One of the things I enjoy most in the master’s program INEMA -We Move Education are the amazing master theses that I have the privilege to supervise. In doing so, I always learn a great deal myself—about the topics the theses address, about the countries participants live in, and about how business and education systems work in these countries.
Recently, I had the pleasure of reading the thesis of Bertha Cisneros Ortega on International Electromobility Education Models in Mexico.
Mexico’s transportation future is increasingly being shaped by electromobility, driven by global climate commitments and the nation’s growing automotive sector. To successfully develop this field, there is a growing need for specialized workforces with the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies related to electromobility. Thus, educating professionals in electromobility is an important aspect of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), though one that has received little research attention. Against this background, the study explored how Mexican educational institutions are adapting international models of electromobility education to support Mexico’s transformation of the automotive sector. In her thesis, Bertha raised the following research questions:
1. To what extent, and in what forms of contextual adaptation, are international electromobility education models being implemented in Mexico?
2. How do curriculum integration, organizational readiness, and international collaboration influence their implementation?
Bertha Cisneros Ortega interviewed experts responsible for designing electromobility education in companies, universities, or private training providers. In analyzing these interviews, she found many remarkable insights into how adaptation and implementation of electromobility education in Mexico work. Here is a summary of the key findings:
„To answer the first research question, the findings show that adaptation occurs through glocalization: while international frameworks provide credibility and technical standards, institutions reinterpret them in limited and uneven ways to align with local priorities, capacities, and educational practices.
To answer the second research question, implementation is shaped by three interconnected dimensions:
– From the curricular perspective, integration reflects negotiated adaptation, through glocalization. Global practices such as project-based learning and certifications are reinterpreted to emphasize locally relevant priorities, including safety, technical English, and employability.
– From the organizational perspective, readiness is fragmented and conditional. Some institutions have advanced laboratories and mentorship systems, while others remain constrained by outdated infrastructure, limited faculty capacity, and heavy reliance on external support.
– From the collaboration perspective, partnerships are both enabling and asymmetrical. They enrich curricula, provide access to technology, and strengthen faculty development, but often reproduce dependencies and undervalue local expertise”.
In addition to these specific findings regarding curriculum development, reading this master thesis reminded me of a well-known but often neglected fact: Germany’s climate responsibility doesn’t stop at the 2% of global emissions we produce—as is so often argued to play down our role. As a highly interconnected economy with significant technological and political influence, Germany serves as an important reference point for many other countries. Because of the interconnectedness of economies, global value chains, and market dynamics, our decisions on decarbonization influence the actions of other countries as well. When we move forward, others are encouraged to follow. When we hesitate, we give others permission to delay. Our impact is multiplied—positively or negatively—far beyond our own borders.
Ulrich Müller
Schreibe einen Kommentar