Is global citizenship a priority in occupational therapy education? The perceptions of Australian occupational therapy educators.
Shinead Borkovic, Tracy Fortune, Betty Leask
Australian OT educators' views of global citizenship in their curricula range from 'a checkbox activity' to 'professionally essential,' with only the most advanced group linking it to critical reflection on power and justice.
Most felt unskilled to go beyond what accreditation required.
Key findings
1Four qualitatively distinct ways of understanding global citizenship were identified, increasing in complexity from 'institutionally imposed and irrelevant' to 'professionally essential and aspirational.' Only the most advanced category connected global citizenship to a critical approach involving self-reflection on power, political justice, and human rights; the other three categories reflected a softer, culturally inclusive framing.
2In the category where global citizenship was seen as locally important, curriculum content was driven primarily by national accreditation standards and focused almost exclusively on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, with little discussion of other cultural factors such as ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
3Across categories, educators reported feeling unskilled or unsupported to implement global citizenship beyond what accreditation required, citing a 'crowded curriculum,' discomfort in the classroom, and a lack of shared institutional goals as barriers to going further.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Twenty participants from 20 programs is a small sample; the authors note data collection stopped when no new information emerged after 20 interviews, but this does not mean all perspectives were captured. Data were collected in 2019 but the paper was published in 2026, so perceptions may have shifted in the intervening seven years. All three authors are Australian-born women of Anglo-European origin, which the authors acknowledge in their positionality statement. Participants were Course Coordinators or Heads of School, so the views of junior or sessional educators are not represented. The study captures perceptions and self-reported teaching practices, not actual curriculum content or student learning outcomes. The four categories are presented as increasing in complexity, but the authors note that individual responses often spanned multiple categories, so the hierarchy should not be read as a simple quality ranking.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the four categories as a quality ranking or as evidence that Australian OT curricula are failing to prepare students. This is a description of how 20 educators perceived global citizenship in 2019; it does not measure what students actually learned, and the authors note that individual responses often spanned multiple categories. It is a snapshot of educator perceptions, not an audit of curriculum quality or a recommendation for a specific intervention.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →