Abstract Global Competence is a domain developed for PISA 2018. We ask whether it ignor es voices from the Global South. Criteria are taken from Robertson, known for the theory of glocalisation as well as the educational scientist Seitz. Further criteria are added from a 21st century perspective. The discourse analysis uses documents available to the public since the PISA tender was launched by OECD in 2013. This includes minutes and drafts of an expert group, a webiar on the results of the consultation, held by Schleicher in 2015 and the final brochure on global competence. Results show that from the expert group towards the final brochure voices and theories from the Global South have been eliminated step by step during the procedure or are referred to in extra boxes (Ubuntu). Global competence levels are specified. Level one is described in a deficit-oriented terminology. Overall, the western, cognitive and rational, late modern discourse seems to be dominant while it silently disqualifies the areas ascribed as non-scientific, like religious, emotional, bodily issues (most of them being constructed as ‘female’ rather than ‘male’ and ‘colored/south’ than ‘white/male’). This happens even though the earlier document interestingly does reference on postcolonial, queer, feminist and moral theory.

中文翻译：

---

全球能力–新的经合组织能力范围是否忽略了全球南方？

摘要Global Competence是为PISA 2018开发的领域。我们询问它是否忽略了Global South的声音。标准取自以全球定位理论着称的罗伯逊以及教育科学家塞兹。从21世纪的角度来看，添加了更多标准。话语分析使用的是自经合组织于2013年启动PISA招标以来向公众公开的文件。其中包括专家组的会议记录和草案，2015年由Schleicher举行的有关咨询结果的网络研讨会以及关于全球的最终小册子权限。结果表明，从专家组到最终的小册子，来自全球南方的声音和理论已在该过程中逐步消除，或在额外的方框中提及（Ubuntu）。指定了全球能力水平。第一级以面向赤字的术语进行描述。总体而言，西方的，认知的和理性的，近代的现代话语似乎占主导地位，而它却无声地取消了被归类为非科学领域的条件，例如宗教，情感，身体等问题（大多数被构造为“女性”而不是“男性”）。和“彩色/南部”比“白色/男性”）。即使较早的文档有趣地引用了后殖民，同性恋，女权主义和道德理论，这种情况也会发生。