The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.7, pp.19-32, 2018

Governance Issue on Citizenship/Social Studies Education:
Democratic Education and its Paradox Problem
Norio Ikeno

Nippon Sport Science University, Japan
Abstract
This study would explore some questions on citizenship/social studies education from the perspective of thegovernance structure in subject pedagogy. It would research school curriculums in England and Japan, find out
the difference, examine the effect of value-relations in subject pedagogy and consider the governance structureof citizenship/social studies education as subject pedagogy. And it would find out that integrating the three
processes of citizenship/social studies education leads to a paradox structure, but that there is a way of escaping
this dialectically, through spiralled levels.

Keywords: subject pedagogy, comparative approach, case study, processes of research, practice and policy.
1. Background, Aims and Methods of this study
Citizenship education is currently bathing in the limelight of attention in education circles around theworld. The level of attention being paid to it is high (Arthur, Davies & Hahn, 2008; Davies et al., 2018).
However, there is great variety in terms of its content, methods, ways of thinking and forms of implementation,and it varies in complex ways from country to country. In this study, the focus is on the subject pedagogy of
subjects such as social studies that assume major responsibility for citizenship education, and governance theoryof citizenship/social studies education as subject pedagogy is considered.
Citizenship education is vital for the world’s countries and regions because various countries andsocieties are working to educate their young people into democratic citizens. However, this necessity is not
uniform and will vary according to the circumstances and conditions of each country and region. This study will
look at and examine the factors and their structure that explain why citizenship education is taught differently incertain countries and regions. These factors include social imperatives, the historical environment andcircumstances, the religious and cultural background, the societal importance of morality and ethics, and thedegree to which citizenship education is academically developed. These are factors based on the countries andregions of the United Kingdom and England, the United States, the West, and Japan, China, Korea, the East
Asia and they have been discussed by many scholars (Kennedy, 1997; Cogan & Derricott, 1998; Cogan, Morris,& Print, 2002; Lee et al., 2004; Jho, 2006; Ikeno, 2011).
The concept of subject pedagogy is a concept of pedagogy that has been created and developed in Japan.
Subject pedagogy is education research that constructs a rational, coherent theory of aims-content-methods inrelation to a specific subject (area), as the subject (area) exists beyond temporal and spatial constraints. For

19

Norio Ikeno

example, it could take the form of considering coherent aims-content-methods subject pedagogy theory for what
could exist as citizenship education or social studies education, across national and time boundaries, in relation
to the subject of citizenship in England and social studies in Japan and the USA.
Many researchers and practitioners are already engaged in the quest to identify commonalities acrossspace and time in citizenship education as subject pedagogy (Arthur, Davies, & Hahn, 2008; Davies et al., 2018).
However, there is a great deal of diversity in citizenship education in different countries and regions. This
diversity has its roots in the political, economic, social, cultural and ethnic circumstances that exist in eachcountry or region. The complexity of these factors influences citizenship education and social studies education
as subject pedagogy, creating dichotomies of realities and values, theory and actuality, research and educationand so on, forming a paradoxical structure (Mouffe, 2005).
In citizenship education and social studies education in particular, not only is the concept of democracy
situated as an aim, but substantive values such as freedom and equality are treated as content, procedures are
regulated as methods, and so the situation is more complex than in other subjects or areas, and the paradoxical
structure is clearly apparent. The function of regulation accentuates aims, and lays emphasis on content andmethods. An emphasis on content leads to an over-valuing of substantive values and the risk of value
indoctrination, while an emphasis on methods leads to over-valuing of procedures and the risk of methodism orformalism. In other words, if social studies education or citizenship education as subjects are tied to democratic
education, other aspects are excluded, and this can lead to the paradox of creating the reverse side, or evil face,of this area of education. For as long as citizenship education and social studies education continue to try to bear
the banner of democratic education, this paradox is likely to continue.
In order to solve this problem, it is necessary to examine how this paradox arises, why it arises, how it
functions and how it can be overcome. For this purpose, this study proposes to unpack this paradox asgovernance, and provide a solution.
Main research questions in this study areHow the subject for citizenship education is governed as subject pedagogy?

What activities are required to govern the subject as citizenship education?

What difference is between Asia and West in citizenship education and why?
This study (1) takes England as a representative case of the western world and Japan as a representative

case of Asia, (2) analyzes citizenship education research and practice in both countries from the perspective of
subject pedagogy and (3) clarifies the characteristics of citizenship education, together with associated factors
and reasons, as subject pedagogy in both areas. The methodology used in this study is a comparative approachbased on case study.
This study would explore these questions from the perspective of the governance structure in subject
pedagogy. This study has three faces on method and procedure:
Phase 1:
Finding out the difference in the function and role of subject pedagogy for citizenship education in school
curriculum of Europe and Asia, focused on England and Japan.
Phase 2:20

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Examing the effect of value-relations on subject pedagogy for citizenship education in England and Japan: theeffect of the subject “Religion” to the subject “Citizenship” in English school education and the subject “Moral”
to the subject “social studies” in Japanese school education,
Phase 3:
Considering the educational structure, relationship between objectives, contents and methods for becoming
citizen in England and in Japan,
This study would research school curriculums in England and Japan, find out the difference, examine
the effect of value-relations in subject pedagogy and consider the governance structure of citizenship education
as subject pedagogy.

2. Case Study
2.1 Citizenship education research and practice in England
Until recently in England, social science related subjects consisted of geography and history, and there
was no teaching of civics education subjects or integrated social studies subjects. Citizenship education was also
very vague. In this respect, the introduction of “citizenship” as a subject from 2002 is highly significant.
“Citizenship” is set in the curriculum as a compulsory subject at Key Stages 3 and 4 (Years 7-9 and Years 1011), corresponding to the junior and senior high school stages in Japan. In primary school, at Key Stages 1 and
2 (Years 1-2 and Years 3-6), it is optional rather than being a compulsory subject, but schools are encouraged
to incorporate it, with recommendations made to include it in Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE),
which covers individual and character education, social education and health education.
There were various factors in the background to the introduction of “citizenship”. Crick (2002, p.114),
who headed the advisory group on the introduction of “citizenship” as a subject, stated that “citizenship” wasintroduced to change political culture at national and regional levels. That is, the aim was not merely to produce
well-behaved, law-abiding citizens who would comply with the government, but rather was a bid for “active
citizenship”, situated as “the radical agenda of civic republicanism” (Crick, 2002, p. 114). Citizenship is notreading and understanding something and then being able to behave on that basis. The important thing is action
at first hand. However, that does not mean that citizenship can be achieved just through volunteer activities.
Practical learning of the knowledge, competences, skills and attitudes needed to cope with society, represented
by the community, is important. Using the word knowledge in its wide meaning to include all these aspects,
Crick (2002) argued that what is needed to make citizenship effective is “not an abstract or an academic
comprehensive knowledge, but a practical knowledge of what levers of power are relevant to particularintentions (p. 106) ”, emphasizing that it is practical knowledge that needs to be developed.
In the words of Crick, the aim of “citizenship” is not “to restore or create good citizenship”, but “learningof active citizenship” (Crick, 2002: 115). The point of “citizenship” is in the specific mission outlined below(DfEE & QCA, 1999: 12):21

Norio Ikeno

To teach “them (children) about economy and democratic institutions; encourage respect for different
national, religious and ethnic identities, and to develop pupils’ ability to reflect on issues and to take partin discussions.”
The first feature of “citizenship” is that it deals not only with knowledge and understanding of politics,
economics and other aspects of contemporary society, but also extends to values and attitudes. The second
feature is respect for diversity. In particular, diversity of identities is evident. The third feature is the emphasison discussion about society and participation in this discussion. These features are clearly apparent in the subject
aims of “citizenship” (DfEE & QCA, 1999: 6).
・ becoming informed citizens・ developing skills of enquiry and communication
・ developing skills of participation and responsible action
One researcher who provides a new perspective on citizenship education as an independent subject inEngland is James Arthur. He states the following (Arthur, Davies & Hahn, 2008: 305)
“In Britain there is little attention given in modern educational discourse to religious and its role inshaping meanings of citizenship. In part this is due to the fact that many of the organizations that seek
to promote a discourse on citizenship education are secular bodies that present issues of religious
identity and faith in the language of community, equality, diversity and values. ……. Consequently,
accounts of citizenship in educational studies generally omit positive references to religion.”
Arthur presents the religious viewpoint as a new perspective on citizenship education, and emphasizes
the relationship between citizenship education and the spirit of Christianity. In particular, he stresses theimportance of religion in relation to secularism, and points out that the spirit of Christianity is influential incitizenship education. This observation could be interpreted as one of the specific characteristics of western
citizenship education. This is an important observation, as it has not previously been pointed out in the research
literature.
Arthur’s observation that the spirit of Christianity is at work in citizenship education does not mean that
moral and religious values such as the virtues of tolerance and loving one’s neighbour are important or shouldbe important. It means that when students think and discuss or take action in citizenship education, what issought is absolute universality based on values such as community, equality and diversity, rooted in thefoundation of the spirit of Christianity.
In citizenship education in England, each unit progresses based on standards of what is right and whatis wrong as knowledge, skills and understanding are acquired. This is a major point of difference whencompared to citizenship education in Japan and many other Confucian-heritage Asian countries. Citizenshipeducation in many Asian countries is based on relative universality, and decisions are made not about what isright, but about what is more right.

22

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

While there is a long history of citizenship education research in England, citizenship education as a
subject has been created and is being implemented in response to the demands of religious and cultural context
and the pressing needs of society. In terms of content, as Arthur points out, it is characterized by the common
framework of socially important morals and ethics based on religion in the form of the spirit of Christianity.
In England and other western countries and regions, citizenship education takes many diverse forms, and may
be implemented across whole school education, or as an independent subject, or as social studies. Apart fromthis feature of diversity, the following three points can also be made.
First, citizenship education is situated in the school curriculum in some form or other. In England, it isclearly defined as an independent subject.
Second, it is linked to national and societal development. The subject of citizenship in England aims for
democratic social integration in UK society.
Third, citizenship education has the Christian value of absolute universality as a hidden standard.
Absolute universality is brought to bear on decisions and judgements about actions, and about good and bad insociety, and it has an important influence as a standard of judgement. It takes on aspects of the role of moral
education in thinking about and judging good and bad in society. In these countries and regions, religious
education exists as a subject, but moral education is not a subject. It could be argued that citizenship education
is assuming the function of moral education.

2.2 Citizenship/social studies education and citizenship education and related research inJapan
In many Asian countries and regions, as in Japan, citizenship education is carried out as social studies
education, and its content is diverse. In Japan, citizenship education is generally taken to be education to develop
qualities of a citizen, that is citizenship, necessary for assuming responsibility as a member of society (Ikeno,2011). In relation to social studies education carried out in school education in Japan at present, it is generally
seen to represent a wider range of educational activity than social studies, covering whole school education oreven being situated as educational activity as a whole, incorporating social education as well.
On the other hand, citizenship is also a blanket concept encompassing the nature of social studies as a subject,and it is a concept that is invariably used in defining social studies. For example, the nature of social studies
education in Japan has been defined in social studies pedagogy as a subject “to develop citizenship qualities
through social understanding” and in the “Course of Study” as having the subject aim of “developing civic
qualities and abilities” (Utsumi, 1971: 7).
In Japan, while the concepts of “citizenship qualities and abilities” or “civic qualities and abilities”,
concepts that can be taken as virtually synonymous with citizenship, regulate the nature of the subject of social
studies, there actually exists a certain sense of distance in practice between social studies and citizenshipeducation. This is partly caused by the fact that social studies has been regulated as one subject through the
Courses of Study. In Japan, problematization of this issue of this sense of distance has been used as a rationale
for proposing a wide range of diverse types of social studies education theories and practices that diverge fromcurrent practice in social studies. It is a fact that valuable debate considering the nature of social studies is being
conducted now.

23

Norio Ikeno

In this way, citizenship education in Japan, taught as a single subject as social studies, can be said to
exhibit the following two features.
First, citizenship education is linked with social studies as school subject when it is situated in the school
curriculum. In one way, this gives it an established position, but it also leaves ambiguity. As social studies comesin first place, citizenship education always has to take second place.
Second, it is linked to the nation. The perspective of development and progress of society is much lessprominent than citizenship education as the foundation for creation and development of the nation state. In thissense, citizenship education is more concerned with the development of national citizens than citizens in general.
In addition to these features, there is also a tendency for citizenship education in Japan and Asia to be
conducted as though its standards were “natural,” with a dependency on history, politics, economics and culture(Parmenter, 2004: 94). As far as right and wrong in nation and society or judgements and decisions about actions
are concerned, judgements are based on what has happened so far, a relative universality based on time andsituation. Overall, the spirit of Confucianism which is prevalent in Asia is often at work as a standard forjudgement. It could be argued that citizenship education in the Asia region can easily be linked with moral
education.

2.3 Discussion
What are the philosophical concepts that need to be secured in conducting citizenship/social studies
education policy, practice and research as subject pedagogy, in comparison of citizenship and social studies
education in England and Japan? What kinds of problems are entailed in actually realizing these? How can these
problems be grasped and solved? Investigation of these problems is the concern of this study.
It has become the norm for citizenship/social studies education to be conducted along the lines ofdivisions between theory and practice, or research and education. It is normal for this same division to be evident
in countries all over the world. However, from the perspective of school teachers, who are located on the frontline of cutting-edge educational practice, this division of labour splits them into two or three personae. They
actually carry out citizenship/social studies education, situating themselves and negotiating the roles ofresearcher, policy implementer and practitioner as the situation requires. In this situation of reality, conflicts andcontradictions can arise. It is possible that these conflicts and contradictions could be inherent to the theories andprocesses of citizenship/social studies education research and practice. In particular, social studies, which has
democracy as a concept of the subject, seems to inherently contain a paradox in the realization of this concept,
which individual teachers cannot help but re-create.
Based on this awareness of the problem, there seems to be a necessity for action and work that embraces
citizenship/social studies education as a whole, integrating the theory-producing research process with the policy
process of structuring and implementing education in society, and the practice process that creates the reality ofeducation. This seems to be precisely the role of an academic organization, and is a research concern. In thesections that follow, class observations will be made about the research context and practical context, issues forresearch investigation will be identified, and a basic foundation for their consideration will be laid out. Based on
this foundation, problems to be solved will be clarified, strategies for resolution will be created, and possibilities

24

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

for how construction of a new form of citizenship/social studies education could be progressed using thesestrategies will be examined.

3. Problems in the research
3.1 Problems constructing subject pedagogy theory
So far, the construction of citizenship/social studies theory as subject pedagogy has been propelled basedon emphasis on three positions. The first is theory connecting the elements of aims-content-methods. This is thetheory of making mutual links between the three factors of aims, content and methods as subject pedagogy(Utsumi, 1971). The second is aim-centred theory. Content and aims are selected and organized based on theaims of each subject (Ikeno, 2009). The third is education foundation theory. The aim here is to study how
school society works as the educational foundation supporting the three elements of aims, content and methods.
For as long as such theory building has been carried out as an academic activity, it has been regarded as
neutral and objective (Moriwake, 1999). However, is it really so? Is academic research not an activity conductedwithin the confines of real society? Do vested interests have no part to play in the construction of valid
rationality? And could these not be a continuum of a varying phase rather than separate, individual cases?
If this is the case, each individual theory construct is relative, does not have universality, and is always
subject to ideological criticism, and can only obtain temporary validity through thorough critical analysis byindividual researchers and groups of researchers, or by undergoing the closest criticism conceivably possible(Ikeno, 2008).

3.2 Problems of theory building in citizenship/social studies education
In the construction of subject pedagogy theory, the construction of citizenship/social studies education
theory encounters the additional complexity of having as its aim a values problem, namely, the creation of
democratic society and education for this purpose – citizenship education (Ikeno, 2001, 2003).
Citizenship/social studies education is connected to the values of democracy, and is charged withteaching this. Consequently, through the teaching and learning of democracy, it promotes independent value
formation among students. As it prohibits value indoctrination, values cannot be taught directly. If the selectionof values is free, totalitarianism also becomes a permissible option, as happened in the Nazis’ legal seizure of
power. This is where the paradox of democracy arises (Mouffe, 2005: 1-16).

3.3 Methods of study
In this study, there is no dismantling of the various dimensions involved in the construction of subject
pedagogy theory, but the three aspects of research, policy and practice are taken to constitute a linked spiral ofvarying structure, and a solution to the paradox will be sought through rethinking each dimension as agovernance problem.

25

Norio Ikeno

Governance is the integration of variance on each dimension, in other words, management, control,
leadership and critical appraisal of one’s own position and value choices. Rather than just managing subject
pedagogy theory, citizenship/social studies education theory and unit (lesson) theory separately, this study
would like to attempt a change of theory construction by eliciting relationships in collaborative/participatory
government (governance) from the links in each of the higher-ranking distinctive features.
By recasting citizenship/social studies education theory as a “governance” problem, citizenship/social
studies education and its theories transcend autonomous academic education in theory construction, educational
practice and administrative policy and, if undertaken as collaborative/participatory government (governance),
citizenship/social studies education itself is situated as part of citizenship education (research). Is that governancenot precisely the role of the academic association?

3.4 Consideration
3.4.1 Questions
The following seven questions are addressed and investigated in this section.
Q1. Why is the issue of governance being put forward?
Q2. What is governance?
Q3. How is this different from previous research?
Q4. Why has governance not been an issue so far?
Q5. Has there not been a problem with citizenship/social studies education research, what was the
problem, and how are attempts being made to solve it?
Q6. Is research on governance issues limited to research on citizenship/social studies education?
Q7. Is governance not an issue related to the very roots of subject pedagogy research?

3.4.2 State of the issue
If we think rationally about the area we refer to as citizenship/social studies education, it is possible todivide it into three areas.
The first is that citizenship and social studies education is only possible when implemented as subject
pedagogy in actual school situations. In this sense, it is citizenship/social studies education implemented as
individual lessons in classes in each school. This is the level of teachers planning, implementing and improving
lessons, and carrying out new developments.
The second area is practice in this process implemented within the framework of laws and politics, rules
and norms, administrative orders and regulations. It is impossible to say that the practice of school education
has no societal guarantee. Citizenship and social studies lessons are incorporated as one element of this process.
The third area is not only examining the process of citizenship and social studies education objectively in termsof lessons and policy, but constructing contextual theory and models, working out relevant concepts, ideas andphilosophies, and theorizing citizenship/social studies education itself. This is known as education theory
research, and citizenship/social studies education also has a place in education theory research in the frameworkof subject pedagogy.

26

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

In practice, these three areas are organized as the three processes of practice, policy and research, andare treated as independent entities.
These three processes are represented in diagrammatic form below.
Processof research
Processof research

Process
ProcessofofPractice
Practiceof Policy
Process Processof Policy
Administrator

Researcher

Teaching
material

Textbook(2) Method manipulation in adapting aims

(4)

Educational
regulation(3) Case by case(1) Conceptual manipulation in the pursuit of aims

TheoryTeacher

Practice

Figure 1: three processes of citizenship/social studies education
Figure 1 shows the three processes involved in citizenship/social studies education as subject pedagogy.
The following four points can be identified as problems of governance issues from this figure.
First, the processes of practice, policy and research have progressed on the basis of different lines ofreasoning. Second, each operates according to different modes of management and, accordingly, different
standards of rationality. Third, the three processes originally centred on the process of practice and are linked.
Fourth, the final point is that results evaluation of the effectiveness of citizenship/social studies education is doneby teachers teaching students.
The first and second problems basically concern the question of whether different logic and rationality
are individual matters or should be connected in different ways, and form the first point of debate. The thirdproblem requires investigation in relation to the first point of debate, and the way in which this relation is formedis the second point of debate. There could be a tight connection, a loose connection, a secret connection. In otherwords, just as there can be strong democracy and weak democracy (Barber, 2009, chapter 5 & 6), a strong
framework of subject pedagogy could be created and applied to the three processes of social studies, or a weak27

Norio Ikeno

framework could be created and loosely applied. The fourth problem evades judgement of results of the three
processes so far, and pays no attention to them. There has been no clarification of what is actually happening in
the classroom, or what students are actually gaining. There has certainly been analysis of lesson protocols andpartial video analysis of what is happening in classrooms, but this is partial. Overall, holistic study has not yet
been done. Understanding of students’ overall learning results in the classroom, and facilitation of judgement
about those results is necessary.

3.4.3 Governance issue
Looking at these three processes in terms of strong connections, weak connections, close connections
or loose connections leads to the elicitation of places to investigate and direct. This is the governance issue.
In general terms, governance is governing and controlling. Organizations and groups govern themselves
soundly. Without using the specific term, one could follow Stanley (1992, pp. 98-99) in using Gramsci’s term,“hegemony.” Elsewhere, Stanley used the words “government” and “govern,” and no longer uses hegemony.
Perhaps he changed the use of words for ease of understanding.
Governance does not stop at managing the rationality problem scientifically or administratively, but
progresses critically, in an integrating way, based on higher-level concepts and motives, laws and standards.
These concepts can be used to explore the problems above in greater depth.
The following six characteristics can be suggested from the three areas/processes in Figure 1.
A: Each of the processes is progressing as “optional.”
B: In the research process, (1) Conceptual manipulation in the pursuit of aims is frequent, based on theprinciples of “science.” Scientific rationality. Paradigms.
C: In the policy process, (2) Method manipulation in adapting aims is generally conducted along theprinciples of “management/administration.” Management rationality. Management framing.
E: Teachers tend to use (1) conceptual manipulation in the pursuit of aims and (2) method manipulationin adapting aims in a manner that suits them. Instrumental rationality. Trial and error.
F: The process of citizenship/social studies education is probably a process of these three linked together.
Even if they exist as separate processes, they probably merge in the final analysis when the teacher
makes choices about process. In this case, it is probably necessary to conduct one operation
independently.
G: The three processes may actually be integrated through teachers of citizenship/social studies
themselves integrating the three areas of research, policy and practice.
The problems emerging from the above characteristics can be synthesized in any number of ways. Thisissue of possibilities is the issue of governance.

3.4.4 Three sub-issues to be solved in the governance issue
The governance issue is not an issue that can be elucidated at a single stroke. In this study, it will be
divided into three sub-categories.

28

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

(1) Sub-issue 1: Is it possible to expand the breadth of choice to the maximum? (Choicemaximization issue)
First, as can be seen in Figure 1, the three areas and processes are all progressing as options. Citizenshipand social studies teachers, education administrators and education researchers, wherever they are located,
progress to the next stage through some kind of choice. This kind of process is a normal thing in democraticsociety, and is perfectly natural. The guarantee of such choice represents the nature of democratic society, andprovides grounds for the concept of citizenship/social studies education as a subject in democratic society forthe development of citizens who will create democratic society.
The problem is the extent to which this choice is guaranteed. In theory, all options are open. In practice,
it is well known that options are confined within a certain range. If options are limited within certain constraints,
choices are narrowed, and it becomes difficult to implement change and reform in citizenship/social studies
education.
How can wider choice be made possible? This problem is linked to the issues below.
・ Is choice possible beyond each paradigm?
・ Is the expansion of possibility of choice dependent on the conscience of researchers?
・ Is it not impossible for educational choice to exist free from administrative regulation?
・ How far can teachers understand each paradigm and framework, and are there not limits?
Answers to these problems will not be explored any further here, but it seems that these issues should
not be reduced to the conscience and ethics of each individual, but that the work of expanding possibilities ofchoice is the work of the academic association.

(2) Sub-issue 2: Is it possible for all options to operate according to coherent tenets andprinciples? (Coherent principle issue)
If possibilities of choice were expanded, there is still no guarantee that choices would not become
blurred. Even researchers sometimes produce contradictions, are attracted by other ideas, and go in otherdirections. In educational administration, there is a great deal of flexible change dependent on changes in society
and the times. It is very difficult to guarantee coherence.
The issues involved here are as follows.
・ For as long as researchers, practitioners and administrators stick to their specific tenets and principles,
will the possibility of choice not be permanently narrowed?
・ Is it possible to reach agreement on coherent tenets and principles for education in society? Is thissomething decided by opinions of the majority?
・ If coherent tenets and principles cannot be agreed and cleared by society as a whole, will there not
be a risk of simply falling into case-specific trial and error?
If response to these problems is reduced to the efforts of individuals, there will never be any hope ofdevelopment. It is a question of either taking a perspective of evolution theory dependent on curtailment of29

Norio Ikeno

freedom and entrusting education and research to the long history of humankind, or of presenting a generalframework within the boundaries of which coherence can be guaranteed.
In this study, natural selection theory is eschewed in favour of a loose framework theory, providing aperspective from which to examine measures to maintain coherence of tenets and principles. By doing this, anattempt can be made to achieve possible coherence. There is no guarantee that a good result will be produced,
but adoption of this way of thinking prioritizes the merit of working towards judgement through trial.

(3) Sub-issue 3: What decides whether the results of selection are good or bad? (Judgementof results issue)
Theory, policy and practice produced by coherence of choice are judged as good or bad dependent on
the results they obtain for students. There are two problems here. One is the collection of information and meansof data collection regarding the results obtained for students. The other is judgements about that data.
Data collection is quite difficult in education settings. This is because it is difficult to ascertain the extent
to which a particular lesson has had an effect. In addition, if judgements are made, decisions about the criteria
to be used for judgement need to be clear.
・ How are the results of any choice to be judged?
・ How are realization of concepts, realization of administrative goals, realization of children’sachievement objectives to be judged?
If criteria for judgement place importance on the research process, and the realization of concepts places
importance on the administrative policy process, and the realization of policy places importance on children’s
learning achievement, then the realization of children’s achievement objectives will be accorded importance. In
this case, all three end up being accorded importance. This is the structure of the paradox.

4. Conclusion: The Democratic education and its Paradox Problem
If citizenship/social studies education as subject pedagogy is taken to be a three -process structure, it isoften split into three processes for the purposes of investigation. When this happens, each progress as a separate
structure, and they can never be integrated into a linked structure. Attempts to achieve a unified, linked structurelead to a never-ending circle of (1) expanding choice, (2) achieving coherence of tenets and principles and (3)setting criteria for the judgement of education results.
This paradox can be thought to arise from two factors. The first factor derives from division of the 3
processes. Dividing the process of education into research, practice and policy is the starting point of thisobservation. This is shown in Figure 1. Education is divided into three processes, not integrated.
The second factor is that social studies as a subject is situated as part of democratic education.
Democracy and democratic education are two things rolled into one. These are the guarantee of the validity ofprocedures and the guarantee of specific values of democracy such as equality and freedom. These arecompounded, are democracy and democratic education are used. When citizenship/social studies education as
subject pedagogy is situated as democratic education, it cannot simultaneously achieve both aims of procedures

30

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asiaand content, and if it emphasizes procedure, it tends to become formalized, while if it emphasizes content, it
tends to become too specialized. Procedure and values of democracy are not joined, then do not realize aims of
democracy.
It is quite difficult to find a way to escape from this paradox. The only way to escape is in a dialectic
way, changing the levels of the spiral.
The conclusion of this study is that integrating the three processes of social studies leads to a paradox
structure, but that there is a way of escaping this dialectically, through spiralled levels.

References
Arthur, J., Davies, I., & Hahn, C. (Eds.) (2008). The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship anddemocracy. Los Angeles and London: Sage.
Cogan, J. J., & Derricott, R. (Eds.) (1998). Citizenship for the 21st century: An international perspective on
education. London: Kogan Page.
Cogan, J. J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (Eds.) (2002). Civic education in their Asia-Pacific region: Case studies
across six societies. New York and London: Routledge Falmer.
Crick, B. (2002). Democracy: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davies, I., Ho, L. C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C. L., Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (Eds.) (2018). The palgrave
handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
DfEE & QCA. (1999). Citizenship: The national curriculum for england key stages 3-4. London: DfEE & QCA.
Ikeno, N. (2001). Shakai keisei ryoku no ikusei: simin kyouiku to shi te no shakaika kyouiku [Educating children
for the formation of civil society in social studies lessons]. The journal of social studies annual report 2000,
47-53.
Ikeno, N. (2003). Shimin shakaika no kousou [Vison of Social Studies Education for Citizens]. In Shakai
Ninshiki Kyouiku Gakkai (Ed.), New perspectives of social studies education (pp. 44-53). Tokyo:
Meijitosho.
Ikeno, N. (2008). Shakaika no kanousei to genkai: hihanshugi no tachiba kara [Possibilities and limits of social
studies education]. The journal of social studies, 104, 6-16.
Ikeno, N. (2009). Gendai gakuryoku ron to kyouka shidou: mokuhyo to naiyo no kairi to sono kokufuku[Scholastic achievement and subjects education for 21st century]. Bulletin of japanese association ofschool education, 24, 45-58.
Ikeno, N. (Ed.) (2011). Citizenship education in Japan. London and New York: Continuum.
Jho, D. (2006). The making of social studies education in Korea: Implication for Citizenship education.
Citizenship teaching and learning, 2(2), 21-36.
Kennedy, K. J. (Ed.) (1997). Citizenship education and the modern state. London and Washington DC: Falmer.
Lee, W. O., Grossmann, D. L., Kennedy, K. J., & Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.) (2004). Citizenship education in asia
and the pacific: Concepts and issues. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Moriwake, T. (1999). Shaikaika kyouikugaku kennkyu: houhouron teki approach [Research on social studies
education: approaches based research methods]. Tokyo: Meijitosho
Mouffe, C. (2005). The strong democracy. London and New York: Verso.

31Norio Ikeno

Parmenter, L. (2004). A Solid Foundation: Citizenship Education in Japan, In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K.
L. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in asia and the pacific: Concepts and issues(pp. 81-96). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the
postmodern era. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Stanley, W. B. (2010). Social studies and the social order: Transmission or transformation? In W. Parker (Ed.),
Social studies today (pp. 17-24.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Utsumi, I. (Ed.) (1971). Shakai ninshiki kyouiku no genri to houhou [Principles and methods of social studies
education]. Tokyo: Kenpakusha

32