Harvard Educational Review
  1. Winter 2008 Issue »

    Editor's Review of Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples’ Resistance to Globalization and A New Paradigm for Global School Systems: Education for a Long and Happy Life

    Malia Villegas
    Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples’ Resistance to Globalization
    Edited by Jerry Mander and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, International Forum on Globalization.
    San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2006. 261 pp. $19.95.

    A New Paradigm for Global School Systems: Education for a Long and Happy Life
    By Joel Spring.
    Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2007. 215 pp. $27.50.

    The year 2008 has been remarkable and historic in many ways. Living in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for the past several months, I am amazed at how intently the world community has followed the intricacies of the U.S. presidential election. The world tour of the Olympic torch leading up to the summer games in Beijing brought unprecedented international protest and action about global human rights. These events, along with the worldwide energy, food, economic, and environmental crises of the past year, remind us that our day-to-day realities and futures are connected to people who seem a world away. We stand at an important moment in time as we observe the emergence of a global cultural system that relies on particular technologies, communicates in a small number of “world languages” with an emphasis on English, expands the ability of people and goods to move fluidly across national borders, and advances an ethic of economic growth and consumerism. Facing rapidly changing and uncertain times, some world leaders are looking to the wisdom of Indigenous communities, many of which have negotiated some of the most uncertain circumstances, for insight about how to survive and plan for such striking shifts in the world. Some believe that the spread of a global culture will eventually render local and Native cultures obsolete. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that global markets can only grow as fast as local producers can and will supply the natural resources, many of which are only abundant in regions where Indigenous people live (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006, p. 4). Thus, there may be a delicate balance between global and Indigenous cultures that we must learn to maintain in order to secure our well-being and the health of our environment.

    To maintain this balance, we must acknowledge that distinct groups of human beings have different ways of living in the world. When these differences are not respected, a conflict of values occurs, which often leads to the increased use of force by global and multinational entities and resulting “new forms of resistance” by Native peoples (Smith, 1999, p. 24). Educators work at the front lines of these value conflicts—or “paradigm wars”—because education is fundamentally about how we transmit our values to the next generation with regard to what it means to live as human beings. Because many cultures have distinct perspectives about what it means to live as a human being, educators have an opportunity—and responsibility—to expose students and communities to these different perspectives. Developing such a stance is twofold: First, educators must acknowledge that globalization is a choice rather than a step in the natural progression of human development; and second, educators must teach about globalization in a way that helps students recognize that, because of the range of value systems and paradigms in the world, there are a variety of ways to think about development. Effective educators often support their students in asking questions and exploring new topics.

    In this Editor’s Review, I examine Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples’ Resistance to Globalization, edited by Jerry Mander and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and A New Paradigm for Global School Systems: Education for a Long and Happy Life, written by Joel Spring, for how these texts might guide educators in developing their own, student, and community consciousness on the impacts of globalization. These texts complement one another, as they both consider how globalization advances economic growth and threatens life; yet each outlines a distinct response to address the dangerous aspects of globalization. After comparing the texts, to draw further attention to the values conflict that is ever-present in globalization efforts, I discuss three globalization myths I identified after reflecting on these texts and the popular discourse on globalization. It is my hope that by naming these myths, I can offer some guidance to educators regarding the kinds of questions and concerns we might raise to facilitate essential conversations on globalization and to develop our own understandings about the ways globalization intersects with and impacts education. Ultimately, I aim to draw attention to the many issues that educators, researchers, and policymakers must consider in education and in the global political arena while planning development strategies.

    Considering How Globalization Advances an Economic Growth Paradigm

    I selected these two texts because they discuss globalization at a values, or “paradigm,” level.1 Without defining globalization, both texts explain that the nature of globalization is characterized by the predominance of an “economic growth” paradigm (Spring, 2007, p. 1). Jerry Mander in Paradigm Wars explains that economic growth requires an “ever-increasing supply of natural resources”—including mineral, forest, food, and water resources—and “supportive infrastructures” to extract, process, and distribute resources to world markets (p. 3).

    The editors of Paradigm Wars focus their volume on describing the severe dangers of an economic growth paradigm by drawing attention to how economic globalization poses devastating threats to human and other biological life. Governments that promote economic globalization are motivated by their own economic growth and in turn sign on to multinational agreements (e.g., the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]) advocated by organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These agreements serve to relax the boundaries between nation-states in an effort to ease resource extraction and expand corporate economic growth (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006). According to the editors, the policies of the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank afford corporations the “same legal rights as humans” because they are “treated as ‘persons’ [and] may legally assert ‘human rights’ to pursue their businesses” (p. 55). While Paradigm Wars emphasizes the damaging impacts of extractive industries (e.g., oil, natural gas, and mineral mining), it also explores topics as wide-ranging as energy, food, water, war technology, language, education, genetics, and biotechnology for the wide-reaching impacts of an economic growth paradigm. In Part Two, volume editors provide a useful primer about what they term the “dire global Rules of the Game” and articulate as some of the most dangerous aspects of globalization (p. 7): (1) the impact of the IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment Programs on Indigenous economies; (2) the WTO’s efforts to diminish Indigenous sovereignty; (3) biocolonialism; and (4) corporate efforts to patent life. The book closes with six essays on how Native communities are changing the “rules of the game” by seeking to preserve life in its many forms, including efforts to challenge corporate privatization efforts, push forward with Aboriginal land and resource claims, and develop renewable wind energy. These are cases that students and teachers will likely never hear about through the mainstream media or in textbooks that discuss globalization but that are essential for gauging the real costs and benefits of globalization policies.

    Instead of cataloging the damaging impacts of an economic growth paradigm, A New Paradigm for Global School Systems: Education for a Long and Happy Life suggests that we can move toward an alternative paradigm. Joel Spring calls for a change in educational goals away from an “industrial-consumer” model—one that seeks to produce new consumers and employees for industry in order to fuel economic growth—to one that emphasizes human happiness and longevity. He lays out a rationale, a global curriculum, certification goals, and a prototype textbook for his alternative educational paradigm. In reviewing research on the relationships among education, income, longevity, and happiness, he notes that while relative income is important for longevity, there is a personal and national wealth threshold effect whereby an increase of wealth beyond a specific level does not extend either longevity or happiness. Additionally, research suggests that, as it is currently organized, “education does not increase happiness except when it leads to a better paying job” (Veenhoven, 1984, in Spring, 2007, p. 40); but again, there is a threshold of satisfaction beyond which a certain level of increased income does not lead to greater happiness (Spring, 2007). Spring’s book builds on the work of philosopher Nel Noddings, economist Amartya Sen, and other researchers and world leaders who are revisiting the goals of schooling and social policy to find that a focus on happiness and quality of life are essential objectives. Spring’s final two chapters offer insight into how this new educational paradigm would impact school organization. He provides various curricular lessons on human actions, responsibilities, and relationships to the biosphere. His book speaks most directly to education reformers, school administrators, and teachers in positions to make policy and curricular changes in schools.

    These texts draw attention to the ways that globalization emphasizes an economic growth paradigm: by delving deeply into the devastating impacts of such a model and by showing the limits of such a model by presenting an alternative. Each offers a particular approach to understanding the nature and appropriate responses to globalization. Yet each has its shortcomings, which becomes more apparent when compared to the particular strengths of the other. First, while a majority of Spring’s book describes an alternative to an economic growth paradigm, the editors of Paradigm Wars miss an opportunity to use the powerful cases they detail to recommend or more fully characterize an alternate paradigm. And second, while Mander and Tauli-Corpuz reject the existing global cultural system in Paradigm Wars because it works against protecting and preserving life by attempting to commodify it, Spring’s global school curriculum actually relies on this system. He acknowledges that there is a global school culture in which students’ “classroom experience has roughly a single structure” with similar features: citizenship education, teachers as the primary classroom influence, and test scores as measures of achievement (p. 10). Further, his global school curriculum depends on the existence of this system to shift the goals of schools around the world toward human happiness and longevity. While Spring wages a critique of the hierarchy and top-down power relations in place between school administrators and teachers in many schools, he does not suggest any large-scale changes to the pervasive global school culture he describes.

    Considering How Globalization Threatens Life

    Both texts affirm the notion that the greatest danger of unrestrained corporate economic growth is the threat it poses to life—for Spring by limiting the human quality of life and obstructing other’s life ways by replacing “Islamic, Confucian, [I]ndigenous, and Hindu” ways with a Western model (p. 73), and for Mander and Tauli-Corpuz by commodifying human and other forms of biological life. In A New Paradigm for Global School Systems, Spring raises important questions and concerns about what the real benefits of economic growth are on human life. This argument builds on Sen’s ideas about human capability—the ability to choose one’s life path and to live it. For Spring, a person’s capabilities relate directly to her happiness and life span, and vice versa. He cites a report by Heylighen and Bernheim (2000) that lists five areas that must be considered when exploring what affects the development of human capability: the previously mentioned income and threshold effect; one’s life span and overall health; social equality and trust; safety and security from war, crime, and corruption; and access to information (p. 44). A paradigm of economic growth often exacerbates social inequality because it is based on a philosophy of scarcity of resources whereby everyone’s needs cannot be provided for, which leads to unhappiness, poor health, distrust, fear, and a lack of information for many (p. 49). Spring’s text details “guidelines for a core curriculum, methods of instruction, and school organization” aimed at equalizing capabilities across the world by ensuring “equality of opportunity” and “equality of educational opportunity” (p. 65).2

    However, the major shortcoming of A New Paradigm for Global School Systems is its emphasis on “human” capabilities and quality of life even though various chapters acknowledge the interdependence of humans and other life in the biosphere. Spring weaves together the research of progressive, human rights, and environmental educators by proposing that a “human-centered biosphere” serve as the overarching framework for a paradigm that advances human capabilities, and thus longevity and happiness (p. 96). This human-centered biosphere would inspire student thinking “about the interconnectedness of humans, the reciprocal effect of human actions on the biosphere, and the effect of the biosphere on human actions, particularly with regard to human longevity and happiness” (p. 97). Spring advances this curricular core because it explicitly seeks to improve students’ capabilities,3 to ensure their experiences of “flow,”4 and to make real the ethical responsibilities they have to others. Despite recognizing the interdependence between humans and the biosphere, it is curious that Spring explicitly places the needs of humans over those of other living beings. He specifically speaks to those who might critique his curriculum as discriminating against other species, and says, “I am openly committing myself to the protection of humans within the framework of the biosphere. However, I do accept the commitment of animal rights activists to reducing the pain and suffering of other living species” (pp. 96–97).

    Unfortunately, Spring never explains his reasoning for this human-centered vision. This omission becomes even more problematic in chapter 4 when he describes Indigenous and Confucian knowledge traditions in an effort to assert that a global core curriculum allows for variation in local ways of knowing. In this discussion, he explains that these knowledge systems are built on key values, such as reciprocity, interdependence, and relationship, which disallow one type of living beings’ needs discounting those of another. While his focus on “quality of life” is important for understanding broader notions of well-being beyond economic success, Spring seemingly limits the ways students explore their roles as humans in relation to other forms of life in the biosphere here and misses an opportunity to advance a curricular focus on interdependence where life, in all its forms, is the focus.

    In contrast, Paradigm Wars emphasizes the relationships between human life and other forms of biological life by presenting a compelling argument about the importance of preserving “biodiversity” for the benefit of all life on the planet. While the editors never define “biodiversity” in this context, it is a concept that is becoming more commonplace in various forums, including those related to health, agriculture, the environment, and travel and leisure. At a basic level, biodiversity is the variation, or diversity, of life (Jensen, Torn, and Harte, 1993). Numerous policies and researchers acknowledge that biodiversity includes variation at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels (Jensen, Torn, and Harte, 1993). Arguably, this variation helps to sustain life on Earth by ensuring the effective “natural” balance and chemistry in our environments. Paradigm Wars’ editors and contributors document how much our ability to thrive as humans is connected to the health and well-being of our planet and that of the various other forms of biological life that inhabit the planet alongside us.

    In Paradigm Wars, Mander and Tauli-Corpuz explain how economic growth policies related to the patenting of life, threaten biodiversity and, in effect, result in biocolonialism. For example, patents on plants and herbs (e.g., turmeric, Hoodia, ginger, pepper, and basmati) commodify these forms of life that many Native peoples acknowledge as “ecological kin” and ultimately limit Indigenous use of and relationship to these floras in the name of corporate control and profit (p. 82). In another case, Paiute scholar Debra Harry describes how Australian biotech company Autogen Limited sought “to secure exclusive rights to the entire gene pool of the people of Tonga” (in Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006, p. 73). Autogen justified its proposal by explaining that Tongan DNA would be used to search for “profitable drugs to treat diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancers and ulcers” (p. 73). While the goal is seemingly admirable, Harry questions whether a patent is the only, the best, or even an ethical means to this goal. And not only the Tongan people are at risk of losing rights to their own genetic material; consider the landmark 1990 Moore v. Regents of the University of California decision, in which the California Supreme Court “established that patients do not have a ‘property right’ in the tissues removed from their own bodies” (p. 72). With examples such as these, the editors assert that “colonization” is not a term relegated to the long-distant past. Rather, they detail the ways that today’s violence and exploitation of Indigenous peoples in the name of science and progress transpires on the new battlefield—the laboratory.

    Although biocolonialism is a global enterprise, Mander and Tauli-Corpuz argue that nation-states continue to play a major part in exacting violence on life by participating in multinational agreements that often appear to benefit their citizens by opening up world markets for import and export. Yet the editors remind us that these “open door” agreements also require that nation-states relinquish much of their sovereignty in trade relations to organizations like the IMF and the WTO. Consequently, these organizations have the authority to levy major fines on nation-states attempting to preserve local resources and enterprise by subsidizing local farmers and business owners or by requiring tariffs on imported goods. As an example, Suzanne York of the International Forum on Globalization states that such policies have proven devastating to indigenous crops of Mexican maize, whereby highly subsidized U.S. genetically engineered corn crops have forced Mexican maize producers out of business (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006). This policy has also threatened the health of indigenous maize, as genetically engineered corn has cross-pollinated with the native varieties. As a result, Mexico has shifted from “being a major corn producer to a major corn importer, with corn imports nearly tripling since [NAFTA]” (p. 147). Indigenous corn growers in Mexico used to be able to provide for their own food needs and sell the remaining harvest on the world market, but now they must “buy the seeds from a transnational company such as Monsanto, Novartis, or Cargill, produce many tons of corn at a low cost to the company, consume millions of dollars of agrochemicals, and later sell the product to buy packaged tortillas from the company to feed their families” (p. 147).

    Threats to biodiversity can lead to limits on local “food sovereignty,” which can result in increasing national dependence on imports and the goodwill of free trade partners (p. 147). Increased effort to privatize publicly held water rights also threatens the ability of Indigenous and national communities of people to provide for their own basic needs. Thus, the clear message of Paradigm Wars is that the commodification of life threatens biodiversity, which ultimately endangers all life on Earth. This is a compelling argument that would be strengthened with a discussion of the reasons the commodification of life has become so pervasive and how we all are implicated in shifting toward a more sustainable paradigm.

    Although both Paradigm Wars and A New Paradigm for Global School Systems provide a thoughtful analysis of the effects of globalization on local communities, these books are written for readers who have already acknowledged the impact of globalization on their own lives. This Editor’s Review seeks to reach educators who have never really considered the ways that they are affected by and are active agents of globalization. To make full use of the ideas and tools put forth in these texts, educators must first recognize that globalization should be considered carefully. In what follows, I draw on these texts and my own reflections on popular discourse on globalization to identify three myths that are central to the paradigm of economic globalization. My conceptualization of these myths is intended to help educators recognize globalization’s daily manifestations in their own lives and in the lives of their students and communities.

    Three Myths of Globalization

    MYTH #1: Globalization only poses a danger to people in “third and fourth world countries” and is the next inevitable step in human development.

    Both Paradigm Wars and A New Paradigm for Global School Systems warn readers about the dangers of globalization, especially when globalization is framed as a natural process of human development, one that we can neither prevent nor shape. But if we accept the belief that economic growth and increased consumption are the best of what it means to be human, we concede that there is only one way to live as human, thus restricting our agency and responsibility. When we submit to this belief, we ignore the prevalence of the economic growth paradigm and its effect on all of our lives. Consider that up to 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is already genetically engineered (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006, p. 146), that over 90 percent of the world’s children are enrolled in largely coed, age-graded classrooms where their achievement is measured by course grades and national examinations (Spring, 2007, pp. 2, 9–10), and that marketers target even young children as consumers. Globalization affects us all daily, from the food that we serve on the dinner table, to the organization of the schools that our children attend, to the consumerization of our youth. However, we still have choices to make when it comes to the foods we buy, the schools we enroll our children in, and the media and markets to which we expose our children. Alternative paradigms that emphasize subsistence and stewardship as development goals require different approaches and understandings about surplus and scarcity. Whereas an economic growth paradigm may emphasize hoarding and accumulation, other paradigms common in Indigenous and Confucian societies call for sharing and balance, or “harmony” (Spring, p. 126). So, as we develop decisions about the choices we make for ourselves and our children, it is important to consider how we pass on values like ownership and possession and/or sharing and caring.

    MYTH #2: Globalization serves to preserve life by ensuring that all the world’s natural resources can be made available to all peoples.

    Educators should be aware of the ways that globalization leads to the increased loss of biodiversity and thus threatens all natural resources. Oil development and logging pose severe threats to the biodiversity of the Amazon rainforests in Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia, threatening delicate ecosystems and upsetting the balance necessary to support natural biodiversity (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, 2006). Additionally, the corporate race to patent genes and cell lines of plants, seeds, and humans is fueled by the desire to commodify our most precious resource: life itself. Commodification of life makes it “alienable,” meaning it can be “owned, bought and sold” as it is becomes “private property” (Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, p. 71). This immediately raises questions about who owns and who is owned. In A New Paradigm for Global School Systems, Spring asserts that, beyond a certain level, increased income does not bring more happiness, and notes that it is social inequality that causes the greatest threat to human longevity and happiness: “There will be little improvement in longevity and subjective well-being unless something is done about social inequalities between nations and within nations, including social inequalities related to the use of natural resources and environmental conditions” (p. 63). Questions about who has the right to “use natural resources” lie at the heart of globalization discourse. We must consider that there are already too many cases where globalization threatens the preservation of life and expands existing social inequalities by seeking to commodify life, thereby constraining natural biodiversity.

    MYTH #3: Globalization promotes “technological advancement,” which works to expand human knowledge, communication, and health.

    While increased “technological advancement” may bring greater knowledge and more resources to classrooms and research efforts, the mechanization and manipulation of nature that comes with increased reliance on technology poses a danger. As suggested above, possessing the knowledge to manipulate genes and cell lines does not justify its use. We must ask ourselves how our actions contribute to what is good for life. Indigenous leader and activist Winona LaDuke offers a compelling essay in Paradigm Wars about the values that a subsistence paradigm advances over that of a money/market/technology paradigm. She explains that a subsistence paradigm emphasizes production that meets local food needs and shares or sells only the surplus. Further, she offers a warning about how new technologies may “backfire” if we do not maintain our relationships with our environment. As an example, she notes that the Anishinaabeg, an Indigenous tribal group with reservation lands in northern Minnesota, teach that maple trees used to produce syrup until humans tried to save labor by using new technology to extract the syrup, now resulting in trees that only produce sap (in Mander & Tauli-Corpuz, p. 25). Her warning stems from a common Indigenous value of stewardship, whereby humans have a responsibility to maintain the right relationships with living beings rather than to control them for our own benefit, particularly in times of ecological crisis.

    Similar concerns about technological advances exist among nation-states; for example, in South Asia, Bhutan aimed to create a national development program that allows for both gross national happiness and modernization. In A New Paradigm for Global School Systems, Spring writes that in developing such a program, Bhutan is addressing “the basic question of how to maintain the balance between materialism and spiritualism, in the course of getting the immense benefits of science and technology” (p. 20). So, as with globalization, technology should not be advanced to manipulate and control life to attain some abstract notion of “progress,” but should be used to steward life, to care for it in a way that leads to greater ecological and human well-being.

    Debunking the Myths about Globalization: Insights for Educators

    Paradigm Wars and A New Paradigm for Global Education offer specific insights for educators who would like to identify and debunk the myths of globalization. Educators should encourage students and communities to engage in open-ended exploration of globalization and its impacts. While existing school curricula may not include globalization as a topic of study, the newspaper headlines alone should indicate the extent to which globalization is a necessary topic to explore. Considering that no one is outside the reach of the economic growth paradigm, we should be discussing its impacts in schools and in communities in an effort to understand how our own actions contribute to or detract from globalization. Additionally, educators should be prepared to suggest alternative paradigms for the organization of educational settings and materials (i.e., schools and curriculum) in order to encourage open-ended study of the impacts of globalization and the strengths and limitations of the economic growth paradigm. Both reviewed texts offer alternative paradigms and resources for teaching about these other models using policies and statements like the Earth Charter, the Kari-Oca Declaration, or the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Spring also calls on educators to guide students in becoming bicultural by “seeing the world” through various worldviews. As educators become more familiar with alternate paradigms, they can support students’ facility with recognizing how various worldviews (e.g., Western, Indigenous, Confucian) can inform their own learning and understanding about how to live.5 Lastly, in seeking to support student biculturalism and identification of alternate paradigms, educators might specifically embrace research on Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous communities’ development strategies. Advocates of globalization can often discount the wealth of knowledge that has sustained human communities over eons in favor of the advancement of new knowledge. Many Native communities place high value on elder wisdom that is the culmination of local knowledge developed and tested over time. And Indigenous ways of knowing often emphasize subsistence, stewardship, sharing, and reciprocity and can offer important and stark contrast to Western paradigms that too often hinge on notions of scarcity, efficiency, and extraction.

    Educators have the potential to guide human understanding about the nature of globalization for both its strengths and weaknesses. We have a responsibility to raise important questions, lob difficult critiques, and draw the attention of the power brokers to act in ethical ways for the benefit of human and ecological life. The stakes are high right now as we face ecological and economic crises and seem to lack leaders who take seriously their ethical responsibilities to make the right decisions for us and our world. Economists, policymakers, world leaders, and developers have roles to play in helping create the world of tomorrow, but educators have as great a role to play in shaping the consciousness and ethic of the leaders who will show us the way to live in that world.

    Malia Villegas


    1. A paradigm is a model or a framework that links concepts together.

    2. “Equality of opportunity: Everyone will have an equal chance to live in environmental, social, economic, and cultural conditions that will maximize the opportunities to a long and happy life. Equality of educational opportunity: Everyone will have an equal chance to receive an education that gives the knowledge and skills to ensure that environmental, social, economic, political, and cultural conditions will support a long and happy life for all people” (Spring, 2007, p. 65).

    3. “People’s ability to lead the kind of lives they value and have reason to value. . . . Greater freedom enhances the ability of people to help themselves and also to influence the world, and these matters are central to the process of development” (Sen, 2000, pp. 18–19, as cited in Spring, 2007, p. 47).

    4. “Flow” is a state in which “concentration is so intense that there is no attention left over to think about anything irrelevant, or to worry about problems. Self-consciousness disappears, and the sense of time becomes distorted. An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, and little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult, or dangerous” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 71, as cited in Spring, 2007, p. 27).

    5. This connects with other research that seeks to identify where Indigenous and Western science knowledge intersect to expand human ways of understanding in science (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 1999).


    Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (1999). Culture, chaos, and complexity: Catalysts for change in Indigenous education. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

    Heylighen, F. & Bernheim, J. (2000). Global progress I: Empirical evidence for ongoing increase in quality-of-life. Journal of Happiness Studies 1(3): 323–346.

    Jensen, D. B., Torn, M., & Harte, J. (1993). In our own hands: A strategy for conserving biological diversity in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Mander, J., & Tauli-Corpuz, V. (Eds.) (2006). Paradigm wars: Indigenous peoples’ resistance to globalization. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.

    Spring, J. (2007). A new paradigm for global school systems: Education for a long and happy life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Share

    Winter 2008 Issue


    Interview with Geeta Rao Gupta, International Center for Research on Women
    Free Marketeers, Policy Wonks, and Yankee Democracy
    School Vouchers in New Hampshire, 1973–1976
    Jim Carl, Cleveland State University
    Can Higher Education Meet the Needs of an Increasingly Diverse and Global Society?
    Campus Diversity and Cross-Cultural Workforce Competencies
    Uma M. Jayakumar, University of Michigan
    Modeling Compassion in Critical, Justice-Oriented Teacher Education
    Hilary Gehlbach Conklin, University of Georgia
    Testing the Waters
    Three Elements of Classroom Inquiry
    Pat Clifford and Susan J. Marinucci, Galileo Educational Network Association

    Book Notes

    Realizing Bakke’s Legacy: Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, and Access to Higher Education
    Edited by Patricia Marin and Catherine L. Horn

    American Higher Education Transformed, 1940–2005: Documenting the National Discourse
    Edited by Wilson Smith and Thomas Bender

    Two Million Minutes: A Global Examination
    By Robert A. Compton (executive producer), Adam Raney (producer), and Chad Heeter (director)

    Call 1-800-513-0763 to order this issue.