The framework may also be used to locate and contextualise within a broader
context specific analyses of citizenship curricula. For example Jerome’s (2006) study
which analyses the experiences of trainee citizenship teachers in England implementing
‘active citizenship’ projects, and finds that interpretations of the term ‘active citizenship’
by teachers and school authorities can be very wide-ranging indeed, is situated within the
‘praxis/engagement’ column of the framework.
Clearly any attempt to develop such a framework has limitations and is open to a
range of criticisms, most notably: the tendency to essentialise and dichotomise a complex
range of viewpoints (De Lissovoy 2008); an overemphasis on the ideal at the expense of a
concern for the implemented and hidden curriculum (Adamson and Morris 2007); and an
analysis deeply rooted in a western liberal ideology which neither takes account of, nor
recognises, the traditions of other cultures (Said 1978). As a classificatory and theoretical
scaffold, any analytical framework for critical citizenship education cannot hope to offset
these difficulties. It might, however, at least aim to provide an ideological support
structure for teachers willing and able to connect with elements of critical pedagogy. Such
problems might also be remedied in part by reinterpretations of the literature and models in
future studies.
Conclusion
This paper has explored the elements which might be said to make up an ideal critical
citizenship education. We have argued that four elements separate critical pedagogy from
the more abstract and technical notion of critical thinking: ideology, collectivity,
subjectivity and praxis; these were translated into language better associated with the
curriculum: politics; society and interaction; the self; and reflection, action, engagement
and possibility. Using these along with existing conceptual analyses and models of
21