The internationalization of higher education has been driven by an increasingly globalized and interconnected world. One concept that embodies this internationalization process is global citizenship, which can be promoted through student mobility, internationalization-at-home, or other forms of intercultural learning. While global citizenship remains a broad and highly contested term, the increased interest of its role in higher education has inspired research in different fields. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of existing research approaches to studying global citizenship, and to formulate future research directions that may integrate these approaches into a holistic framework. By reviewing literature from different fields in the social sciences, we have identified three main research approaches: intercultural competence, social identification with a global community, and civic engagement. While each approach reflects an important dimension of global citizenship, they remain separate in the literature, complicating the understanding and application of global citizenship in higher education. Therefore, for each approach we present a general conceptualization and a brief overview of prior findings. We discuss how integrating these approaches can lead to a more holistic understanding of global citizenship and guide future avenues for research and practice in higher education.
In most models on terrorism, interaction with other radicals is a key factor. However, systematic empirical evidence that radical ties affect behaviour is scarce. Our access to detailed police information allows us to apply Social Network Analysis (SNA) on a Dutch Salafi-Jihadi network and analyse the social relationships and network positions of 80 actors, out of whom 20 turned to terrorist acts. The results suggest that ties to leaders and terrorist offenders, co-attendance of radicalising settings and greater structural embeddedness relate to the likelihood of individual actors turning to acts of terrorism. However, we also find some individual attributes that may offer competing explanations. In this paper we discuss our findings and address how future research may provide further insights into an important issue for agencies involved in countering terrorism: which radical actors, if any, are more likely to turn to acts of terrorism?
Content moderation is commonly used by social media platforms to curb the spread of hateful content. Yet, little is known about how users perceive this practice and which factors may influence their perceptions. Publicly denouncing content moderation—for example, portraying it as a limitation to free speech or as a form of political targeting—may play an important role in this context. Evaluations of moderation may also depend on interpersonal mechanisms triggered by perceived user characteristics. In this study, we disentangle these different factors by examining how the gender, perceived similarity, and social influence of a user publicly complaining about a content-removal decision influence evaluations of moderation. In an experiment (n = 1,586) conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, and Portugal, participants witnessed the moderation of a hateful post, followed by a publicly posted complaint about moderation by the affected user. Evaluations of the fairness, legitimacy, and bias of the moderation decision were measured, as well as perceived similarity and social influence as mediators. The results indicate that arguments about freedom of speech significantly lower the perceived fairness of content moderation. Factors such as social influence of the moderated user impacted outcomes differently depending on the moderated user’s gender. We discuss implications of these findings for content-moderation practices.
