O LEGADO DE PAULO FREIRE PARA AS POLÍTICAS DE CURRÍCULO E PARA O TRABALHO DOCENTE, NO BRASIL TO CITE THIS ARTICLE PLEASE INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: Vera Cruz, Anne C. (2018). A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development Anne C. Vera Cruz1 Boston College, United States of America Introduction Following the growth of a global market economy, the demand for “global” or “international” education has increased at all levels of schooling. Between 2005 to 2012 alone, there was a 50% increase in international student enrollment globally at the tertiary level (OECD, 2015), and a 39.3% increase at the primary and secondary levels from 2012 to 2015 (International School Consultancy, 2017). Given the increases in enrollment, Forbes (2016) estimates the worth of the international school sector to be $39 billion based on fee income alone, and worth $89 billion by the year 2026. Because increases in enrollment are very profitable, the business of “global” and “international” education is no longer just the concern of local governments or even elite, public and/or private, non-profit educational institutions. Instead, it has expanded and piqued the interest of for-profit institutions, with the potential of commodifying “global” and “international” education as a product for the global market economy. The push and pull for the dissemination of “global” or “international” education programs is affected by several factors. Although private capital’s interests are clear, one of the biggest pushes for “global” or “international” education is government interest in increasing national wealth either through increased tuition fees, future economic capacity, and/or remittances (British Council, 2012). Meanwhile, parental concern is increasing student enrollment in an effort to increase their child’s global economic competitiveness (OECD, 2015). Therefore, the push is driven by societal-level economic factors while the pull is based on the desire to obtain limited opportunities that will increase individual competitiveness. Nevertheless, despite the increase in incentives and initiatives for “global” education, the underlying assumptions of what “global” is often remains implicit. For example, one of the most popular conceptualizations of “global” education is a “utopian globalism claiming to be independent of all particular national and cultural traditions” (Marginson & Sawir, 2011, p. 55). While this universal way of being seems questionable especially in a field where context is given importance (Apple, 2000), global institutions support this universality. In particular, the United Nation’s Human Development Programme (2016) stresses the importance of universality as a means to promote growth in human development. Moreover, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) similarly supports universality through international testing and benchmarking practices in order to link educational outcomes to the global market economy. In other words, the root assumption of this form of “global” or “international” education is the existence of a universal way of being and knowing that is separate from any local belief system. Following the growth of the profession, educators, over time, have understood the importance of culture and context in student learning (Apple, 2000). Thus, while there is a push for universality in education, this “uproot and plant” model towards universality becomes problematic in practice. Not Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 69 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci only does it create problems in terms of student learning but it also creates questions with regards to what is being understood to be universal in education. If cultures and contexts matter in education, why is the concept of universality through “global” or “international” education being pushed forward? What is its basis? The proliferation of this conception of “global” education and its adoption in several contexts can be explained by Sousa Santos’s (2007) conceptualization of “globalized localisms” and “localized globalisms”. Globalized localisms are knowledge and ways of being that are local to a particular context, but are diffused globally from a more dominating and powerful culture to others through hegemony. As these knowledges and ideas are distributed, other contexts localize these globalizations, albeit with a mix of adaptation, co- option, and resistance, creating localized globalisms. This framework suggests that because of power asymmetries between nation states, some cultures are more likely to adopt globalized localisms rather than provide them, which consequently and falsely projects certain knowledges and cultures as more worthy. Thus, as more institutions adopt these “global” or “international” programs, much of what is considered and acknowledged as “global” education today is the result of a diffused single, dominant model (Verger, Novelli, & Altinyelken, 2012), which is manifestly local to the West in its particularistic claims to universality (Elveton, 2006). This proliferation of a single, dominant model ignores the fact that the world is full of various cultures, with correspondingly local ways of knowing and being, which collectively create an “ecology of knowledges” (Sousa Santos, 2007). Ignoring this material fact is not harmless. Rather, when what is considered to be “global” is solely based on Western culture and thought, other ontologies (i.e. ways of being), epistemologies (i.e. ways of knowing), and metaphysics (fundamental assumptions underlying notions of being, time, and space), are made inferior, it results in “othering” (Sousa Santos, Nunes, & Meneses, 2007). This “othering” acts to reinforce a belief in a colonialist hierarchy of knowing and being that has and continues to justify hegemonic global structures that concretizes the belief that the unbalanced distribution of global wealth and power is a result of the superior intelligence and social and political organizations of the West (Wynter, 2003). On internal, institutional, interpersonal, and idealogical levels, students and their communities, who are continuously “othered”, especially through education, are consistently disqualified, marked as inferior, and characterized as devoid of knowledge and culture (Sousa Santos, Nunes, & Meneses, 2007). Needless to say, the effects of “othering” are violent. If what is understood as “global” education is predicted to increase in the next decade, then it would be worthwhile, for the dignity of the educational profession, to reflect upon what is ethical in “global” education. Thus, this conceptual paper aims to provide an ethical and practical curriculum development framework based on the following questions: • What is ethical cross-cultural curriculum development? • How can practitioners engage in ethical cross-cultural curriculum development processes? What is Ethical in Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development? In his text on Official Knowledge, Michael Apple (2000) asks one of curriculum’s central questions: “Whose knowledge is most worth?” (p. 180). Underlying this question are [1] the assumption that multiple, valid knowledge systems exist, [2] these knowledge systems are local to particular peoples and places, and as a result, [3] are inherently cultural. Thus, curricular decisions of what to include and exclude remains at the center of the political Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 70 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci struggle to maintain, obtain, and/or control the status accorded to particular knowledge systems. While the question may seem trivial, the implications of a response in the singular (e.g., the West’s universalistic knowledge is the most worthy) within multicultural spaces, settler colonies, and (neo)(post)colonial states can be nothing short of violent. The curriculum is typically understood as what is included (implicitly and explicitly) and what is excluded (or the null curriculum) (Eisner, 1985). While most curriculum focus on the explicit, the null curriculum focuses on “the options students are not afforded, the perspectives they may never know about, much less be able to use, the concepts and skills that are not part of their intellectual repertoire” (Eisner, 1985, p. 107). Thus, if the null curriculum, involves the exclusion of the ontologies, metaphysics, and epistemologies of a student’s, family’s, communities’, or nation’s culture(s), violent “othering” occurs. Because global education is explicitly and implicitly Western, the null curriculum, especially because of its absences, inconspicuously teaches us that modernist, Western culture and thought is supreme. Thus, this “othering” combined with the propagative nature of education, curriculum, and its institutions, results in this violence affecting individuals internally, interpersonally, and intergenerationally. In the following sections, this article discusses the assumptions and dimensions of ethical curriculum development through: [1] Translations and Knowledges and [2] Knowledge, Power, and Globalized Othering. Translations and Knowledges The existence and validity of multiple, culturally-situated knowledges and its relation to ontology is largely evident in the process of translation. The Whorfian hypothesis (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991) states that language influences thought by creating boundaries in thought and perception. This means that language has a unique ability to either limit or broaden the scope of meaning depending on the culture, people, and context. For example, in a cross-cultural study on science curriculum between the Philippines, Ghana, and the United States, “science”, while recognized in all three contexts, differs in the way locals understand and define its purposes (Vera Cruz, Madden, & Asante, 2018). Specifically, in academic English within the United States, science only concerned coming to understand material phenomenon, while in both Twi (Ghana) and Tagalog (Philippines), although both contexts differed significantly in their purposes, science was conceptualized non-dualistically to include, with the material, coming to understand or honor spiritual dimensions of reality, respectively. Through this distinction, we come to understand that even “science”, a subject matter purportedly objective and universal, is still conceptualized differently via languages and cultures. Boroditsky (2011) explains, “the way we think influences the way we speak, but the influence also goes the other way” (p. 65). Furthermore, she states that bilinguals change how they see the world depending on which language they are speaking—that their thoughts literally change based on the words that they use. The point that is being made here is that language is based on a way of being and a way of life. As such, each language is a representation of a particular people’s orientation to people, culture, and their environmental context (Lopes & Gutiérrez, 2017)—a “relationship between the signifier and the signified” (Pereira & Costa, 2015, p. 4). Ricoeur (2006) further makes this point through the concept of translation. He argues that translations between languages (and therefore knowledges) must settle for linguistic hospitality and “forgo the lure of omnipotence…the illusion of a total translation which could provide a perfect replica of the original”. The reason we must settle for linguistic hospitality is Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 71 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci because when languages are translated, the translated text needs to lose some of the contextual specificity and culturally-laden structure embedded within its original form in order to convey its meaning within another languages culturally-laden structures. In doing so, both languages may adequately and simultaneously hold the same meaning and yet at the same time, cannot be fully captured by each other. In many cases, “exact” translation, especially because languages do not hold the same boundaries for thoughts, is often theoretically impossible. Thus, Ricoeur (2006) recommends that translators aim for “adequate” translations, where meaning between both languages is conserved in the process of discourse. The leveraging of theories of language, translation (Ricoeur, 2006), and discourse (Lopes, 2014) for this article is to illuminate the necessity of subjectivity between languages, cultures, and thus cross-cultural interactions, while further indicating the non-universality of thoughts and knowledge. However, subjectivity in this sense, that is, the plurality of languages, is not a problem, but an asset. As Boroditsky (2011) writes: “A hallmark feature of human intelligence is its adaptability, the ability to invent and rearrange conceptions of the world to suit changing goals and environments. One consequence of this flexibility is the great diversity of languages that have emerged around the globe. Each provides its own cognitive toolkit and encapsulates the knowledge and worldview developed over thousands of years within a culture. Each contains a way of perceiving, categorizing and making meaning in the world, an invaluable guidebook developed and honed by our ancestors.” (p. 65). Therefore, given languages’, and thus cultural knowledges’ (which all knowledge is), inherent value and existential necessity, we must celebrate the differences of thoughts and languages. In humbling ourselves to the wisdom of other languages and peoples, we recognize the beauty in learning from others. The diversity of knowledge—as illuminated through language—and its relation to a particular context is a reminder to all that no knowledge is complete. However, the existence of this epistemological diversity across the globe is rarely recognized (Sousa Santos, Nunes, & Meneses, 2007). In most global platforms, a monoculture of humanity and a uniformity of what counts as knowledge is manifested in everyday life (Smith, 1999). Instead of having a plurality of curricula in different contexts, “global” and “international” education today has falsely directed the field towards modernist, Western knowledge as the universal way of knowing and being. In other words, power asymmetries are evident in “global” education and the failure to address this foreshadows negative material and interpersonal outcomes. Knowledges, Power, and Globalized Othering The convergence of curricula on modernist, Western cultural formations across the globe is directly related to cultural power asymmetries among countries and nations. Despite increased engagement with modernist technology and ways of life, little has changed with regards to the ongoing ideological and material effects of colonialism and imperialism. While globalization’s notions of unity is not the problem, the dominance of some knowledges and cultures over others is. The proliferation of English as the “global language” (Crystal, 2003), especially in the field of education, across international and cross-cultural contexts alone, is a testament to global power asymmetries. However, unilaterally blaming the field of education is unfair, myopic, and ahistorical. Instead, these power asymmetries are the result of a much larger history of colonialist and imperial structures, of which schooling is one of several interlocking institutions that continue to evolve and adapt to exact control on the colonial other (Tuck & Yang, 2012). Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 72 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci In the global market economy alone, the ongoing effects and the stratifying mechanizations of coloniality are made obvious through labels such as “first-world” and “developing” countries. For example, the United Nations Development Programme’s report on Human Development (2016) explicitly ranks, that is, stratifies, countries on the basis of inequality, gender development, and poverty. While it is factual that, “less developed” countries often experience greater economic inequality and produces less national wealth from other nations’ exploitation of its natural wealth and labor, this fact blatantly ignores ongoing imperial relationships that enrich the very countries that dominate the United Nations and sponsor its Human Development Index. Thus, and not surprisingly, the countries ranked in the “very high human development” category are mostly Western and economically wealthy Middle Eastern and Asian countries that benefit from these imperial relationships. Meanwhile, countries that have survived and flourished for generations prior to colonialism and imperialism such as India and Nigeria are labeled “medium and low human development” respectively, which further implies that these cultures and peoples are less developed. “Developing”, as a term, implies an incompleteness that needs to be further fulfilled through some form of development. By calling countries and cultures “developing”, there is an implicit intention and description that these people are “incomplete”, and as a result, othered (Elveton, 2006). Take for example resource-rich “developing” countries such as the Philippines and Venezuela. These countries are rich in culture and knowledge. In fact, it is entirely plausible that if they were cut-off from global structures and underwent radical, internal sociopolitical changes, they would be able to readily feed all of their people because of their rich natural resources. However, because of current global asymmetries, these countries with rich natural resources are ranked very low. With equal power relations, we may observe a healthy plurality, rather than a monoculture, of shapes and forms of curricula with strong ties to community (though subjectivity is expected within communities) (Lopes & Costa, 2018), culture, and context and thus local validity. And yet, globalization, especially through human ranking and stratification has increased a convergence of curriculum into one universal standard. One reason behind this is the West’s quest to maintain hegemony across the global context. In creating the universal standard, the West is able to reflect its own culture as universal (Elveton, 2006), while obscuring its role in justifying the organization of “third-world” energies and resources towards a version of progress that benefits its own development and wealth. For as “third- world” countries strive to increase their rankings in international platforms, they imitate and localize knowledge from dominant cultures, which forces curricula and socioeconomic purposes to converge. This momentum then maintains the West’s hegemony that has been rooted in colonialism and imperialism. While these issues are discussed at the international level, they are reflected locally in schools, and through hegemony, across a diversity of contexts. School curricula is typically comprised of the explicit curricula (i,e., formal curricular information that is available to various stakeholders), the implicit curricula (i.e., the hidden curriculum that is not stated but is embedded in the school culture), and the null curriculum (i.e., curriculum that was not included) (Eisner, 1985). For example, secondary science courses in Western countries are typically taught through textbooks (explicit curricula), enacted by a culture of objectivity (implicit currricula), and yet, little, (if any) is stated about the existence and epistemic or ontological validity of knowledge about the natural world produced by Indigenous sciences (null curriculum). What a school chooses to include (explicit and implicit curricula) and exclude (null curriculum) directly affects what students learn and value. However, curricular choices are Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 73 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci always subjective, that is, culturally-laden and political (Apple, 2000; Rizvi & Lingard, 2006), and easily influenced by power. Smith (1999) illustrates several examples of how Western colonial power influences the curriculum. First, it is through the absence of indigenous and local knowledge through the null curriculum. In doing so, students not only learn to value a knowledge system different from their own (an admirable learning objective), but learn to value modernist, Western knowledge in particular, as a replacement for their communities’ and their own local and personal knowledge. Second, it is via the localization of curriculum written by the colonizers (explicit and implicit curriculum). For example, when “historical facts” are written from the point of view of the colonizers, students learn to stratify the knowledge, needs, beliefs, and creation myths of the colonizers as superior and more valid than those of their own community. Pinar (2011) further explains, “Children’s games, psychodramas, some folktales, and other school activities provided, [Fanon] thought, forms of racial catharsis, the social expulsion of collective anxieties. In many stories written for white children, the characters symbolizing fear and evil were represented by Indians or blacks. Racism infiltrates everything, Fanon knew.” (p. 45) Thus, students, through schooling and its texts that Western culture is superior and is something to be strived for. Students of color in turn internalize inferiority as compared to their white counterparts internalization of superiority (Helms, 1990). Furthermore, assessments shape the curriculum as well. In the current neoliberal and globalized society the OECD is one of the most powerful and influential international institutions that shape curriculum through the creation and administration of assessments that produce an internationally recognized ranking system (Rizvi &Lingard, 2006). In fact, this measure of academic performance is not only relative/ranked, but positioned as a rare, status commodity to compete for. This form of stratification not only shapes educational institutions within nations but also affects the interpersonal behavior within them. After all, in the ranking as a concept implies that there can only one “winner”. This culture trickles into the local level within individuals within communities competing, unfairly, across class and other social stratifiers, to claim the fruits of educational achievement. Thus, individuals, communities, and even entire nations, via neoliberal logic, are persuaded to compete for limited signifiers of wealth potentiality rather than challenging the very system that produces a variety of wealth inequities. In addition, as Rizvi and Lingard (2006) explain, because the OECD is based on America’s notion of education as a tool for economic competitiveness, countries are ranked on the basis of how well students perform Western culture and thought. As a result, countries consequently localize these globalized forms local to the West (Sousa Santos, 2007) in an effort to remain or become competitive on comparative international tests, which then forces local curricula to converge with Western standards. When this stratification through assessments is localized it allows for increased local stratification through labels of “low/high-performing schools”, “public/private schooling”, and “international” schools, with increasing perceived quality and monetary price respectively. Local cities and states are recognized at a national level, and countries that perform well with respect to Western standards are celebrated in global level. This positive reinforcement (Bandura, 1971) not only provides further reason to participate, localize, and engage in Western practices and ideologies but also maintain the hegemonic structures that exist today. Given the challenges, damages, and dangers provided in having a Western-based “universal” curriculum, educators must address how to create new ways of developing curriculum that not only includes other epistemologies but also engages them in the process. Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 74 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci In doing so, we participate in critical reflexivity—critical, in the acknowledgement of historical and existing power asymmetries in countries, knowledges, and cultures; and reflexivity, that is, “the acknowledgement of an individual situated within a personal history within the real world” (Brown & Sawyer, 2016)—and linguistic humility (Ricoeur, 2006). However, the challenge does not end in illuminating forms of hegemony in “global” or “international” education. Rather, as implied here, it is what happens practically at the curriculum development level that also matters. Curriculum Development Process While the discussion on ethical cross-cultural curriculum development provides perspective and new boundaries for what is possible, theories of curriculum development can practically illuminate pathways for its instantiation. In this particular study, the curriculum’s theoretical orientation is with regards to learning through critical reflexivity and linguistic humility. As a result, the praxis of cross-cultural curriculum development in this context must reflect these restraints, and must implicitly and explicitly reflect its values and purpose. While studies in curriculum theory are vast, few have written about the application of theory into practice. Taba (1962) has significantly contributed to curriculum theory’s fusion with practice. Her work is particularly important not only because it [1] is a practical framework for curriculum development (i.e., has specific explicit guidelines for curriculum development and alignment); [2] acknowledges the plurality of values, cultures, and subjective needs of society; [3] offers strategies for applying theories of teaching and learning; and [4] is applicable for various subject matters (compared to current, subject- specific curriculum development frameworks). In her text, she identifies seven steps for curriculum development—of course, assuming that there is [theoretically] an order: [1] Diagnosis of needs; [2] Formulation of objectives; [3] Selection of content; [4] Organization of content; [5] Selection of learning experiences; [6] Organization of learning experiences; and [7] Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it (p. 12). Initially, Taba (1962) writes about the diagnosis of needs with respect to the diversity of students. She writes, “Because the backgrounds of students vary, it is important to diagnose the gaps, deficiencies, and variations in these backgrounds. Diagnosis, then, is an important first step in determining what the curriculum should be for a given population (p. 12).” However, because people in a community, as well as its physical and economic location, determine the context, it may be assumed that the diagnosis of needs should be applied not only because of the diversity of students but also because of the context, as she writes, “Curriculum is, after all, a way of preparing young people to participate as productive members of our culture. Not all cultures require the same kinds of knowledge. Nor does the same culture need the same kinds of capacities and skills, intellectual or otherwise, at all times.” (p. 10) Lopes (2014) reflects this argument in the current context. Because cultures have different orientations and knowledges, the problem or the needs of each community needs to be analyzed and interpreted using local languages, knowledges, and contexts. Thus, prior to any curriculum development process, a local analysis of each partner’s particular context and desired ends are necessary. This is a critically important step with regards to the proposed ethical framework for curriculum development. From the positionality of the less powerful culture, given the inertia of “globalized” education, knowing your desired ends and needs Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 75 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci gives you roots and strength needed to withstand the hegemony of neutrally worded, but culturally-restrictive decision paths. On the other hand, from the positionality of the more powerful culture, this first step allows space for critical reflexivity, which should place some well-needed breaks on a process whose standard outcome is violent and help them to maintain their intended integrity. Although sometimes a needs assessment may indicate no current need for a partnership, this critical first step prevents the all too common acceptance of facially beneficial foreign partnerships that maintain hegemony. This not only preserves the local meanings in cross-cultural partnerships but also provides a good foundation for learning between cultures. The second to seventh steps in Taba’s (1962) framework emphasizes classical curriculum development processes inspired by Tyler (1969). The formulation of objectives, selection of content, organization of content, selection of learning experiences, and organization of learning experiences describe how the explicit curriculum (Eisner, 1985) is broken down, sequenced, and organized. With regards to ethical cross-cultural curriculum development, this section can only be discussed when the partnership has decided on a focus, as dictated by the needs of both contexts. Finally, the last step in Taba’s (1962) framework emphasizes the importance of evaluation, as inspired by Tyler’s (1969) work. In both frameworks, evaluations are not only based on a student’s behavioral performance of the learning objectives, but also as a means to evaluate the curriculum’s ability to serve students as well. However, for ethical cross-cultural partnerships, evaluations must not be quantified on mere student performance. The reason is because in doing so, forms of ranking especially based on test scores offer the same stratification that was discussed as problematic. Instead, cross-cultural curriculum development partnerships should aim its evaluations on [1] the learning between both cultures, not by appropriation but by cultural humility (Brown & Sawyer, 2016) and linguistic hospitality (Ricoeur, 2006), and [2] the quality of the partnership as relationships evolve over time. Thus, while some “ends” may be determined at the beginning, others may emerge over time. While ethical cross-cultural curriculum development was discussed abstractly, Taba’s (1962) framework is able to illuminate one possible pathway with how this theory may be reflected in practice. Negotiating A Way Forward In order to perform ethical practices in cross-cultural curriculum development, we must strive for critical reflexivity (Brown & Sawyer, 2016) and linguistic hospitality (Ricoeur, 2006). In other words, parties seeking a cross-cultural partnership must strive for humility, appreciation, and understanding of the differences in culture and meaning and use this value as a basis for learning. As mentioned earlier, the diagnostic of the context’s needs (Taba, 1962) along with an initial analysis of the local curricula from the perspective of the local metaphysics and epistemologies (Vera Cruz, Madden, & Asante, 2018) is necessary prior to the partnership proper. In their article, Moraes and Freire (2016) differentiate “global” and “planetary” by associating current “global” education with “exclusion, division, and injustice (p. 44)” and “planetary” as “a context that is more embracing, more connected to our concerns about sustainability and cultural inclusion” (p. 44). While educational problems may be specific to a context, there are planetary issues, such as climate change, that bind us together. In confronting these challenges, we are in need of a framework that leverages local knowledge while understanding the power of true collaboration in solving planetary problems. Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 76 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci While the notion of collaboration is widely celebrated across contexts and settings, the recognition of power asymmetries (Lopes, 2014), as a result of historical and ongoing colonialism and imperialism (as discussed above), and how it affects collaboration is rarely discussed. Instead, most collaboration frameworks (Schwab, 1973; Gilles & VanDover,1988). assume a democratic process where there is equal power among parties. However, because of the history of the world involves colonialism and imperialism, with effects spanning generations (Pinar, 2011), it is important to challenge the boundaries of collaboration and offer new frameworks. While negotiation is mostly utilized in the fields of law and business, it is a suitable framework to use for collaborations that involve power asymmetries because of its roots in dispute and conflict resolution. As Menkel-Meadow, Love, and Schneider (2006) write, “People negotiate whenever they need someone else to help them accomplish their goals. Sometimes these negotiations are designed to create something new—a new relationship, partnership, entity, transaction—and other times negotiations occur because people are in conflict with each other and hope to resolve whatever dispute lies between them.” (p. 3) More specifically, the authors define the field of negotiation as “studying and analyzing the human behaviors that enable people to work together to overcome differences, explore new solutions to problems, and seek joint gains from collaboration (p. 3)”. Given the momentum of hegemony that exist in “global” and “international” education, negotiations are helpful because it assumes [1] that parties would like to work together and [2] power asymmetries exist. While most negotiations utilize adversarial or accommodating strategies, integrative negotiation “can lead to ‘expanded pies’, increased resources, added value, and often, creative and new solutions to negotiation problems” (Menkel-Meadow, Love, & Schneider, 2006, p. 89). Theoretically, integrative negotiations acknowledge the needs of all parties in solving a particular problem, and as a result, improve relationships between parties. What makes integrative negotiation different from other classical negotiation styles is its departure from soft and hard bargaining strategies (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991) and its focus on needs- assessment as a means for problem solving (Merkel-Meadow, 1984). Nevertheless, while integrative negotiations offers strategies where parties are able to work together for creative solutions, it does not account for hegemonic relationships between differing cultures and knowledge bases. By itself, the model risks the same dangers of material and interpersonal injustice through the maintenance of power asymmetries and othering. Classical negotiations frameworks, in the first place, are inherently Western, with a desire for other parties to concede in order to put one’s agenda forward. Thus, without adjustments, the model does nothing to address or shift cultures and countries of power’s desire to share or decrease their dominance when there is no material reason to do so. Thus, without an apriori and personal commitment to anti-racist, anti-colonial stances, and/or genuine learning, there is little hope that this model will systematically promote cultural humility, cultural reflexivity, or unbounded mutuality, which is called for in this cross- cultural curriculum development process. Because of this, this paper offers a critical integrative negotiation model (Fig. 1). In order to reflect Sousa Santos’ (2007) ecology of knowledges as well as cultural humility and reflexivity, modifications to the classic integrative negotiation model are necessary. These modifications include [1] the acknowledgement of ongoing and historical effects and affects of colonialism and imperialism, Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 77 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci [2] a needs assessment for cross-cultural relationships, a [3] process based on unbounded mutuality, and [4] gradual, long-term outcomes. Figure 1. A comparison of integrative negotiation and critical integrative negotiation. The acknowledgement of ongoing and historical effects and affects of colonialism and imperialism is essential in order to illuminate power asymmetries that exist between cultures given the current neoliberal and globalized environment. This stage calls for both parties to acknowledge the validity and legitimacy of other cultures and knowledge bases and understand how current and historical events have shaped the current state of “global” and “international” education. Inevitably, this stage also suggests that cultures and knowledges in the position of power have to make more efforts in legitimizing other cultures and knowledge bases if the desire to participate in ethical cross-cultural curriculum development, as described earlier, is present. On the other hand, cultures and knowledges that have been colonized should strive to be brave and confident in their own validity. Prior to the partnership, each party must learn to practice critical reflexivity and cultural humility in order to create a strong foundation of respect that will help foreshadow a successful and ethical cross-cultural curriculum collaboration. With respect to the purposes of negotiation, integrative negotiation (Menkel-Meadow, Love, & Schneider, 2006) focuses on problem solving while critical integrative negotiation additionally focuses on cultural reflexivity and the acknowledgement of an ecology of knowledges (Sousa Santos, 2007). Subsequently, this guides the process of problem solving through unbounded mutuality and relationship building. Finally, in both frameworks, the outcomes are gradual, open-ended, and changes over time. Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development Framework Bridging together the importance of critical reflexivity, linguistic hospitality and negotiation in cross-cultural curriculum development, this paper presents a framework that bridges theory into Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 78 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci practice. This framework offers four chronological and practical suggestions for critical integrative negotiation: Pre-Negotiation, Initial Discussions, Short-Term Outcomes, and Long-Term Outcomes. In each of these categories, theoretical concepts are aligned for theoretical and practical cohesion for cross-cultural curriculum development. While this framework is organized categorically, it is mainly for the purpose of clarity. One can expect that cross-cultural curriculum development partnerships have a more iterative process between the timeline/categories and it is encouraged for teams to modify the frameworks as needed or as relationships evolve over time. Figure 2. An alignment of theory and practice in ethical cross-cultural curriculum development. While most frameworks do not include practices for pre-negotiation, knowing the colonial history, whether it is the colonizer or the colonized, is important in order to reflect upon the team’s positionality regarding the partnership. As mentioned earlier, this will provide a good foundation with regards to values and attitudes that are needed for a good long-term learning relationship. In this stage, practical applications of critical reflexivity and the ecology of knowledges are concretized by the acknowledgement of power asymmetries that exist between and the current and historical instantiations of colonialism and imperialism between two countries. One way that this can be embodied in the curriculum development process is a local analysis of the curriculum by people who are fluent in both culture and language of the context. This not only allows the local school/government/administration to revisit meanings and interpretations of its purposes of education while also reflecting upon the desirability of the cross-cultural relationship itself in achieving these ends. However, if the analysis indicates a lack of need for the partnership or a single-sided relationship, it is recommended that the contexts refrain from pursuing the relationship. Foregoing or ignoring this analysis may contribute to creating different forms of hegemonic processes that the relationship aims to challenge. Nevertheless, if the analysis shows that the goals of both parties align well with each other and team attitudes revolve around respect, learning, and understanding, initial discussions that share these findings and identify the needs of both parties are recommended. Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 79 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci These initial discussions, maintaining attitudes of critical reflexivity and an acceptance of an ecology of knowledges (Sousa Santos, 2007), explore mutual interests with respect to local meanings as illuminated by the curriculum analysis. One way this can be achieved is to utilize the local language from both contexts in order to share, maintain, and preserve meanings. Doing so not only contributes the cross-cultural partnership to understand the curriculum with respect to the local context in which the curriculum originates but also helps the partnership move forward with regards to being “bilingual” (Ricoeur, 2006) within the bounds of the cross-cultural development process. Thus, both contexts maintain their own local identities and yet, create opportunities to share in new ones. Once respectful rapport has been established through initial discussions, a good understanding of differences in curriculum, language, and culture enables the partnership to create meaningful and mutual goals. Further, it would be beneficial, in this stage, to visit the sites in which the cross-cultural curriculum development will occur in order to observe, first hand, the material embodiments of the curriculum and what is realistic with regards to tangible supports that can be provided. This enables the team to share in thinking about what is possible in both the short- and long-term and how each context can contribute in solving a particular problem. One a sufficient understanding of the problem and needs of both contexts have been identified, as a respectful learning culture within the team established, both parties can participate in the discussion of short-term outcomes. In this framework, short-term outcomes refer to the identification and discussion of a curricular focus and outcomes in both contexts. While the focus or subject matter of the curriculum does not necessarily have to be the same in each context, the discussion of how each context contributes to the other in the process of creating solutions is principal. After all, the partnership was built in the first place because the perceived or expected contribution of a context will provide support, materially or otherwise, towards solving the problem or needs of a context. As the curricular goals have been solidified, the team can now pursue the process of curriculum design. While there is no singular method in field of education for the design of curriculum, Taba (1962), Tyler (1969), Schwab (1973), Posner (2003), and (Emans, 1966), among others, all provide recommendations for both thinking about the concrete embodiments of the desired outcomes as well as the processes that direct it. Finally, the discussion of short-term outcomes should involve a plan for evaluation of the curriculum. This will inform the partnership of its successes and areas for further reflection and learning. While most curricular relationships have a desired “end”, this framework encourages the establishment of a long-term relationship in order to keep the cross-cultural relationship and continuously modifying the partnership with respect to the possibilities of learning and being. In doing so, we, as educators not only continuously challenge ourselves by what we think we know and understand but also serve as a role model for students, teachers, and community members who desire cross-cultural relationships. In this sense, this framework pushes the boundary from simple curricular ends in the short-term to life-long learning in the long-term. Thus, long-term outcomes are defined as the relationship continues to evolve. While some partnerships may decide to end following an evaluation of the curriculum, this framework assumes that the effects of the partnership move beyond the partnership itself— affecting the lives of the participants in all levels (teachers, students, partnership members), through a shared language and experience. These effects may not be visible immediately but contributes to the larger education of an individual or community. Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 80 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci To summarize, the framework offers multiple stages for cross-cultural relationship that is built on ethical grounds through cultural reflexivity, linguistic hospitality (Ricoeur, 2006), the acknowledgement of an ecology of knowledges (Sousa Santos, 2007). Using critical integrative negotiation as a guide for curriculum development practice, this framework was able to remain genuine to its purposes while offering practical suggestions and opportunities to navigate cross-cultural partnerships over time. However, it is important to note that this framework is not universal and should be adjusted to different needs, content areas, and subject matters. Conclusion Over the years, there have been many calls to challenge the hegemony of “global” or “international” education (Apple, 2000; Pinar, 2011) at the theoretical level. While the theoretical frameworks give us a robust perspectives to view planetary and local challenges from, we need practical frameworks that can give us paths forward. This cross-cultural curriculum development framework responds to this call. While this framework is expected to adapt to different contexts and knowledges, it not only fills a gap in the research with regards to practical suggestions but also and more importantly, expands our understanding of “global” and “international” education. It is the hope that in using this framework, the field of education will be able to reimagine possibilities and redefine what “global” and “international” education is—that is, a plural and robust planet with multiple knowledges and ecologies. Notes 1 veracruz@bc.edu References Apple, M.W. (2000). Official knowledge. London: Routledge. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American, February, 63-65. British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come: Higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020. www.britishcouncil.org/higher-education Brown, H. & Sawyer, R.D. (2016). Dialogic reflection: An exploration of its embodied, imaginative, and reflexive dynamic. In Brown, H., Sawyer, Norris, J. (Eds.) Forms of Practitioner Reflexivity: Critical, Conversational, & Arts-Based Approaches. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language, 2nd Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Elveton, R. (2006). Educating for participatory democracy: Paradoxes in global logic. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. Emans, R. (1966). A proposed curriculum framework for curriculum development. The Journal of Educational Research, 59(7), 327-332. http://www.britishcouncil.org/higher-education Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 81 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). Boston : Houghton Mifflin. Giles, C. & VanDover, M. (1988). The power of collaboration. In Golub, J. (Ed.). Focus on Collaborative Learning: Classroom Practices in Teaching English. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group. Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological review, 98(3), 377-389. International School Consultancy. (2017). Demand for international school education continues to expand globally. http://www.iscresearch.com/news/isc-news/isc-news- details/~post/demand-for-international-school-education-continues-to-expand-globally- 20170427. Lopes, A. C. (2014). Maintaining knowledge on curriculum conversation, but through discourse: A dialogue with Gert Biesta. Revista de Educação PUC-Campinas, 19 (2), 105-110. Lopes, A.C. & Costa, H. H. C. (2018). School subject community in times of death of the subject. Policy Futures in Education, 1478210318766955 Lopes, A. C. & Gutiérrez, A. L. G. (2017). Curriculum: Voices, tensions, and perspectives. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 14, 1-4. Marginson, S. & Sawir, E. (2011). Ideas for intercultural education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Menkel-Meadow, C., Love, L., & Schneider, A.K. (2006). Mediation: Practice, policy, and ethics. New York: Aspen Publishers. Moraes, S.E., & Freire, L.A. (2016). The university curriculum and the ecology of knowledges towards building a planetary citizenship. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 36-55. Morrison, N. (2016). International schools market to hit $89 billion by 2026. Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2016/06/29/international-schools-market-to- hit-89bn-by-2026/#70e3080c70e3 Accessed March 14, 2017 OECD (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. Pereira, T.V., & Costa, H.H.C. (2015). Challenges to curriculum theory in the 21st century: Thinking the school beyond the basics. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 12(2), 1-12. Pinar, W. F. (2011). The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring question of the subject. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Posner, G.J. (2003). Analyzing the curriculum, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Ricoeur, P. (2006). On translation. New York & London: Routledge. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2006). Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD’s educational work. Education, globalization and social change, 247-260. Schwab, J.J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum, The School Review, 81(4), pp. 501-522. Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Zed Books. Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies. London & New York: Verso. Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review, XXX (1), 45-89. http://www.iscresearch.com/news/isc-news/isc-news-details/~post/demand-for-international-school-education-continues-to-expand-globally-20170427 http://www.iscresearch.com/news/isc-news/isc-news-details/~post/demand-for-international-school-education-continues-to-expand-globally-20170427 http://www.iscresearch.com/news/isc-news/isc-news-details/~post/demand-for-international-school-education-continues-to-expand-globally-20170427 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2016/06/29/international-schools-market-to-hit-89bn-by-2026/#70e3080c70e3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2016/06/29/international-schools-market-to-hit-89bn-by-2026/#70e3080c70e3 Vera Cruz. A Framework for Cross-Cultural Curriculum Development 82 Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 15 (1) 2018 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci Sousa Santos, B., Nunes, J.A., & Meneses, M.P. (2007). Opening up the canon of knowledge and recognition of difference. In Sousa Santos (ed.) Another Knowledge is Possible. London & New York: Verso. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, education & society, 1(1), 1-40. Tyler, R.W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. United Nations Development Programme (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York: UN Plaza. Vera Cruz, A.C., Madden, P.E., & Asante, C.K. (2018). Toward cross-cultural curriculum development: An analysis of science education in the Philippines, Ghana, and the United States. In Roofe, C. & Bezzina, C. (Eds.) Intercultural Studies of Curriculum: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Verger, A., Altinyelken, H.K., & Novelli, M. (2012). Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues, and policies. New York: Bloomsbury. Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation--An argument. CR: The new centennial review, 3(3), 257-337. Submitted: February, 18, 2018 Approved: November, 3, 2018