”, Modood's ( 2007) in “Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea”, Kymlicka's (1995) in Multicultural citizenship; Maclure's (2010) in “Multiculturalism and political morality”. The authors assert that cultures can coexist within one societal context and by this can be a source of richness and democratic changes of society. They insist that it provides the best approach for living and managing culturally diverse societies. They emphasize on its humanistic core, positive correlation with respect to human dignity, recognition, and equal attitude towards representatives of any cultural group (Levey, 2016). Education always was a response to the challenges caused by culturally diverse society.

The aim of the present research is to study how the ideological agenda has been also developed around the concept of multiculturalism in the field of education.

The outline of the research material

In broad terms, multiculturalism places a special emphasis on the social, political, and economic differences between racial/ethnic minorities and the social majority and how these are legitimized, for example through citizenship, in ways that create inequalities, privilege the majority and reproduce status quo (Meer, Modood, Zapata-Barrero, 2016).

In 1970-80s the concept of multiculturalism and its idea of collective rights became dominant ideology of many ethnical and national groups, also was adopted as official national policy in Canada and partially in the USA. In 1990s multiculturalism became international norm, which was supported and promoted by major international institutions UNESCO, Council of Europe, OECD, World Bank) however its period of prosperous development was rather short, as for many countries even with developed democracy, multiculturalism became a real challenge. As a socio-political ideal multiculturalism was declared as “equal opportunities which accompany cultural diversity in atmosphere of mutual tolerance” (European Commission, 2003).

Multiculturalism is considered as an opposite approach from any form of nationalism to cultural diversity (Wimmer and Schiller, 2003, Chernilo, 2011, Knott, 2017). In her place, Chin, (2019) argues that specifically, multiculturalism entails a form of national belonging that makes cultural difference a constitutive part of national unity, opening possibilities of diverse political community. While it is fundamentally focused on minority difference, it is also directed towards inclusion, belonging and membership in nation-building. Its unique strategy is also its key tension: to highlight the experience of cultural plurality to reconstruct national community (ibid, p.126).

Cultural diversity represents in many aspects of European life and policies such as employment, social cohesion, integration of newcomers, identity issues, freedom of religion, protection of minorities and immigration. For decades, Europe has developed responses to the increasing presence of immigrant students in schools and their integration into new culture. The Council of Europe approved the strategy of multicultural pedagogy in the 1970s.

Within the politics, multiculturalism prescribes the acceptance of migrants and minority groups, which differ from majority in language, culture, and social behaviour from the host society. Multiculturalism foresees that migrants and member of minority groups will be guaranteed equal rights in all spheres of social life under condition of their acceptance of the key values of democracy. Recognition of cultural diversity and social equality insurance is considered the crucial feature of multiculturalism. The emphasis at these years was on immigrant education, with a kind of a deficit orientation, i.e. the type of programs addressed the educational in-sufficiency of immigrant children such as poor command of the language spoken in school, inadequate prior education received at home countries, lack of socialization experiences etc. The purpose of this type of programs was to fill the gaps and thus smoothing the integration of immigrant children into the educational system of the host country. The second type of programs focused on preservation of their original cultural identity as reproduced in language, traditions and customs of their country of origin. However, these compensation programs soon became a target of criticism. It was argued that those programs acted as a tool for segregation and stigmatization. Instead of compensating for educational deficiencies and preserving the original cultural identities, these programs treated immigrant children as separate groups with special needs (Puzic 2007).

Along with that, the important feature of multiculturalism is its connection with traditional concept of cultures as autonomous spheres, which turned out to become consequently a reason for its ghettoization. Implementation of multiculturalism as a political doctrine showed that relations between cultural communities cannot overcome barriers, it can initiate regressive trends of particular cultural identity that can lead to ghettoization or cultural fundamentalism. After enjoying tremendous popularity in the 1990s, multiculturalism came under attack from both ends of the political spectrum in the 2000s. The dominant discourse claims that multiculturalism celebrates difference but not unity, that it grants rights to immigrants without imposing duties to integrate to the host society, and that it leads to the fragmentation of society by enabling them to live in parallel micro-societies (Boucher and Maclure, 2018).

Multiculturalism became a subject of critics, multicultural approach towards citizenship was declined. The discourse terminology was contradictory and debatable, the terms `multiculturalism” and “cultural pluralism” were confusingly used as synonyms. Debates circulated around not only individual rights and freedoms, but also collective rights and movements of cultural communities. Questions arose about concrete questions of common life of different cultural and ethnic groups, about the problems of integration of migrants into hosting society, religious freedoms, education in native languages etc. As a social and political phenomenon multiculturalism was traced in policies and practices of almost all European nation states that declared about increasing cultural diversity of their societies in regard to different combinations of ethnic groups, values, cultures, religions, social and political systems.

Since the beginning of 21st century intensity of debates about multicultural citizenship reduced its degree, compromising models of multiculturalism in particular countries (France, the UK) were analyzed and recognized as weak and nonworking. Such turn from multiculturalism towards models of civic and cultural assimilation was caused not only by national factors of a certain European countries (due to the uncontrolled flows of migrants and refugees followed by panic in society) but also by the international factors especially by common worries of the EU governments about the problems with security on the rise of international terrorism. Under such circumstances it occurred a critical necessity of reconsideration of multiculturalism, as well as elaboration of new conceptual and theoretical perspectives and its complexity. In 2011, the aggressive critics to multiculturalism as a failed policy were articulated from the country leaders of UK, Germany, and France. All these critics caused a need to reconsider the concept of multiculturalism mostly within the policy towards migrants. Several distinguished scholars in the field Stuart Hall, Tariq Modood and Bhikhu Parekh further emphasized the need to rethink the national story so that all people are/feel included. This was, in fact, the most important message of the famous `Parekh Report' (Parekh, 2000).

Thus, interculturalism appeared in complementing and opposing multiculturalism focused on the relations among citizens and groups in civil society, rather than on the relation of the state and its cultural minorities, which might be considered as the predominant concern of multiculturalism. On this basis, interculturalism and multiculturalism could be considered as compatible and even complementary strategies of integration (e.g. Levey, 2016). Differentiation between the two terms commonly emphasizes that multiculturalism describes the existence of cultural diversity in society whilst interculturalism focuses on the interaction between different cultural groups within a multicultural environment (Hill, 2007. 250). multiculturalism education interculturalism academic discourse

Interculturalism is most often understood as an alternative and a critique of the limits of multiculturalism. Whereas multiculturalism as a concept envisages and produces the coexistence of various cultures within a society, interculturalism proposes a dialogue between cultures. However, it is also used synonymously with multiculturalism in the sense that it conceptualizes “cultures” as relatively fixed spheres or entities (and endorses mutual understanding between them in the interests of conflict management (Ging and Malcolm, 2010).

Interculturalism is advocated by the following prominent authors: Bouchard (2015) in “Interculturalism. A view from Quebec”; Zapata-Barrero (2017) in “Interculturalism in the post-multicultural debate: a defence”. Cantle (2016) in “The case for interculturalism, plural identities and cohesion”. They focused on risks and threats of multiculturalism policies, on return to archaic separation of ethnic groups, weakening the ethnocultural essence of nations, decreasing of national unity.

Interculturalism emerged as an allegedly more diversity-friendly discourse refusing both the multicultural fragmentation of society and the nationalistic and coercive overtone of civic integration (Boucher and Maclure, 2018). Zapata-Barrero (2017) offered a thorough description of the rise and `interculturalism' and fall of multiculturalism. In his work he presented three distinctive features or basic elements of interculturalism as a policy paradigm distinct from both civic integration and multiculturalism are (1) that it promotes contacts and interactions between individuals with different ethnocultural backgrounds, (2) that it focuses on the local level and (3) that it relies on mainstreaming strategies. Interculturalism encourages `contact between people from different backgrounds' (Zapata-Barrero,2017, p. 78). Here, `contact' refers to face-to-face interactions between individuals of different ethnocultural groups (ibid, p. 14). Those interactions are distinct events located in space and time involving real persons and therefore, as we will explain later, the notion of intercultural contact is distinct from that of intercultural dialogue (ibid, p. 15). Those interactions are distinct events located in space and time involving real persons and therefore, as we will explain later, the notion of intercultural contact is distinct from that of intercultural dialogue (Boucher and Maclure, 2018).

One of the most influential opponent of multiculturalism Cantle (2001, 2008, 2012, 2016) became influential in this debate. His approach emphasized the facilitation of interpersonal contact and intercultural competences to break down prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions of others, and to generate mutual understanding, reciprocal identification, societal trust, social mix and solidarity.

Bouchard (2011) argues that interculturalism is essentially different from multiculturalism. Parekh (2016), on the contrary, defends a non-combative approach by invoking the terms `multiculturally sensitive interculturalism' and `interculturally attuned multiculturalism', referring to the fact that both multiculturalism and interculturalism can learn from each other. Zapata-Barrero (2016, 2017) agrees to a certain extent that multiculturalism and interculturalism are complementary, but he focuses on the dividing lines and defends an encompassing theory that founds the `intercultural turn'. Meer and Modood (2016), in turn, have argued that interculturalism has brought to the fore can already be found in the multiculturalism paradigm. The debates have been continued till present, leaving a room for justified coexistence of two concepts. While studying the works of international researchers it is seen that the terms `multiculturalism' and `interculturalism' are in many cases used interchangeably, however they are highly challenged in both academic and political contexts.

From the point of view of many international scholars, multiculturalism and interculturalism could favourably complement each other in the way that they both acknowledge the positive value of cultural diversity, and of the communal character of humankind, and they both recognize the need for interaction, communication, exchange, and dialogue.

Similar to multiculturalism, multicultural education also has its advocates and opponents. For instance, one of the most prominent advocates of multicultural education, American scholar James Banks (2004) stated that multiculturalism is composed of the dimensions of content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and empowering school culture and social structure. Yilmaz (2016) on the contrary argued that within this context that the practice of multicultural education is not that efficient and an integration either in the educational system generally or on the level of alternative educational institutions exclusively will contribute to the complete practice.

The critiques of the “pedagogy for foreigners” and its “deficit-compensation” orientation allowed for the gradual elaboration of the concept of “intercultural education” (Sikorska, 2017). The educational goal for intercultural pedagogy is the development of open, flexible, anti-dogmatic and inquisitive thinking. Intercultural education aims to go beyond passive coexistence, to achieve a developing and sustainable way of living together in multicultural societies through the creation of understanding of, respect for and dialogue between the different cultural groups (UNESCO, 2008). Within higher education system, intercultural pedagogy can embrace all the levels internationalization to enhance creation of multicultural academic community and to foster becoming the members of academic community of consciously multicultural citizens. Culture has enabled internationalization to be linked with multiculturalism, equality, and diversity (Caruana and Ploner, 2010).

According to Fennes and Hapgood (in Bester and Medvesek 2016, p. 24), intercultural education should be based on readiness to form productive relations with other cultures, acquire greater awareness about one's own culture and explore new forms of coexistence and cooperation with other cultures.

Interculturalism or an intercultural approach towards education can be interpreted as a pedagogical-didactic principle, which directs the planning, implementation and evaluation of education in a way that supports the transformation of the existing hierarchical relations between the dominant ethnic/cultural majority and subjugated ethnic/cultural minority groups within the educational system and in this manner contributes to the equality of actual opportunities for education, the preservation of diverse identities and the development of a supportive attitude to ethnic and cultural minorities (Barret, 2012).

Similar to the debates on multiculturalism/interculturalism the discussions occurred in regard to multicultural/intercultural education. `Multicultural' describes more the nature of a collection of people whereas `intercultural' emphasizes the process of reactions between different cultures. From the point of view of the American scholar Paul Gorski intercultural education has its drawbacks. He states, that despite unquestionably good intentions on the part of most people who call themselves intercultural educators, most intercultural education practice supports, rather than challenges, dominant hegemony, prevailing social hierarchies, and inequitable distributions of power and privilege (Gorski, 2008).

Both concepts thrive for equal opportunities in schooling, that will lead them to academic achievements. Coulby (2006) explains that the terminological shift from multicultural to intercultural education relates to an attack on multicultural education from two directions. First, the familiar nationalist concern that school practices and knowledge should embody those of the state in terms of language (s) religion, culture, or values, according to the context.

Often the difference in use seems mostly geographical. In Europe the preferred term is `intercultural education' while especially the United States but also the rest of North America, Australia and Asia use the term `multicultural education' (Hill, 2007). However, in Europe there are differences between countries as well. For example, in Sweden and the Netherlands intercultural education is used while in Great Britain and Finland multicultural education is the commonly used term. Dervin, Layne and Tremion (2015) argue, that: “multicultural and the intercultural seem to be the most widely used notions worldwide... many researchers and practitioners have attempted to define their specific characteristics by establishing borders and boundaries between them, through which they have often tended to be opposed, namely in geographical terms - the US vs. Europe, Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe etc.”

Thus, we can assume that `multiculturalism' and `interculturalism' continue to coexist within political debates and to mirror in education through multicultural and intercultural approach. They will upgrade their forms and interconnections to complement each other in order to serve democratic ideals.

Notably, multicultural and intercultural education are often used as if these terms are universally understood and refer to only one type of education. Although they can take different directions and have different accents, they both address the culturally diverse classroom, learning about different cultures, furthering democracy and working against discrimination and prejudice. Both concepts thrive for equal opportunities in schooling, that will lead them to academic achievements. Multicultural education is an approach to teaching and learning that recognizes and values diversity in the classroom and beyond. It seeks to promote understanding, respect, and appreciation for different cultures, backgrounds, and perspectives.

In a globalized world where people from different cultural backgrounds come into contact with each other more frequently, multicultural education is essential for fostering a sense of inclusivity and global understanding. By incorporating diverse perspectives into the curriculum and classroom discussions, multicultural/intercultural education helps students develop critical thinking skills, empathy, and an appreciation for diversity through:

Inclusivity: all students, regardless of their cultural background, should feel valued and included in the classroom.

Cultural awareness: students should learn about different cultures, histories, and worldviews, including their own.

Equity: the curriculum should be designed to promote equity and challenge bias and stereotypes.

Critical thinking: students should be encouraged to question assumptions and explore different perspectives.

Global perspective: Students should learn about global issues and develop an understanding of their interconnectedness.

By incorporating these principles into their teaching, educators can create a learning environment that promotes global understanding and inclusivity. Ultimately, this approach can help students develop the skills and attitudes they need to thrive in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the shift from multiculturalism to interculturalism represents a critical evolution in our understanding of cultural diversity and its implications for educational practice. While multicultural education played an important role in promoting recognition and appreciation of diverse cultures, it also had limitations in terms of perpetuating cultural essentialism and reinforcing cultural boundaries. Intercultural education then emerged as a response, emphasizing the importance of intercultural communication skills and cultural exchange. However, intercultural education still tended to view cultures as fixed and static entities, rather than as dynamic and hybrid formations. In a globalized world where cultural diversity is increasingly present in our communities and workplaces, multicultural education provides a framework for promoting inclusive and respectful interactions across cultures. By embracing the fluidity and hybridity of cultures, and fostering intercultural communication skills, educators can play a crucial role in adopting and incorporating multicultural principles into their pedagogy for the students be prepared to act as engaged global citizens, capable of navigating the complexities of our multicultural, interconnected world.

References

1. Banks, J. and Banks, C., 2004. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. 5th Edition, Update. [online] ERIC. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.

2. Barrett, M., 2012. Intercultural competence.

3. Benhabib, S., 2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era.

4. Princeton: Princeton University Press

5. Bester, R., & Medvesek, M., 2016. Intercultural competence in teachers: The case of teaching Roma students. Sodobna pedagogika, 67(2), 26-45.

6. Bouchard, G., 2011. What is interculturalism? McGill law journal, 56, 435-468.

7. Bouchard G., 2015 Interculturalism. A view from Quebec. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2015.

8. Boucher, F. and Maclure, J. 2018. Moving the debate forward: interculturalism's contribution to multiculturalism. Comparative Migration Studies, 6(1).

9. Caruana, V. and Ploner, J., 2010. Internationalisation and Equality and Diversity in Higher Education: Merging Identities. [online]

10. Cantle, T., 2012. Interculturalism: For the Era of Globalisation, Cohesion and Diversity. Political Insight, 3(3), pp.38-41.

11. Cantle T., 2016. The case for interculturalism, plural identities and cohesion. In: Meer N., Modood T., Zapata-Barrero R, editors. Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2016. pp. 133157

12. Chin C., 2019. Multiculturalism and nationalism: Models of belonging to diverse political community. Nations and Nationalism. 2021. 7:1pp.12-129.

13. Coulby, D., 2006. Intercultural education: theory and practice. Intercultural Education, 17(3), pp.245-257.

14. Dervin, F., Layne H. & Tremion V., 2015. Making the most of Intercultural Education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 3

15. European Commission, 2003. Migration and Social Integration of Migrants. Valorization of Research on Migration and Immigration. Proceedings of a dialogue workshop organized by DG Research (RTD) with DG Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) and DG Justice and Home Affairs (JAI). Brussels, 28-29 January 2002

16. Hill, I., 2007. Multicultural and International Education: Never the Twain Shall Meet? International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft /Revue Internationale de 1'Education, [online] 53(3), pp.245-264.

17. Ging, D., & Malcolm, J., 2004. lnterculturalism and multiculturalism in lreland: textual strategies at work in the media landscape. Resituating Culture, pp. 125-136.

18. Gorski, P., 2008. Good intentions are not enough: a decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), pp.515-525.

19. Fennes, H., and Hapgood K., 1997. Intercultural Learning in the Classroom: Crossing Borders. London: Cassel.

20. Kymlicka W., 1995. Multicultural citizenship. A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21. Kymlicka, W., 2003. Multicultural states and intercultural citizens. Theory and research in education, 1, 147-169.

22. Levey, G., 2012. Diversity, duality and time. In N. Meer, T. Modood, & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism and interculturalism. Debating the dividing lines, (pp. 201224). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

23. Maclure, J., 2010. Multiculturalism and political morality. In D. Ivison (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to multiculturalism, (pp. 39-56). London: Routledge. Online Etymological Dicationary (2015).

24. Meer N., Modood T., 2012. How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism? in «Journal of Intercultural Studies», XXXIII, 2, pp. 175- Meer N, Modood T, Zapata-Barrero R. A plural century: Situating interculturalism and multiculturalism. In: Meer N, Modood T, Zapata-Barrero R, editors. Multiculturalism and interculturalism. Debating the dividing lines. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2016. pp. 1-26. 196.

25. Parekh, B., 2000. Rethinking Muticulturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

26. Parekh B., 2016. Afterword: Multiculturalism and interculturalism. A critical dialogue. In: Meer N, Modood T, Zapata-Barrero R, editors. Multiculturalism and interculturalism. Debating the dividing lines. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2016. pp. 266279.

27. Puzic S., 2007. Intercultural education in the European context: analysis of the selected European curricula, in «Metodica», 15, 2008, pp. 390-407.

28. Sikorskaya I., 2017. Intercultural education policies across Europe as responses to cultural diversity (2006-2016). Working Papers del Centro Studi Europei

29. CSE working papers 1704: dicembre2017 ISSN (on line): 2384-969X

30. Sharma, N., 2012. Globalization Effect on Education and Culture: An Analysis (May 28, 2012).

31. Taylor, C., 1994. The Politics of Recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism and the `Politics of Recognition' (exp. Edition), (pp. 25-73). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32. UNESCO, 2008. World report on cultural diversity. United Nations.

33. Yilmaz, F., 2016. Multiculturalism and multicultural education: A case study of teacher candidates' perceptions. Cogent Education, 3(1). pp. 23-36

34. Young, I.M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

35. Zapata-Barrero, R., 2017. Interculturalism in the post-multicultural debate: a defence. Comparative Migration Studies, 5.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru