Global Tensions and Articulations in the Twenty-First Century Politics, and the Need to Reconceptualise Citizenship Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, congratulations for the choice on the topic of your research and thank you for the opportunity to review and to disccuss it with you through this process. I think the paper is very relevant for this contemporary moment of humanity that we are facing, nevertheless we need to remember that ancient civilizations focused and laid out the foundations of current approaches to citizenship education. Hence, the comparative-historical approach could help to address the diversity of approaches and conceptions around this academic discipline and content of the human right to education, and therefore, to complement your results on the challenges of the 1990's consensus.
The approach or current to construct the theoretical background of the research needs to be clarified, perhaps is the internationalization of the topic itself or the cross-national/regional approach as it is presented. However, the Global North/South disscussion and positioning of the authors should also explore the possible transfers or rejections of this particular understanding of citizenship education in this research.
From my point of view, it could be useful to identify the pedagogical challenges that citizenship education face in the diversity of audiences and pupils. This is very relevant not only in terms of ages of origins, but especially since the pedagogies to spread and perpetrate hate speech are developed in the academy itself, beyond the infoxication of the media and social networks.
Besides these aspects related to content, there are formal corrections that should be considered before publishing the paper. Among the references, some of them are missing such as (Author 2022) or not complete like this in pages 205-209: Ditto for the geopolitical conflict lines and the recessive nationalism also discussed earlier as part of the ”Denudation of the post-1990s”. To explain the point of global racialisation, it is necessary to return to the first tenet of the “Denudation of the post-1990 consensus”, namely, deglobalisation. Despite a perceivable growing trend of deglobalisation in the form of political rhetoric and the institution of higher tariffs policies, the demographic and more so the technological bases ir driving forces of Globalisation 3.0 are difficult, if not impossible to halt, much more so to reverse.
Some references with 3 authors or more are not correctly referenced.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Our responses are attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thoroughly enjoyed reading this scholarly think – piece, which lays out a clear mandate for the future of citizenship education. The introduction of a novel concept to describe the current socio-political context, “the denudation of the post-1990 consensus” is welcome and helps to consolidate discussion in this area.
I am of the opinion that the article should be published and the following are more reflections than suggested revisions:
I assume there is a time lag since writing and it now seems remiss that the new geopolitical response to the conflict on Gaza is not mentioned in the introduction. It would seem that this can be related to most of the trends the authors describe within the “denudation of the post-1990 consensus”.
Whilst the mandate for citizenship education is clear, it would be good to see some acknowledgement of the parameters and vehicles for change in this arena. I appreciate that this is a global perspective and so cannot delve into national educational contexts and challenges. However, recognition of the difficulty of educating for inclusive citizenship within contexts driven by performativity agendas could help cement the arguments in the lived context of most plural democracies. I would welcome a forward-looking challenge in the conclusion- to collaboration between educational theorists, curriculum developers and practitioners, to make this essential mandate a reality!
Some minor points/edits:
This may be my ignorance, but why does 3.0 appear after ‘Globalisation’ in 2 mentions?
A couple of typos, mostly extra spaces between words: Lines 200, 209, 219, 253, 301, 329
Line 230: “trend in historiography that focuses on relations between geographic regions rather than regions”?
L342: This sentence could be rephrased for clarity.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Our responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
