It was Finland that received global adulation from education policy circles during the first decade of the 2000s. After the first Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results were released in 2001, the Finnish education system’s (surprisingly) excellent performance triggered an international scale of ‘educational pilgrimage’ to learn about ‘educational know-how’ (cf. Sahlberg, 2009, p. 341). Turning to the second decade of the 2000s, the global envy directed towards Finland has since faded as Finnish schools have been continuously slipping in their PISA results. Amid this eventuation, Denmark, another Scandinavian country, has increasingly been receiving the spotlight, initially by journalists (e.g. Kingsley, 2013; Oh, 2014). While there would be multiple reasons for this attention shift, probably the most likely reason is the fact that Denmark has consistently ranked first place in the World Happiness Report commissioned by the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Better Life Index, and the European Social Survey (ESS) in recent years. Worldwide, researchers and policymakers have started wondering what makes the Danes so happy. Researchers often provide explanatory factors such as Denmark’s ‘universal and free health care, free university education and relatively generous unemployment benefits’ as major factors to substantially reducing unhappiness (Wiking, 2016, p. 274). It seems clear that Denmark’s position as the world’s happiest country can be, in large part, attributed to Denmark’s welfare state characteristics. At the same time, however, such caring, welfare features of the system do not, on the surface at least, set Denmark apart from other Scandinavian countries since these factors are also found in Denmark’s neighbour countries. In this special issue, we aim to navigate another (potential) explanatory factor, namely, ‘togetherness,’which manifests in a unique and salient way in Denmark. Four articles in this special issue provide clues about how togetherness is inextricably intertwined with Danish people’s sense of belonging. Furthermore, the four articles explore what Danish experiences of ‘togetherness’ can offer for multicultural education, and have commonly sought to examine ‘togetherness’ as a social construct and practice for enhancing individual autonomy alongside a commitment to developing a sense of community. While the four articles stand on such commonalities, they address different aspects of togetherness as well. Specifically, Tanggaard’s article proposes a new, updated paradigm of creativity with a focus on togetherness. She points out the fact that creativity is often dependent upon support from others. Exploring such a social conception of creativity and its implications on education, Tanggaard argues that the ability to work together in a team or group is crucial for creativity; as it often facilitates the much sought-after goal of achieving novel and innovative outcomes. In this regard, Tangaard proposes a ‘weMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION REVIEW 2020, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291

中文翻译：

---

丹麦的“团结”经验及其对多元文化教育的影响

在 2000 年代的第一个十年里，芬兰受到了教育政策界的全球推崇。在 2001 年发布第一个国际学生评估计划 (PISA) 结果后，芬兰教育系统（令人惊讶的）出色表现引发了国际规模的“教育朝圣”，以了解“教育知识”（参见 Sahlberg，2009 ，第 341 页）。进入 2000 年代的第二个十年，随着芬兰学校的 PISA 成绩不断下滑，全球对芬兰的嫉妒已经消退。在这种情况下，另一个斯堪的纳维亚国家丹麦越来越受到记者的关注（例如 Kingsley，2013；Oh，2014）。虽然这种注意力转移有多种原因，最可能的原因可能是丹麦在联合国委托的世界幸福报告、经济与合作与发展组织 (OECD) 的“美好生活指数”和欧洲社会调查 (ESS) 中一直排名第一） 最近几年。在世界范围内，研究人员和政策制定者开始想知道是什么让丹麦人如此快乐。研究人员经常提供一些解释性因素，例如丹麦的“全民免费医疗保健、免费大学教育和相对慷慨的失业救济金”，作为大幅减少不快乐的主要因素（Wiking，2016 年，第 274 页）。很明显，丹麦作为世界上最幸福国家的地位在很大程度上可以归因于丹麦的福利国家特征。然而同时，这样的关怀，至少在表面上，该制度的福利特征并没有将丹麦与其他斯堪的纳维亚国家区分开来，因为这些因素也存在于丹麦的邻国。在本期特刊中，我们旨在探讨另一个（潜在的）解释因素，即“团结”，它在丹麦以独特而突出的方式表现出来。本期特刊中的四篇文章提供了关于团结与丹麦人民的归属感如何密不可分地交织在一起的线索。此外，这四篇文章探讨了丹麦的“团结”经验可以为多元文化教育提供什么，并普遍试图将“团结”作为一种社会建构和实践，以增强个人自主权以及培养社区意识的承诺。虽然这四篇文章都站在这些共同点上，它们还涉及团结的不同方面。具体而言，Tanggaard 的文章提出了一种新的、更新的创造力范式，重点是团结。她指出，创造力往往依赖于他人的支持。在探索这种创造性的社会概念及其对教育的影响时，Tanggaard 认为，在团队或团体中合作的能力对创造力至关重要；因为它通常有助于实现备受追捧的目标，即实现新颖和创新的成果。在这方面，Tangaard 提出了“weMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION REVIEW 2020, VOL.2020”。12，没有。1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291 她指出，创造力往往依赖于他人的支持。在探索这种创造性的社会概念及其对教育的影响时，Tanggaard 认为，在团队或团体中合作的能力对创造力至关重要；因为它通常有助于实现备受追捧的目标，即实现新颖和创新的成果。在这方面，Tangaard 提出了“weMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION REVIEW 2020, VOL.2020”。12，没有。1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291 她指出，创造力往往依赖于他人的支持。在探索这种创造性的社会概念及其对教育的影响时，Tanggaard 认为，在团队或团体中合作的能力对创造力至关重要；因为它通常有助于实现备受追捧的目标，即实现新颖和创新的成果。在这方面，Tangaard 提出了“weMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION REVIEW 2020, VOL.2020”。12，没有。1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291 Tangaard 提出了“2020 年多元文化教育评论”，第 2 卷。12，没有。1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291 Tangaard 提出了“2020 年多元文化教育评论”，第 2 卷。12，没有。1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1720291