Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 9781781906958, 9781781906941

Citation preview

ANNUAL REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION 2013

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY Series Editor: Alexander W. Wiseman Recent Volumes: Series Editor from Volume 5: David P. Baker Volume 5:

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: An International Comparison

Volume 6:

Global Trends in Educational Policy

Volume 7:

The Impact of Comparative Education Research on Institutional Theory

Volume 8:

Education For All: Global Promises, National Challenges

Volume 9:

The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education

Volume 10:

Gender, Equality and Education from International and Comparative Perspectives

Series Editor from Volume 11: Alexander W. Wiseman Volume 11:

Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International Comparisons

Volume 12:

International Educational Governance

Volume 13:

The Impact of International Achievement Studies on National Education Policymaking

Volume 14:

Post-Socialism is Not Dead: (Re)Reading the Global in Comparative Education

Volume 15:

The Impact and Transformation of Education Policy in China

Volume 16:

Education Strategy in the Developing World: Revising the World Bank’s Education Policy

Volume 17:

Community Colleges Worldwide: Investigating The Global Phenomenon

Volume 18:

The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Education Worldwide

Volume 19:

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY VOLUME 20

ANNUAL REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION 2013 EDITED BY

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN Lehigh University, USA

EMILY ANDERSON Pennsylvania State University, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-694-1 ISSN: 1479-3679 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

PREFACE

xi PART 1: INTRODUCTION

REFLECTIONS ON THE FIELD OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, AND THE BENEFITS OF AN ANNUAL REVIEW Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

3

PART 2: COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS INTRODUCTION TO PART 2: COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

31

COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN SPAIN: CURRENT APPROACHES AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE TEACHING AND RESEARCH Luis Miguel La´zaro

37

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: A BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVE Marta Luz Sisson de Castro

43

v

vi

CONTENTS

MEXICAN PERSPECTIVES IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Marco Aurelio Navarro and Carlos Ornelas

51

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: INVENTORY AND PERSPECTIVES FROM AN ‘‘AFDECE’’ POINT OF VIEW Dominique Groux

57

COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN CHINA: DEFINITIONS, FUNCTIONS AND TRENDS Wang Yingjie

65

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN THE GULF: IN SEARCH OF A FOOTHOLD Ali S. Ibrahim

73

PART 3: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS INTRODUCTION TO PART 3: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

85

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION FACING THE NEW POLITICS OF THE OTHERNESS: SOME CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE FIELD Re´gis Malet

91

SHIFTING THE DISCOURSE ON NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Alexander W. Wiseman and Audree Chase-Mayoral

99

vii

Contents

PART 4: RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE INTRODUCTION TO PART 4: RESEARCH-TOPRACTICE Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

129

PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION WORLDWIDE: CONCEPTUAL AND CRITICAL CHALLENGES Francine Menashy

137

PART 5: AREA STUDIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS INTRODUCTION TO PART 5: AREA STUDIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

169

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION AND THE ARABIAN GULF Daniel J. Kirk

175

COMPARATIVE PEDAGOGY IN SLAVONIC SOUTH EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Klara Skubic Ermenc, Vera Spasenovic´, Natasˇa Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, Sofija Vrcelj and Nikolay Popov

191

PART 6: DIVERSIFICATION OF THE FIELD INTRODUCTION TO PART 6: DIVERSIFICATION OF THE FIELD Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

221

CROSS-CULTURAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF ‘‘INCLUSIVE’’ AND ‘‘SPECIAL NEEDS’’ EDUCATION Simona D’Alessio and Steven Cowan

227

viii

CONTENTS

PART 7: CONCLUSIONS REFLECTIONS ON THE ANNUAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING REFLECTION IN THE FIELD Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson

265

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

293

SUBJECT INDEX

301

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Emily Anderson

Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA

Audree Chase-Mayoral

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Steven Cowan

Institute of Education, London, UK

Simona D’Alessio

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Italy; Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Marta Luz Sisson de Castro

Professor of Education, Pontifı´ cia Universidade Cato´lica do Rio Grande do Sul

Klara Skubic Ermenc

University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Dominique Groux

Universite´ des Antilles et de la Guyane, France

Ali S. Ibrahim

UAE University, Al Ain, UAE

Daniel J. Kirk

Associate Professor and Researcher, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Luis Miguel La´zaro

University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Re´gis Malet

Universite´ Montesquieu Bordeaux IV, France

Francine Menashy

University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA

Marco Aurelio Navarro

El Colegio de Tamaulipas, Tamaulipas, Mexico

Carlos Ornelas

Universidad Auto´noma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico

Nikolay Popov

Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Vera Spasenovic´

University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Sofija Vrcelj

University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

Natasˇa Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´

University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Wang Yingjie

Beijing Normal University & China Comparative Education Society, Beijing, China

Alexander W. Wiseman

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

PREFACE This volume of the International Perspectives on Education and Society series marks the inaugural issue of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013. The goal of the Annual Review is to examine current perspectives and identify future directions for the field of comparative and international education using several essays by leaders in the field as context for the discussions and analyses in the chapters that follow. Contributed chapters each address the questions and themes discussed in these essays which include the use of new conceptual or methodological frameworks, translating research to practice, emerging area studies and regional developments, and diversification in the field of comparative and international education. The format of Annual Review chapters is an analytic overview of published work in the field, noting key issues and future directions, which provides a foundation for an international forum discussing of matters of comparative and international education theory, research, policy, and practice. While there are other volumes and journals that publish reflective pieces or scholarly reviews of important developments in the field from time to time, there is no other annual review of the field of comparative and international education. In fact, this is the only review of its kind to thoughtfully, systematically, and annually reflect on the theory, research, and practical applications of comparative and international education. The Annual Review is guided by co-editors and an advisory board comprised of both established and emerging leaders in the field. By working with the Annual Review advisory board and seeking the input of comparative and international education leaders worldwide to develop each year’s chapter topics, the chapters in this Annual Review both highlight the strengths in the field and the up-and-coming developments in theory, method, practice, and research. The audience for the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 includes and expands beyond the scholars and professionals who already consider themselves part of the field. This Annual Review brings together scholars, professionals, and the stakeholders connected to education at the local, national, and international levels to highlight those xi

xii

PREFACE

developments in the field that are of particular relevance to contemporary and future educational reform and school or classroom applications. This makes the Annual Review particularly important not only in the academic community, but for those international development professionals in research institutes, aid or development organizations, professional educators, and the like. It is the thread from theory to research to policy to practice that connects comparative and international education scholars and professionals to stakeholders beyond the field itself, and it is one of the key advantages of an Annual Review of this kind. The inaugural Annual Review is anchored by several essays from recognized comparative and international education experts and leaders affiliated with regional societies in the field. The chapters that follow these essays are contributed by experts in the field and from around the world who have a unique voice to contribute to each of the sections of the Annual Review. Chapters are all reviewed by the Annual Review editors to ensure that they align with the goals of the review overall, and specifically that they align with the goals for the particular section of the review in which they are included. They are also reviewed for clarity of content and quality of scholarship. If they meet these criteria, the chapters are reviewed by at least two advisory board members, who provide extensive feedback to the chapter authors in terms of each chapter’s relevance to the comparative and international education field, grounding in appropriate theoretical or conceptual frameworks, implementation of relevant methodological approaches (if appropriate), and finally in terms of the style and clarity of writing. After a final round of revisions, the Annual Review editors make a final determination as to the inclusion of a chapter in the Annual Review before moving it forward in the publication process. The advisory board members make a significant contribution to the development of the Annual Review structure and content guidelines. For the 2013 Annual Review, this contribution began with the first meeting of the advisory board in Chicago during the 2010 annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) and again in San Juan, Puerto Rico at the 2012 annual meeting of CIES. Advisory board members provide valuable input into all aspects of planning and implementation of the Annual Review as well as to developing the system for continually moving forward with the review on a year-round basis. Each advisory board member is also in contact with their fellow board members and the Annual Review editors through electronic communication on a regular basis during their tenure on the board. This includes feedback on previous drafts of the table of contents, production schedule, expert authors

Preface

xiii

for chapters and sections of the Annual Review, as well as other significant details. We would like to specially recognize and thank the advisory board of the Annual Review for giving their time and expertise to making the inaugural issue and the Annual Review as a whole both possible and a pleasure to be a part of for both the editors and chapter authors. The 2013 Annual Review of Comparative and International Education advisory board are: Monisha Bajaj (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA) David P. Baker (Pennsylvania State University, USA) Steven J. Hite (Brigham Young University, USA) Lihong Huang (NOVA, Norwegian Social Research, Norway) Nancy Kendall (University of Wisconsin, USA) Daniel Kirk (Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, UAE) Shirley Miske (Miske Witt Associates, USA) Diane Napier (University of Georgia, USA) Nikolay Popov (Sofia University, Bulgaria) Francisco O. Ramirez (Stanford University, USA) David Turner (University of Glamorgen, UK) Frances Vavrus (University of Minnesota, USA) John Weidman (University of Pittsburgh, USA) Shoko Yamada (Nagoya University, Japan) Again, we extend a sincere and heartfelt thank you to the many supporters who made the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 possible, and who contributed to enhancing the quality and rigor of each chapter, the Annual Review, and the International Perspectives on Education and Society series as a whole. The development of an annual review in the field of comparative and international education is not only important to those of us who do research and teach in the field, but to all who are invested in youth and dedicated to the development and improvement of education worldwide. It is our sincere wish that this inaugural Annual Review and all that follow it will serve the field and all who participate in it as a tool for meaningful reflection and cross-disciplinary understanding. Alexander W. Wiseman Series Editor and Volume Co-Editor Emily Anderson Volume Co-Editor

PART 1 INTRODUCTION

REFLECTIONS ON THE FIELD OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, AND THE BENEFITS OF AN ANNUAL REVIEW Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson ABSTRACT This chapter introduces readers to the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education and approaches to reviewing the field broadly, by examining the ways that scholars and professionals in the field reflect on comparative and international education (CIE). It begins with a synthesis of the reviews and reflective pieces published since the mid20th century, and then critiques the field for being neither consistently nor systematically reflective. The chapter then summarizes several of the benefits of consistent and systematic reflection through a process of annual review. The chapter concludes with an overview and synthesis of each of the sections, which provide the structure of the Annual Review, and poses

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 3–28 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020004

3

4

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

questions that drive systematic reflection through each section of the volume and the field as a whole. Keywords: Comparative and international education; annual review; critical reflection; comparative method; comparative analysis; comparative theory

Developing any field into a profession requires a reflective component. Comparative and international education has had its share of both starts and stops in its century-long march toward professionalization and scholarly legitimization (Rust, Johnstone, & Allaf, 2009; Williams, 2010). The field of comparative and international education (CIE) has been recognized and developing for more than 50 years. While those in the field trace the origins of comparative and international education back to the 19th and early 20th centuries (Brickman, 1960; Mallinson, 1976), the more tangible indicators of a field (a professional society and scholarly journals dedicated to the field) have existed since the 1950s (Wilson, 2006; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). The inaugural volume of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education (ARCIE) signals a new era in the collective memory of the field of comparative and international education (CIE). Other fields have had similar struggles, but comparative and international education is unique (Graves & Rechniewski, 2010). Both as a scholarly pursuit and as a professional subject, comparative and international education has assumed a somewhat marginalized role. This marginalized role has been exacerbated in periphery communities and regions in Africa and Western Asia, in particular (Weeks, Herman, Maarman, & Wolhuter, 2006; Wolhuter, 2011). In sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East regions, the development of comparative and international education as a field is secondary to the development of economic, social, and political infrastructures. These regions are largely comprised of either ‘‘developing’’ political and economic systems, or are at the center of widespread social and cultural change – often violent change and conflict (Hill, Baxen, Craig, & Namakula, 2012; Lewin, 2009). As a result, the development of comparative and international education as a scholarly and professional field is simply not a priority. And, the scholarship that is comparative and international about education, which comes out of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, does not impact the international community of scholars very much or often (Wolhuter, 2011). So, the difficulties in reflecting on

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

5

comparative and international education and developing it as a scholarly and professional field vary depending on which type of community or global region is in the spotlight or which community within the field of comparative and international education is dominating the discourse (Cook, Hite, & Epstein, 2004). Attempts to reflect on the field of comparative and international education have been published throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. For example, the Annual Review of Sociology often includes review chapters, which internationally and comparatively reflect on educational phenomena (e.g., Breen & Jonsson, 2005; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010). There are volume series, such as the Oxford Studies in Comparative Education series (e.g., Phillips, 1992) and the Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) Studies in Comparative Education series (e.g., Manzon, 2011), which often publish uniquely reflective work on the field. There are special journal issues that have been published, which also reflect on the development and future of the field. For example, Comparative Education published an issue in 1977 and then again in 2000 dedicated to investigating the field’s ‘‘present state and future prospects’’ (Crossley & Jarvis, 2000, p. 261; Parkyn, 1977). And, there are direct reviews of the field, often done through the frame of meta-analysis or ‘‘reviews of reviews’’ (Raby, 2007; Wolhuter, 2008). Most reflections or reviews of the field of comparative and international education coincide with memorable transition points in the development of the field. The special 2000 issue of Comparative Education, for example, marked the new millennium (Broadfoot, 2000; Cowen, 2000; Crossley & Jarvis, 2000; Grant, 2000), and a spate of articles in the late 1960s reflected on the role of comparison in educational research and the value of adding ‘‘international’’ to the field of comparative education (Bertstecher and Dieckmann, 1969; Edwards, 1970). Other reviews celebrate the anniversary of comparative education societies (Raby, 2007). Professional societies, like the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES/USA) and Comparative Education Society of Europe (CESE), have made it a tradition to invite their presidents to give a talk and then publish a paper in the society’s journal giving their perspective on the state of the field, often in response to a juxtaposed position paper (Masemann, 1990; Psacharopoulos, 1990; Stenhouse, 1979), but none of these approaches are systematic nor consistent in topic or theme. In other words, the field of comparative and international education has never developed a will or a way to systematically and consistently reflect on the state of research and practice in the field – until now.

6

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

This introductory chapter introduces the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education by reflecting on the ways comparative and international education professionals and scholars reflect on the field of CIE. It begins with a synthesis of the reflective pieces produced in the field during and since the end of the 20th century, and then critiques the field for not being more consistently nor systematically reflective. The chapter then outlines several of the benefits of systematic reflection through a process of annual review. The chapter concludes with an overview and synthesis of each of the parts of this Annual Review volume, and poses large questions that drive systemic reflection in each part of the volume and in the comparative and international education field as a whole.

REFLECTING ON REFLECTION One of the first reflective questions to ask is where the field is relative to expectations. In other words, where does the field of comparative and international education stand (Amos, 2012)? A more pressing question, which is also frequently posed, is: Who are we? (Cheng, Jacob, & Chen, 2011). After more than a century of formal scholarship and practical comparisons, are comparativists of education any closer to having a profession identity and a scholarly discipline to call their own? As Barber (1972, p. 436) warned, ‘‘Let the aspirants beware that comparative education does not become a device for avoiding education without ever achieving significant comparison.’’ What makes any scholarly approach to education unique is not whether its methods or theories are from this or that social science discipline; the uniqueness comes from the phenomenon of education itself. Education is a cognitive, organizational, and social process. It encompasses teaching and learning, but also the social, economic, historical, and political factors that influence how teaching and learning occurs and the outcomes of these functions. So, what is the significance of comparative and international education in 2013? The defining rhetoric for both the public and experts alike has been one of national competition and a sense that the economic future in the world economy is directly tied to educational success at home (Rothstein, 1998). Right or wrong, decades of this kind of rhetoric exacerbates the public’s interest in information about how national or local education compares internationally. Moreover, given the fact that international comparisons often promise to shed light on processes influencing national achievement, there is a sense that situating education in a global context will inform

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

7

policymakers, scholars, and educational professionals alike about what each national education system should be doing with their schools. In spite of the oft-lamented globalization of communities and schools, there continues to be little understanding of this process or the role of educational systems and individual schools worldwide. Comparative and international education scholars and professionals should be able to identify what is unique and important about education through a consistent and systematic global framework. This may involve both cross-national comparison of the educational characteristics of schooling in one system with another and the situated understanding of particular contextual effects of education for individuals and communities (Lingard & Gale, 2010; Wiseman, 2010). As such, education is often conceptualized as a national project for the social, political, and economic development of students as citizens in each nation rather than only for the educational achievement or attainment of students and nothing more (Collins & Wiseman, 2012). Another benefit of approaching the foundations of education through a global framework is that it emphasizes the importance of schools as institutions both within and across national contexts of education. The context of schooling is one of the most important yet misunderstood influences on teaching and learning. National education systems worldwide borrow educational policies, content, and activities from many other nations’ systems of education (Halpin & Troyna, 1995; Phillips & Ochs, 2003, 2004; Robertson & Waltman, 1992). But, as a dominant social, political, and economic world power, many national education systems also export much of their education systems to other nations as well (e.g., Singapore, Finland, United States) (Daun, 1997; Grek et al., 2009; Luke, 2005; Mok & Lee, 2003). There are many ways to apply a global framework to the study of education in the United States in light of other educational systems and achievements. Some of these points for comparison are the economy, politics, social demographics, and geography. Some have argued that the decentralized and localized nature of schooling disadvantages students in international comparisons of performance because of increased variability in student opportunity to learn (Bracey, 1998; Schmidt, Raizen, Britton, Bianchi, & Wolfe, 1997). It is this decentralization and localization of schooling that creates, in fact, most of the problems for comparing an educational system with other nations’ educational systems. For example, some suggest that the United States is incomparable to other nations because of its lack of any national standard for teacher training or certification (Chen & Mu, 2010; Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan,

8

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

2012). But, probably one of the most important distinctions between the decentralized national systems and more centralized national systems is the high levels of inequality between school districts. Others have argued that the nested relationships of students, schools, regions, and nations makes national comparisons using straightforward descriptions misleading (Raudenbush & Bryk, 1986). Yet, regarding cross-national comparison, arguments over the appropriate comparative method have often been theoretical and abstract rather than practical or applicable to the study of the foundations of education (Bereday, 1964; Noah & Eckstein, 1969).

IN A REFLECTIVE RUT Much of the reflective work done in comparative and international education since 2000 has focused more on the static nature of comparative inquiry. Broadfoot (2000, p. 357), for example, asserts that ‘‘it is no longer enough simply to search for new ways to fine tune the quality of our existing modes of educational provision.’’ In fact, a spate of reflective articles and books at the turn of the century (approximately 2000–2001) said largely the same thing: comparative and international education research has become stagnant, there is little revolutionary thought about educational provision, and comparativists need to be more critical (Kenway & Bullen, 2000; Ninnes & Mehta, 2000). While this is an appropriate and necessary approach to reflection on the field, it misses the mark in several important ways. First, the function of educational provision is what makes comparative and international education a unique approach to research and scholarship. That is, in fact, one of the key reasons that the field of comparative and international education exists at all. If comparativists of education eliminate education from the comparative arena, then what are they? Comparativists of what? So, reflection and critique are important, but recognizing what the limits of your field and your scope of critique are should also be requisite for informed debate. Frequently, the origin, maintenance, and future of schooling are related to national development goals. As such, schooling is sometimes seen as a means to enhance the civil welfare, political status, and economy of a nation through the development of youth who become economically productive, socially and technically literate, and politically active citizens (Collins & Wiseman, 2012). At other times, schooling and national education systems are seen as tools for the reproduction of social, cultural, political, and economic inequalities (Collins & Wiseman, 2012; Klees, Samoff, & Stromquist, 2012). While there

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

9

have been many attempts to study and explain isolated elements of this national project, it has not been conceived as a whole across countries or systems by both more and less critical researchers in comparative and international education. In particular, there has not been an attempt to distinguish between the elements of schooling leading to local and global citizenship for social and economic productivity from the elements related to national development or reproduction. Examining education comparatively and internationally could be a holistic approach to understanding education rather than trying to understand education as a conglomeration of isolated local events. This is indeed no easy task. For one thing, schooling is neither universally nor centrally coordinated by region, and sometimes not by system either. Some educational systems are highly decentralized, and although new reforms and policies are frequent, the penetration of these reforms and policies into classroom teaching and student learning (i.e., where ‘‘real’’ education takes place) is potentially diluted by those who actually teach the students through their various interpretations of educational reforms and policies (Davies, 2012; Sang & Sang, 2012). Another benefit of looking at education comparatively and internationally rather than a collection of isolated activities is the variety of noneducational activities that are in some way derived from or connected to education worldwide. These activities range from highly sophisticated research projects and the resulting educational policy recommendations to direct input from students and teachers in actual classrooms. Rather than chasing each one of the activities around the world by time, place, and subject, an internationally comparative approach to education policy and research gives the examination of education a framework upon which to rest. Second, while critical approaches are both needed and ubiquitous in comparative and international education, as in every field or discipline, an essential characteristic of critical analysis and discourse should also be noted. This is that the goal of critique is not to find solutions or build consensus. The goal of critique is to create new questions and break discourse, theories and methods apart into additional and sometimes new directions rather than to synthesize and evaluate. While these critical approaches are absolutely necessary, they need to be put into perspective and to be matched with equally practical approaches to educational provision. If a particular method of education is found to be inadequate, unequal, or inappropriate for a particular community of students, for example, scholars and practitioners should rightfully be concerned and levy appropriate critique. However, if comparativists of education stop at saying that this or that way of teaching and learning reproduces inequality or advantages those in

10

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

power without providing adequate opportunities for those who are marginalized, it has only served to highlight the dysfunction. And, if comparativists of education recognize the need for both critical and more functional approaches to education, the problem and potential solutions to those problems can coordinate (Crossley, 2000). This is not to say that one researcher must accomplish both the critical and functional aspects of comparative and international education research, but it is to say that both approaches should be valued and encouraged if the field is to make a mark (Wiseman, Astiz, & Baker, 2013). The yearning to dichotomize is threatening the development of comparative and international education into a progressive and functional discipline. By stereotyping researchers, methods and theories within the field of comparative and international education itself, comparative and international education runs the danger of breaking the scholarly connections that keep it together as a field rather than being the avant garde discipline that some think it is and has the potential to be. The problem is that there are implicit value positions assigned by some comparativists of education to others (Broadfoot, 2000), which may not be accurate or appropriate. Playing both judge and jury in deciding whose values are most appropriate and which values researchers and practitioners are displaying does a disservice to the field, overall.

THE STATE OF REFLECTION IN THE FIELD The fact is that comparative and international education is stuck in a rut. The problems of context and transfer have become the sole foci of much of the research and scholarly debates in comparative and international education worldwide (Cowen, 2006; Crossley, 1999). These are core constructs that serve as key approaches to investigating the dual foci of globalization and contextualization (Wiseman, 2012), but they have assumed the priority role in all comparative and international education research and scholarship. One way to gauge the state and development of the comparative and international education field is to holistically assess where the field is in 2013 compared to where comparative and international education scholars documented the field being at a previous time. For example, in 1964, 25 comparative education researchers came together for a ‘‘state of the field’’ conference, and they asked seven questions (Bereday, 1967, pp. 169–170). These questions represented the core concerns and areas for potential or

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

11

recommended development in CIE. Without much effort, it is fairly easy to declare in 2013 – almost 50 years after these questions were originally posed – that comparativists of education are no closer to the answers to these questions now than they were 50 years ago. For example, if the questions that Bereday’s group of comparative education experts in 1964 asked were answered in 2013, what would the answers be?  What are the basic tools of comparative education? In 2013, the basic tools of comparative education are confused and multiple because it continues to be a ‘‘grab bag’’ of disciplines, methods, and theories without any consensus about which social science disciplines, methods, or theories are most relevant or appropriate for comparative education research and practice.  What are the delimiting lines between comparative education and other ‘‘foundations,’’ history of education, sociology of education, philosophy of education, etc? In 2013, there appear to be no ‘‘delimiting lines’’ that determine what is and is not comparative education since single country comparisons and comparison within national education systems are just as likely to be accepted as comparative and international education research as much as (and sometimes more than) cross-national comparisons.  What is the proper balance between qualitative and quantitative studies? Between theorizing and empirical approach. In 1967, Bereday pointed out that the comparative education research tradition was almost entirely qualitative and theoretical, and noted that a shift toward empirical and quantitative studies might have merit. But, in the 21st century, the field of comparative and international education is overwhelmed with laments over the ‘‘positivist’’ dominance in comparative and international education research (Kazamias, 2001), even though others might argue that the balance between qualitative and quantitative research in the field is better than at any time in the past. Comparativists of education are left with either the choice of doing a mixed methods study every time they investigate a comparative education phenomenon, or laying themselves open to critique from the more qualitative comparativists if a study focuses on more quantitative or large-scale analyses.  Where does the area study end and comparative study begin? The conundrum of emphasizing area studies lives on in 2013. Should area studies be important companion fields to most social science disciplines, or should area studies relevant to education be defined as being firmly in the scope of comparative education? Social science researchers largely ignore the research and scholarship coming out of the field of comparative and international education in favor of area studies. Take for example,

12

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

the study of education in the Middle East or Arabian Gulf countries. As Go¨c- ek (2012, p. 554) asserts, ‘‘First, scholars need to study state officials in greater depth, identifying especially the nature of their prior interactions with Western Europe in general and Western-style education in particular.’’ While there are some who study these phenomenon within the scope of comparative and international education research (Kirk, 2013), most of the scholarship on education in the region is done by area studies specialists who do not recognize or are simply not aware of the large body of work that is being done by comparative and international education researchers in the Middle East and Gulf regions (Berrebi, Martorell, & Tanner, 2009).  What is the relation of comparative education and development studies? Definitions of the various components of comparative and international education are still relatively loosely defined. Bereday (1967) suggested that comparative education, international education, and development studies were each complexly related, but that there was no consensus about how they were related or which ones were complements or extensions of the other. Still, in 2013, almost 50 years later there is no consensus, and in fact, the debates about what is comparative, what is international, and what is development education still rage on (Manzon, 2011; Schriewer, 2009, 2012).  What are the language skills that researchers need? The role of language skills has not been resolved either since 1964, but instead of being an area of active debate and discussion within the field of comparative and international education, it has become a topic that is largely ignored. The issue of language skills simply does not arise anymore as it once did. While some may have opinions about whether it is appropriate to study educational phenomenon in a community that the researcher does not speak the language, it is largely an ignored issue.  If we are to aid planning, what is the place of recommendations in comparative analysis and how do we preserve the line of demarcation between recommendations and moralizing? Last, but not least, one of the most pressing unresolved questions, which is highly volatile in contemporary comparative and international education research concerns the ‘‘place of recommendations in comparative analysis’’ and how the ‘‘line of demarcation between recommendations and moralizing’’ is preserved (Bereday, 1967, p. 170). In the mid-20th century, the problem was that so much of comparative and international education scholarship was exhortatory. The issue causing much consternation, especially among critical theorists and post-modernists, in the 21st century is that not

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

13

enough comparative and international education scholarship is exhortatory, and is instead normative. Why are these questions left unanswered almost 50 years after being asked? How is it possible that scholars and professionals in the field of comparative and international education have not addressed or resolved these questions, which remain fundamental to the development of the field? Some lament that scholarship and professionalism related to education are hindered due to external forces (Murphy, 2010; Spring, 2008). For example, as an area of professional work and scholarship, the broad field of education receives a lot of attention (Furlong & Lawn, 2010), but very little scholarly or professional respect. The public and policymakers at every level of decisionmaking and in every community express a deep and abiding support for and trust in the promise and product of education. This multilevel and multicommunity public and policy support for education is proclaimed as the hope for economic development and moral salvation, and has only been discussed more and more in this way as formal, mass education has become increasingly ubiquitous worldwide (Wiseman, 2005). But, those same policymakers and public advocates for education also at the same time become the harshest critics of education (Stack, 2007). While talking about the essential ways that education supports labor market preparation and participation and contributes to both individual and national economic productivity, they simultaneously decry what they say is systematic and institutionalized waste and mismanagement of resources (Heyneman, 1999). While arguing that the most important catalyst for change in classrooms and beyond are the teachers, they assert that all of the problems in student learning are because of the teachers and their low quality or ineptitude. While admonishing everyone to participate in education so they can become productive members of society, they celebrate the individuals who circumvent school to become wealthy entrepreneurs in business, entertainment, or sports. And, they harshly criticize schools for literally killing the creativity that allowed those who skipped school to develop. Others suggest that the reason why comparative and international education has not developed beyond the same questions, which were asked 50 years ago, is perhaps because scholars and professionals in the field itself are hindering progress (Epstein & Carroll, 2011). For example, some have said that the problem for comparative and international education is that professionals and scholars working in the field have yet ‘‘to distinguish clearly a problem in comparative education from problems in the economics of education, sociology of education, and so on’’ (Noah & Eckstein, 1969,

14

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

p. 117). The problem does not stop there. Educational studies – whether they are internationally comparative or not – borrow methodologies and theories from other social science disciplines rather than developing and celebrating their own (Foster, Addy, & Samoff, 2012). Some have tried to contribute unique theoretical or methodological approaches in comparative and international education (Amos, 2012), but many have been eventually dismantled and critiqued out of relevance by those within the comparative and international education field itself (Crossley, 2012). So, comparative and international education scholars borrow methods and theoretical frameworks from sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics. And, comparative and international education scholars never develop or own their own knowledge base; thus, they never become professionals in their own field. Instead, they are comparativists in the sociology of education, or economists who specialize in international development through formal education. But, other than in academia, nobody is a comparativist of education. This is a drawback not only for reflection in the field of comparative and international education, but for the field as a profession. In order to be defined as a profession, comparative and international education as a field must demonstrate (1) control over expert knowledge, (2) control over professional education and credentials, (3) self-policing and ethical codes, (4) the ability to protect the occupational domain, and (5) full and massive control of the workplace. While control over the workplace is to some extent a moot point in comparative and international education because literally the world is the workplace of a comparative and international education professional, the other four components of a profession rely upon systematic and consistent reflection in order to develop fully. In particular, these components emphasize the importance of ‘‘control’’ over knowledge, skill, and activity in CIE. This does not suggest that comparative and international education become inflexible, but rather than it becomes more developed and in some ways more exclusive. For decades the importance of local experience and contextualized knowledge has been a hallmark of ‘‘effective’’ education. Yet, the establishment and development of comparative and international education is characterized by a specific peculiarity distinguishing it from other social sciences. Throughout the 20th century until today, the process of education in general has become increasingly technical and prescribed with internationally legitimate models of education, teaching and learning. In fact, since the 1920s, the emergence of comparative and international education has been linked to a professional field – primarily teaching – and

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

15

hence to the development of the mass education system. These models have become increasingly universalized over time to the point where education is increasingly reconstructed to reflect a globally legitimate, professionalized technical science. However, as comparative and international education research asserts, education does not simply follow a model, it is also a diverse formation of different organizations, networks, and their relationships. Insofar as education is embedded in national traditions, consisting of historically grown cultural and social peculiarities, one has to speak of education systems in the plural to indicate education’s diversity. This becomes immediately evident when thinking of the strong influence of the state and the public sphere in general in shaping, organizing and financing education. On the other hand, international forces have shaped education – both as an academic discipline and as a practical field – from the beginning. This embeddedness of modern education systems in both overarching world systems structures as well as in particular circumstances has been described as an ‘‘interrelationship network’’ (Schriewer, 2006). For example, the common notion that the well-being of nations as well as that of individuals greatly depended on education, caused a politically induced boost of academic education. Currently, while the same two forces, as it were, are still impacting and shaping education, the balance between the two is shifting. The traditional national embeddedness becomes weaker and the orientation toward transnational trends becomes stronger. In other words, comparative and international education has to deal with a reverse in flow of ‘‘internationalization’’ where the foreign is no longer ‘‘indigenized’’ as Schriewer (2006) asserts, but the indigenous is forced to become ‘‘foreign’’ in the sense of becoming aligned to international trends (Amos, 2012). The same forces are at work internationally indicating the trend toward a greater professionalization of comparative and international education, or, to be more precise: an emulation of what is considered a profession. Linking both perspectives – the ‘‘inner’’ and the ‘‘exterior’’ views – is one of the virtues of comparative research, and one of the reasons why systematic and consistent reflection in the field of comparative and international education is vitally important to the development of the field.

BECOMING A REFLECTIVE FIELD What is the purpose of an annual review of comparative and international education? First, an annual review provides a venue to discuss the progress

16

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

the field is making toward its goals. Second, an annual review helps scholars and professionals in the field decide what activities and directions to follow to achieve the goals. Third, an annual review identifies what needs to be revised or changed in the field in order to meet its goals. And, fourth, an annual review provides a space for scholars and professionals in the field to consider what the field’s goals are and how they are or should be changing themselves. Comparative education research does not talk across disciplinary, methodological, or theoretical lines very often or effectively, in spite of the fact that the field is comprised of people who are versed in these different approaches. The field is seemingly siloed instead. Those who bring an economic approach do not read or collaborate often with anthropologists. Those who are experts in hermeneutics do not collaborate with those who do large-scale, cross-national analysis. And, those who frame their comparative work in theories of power often reject the theoretical frameworks that look at processes of enactment in addition to agenda. An annual review of the comparative and international education field, however, provides a systematic way to continuously reflect on and reevaluate where the field is going, what the knowledge base looks like, and where the potentials for growth are. The professionalization of comparative and international education will eventually require the development of a knowledge base that is ‘‘owned’’ by comparativists of education. The inaugural volume of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education (ARCIE) serves as a complement to the International Perspectives on Education and Society volume series published by Emerald Group Publishing, UK. The Annual Review was conceptualized as a forum for scholars to examine current trends and identify future directions in comparative and international education. Comparative education society presidents from around the world were invited to begin the discussion by contributing essays addressing two essential questions as a foundation for this inaugural issue: (1) how do you define comparative and international education for your community’s needs, contexts, and perspectives, and (2) what emergent theories, policies, practices, development initiatives, and regional areas of study are being discussed by your society’s members? To orient this discussion, short essays representing perspectives from China, Brazil, France, Mexico, Spain, and the Arabian Gulf are provided in Part 2: Comparative Education Trends and Directions. These short essays provide a foundation for ARCIE contributing chapter authors to build off of and incorporate into their chapters as common threads and reference points. These essays also identify several themes,

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

17

which the contributing authors address in their individual chapters. These themes are: conceptual and methodological developments; higher education, training and professional development; emerging area studies; and diversification of the field.

IMPLEMENTING REFLECTION The importance of professional and scholarly reflection in comparative and international education being both systematic and consistent has been emphasized throughout this chapter. To implement systematic and consistent reflection, this Annual Review and those that follow will highlight several topics which the volume editors and Advisory Board members have decided contribute the most to the field at the time. These topics serve as the theme for each section of the Annual Review as follows: Comparative Education Trends and Directions, Conceptual and Methodological Developments, Research-to-Practice, Area studies and Regional Developments, and Diversification of the Field. The Comparative Education Trends and Directions section is dedicated to reflecting on the trends, emphases, and future directions that regional comparative and international education communities are headed worldwide. Because the state of comparative and international education often differs depending on the particular, regional, conceptual, and political context, this section includes brief statements from comparative and international education society presidents or recent past presidents. The presidents and past presidents, who are invited to respond, are representative of most of the major social, political, and cultural communities worldwide. For example, in this inaugural volume, there are representatives from China, Brazil, France, Mexico, Spain, and the Arabian Gulf. As mentioned above, statements from these society presidents came as responses to two broad questions asking them how they define comparative and international education for their scholarly and professional communities’ needs, and what the emergent theories, policies, practices, development initiatives, and regional areas of study are being discussed by their societies’ members. The goal of this section is to provide a trans-global voice for comparative and international education society communities. Although there is some overlap of community members from different locations, societies, and cultures around the world at, for example, the meetings of the World Congress of Comparative Education Societies or at the largest regional association’s annual meeting (e.g., CIES/USA), it is limited to small swaths

18

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

of society members who are able to travel to these meetings and who participate in the bulk of the sessions and speaker events. Otherwise, there is limited integration across societies. There is also the tendency for the United States (CIES) and European (CESE) perspectives to dominate the conversations (Arnove & Torres, 2003), so providing a voice to those communities who may not be recognized otherwise is an important contribution of this section of the Annual Review. This section on Comparative Education Trends and Directions provides consistency and a systematic approach to infusing the perspectives, ideologies, and emphases of comparative and international education communities worldwide into the global discourse around comparative and international education. As a tool for reflection, it can be used to recognize the importance of particular conceptual or methodological trends, identify topical or issue oriented foci, and recognize where these trends and foci are unique and where they align across communities. The end result may be a synthesis of perspectives or a recognition of uniquely contextualized approaches to comparative and international education, but either way it will contribute to collective reflection on the field in terms of both it’s current state and future directions. The Conceptual and Methodological Developments section provides a systematic way to articulate the ways that theory and research methodologies are developing and framing the research and practice related to comparative and international education. Conceptual and methodological agendas and disputes are among the most hotly contested areas in the research and literature on comparative and international education. This section may include an overview of a particular approach, a review that problematics that approach, or a synthesis of different conceptual and methodological issues. One of the concerns that comparative and international education scholars have repeatedly voiced since the mid-20th century is that there is no specific or unique comparative and international education discipline. In other words, this section provides a consistent and systematic opportunity to address the theoretical and methodological debates in the field as well as to begin to develop a uniquely comparative and international education conceptual framework or method. Educational studies, in general, have historically borrowed theories and methodologies from the social sciences. For example, most scholars and professionals working in the field or in related activities identify themselves as members of professional communities other than comparative and international education. They are economists of education, sociologists

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

19

of education, development professionals, project directors, research scientists, or align with some other role that is outside of – although related to – comparative and international education. Even in university programs in comparative and international education, where the expert knowledge about the field is supposed to reside, the theories and methods taught and used in related coursework and research projects come from social science disciplines rather than from a comparative and international education source. For example, Ragin’s (1989) sociological treatise on The Comparative Method is a classic text in comparative and international education even though Ragin and most of his readers do not identify as comparative education scholars, or even recognize that the field of comparative and international education exists. This section on Conceptual and Methodological Developments, therefore, provides an opportunity to systematically and consistently reflect on the state of theoretical and methodological developments in the field, and identify which approaches are the most productive for framing and analyzing comparative and international education phenomena. It is not surprising that comparative and international education would begin by borrowing the theories and methods of the social sciences to develop as a research field, but after more than a century of comparative and international education research and discussion, this section allows the space for discussions about developing a theoretical and methodological approach (or approaches) that meet the unique needs and directions of the field. The goal is to identify which theories and methods have been borrowed from other disciplines most often and effectively, where and why the disputes in conceptual and methodological approaches to comparative and international education arise, ways to reconcile those disputes or at least respect the different ways that conceptual and methodological approaches can be used in comparative and international education and provide a framework for including these different approaches within the comparative and international education umbrella. The Research-to-Practice section is included to emphasize the professional and practical importance of the research that scholars in the field produce. A distinguishing characteristic of educational studies and comparative and international education, in particular, is actually making a difference in the lives and educational experiences of youths and their communities worldwide. Therefore, this section emphasizes the importance of translating the research conducted using those conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches highlighted in the previous section to

20

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

practical applications and situations in educational systems, schools, youth programs and classrooms worldwide. A hallmark component of comparative and international studies of education is the bridge between research and practice. Much of education is professional education, which often translates to explicitly practical application in schools and classrooms. This is a vital component of any study of education, whether local or global. Because the field of comparative and international education is by nature global in that it provides educators and policymakers with a way to understand broader, cross-system, and global trends in educational practice, one of the best tools for understanding these trends and how they relate to local practice is through the development and testing of theory. As such, comparative and international education is at once theoretically grounded, evidence driven, and practically oriented. Comparative and international education scholars and professionals, therefore, conceptualize and theoretically frame educational phenomena, use empirically sound methods to either test those theories or provide evidence for informed decision-making, which ideally contribute to the application of this evidence or these ideas to real-world situations. This section on Research-to-Practice, therefore, is a systematic and consistent arena for the discussion, development, and reflection on ways that comparative and international education theories, methods, and the resulting empirical or conceptual evidence are or can be translated to practical applications and situations. In particular, there is a strong component related to education for development that runs throughout the field of comparative and international education. International development education, therefore, is an area ripe for investigating in terms of research to practice. Development in education is also an area that is particularly subject to critique and debate because of the distinctly different understandings of what is and is not beneficial to the organizations responsible for either funding or guiding the development agenda, and the schools and communities that are often on the receiving or application end of development initiatives. The chapters in the Research-to-Practice section demonstrate the complete cycle of problem or issue identification, conceptual or theoretical framing of the problem, empirical or hypothetical examination of the problem or intervention, and the development and interpretation of the results of these examinations. Finally, recommendations for or examples of the application of the research to real world situations is described, and sometimes critiqued. The complete visualization of the cycle from research to practice in comparative and international education gives scholars an

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

21

idea of the importance and impact of their work. And, it gives professionals in the field an idea of how theory and research can inform, identify, and help implement programs and policies that lead to real and beneficial change for the communities, schools, and students worldwide. The Area Studies and Regional Developments section is important because it both pays homage to the origins of the field as well as providing important perspectives on the unique social, cultural, political, and economic contexts for education in specific regions worldwide. As much as the field of comparative and international education is about identifying and understanding global trends and international educational phenomena, it all rests upon understanding the balance between globalization and contextualization. In particular, the ways that the local contexts and situations that shape education interact with the pressures and effects of increasingly globalized social, political, cultural, and economic factors is an often debated area in comparative and international education. It is also important to recognize the ways that global phenomena are interpreted in local contexts, which are uniquely defined by culture, location, and social communities. The goal of highlighting Area Studies and Regional Developments in the Annual Review is not to emphasize the isolating uniqueness of an area or region, but it is not to confirm the legitimacy or global alignment of particular areas or regions either. The goal of area studies is to recognize that the boundaries and characteristics of educational spaces and of previously defined areas are shifting – often quite rapidly. Another goal is to recognize the regional developments that are important to the comparative and international examination and application of education. For example, the participation of all of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries in large scale international assessments of educational achievement is a significant development, and suggests that the character of both educational change and classroom level application is shifting (or has already shifted) from a culture of post colonialism to one of neo post colonialism or neoliberalism depending on the conceptual framework that is applied. This section on Area Studies and Regional Developments, therefore, is a systematic and consistent way to track and perhaps understand how regional dynamics are shifting and what implications this has for the development of comparative and international education. Scholars in the field can use the information in this section’s chapters to track changes or shifts in the dynamics of regional systems of education as well as cultural and social changes that shift the boundaries of these areas of study and their influence on education both locally and globally. Professionals in the field can use the Area Studies and Regional Developments chapters to

22

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

benchmark how education responds to or shifts with changes in regional dynamics and to understand from a more conceptual sense the ways that education responds to context worldwide. The final section, Diversification of the Field, recognizes the fact that the field of comparative and international education is growing and diversifying. There are new topics and issues being incorporated into the fabric of comparative and international education on a regular basis. The ways that conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, and practical applications address these diverse approaches to comparative and international education scholarship and practice need to be identified and discussed. This also is a place where rarely discussed, but relevant, content can be linked to other areas of the field that might make it more or less relevant to scholars and professionals in the field. The goal of this section is to develop the field in directions that have been underemphasized or that show particular promise from comparative and international education perspectives. Often in comparative and international education, the concept of diversity refers to developing an appreciation, understanding, and respect for the differences between individuals or communities. These dimensions of diversity traditionally fall along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status; however, comparative and international education scholars and professionals are less frequently involved in issues of physical or cognitive abilities, age, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. By embracing the full range of the dimensions of diversity in comparative and international education scholarship and professional practice, the field has the potential to become a much more diverse – and as a result, a richer – community of scholarship and practice. This section on Diversification of the Field, therefore, is a place where the dimensions of diversity that are not traditionally recognized in the field can be identified, discussed, and potentially incorporated into the larger theoretical, methodological, and application-oriented activities of the comparative and international education community. This section will consistently and systematically address diversity dimensions relevant to the field, and provide the opportunity for addressing difficult and underinvestigated as well as new topics and issues relevant to comparative and international education. In addition, this section can also be a way to systematically and consistently monitor the literal diversification of the field in terms of its scholarship and practice, but also in terms of the acceptance and respect that is afforded to individuals and communities who may be venturing into comparative and international education scholarship and professional activity.

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

23

MOVING FORWARD The community of scholars and professionals in the field of comparative and international education is already an imagined one. While there are, of course, publications, societies, academic training programs, and other venues for the virtual or actual development of community, the bulk of the field remains tied together by an imagined affiliation. Members of the comparative and international education community are, like any scholarly or professional field, tied together by ideas and goals more than by contracts and commitments. The connection, therefore, between comparative and international education scholars and professionals is assumed or taken-forgranted more than it is actually verified or substantiated. There are instead pockets of communities within the broader field, some of which affiliate around particular scholarly or professional interests. These are often the groups that comprise the special interest groups (SIGs) in professional societies and organizations, like the South Asia or ‘‘ICT 4 Development’’ SIGs, which are part of the CIES (United States). As a loosely affiliated field worldwide, then, it is important to have a shared reference point that incorporates the voices, perspectives, and issues that are relevant across as many of these more literal communities within the broader comparative and international education field as possible. This is one function of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education. It is a virtual meeting place of ideas and debates. It serves as a forum for the systematic and consistent reflection not just in the field, but across it as well. The Annual Review is a tool for rekindling the imagined community in comparative and international education over and over again, and as a result strengthening the assumed or taken-for-granted ties among the individual scholars and professionals and among the more literal communities that comprise the field. The chapters that follow are organized into the various sections outlined above. Each section provides a voice to the individuals and communities who comprise the field. Each section provides a reason to be a part of comparative and international education as a unique field rather than as a member of another discipline who happens to be interested in comparative and international education. Each section connects to each of the other sections to provide a holistic opportunity to reflect on the trends, directions, conceptual and methodological developments, research and professional applications, area and regional developments, and underrepresented or diverse elements of the field. By recognizing these elements, synthesizing them, and evaluating both the strengths and the weaknesses of the field of

24

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

comparative and international education on a year-by-year basis, the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education serves as a way to recognize the goals of the field, where the community of scholars and professionals affiliated with the field are in terms of reaching those goals, identifying areas ripe for change and making those reforms a reality in order to move the field and the fruits of the scholarship and professional activity forward.

REFERENCES Amos, S. K. (2012). Comparative education in late modernity: Tensions between accelerating the disenchantment of the world and opening pedagogical spaces of possibility. In L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson & U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, creativity and education: Polities, politics, performances (pp. 27–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Arnove, R. F., & Torres, C. A. (2003). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Barber, B. R. (1972). Science, salience and comparative education: Some reflections on social scientific inquiry. Comparative Education Review, 16(3), 424–436. Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bereday, G. Z. F. (1967). Reflections on comparative methodology in education, 1964–1966. Comparative Education, 3(3), 169–187. Berrebi, C., Martorell, F., & Tanner, J. C. (2009). Qatar’s labor markets at a crucial crossroad. The Middle East Journal, 63(3), 421–442. Bertstecher, D., & Dieckmann, B. (1969). On the role of comparisons in educational research. Comparative Education Review, 13(1), 96–103. Bracey, G. W. (1998). Tinkering with TIMSS. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 32–36. Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 223–243. Brickman, W. W. (1960). A historical introduction to comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 3(3), 6–13. Broadfoot, P. (2000). Comparative education for the 21st century: Retrospect and prospect. Comparative Education, 36(3), 357–371. Chen, J., & Mu, Z. (2010). The cross-national comparison of pre-service mathematics teacher education and curriculum structure. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 119–136. Cheng, S. Y., Jacob, W. J., & Chen, P. (2011). Metatheory in comparative, international, and development education. Beyond the Comparative, 295–314. Collins, C. S., & Wiseman, A. W. (2012). Education, development, and poverty: An introduction to research on the World Bank’s education policy and revision process. In C. S. Collins & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: A conversation about the World Bank’s education policy development and revision (Vol. 16, pp. 3–18). International Perspectives on Education and Society. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

25

Cook, B. J., Hite, S. J., & Epstein, E. H. (2004). Discerning trends, contours, and boundaries in comparative education: A survey of comparativists and their literature. Comparative Education Review, 48(2), 123–149. Cowen, R. (2000). Comparing futures or comparing pasts? Comparative Education, 36(3), 333–342. Cowen, R. (2006). Acting comparatively upon the educational world: Puzzles and possibilities. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 561–573. Crossley, M. (1999). Reconceptualising comparative and international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 29(3), 249–267. Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging cultures and traditions in the reconceptualisation of comparative and international education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 319–332. Crossley, M. (2012). Comparative education and research capacity building: Reflection on international transfer and the significance of context. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 4–12. Crossley, M., & Jarvis, P. (2000). Introduction: Continuity, challenge and change in comparative and international education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 261–265. Daun, H. (1997). National forces, globalization and educational restructuring: Some European response patterns. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 27(1), 19–41. Davies, A. (2012). The system of local management of schools in the UK – Achieving an optimal balance of centralization and decentralization in education. Logos, Universality, Mentality, Education, Novelty Section: Social Sciences, 1, 151. Edwards, R. (1970). The dimensions of comparison, and of comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 14(3), 239–254. Epstein, E. H., & Carroll, K. T. (2011). Erasing ancestry: A critique of critiques of the postmodern deviation in comparative education. In J. C. Weidman & W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Beyond the comparative: Advancing theory and its application to practice (pp. 31–48). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Foster, J., Addy, N. A., & Samoff, J. (2012). Crossing borders: Research in comparative and international education. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 711–732. Furlong, J., & Lawn, M. (2010). Disciplines of education: Their role in the future of education research. London: Taylor & Francis. Go¨c- ek, F. M. (2012). Postcoloniality, the Ottoman past, and the Middle East present. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 44(3), 549–563. Grant, N. (2000). Tasks for comparative education in the new millenium. Comparative Education, 36(3), 309–317. Graves, M., & Rechniewski, E. (2010). From collective memory to transcultural remembrance. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 7(1). Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2009). National policy brokering and the construction of the European education space in England, Sweden, Finland and Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21. Halpin, D., & Troyna, B. (1995). The politics of education policy borrowing. Comparative Education, 31(3), 303–310. Heyneman, S. P. (1999). The sad story of UNESCO’s education statistics. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 65–74.

26

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Hill, L. D., Baxen, J., Craig, A. T., & Namakula, H. (2012). Citizenship, social justice, and evolving conceptions of access to education in South Africa implications for research. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 239–260. Kazamias, A. M. (2001). Re-inventing the historical in comparative education: Reflections on a protean episteme by a contemporary player. Comparative Education, 37(4), 439–449. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2000). Education in the age of uncertainty: An eagle’s eye-view. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 30(3), 265–273. Kirk, D. J. (2013). Comparative education and the Arabian Gulf. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Klees, S. J., Samoff, J., & Stromquist, N. P. (Eds.). (2012). The world bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Springer. Lewin, K. M. (2009). Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and possibilities. Comparative Education, 45(2), 151–174. Lingard, B., & Gale, T. (2010). Defining educational research: A perspective of/on presidential addresses and the Australian Association for Research in Education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 21–49. Luke, C. (2005). Capital and knowledge flows: Global higher education markets. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(2), 159–174. Mallinson, V. (1976). An introduction to the study of comparative education (4th ed.). London: Heinemann. Manzon, M. (2011). Comparative education: The construction of a field. Dordrecht: Springer. Masemann, V. L. (1990). Ways of knowing: Implications for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 34(4), 465–473. Mok, J. K., & Lee, M. H. (2003). Globalization or glocalization? Higher education reforms in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 23(1), 15–42. Murphy, S. (2010). The Pull of PISA: Uncertainty, influence, and ignorance. Inter-American Journal of Education for Democracy, 3(1), 28–44. Ninnes, P., & Mehta, S. (2000). Postpositivist theorizing and research: Challenges and opportunities for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 205–212. Noah, H. J., & Eckstein, M. A. (1969). Toward a science of comparative education. London: Macmillan. Parkyn, G. W. (1977). Comparative education research and development education. Comparative Education, 13(2), 87–93. Phillips, D. (1992). Lessons of cross-national comparison in education. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 773–784. Psacharopoulos, G. (1990). Comparative education: From theory to practice, or are you A: \neo. or B:\. ist? Comparative Education Review, 34(3), 369–380. Raby, R. L. (2007). Fifty years of comparative education review bibliographies: Reflections on the field. Comparative Education Review, 51(3), 379–398. Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Reflections on the Field: The Benefits of an Annual Review

27

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59(1), 1–17. Robertson, D. B., & Waltman, J. L. (1992). The politics of policy borrowing. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 2(2), 25–48. Rothstein, R. (1998). The way we were?: The myths and realities of America’s student achievement. New York, NY: Century Foundation Press. Rust, V. D., Johnstone, B., & Allaf, C. (2009). Reflections on the development of comparative education. International Handbook of Comparative Education, 22, 121–138. Sang, J. K., & Sang, H. K. (2012). Decentralization of school management to boards of governors in secondary schools in Kenya: A case of Trans-Nzoia County. Inkanyiso: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2), 158–164. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. S. (2012). Preparing primary teachers in the United States: balancing selection and preparation. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 265–276. Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many visions, many aims, volume II: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Boston, MA: Kluwer Dordrecht. Schriewer, J. (2006). Comparative social science: Characteristic problems and changing problem solutions. Comparative Education, 42(3), 299–336. Schriewer, J. (2009). Discourse formation in comparative education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schriewer, J. (2012). Editorial: Meaning constellations in the world society. Comparative Education, 48(4), 411–422. Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330–363. Stack, M. (2007). Representing school success and failure: Media coverage of international tests. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 100–110. Stenhouse, L. (1979). Case Study in comparative education: Particularity and generalisation. Comparative Education, 15(1), 5–10. Van de Werfhorst, H., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of education systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428. Weeks, S., Herman, H., Maarman, R., & Wolhuter, C. C. (2006). SACHES and comparative, international and development education in Southern Africa: The challenges and future prospects. Southern African Review of Education, 12(2), 5–20. Williams, G. L. (2010). A personal reflection on comparative and international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 841–844. Wilson, D. N. (2006). The World Council of comparative education societies: A preliminary history. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (pp. 289–307). Oxford, UK: Elsevier, Ltd. Wiseman, A. W. (2005). Principals under pressure: The growing crisis. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of research in education, 34(1), 1–24. Wiseman, A. W. (2012). A framework for understanding international perspectives on education. In N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, G. Hilton, J. Ogunleye & P. A. Almeida (Eds.), International Perspectives on Education (BCES Conference Books) (Vol. 10, pp. 1–22). Sofia, Bulgaria: Investpress.

28

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Wiseman, A. W., Astiz, M. F., & Baker, D. P. (2013). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: A review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare: A Journal of International and Comparative Education. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355. Wolhuter, C. (2008). Review of the review: Constructing the identity of comparative education. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(4), 323–344. Wolhuter, C. (2011). The international impact of education research done and published in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 31, 603–616.

PART 2 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO PART 2: COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson The essays included in this section reflect the challenge of discussing what comparison means and how it is activated in practice. This approach to introducing the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education is highly relevant to reflection on the field in general and on specific topics, issues, and regions within it because the comparative and international education field-at-large does not share a common definition of comparison or what constitutes comparative and international education scholarship (Astiz, 2004; Bray, 2010). What is illuminated through these essays is the diversity of ideas concerning how comparative and international education scholars, professionals, and regional representatives compare, and especially how varied the institutionalization of comparative and international education programs is from region to region or culture to culture. Each essay was written by a regional comparative and international education society president or past president in response to two questions: 1. How do you define comparative and international education for your scholarly and professional community’s needs? 2. What are the emergent theories, policies, practices, development initiatives, and regional areas of study being discussed by your society’s members?

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 31–36 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020005

31

32

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

The answers to these questions range from close responses to the prompts to more personalized responses based on what the authors felt were the most pressing topics and issues relevant to their society and comparative and international education community. To highlight some of these themes, the ways comparative and international education has developed as an area of study in the six countries referenced in the discussion essays is briefly reviewed below, then the barriers and opportunities experienced by these scholars as they practice comparative and international education scholarship or engage in relevant professional activities in their respective countries are outlined.

CONTESTED DEFINITIONS AND SCHOLARLY FRAMEWORKS One similarity found in each of the essays included in this section is the lack of a common definition of what it means to engage in comparison. Wang’s essay on comparative and international education from the Chinese perspective conceptualizes comparative and international education as a lab for new educational ideas and an important tool to critically examine how social, political, and economic forces impact education policy and practice. Groux’s essay on comparative and international education from the French perspective reflects a similar understanding: that comparative education is a ‘‘useful tool for investigating the world.’’ The interdisciplinary orientation of the field is also noted in Navarro and Ornelas’ essay on comparative and international education in Mexico. The conceptual and methodological diversity articulated in these examples and in these essays is reflected in the ways comparative and international education is institutionalized as a formal program of academic study across the countries highlighted in this section. For example, deCastro’s discussion of how comparison is understood in Brazil reflects differences in academic and professional orientations of the field. The absence of dedicated academic programs in CIE across the Gulf countries is also noted by Ibrahim. For example, in the Gulf context, Ibrahim notes that comparison is currently conceptualized as a process of studying educational issues outside the Gulf, and then using these findings to inform education policy and practice within the region. The lack of regional comparisons among the Gulf countries has created a void in the literature which, according to Ibrahim, is not yet able to be filled because of a lack of research capacity in

Introduction to Part 2: Comparative Education Trends and Directions

33

the Gulf to expand scholarship from practice-oriented to more epistemological questioning. Comparative and international education programs are more common in some country contexts than in others where coursework is often embedded within more general studies of education. For example, in the Gulf, embedded courses focus on the use of comparison as a means to identify and apply ‘‘best practices’’ and lack the theoretical or methodological rigor found in other, more established programs in Egypt. In contrast, deCastro notes that there are no specialized programs of study in comparative and international education in Brazil, and as a result comparative and international education is oriented as an academic rather than a professional field. Brazilian scholars tend to embed comparative and international education within more general studies of education. As a result, comparative and international education in Brazil is understood as a more holistic understanding of educational practices and not as a field in-or-of itself. In the Spanish case, Lazaro finds that the majority of comparative and international education scholarship is produced through doctoral dissertations and theses which have historically reflected a descriptive, qualitative design. However, the rise of international comparisons across European countries and in Latin America has accelerated the growth of more qualitative studies of education issues in Spain. Although the discussions presented by the authors in this section are rich in content and contextualization of the field, none of these essays articulate a globally-shared expectation for what constitutes comparative and international education scholarship or professional practice. Rather, in each individual country or region there are similar, yet still significantly different, approaches to comparative and international education scholarship. Often the default approach was to employ more qualitative scholarship methodologies, but not because these were the most appropriate approaches to comparative and international education inquiry. Rather, the qualitative approach seemed to be the most readily available approach (especially among graduate students in the field) which also often produced fruitful results. University scholars and their students were less likely to be adequately trained in quantitative methods, and as a result quantitative approaches were de-emphasized. These are not unusual cases either. What is shared in terms of expectations is that comparative education was understood to be predominantly an academic field, and that even society representatives from these various countries and regions did not discuss or highlight the professional application of comparative education scholarship as much as they did the scholarly tradition in the field in their communities.

34

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

This confirms much of the previous research and reviews of the state of comparative and international education worldwide (Yamada & Liu, 2011).

BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES Linguistic challenges are reflected as a common theme in several of the essays discussing the state of comparative and international education in the countries and regions represented in this section. Opportunities to produce and disseminate research are constrained by the lack linguistic diversity in publication arenas in the field. This is a point that is supported by previous research in the field (Crossley & Tikly, 2004). In Brazil, deCastro notes how collaborations between Brazilian and Portuguese scholars have created an opportunity to support research in these countries because they share a common language; however, access to other research dissemination venues is constrained due to a lack of linguistic diversity across the field internationally. Translating published work into native languages is noted in these essays as an emerging activity to counter the limitations of linguistic diversity. For example, in Brazil, graduate students are engaged in translating publications into Portuguese to enable local scholars to access contemporary scholarship in comparative and international education. Despite linguistic barriers, regional and country-specific comparative and international education societies have led the charge to promote scholarship and publication among their regional peers. For example, the Spanish Journal of Comparative Education and the report compilation from the 2008 meeting of the Sociedade Brasileira de Educac- a˜o Comparada illustrate the ways that research dissemination is made possible despite institutional and organizational challenges. Comparative and international education scholarship in China and France have dramatically increased over the past several years and have diversified to include a range of topics and geographic foci through publication in Chinese-language journals as well as the French-language La Revue Franc- aise d’Education Compare´e. The ability to convene meetings of regional comparative and international education societies is noted in these essays as an opportunity to network scholars and practitioners and support knowledge production within common geographic regions. As an example, the Gulf Comparative Education Society has successfully institutionalized an annual meeting since 2010, and has quickly developed as an emergent regional comparative education society. In their essay on the state of comparative and international education in Mexico, Navarro and Orenelas note that the

Introduction to Part 2: Comparative Education Trends and Directions

35

establishment of the Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada has facilitated the expansion of CIE-related scholarship in Mexico. However, building financial and human resource capacity continues to marginalize attempts to institutionalize annual meetings of smaller comparative and international education societies. To offset these challenges, these leaders in the field have created alternative spaces to connect regional scholars using technology, continue to pursue international and regional research collaboration, and promote region and country-specific scholarship through the academic course development.

COMING FULL CIRCLE The authors of the chapters in the following sections on Conceptual and Methodological Developments (Part 3), research to practice (Part 4), area studies and regional developments (Part 5), and diversification of the field (Part 6) were all asked to read through and be guided in their own chapters by the topics, issues, and themes reflected in these essays on comparative education trends and directions. As a result, the themes highlighted and briefly reviewed above are noticeably present in the sections and chapters of the Annual Review that follow, but the ways these themes are approached and applied in each individual chapter varies by context, conceptual framework, methodological approach and practical application. The challenge for scholars and professionals in the field of comparative and international education, however, is not merely to recognize the presence of these themes, but to see beyond the trees and into the forest. Synthesis and the creation of new knowledge and new applications out of the disparate themes and contexts of the present reflections is the goal. It is also possible that after reading through these essays that a burgeoning holistic definition of comparative and international education may emerge. This is worthy of reflection and serious development because – as has been noted – the field is lacking a consistently agreed upon definition of itself (Acosta & Perez Centeno, 2011). And, this lack of field-wide definition is partly to blame for the identity crisis that scholars and professionals in comparative and international education experience, often enacted by leaving the field to more closely align with the social science discipline or professional role that each individual was trained in or currently fills (Rust, Johnstone, & Allaf, 2009). As is highlighted in the introductory and concluding chapters of this volume, defining the field relies upon the articulation of the object(s), method(s), and outcome(s) that bind

36

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

comparative and international education together and make it unique from other fields and disciplines. As a reflective exercise, therefore, readers of the essays in this section may find it helpful to note the objects, methods, and outcomes of comparative and international education emphasized and discussed by the leaders in the field from Spain, Brazil, Mexico, France, China, and the Arabian Gulf. Although there is no voice from Africa or Australia in this section this year, there is representation from both North and South America, Asia, and Europe. These countries and continents are home to a host of developing and developed economies, Western and Eastern cultures, divergent ways of knowing, and multiple ethnic and linguistic national identities (Masemann, 1990; Shibata, 2012). Bringing the voices from these different regions and communities together promises to be a challenge, but it is a small start to the challenge of review and reflection ahead of the field as a whole.

REFERENCES Acosta, F., & Perez Centeno, C. G. (2011). Re-bordering comparative education in Latin America: Between global limits and local characteristics. International Review of Education, 57(3/4), 1–20. Astiz, M. F. (2004). Comparative and international research in education, globalization, context and difference. Education Review: A Multi-lingual Journal of Book Reviews [Book Review]. Retrieved from http://www.edrev.info/reviews/rev290.htm. Accessed March 25, 2013. Bray, M. (2010). Comparative education and international education in the history of compare: Boundaries, overlaps and ambiguities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 711–725. Crossley, M., & Tikly, L. (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and international research in education: A critical introduction. Comparative Education, 40(2), 147–156. Masemann, V. L. (1990). Ways of knowing: Implications for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 34(4), 465–473. Rust, V. D., Johnstone, B., & Allaf, C. (2009). Reflections on the development of comparative education. International Handbook of Comparative Education, 121–138. Shibata, M. (2012). Contextualisation of the development of comparative education and intercultural education in Japan: the eras of colonialism, war and their legacy. Intercultural Education, 23(5), 451–463. Yamada, S., & Liu, J. (2011). Between epistemology and research practices. Beyond the Comparative, 371–393.

COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN SPAIN: CURRENT APPROACHES AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE TEACHING AND RESEARCH Luis Miguel La´zaro ABSTRACT The interest in the field of comparative education appeared in Spain in the mid-nineteenth century. This interest began with visits abroad by experts and administrators in education commissioned by the government to better understand primary level education systems in other European countries. In the 1990s, comparative education in Spain became consolidated as a discipline. This coincided with several European educational initiatives and studies. Comparative education research methodologies remain eclectic among Spanish researchers, but as a field comparative education in Spain enjoys good academic and institutional health in the early twenty-first century. Keywords: Comparative education; international education; critical reflection; Spain; European education

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 37–42 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020006

37

38

LUIS MIGUEL LA´ZARO

As in other European countries, the interest in practices and reflections in the field of comparative education appeared in Spain in the middle of the nineteenth century. This interest began with visits abroad by experts and administrators in education commissioned by the government to know in situ the organization and functioning of educational systems at the level of primary education of some European countries, above all, France, England, and Germany (Pedro´, 1987). The activity of paying attention and studying the issue of ‘‘education abroad’’, in line with the framework of policy borrowing, was kept alive in the first third of the twentieth century, thanks to the interest and regular monitoring by almost all educational journals and teaching professionals. This awareness, however, hardly had any direct translation into institutional visibility in the university academic level. In the 1940s, the ideological bias in General Franco’s dictatorship, who at first did not really have more concern than building and developing an educational theory from a national perspective and ignoring any theoretical or practical accomplishments coming from abroad, did not really help to boost an interest in education from a comparative and international perspective. Very slowly, that self-sufficient spirit in pedagogy will evolve to recover back the interest to know and study the successes, organization, and development of foreign educational systems in a certain comparative perspective. This partly resulted from the fact that Spain joined UNESCO in 1952. The contacts and the flow of information coming into the country through Technical Assistance Programs that the organization offered the Ministries of Education that requested such help contributed very significantly to the existence of this new climate. Even more important in the evolution of the presence of comparative education in Spain during the 1960s and 1970s was our country’s entry as a constituent member state of the OECD (1961), which will soon encourage the participation of our country in the Mediterranean Project, funded by the Ford Foundation to determine the educational needs of half a dozen countries in southern Europe. The process of reform and modernization of the Spanish educational system that started in that decade and culminated with the ambitious Education Act of 1970 greatly favored a comparative look from the standpoint of the study of educational systems at the international level. It is no coincidence that it is in this historical juncture when there was a significant introduction of comparative education in the curricula for the training of pedagogues in Spanish universities from 1968. Nor is it a coincidence that it was in those years when the University of Barcelona started publishing Perspectivas Pedago´gicas (Pedagogical Perspectives

Comparative and International Education in Spain

39

Journal ) when emerging research in the area of comparative education was brought together from the reduced academic community existing at the time and was grouped under the Spanish Society of Comparative Education in the early 1970s. At that time, teaching and research activities were still carried out from mainly an analytical approach, as the main point of reference, of the practices and policies in educational systems. For example, theoreticalmethodological references to authors such as Nicholas Hans, George Z. F. Bereday, Joseph A. Lauwerys, Brian Holmes, or later Leˆ Tha`nh Koˆi were common (Ayala & Gonza´lez, 1999; Ruiz Berrio, 1975). The 1990s witnessed the definitive takeoff and consolidation of comparative education as a discipline in our country. There were different factors that favored this situation: Spain’s joining of the European Union (EU) in 1986, its collaboration and work within the EURYDICE network, and defining common objectives and policies in education contributed to a significant increase in studies and comparative research on education in Europe. Moreover, the political reality that emerged in Spain after the restoration of the democratic state following the dictatorship, with the new Constitution of 1978, benefited the structuring of the country as a so-called autonomous state, with a quasi-federal model composed of 17 autonomous territories. This framework supported the emergence of a growing number of studies on education with an intranational and comparative focus on policies and practices on education in these autonomous territories. Given the political and ideological variability of its different governments, its projection in the field of education was studied in a comparative perspective, which included support for public schools, privatization, school choice, vouchers, compensation policies, sex education, school failure and dropouts, or attention to diversity. In this period there was a very significant increase in the number of programs and cooperation projects, both of the central government through the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation and of the various autonomous governments, which gave rise to an increase in the amount of research from the framework of international education on development cooperation and education in Latin America and the Maghreb. Some of the issues addressed are educational problems from a gender perspective, the situation of cultural minorities, human development, or education on strategies to combat poverty. The increase in development cooperation, which enhanced the traditional historical, cultural, academic, and economic links between Spain and Latin America, was strengthened by the revival in the 1990s of the Iberoamerican Organization for Education, Science and Culture (IOE). This institution sponsored a higher number of

40

LUIS MIGUEL LA´ZARO

comparative studies with the creation of a database (QUIPU) on Latin American educational systems, the review of sectorial issues on education, the analysis of education policy and reform, and the study of higher education. In the mid-1990s the broadening of the reflection on the study of Comparative Education was strengthened by introducing specific subjects, as compulsory or optional, such as Comparative Education, International Education, Global Education Systems or Development Cooperation and Education in the new university curricula for the training of pedagogues, social educators, and, to a lesser extent, teachers. Of no less importance in this process was, of course, the refounding, in 1994, of the Spanish scientific society of that discipline as the Spanish Society of Comparative Education. This new scenario has led to the annual publication of the Spanish Journal of Comparative Education, as well as the celebration of the National Congress of Comparative Education, which is held every 2 years (Ferrer & Naya, 2010; La´zaro, 1997). The diversification in the field of study of comparative education in Spain, with all the issues identified, has continued over recent years largely through the writing of numerous PhD theses. Since 1999, the beginning of the Bologna process for the development of the European Space for Higher Education has given rise to many comparative studies on the institutional and curricular situation in higher education in Europe. The definition of the Lisbon Strategy by the European Council held in that city in March 2000, and the subsequent establishment by the European Ministers of Education in 2001 of a few shared objectives to be achieved by 2010 – reflected later in the Education and Training Program 2010 – will push our country into a higher amount of comparative research on various essential aspects of education in Europe. Moreover, the participation of Spain, since 2000, in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the OECD has promoted research on comparative studies that, taking as reference the international framework, study the results of our country from intranational comparisons. On the other hand, the important and massive migration phenomenon that occurred in Spain in the last decade has led to the development of comparative studies, both internationally and intranationally, about policies and practices suggested to address cultural diversity in classrooms from an equity perspective. Finally, the recent establishment of the Educational Goals 2021 by the IOE, in different levels and aspects of the educational systems in Latin America, is already proving fruitful in terms of the growing number of ambitious comparative studies on education in the region.

Comparative and International Education in Spain

41

From a methodological point of view, it can be stated that from the 1980s Spain has been dominated by an eclectic approach and practice in research conducted in the field of comparative and international education. The Spanish body of work carried out three common paradigms in research – positivist, interpretative-hermeneutic and socio-critical – which coexist and have coexisted. Multiparadigmatic investigations, placed in mixed paradigms, are also present. Most research conducted by experts in the field of comparative education or by PhD students in their theses is defined principally by the use of a descriptive framework and, to a lesser extent, of an explanatory one. From a hermeneutic approach, either in national studies of the area, in more extensive comparative studies, or in intranational comparative studies, that research has sought to describe the structure of phenomena, problems and educational systems and their dynamics, and identify and understand the dimensions that – from the historical, cultural, educational, social, economic and political standpoint – determine and define them. In line with this approach, a certain increase in the use of qualitative methodologies can be observed, particularly participant observation and ethnographic research of topics related to the educational problem in Latin America. The monographic issues of the Spanish Journal of Comparative Education in recent years clearly capture the presence of these research topics and methodologies used to develop it. Issue 14 (2008): ‘‘Migration flows and education.’’ Issue 15 (2009): ‘‘The European space for higher education: 10th anniversary of the Bologna declaration.’’ Issue 16 (2010): ‘‘Program 2010 on the concrete future objectives of education systems of the European Union.’’ And in 2011, both Issue 17: ‘‘Cooperation in relation to development in education: alliances in comparative education according to the developmental approach,’’ and issue 18: ‘‘Excellent educational systems.’’ This trend can equally be seen in the topics chosen for the National Congresses of Comparative Education: in 2010, ‘‘Inequality in Education. An International Perspective,’’ which placed a very special emphasis on the situation in Latin America, and the Congress in 2012, which was devoted to analyzing the issue of ‘‘cultural identity and education in a global society.’’ In conclusion, it can justifiably be stated that comparative education in Spain enjoys good academic and institutional health. Thus, its presence is assured in the new curricula that have been implemented from 2009 for the training of pedagogues and social educators. The term of comparative education has been coined to refer to this discipline, although in some universities the concept of international education has been chosen instead. Its scope is the study of, above all, international educational systems,

LUIS MIGUEL LA´ZARO

42

international agencies – UNESCO, UNICEF, ECLAC, World Bank, OECD – and education, or education in developing countries. New subjects such as ‘‘Development Cooperation and Education,’’ ‘‘Comparative Social Education,’’ or ‘‘Human Rights and Education’’ have also been consolidated. However, as in the 1990s, new curricula for the training of teachers for primary and secondary education continue, unjustifiably, in a context of globalization, reserving little room for a comparative and international perspective on education. At most, references and very generic descriptors are made to the European framework. The only clear presence in this regard is the attention given to preschool education in Europe to learn about leading trends and practical experiences in that field.

REFERENCES Ayala, A., & Gonza´lez, A´. (1999). L’E´ducation compare´e en espagne: Passe´ et perspectives. In J. M. Leclerq (Ed.), L’e´ducation compare´e. Mondialisation et spe´cificite´s francophones (pp. 183–193). Paris: AFEC-CNDP. Ferrer, F., & Naya, L. M. (2010). La ensen˜anza de la educacio´n comparada en Espan˜a. Historia y presencia en los nuevos grados de educacio´n. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad. Eficacia y Cambio en Educacio´n, 2, 134–147. La´zaro, L. M. (1997). Educacio´n Comparada y cooperacio´n para el desarrollo en educacio´n. Una respuesta curricular en el a´mbito de las Ciencias de la Educacio´n. In Educacio´n, Empleo y Formacio´n Profesional (pp. 215–225). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. Pedro´, F. (1987). Los precursores espan˜oles de la Educacio´n Comparada. Madrid: Ministerio de Educacio´n y Ciencia. Ruiz Berrio, J. (1975). Notas para una historia de la educacio´n comparada en Espan˜a. Revista Espan˜ola de Pedagogı´a, 130, 225–242.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: A BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVE Marta Luz Sisson de Castro ABSTRACT The Brazilian Comparative Society was founded in 1983. Comparative education was a strong component of the curriculum of the courses of pedagogy in the period of ‘‘Escola Nova,’’ but this focus changed. In the early 21st century, Brazilian comparative education is no longer a required discipline in the curriculum of most education programs. Comparative education in the Brazilian context has a unique ‘‘meaning or use,’’ which is not the same concept or scientific definition used in other regions. Second, Brazilian comparative education is characterized by an ‘‘outsider’’ perspective, which is a product of post-colonialism and a history of underdevelopment. Third, the majority of comparative education scholars in Brazil are limited by language since most speak and read Portuguese or Spanish only, and much of the research literature in the field is written in English or other foreign languages. The Sociedade Brasileira de Educac- a˜o Comparada (SBEC) is a small society that is poised to meet the needs and interests of a growing number of members, and the best strategy is to diversify activities and involve the largest possible numbers of associates. Keywords: Comparative education; international education; critical reflection; Brazil; underdevelopment; language

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 43–49 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020007

43

44

MARTA LUZ SISSON DE CASTRO

The Brazilian Comparative Society was founded in 1983 by a group of scholars in a meeting of the National Association of Policy and Educational Administration (ANPAE). This group reflected a national interest in the field of international and comparative education (de Castro, 2007). The foundation of the Sociedade Brasileira de Educac- a˜o Comparada (SBEC) led to the organization of the World Congress in Rio de Janeiro in 1987, and a growing participation of SBEC in international events in the area of Comparative and International Education. Comparative education was a strong component of the curriculum of the courses of pedagogy in the period of ‘‘Escola Nova,’’ and we have publications on the topic by the famous Brazilian educator Lourenc- o Filho (1961), but this focus changed (de Castro & Gomes, 2008) and today comparative education is no longer a required discipline in the curriculum of most education programs in Brazil. A study developed by Werle and de Castro (2004), however, showed that the area of comparative education is an area of growing interest in the Brazilian education context, using as a source the Data Bank Production of Knowledge in the area of Educational Administration 1982–2000 (National Periodicals, developed by de Castro and Werle, 2002). As shown in Fig. 1, this study showed that Comparative Administration (the keyword used) was able to identify 106 articles, and that it was an emergent theme in Brazilian publication during the period, which signaled a significant increase in the number of publications since 1990. This increase was related to the process of globalization, and the importance of the educational process in economic development.

DISTRIBUTION PER YEAR - COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATION 35 30

30 25

23 20 18 15

15

16

13 10 7 5

5

4

3 1

0

2

9

13 0

9

8

4

1

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fig. 1.

Distribution per Year of the Keyword: Comparative Administration. Source: de Castro and Werle (2002).

Comparative Education: A Brazilian Perspective

45

Comparative education in the Brazilian context has a unique ‘‘meaning or use,’’ which is not the same concept or scientific definition used in other regions. This difference is built up by several conditions and limitations that are characteristic of the country. First, in Brazil we do not have professional graduate programs in the area of Comparative and International Education as programs in Europe and the United States do, so we see comparative education as knowledge that would enrich our comprehension of education as it is practiced all over the world, and less as a professional field in which we could look for jobs or opportunities. Second, we tend to have an ‘‘outsider’’ perspective, which is a product of post-colonialism or of countries with a history of underdevelopment. Comparative education reinforces this tendency to look out for new experiences and ideas in other countries and regions, but not inside the nation. The teachers tend not to value their own experience and innovative actions and have difficulties developing a discourse about their practice. The third point is a very relevant one, which is the limitation of language. The majority of professors and students in education do not read English or other foreign languages. So, this factor restricts access to major publications in the area. Spanish is the foreign language of dissemination of knowledge in Brazil and Latin America, so if a paper or book is not translated to Spanish or Portuguese is not part of the repertoire of the majority of university professors and graduate students of education in Brazil. Today, with the availability of information with data banks and through the Internet we would expect that to change. For example, even the database of CAPES from the Brazilian Ministry of Education makes available information from thousands of periodicals, most of which are not used by education students. They tend to use only databases in Portuguese and Spanish. In relation to the concept of comparative education, I tend to see comparative education in Brazil linked to international education. When we need to compare education, we should compare education practices, results, and policies in an international perspectives. We have an outsider perspective, and we are comparing the Brazilian experience to the experience of other countries. I think that is a very important distinction because the scientific method is comparative by nature, and we compare the control group with the experimental group. In my view the essence of the comparative method in comparative education is its international perspective. In this sense, the different dimensions of comparative analysis proposed by Bray and Thomas (1995) should be marked by the international dimension. The field of comparative education, for example, was dominated by cross-national comparison and made little use of intranational comparisons. In contrast, many other

46

MARTA LUZ SISSON DE CASTRO fields were dominated by local foci and failed to benefit from the perspective that could be gained from international studies. (Bray, Adamson, & Mason, 2007, p. 8)

The objective of Bray and Thomas (1995) was to offer a comprehensive view of education, but in terms of the definition of comparative education as a discipline, if we exclude the international dimension from comparative education, would become the science of education instead. How can we overcome the problems identified in the first part of this chapter? We will offer some suggestions based on recent experiences and developments. In order to expand the role of comparative education in Brazil and Latin America, we need to have periodical publications in Spanish and Portuguese, and translations of good works in the field. The initial effort of the Sociedad Argentina de Estudios Comparados en Educacio´n (SAECE) of publishing a virtual periodical the ‘‘Revista Latino Americana de Educacio´n Comparada’’ (RELEC) once a year in Spanish. The translation of Bray, Adamson, and Mason’s (2007) edited book, ‘‘Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods’’ to Spanish is another example of positive action. In the case of Brazil, using as a focus the area of studies for Brazil– Portugal is in my view a promising development in comparative education, because it overcomes the limitation of language and offers a very good example of the possibilities of comparative education in the context of the Brazilian educational context. The book Educac- a˜o Comparada: Rotas de Ale´m- Mar edited by Donaldo Bello de Souza and Silvia Alicia Martinez tentatively moves in this direction. The first part of the book presents a discussion of the limits and possibilities of comparative education using mainly Portuguese speaking authors, and a translated German author, the other three parts look at different aspects of education in Brazil and Portugal. Part one focuses on the history of education in the two countries; the second part looks at higher education, teacher education, adult education and use of the school resources in both countries; and part three focuses on management and evaluation in basic education. The results of international evaluations like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) brought media and public attention to the question of education. And, considering the economic importance of Brazil in Latin America and in the world, the pressure for good results and for additional comparisons is great. The newly developed Brazilian quality indicator (the IDEB) is highly publicized and the schools are ranked. All of this is relatively new in the Brazilian context. If the results are going to be used for real improvement in education we have to wait to see. The

Comparative Education: A Brazilian Perspective

47

economists and the media are using education for their own benefit, but crucial questions like teacher education, work conditions, and low salaries remain unchanged. Almost every month we receive application for the membership of the Sociedade Brasileira de Educac¸a˜o Comparada (SBEC). In 2007 and 2009, nine new members joined SBEC, in 2008 and 2010, six new members joined the society, and in the first six months of 2011 seven new members joined. So in the last four and a half years, 37 new members joined the society (de Castro, 2013). We have had difficulties with the structure of the society that was modeled after the World Council, with a President and a Secretary General, in our case the two functions seemed to be done by the President. The main challenge for the Brazilian Society is to finish the process of the legalization of the society. We were able to transfer all the documents to a Porto Alegre notary, and considering Brazilian bureaucracy that was quite a victory. We still have to legalize SBEC into Income Taxes Services, that was started but it was not concluded, and it is one of our objectives moving forward.

ACTIVITIES MAKING A DIFFERENCE In order to overcome the limitations of language and the problems identified above and to offer new activities to our members the SBEC has been accomplishing several goals. Regarding research, a group of our graduate students read Mark Bray’s (YEAR) book, Confronting the Shadow Education System: What Government Policies for What Private Tutoring? They adapted the research instrument to the Brazilian context and did a pilot study in the school where they worked. The results provided the basis for articles and changes in the instrument. We are planning to develop a research project at a national level involving the Regional Vice-Presidents of SBEC creating another way for integrating the society of a huge country. Every regional vice-president will participate and organize forms of participation of the different states in the region, with the objective of increasing the participation of members in the activities of the society and producing at the same time data about private tutoring in the country. The plan is to organize a research project and to submit it to funding agencies such as the National Council for Research (CNPq) to have support for a national research effort at SBEC. The annual meetings are another objective rather difficult to achieve, because they mean a lot of work, you have to raise funds, and it is difficult

48

MARTA LUZ SISSON DE CASTRO

to find partners to assume this job. For example, following the meeting of the Brazilian society in 2008, several other attempts to hold annual meetings failed because of the problems listed. However, Dr Terezinha Monteiro dos Santos, from the Federal University of Para´, in Bele´m, Vice-President for the North Region planned an International meeting for May 2012, trying to integrate with scholars of the North part of South America. The International meetings held in 2008, and in 2006, were all held in Porto Alegre, integrating with countries of the Mercosul. The idea for 2012 was to open the SBEC meeting to the states in the North and in the Northeast of the country and to the nations in the North of South America. After much planning and preparation, the meeting finally took place in Bele´m do Para´ on May 9–11, 2012; proceedings from the event are available on the website of SBEC, www.sbec.org.br. Another plan is the organization of a virtual publication under the coordination of Gabriela Rizzo from the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Newton Bryan Paciulli from the University of Campinas and the new Vice-President from the Southeast Region, and Dr Luiz Aguilar also from the University of Campinas. They are working on a virtual journal project for SBEC, which is an old aspiration originally voiced during the Presidency of Robert Verhine. We hope to be able to put it into practice. The publication of a book with works presented during the 2008 Annual Meeting and selected papers translated received support from SENAC (Nacional Service for Comercial Learning) and will help in the dissemination of ideas of comparative education in the Brazilian education context. Every new member will receive a copy of the book, which used to be done as a service by the Brazilian society. The SBEC is a small society that should become more active in order to meet the needs and interests of a growing number of members, and the best strategy is to diversify activities and involve the largest possible numbers of associates.

REFERENCES Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2007). Introduction. In M. Bray, B. Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research approaches and methods. Comparative Education Research Centre: The University of Hong Kong, Springer. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multi-level analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472–490.

Comparative Education: A Brazilian Perspective

49

de Castro, M. L. S. (2007). The brazilian comparative education society (SBEC). In V. Masemann, M. Bray & M. Manzon (Eds.), Common interests, uncommon goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and its member. Comparative Education Research Centre: The University of Hong Kong, Springer. de Castro, M. L. S. (2013). Comparative education in Brazil: Role and challenges. In M. A. N. Leal (Ed.), Comparative education: Views from Latin America (pp. 143–157). Bloomington, IN: Palibrio. de Castro, M. L. S., & Gomes, C. (2008). Small is beautiful. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education in universities worldwide (pp. 169–176). Sofia, Bulgaria: Bureau of Educational Service. de Castro, M. L. S., & Werle, F. O. C. (2002). Banco de Dados Produc- a˜o do Conhecimento na a´rea de Administrac- a˜o da Educac- a˜o – 1982–2000 – Perio´dicos Nacionais (Bank Production of Knowledge in the area of Educational Administration – 1982–2000 – National Periodicals). Porto Alegre, RS: FAPERGS (Fundac- a˜o de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul- Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio Grande do Sul). Lourenc- o Filho, M. B. (1961). Educac- a˜o comparada. Sa˜o Paulo: Melhoramentos. Werle, F. O. C., & de Castro, M. L. S. (2004). Administracio´n comparada como a´rea tematica: perio´dicos brasileno˜s, 1982–2000. Paper presented at the World Congress of Council of Comparative Education Societies, Havana, Cuba.

MEXICAN PERSPECTIVES IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Marco Aurelio Navarro and Carlos Ornelas ABSTRACT The field of comparative and international education in Mexico is still under construction in the early 21st century. The formation of the Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada in 2004 has led to increased comparative education activity, theory-building, research, and publication by Mexican scholars, however. Most professors define comparative or international education based on their research context. In the early 21st century in Mexico, the research context is largely one of decentralization of education in different Mexican states. The future of comparative education in Mexico is likely to be characterized by an increase in funding for education research by diverse government agencies, international organizations, and private foundations. It is debatable whether a transformation of comparative education teaching and pedagogy will occur, but the envisaged increase in research may influence the academic publications studied in comparative education courses in Mexico. Keywords: Comparative education; international education; Mexico; decentralization; research funding; professional society

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 51–56 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020008

51

52

MARCO AURELIO NAVARRO AND CARLOS ORNELAS

INTRODUCTION In contrast with other regions of the world, the field of comparative and international education in Mexico is still under construction. Although the curricula of many teachers’ colleges (escuelas normales) have had subjects in comparative education since the 1940s, their faculty has not produced substantive research in this area. Indeed, educational research is a very young enterprise in Mexico. In its institutional form, it started in the mid1960s with the establishment of the Center for Educational Studies (Centro de Estudios Educativos) (Latapı´ , 2008, pp. 51–57). Even though CIE is a fledgling research field, and imports most of its theoretical approaches, there is a steady growth of researchers in the discipline with bold initiatives, publications, and practices at the outset of the 21st century. The areas of comparison are both: cross-national within Mexico and transnational, comparing Mexico to other regions of the world. With the formation of the Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada in 2004, its first years of activities, and the growing number of publications in CIE and related fields, we are optimistic about future developments, including the incorporation of new trends and theory building.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: A FRAGILE CHARACTERIZATION As in most parts of the world, the Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada does not have an official definition of what comparative education, international education, or CIE denote. It is not a homogeneous field. Most scholars define it according to their academic needs or their wider areas of study, such as economics, sociology, politics, history, or philosophy of education. Others outline it according to the specific aims of their work, be it scientific research, the quest for new methods, or for policy design. Still, other groups define comparative education in relation to the site of study, such as classrooms, schools, states, institutions, systems, or processes. Furthermore, other academics or research groups embrace CIE according to the human subjects they study; examples of which are students, teachers, administrators, and decision makers. Most professors define comparative or international education based on their research context. It is within this plurality that we can see comparisons of decentralization of education in different Mexican states

Mexican Perspectives in Comparative and International Education

53

(Ornelas, 2008), comparisons of science and technology policies in Argentina and Mexico (Alca´ntara, 2005), an international view of the academic profession (Galaz-Fontes, 2006), education systems performance (Andere, 2006), curriculum policy and practices (Rosario & Marum, 2004), graduate education policies (Martinez, 2009), and university evaluation (Victorino, 2006). This comprehensive notion provides a very flexible and adaptable way to view education as a field for teaching and research, as well as for analysis and interpretation of its consequences. Nevertheless, we think there are some minimum requirements to categorize a given teaching course or research outcome as a product of CIE. First, the units of comparison should be established; second, a theoretical approach (although sometimes it may be implicit) should be present; third, a definition of a methodology that sets out the comparative approach should be stated.

CURRENT TRENDS To review current theories, policies, development initiatives, practices, and regional areas of study our society members are discussing, we rely on a selective search in the editorial production to gain an informed perspective. As in most fields, CIE does not have a defined and unique theory or epistemological paradigm. Individual professors or research groups adhere to different approaches, and most have evolved. The first texts on comparative education had a strong historical functionalism methodology while the pioneer research pieces based their analysis on different venues of positivism like the human capital view or the developmentalist theories of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. From the opposite front, radical scholars began to use neo-Marxist, and later postmodernist approaches. Structuralism provided inspiration for the building of several theoretical frameworks at the end of the 20th century. In the early 2000s, it seems there is a predominance of different neo-positivist models, especially among scholars that use quantitative techniques. Other colleagues do work from anthropological and ethnographic perspectives and some others adhere to neo-institutionalist methods. In terms of teaching, according to Caldero´n (1994), the subject of comparative pedagogy was present in the curriculum of the Escuela Normal Superior in 1947, and at the School of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in 1955. The texts studied at the time would be the ones by the Brazilian

54

MARCO AURELIO NAVARRO AND CARLOS ORNELAS

educator, Lorenzo Filho (Educacio´n comparada), and the ones by Mexican authors Jose´ Manuel Villalpando (Lı´neas generales de pedagogı´a comparada and Pedagogı´a comparada: Teorı´a y te´cnica), and Francisco Larroyo (Historia comparada de la educacio´n en Me´xico). These courses no longer exist at these institutions. While this area of teaching can be traced in syllabi of the 1930s (Caldero´n, 1994), today these kinds of courses are included in only 42 of the more than 2,000 institutions of higher education in the country. Fifteen public and 27 private universities, in bachelor, master, or doctorate programs, offer courses in comparative education. There are also courses more closely related to international education with titles such as ‘‘Globalization and Education,’’ ‘‘International Educational Policies,’’ ‘‘Internationalization of Education,’’ or ‘‘Foreign Education Systems’’ (Navarro, Llado´ & Sa´nchez, 2010). It seems that comparative education is gaining more attention in the 21st century. The deplorable results obtained by Mexican basic education graduates on the PISA tests promoted by the OECD, and the low ranking Mexican institutions of higher education obtained in international university evaluations, compelled authorities, journalists, and parents to question the reasons for better educational performance in other nations. Given these facts, there has been an increasing interest in international education among students and scholars to raise questions such as why the school structures in some countries perform better than the Mexican education system. As a result of this query, the selection of countries for comparison includes those who score better worldwide, such as South Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, as well as those in Latin America that achieve better results than Mexico: Chile and Uruguay. The same reasoning applies to university rankings. Scholars look at countries whose universities rank among the best in the world: the United States, Canada, and some countries in Europe, and Brazil in the case of Latin America. The data provided by PISA and international universities rankings set the pace in which the selection of countries for comparison is done for specific research interests that have to do with contextual factors, curriculum, conditions, and subjects, which are related to the performance of institutions within the framework of international assessments. Although the government stated that all educational evaluation should aim to assess the quality of teaching and policy development, there is no evidence that either one of those goals has been achieved or that some progress has been attained (Mun˜oz-Izquierdo & Ulloa, 2011). With the rise of globalization and a more active role of international organizations in

Mexican Perspectives in Comparative and International Education

55

education, there has been a need to revise the course hitherto followed by education systems and the establishment of new policy agendas in the context of economic interactions among nations. This compelled comparative education scholars to intensify approaches using international education.

PROSPECTS Among policy-makers, evaluators and planners of the education sector, a new growing interest on cross-national and international studies by the World Bank, OECD, and UNESCO, on topics such as knowledge societies, teacher education, international assessments, brain drain, migrant students, competitiveness, and quality assurance. Besides, the Bologna process is becoming a growing focus of interest among scholars interested in higher education and university reform. Based on the development of the field since the 1990s, we think that it is reasonable to expect an increase in publications. More research projects will probably request funds from diverse government agencies, international organizations, and private foundations. However, it is not realistic to envisage a similar growth in the realm of teaching, but some of the academic products will be inserted in many syllabi to nurture the construction of the field in Mexico.

REFERENCES Alca´ntara, A. (2005). Entre Prometeo y Sı´sifo. Ciencia, tecnologı´a y universidad en Me´xico y Argentina. Mexico: Ediciones Pomares. Andere, E. (2006). Me´xico sigue en riesgo. El monumental reto de la educacio´n. Mexico: Editorial Planeta. Caldero´n, J. (1994) Historia reciente de los estudios de educacio´n comparada en Hispanoame´rica con referencia a la educacio´n de adultos. Revista Interamericana de Educacio´n de Adultos, 2:2, Me´xico: OEA/CREFAL/CEDEFT, pp. 103–104. Galaz-Fontes, J. F. (2006). The national faculty surveys. An overview. In J. Schuster & M. Finkelstein (Eds.), The American faculty. The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Latapı´ , P. (2008). Andante con brı´o. Memoria de mis interacciones con los secretarios de educacio´n (1963-2006). Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. Martinez, S. (2009). La internacionalizacio´n de posgrado en Ame´rica Latina. In M. A. Navarro & L. I. Sa´nchez (Coords.), Transformacio´n mundial de la educacio´n superior. Mexico: Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla, Universidad Auto´noma de Tamaulipas and Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada. Mun˜oz-Izquierdo, C., & Ulloa, M (2011). U´ltimos en la prueba Pisa. Nexos, 401, 39–41.

56

MARCO AURELIO NAVARRO AND CARLOS ORNELAS

Navarro, M., Llado´, D., & Sa´nchez, I. (2010). La ensen˜anza de la educacio´n comparada en Me´xico. In M. Navarro (Coord.), Educacio´n comparada. Perspectivas y casos. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada and Editorial Planea. Ornelas, C. (2008). Polı´tica, poder y pupitres. Crı´tica al nuevo federalismo educativo. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. Rosario, V., & Marum, E. (2004). Internacionalizacio´n de la universidad, cambio institucional y pra´ctica docente. Mexico: Universidad de Guadalajara. Victorino, L. (Coord.) (2006). Procesos de evaluacio´n en la universidad en Hispanoame´rica. La experiencia de los 90. Mexico: Universidad Auto´noma de Chapingo and Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: INVENTORY AND PERSPECTIVES FROM AN ‘‘AFDECE’’ POINT OF VIEW Dominique Groux ABSTRACT Since its creation in 1998, the French Association of Comparative Education and Exchange (AFDECE) has been concerned with developing comparative education in France. This development brings together a wide network of comparativists from all backgrounds, and shows the benefits that comparison with others and international exchanges represent for an educational system. La Revue Franc- aise d’Education Compare´e (RFEC), established in March 2007, publishes investigations of innovative comparative educational research in France and in the world. AFDECE’s activities and discourse focus largely on the question of comparison in education and its relevance and validity. One emphasis of comparativists of education in France is that research in comparative education should be part of a system of thought with explicitly defined theoretical frameworks. Through cooperative research and corresponding

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 57–64 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020009

57

58

DOMINIQUE GROUX

action, comparative education in France and abroad can lead to common actions and solutions acceptable to all. Keywords: Comparative education; methodological precautions; epistemological reflection; theoretical framework; professional society; research perspectives

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION Comparative education is in itself a powerful tool for investigating the world, which includes the ‘‘intercultural, that is to say the exchange, mutual enrichment, between individuals, between generations, between countries’’ (Porcher, 2008) International comparison (especially), but historical comparison (also), has become a truism in education. Everybody compares and is interested in others. This is certainly the consequence of globalization that concerns, obviously, the field of education. We could say about comparative education what Durkheim wrote about sociology; that comparative education is education itself: ‘‘The comparative sociology is not a particular branch of sociology, it is the sociology itself, as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for the facts’’ (Durkheim, 1937). We can, however, like Schriewer said and was repeated by Novoa in his article on comparative education (Novoa, 1995), distinguish two approaches that feed on comparison: an international reformer reflection and a science of comparative education. The first offers practical reforms to develop the teaching systems and the second builds production practices of knowledge on educational issues. Both approaches are found in the early debates on comparative education where we distinguish comparative education and international education. They cut across the distinction between ‘‘academic knowledge’’ and ‘‘government knowledge’’ in education (Van Zanten, 2006). They correspond to the ‘‘international research in professional development’’ and ‘‘research in comparative education’’ provided by specialists in the discipline (Helmchen, 2006). Pierre Laderrie`re speaks about this topic of ‘‘quarrels on definitions even on territory.’’ He proposed in 1999, to break the deadlock to which Ju¨rgen Helmchen1 returns, to encourage those responsible for comparative work by the public power at all interventional levels (international, regional, national, local, including school level) to ‘‘join the ranks of comparativists, through a training based on their experience and monitored by recognized specialists in comparative

59

Comparative Education

education, primarily responsible for the conceptual and methodological equipment of these people’’ (Laderrie`re, 1999). Not having made this reconciliation between scientists and politics, comparative studies in education that are large in scope, because they have considerable resources, are not always sufficiently ‘‘scientifically substantiated’’2 and research of academic comparativists remain, it must be admitted, quite confidential.3 The real influence in comparative education research on society (macro level) and the relationship between scientific knowledge in this field and everyday practices in the classroom (micro level) would be to study and evaluate.

Methodological Precautions It should be emphasized that, to establish scientifically solid research and comparative studies, it is necessary to:  specify the focus of the comparison: why do we compare? What is expected from the comparison? What are the assumptions?  specify the terms of the comparison (noting the significant elements that help to understand the context) and indicate whether they are comparable;  specify the concepts shared between different cultures that will be mobilized for research and announce theoretical frames of reference;  objectify the study: decentralization necessary, clarifying standards, references, values of researchers;  compare the methods with caution while avoiding ‘‘the methodological pestilence’’ (Weber, 1964) and the arbitrary rule of the methodology;  be cautious in its conclusions and move away from arbitrary generalizations. Much remains to be done for the development of comparative education and its institutional recognition, which depend essentially on the quality of research undertaken and the concepts developed.

Current Trends The French Association of Comparative Education and Exchange (AFDECE) has been concerned to develop comparative education in France, bringing together a wide network of comparativists from all backgrounds, and to show the benefits that comparison with others and intake of international exchanges represent for an educational system. The internationalization

60

DOMINIQUE GROUX

of problems related to education, the importance of reflections conducted globally on intercultural relations, issues of identity, and the necessary exposure to other Europeans, but also citizens of the world, inside and outside our borders, have fueled the debate initiated by the AFDECE in its seminars and workshops,4 which formed several ‘‘material facts.’’ These problems have also fed the issues of La Revue Franc- aise d’Education Compare´e (RFEC), established in March 2007, which is intended to illustrate the comparative educational research at its most innovative, in France and in the world. Concerned with new approaches and new objects in the field of education, the journal proposes a dialogue with other ‘‘humanities’’ (e.g., history, geography, linguistics, literature, anthropology, politics) or not (e.g., mathematics, biology, law), and presents work on cultural areas from the whole world. The titles of the issues published since March 2007 reflect the concerns of the members of our association in comparative education. To get an idea of different geographical areas and countries studied, just look at the summaries of the seven volumes of RFEC (www.afdece.com).  Language, literature and culture to the test on the other, No. 1, March 2007, A. Baillot (Ed.), 245 pages.  Mathematics: knowledge sharing, No. 2, November 2007, S. Roelly (Ed.), 228 pages.  Unique junior high and equal opportunities: the French model to mirror the others, No. 3, June 2008, G. Combaz, F. Tupin (Eds.), 268 pages.  The school history at the risk of changing societies, No. 4, January 2009, N.Tutiaux-Guillon (Ed.), 241 pages.  Methodology of comparison in education, No. 5, September 2009, F. Chnane, D. Groux (Eds.), 228 pages.  Violence in schools: Research and interventions, No. 6, December 2010, C. Blaya (Ed.), 277 pages.  Vertical comparative education: images of teaching, No. 7, October 2011, L. Porcher (Ed.), 170 pages. Research Perspectives An Epistemological Reflection From the founding seminar of the association, held at the IUFM of Versailles in 1999 on ‘‘educational exchanges and comparison in education,’’ a question arose and became recurrent in all scientific meetings over the past 10 years. It is the question of comparison, of its relevance, of its validity.

Comparative Education

61

If this question has already attracted the interest of the greatest in human and social sciences – Tocqueville, Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt, Durkheim, Saussure, Weber, Levi-Strauss, Duby, Bourdieu – it must also be asked for education and, to establish the foundations for a constructive debate, it must be put in a new angle. To address the broad issue of comparison in education, it is good to have a real epistemological reflection by focusing on the following questions: What can we compare in education? What is the meaning of the comparison? Is it a gratuitous exercise that comes from pure intellectual speculation? Does any comparison have a meaning? (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1967) What are the limits of the comparison? We must draw attention to the dangers of simplification and the need to take into account the context that will prevent comparativists from comparing what is not comparable and making sweeping generalizations. Methodological rigor and application of the scientific method are necessary for comparative education. Productive Concepts To progress in the epistemological reflection, productive concepts should be mobilized. As Bachelard points out, it is through the abstract that we govern the concrete. An abstract entity is a concept that can be transferred from one context to another, provided that we adapt it to its new context. For example, some abstract concepts shared between different cultures can be mobilized and operational in comparative education:  The concept of universal-singular (Hegel, Schleiermacher, Sartre, Starobinski)  The concept of dialogism-polyphony (Bakhtine)  The concept of social variation (Labov)  The concepts of reproduction, capital, symbolic violence (Bourdieu)  The concepts of otherness, the strange, alien, strangeness (Ricoeur, Derrida) It is also convenient to clearly display the theoretical frames of reference:    

The functional framework The structuralism framework The structural-functionalist framework or systems approach The chaos theory (the latter is an interesting theory for comparative education) (Groux, 2009)

In all cases, research in comparative education should develop their own concepts and be part of a system of thought with explicitly defined

62

DOMINIQUE GROUX

theoretical frameworks in order to ‘‘provide new ways to perfect the science of education’’ (Jullien de Paris, 1817). Global Issues We believe it is necessary to cooperate on the following international education themes (Porcher, 2008):             

Ecology Violence The extension of the right The coexistence of generations The transformations of culture Attitudes toward aging and childhood Social inequalities Knowledge and national heritage protection The history of religions The relationship to death (including euthanasia) The remaining imperialisms The relationship to nature Human rights

It is important that these issues, which are global issues, lead to common actions and solutions acceptable to all. Educational institutions have the duty to address these questions and comparativists in education to boost the research around these topics.

NOTES 1. ‘‘Research that tracks calls and requests for a bid is in constant danger of running out of this world and to be reflexive as the only science.’’ 2. Laderrie`re, P. (1999). ‘‘It should be reiterated that the ‘production’ (of many international organizations, public or private) is not – with rare exceptions – comparative education, but is representative of materials that can be mobilized, after being passed screened for scientific analysis, in favor of evidence-based comparative approaches.’’ p. 268. 3. With the exception of some countries, like Argentina for example, where Juan Carlos Tedesco, a searcher in Comparative Education, was called on the government to serve as Minister of National Education. 4. These scientific meetings (10 seminars and 6 days of studies that have resulted in Acts) are, in detail, on the site of AFDECE: www.afdece.com10seminars: the first seminar in May 1999, at IUFM Versailles: ‘‘The Educational Exchange and

63

Comparative Education

Comparison of Education.’’ The second seminar in May 2000, at IUFM Montpellier: ‘‘International Trade and Academic Success for All.’’ The third seminar in November 2002 at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg: ‘‘Building the European identity. Otherness, Education, Interchange.’’ The fourth seminar in April 2003 in Geneva: ‘‘Migrants and the Right to Education: Urban Perspectives.’’ The fifth seminar in September 2005 in Potsdam: ‘‘The School Compared: International Assessments of Student Achievement and National Cultures of School Evaluation.’’ The sixth seminar on October 25, 26, and 27, 2007, Universidad Veracruzana in Xalapa, Veracruz (Mexico), Theme: ‘‘Globalization, Migration and School: Integration and Adaptation of Migrants and Non-migrant Education Systems in the World.’’ The seventh seminar on November 3 and 4, 2008, Escola Superior de Educac- ao de Lisboa (Portugal), Theme: ‘‘Comparative Approaches to Language Teaching and Training of Language Teachers.’’ The eighth seminar on November 2 and 3, 2009, CPR Inezgane, Agadir (Morocco), Theme: ‘‘Teacher Education and Openness to the World: Comparative Approaches.’’ The ninth seminar, from October 14 to 16, 2010, Montreal (Canada). Theme: ‘‘Class of Languages and Culture(s): Towards Interculturality?’’ The tenth seminar on from November 2 to 4, 2011, Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic). Theme: ‘‘Professionalization and e-Learning.’’ Study Days: June 1, 2001: University of Geneva: ‘‘The Training in Europe: Issues and Perspectives.’’ February 6, 2002: IUFM of Versailles: ‘‘Otherness and Education.’’ March 27, 2004: CIEP ‘‘Europe: Teaching Object.’’ April 2, 2005: CIEP: ‘‘The Meeting of Europe.’’ September 19, 2007: University Paris 10-Nanterre: ‘‘Mathematics: Knowledge Sharing.’’ May 16, 2009: University of Aix-Marseille: ‘‘Methodology of the Comparison in Education.’’

REFERENCES Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1967). La comparabilite´ des syste`mes d’enseignement [Comparability of education systems]. In R. Castel & J.-C. Passeron (Eds.), Education, De´veloppement et De´mocratie (pp. 21–33). Paris: Mouton. Durkheim, E. (1937). Les re`gles de la me´thode sociologique. [The rules of sociological method.]. Paris: PUF, Quadrige. (p. 137). Groux, D. (2009, September). Penser la comparaison en e´ducation (Think the comparison in education). In D. Groux & F. Chnane-Davin (Eds.), Revue Franc- aise d’Education Compare´e [French review of comparative education]: Me´thodologie de la comparaison en e´ducation [Methodology of the comparison in education] (Vol. 5, pp. 63–86). Paris: L’Harmattan. Helmchen, J. (2006). La difficulte´ de la comparaison. L’e´ducation compare´e entre vieux paradigmes et nouvelles perspectives. In D. Groux, J. Helmchen & E. Flitner (Eds.), L’Ecole Compare´e (pp. 73–83). Paris: L’Harmattan. Jullien de Paris, M.-A. (1817). Les Sciences de l’e´ducation pour l’e`re nouvelle [Science education for new era]. Education compare´e, CERSE, Universite´ de Caen, 2-3, 1995, p. 193. Laderrie`re, P. (1999). The role of comparative education in the world of tomorrow. In J. M. Leclercq (Ed.), L’e´ducation compare´e: mondialisation et spe´cificite´s francophones (pp. 267–272). Paris: CNDP.

64

DOMINIQUE GROUX

Novoa, A. (1995). Analysis models in comparative education: The field and the map. Science Education for the New Era, 2–3, 9–61. Porcher, L. (2008). L’e´ducation compare´e pour aujourd’hui et pour demain. [Comparative education: For today and tomorrow.]. Paris: L’Harmattan. Van Zanten, A. (2006). Les producteurs nationaux, locaux et internationaux de connaissances en matie`re d’e´valuation: concurrence et comple´mentarite´. In D. Groux, J. Helmchen & E. Flitner (Eds.), L’Ecole compare´e (pp. 207–224). Paris: L’Harmattan. Weber, M. (1964). Gutachten zur Welturteilsdiskussion. In E. Baumgarten (Ed.), Max Weber, werk und person (p. 139). (sqq). Paris: J.C.B. Mohr.

COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN CHINA: DEFINITIONS, FUNCTIONS AND TRENDS Wang Yingjie ABSTRACT Comparative and international education (CIE) has developed very quickly in China. The first ‘‘Academic Conference on Education in Other Countries’’ was held in China in 1978. The National Society of Foreign Education Studies, the predecessor of the National Comparative Education Society, was formed in 1979. In 1980, Beijing Normal University published the first journal on comparative education in China. Afterwards East China Normal University and Northeast Normal University published their journals on comparative education. The first master and doctoral degree programs in comparative education were offered in China respectively in 1979 and 1985. There are hundreds of scholars engaged in comparative education studies now. In summary, comparative education in China has been turned into a fully-fledged academic discipline with a complete framework. What is more important maybe is that

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 65–72 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020010

65

66

WANG YINGJIE

Chinese scholars have been exploring the definitions, functions, culture, and research paradigms of the discipline. Keywords: Comparative education; functions; definitions; critical reflection; trends; questions for discussion

DEFINITIONS AND FUNCTIONS Chinese comparative educators have been debating the definitions and functions of comparative and international education (CIE). Most of them defend CIE as an important academic discipline. But a few lost their interest in CIE and drifted to other educational disciplines, as they think comparative education is no more than a research method. To this author, CIE cannot be substituted by other disciplines, as it has unique functions for educational development, though the identity crisis of CIE could be a topic worthwhile to discuss for its progress. The author explains his ideas about CIE in the following passages.

Comparative and International Education is a Field to Gain New Knowledge for Education Humans are curious, and therefore curiosity is an internal motivation to drive humans to explore. The basic nature of exploring is to establish connections between the known and unknown, which means to know the unknown through the known. CIE creates new knowledge for education through comparison – building a bridge between the known and unknown in education. Certainly, there could be a risk to set the definition and functions from this epistemological perspective, which could blur the border of the academic discipline of CIE and too much expand the domain of the discipline. But the blurred border is a characteristic of disciplines today, and a discipline needs to absorb new ideas and new thoughts from other disciplines for its further development. Comparative educators must assume the responsibility to promote comparison, a basic epistemological approach in educational studies, to review all educational issues by comparison, to explore and discover and construct new theories, principles, or ideas in education by comparison.

Comparative and International Education in China

67

CIE Provides a Laboratory for New Educational Ideas Social sciences are not much different from natural sciences from an epistemological perspective, as they both discover and test and verify new ideas or thoughts in experiments. For natural sciences there are real and physical laboratories. Only if the experiment that leads a new idea or principle can be duplicated and tested and verified in different laboratories, can the new idea or principle be recognized as a contribution to knowledge by the respective scientist circle. Comparative studies can be viewed as a laboratory in the social sciences, in which new ideas or theories could be discovered, tested, and verified or refuted. One of the functions of CIE is to discover, test, and verify or refute new ideas or theories in education.

CIE is a Powerful Tool for Valid Criticism Criticism is central to discovering new knowledge. To criticize is to construct a bridge between the known and unknown. Starting from the known we explore the unknown with a critical perspective and we critically review the known in the process of exploring the unknown. This is actually the purpose of CIE. One of the goals of CIE is to know our schools better by studying others. Comparative educators must be critical toward their own schools and educational policies. We have to be conscious and sensitive about our shortcomings. But meanwhile, we should share our experiences with our peers around the world. We must critically review the world trends in education speaking out against negative effects of globalization and marketization and other trends of education.

CIE Provides a Platform to Serve Society CIE is not a purely theoretical discipline, and its life essence resides in improvement of educational practice. Comparative educators must take new educational ideas, philosophies, and learning theories from other nations to domestic classrooms to lead changes in learning. One of the functions of CIE is to lay foundations for educational policy making to promote political reform. To serve society should be an eternal motivation for comparative education studies.

68

WANG YINGJIE

CIE Provides a Forum for International Exchanges International education exchanges are inter-reactions and inter-influences in the field of education among different nations. In contemporary world Western countries, especially the United States, are in the center of international education exchange, and the developing countries are on the periphery. So-called international exchanges are, in fact, led by the countries in the center, which ‘‘enlighten’’ countries on the periphery. One of the missions of comparative educators in the developing countries is to challenge the hegemony of the center in order to make the discourse more balanced and to change the one-way linear exchange in the forum of international discourse. CIE is a field to help people gain international awareness and understanding and meanwhile maintaining their national identity.

TRENDS IN RECENT YEARS The author and one of his doctoral students (Li Xu) studied three main journals in CIE published between 2005 and 2010 in China – Bijiao Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Comparative Education Review in China) published by Beijing Normal University, Quanqiu Jiaoyu Zhanwang (Global Education) published by East China Normal University, and Waiguo Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Studies in Foreign Education) published by Northeast Normal University. The following trends in CIE studies in China are found.

Changes in Themes of Study Table 1 shows that there are seven main themes in CIE studies in China: higher education (20.4%), educational theories (14.1%), curriculum and teaching (11.4%), teacher education (11.1%), educational administration (9.4%), basic education (7.4%), and the academic discipline of CIE (6.5%). Besides these main themes, some new themes come to appear in recent years, such as military education (0.4%); art education (0.3%); special education (0.3%); environment education, health education, sustainable development education (0.2%); science education (0.2%); multicultural education (0.2%); natural disaster education, crisis education and management (0.2%); information technology education (0.1%); education for all, inclusive education (0.1%).

Total

463

0 0 0 1 0

0 4 0 1 2 472

92 68 42 52 63 45 21 19 17 12 1 4 7 2 7 4 0 2 1 0 1 2

2006

89 76 85 45 43 32 28 20 15 11 1 2 5 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 3

2005

480

0 0 0 2 0

86 77 57 62 52 27 29 11 16 3 16 7 9 8 5 6 4 0 0 3 0 0

2007

482

0 0 6 0 0

116 57 52 56 45 27 36 14 18 7 1 5 7 2 8 9 8 5 0 0 3 0

2008

503

0 2 0 0 0

106 57 61 54 45 34 38 14 16 14 8 16 5 3 3 4 6 0 9 2 4 2

2009

478

7 1 0 0 0

99 70 31 49 22 47 35 22 18 14 21 8 2 15 1 4 7 2 0 3 0 0

2010

2878

7 7 6 4 2

588 405 328 318 270 212 187 100 100 61 48 42 35 32 28 27 26 11 10 9 8 7

Total

Number of Articles Published in Three CIE Journals in China by Themes, 2005–2010.

Higher education Educational theories Curriculum and teaching Teacher education Educational administration Basic education Discipline of CIE Internationalization of education and international education Civic and moral education Technical and vocational education Balanced development of education and educational equity Educational reform and development Privatization of education and private education Educational policies Lifelong education and adult education Rural education Preschool education Bilingual education and teaching Chinese as a second language Military education Art education Special education Environment education, health education, sustainable development education Science education Multicultural education Natural disaster education, crisis education and management Information technology education Education for all, inclusive education

Themes

Table 1.

100

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

20.4 14.1 11.4 11.1 9.2 7.4 6.5 3.5 3.5 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

%

Comparative and International Education in China 69

70

WANG YINGJIE

If we only count those themes with over 20 articles, we can see that comparative educators have shown increased interests in a balanced development of education and educational equity, educational reforms and development, educational policies, and preschool education in the last one or two years. This observation shows that comparative educators selected their themes for study mainly according to the domestic hot problems or issues. In recent years the balanced development of education among different areas and educational equity have become top issues in Chinese society. The issuing of State Mid-Long Term Plan for Educational Reform and Development (2010–2020) stimulates studies on educational reforms and policies. The lack of preschool places was also identified as a major problem as the government had gradually receded in the provision of preschools. Higher education has been the most popular theme for comparative studies, but the number of articles published has declined in last 2 years. Though educational administration and curriculum and teaching are still focus themes, the number of articles has declined fast. It is hard to explain this trend at this time, which may show that the other topics have arisen to crowd out some of the old topics.

Changes in Nations or Regions of Study Table 2 shows the article distribution of the nations that comparative educators studied during 2005–2010. The most popular nations or regions of study are the United States (42.5%), the United Kingdom (1.0%), Japan (6.5%), Russia (4.4%), Africa (3.4%), Australia (3.0%), the European Union (2.8%), Germany (2.4%), South Asia (2.4%), and Korea (2.3%). Chinese comparative educators have been very interested in American education. The number of U.S.-related articles reached the top in 2008 when it represented 47.2% of the total. But the number of U.S.-related articles has much declined since 2009, and represents only 38.3% of the total in 2010, though it still ranks number one. Chinese comparative educators used to adore American education as it made such fast progress in a short period, but when the world is becoming flat, they begin to include other countries for their studies. African education has attracted Chinese comparative educators’ interest in recent years, as China found more political and economic interest there. However, Chinese comparative educators know education there very little. The number of articles on African education represents only 0.9% in 2005.

71

Comparative and International Education in China

Table 2.

Number of Articles Published in Three CIE Journals by Nations or Regions Studied, 2005–2010.

Nation/Region International organization North America United States Canada Latin America European Union Western Europe United Kingdom Other nations Eastern Europe Russia Other nations Central Europe Germany Other nations Northern Europe Southern Europe West Asia South Asia Central Asia Northeast Asia Japan Korea Southeast Asia East Asia Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan regions Oceania Australia New Zealand Africa Others Asia Pacific Minority areas in China Comparative studies of two or more nations Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

%

1 91 6 0 7 28 1 12 1 6 1 5 2 1 7 0 10 5 5 0 1 7 0 2 1 0

2 118 2 4 6 24 7 13 0 9 0 2 0 1 5 1 24 6 5 2 1 6 3 2 1 0

2 110 3 4 2 32 1 12 0 10 1 4 1 0 3 0 19 8 10 1 0 6 4 8 0 0

4 143 1 4 7 32 4 12 1 5 1 6 2 4 12 0 15 3 2 0 1 2 3 12 2 0

4 132 4 2 12 17 9 17 0 6 2 6 4 0 3 0 19 9 4 0 7 14 0 17 0 1

2 108 0 0 12 32 6 7 0 4 0 7 2 1 10 0 20 7 10 0 4 15 0 23 1 0

15 702 16 14 46 165 28 73 2 40 5 30 11 7 40 1 107 38 36 3 14 50 10 64 5 1

0.9 42.5 1.0 0.9 2.8 10.0 1.7 4.4 0.1 2.4 0.3 1.8 1.7 0.4 2.4 0.1 6.5 2.3 2.2 0.2 0.9 3.0 0.6 3.9 0.3 0.1

26

27

29

25

12

11

130

7.9

226

271

270

303

301

282

1653

100

Articles on the discipline of CIE are not included, and only those articles that clearly indicate names of nations or regions are counted, and therefore the total number of counted articles is 1653 which is different from Table 1.

The number has increased dramatically since then, and it represents 8.2% in 2010, which ranks third immediately after the United States and the United Kingdom. The articles on education in the European Union and Australia have risen steadily in last 2 or 3 years. This phenomenon shows that Australia and the

72

WANG YINGJIE

European Union as an ‘‘integrated nation’’ have become more important in the world education systems and have attracted more Chinese students to study there. The number of articles on comparative studies of two or more nations has greatly declined. The number represents 11.1% in 2005, but it represents only 3.9% in 2010. This phenomenon indicates that Chinese comparative educators are more concerned with education in individual nations, and confirms a function of CIE which is to learn from others. But it should also alarm us to reconsider what CIE really means. Educational policies of international organizations (such as the OECD, UNESCO, and the World Bank) have attracted more researchers’ attention, as the international organizations have played more and more important roles in the process of globalization of education and China intends to be more active in these organizations.

CONCLUSION CIE is a relative new discipline in China. It has made a great progress, but there are still many questions that need further discussions, such as:  Should we seek for a single definition of the discipline or be tolerant of different definitions?  Should we set a clear border for the discipline or allow the blurring of the border?  Should we construct our own research paradigm(s) or be satisfied to borrow any paradigms from any social sciences?  Should we take nation-states as the basic units for our studies or expand our studies to different areas within a nation-state border?  Should international borrowing still be the main purpose or instead understanding different cultures be the main purpose for CIE studies?  Should CIE studies look for new rules or theories for education, or instead simply help understand or appreciate education in other countries? The author hopes this chapter provokes further discussions for continuous development of CIE in China.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN THE GULF: IN SEARCH OF A FOOTHOLD Ali S. Ibrahim ABSTRACT The Gulf Comparative Education Society (GCES) was officially established in 2009. The aim of the society is to provide a forum for educators, researchers, and policymakers from the Gulf region and elsewhere to share their knowledge and experience; to encourage the development of educational research throughout the region; to strengthen the links between research, policy, and practice; to maximize the impact of quality research and effective innovations; and to encourage and support junior and early career education researchers throughout the region. The GCES firmly believes that educational policy development and implementation and pedagogical practice need to be supported by research-based knowledge, and that, at the same time, the knowledge, experience, and insights gained from each country in the region can provide invaluable lessons for others as they seek to overcome similar challenges. Keywords: Comparative education; international education; Arabian Gulf; Gulf Comparative Education Society

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 73–82 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020011

73

74

ALI S. IBRAHIM

THE GULF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY In March 2009, I met with Daniel Kirk and Natasha Ridge at the 53rd Comparative and International Education Society conference in South Carolina, USA. At this time, Dan worked in the American University of Sharjah and Natasha worked in the Dubai School of Government. We were surprised to meet with so many scholars from the Gulf area and numerous others who were interested in this part of the world. With a dearth of educational associations in the Gulf, we felt a serious need to form a non-governmental body for scholars to meet and share their insights and research. As comparative educators ourselves, we came to believe in the idea of establishing a society for comparative education in the Gulf region. When we started to establish the society, we were cognizant of one fact about the Gulf region and two facts that characterize the field of comparative education. The first fact is that there are not so many scholars in the region who have been trained in comparative education. Comparative Education has been an important field of study in neighboring Egypt but it does not have the same status in the Gulf countries.1 Umm Al-Qura University has a department for Islamic and comparative education and offers a Master degree in Comparative Education. But historically in the Gulf, comparative education has been offered inconsistently at regional universities, such as Sultan Qaboos University, King Saud University, Kuwait University, and Taibah University, with courses scattered and lacking regional collaboration. The main aim of Comparative Education in those universities is to show ‘‘best practices’’ of ‘‘international models’’ by presenting the educational system of Gulf countries in comparison to systems in other Gulf or foreign countries (Al-Harthi, 2008). The few comparative educators in the region work in general education, foundations, or educational administration/leadership departments. The irony is that the Gulf countries are more and more borrowing and infusing foreign policies and practices into their educational systems. Without current rigorous comparative education research and thorough analysis, policymakers are left unsupported in their pursuits. The other two facts concerning the field are the looseness of defining comparative education and the looseness of its research methodologies. On one hand, there is still a debate around the definition of comparative education. In addition, the field does not have distinctive features of its own but depends on other social science disciplines. It welcomes scholars with a variety of tools and perspectives who choose to focus on educational issues

Comparative Education in the Gulf: In Search of a Foothold

75

from a comparative stance. On the other hand, while much has been written on comparative education methodologies, there are no agreed-upon standards that distinguish a study belonging to comparative education or not. One can find many books and journal articles in the field of comparative education displaying commentaries based on literature reviews. More recently, though, more studies were based on surveys, observations, and interviews. Further, as Bray (2007) explained, many publications even in journals which explicitly include the word ‘‘comparative’’ in their titles contain large numbers of single-country studies in which the nature and extent of comparison is open to question. The looseness of the definition and methodology was not, in any way, a barrier to initiate the society. In fact, we did not feel obliged to provide a definition to our audience, nor to restrict them by certain methodological designs. With this unboundedness, the GCES was officially established in 2009 and a constitution was written by the three founders. The aim of the society has been to provide a forum for educators, researchers, and policymakers from the Gulf region and elsewhere to share their knowledge and experience; to encourage the development of educational research throughout the region; to strengthen the links between research, policy, and practice; to maximize the impact of quality research and effective innovations; and to encourage and support junior and early career education researchers throughout the region. The GCES firmly believes that educational policy development and implementation and pedagogical practice need to be supported by research-based knowledge, and that, at the same time, the knowledge, experience, and insights gained from each country in the region can provide invaluable lessons for others as they seek to overcome similar challenges.

THE GCES SYMPOSIA To put the above-mentioned goals into action, the founders of GCES agreed on holding an annual symposium. The first GCES Symposium was held in Ras Al-Khaimah, UAE on April 7–8, 2010. Jointly organized by GCES, Sheikh Saud Bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research, and Dubai School of Government, the symposium was attended by around 150 participants, including 32 presenters from many countries. The conference was a great success due, in part, to the enormous amount of work undertaken by the GCES organizing team. Following the symposium,

76

ALI S. IBRAHIM

GCES was inducted into the WCCES in Istanbul Turkey in June 2010 and became a full member. The second Annual Symposium was held again in Ras Al-Khaimah with kind support from His Highness Sheikh Saud’s Foundation. A larger number of participants attended and we started to enjoy more rigorous presentations. Following this symposium it was time to move into another Gulf country. A delegation from Bahrain’s Teachers College, headed by Dean Ian Haslam, attended the symposium and expressed a willingness to host the 2012 event. The third Annual Symposium was held in Bahrain on March 24–25, 2012. We had an even greater audience and the number of presentations reached 43, up from 32 in the first year. In the three symposia, GCES organized sessions for young scholars and provided financial support to local and international speakers. In Bahrain, an arrangement was made with a delegate from Sultan Qaboos University to host the 2013 symposium in Oman. The title of the first symposium was ‘‘Education Reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).’’ At this event, members discussed reforms such as access to and quality in education, transforming teaching, improving leadership, creating a global educational community in the Gulf region, and challenges of education reform. One example of presentations in this symposium was Improving Quality through Dubai’s School Inspections Program. In this presentation, Fatma Belrehif reported that in 2008 in order to assess and encourage quality in Dubai’s schools, the Knowledge and Human Development Authority embarked on a major program of school inspections across the public and private schools in Dubai. Using a set of criteria based on international benchmarks, the inspection teams visited schools, assessed and rated their performance, and highlighted areas for improvement. The presentation detailed some of the lessons learned from the school inspection program during its first 2 years of operation and highlighted key areas where Dubai schools are taking consequent actions to improve their quality (Belrehif, 2010). The second symposium was titled ‘‘Intersections of the Public and Private in Education in the GCC.’’ Members discussed a variety of issues such as the boundaries between private and public schooling, the role of the market in higher education, building a knowledge economy, and privatization of the education system. One example of presentations in this symposium was Publicly Financed, Privately Operated Schools in Qatar. In this presentation Charles Goldman mentioned that in 2001 the leadership in Qatar thought that the nation’s school system was not producing high-quality outcomes for

Comparative Education in the Gulf: In Search of a Foothold

77

Qatari students in terms of academic achievement, college attendance, and success in the labor market. Qatar’s leadership asked the RAND Corporation to examine the K-12 school system, identify problems with the system, and recommend alternative reform options to improve it. After considering various reform options, the Qatari leadership decided on a charter school model known as the Independent School Model. In this model, schools are publicly funded but privately operated.2 All 180 government schools in Qatar have been converted into the Independent School Model. A few years later, the Supreme Education Council and the Independent Schools confronted challenges as the accountability system was not fully functioning. A few years after the implementation of the reform, policies have shifted toward centralized control (Goldman, 2011). The third symposium focused on ‘‘Global Innovation, Local Transformation: Trends and Reactions.’’ The members discussed many issues including innovations in educational technology, innovations in teaching methodologies, transforming science curricula, innovations in higher education, and adapting educational innovations to the GCC. One example of presentations in this symposium was E-Learning in GCC Countries and its Implications. In this presentation, Mark Olsen argued that private universities have gained a foothold in the GCC countries over the past 10 years. To an extent, their recent growth has focused on the replication of the Western-inspired liberal arts education models. However, with the increased emphasis on business-related studies and management of information systems as education foci have come the prospects of e-learning and the emergence of knowledge as a marketable commodity. The implications of e-learning extend far past the marketing of courses into the realm of pedagogy and what constitutes liberal arts education in the GCC environs. In the broader context of the information revolution, essentially technical knowledge and instrumental reasoning are co-opting and supplanting critical forms of knowledge. Mark explored the ramifications of the emergent approaches to knowledge as a commodity for reshaping academics in GCC private universities in the future (Olsen, 2012). In his presentation at the symposium, Approaches and Methods in Comparative Education: Selecting Units for Analysis, Mark Bray explained that traditionally, the field of comparative education has stressed the country as the dominant unit of analysis. This remains the pattern in many studies conducted both by academics and by international organizations. However, this approach has many limitations. Countries are of different sizes, and much instructive comparison can be undertaken both within

78

ALI S. IBRAHIM

countries and at a supra-national level. His presentation considered the value of multilevel comparisons that focus on individuals, classrooms, schools, districts, provinces, countries, and world regions. It noted the ways that patterns at lower levels are often shaped by patterns at higher levels (i.e., that the behavior of individuals may be shaped by the cultures of their classrooms, that the cultures of classrooms may be shaped by the characteristics of schools, that the characteristics of schools may be shaped by the districts in which they are located, etc.). The presentation also touched on other units for comparison, including systems of education, cultures, values, and times, and it considered the implications of globalization and other cross-national forces for the nature of education in specific locations and for comparative education as a field of study (Bray, 2012). As organizers of GCES symposia, and due to the small number of interested scholars and practitioners in comparative education and the looseness of the definition and methodology of the field, we did not follow a highly restrictive set of criteria for accepting or refusing the abstracts submitted. We had an organized blind-review process with various reviewers. Sometimes we met and discussed, but our acceptance was finally based on the quality of writing and the soundness of the methodology rather than whether the presentation is or is not comparative. Although it is a comparative education society, we could not turn down non-comparative studies. The list of papers presented in the three annual symposia is very revealing with regard to this point. The number of comparative studies presented at each of the three symposia in 2010, 2011, and 2012 is only a minority (17%, 2.7%, and 4.6%, respectively). The majority of GCES presentations were case studies or reviews of educational issues with lessons learned for the Gulf. There were barely any papers on the problems of theory, epistemology, or methodology of comparative education. Most presentations described and sometimes analyzed a system, a process, an innovation, or a special national situation. But they did not attempt to draw any conclusions or at least to suggest some hypothesis which could be useful in other contexts. Mark Bray (2007) noted this characteristic of comparative education and of comparative education conferences: ‘‘despite attempts y to circumscribe the field of comparative education more tightly, it remains very loosely defined’’ (p. 358), ‘‘the field continues to tolerate considerable descriptive work’’ (p. 360), and ‘‘in conferences devoted to the field, in which the screening processes are usually much more lax than for publication in journals, the conceptual looseness is even more pronounced’’ (p. 352).

Comparative Education in the Gulf: In Search of a Foothold

79

DEFINING COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION FOR THE GULF Now, I turn to the problematic task of presenting a definition of comparative and international education with connection to the Gulf community. It should be noted that to many people in the Arab world including Gulf countries, comparative education has been identified either with the study of education in another country, or with studies using data drawn from more than one country. In fact, a quick review of comparative education studies either in graduate degrees or research papers in the Arab world surprisingly lead to one major conclusion. They are mostly lesson drawing studies and they draw mostly from foreign examples and without sufficient scrutiny on how those lessons could fit the context of the home country. A researcher finds out what is going on abroad and compares it with what is happening at home, then presents some recommendations or at best a program of improvement. It is very rare to see rigorous collection of data in two or more contexts with conclusions that apply for the countries under study. In this sense, comparative education studies are conditioned by their ameliorative objective. In most cases, however, amelioration does not happen due to the separation between research and application which is an unfortunate feature of educational research in the region. The weakness of these comparative studies, more generally, is that they ignore, or at least distort, the comparative method. There are many definitions of comparative education. But given this state of comparative education in the Gulf region and more generally the Arab world, the one definition I prefer is that comparative education is a field of study that lies at the intersection of education, cross-national study, and social sciences. This definition allows the study of educational issues and problems in one or more context hopefully truly comparatively and in light of social science theories, paradigms, and methodologies. The definition I prefer for international education is that of Wilson (2000, p. 116). International education is ‘‘the application of descriptions, analyses and insights learned in one or more nations to the problems of developing educational systems and institutions in other nations.’’ Therefore, comparative and international education are in essence complementary. International educators use the findings derived from comparative studies to better understand the processes they are engaged in, and, thus, enhance their ability to make and implement policy. The conceptualization of comparative education as a ‘‘comparison of comparisons’’ (Olivera, 1988) is not feasible

80

ALI S. IBRAHIM

at this stage of the development of comparative education in the region. It is hopeful that over the years comparative education studies in the region can move to this higher epistemological level.

THE ROAD AHEAD The aim of the GCES was to create a network of interested researchers and practitioners in education in the Gulf region. The symposia and the website provided excellent face-to-face and online networking opportunities. The dissemination of educational knowledge on the region and the exchange of experiences and practices are at the heart of comparative education. But what about the future of comparative and international education in the Gulf region? It is difficult to clearly present a road map but the GCES hopes to focus its efforts on two main areas: research and practice. The work of researchers and practitioners should be more organized. Research on key issues of education in the Gulf region should be identified and cross-country studies should be encouraged and probably funded. Advice on comparative methodology can be provided by distinguished comparative educators like Mark Bray who attended the third symposium and others who will attend in the future. There should be support for publishing distinguished comparative research conducted in the region. With regard to practice, policymakers in the Gulf region are in dire need to become aware of developments in education worldwide and across the region. Comparative and international educators should work together and should be able to present the insights and conclusions they reached to policymakers to assist them in their quest for innovative policies and practices. GCES should keep on inviting delegates from Ministries of Education and other public and private bodies that share in education policymaking or implementation across the region. They will present their views and at the same time listen to the presentations and discussions. This will hopefully close the gap between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

NOTES 1. Departments of Comparative Education were established in Egypt as early as 1957. Currently there are 27 Faculties of Education in Egypt that include a separate department for comparative education or have comparative education merged into

Comparative Education in the Gulf: In Search of a Foothold

81

other departments. In the 1980s, Egypt has become a strong center for teaching of and research in comparative education in the Arab world (Megahed & Otaiba, 2008). Diploma, Master, and Doctorate degrees are offered in probably every Faculty of Education in Egypt. The Egyptian Association for Comparative Education and Educational Administration, established in 1991, holds an annual conference and publishes the proceedings in its Journal of Education. In 2010, the American University in Cairo launched the first MA in International and Comparative Education taught in English in Egypt. 2. Interestingly, in September 2006, the Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) launched the Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiative which aimed at improving teaching, learning, and leadership in government schools in Abu Dhabi with the aid of private education providers. In March 2010, PPP operated in 176 government schools in the three districts in Abu Dhabi emirate (Dubaifaqs, 2012).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thanks are due to Dr Natasha Ridge and Dr Daniel Kirk for their suggestions and input into this essay.

REFERENCES Al-Harthi, H. (2008). Comparative education in universities in the Sultanate of Oman. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education at universities worldwide (2nd ed., pp. 259–265). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Belrehif, F. (2010). Improving quality through Dubai’s school inspections program. Paper presented at the first GCES Annual Symposium, Education Reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Ras Al-Khiama, April 7–8. Bray, M. (2007). Scholarly enquiry and the field of comparative education. In M. Bray, B. Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 341–361). Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong & Springer. Bray, M. (2012). Approaches and methods in comparative education: Selecting units for analysis. Paper presented at the Third GCES Annual Symposium, Global Innovation, Local Transformation: Trends and Reactions, Manama, March 24–25. Dubaifaqs. (2012). Abu Dhabi PPP school project. Retrieved from http://www.dubaifaqs.com/ schools-ppp-abu-dhabi.php. Accessed on February 26, 2012. Goldman, C. (2011). Publicly-financed, privately operated schools in Qatar. Paper presented at the Second GCES Annual Symposium, Intersections of the Public and Private in Education in the GCC, Ras Al-Khiama, March 16–17. Megahed, N., & Otaiba, A. (2008). Comparative education at universities in Egypt. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education at universities worldwide (2nd ed., pp. 280–286). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services.

82

ALI S. IBRAHIM

Olivera, C. E. (1988). Comparative education: Towards a basic theory. Prospects, 18(2), 167–185. Olsen, M. (2012). E-learning in GCC countries and its implications. Paper presented at the Third GCES Annual Symposium, Global Innovation, Local Transformation: Trends and Reactions, Manama, March 24–25. Wilson, D. N. (2000). The state of comparative and international education. In Eric Feng-Jihu Lee (Ed.), Education theory and practice in the New Century (pp. 113–135). Taipei: Wen.

PART 3 CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

INTRODUCTION TO PART 3: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson Comparative and international education has long struggled with a crisis of intellectual identity. The absence of a unified research tradition in the field has increased intellectual diversity and enabled the field to expand, but, at the same time, created intellectual tensions related to how educational phenomena should be observed and interpreted (Farrell, 1979). The intellectual tensions between scholars from social science disciplines and others from more humanistic research traditions are well documented in the literature both historically (Kazamias & Schwartz, 1970) and contemporarily (Schriewer, 2012). However, what is consistently lacking from the discourse is how these divisions may ultimately constrain future scholarship and limit the field’s ability to apply new research paradigms. The two chapters included in this section of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education serve as examples of the intellectual tensions present in our field today, and suggest that as a field comparative and international education has perhaps not significantly matured in matters of methodology and intellectual perspectives since the mid-20th century (Kazamias & Schwartz, 1970). This section and the ensuing reflective

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 85–90 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020012

85

86

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

discussion provide an opportunity to re-examine the root causes of the conceptual and methodological divisions in the comparative and international education field, and potentially promote greater reflection among scholars engaged in these debates. On the surface of the literature, the core conceptual and methodological question facing the field is whether education can be best understood by analyzing global or contextual influences (Crossley & Watson, 2003). Rather than dichotomizing the field in this way it is perhaps more prudent to consider how both global and contextual forces inform education, and the ways that intellectual tensions resulting from these types of debates do little except create barriers that limit the development of new conceptual understandings and ways of studying education comparatively and internationally (Kazamias & Schwartz, 1977). Barriers to intellectual freedom and creative thought relative to comparative and international education theoretical and methodological development do not contribute to the overall progress of the field, unfortunately (Mattheou, 2009). But, do the disputes that often dominate the discussion reflect the majority opinion among scholars and professionals in comparative and international education? Outside of the published literature, it would be difficult to find a scholar or practitioner in comparative and international education who does not believe that both global and contextual forces are simultaneously at play in most, if not all, internationally comparative educational phenomena. However, these agreements are not readily discussed or acknowledged in public spaces or reflected by the majority of the work published in the field (Arnove, Torres, & Franz, 2012). Maintaining the integrity of comparative and international education scholarship requires that scholars and professionals look inward to reflect on the root causes of these tensions to understand who they are as a field and to plot the way forward. This type of intellectual introspection is not new in the field (Farrell, 1979), but what we propose here is a new way of understanding the causes and impacts of these tensions. To engender a more purposeful dialogue concerning the conceptual and methodological divisions in the comparative and international education field, consider the following: 1. The intellectual tensions reflected in comparative and international education literature may be constructed by scholars themselves as an unintended consequence of the field’s intellectual identity crisis. 2. The collective unwillingness of many comparative and international education scholars and professionals to acknowledge their own research biases, which constrains the kinds of conceptual questions they ask and the methods they use.

Introduction to Part 3: Conceptual and Methodological Developments

87

3. Previous attempts to foster conceptual and methodological diversity and respectful, responsible critique makes the comparative and international education field more sustainable and dynamic overall.

PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCE: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL (MIS)UNDERSTANDING IN CIE Scholarly debates concerning conceptual and methodological perspectives have existed in the comparative and international education field since its inception, but accelerated beginning in the 1970s and 1980s along with the purposeful use of social science research paradigms (Bash, 1981; Ramirez & Meyer, 1981; Yang, 1998). The resultant intellectual tensions caused by the diversification of conceptual and methodological frameworks present in the field have accelerated over time and have now hit a critical mass in the literature (Schriewer, 2012). The root of these contentions deserves a closer look. One possible explanation lies in the academic construction of the field itself. For example, comparative and international education, like other education sub-fields, is not (yet) a stand-alone academic discipline but is instead a multidisciplinary (Albach, 1991) and applied field (Crossley & Broadfoot, 1992). Scholars from all walks of intellectual life venture toward comparative and international education because of the ways that formal mass education has shaped economic, political, and social realities worldwide (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). As a result, the field’s composition is very diverse and reflects the training and research orientations of the scholars it represents (Foster, Addy, & Samoff, 2012). To illustrate this point further, it is helpful to consider that scholars carry with them particular conceptual and methodological traditions as a result of their graduate training and specialized experience (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). The conceptual and methodological orientations of social scientists are necessarily different than those used by linguists, philosophers, and historians, for example. Viewing the field this way underscores the persistent preoccupation with agreement on one universal framework through which to compare education internationally and helps illuminate how unrealistic it is to expect conceptual and methodological perspectives to naturally converge. The preoccupation with intellectual agreement and conceptual authority begs an important reflective question for scholars in the comparative and international education field: what would scholarship look like if there was

88

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

an officially sanctioned conceptual and methodological framework in comparative and international education? To address this reflective question one must suspend reality to imagine what the field would look like if all comparative endeavors were approached the same way. It is not important to pick a particular side of this intellectual debate in order to engage in this thought experiment; what is important is that all of the risks involved are considered. If comparative and international scholarship were limited to one conceptual or methodological tradition, the work would eventually stagnate. Scholarship would converge on an accepted number of topics and would perpetuate the same ideas. No new knowledge would be produced, and the field would lack the ability to respond to new social, political, or economic challenges affecting education in communities across the globe. Scholarship would be rooted in a few geographic areas, and the field would return to its early days as an outcrop of area studies. When the problems facing those communities were exhausted in the literature, or ameliorated through the work of a select group of scholars, there would be nowhere left to go. Plainly put, without the intellectual diversity that seems to divide the field at every turn, the field itself would likely cease to exist. Building on this thought experiment, consider a corollary question to imagine the risks associated with developing authority knowledge in comparative and international education: what are the impacts of these tensions on the field’s intellectual future? The intellectual tensions currently dividing the comparative and international education field restrict intellectual freedom and constrain scholars’ abilities to conceive new conceptual and methodological approaches. These divisions are largely due to rampant misunderstanding and misinterpretation of theoretically framed and empirically rigorous work in the field and further contribute to the construction of false dichotomies along the lines of disciplinary research tradition or conceptual and ideological affiliation. The risks to the field of comparative and international education in this regard are grave: if scholars in the field continue to use bully tactics to legitimate their individual intellectual identities, they will ultimately suffocate themselves and others.

FOSTERING AN INTELLECTUAL CULTURE OF INCLUSION IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Despite the differences in research traditions and orientations discussed here and in the chapters in this section on conceptual and methodological

Introduction to Part 3: Conceptual and Methodological Developments

89

developments, the reality is that comparative and international education scholars and professionals find themselves in this field together sometimes struggling to legitimate their own voices, ideas, and positions. Differences in conceptual or methodological perspective do not, however, have to result in intellectual contests of authority as has been seen in the literature over the past few years (Schriewer, 2012). Rather than focusing on these selfperpetuating divisions, the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education fosters reflection and conversation across the community of scholars. This contributes far more to understanding how perceptions of difference may be falsely constructed and use these understandings to overcome some scholars’ preoccupation with achieving conceptual and methodological authority. What members of the comparative and international education community have the responsibility to do is make sure their work – however it is defined – is rigorous and empirical, and does not misrepresent the contributions of other scholars (even when or especially if they disagree) in an attempt to legitimize their own conceptual and methodological understandings. In short, there are many good ideas in the comparative and international education field, and the field’s diversity actually promotes intellectual symbiosis (Wiseman & Baker, 2006). To illustrate this point, reflections on conceptual and methodological developments in comparative and international education must consider the spaces in between macro and micro, global and contextual, intellectual traditions. Without micro-level analyses, macro forces would be left unchallenged and unexamined. The literature would focus exclusively on how global, normative effects shape education without considering the ways resultant policies are co-constructed and contextualized at the local level. Further, without the macro perspective, the study of education would exist in a vacuum and would ignore the robust effect that mass schooling has on the modern world (Baker, forthcoming). In short, both perspectives – the global/macro and the contextual/micro – are needed in our field and construct a symbiotic ecology of scholarship.

REFERENCES Albach, P. G. (1991). Trends in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 35(3), 491–507. Arnove, R. F., Torres, C. A., & Franz, S. (2012). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

90

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Baker, D. P. (forthcoming). The schooled society: The educational transformation of global culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bash, L. (1981). Sociological analysis and comparative education: A brief bibliographical background. International Review of Education, 27(4), 507–516. Crossley, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Comparative and international research in education: Scope, problems and potential. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(2), 99–112. Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and international research in education: Globalization, context and difference. London: Routledge Falmer. Farrell, J. P. (1979). The necessity of comparison in the study of education: The salience of science and the problems with comparability. Comparative Education Review, 23(1), 3–16. Foster, J., Addy, N. A., & Samoff, J. (2012). Crossing borders: Research in comparative and international education. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 711–732. Kazamias, A. M., & Schwartz, K. (1970). Woozles and Wizzles in the methodology of comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 14(3), 255–261. Kazamias, A. M., & Schwartz, K. (1977). Intellectual and ideological perspectives in comparative education: An interpretation. Comparative Education Review, 21(2–3), 153–176. Mattheou, D. (2009). The scientific paradigm in comparative education: The changing educational context and the quest for a new paradigm in comparative education. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (Vol. 22, pp. 59–72). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (1981). Comparative education: Synthesis and agenda. In J. Short (Ed.), The state of sociology: Problems and prospects (pp. 215–238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Schriewer, J. (2012). Editorial: Meaning constellations in world society. Comparative Education, 48(4), 411–422. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2006). The symbiotic relationship between empirical comparative research on education and neo-institutional theory. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Elsevier Science. International Perspectives on Education and Society. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355. Yang, S. K. (1998). Universalization or localization? Issues of knowledge legitimation in comaprative education. Tertium Comparationis, 4(1), 1–9.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION FACING THE NEW POLITICS OF THE OTHERNESS: SOME CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE FIELD Re´gis Malet ABSTRACT This chapter wishes to reiterate the crucial distinction, made by Max Weber as early as 1922, between scientific research and political action, and to recall the principles of separation and mediation from which the comparative and international approach in education sometimes derives. The current policies of education in a globalized world, planned at an international level, tend to euphemize cultural differences, and finally impose a functional and normative approach of what is meaningful, in the education arena. As a matter of fact, the concepts that comprise a language, that are disseminated and become established in a social world, are culturally rooted, though they are borne of history through dynamic and linguistic uses. By neglecting the social and cultural provenance of words and meanings, there is a danger that one can end up with a

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 91–98 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020013

91

92

RE´GIS MALET

comparability based on functional equivalencies alone. The purely instrumental rationality that favors the spread of such frameworks or interpretative models appears indifferent to questions of meaning and culture, apart from being irrational on an axiological level. In keeping with the researcher’s responsibility to mediate, one must promote clarification and mutual understanding, replacing the standardization of words with a strong and critical illumination of the semiotic variations generated by their use. For this to be realized, efforts to challenge and reconceptualize the field deserve sustained theoretical tools promoting the very hermeneutic task of comparative education, in ways that more pertinently bridge a diversity of intellectual, professional, and societal cultures, in the context of a global program of neutralization of differences and otherness. Keywords: Comparative education; politics; conceptual developments; hermeneutics

COMPARING IN EDUCATION – ATTRACTIONS AND CONTEMPORARY DILEMMA International organizations use comparison as an instrument of evaluation, regulation, and political decision making in education. These types of comparisons are directed to the establishment of standards of competencies and skills, and have led to greater policy convergence worldwide. Thus let us underline briefly, by way of introduction, the risk of instrumentalization of comparison in an interventionist context. Weber (1922, 1992) maintained that a persistent tension exists between autonomy and instrumentalization. Educational systems, structures, and organization are exposed to ‘‘inform’’ social fields, the concerns of which are sharply more pragmatic and directed to the decision or the prescription than the scientific research is, a priori. Despite these concerns, comparative education scholars have more and more recourse in international comparison and evaluation in education than ever before. Historically, comparative education scholars have been engaged in scientific cooperation between independent research centers and intergovernmental organizations (OECD). These partnerships contributed to a decisive political jump in the international comparison in education from scientific cooperation to intergovernmental political cooperation (Baye, 2001;

Comparative Education Facing the New Politics of the Otherness

93

Malet, 2005, 2008). The international comparisons produced by the OECD, which aim at measuring the distances on a scale of skills common to various countries, translate their priority objectives which are allocated to the educational systems today, and oppose the principles on which these established themselves and developed. As a result, the cultural transmission by the school is often marginalized. The use of international comparison is strongly governed by interested countries, and carried in a systematic evaluation of the performances and efficiency of national educational systems. The profusion of the international evaluations placed under the aegis of the OECD (PISA, PIRLS) constitutes to be an indicator of how international comparisons are used to evaluate as well as indicate important underlying political stakes. International evaluations have a ‘‘persuasive purpose’’ (Baye, 2001, p. 12) and their wide dissemination has repercussions for national education policy development. However, the results of such evaluations can incite reforms and justify policies and curricula at the country level. The educational performance of rival countries becomes the inescapable reference of the national education policies. In this frame, the use of comparative studies is only to build ‘‘prize lists’’ or league tables (Baudelot & Establet, 2009; Demeuse, 2012). These international surveys are not infallible, nor is the methodology used by scholars exploring these data, and they reflect a ‘‘cultural bias,’’ favoring Anglo-Saxon countries. International and comparative evaluations complement the competitive logic that settled the European nations within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon. As expressed by Baye, ‘‘the work led by the IEA has entered the framework of new comparative inquiries having a clear objective: to direct the debate and the political decisions’’ (2001, p. 21). As Baye suggests, the use of cross-national achievement data in comparative studies of education tends to engender opposition to the epistemological and methodological purposes of comparison in education (Malet, 2008, 2011). What is created is a logic of expertise consumed with identifying ‘‘international educational trends,’’ and mainstream reforms at the risk of evicting cultural variations of schooling. Let’s write it straight: the purpose of the comparative education scholar is no longer to denounce a risk of instrumentalization, but to observe the mediation of international comparisons. This does not darken the results of the studies in comparative education. On the contrary, it increases the reflexive and critical task of comparative education, mainly because the promotion of cultural variations and diversity in educating and schooling is not part of the global political agenda.

94

RE´GIS MALET

KNOWLEDGE FROM THE BORDER Educational comparison involves questioning sameness, otherness, and difference as the organizing principles of scientific investigation. The question of the other and its treatment is at the heart of comparison. Comparative education scholars convey a vision of the world that is influenced by its methods and analyses. Although comparative education shares these tensions with social science disciplines, these practices are applied in a specific way for comparative education. Comparing otherness in relationship to sameness, explains the large variety of scholarship in comparative education. Is comparative education only the accentuation of a scientific project shared by all the human sciences? If we indeed want to put in brackets on what constitutes the international, it is useful to question the epistemological value of comparison from this point of view, and the methodological approach used. The comparative prospect, from the point of view of the research, seems founded on the initial principle of separating otherness from sameness. By definition, this separation implies that the comparison is distinguished from the systematic character of the research knowledge in general.

RELATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE Comparison requires scholars to discover that life, and individual and collective creativity, is first locally embedded, and then nationally located. Only after this can we seek to analyze networks of multiple and complex meanings, interconnected in a widened space, at the national level. The national space indeed remains a very relevant unit of comparison, in spite of its announced decline (Appadurai, 2001; Ohmae, 1995). The nation is obviously producing, by its institutions, by its language, and by its myths, territories, and identity. The fact that it joins a ‘‘geoculture’’ (Wallerstein, 2004) does not sacrifice the production of a ‘‘collective otherness’’ (Anderson, 1996) through nationhood. Nevertheless, the attempt to qualify the comparative project is at the core of social science research, not so much through the concept of nation1 but culture, in the most dynamic sense of the word, untied from any substantialist or spatial perspective. The idea of otherness allows to introduce what constitutes an ide´e-force for comparative ambition, and what von Wright introduced into its definition of the practice of the social sciences, namely the idea of ‘‘participation in a form of life.’’ The core of the

Comparative Education Facing the New Politics of the Otherness

95

comparative practice thus appears to live and lie in this empathic capacity, by which, to resume von Wright, ‘‘the practitioner of the social sciences cannot remain a foreigner with regard to the object which he studies’’ (von Wright, 1971, p. 29). Thus, an intercultural relationship is at the core of comparative education research. If comparing only consisted of characterizing or defining, one would have to deal with a juxtaposition of unique and quasi-organic entities. These ‘‘idiosyncrasies’’ would constitute an insuperable obstacle for the field. The alternative approach, as proposed by Appadurai, ‘‘consider(s) [the culture] as a dimension of the social phenomena, the dimension which takes into account a located and concrete difference’’ (Appadurai, 2001, p. 42). This type of comparative ambition puts the relational and cultural dimensions of education at the heart of its scholarship to unveil human diversity and creativity.

POLITICS OF THE DIFFERENCE To compare means to change point of view. The question of the point of view, central in the comparative approach, helps us to question observed phenomena. Underlying any knowledge production project, the sociohistorical and cultural contexts are integral parts of any scientific task. For the specialist in comparative education, this dimension is all the more salient because it calls for the development of integrative and reflexive capacity.2 These processes help the researcher to work within cultural contexts, social actors, and politics. It is this social anchoring of knowledge that mediates scientific research in comparative education. The task in question is obviously scientific, but it is also political. Comparison aims at seizing the way forms of knowledge in education are referred to in specific politico-cultural contexts, and how the objects of the comparison constitute many social, cultural, and political constructions. To base an epistemological and theoretical plan for comparative education scholarship often hides strategic political interests of another order. The problem of the comparison does not appear to presuppose homogeneity, but to discover and recognize the diverse forms and the complexes of the culturalite´. It is on this mode, drawn by von Wright, of the ‘‘empathic understanding’’ (on 1971, p. 29) that seems to be able to advance comparative education scholarship. In particular, it is this very hermeneutic principle which undertakes the questions of the familiarity and the strangeness of the comparative approach in education.

RE´GIS MALET

96

REFLEXIVITY The inclusive and reflexive qualities of the social sciences marked their institutionalization. This process was already contained in the comprehensive sociology of Max Weber when he expressed the concept of ‘‘explanatory understanding.’’ Within the framework of this ‘‘systematic reflexivity’’ (Giddens, 1994, p. 47), the theory of knowledge can be examined by comparative education scholars. The alternative enters, on one hand, the unveiling of a ‘‘signification in itself,’’ an independent point of view on a phenomenon or an object. However, on the other hand, understanding these phenomena as an empathic observer, does not hold. This auto-reflexive, or meta-reflexive capacity, of social science raises concerns. This transition allows the specialist in comparative education to situate their scientific work either from the point of view of the objectivation (which refers to the fact), or problematization (which refer to the relation) (Taylor, 1985). The social sciences, putting at stake the objection of what they observe, distinguish themselves fundamentally from sciences of the nature. The researcher can assume that the social sciences translate and proceed, in their conceptions and their realizations, an inherent auto-reflexivity. It is exactly this anchoring that enables intercultural comprehension.

CONCLUSION – TOWARD A COMPARATIVE HERMENEUTICS OF THE EDUCATION AND SCHOOL CULTURES Knowledge production in comparative education involves various cultural contexts and constitutes an axis of investigation that has an intercultural relation at the core of its project. This underlines the idea that research knowledge is not neutral but, it is situated and anchored in social spaces. In a scientific context, comparative education can be understood as a strategy to understand educational and school phenomena. It can be an invitation for comparative education scholars to reexamine their approach to the study of educational and school phenomena and the nation-state (Malet, 2008; No´voa & Yariv-Marshal, 2003; Schriewer, 2000). The reconfiguration of the political, cultural, and educational spaces affects and revitalizes the social sciences and is at the core of the production of comparative knowledge. It is in this epistemological perspective that we may contribute in a compared hermeneutic perspective, that comparative education scholars are able to

Comparative Education Facing the New Politics of the Otherness

97

work beyond the superficial phenomena of convergence advanced by the international comparisons of results. In this perspective, the scientific and ethical distanciation process of comparative education researchers aims at not deceiving itself of any naturalite´ (state of nature) or the neutrality of discourse. On the contrary, it assumes a ‘‘language of clarification of the contrasts’’ (Taylor, 1985) which allows scholars to escape ethnocentrism and relativism.

NOTES 1. Lapeyronnie (1993, pp. 31–32) so called back that the identification of the nation to the society and to the culture rests on an implicit postulate which wants that the social life is coextensive at the idea of national territory. The social sciences put indeed at first at the heart of their project, in the positivist Comte filiation, the explanation and the rationalization, and gave themselves for object the Society, Nation-States of which drew the borders. The identification of the space national as exclusive frame of study of comparative education, in its 19th century origins, is understandable at the same time by this postulate, this very contemporanean cultural invention that is the nation (Anderson, 1996), as much as by its co-emergence with the social sciences, which developed at the very moment of the constitution and identification process of Etats-nations in Europe during the 19th century (Schriewer, 1997). 2. Considering the linguistic factor, the notion of translation is understood here in an articulation between its most common signification, that is, the one who indicates the action to make whether what is expressed in a language has to be in the other one, by aiming at the semantic and meaning equivalence of both statements, and its less common signification, although from now on regularly explored, which was proposed by Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. These indicate by this term the process, in four phases, by which the world is integrated at first, seized by researchers, then socializes in a community widened by search, and finally restored to the world (Callon, Lascoumes, & Barthe, 2001).

REFERENCES Anderson, B. (1996). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, 1983, Traduit de l’anglais par Pierre-Emmanuel Dauzat. Paris: La De´couverte. Appadurai, A. (2001). Apre`s le colonialisme. Les conse´quences culturelles de la globalisation. Paris: Payot. Pre´face de Marc Abe´le`s. Baudelot, C., & Establet, R. (2009). L’e´litisme re´publicain. L’e´cole franc- aise a` l’e´preuve des comparaisons internationales. Paris: Seuil. Baye, A. (2001). Evaluations internationales: les enjeux du jour et de l’histoire. Cahiers du Service de Pe´dagogie expe´rimentale, 7(8), 11–23. Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la de´mocratie technique. Paris: Le Seuil.

98

RE´GIS MALET

Demeuse, M. (2012). Des coulisses des e´valuations internationales a` leur influence. Education Compare´e n1 7. Giddens, A. (1994). Les Conse´quences de la modernite´. Paris: L’Harmattan. Lapeyronnie, D. (1993). L’Individu et les minorite´s. Paris: PUF. Malet, R. (2005). De l’Etat-Nation a` l’espace-monde. Les conditions historiques du renouveau de l’e´ducation compare´e. Note de synthe`se. Carrefours de l’e´ducation, 19, 165–188. Malet, R. (2008). La Formation des enseignants compare´e. Berne: Peter Lang. Malet, R. (2011). Frontie`res, traduction et les politiques de la diffe´rence: la taˆche herme´neutique de l’e´ducation compare´e. Revue Internationale d’Education, 57(3–4), 319–335. No´voa, A., & Yariv-Marshal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey. Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438. Ohmae. (1995). The end of the nation-state. London: Harper Collins. Schriewer, J. (1997). L’e´ducation compare´e: mise en perspective d’un champ de recherche. Revue Franc- aise de Pe´dagogie, 121, 9–28. Schriewer, J. (2000). Discourse formation in comparative education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers. Human agency and language (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Wallerstein, I. (2004). Comprendre le monde. Introduction a` l’analyse des syste`mes-monde. Paris: La De´couverte. Weber, M. (1992). Essais sur la the´orie de la science. [Gesammelte Aufsa¨tze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 1922] Traduit de l’allemand par Julien Freund. Paris: Pocket.

SHIFTING THE DISCOURSE ON NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Alexander W. Wiseman and Audree Chase-Mayoral ABSTRACT Neo-institutional theory has provided a productive perspective on comparative and international education phenomena since the 1970s. Yet, recent critical discourse about educational phenomena investigated through a neo-institutional lens has been somewhat one-sided. The authors reexamine neo-institutional theory and its application to comparative and international education by demonstrating the ways that the theory frames both macro- and micro-level educational phenomena. The ability to shift the discourse about neo-institutional theory from a largely macro-level framework to one capable of investigating educational changes occurring at the micro level is vital to understanding the comprehensiveness of national educational systems and the ways that both world culture and individual agency contribute to these systems. Specifically, using the empirical application of neo-institutional theory to the intersection of information and communication technology (ICT) and internationally comparative educational data, the macro and micro

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 99–126 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020014

99

100

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

levels of educational phenomena can be productively examined. In so doing, this chapter shifts the discourse on how and why neo-institutional theory reflects cross-national educational trends and micro-contextual effects on education worldwide. Keywords: Comparative and international education; neo-institutional theory; information and communication technology (ICT); mass education; theoretical discourse

Institutional theories about education have themselves become a global phenomenon, and are particularly prevalent in the field of comparative and international education (Wiseman & Baker, 2006). Even though research framed by new institutional perspectives originally focused on the expansion and institutionalization of mass education, the theoretical and empirical work being done from institutional perspectives has expanded in the 21st century to include tertiary levels of educational attainment and multiple conceptions of what comprises mass schooling both nationally and internationally (Baker & Lenhardt, 2008; Schofer & Meyer, 2005). Since 1977, new or neo-institutional theory has remained flexible enough to accommodate informal and nonformal modes of education in investigations of mass schooling as well (Meyer, 1977, 2000). Although institutional frameworks for much empirical research on education in the sociology of education and comparative education fields began by investigating the worldwide education revolution (i.e., expansion of mass education systems around the world) over time these frameworks have been used to investigate organizational culture in schools and educational systems (Buchmann & Charles, 1995; Ingersoll, 2002; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), the alignment of expectations about the form and operation of schools worldwide (Scott & Meyer, 1994), and the empirical measurement of nontechnical school effects (Wiseman, Astiz, Fabrega, & Baker, 2010; Wiseman & Baker, 2006). And, the contribution that neo-institutional theory has made to comparative and international education research continues to increase over time, which is why empirical applications of neo-institutional theory to comparative and international education research deserve a closer investigation. Neo-institutional theory represents a distinctive approach to the study of social, economic, political, and educational phenomena, yet it presents its own set of ambiguities (Wiseman, Astiz, & Baker, 2013). Even within

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

101

organization theory, scholars of institutional theory vary in their emphasis on micro and macro features and in the weight they place on cultural and normative aspects of institutions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Yet, it has ‘‘become increasingly difficult to deny that an institutional theory of education is a productive perspective offering new ways to examine education and its influence on modern society’’ (Wiseman & Baker, 2006, p. 1). Still, evidence-based critical examinations of any theory are always helpful. The continuing application of neo-institutional theory to the field of comparative and international education suggests that a fresh examination of the theory should take into account the dual forces of globalization and contextualization because they emphasize the dichotomy that some critics claim exists between micro and macro phenomena when framed by neoinstitutional theory. The neo-institutional theoretical framework is not limited to only examining forces of educational or institutional change from a macro perspective, as some critics have suggested, but is useful for examining both micro- and multilevel phenomenon. The arguments and evidence below provide a nuanced approach to neo-institutional theory in comparative education using examples of how the theory frames the shifting impact of micro-level contextualized factors on macro-level phenomena. Specifically, the examples used to highlight this shift are a result of the global expansion of information and communication technology (ICT) in education and the global availability of internationally comparative data on education through ICT. In short, the empirical application of neo-institutional theory is not as exclusively macro as is often assumed and asserted by critics, but rather accommodates the multidirectional influence of both macro-level phenomena and micro-level individuals and situations.

BRIDGING GLOBALIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION WITH ICT The expansion of ICT, broadly defined, provides a rationale and evidence that neo-institutional theory and its empirical application bridge the micro and macro levels of education as an institution. But, it also shows that this neo-institutional bridge between the micro and macro may need to be refined to some degree. As individuals and institutional actors become more accustomed to comparative information being readily available, the more normative isomorphism becomes the key to neo-institutional explanations

102

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

of education from international and comparative perspectives. Isomorphism is ‘‘a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 160), and does not mean homogenization as much as it means the development of shared expectations and activities. To clarify further, the term ‘‘normative isomorphism’’ is the gradual change of a phenomenon through the subtle and constant reshifting of action, idea, expectation, item, or intent to align with either the environmental context or expectation in which the phenomenon is situated. So, if empirical research related to the development of shared expectations and organizational structures is investigated or tracked, we can find a more relevant empirical evidence-base for the phenomenon of isomorphism, which is a key component of neo-institutional theory and its empirical application to understand both globalization and contextualization effects. The larger discourse surrounding the importance and impact of globalization and contextualization adds an additional dimension to the development and application of neo-institutional theory in comparative education. Globalization is the phenomenon most commonly associated with neo-institutional theory and the empirical research that it frames, but the importance of contextualization is not and should not be abandoned. Globalization has a host of potential meanings ranging from the passive to the active across a variety of topics and contexts (Astiz, Wiseman, & Baker, 2002). It is perhaps the extreme variation in political interpretations of the effects of globalization that lead to some of the controversial interpretations of neo-institutional theory and its application to comparative and international educational phenomena. The larger discourse of globalization and contextualization sheds new light on neo-institutional theory in comparative and international education. Globalization is a multidimensional concept and one that is difficult to quantify. Osterhammel and Petersson (2005) assert that there are other methods to investigate the world than ‘‘from above.’’ They conclude that even in the most remote villages, long-range interaction occurs in the cultural, religious, and educational realms. Thus, it is sometimes more intriguing to examine the actions of individuals rather than studying the entirety of the world (Osterhammel & Petersson, 2005). Yet, the widely subjective nature of contextualization makes it even more difficult to interpret from comparative and international perspectives. Contextualization often is taken to mean the factors that uniquely and constantly impact any phenomenon because they are embedded in the community and environment where, for example, actual education

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

103

takes place. Indeed, the role of micro-level individual behaviors in the study of education cannot and should not be ignored any more than the influence of macro-level organizational or institutional structures (Miles, 1980). However, the micro-context, which has often been held up as an exception to macro-level normative isomorphism is in many ways normative itself. In addition, the micro-context can arguably not exist without the macro-level contextual influences and vice versa. There is emerging evidence from comparative education research to support the assertion that in many instances the micro level is pushing the normative macro level of educational institutionalization (Astiz, 2006; Beech, 2006). To liberate discussions of neo-institutional theory and its empirical application from criticisms that would frame it exclusively as a macro-level approach with little relevance to micro-level processes or contexts, comparative and international educational evidence is needed to show that neo-institutional theory is also useful as a tool for investigating the micro-level impact on macro-level educational phenomena. Some have argued that there are global (macro) political forces at work that drive more nationally as well as locally (micro) implemented policies, utilizing the phenomenon of educational borrowing as an example of this (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). For example, as schools, teachers, and even individual students in educational systems around the world have more access and become more accustomed to internationally comparative educational information being readily available, the more their own behaviors, performance, and expectations align or overlap (Wiseman & Baker, 2005). In particular, the availability and use of ICT to inform and communicate with individual students and teachers about education in their own communities as well as around the world is one of the methods through which this micro-driven isomorphic development of mass education occurs. With the ability that individuals have to communicate via the Internet and social media tools, including creating web sites promoting their own social media agendas, many now have the ability to share individual opinions and state unique agendas via ICT. This capability is spreading worldwide as ICT increasingly becomes the tool of individuals to possess a global voice. The global expansion of ICT in homes and classrooms is the driving force behind the micro-revolution leading to shifts in comparative and international education research as well as formal schooling and mass education phenomena around the world. Access to ICT is certainly not universal, but there is an increasingly accepted expectation that information can or should be able to be obtained at any level. Because of that global expectation of access, especially due to international pressure on national education

104

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

systems to provide increased access as specified in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2000 or the Education for All goals outlined by UNESCO in the 1990s, it is inevitable that information about individuals, schools, and educational systems will be compared to others (Drori, 2006; Irfan, 2008). So, while there is a link between the macro- and the micro-level approaches to examining any aspect of comparative and international education, Bray and Thomas (1995) advocate the importance of a multilevel analysis of comparative research. They state that most comparative education scholars tend to have a good understanding of macro-level phenomenon, but they are less comfortable with tools and perspectives of researchers working at the micro level. Furthermore, they conclude that ‘‘research requires multilevel comparative analysis in order to achieve a full and balanced understanding of its subjects’’ (Bray & Thomas, 1995, p. 488). In other words, while a dichotomy between micro- and macro-level approaches – both theoretical and empirical – is not the most appropriate approach to understanding comparative and international educational phenomena, there remains an imperative to compare educational phenomena at the individual (i.e., micro) as well as the institutional (i.e., macro) levels. This comparative imperative, therefore, is both global (i.e., macro) and uniquely contextualized (i.e., micro) with information about individual student achievement, for example, being used to make policy decisions at the national system level, and information about the quality or characteristics of national systems being used to make evaluative predictions about the potential of individuals to participate in and productively contribute to the national labor market. In other words, the global/macro and the contextual/micro levels impact one another. They serve as symbiotic spheres of influence. Yet none of the micro-level phenomena can perfectly fit the macro-level expectations and none of the macro-level phenomenon can perfectly fit the micro-level expectations. So, there is usually some degree of mismatch – or what neo-institutional theorists, organizational and administrative scientists, and others call ‘‘loose coupling’’ (Weick, 1976) – that occurs as a result of the worldwide expansion and accessibility of educational data using ICT. To complicate matters, Drori (2006, p. 100) asserts, ‘‘ICT globalization is a classic case of loose coupling between policy and practice.’’ She points out that ICT policies are initiated across the globe, but ‘‘policies are divorced from local conditions’’ (Drori, 2006, p. 100). Nonetheless, these symbiotic spheres of influence resulting from the massive expansion of educational information and accessibility contribute to several factors that lead to these

105

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

mismatches, but also that demonstrate the ways that neo-institutional theory can and is used to frame both theoretical and empirical investigations of comparative and international educational phenomena at the micro and macro levels. To summarize, these five factors are: (1) the comparative imperative, (2) shared expectations, (3) normative isomorphism, (4) microto-macro impact, and (5) individual level agency. The idea that there is a strong link between macro- and micro-level phenomena is not a new one. Reimagining the Boudon–Coleman diagram developed by Jepperson and Meyer (2011), explores the possibility of direct causal linkages of educational norms, institutions, and individual behavior through ICT. As Fig. 1 shows, there is a symbiotic relationship between the macro level of globalization pressure and educational norms and the micro level of individual motivations and behavior that is facilitated by contextual elements in society, the economy, and relevant institutions, such as mass education. At the macro level, transformational mechanisms that connect globalization pressures to educational norms consist of expectations about the content and application of education to normative structures, policies, and activities in schools and classrooms around the world. At the micro level, situational mechanisms facilitate the motivations and behavior that individuals display and the ways that these motivations and behaviors connect and respond to one another. While the examples of ICT and international education data below will bring these contextualized and

Globalization Pressure

ICT-based access to global educational data

Situational mechanisms

Educational Norms

Individual Motivations

Classroom-level ICT-based instruction MICRO-LEVEL

Fig. 1.

MACRO-LEVEL

Transformational mechanisms Individual Behavior

Boudon–Coleman Diagram Reimagined Using ICT and Education.

106

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

dual-level mechanisms to life, the point of this figure and its discussion is that the instigation of action and norms finds its origin in both the micro and macro levels. The framework that neo-institutional theory provides is adaptable to both scenarios even if most of the empirical research applying a neo-institutional framework has been more macro- than micro-focused overall. The shift in neo-institutional perspectives on micro- and macro-level educational phenomena, therefore, hinges on the direction or fluidity of influence between these two levels. Contextualization as a product of or contingent on individual agency has already become a normative expectation in the sociology of education, for example, where micro-level phenomena are expected to push or at least align with macro-level phenomena (Davies, 1990; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Fuchs, 2001; Gubrium & Holstein, 1995; Willmott, 1999). Indeed, the role of individual behaviors cannot be ignored in the study of education any more than the influence of larger organizational structure can be ignored (Miles, 1980). According to Meyer and Ramirez (2003), diffusion of expectations and scripts, and the resultant isomorphism, characterize basic educational structures, including formal curricular content in mass education worldwide. But, the whole process and transfer of micro-phenomena to macro-level expectations begins with the comparative imperative.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPARATIVE IMPERATIVE There is an imperative to compare in educational policymaking, reform, and application, which makes the field of international comparative education much more relevant and important to educational research and decision-making worldwide than it ever has been before. This ‘‘comparative imperative’’ is evident at both macro and micro levels of educational decision-making, teaching, and learning because it is the backbone of the educational process. Educators at all levels teach concepts and ideas by not only showing or demonstrating to students what a particular concept is, but also by showing or demonstrating what it is not (Cook, Hite, & Epstein, 2004; Epstein, 1994). In this way, comparison has become a necessary component of education around the world. The comparative imperative also suggests that the need for comparison is not limited to macro-level policy borrowing, which many have documented (e.g., Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Part of the rationale behind neo-institutional

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

107

theory is that the Western idea of the importance of the individual has permeated societal and organizational cultures worldwide (Ramirez & Boli, 1987), even in cultures and communities that are otherwise not inclined to this perspective. This is one of the reasons that neo-institutional theorists consider the global expansion of mass education a ‘‘triumph’’ (Baker & LeTendre, 2005) – not because the worldwide spread of mass education meant that Western ideology was somehow right or better than other ideologies, but because it spread worldwide in spite of its irrelevance or inaccurate fit with indigenous cultures and local communities. However, an emphasis on individuals instead of the group or community leads inexorably to individual-level comparisons from student-to-student, teacher-to-teacher, and principal-to-principal in the educational context. This can be seen in the use of student rankings and publicly posted examination results in many of the highest achieving or most traditional school systems. Some examples include both Japan and England where individual scores are posted and reported with the intention of using this comparison as a motivating factor for individuals (Bradley, Johnes, & Millington, 2001; Rohlen, 1983; Rohlen & LeTendre, 1996), and in some instances a way for individuals to know what those who performed at the highest versus the lowest levels look and act like. Whatever the reason, the shared expectations that result from micro-level individual comparisons mimic the results of macro-level comparisons. Shared expectations are a product of the comparative imperative, and these shared expectations are not just shared from individual-to-individual or school-to-school, but are shared worldwide among individuals, organizations, and global institutions. Of course, due largely in part to the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights, and later the MDGs, there is the now ubiquitous expectation that education is a right, is free, is relevant to school-age children, and is necessary for healthy societies, political systems, and economies (Drori, 2006). This expectation is rapidly becoming the global norm and the comparative imperative is worth highlighting since it drives and maintains this norm. These expectations are taken for granted worldwide, even when the actual conditions and contexts of implemented education may not reflect these ideals. Loose coupling suggests that shared expectations do not automatically mean shared action or implementation of these expectations at either the macro or micro levels, but the rhetoric (even when it remains rhetoric, however briefly or long) is significant – especially when this rhetoric was previously impossible or suppressed. The importance of public rhetoric (i.e., discourse) regarding these shared expectations resulting from the comparative imperative is also worth

108

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

highlighting because of the impact it has both in terms of comparison as well as shaping the policy and application of education across contexts, cultures, and levels of each. Take the example of formal education for girls and women worldwide. There are many places around the world where gender inequality not only persists, but is becoming increasingly exacerbated (Lewis & Lockheed, 2007). However, in spite of this evidence there is an increasingly shared expectation of gender equality around the world, which is evident even in the discourse unique to those communities and educational systems where complete gender segregation persists both in school and society (Wiseman, 2008). The persistence of gender inequality in schools and society, in other words, does not limit the increasingly shared expectation for gender equality even when there is a large disconnect with actual educational practice, labor market opportunities, and community contexts. Throughout most of human history, it was the shared expectation in societies worldwide – even those societies that called themselves democratic and enlightened – that women were second class citizens if they were afforded citizenship at all (Collins, Chafetz, Blumberg, Coltrane, & Turner, 1993). This can still be seen in examples of women’s property rights, social roles, political citizenship, and human rights in countries and communities around the world, and how gender equality in education is an ongoing struggle (Baker & Wiseman, 2009). Yet now there is an increasingly shared expectation that girls and women worldwide have the right to an education. Ironically, this right to education often coincides with the expectation that they are also citizens of a community with rights and responsibilities equal to or approaching equality with men. The paradox is that there is ample evidence that women’s full rights have not been achieved worldwide (Lewis & Lockheed, 2007), but the phenomenon of interest is that an expectation and universally shared discourse about women’s rights and education has arisen in every place that mass education exists around the world (Baker & Wiseman, 2009). Even though action does not always follow or mirror the discourse, normative isomorphism is a process that goes beyond simple rhetoric. For example, countries where women’s rights are and have been traditionally limited are increasingly providing equitable education to both boys and girls (Wiseman, Baker, Riegle-Crumb, & Ramirez, 2009). This is a phenomenon that is rapidly developing worldwide and serves as an example of how global discourse and the comparative imperative together bridge the micro and macro levels. This phenomenon cannot be dismissed simply because there are processes that are isomorphic (i.e., take time to bring about change).

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

109

That critique is much too simplistic. But, there are more areas that can and should be highlighted to track any shifts in neo-institutional theory. The large evidence-base for these considerations of normative isomorphism between and across micro and macro levels through shared expectations and common educational structures provides enough of a foundation to assert that a neo-institutional perspective is useful for understanding much of education worldwide. Yet, there are still concerns about the ability of neo-institutional perspectives to embrace the micro-level changes and exceptions, which occur constantly in educational systems around the world. This means that the methodology, which is associated with neo-institutional theory and the empirical research developed using a neo-institutional framework, could be reimagined from a more micro-perspective.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Empirical research framed by neo-institutional theory has tended to favor large-scale, cross-national, cross-sectional, or time-series analyses over other less quantitative or more micro-level analyses. These macro-level, quantitative methods empirically capture the impact of macro-level processes, and tend to miss (or at worst ignore) micro-level influences on these same phenomena that are investigated at the macro level. It should be noted that there are empirical studies using qualitative research from institutional perspectives (e.g., Gross, 2011), but the importance of micro-level functions is still not the focus of studies framed by neo-institutional theory as much as the macro-trends that are tracked. One concern critics of neo-institutional theory have is that the methods employed by empirical researchers adopting a neo-institutional perspective seem to drive the theory instead of the theory driving the methods (Schriewer, 2000a, 2000b). Indeed, the macro-origins of neo-institutionalbased research are empirically necessary to investigate global phenomena, but critics argue that comparative and international education macrophenomena have been researched through a neo-institutional lens since the 1970s with little shift in the dominant macro-quantitative methodological approach. For example, large cross-national datasets have been the basis for empirical work framed by neo-institutional theory since the late 1970s, and even in the early 21st century still seems to be a frequent basis for neoinstitutional methodology. Of course, this methodological focus should not

110

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

be too surprising since a key research question many researchers using neo-institutional frameworks ask deal with global or cross-national trends, which are perhaps best answered using cross-national, large-scale data. Yet, the ability of neo-institutional theory to help researchers synthesize rather than dichotomize research in international comparative education, by level and method of analysis, has not been fully explored. In fact, neoinstitutional theory provides a relevant framework for synthesizing macroand micro-level, agency-driven and normative arguments, and globalization as well as contextualization phenomena in education worldwide. It is difficult sometimes, though, to identify the elements of neo-institutional theory and education that are appropriate for micro-level investigation. This is because, according to much neo-institutional theory-inspired work related to international comparative education (Meyer, 2006), mass schooling arose in conjunction with the rise of, and is organized by, the nation-state (Ramirez, 1997). Further, ‘‘this tight coupling between statehood and education has become dominant even on a world societal level’’ and is a ‘‘taken-for-granted condition’’ (Leuze et al., 2008, p. 1). However, building on the ‘‘myth of the individual’’ (Ramirez & Boli, 1987), the evidence from comparative and international education research demonstrates that individuals are increasingly perceived as members of the global society both by others and by themselves. With this perception comes an additionally perceived need to reorganize national society around notions of individual citizens embedded in both their nations and communities as well as within a world society. So, even the dual identity of national or community citizenship and global citizenship is a phenomenon that neo-institutional theory has been used to frame (Wiseman et al., 2010). While individual cases may not be the advantage of neo-institutional theory-inspired research, the theory does provide a framework that is amenable to looking at phenomena both across and between cases. This is, therefore, one way that the empirical application of neo-institutional theory has shifted over time. The theory has shifted in terms of how the phenomenon and institutionalization of education is understood as well. Even though early research framed by neo-institutional theory often focused on government-sponsored national education systems as representative of mass education, the discourse has increasingly transformed into expanded levels of educational attainment and concepts of what comprises mass schooling or the educational institution (e.g., Fuller & Rubinson, 1992; Schofer & Meyer, 2005; Suarez, Ramirez, & Koo, 2009). For example, the idea that mass

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

111

schooling includes informal and nonformal modes of education – like ‘‘shadow education’’ – is now thoroughly embraced as part of an institutional understanding of education (Baker, Akiba, LeTendre, & Wiseman, 2001; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Further, the definition has moved toward ideas about mass curricula, driven by increasingly similar needs of individual learners, no matter what their nation state (Benavot, Cha, Kamens, Meyer, & Wong, 1991). ‘‘As a consequence, education has become a ‘normative good’ of the modern state’’ (Leuze et al., 2008, p. 1), but also an expected right of the individual, thanks, in large part to macro-level mechanisms of the United Nations such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, UNESCO’s Education for All initiative starting in 1990, and the UN’s MDGs of 2000. Early in the development of sociological neo-institutionalism, several forms of isomorphism were identified as catalysts for change: coercive, mimetic, and normative (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Jepperson, 2002). These catalysts can be described in terms of how national education systems reform educational policy and practice, for example. The coercive method is easy enough to define and understand using examples from international comparative education. Perhaps an international organization coerces a nation or system to adopt an educational policy or a government forces its educational system to comply with a ‘‘best practices’’ model from another national system perceived to be high performing. Oftentimes, global forces dictate this sort of change. There are also instances of mimickry when it comes to national educational system policy and practice. One example of mimetic adaption is when one country likes what another is doing so much that policymakers or educators in that country actively mimic the educational policies and practices borrowed from an external national education system. Both coercive and mimetic isomorphism have been noted as potential forms of isomorphism influenced by the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Murphy, 2010; Wiseman, 2013). Yet, for all of the attention paid to coercive and mimetic approaches to educational change, there is little critical discussion of the impact that normative isomorphism has. Instead, most of the critical discourse related to normative isomorphism confounds isomorphism with homogenization (Wiseman et al., 2013). This is a mistake because normative isomorphism is the sleeping giant of education change, partly because it is taken for granted rather than overtly re cognized. One way to reveal the effects of normative isomorphism is to investigate the global ICT phenomenon.

112

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

THE GLOBAL ICT PHENOMENON AS NORMATIVE ISOMORPHISM One of the factors contributing to the explosion of educational information around the world is the advent and rapid development of information and communication technologies worldwide. As described above, the 20th century was characterized by a massive expansion of educational information and accessibility. A more educational information becomes available, there is more access to this information worldwide, and this information is more cross-nationally comparative than at any other time in the history of educational data collection and use. Technology can and has been broadly interpreted throughout the course of human history. Kofi Annan, in a speech at the 2003 World Summit on Information Society said (Drori, 2006, p. 87), The liberating and democratizing power of information is as old as the Rosetta Stone or Gutenberg Press. What is new today are the technologies that are dramatically accelerating its global dissemination. These technologies are a tremendous force for creating opportunities, and for integrating people and nations into a global economy.

With the widespread availability of technology in the 21st century, there is a global expectation that educational information about any system in the world is always available, even if this expectation is not always carried through or personally available to each individual around the world. Even if universal access exists, not everyone has the preparation, tools, or understanding to use the technology that makes this global educational information available. Nonetheless, the promise of access to ICT, whether realized or idealized, is the theoretical key for nations to achieve shared expectations and global realities. Eastern Asia, from the years 1965 to 1990 grew faster economically than any other part of the world. While this growth was enormously beneficial to the major Asian nations of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, other nations such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia thrived economically as well. However, this technology has not filtered to less affluent East Asian nations such as Laos and Bhutan. These countries still are experiencing the digital divide with less access particularly in rural areas (Drori, 2006). There is, however, the shared expectation that, at some point in time, these areas will become more connected to ICT to further their economic and educational growth. Again there is the situation where even though the rhetoric may not match the reality, there is still intent and relative opportunity for agency to rest with individuals through

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

113

technological mediums. It is only through time and a more equitable distribution of resources for ICT infrastructure, equipment, access, and use (i.e., isomorphism) that communities in both more and less well-resourced countries will be able to more tightly couple their ICT rhetoric and expectations to real ICT availability and use. As ICT becomes institutionalized, or more prevalent and taken-forgranted, in countries and classrooms around the world, it creates shared digital communication experiences among students in more and more countries. This happens as students learn the basics of operating a computer, the parts of a computer, basic programs, as well as how to communicate through e-mail, instant messaging, and texting – often as part of their formal curriculum or learning resources in schools. An intriguing example of this is the ‘‘One Laptop Per Child’’ (OLPC) initiative begun in 2005, and based in Boston, MA, that seeks to put ICT in the hands of children in underprivileged nations. Education figures prominently in the mission of OLPC (2011), which states that (1) across the developing world, education systems need to change dramatically to prepare their children for the modern world; (2) children (and adults) learn best when they are actively involved in the learning process; and (3) involved teachers, relevant content, and appropriate technology can facilitate both educational change and learning motivation. Initiatives like OLPC, therefore, suggest that learning through ICT is a phenomena of both globalization and contextualization. If governments and independent foundations are providing laptops for learning and increasing access to ICT (wherever and however possible), the macro-level institutionalized policies and resources of a national educational system provide learning tools at the micro level to individual students in local classrooms. But, how does this process bridge macro and micro levels, and how does normative isomorphism play a part? And, finally and more importantly, how has or can the discourse on neo-institutional theory shifted to address these questions?

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL DATA AND INFORMATION LITERACY There is empirical research applying a neo-institutional framework that bridges the gap between the macro and micro levels of how educational processes are ‘‘normalized.’’ That is not to say that individual cultures, languages, politics, and other local factors are ignored and unaccounted for,

114

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

but rather that empirical research conducted from a neo-institutional perspective addresses deeper issues than has been formerly assumed. Access to information worldwide is bridging this gap and is helping to redefine and reimagine how neo-institutional theory can be applied to both macro- and micro-level phenomena. The increasing access to comparative data is a shared expectation by educational and policy researchers worldwide and this fact in itself is an example of cross-national isomorphism. While not entirely the panacea for comparativists, ICT is a major key to gaining widespread access to this educational information for both individuals and institutions. There is ample evidence from comparative and international education research that ‘‘most activities in the educational development field are characterized by a scientific outlook that schooling can be transformed using measurable and generalizable knowledge, and most of its leaders believe that experts can transport this knowledge internationally across diverse contexts’’ (Bromley, 2010, p. 577). This is obviously a characterization of what the expectations are worldwide, even though the reality of educational development worldwide varies considerably. Some have argued that international education data is a tool used by elites to pursue their own agendas without considering the needs or input of individual actors (Murphy, 2010; Spaulding & Chaudhuri, 1999), however, this argument ignores the individual agent and assumes only passive reception of top-down policies by local teachers, students, and communities. So, the arguments and expectations at either end of the spectrum are unrealistic. The question, then, is what are the expectations for ICT and international education data, and where do they come from? One way to understand the context of international education data collection and use is to consider the initial expectations of those who began the international achievement assessment phenomena, which has grown into one of the largest and most available sources of educational data worldwide. Eckert (2008, p. 208), for example, points out that, The founders of the IEA [International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement] wanted to see the world of education as a single laboratory. This did not mean that education was uniform or that identical principles or intervention strategies would emerge. Instead, they were energized by the possibility that people could learn by looking at themselves through information systematically collected from around the world.

While the historical use of empirical data to assess worldwide trends in education began at a higher policy-making level, current use of statistical

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

115

data has become more focused on a detailed, more individual level (Smith & Baker, 2001). The development and dissemination of cross-national comparative education data has helped to develop a transnational educational space within which educational policy and practice is both compared to and dictated by shared expectations for education and its contribution to the information society, labor market, and social community (Ioannidou, 2007). In many ways, the impact of internationally comparative education data does not hinge on whether all countries in the world individually participate in international education assessments or not; the most influential element is the availability of internationally comparative information about education in those countries that do participate. However, as more and more national systems of education do participate, the capacity for largescale educational assessment and evidence-based policymaking using the resulting data from these assessments is developed worldwide (Naumann, 2005). These policies and data applications are aimed both at developing the national education system as well as the individual actors that comprise the systems, such as teachers and students (Puryear, 1995), however, there is often resistance from individual teachers and students when it comes to being evaluated on global rather than locally-contextualized criteria and benchmarks. The examination of cross-national data not only plays a complex role in assessing the worlds’ economies, but it has become a taken-for-granted component of national educational policy-making (Carvalho, 2009; Eckert, 2008). Large amounts of cross-national educational data are now collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), and other multinational organizations (DeBoer, 2010). There are many accounts of both overlap and competition between these multinational organizations (Cusso, 2006), but the abundance of cross-national data means that even more information is available for both policymaking and agenda-setting at the national and local levels. Recent empirical research shows that the frame of reference used to make nation-level educational policy and decisions varies by regional and world contexts depending on a country’s political and economic agendas (Grek & Ozga, 2009). As with the other international assessment organizations like the IEA and OECD, evidence suggests that UNESCO’s education-related activity is a combination of both political agenda and technical data and policy development (Burnett, 2011; Spaulding & Chaudhuri, 1999). As early as 1974, the formal goals of UNESCO’s statistical office were created

116

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

(Frederiksen, 1982; Heyneman, 1999). They are as follows (Board on International Comparative Studies in Education, 1995, p. 10):  to collect, compile, analyze, and disseminate education statistics;  to maintain the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED);  to improve and expand data collection on science and technology;  to expand collection and improve the quality of data on culture and communication and to standardize statistics on radio and television;  to expand the educational data bank and publications (with an emphasis on financing and higher education); and  to provide assistance to member states for the development of statistical services. In the early 1990s, most national educational systems did not have the infrastructure to conduct rigorous large-scale educational studies or assessments (Chabbott & Elliott, 2003). It is only through working with supra-national groups such as the OECD, IEA, and UIS that countries were and are able to collect empirical educational data to compare the overall impact of their educational policies on indicators of educational access, achievement, and opportunity. Although high-level data and policy recommendations are not readily linked to local conditions because of the silo-like environment at UNESCO itself (Benavot, 2011), the potential for UNESCO’s educational activities to penetrate the local conditions and challenges of communities worldwide is in part due to the internally divided structural conditions of the organization as a whole. For example, while data collection and analysis is not implicitly stated as one of UNESCO’s primary goals, the Institute for Statistics was established within UNESCO at the beginning of the 21st century (Smith & Baker, 2001). The UIS has become an influential element of educational decision- and policy-making in spite of the fact that it, like other international comparative educational data resources, is relatively underfunded and underutilized by most educational researchers, policymakers, and educators (Chabbott & Elliott, 2003; Heyneman, 2011). The UIS produces fact sheets on key policy issues to identify trends in areas such as: education; literacy; science and technology; culture; and communication (UIS web site: http://www.uis. unesco.org/FactSheets/Pages/ScienceTech.aspx). But, its most influential activity is that the UIS provides comparative statistics on a number of issues, including science, technology, and most importantly education for more than 200 countries. In fact, ICT is used in both developed and developing

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

117

countries, and the estimated trend is toward growth in the use of ICT regardless of resources or global status (James, 2009). There is no established world policy regarding the use of ICT-foreducation, except for UNESCO’s policies (Castro & Alves, 2007), yet it continues to grow in use in schools worldwide, despite discrepancies in how the technology is used. As information and communication technologies become increasingly prevalent in schools and classrooms around the world, students’ and teachers’ motivation to seek and find information through methods other than ICT-based ones diminishes (Weiler, 2008). In other words, as more individuals are trained or taught to use technology as the tool for becoming information literate, the more likely they are to rely on ICT-based information resources. As a consequence, the availability of internationally comparative education data through ICT resources means that the types of information about education that are readily available to and preferred by individuals are cross-nationally comparative as well. The value of humans in terms of their labor market and social potential is often measured in terms of ICT ability and the capability of individuals to create, manage, and disseminate information (Atak & Erturgut, 2010; Hosgorur & Bilasa, 2009). Evidence increasingly shows that the digital divide between those who are native to technology versus those who are new to information technologies is not as great as other evidence suggests (Waycott, Bennett, Kennedy, Dalgarno, & Gray, 2010). In addition, ‘‘the information and communication divide is not defined as much by the economic status of a geographic location as it is by an individual user’s educational background’’ (Dutta, 2009, p. 44). This means that local contexts and individualized conditions are better predictors in many instances of ICT-for-education and the access and application of internationally comparative education data. This may be in part due to the fact that ICT is increasingly used in classrooms worldwide to develop critical thinking and application capacity of abstract concepts to real-world situations (Aydede, Kecercioglu, & Arabacioglu, 2009). So, it is not only national-level policymakers who use international comparative education data or ICT as tools and foundations for decisionmaking. Individual students, classroom teachers, and local school principals are also plugged into the Internet and have access to technologies that give them access to these data from UNESCO and other multinational organizations (Totolo, 2011). This means that internationally comparative education data is available to individuals and decision-makers at all levels of the educational system, and that individuals can and do initiate the use of these data for decision-making rather than simply being passive recipients

118

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

of top-down decisions made by elite groups and upper-administrators. The power of ICT in the hands of individuals who have been trained to use these technologies to create, manage, and mine information is strong (Pelham, Crabtree, & Nyiri, 2009), not only for national development, but also for the agency and development of individuals within their unique local, national, and international contexts. Information literacy is one of the key concepts in the education of both teachers and students in an ICT-rich educational environment (Fernandez-Villavicencio, 2010; Kong, 2008; Probert, 2009). Information systems and specifically the systems for obtaining and disseminating information about education have a unique and strong influence on educational planning, policy, and decision-making in countries around the world (Shafique & Mahmood, 2010). Students are being increasingly expected to engage with information sources, and to critically examine and interpret this information themselves (Karim, Embi, Din, & Shah, 2010). Information workers are increasingly important to individuals’ roles, status, and potential to contribute to national labor markets and social systems as well as to promote their own unique interests and agendas (Kasusse, 2005). The volume of information produced continues to increase both in terms of the typical educational content in subject areas that are part of every curriculum around the world (e.g., math, science, reading), but also in terms of the amount of information about educational systems and students that comes from internationally comparative data (Megnigbeto, 2010). While multinational organizations can influence the educational policy and decision-making activities in countries worldwide as a result of their influence and administration of international education assessments, it is typically the various indicators of individual educational access, achievement, and opportunity themselves that become the subject of debate in each of the countries that participate in or are influenced by these international assessments (Rutkowski, 2008). Simply by collecting and reporting educational data from systems around the world, an institution like UNESCO can measurably impact the educational curricula and classroom content provided to students in many different countries. There is strong evidence that this has taken place with civics education (Rauner, 1999), for example, and there is mounting evidence that math and science curricula in countries around the world are also impacted by the foci of international assessments like PISA and TIMSS (Wiseman & Baker, 2005). The problem with some international data is that it is collected from private sector agencies that often consider this educational data to be

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

119

‘‘commercially sensitive’’ (Ellis, 2005, p. 368). Although this is certainly not the best way to collect and use data on a large scale, it does demonstrate the ways that individual agents and groups can impact the data itself. And, it provides a new perspective on what it means to privatize education – in this case, however, it is privatization of information gathering about education and access to this data. As a result, understanding the needs of information ‘‘end-users’’ has become one of the most important elements of providing and applying educational data to both individual and national situations, and the worldwide dissemination of common, comparative education data has led to the increasing overlap between individual and national needs as well (Kebede, 2004).

MICRO-IZATION OF NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY As in nature, there is a symbiotic relationship between the macro and micro levels. Individual cells make up leaves of trees and organs of bodies. So, too, are educational phenomena that occur within educational systems as well as a part of individual situations around the world inextricably intertwined. This is particularly evident with the provision of ICT, or at least the rhetoric that exists for nations to provide access to ICT. There is pressure at the global (macro) level and there are institutions and individuals at the micro level that are pressuring the macro level to provide this access, and thus, the two are interwoven in the educational, economic, and communications spheres. The arguments and evidence presented in this chapter suggest that neoinstitutional theory is more approachable and adaptable to comparative and international educational phenomena than may be apparent to some. But, there may also be valid reasons for the more typical critiques of the theory. For example, the traditional macro-level approaches that are common to neo-institutional frameworks and empirical research are frequently emphasized in the international comparative education research community. Yet, the components of neo-institutional theory that drive the macro-level frameworks can also be applied to micro-level frameworks. Isomorphic trends at the macro level do indeed influence micro-level events, but the same is true in reverse. More empirical research using a neo-institutional framework could be done from this angle. The dawn of social networking means that subgroups and cultures are normalized in a virtual medium before they materialize in a more

120

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

tangible way. As referenced in this chapter, one way that more micro-level phenomena and their impact on educational theory and policy can be researched and analyzed using neo-institutional perspectives is through the lens of ICT. There are computer programs that already assist researchers in analyzing social networks that are formed on the micro-Internet level. This, in and of itself, is a fusing of the macro-technology of ICT with the micro-level technology user sitting behind a personal computer. This social networking research is occurring at the highest and most classified levels of governments as well as at the student level. This, too, is the fusing of macro and micro levels of examination and analysis of data generated through the use of ICT. The fact is that the micro-level use of ICT was a primary instigator of the mass political and social uprisings in Egypt and across the Middle East in 2011. Neo-institutional frameworks are one productive way to examine how these micro-level social networking activities affect educational policies on a global scale. Data from the Digital Access Index (DAI), produced by the International Telecommunications Union, provides a cross-national snapshot of technological ‘‘connectivity’’ of nations worldwide (Drori, 2006). This data shows that many nations are lacking in terms of issues of ICT infrastructure and accessibility to ICT. Neo-institutional theory and its emphasis on scripts, legitimacy, and loose coupling could be a relevant way to examine why the rhetoric of the importance of a networked nation oftentimes does not meet the reality that exists. These inconsistencies of ICT provisions make for inadequate (or nonexistent) use of technology in classrooms. Once again, we have the contradiction of the macro-level global expectation of ICT accessibility with the micro-level reality of substandard ICT infrastructures, which is another important topic for investigation. As has already been emphasized, the macro cannot exist without the micro and vice versa. Shifting the discourse on neo-institutional theory in comparative education requires that blanket critiques of isomorphism and macro-level methodologies give way to thoughtful and detailed empirical investigations of micro-level phenomena through a neo-institutional lens. The challenge now is to do it. More efforts and research should be placed on bridging the gap between empirical research that focuses on macro- versus micro-level phenomena regardless of the theoretical framework rather than engaging in rhetorical debates based on theory alone. It is through these collaborative efforts that a broader and more comprehensive understanding of how the effects of globalization influence both the macro and micro levels of educational policy and practice may be developed for the field of comparative and international education.

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

121

REFERENCES Astiz, M. F. (2006). Policy enactment and adaptation of community participation in education: The case of Argentina. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (Vol. 7, pp. 305–334). Oxford: Elsevier. Astiz, M. F., Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 66–88. Atak, M., & Erturgut, R. (2010). Importance of educated human resources in the information age and view of information society organizations on humans. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1452–1456. Aydede, M. N., Kecercioglu, T., & Arabacioglu, S. (2009). The opinions of students regarding the usage of computer technologies in constructivist learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2763–2767. Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–17. Baker, D. P., & Lenhardt, G. (2008). The institutional crisis of the German research university. Higher Education Policy, 21, 49–64. Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: Current and future world institutional trends in schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Baker, D. P., & Wiseman, A. W. (Eds.). (2009). Gender, equality and education from international and comparative perspectives (Vol. 10). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Beech, J. (2006). The institutionalization of education in Latin America: Loci of attraction and mechanisms of diffusion. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (Vol. 7, pp. 281–303). Oxford: Elsevier. Benavot, A. (2011). Imagining a transformed UNESCO with learning at its core. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 558–561. Benavot, A., Cha, Y., Kamens, D. H., Meyer, J. W., & Wong, S. (1991). Knowledge for the masses: World models and national curricula, 1920–1986. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 85–100. Board on International Comparative Studies in Education. (1995). Worldwide Education Statistics: Enhancing UNESCO’s Role. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Bradley, S., Johnes, G., & Millington, J. (2001). The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England. European Journal of Operational Research, 135(3), 545–568. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472–490. Bromley, P. (2010). The rationalization of educational development: Scientific activity among international nongovernmental organizations. Comparative Education Review, 54(4), 577–601. Buchmann, M., & Charles, M. (1995). Organizational and institutional factors in the process of gender stratification: Comparing social arrangements in six European countries. International Journal of Sociology, 25, 66–95.

122

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

Burnett, N. (2011). UNESCO education: Political or technical? Reflections on recent personal experience. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 315–318. Carvalho, L. M. (2009). Production of OECD’s ‘‘programme for international student assessment’’ (PISA). Brussels: KnowandPol. Castro, M. d. F. D. A., & Alves, L. A. (2007). The implementation and use of computers in Brazil: Niteroi city/Rio De Janeiro. Computers & Education, 49, 1378–1386. Chabbott, C., & Elliott, E. (Eds.) (2003). Understanding others, educating ourselves: Getting more from international studies in education. Committee on a Framework and Long-term Research Agenda for International Comparative Education Studies, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Collins, R., Chafetz, J. S., Blumberg, R. L., Coltrane, S., & Turner, J. H. (1993). Toward an integrated theory of gender stratification. Sociological Perspectives, 36(3), 185–216. Cook, B. J., Hite, S. J., & Epstein, E. H. (2004). Discerning trends, contours, and boundaries in comparative education: A survey of comparativists and their literature. Comparative Education Review, 48(2), 123–149. Cusso, R. (2006). Restructuring UNESCO’s statistical services – The ‘‘sad story’’ of UNESCO’s education statistics: 4 years later. International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 532–544. Davies, B. (1990). Agency as a form of discursive practice: A classroom scene observed. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 341–361. DeBoer, J. (2010). Why the fireworks? Theoretical perspectives on the explosion in international assessments. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), The impact of international achievement studies on national education policymaking (Vol. 13, pp. 293–326). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(April), 147–160. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–40). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Drori, G. S. (2006). Global E-litism: Digital technology, social inequality, and transnationality. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. Dutta, R. (2009). Information needs and information-seeking behavior in developing countries: A review of the research. The International Information & Library Review, 41, 44–51. Eckert, J. M. (2008). Trends in mathematics and science study (TIMSS): International accountability and implications for science instruction. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(2), 202–210. Ellis, S. (2005). Current international data for TVET and their limitations. Prospects, 35(3), 367–380. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Epstein, E. H. (1994). Comparative and international education: Overview and historical development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 918–923). New York, NY: Pergamon. Fernandez-Villavicencio, N. G. (2010). Helping students become literate in a digital, networking-based society: A literature review and discussion. The International Information & Library Review, 42, 124–136.

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

123

Frederiksen, B. (1982). Statistics of education in developing countries: An introduction to their collection and analysis. Paris: UNESCO. Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 24–40. Fuller, B., & Rubinson, R. (Eds.). (1992). The political construction of education: The state, economic change, and school expansion. New York, NY: Praeger. Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data: Scotland, England and the European education policy space. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 937–952. Gross, M. (2011). Rewriting the nation: World War II narratives in Polish history textbooks. In I. Silova (Ed.), Post-socialism is not dead: (Re)reading the global in comparative education (Vol. 14, pp. 213–245). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1995). Individual agency, the ordinary, and postmodern life. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 555–570. Heyneman, S. P. (1999). The sad story of UNESCO’s education statistics. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 65–74. Heyneman, S. P. (2011). The future of UNESCO: Strategies for attracting new resources. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 313–314. Hosgorur, V., & Bilasa, P. (2009). The problem of creative education in information society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, World Conference on Educational Sciences, Nicosia, North Cyprus (pp. 713–717). Ingersoll, R. (2002). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Ioannidou, A. (2007). A comparative analysis of new governance instruments in the transnational educational space: A shift to knowledge-based instruments? European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 336–347. Irfan, M. T. (2008). A global education transition: Computer simulation of alternative paths to universal basic education. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO. James, J. (2009). Information technology use among individuals in rich and poor countries: The disappearing divide. Telematics and Informatics, 26(4), 317–321. Jepperson, R. L. (2002). The development and application of sociological neoinstitutionalism. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory (pp. 229–266). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Jepperson, R., & Meyer, J. (2011). Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of methodological individualisms. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 54–73. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Karim, A. A., Embi, M. A., Din, R., & Shah, P. M. (2010). An emic perspective of students’ learning information skills and constructing knowledge in Malaysian higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 299–307. Kasusse, M. (2005). Bridging the digital divide in Sub-Saharan Africa: The rural challenge in Uganda. The International Information & Library Review, 37, 147–158. Kebede, G. (2004). The information needs of end-users of Sub-Saharan Africa in the digital information environment. The International Information & Library Review, 36, 273–279. Kong, S. C. (2008). A curriculum framework for implementing information technology in school education to foster information literacy. Computers & Education, 51, 129–141. Leuze, K., Brand, T., Jakobi, A., Martens, K., Nagel, A., Rusconi, A., & Weymann, A. (2008). Analysing the two-level game: International and national determinants of change in education policy making transstate working papers. Bremen: Universitat Bremen.

124

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

Lewis, M., & Lockheed, M. (2007). Inexcusable absence: Why 60 million girls still aren’t in school and what to do about it. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Megnigbeto, E. (2010). Information policy: Content and challenges for an effective knowledge society. The International Information & Library Review, 42, 144–148. Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 55–77. Meyer, J. W. (2000). Reflections on education as transcendence. In L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.), Reconstructing the common good in education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Meyer, J. W. (2006). World models, national curricula, and the centrality of the individual. In A. Benavot & C. Braslavsky (Eds.), School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: Changing curricula in primary and secondary education. Hong Kong, China: Comparative Education Research Centre. Meyer, J. W., & Ramirez, F. O. (2003). The world institutionalism of education. In J. Schriewer (Ed.), Discourse formation in comparative education. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH. Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc. Murphy, S. (2010). The pull of PISA: Uncertainty, influence, and ignorance. Inter-American Journal of Education for Democracy, 3(1), 28–44. Naumann, J. (2005). TIMSS, PISA, PIRLS and low educational achievement in world society. Prospects, 35(2), 229–248. OLPC (One Laptop Per Child Program). (2011). One laptop per child news. Retrieved from http://www.olpcnews.com/. Accessed on June 22, 2011. Osterhammel, J., & Petersson, N. (2005). Globalization: A short history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pelham, B., Crabtree, S., & Nyiri, Z. (2009). Technology and education: The power of the personal computer. Harvard International Review, Summer, 74–76. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Probert, E. (2009). Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers & Education, 53, 24–33. Puryear, J. M. (1995). International education statistics and research: Status and problems. International Journal of Educational Development, 15(1), 79–91. Ramirez, F. O. (1997). The nation-state, citizenship, and educational change: Institutionalization and globalization. In W. Cummings & N. F. McGinn (Eds.), International handbook of education and development: Preparing schools, students and nations for the twenty-first century (pp. 47–62). London: Pergamon. Ramirez, F. O., & Boli, J. (1987). The political construction of mass schooling: European origins and worldwide institutionalization. Sociology of Education, 60(1), 2–17. Rauner, M. (1999). UNESCO as an organizational carrier of civics education information. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 91–100. Rohlen, T. P. (1983). Japan’s high schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Shifting the Discourse on Neo-institutional Theory

125

Rohlen, T. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching and learning in Japan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rutkowski, D. (2008). Towards an understanding of educational indicators. Policy Futures in Education, 6(4), 470–481. Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920. Schriewer, J. (2000a). Discourse formation in comparative education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schriewer, J. (2000b). World system and interrelationship networks: The internationalization of education and the role of comparative inquiry. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), Educational knowledge: Changing relationships between states, citizens, and educational communities (pp. 304–343). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Environmental linkages and organizational complexity: Public and private schools. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 137–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shafique, F., & Mahmood, K. (2010). The role of educational information systems for survival in information society and the case of Pakistan. The International Information & Library Review, 42, 164–173. Smith, T., & Baker, D. (2001). Worldwide growth and institutionalization of statistical indicators for education policy-making. In Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3–4), 141–152. Spaulding, S., & Chaudhuri, R. (1999). UNESCO’s world education report: Its evolution, strengths and possible futures. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 53–63. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639–1657. Suarez, D. F., Ramirez, F. O., & Koo, J.-W. (2009). UNESCO and the associated schools project: Symbolic affirmation of world community, international understanding, and human rights. Sociology of Education, 82(3), 197–216. Totolo, A. (2011). Adoption and use of computer technology among school principals in Botswana secondary schools. The International Information & Library Review, 43, 70–78. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/FactSheets/ Pages/ScienceTech.aspx. Accessed on June 21, 2011. Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 54, 1202–1211. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Weiler, A. (2008). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46–53. Willmott, R. (1999). Structure, agency and the sociology of education: Rescuing analytical dualism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1), 5–21. Wiseman, A. W. (2008). A culture of (in)equality? A cross-national study of gender parity and gender segregation in national school systems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(2), 179–201.

126

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND AUDREE CHASE-MAYORAL

Wiseman, A. W. (2013). Policy responses to PISA in comparative perspective. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy. Oxford: Symposium Books. Wiseman, A. W., Astiz, M. F., & Baker, D. P. (2013). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: A review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare: A Journal of International and Comparative Education. Wiseman, A. W., Astiz, M. F., Fabrega, R., & Baker, D. P. (2010). Making citizens of the world: The political socialization of youth in formal mass education systems. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, November, 1–17. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 1–21). London: Elsevier Science, Ltd. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2006). The symbiotic relationship between empirical comparative research on education and neo-institutional theory. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (vol. 7, pp. 1–26). Oxford: Elsevier. Wiseman, A. W., Baker, D. P., Riegle-Crumb, C. C., & Ramirez, F. O. (2009). Shifting gender effects: Opportunity structures, institutionalized mass schooling, and cross-national achievement in mathematics. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Gender, equality and education from international and comparative perspectives (Vol. 10, pp. 395–422). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

PART 4 RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION TO PART 4: RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson A hallmark component of comparative and international education is the bridge between research and practice (Wilson, 1994). Much of education is professional education, which often translates to explicitly practical application in schools and classrooms. This is a vital component of comparative and international education, and it is important for the field to support and maintain professional training that prepares comparativists of education to support educational development, evaluation, pedagogy, and decision-making in local educational contexts, communities, classrooms, and other situations. Yet, the field of comparative and international education is also by nature a global field in that it provides educators and policymakers with a way to understand broader, cross-system, and global trends in educational policy and practice. One of the best tools that comparativists of education have for understanding these trends is through the development and testing of theory using research. As such, comparative and international education activity is at once theoretically grounded, but also practically oriented. Often this provides a conundrum because what scholars and professionals think about comparative and international education phenomena using theory, does not always match how real-world situations develop and vice versa. The challenge for comparative and international education is to recognize when research and practice overlap and when they contradict.

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 129–136 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020015

129

130

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

PROFESSIONALIZATION The blending of academic and practitioner professional identities in the field of comparative and international education has created new challenges for how research translates and informs practice, most notably in international education development projects. The hybridization of professional spheres in CIE, where the professional lines between the academy and the development world is narrowed, is on the rise and is expected to increase in the near future. This is evident in the professional routes taken by members of our academic societies. For example, in February 2013, the president of the U.S.-based Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) published the Society’s most recent membership data. These data confirmed previous analyses (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009) and showed that graduate students and early career scholars make up a clear and overwhelming majority within CIES. Baker (2012) argued that young comparative and international education professionals are interested in crafting new professional identities, which reach into both the academic and development spheres. The reason this is relevant to a discussion on research-to-practice in comparative and international education is that the professional paths constructed by future generations of comparative and international education scholars and professionals will become more fluid and transcend traditional, universitybased settings. For example, the hybridization of professional identity in the field may result in greater numbers of individuals engaged in the practice of international education development than ever before. As a result of the emergence of this new type of comparative and international education professional, it is important that the field respond by institutionalizing more reflection on how research translates into practice, and crafting new mechanisms to ensure that practice is supported by research (Chabbott, 2002). Most of the professionals within the field of comparative and international education are international development professionals (Chabbott, 2002) rather than classroom teachers and local educators. The field seems to trend more toward the global than the local when practical application of data and framework become involved. Development professionals often work with or in local communities while being professionally tied back to national or international organizations. As a result the conflict over the goals and agendas of the parent organizations and the local communities is a constant in international development work. This struggle becomes in many ways more conflicted when the education sector is more

Introduction to Part 4: Research-to-Practice

131

or less privatized. Nation-states systematically developed educational monopolies throughout the 20th century through the worldwide development of government-sponsored national education systems. These systems originally then began shifting back into private hands through shadow education systems, which mimicked the structures and processes of the formal mass education system (Baker, Akiba, LeTendre, & Wiseman, 2001; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). But, the role of the private sector in mass education provision has begun to shift again in the 21st century beyond shadow education.

SHIFTING SECTORS One area of intense focus resulting from the hybridization of professional identity and scholarly research in comparative and international education is the increase in private sector engagement in international education activities worldwide (Baker et al., 2001). The increase in private sector engagement in funding, project management, and technical assistance of international education development programs continues to be a topic of study for scholars interested in the impact of these influences (Mundy & Menashy, 2012). Of particular interest is the way that private sector engagement in education influences how education policy and practice are shaped in communities where formal mass education is not fully institutionalized or supported at the national level (Patrinos, Osorio, & Gua´queta, 2009). The role of private sector actors and agencies in shaping policies related to the ‘‘doing’’ of schooling in countries with limited public oversight of education should necessarily be a point of concern for scholars in the comparative and international education field. Because of the professional hybridization between the academic and development spheres, many of the policies engineered in the private sector and implemented through international education development agencies are informed by scholar-consultants in the comparative and international education field (Davies, 2009; Morris, 2013). What is often unacknowledged in the literature and critiques of private sector engagement in international education development is how these networks can potentially result in a conflict of interest for scholars engaged as contracted consultants. Despite the hybridization of professional roles, there is an unwillingness among scholars critical of the influence of large, multilateral funding agencies like the World Bank, for example, to acknowledge how

132

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

their engagement in the private sector legitimates the policies implemented at the ground level (Arnove, 2012; Klees, 2012). Part of the challenge of conceptualizing how research translates to practice through private sector engagement is that the roles of actors and what constitutes private interest are not clearly understood. The chapter by Menashy included in this section is a step forward in this regard. Menashy identifies differences in how private sector actors are defined in the literature, and the far-reaching influence these individuals and agencies have in education development from private school operation, to community school models, and corporate and philanthropic involvement. The questions posited in her analysis illuminate critical areas for researchers involved in the evaluation of private sector engagement as a function of research-to-practice in our field today.

TRANSLATING BIG DATA TO LOCAL PRACTICE A trend since the late 20th century in comparative and international education is for scholars and professionals in the field to become users of ‘‘big’’ data like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It is no longer sufficient for comparative and international education professionals to play the role of observer/researcher looking at how international data impacts educational policy and decision-making. And, there is much less opportunity for scholars and professionals in the field to consider the usefulness and practicality of big data like TIMSS and PISA for the local and classroom practitioner. In documenting the impact of TIMSS and other large-scale data, researchers have previously considered infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability indicators resulting from a national education system’s participation in international assessments (Wiseman & Baker, 2005). There were both positive and negative impacts, of course, but one item of particular interest was the comments from national level policymakers, state and regional level decision-makers, and local level teachers and school principals collected as part of the impact data. Representatives from each level were asked questions to elicit their degree of awareness of TIMSS data and results and how (or whether) they used TIMSS data and results for decision-making. The findings are illustrative of the gap between

Introduction to Part 4: Research-to-Practice

133

research and practice in national educational systems worldwide (Wiseman & Baker, 2005):  National level policymakers had a high level of awareness about TIMSS, but their use of the data and results for decision-making was very general, and largely to support existing reform agendas.  State and regional level decision-makers were aware that the TIMSS data existed, but they weren’t sure which information was available for decision-making or how relevant it was to their policy and reform processes.  Local teachers and principals, however, had very little specific awareness of TIMSS itself and no knowledge of the data or results. They overwhelmingly reported only knowing from the news and other media sources that international assessments said they were failing their students and communities, and the teachers and principals actively resisted that message. Although this study was done in the early 2000s, the conundrum of translating research to practice is a persistent challenge for education professionals year after year. Perhaps the solution to this conundrum is simply a question of comparing and contrasting the differences between formative and summative assessments. But, the fact is that the big-data-tolocal-practice question is more complex than that. Even though these are cross-sectional, nationally sampled, large-scale international assessments, there is rich student, teacher, classroom, principal, and school data. This data provides a richly, complex snapshot of what a nationally representative sample of students, teachers, and principals do, what their own backgrounds are, and what the contexts and cultures of their schools and communities are like. And, all of this data can be linked to student performance indicators as well. So, why does big data not make it further into the local decision-making and educational change process if it has all of this valuable information to share? And, why is big data like TIMSS and PISA not more accessible and used by those who actually practice education to make decisions and enact change? Why is big data not more integrated with national and local assessments in so many national education systems worldwide? There is no easy answer, and certainly no easy solution to any of these questions. There are complex and unique differences in different national and local contexts that make a one-size-fits-all solution impossible and certainly ill-advised, but

134

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

there are some shared principles to consider nonetheless – and they are found in the same concepts and categories that framed the impact study described above: infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability. Infrastructure: Research-to-practice linkages build assessment and evaluation capacity at the national level, but also at the local levels. The process of participating in both large- and small-scale research efforts can build a scaffold for connecting research with what local educators are already doing by developing local organizational structures, practices, and resources. These, in turn, provide access both to the process of conducting research as well as gaining access to the data or results from the research. This is a crucial first step. Capacity-building: Moving from research to practice requires tools and knowledge of how to use them for teachers and school leaders to make their own decisions and use the data as empowering evidence. This can be done through training and professional development opportunities for teachers and school leaders as a first step, which in turn helps them use big data for their own educational decision-making. But, eventually, the research planning and data collection can transfer into the hands of local practitioners and decision-makers to ensure they have complete ownership of and control over the kinds of research conducted and for which practices. Sustainable practice: Teachers and local school leaders need to ‘‘own’’ and be ‘‘empowered’’ by research, rather than being punished by it. Professional teacher development using research as a tool for development needs to happen among teachers and local school leaders rather than to them. This way, the application of both big and small data to local problems and contexts becomes something that happens at and is controlled by those who live and work at the local level rather than a prescription handed down from central administration. Given the importance of infrastructure, capacity-building, and sustainable practice to translating comparative and international education research to practice, there is remarkably less thought and effort among scholars and professionals in the field to:  develop and implement ways for teachers and local school leaders to have an infrastructure available to them for using research for decisionmaking;  develop and implement processes for building awareness, knowledge, and skills for teachers and local school leaders to use research for decisionmaking; and

Introduction to Part 4: Research-to-Practice

135

 encourage and support local teachers and school leaders to develop and implement autonomous processes and professional learning communities that translate research for school and classroom practice and decision-making. Infrastructure, capacity-building, and sustainable practice for the use and application of research at the national and cross-national level have been overtly and independently developed since the mid-20th century, but integrating these phases of development and translating large-scale data and applying it to the local context is less coherently developed. Still, translating research to and basing it in local contexts is a key component of the application of comparative and international education.

REFERENCES Arnove, R. F. (2012). The world bank’s ‘‘education strategy 2020’’: A personal account. In C. S. Collins & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the world bank’s education policy (pp. 63–80). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Baker, D. P. (2012). Young, rich and restless: The state of CIES and its precarious future y An open challenge from the president. CIES Perspectives Newsletter, Issue 160, pp. 1–2. Comparative and International Education Society. Retrieved from http://www.cies.us/ docs/CIESspringnewsletter_2013.pdf Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–18. Chabbott, C. (2002). Constructing education for development: International organizations and education for all. London: Routledge Falmer. Davies, L. (2009). Comparative education in an increasingly globalised world. In J. Zadja & V. Rust (Eds.), Globalisation, policy and comparative research: Discourses of globalisation (Vol. 5, pp. 13–34). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Klees, S. J. (2012). World bank and education: Ideological premises and ideological conclusions. In C. S. Collins & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the world bank’s education policy (pp. 151–172). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Morris, P. (2013). Book review: World yearbook of education 2012. Comparative Education, 49(2), 260–262. Mundy, K., & Menashy, F. (2012). The world bank, the international finance corporation, and private sector participation in basic education: Examining the education sector strategy 2020. In C. S. Collins & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the world bank’s education policy (pp. 113–132). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Patrinos, H. A., Osorio, F. B., & Gua´queta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

136

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639–1657. Wilson, D. N. (1994). Comparative and international education: Fraternal or Siamese twins? A preliminary genealogy of our twin fields. Comparative Education Review, 38(4), 449–486. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (pp. 11–38). International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355.

PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION WORLDWIDE: CONCEPTUAL AND CRITICAL CHALLENGES Francine Menashy ABSTRACT This chapter attempts to untangle the complex arena of private sector engagement in education by discussing the definitional challenges associated with understanding the non-state sector and by introducing some conceptual frameworks employed in research on private education. A thematic review of research from the field of Comparative International Education is provided to give the reader an understanding of the diversity that characterizes private involvement as well as the interconnectedness of private actors, specifically drawing attention to findings that grapple with equity implications. The chapter concludes with some suggestions for developing a framework for research via posing questions that ought to be asked when designing, conducting and analyzing findings from studies into private sector engagement in education. Keywords: Comparative and international education; privatization; nonstate actors; policymaking; public-private partnerships (PPPs); private education Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 137–165 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020016

137

138

FRANCINE MENASHY

INTRODUCTION The issue of private sector engagement has long elicited heated debate and divisiveness in the field of Comparative and International Education (CIE). Recently this debate has arguably grown more impassioned in response to the rise of new forms of privatization and nonstate involvement in education. The private sector currently includes an enormous diversity of actors who participate not only in school provision, but also in a variety of educational financing mechanisms and policy-making processes. This chapter attempts to untangle the complex arena of private sector engagement in education by explaining some of the definitional challenges associated with understanding the private sector, and elucidates the importance of contextualization given the diversity of nonstate actors and their unique characteristics. As well, given that an analysis of private engagement is often dependent on the conceptual framework applied, I also detail some conceptual approaches to illustrate how frameworks might be employed for research, and some of the assumptions associated with each. This chapter provides a thematic review of research from CIE, which is intended to give the reader an understanding of the complexity and diversity of private involvement, to in turn demonstrate that any research and criticism must pay close attention to context – including actor, activity, aim, level, country, impact – and that it is crucial that a robust definition and characterization of who or what is ‘‘the private’’ is provided in any scholarship on the topic. I pay particular attention to the issue of equity (for instance, access; increased stratification; impacts on marginalized populations) to demonstrate the importance of contextualization. I choose this focus because the debate on the private sector is often polarized around the issue of equity, and research from the field of CIE characterizes this divisiveness. The overview of research specifically draws attention to findings that grapple with equity implications of private engagement, demonstrating that some forms of private participation are more open to equity-related critique than others. As well, I draw attention to the interconnectedness of private actors, showing how research into the private sector must take into account the potential influences of and impacts on other actors within a large network of private participation in education. The overarching aim of this chapter is not only to highlight and stress the variety characteristic of private engagement, but also to provide a framework for research that allows scholars to take this diversity into account. In light of this, the chapter concludes with some suggestions for

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

139

developing a framework for research via posing questions that ought to be asked when designing, conducting and analyzing findings from studies into private sector engagement in education worldwide.

CONTEXT: THE GROWING ARENA OF RESEARCH INTO PRIVATE ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION It is arguable that we are witnessing a global shift away from purely public systems of education. Private actors are increasingly involved in various combinations of K-12 school provision, financing, and policy-making. One of the most notable features of this shift is the rise in private school operators. For instance, as detailed in Table 1, in selected countries net enrolment in private schools has risen dramatically, particularly in the Global South. However, it is important to be cautious about such statistics due to the ambiguous nature of what constitutes a ‘‘private’’ school, and as well the preponderance of non-registered private schools which do not find their way into statistical datasets. Moreover, in particular low-fee private schools are

Table 1.

Percentage of Net Enrolment in Primary-Level Private Schools in Selected Countries.

Country

1995

2010

Benin Canada Chilea Congo Jordanb Mali Nepal Togo New Zealand Uganda United Arab Emirates United Kingdom

4.8 4.2 43.6 1.5 38 18.5 5 24 2.5 7 41 5.1

13.2 5 56.6 35.8 33.2 39.8 13.2 33.7 12.3 14.4 71.7 5.1

Source: Statplanet (2012). a 1998, 2008. b 1995, 2008.

140

FRANCINE MENASHY

characterized by instability, where schools can open and close without notice through any formal channels. Such datasets might also be missing private operators who are publicly financed, in the form of charters or vouchers, and so could be described as either public or private schools, depending on what characteristics are used when categorizing (such definitional challenges will be discussed in more detail below). Researchers in CIE have drawn attention to this issue of data collection on private operators, and most speculate that the true number of private schools, and enrolment, are higher than reported (Rose, 2009; Woodhead, Frost, & James, 2013). Alongside the growth in private schools has been the shifting nature of private involvement in the global governance of education. Nonstate actors, including international nongovernmental organizations, corporate actors, and philanthropic foundations, are now prominent at the level of policymaking on education. Global-level interagency collaborations (also termed ‘‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’’) combine private sector players with public financing institutions, including multilateral and bilateral agencies (Cassidy, 2007; Draxler, 2008; van Fleet, 2012). As will be discussed further, the growing influence of private actors in public policy-making on education has spurred a simultaneous growth in research on, for instance, corporate philanthropy in education. An increase in literature and research on the specific subject of the private sector parallels and is arguably indicative of the worldwide rise in private sector involvement in education. Numerous recent books and volumes have been written and/or edited by scholars from the field of CIE on such topics as PPPs, low-fee private schools, school choice, corporate involvement, to name a few (for instance Ball, 2012; Belfield & Levin, 2005; Bulkley, Henig, & Levin, 2010; Plank & Sykes, 2003b; Robertson, Mundy, Verger, & Menashy, 2012; Srivastava & Walford, 2007). As well, the past decade has seen the establishment of several research centers and initiatives dedicated to the study of private education. For instance, Columbia University’s National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, the Open Society Foundation’s Private Education Research Initiative, the Council for British Teachers and World Bank’s joint Engaging the Private – Non State Sector in Education, the World Bank/International Finance Corporation’s EdInvest, while each promoting a unique mandate and purpose, all claim to result from the increasing significance of private sector engagement in education (CfBT, 2011; EdInvest, 2001, 2012; NCSPE, 2012; OSF, 2012).

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

141

DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGES One of the primary challenges of research into private engagement is the task of defining who, or what, exactly is the ‘‘private.’’ Because education is a key contributor to what is commonly viewed as the ‘‘public good,’’ educational researchers often presume that systems of education are fundamentally public. However, private actors – including families, students, communities, and businesses – have long had significant inputs into schools and broader education systems, at the levels of financing, management and governance. Levin describes how education impacts, and is influenced by, both private and public actors: [Education] addresses public interests by preparing the young to assume adult roles in which they can undertake civic responsibilities, embrace a common set of values, participate in a democratic polity with a given set of rules y At the same time, education must address the private interests of students and their families by providing a variety of forms of development which will enhance individual economic, social, cultural, and political benefits for the individual. (2000, p. 3)

Definitions of public and private tend to also be disciplinarily informed. Economics is the discipline that has dictated the dichotomy of ‘‘state’’ versus ‘‘market.’’ For instance, the theory of public goods bases the definition of a public good on ‘‘non-rivalrousness’’ and ‘‘non-excludability,’’ and the likelihood of market failure. When classified as such, the public sector is responsible for adequate provision and financing (Kaul, Conceicao, Le Goulven, & Mendoza, 2003; Samuelson, 1954; Stiglitz, 2000). Other disciplines, including sociology and political economy, have viewed the distinction as one which is not predefined, but instead constructed. For instance, the roles of women have been deeply impacted by a culturally and historically constructed notion of public and private spheres (Waring, 1999). As scholars in CIE have pointed out, the process of globalization has added an additional level of complexity to the subject of private education (Dale, 1997; Robertson, Bonal, & Dale, 2002). While some research has argued that because of its intergenerational and cross-border impacts, education is a ‘‘global public good’’ (Marginson, 2007; Menashy, 2009), others have noted that ‘‘within an emerging global knowledge economy, education is also portrayed as essential to individual competitiveness (a private good accruing to the individual) and to the economic competitiveness of nations, regions, and cities (a public good accruing at the national and subnational rather than the global scale)’’ (Robertson et al., 2012, p. 4).

142

FRANCINE MENASHY

While most definitions of the private sector include some allusion to being apart from government (see Starr, 1988), or ‘‘nonstate,’’ precisely defining private participation in education is evidently a challenging task (see Robertson et al., 2012, for a broader discussion of these issues). Questions abound concerning what is or isn’t considered private education. As will be detailed later in this chapter, religious or community schools are widely considered private, but are often supported by governments, both in terms of financing and regulation. Low-fee private schools inevitably fall under the category of ‘‘private.’’ But does this characteristic change in cases where they are publicly funded through vouchers or stipends? Are government schools charging user fees considered private entities? How does one categorize publicly provided schools which charge fees for books or uniforms? Definitions offered by international organizations do not help settle such ambiguities. The World Trade Organization, for instance, considers that any private operators which satisfy the standards of education as defined by governments are part of the state educational systems and therefore public (Verger & Robertson, 2012). According to the World Bank, state-aided private providers are considered widespread in some countries, such as the Netherlands and Canada, while the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines the same countries as having nearly 100% public school enrolment (OECD, 2010; Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guaqueta, 2009). UNESCO employs separate terms for private for-profit and not-for-profit, invoking the description ‘‘nonformal’’ for the latter, which encompasses any schooling outside the formal system (for instance the Fe y Alegrı´ a religious schools, or community schools including EDUCO, as described later in this chapter) (UNESCO, 2006). For many years, particularly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research from the field of CIE into private sector engagement focused in large part on for-profit providers, issues concerning private financing (or user fees), and support of associated policies stemming from multilateral programs, most notably structural adjustment. As well, the critical literature on privatization in the past focused on fees and fully private schools, citing the influence of early neoliberal policies and paying particular attention to impacts on equitable access (for instance Alexander, 2001; Bonal, 2002; Brighouse, 2004; Colclough, 1996, 2000; Jones, 1992). However, current criticisms require a deeper level of sophistication. To a large degree, private actors have changed, so too have the ways in which they participate in education, as have the aims of their participation. Useful critiques of private sector engagement in education are dependent on a

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

143

robust conception of what, or who, is the ‘‘private’’ and what mechanisms have been put in place to support these private actors. From disentangling such definitional issues, one can begin research that takes into account the complexity that characterizes the arena of private actors. As well, it is important to also be cognizant that research into private sector participation is inevitably informed by conceptual frameworks that might influence research design and analyses of findings.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR RESEARCH ON PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Certain conceptual frameworks provide unique approaches to research on the private sector in education. Such frameworks underpin explanations and analyses of the nature of the engagement, and each provides a distinct approach to the specific issue of equity. Below I outline as examples three of the more common and/or useful approaches.

Neoclassical Economic Framework Based on liberal notions of individualism and freedom of choice, ‘‘neoclassical’’ economics advocates the primacy of free-market mechanisms such as competition in order to achieve optimal efficiency, quality and accountability within services, and is grounded in a critical vision of the state, questioning the capacity of governments while warning of the dangers of state-run monopolies. In light of this description, it is possible to trace the advocacy of certain forms of private sector engagement, and as well some research into private participation in education, to a neoclassical framework. Reducing the role of the state in education, spurring competition in order to increase efficiency and quality, and increasing the choices of individual parents are all justifications rooted in a neoclassical framework which informs policies supporting, for instance, public–private partnerships (PPPs) and low-fee private schools. Also in the case of religious or community schools, the prompting of competition to increase choice and thereby quality, and as well decentralization, can be rooted in neoclassical economistic models (Chan, 2007; Ladd, 2003; Olssen, Codd, & O’Neill, 2004; Plank & Sykes, 2003a).

144

FRANCINE MENASHY

Several neoclassical assumptions invoked to support private participation in education have been brought to light by CIE scholars. The assumptions have also been termed neoliberal (loosely defined as the ideological counterpart to neoclassical economics) (Harvey, 2007; Stromquist, 2002). As Plank and Sykes detail, neoliberal and neoclassical arguments have levied ‘‘ y strong claims about the intrinsic frailties and incapacities of states and governments, accompanied by claims for the virtues of markets as instruments for solving a host of public and private problems. The enthusiasm of economists and others for the ‘magic of the market’ has produced recommendations for privatizing virtually all the activities of the public sector y In education, these arguments have been deployed in support of vouchers and increased private sector participation in educational provision’’ (2003a, p. xi). In particular, the claim against government monopoly via individual parental choice, and the valuing of market competition are assumptions grounded in a neoclassical model (Burch, 2009; Ladd, 2003; Plank, 2005; Plank & Sykes, 2003a; Saltman, 2000). Many policies based on a neoclassical economic framework, and the associated supporting research studies, are often forwarded to support increased access to schools. Private schools are often promoted when demand is too great for the public sector to manage, and so are considered a means to achieving education for all (Fielden & LaRocque, 2008; UNICEF & ADB, 2011). At the same time, quality in education is presumably increased with private sector competition. For instance, the World Bank – widely argued to adopt a neoclassical economic framework to inform its policies (see Klees, 2008, 2012; Manion & Menashy, 2013; Menashy, 2013) – often insists that the introduction of market mechanisms to education is necessary to achieve equal access to quality education (Patrinos et al., 2009; World Bank, 2011; World Bank and IMF, 2009). In fact, through the neoclassical lens private sector engagement, and particularly private provision of education, is viewed as optimal. As described below, the framework of private engagement as ‘‘inherently desirable,’’ overlaps with this neoclassical perspective. However, evaluating private sector engagement through a framework based in neoclassical economics has been widely critiqued as not adequately capturing the equity implications of associated policies. A neoclassical framework is therefore considered narrow and one-sided, and to some, unethical by subjugating goals of equity to efficiency (Fine & Rose, 2001; Klees, 2002, 2008; Tomasevski, 2003). As described below, other conceptual frameworks encompass more nuances and may provide more robust analyses.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

145

Private Sector Engagement as ‘‘Inherently Desirable’’ or ‘‘Unfortunately Necessary’’ Based on a distinction made in a 1993 article by Keith Hinchliffe, measures supporting private sector engagement in education can be either forwarded as ‘‘unfortunately necessary’’ or ‘‘inherently desirable,’’ and researchers can adopt this distinction to frame the two ways in which one might envision the inclusion of private actors in education (Mundy & Menashy, 2012). Those who advocate public sector financing and provision of education as optimal may accept some private sector engagement, but only when private involvement is deemed ‘‘unfortunately necessary’’ to meet demand or perhaps as a temporary solution while public sector capacity is increased. This involvement, however, must be limited and only adopted if equity and access are concurrently supported. Moreover, this side of the distinction denotes that the private sector ought to be only involved for reaching development goals in the case that ‘‘private actors are able to be held to some form of direct accountability where there is no effective alternative’’ (Alston, 2005, p. 770). On the other hand, those who advocate the inclusion of private engagement as the most effective way to reach educational goals of quality and access, frame private sector involvement as ‘‘inherently desirable.’’ It is argued from this perspective – based in neoclassical economics – that, for instance, the introduction of a competitive market will necessarily lead to increased quality, accountability and efficiency, and reduce the state monopoly on education which perpetuates ineffectiveness and corruption and hinders innovation (Hinchliffe, 1993; Mundy & Menashy, 2012). However, under this framework, it is arguable that those who consider private engagement to be ‘‘inherently desirable’’ do not adequately consider issues of equity and increased marginalization for some students, including those remaining in purely public schools. Some scholars would also take issue with the ‘‘unfortunately necessary’’ slant, by arguing that private participation (and in particular provision) reduces the status of education as a human right and therefore one should be hesitant to ever consider private engagement ‘‘necessary.’’

Rights-Based Framework Research into private sector engagement in education can be viewed under a framework of education as a human right, or a rights-based approach. As

146

FRANCINE MENASHY

UNESCO and UNICEF state: ‘‘The goal of a human rights-based approach to education is simple: to assure every child a quality education that respects and promotes her or his right to dignity and optimum development’’ (2007, p. 1). A rights-based framework for education has three key interrelated and crucial dimensions: first, the right of access to education, which includes free access to basic education; second, the right to quality education; third, the right to respect within education (Jonsson, 2003; Robeyns, 2006; UNICEF, 2008; UNESCO and UNICEF, 2007). Tomasevski restates these dimensions in the ‘‘4 As’’ of the right to education: available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable (2001; 2006). Embedded in a rights-based approach to education is the obligation of ‘‘duty bearers,’’ the parents, guardians, teachers and the government, to treat children as rights-holders. The chief duty bearer, however, is the state (Tomasevski, 2003; UNICEF, 2008). Under a rights-based framework, governments are the optimal provider and financier of education. Therefore, inclusion of the private sector contrasts the ‘‘insistence upon states as the actor with ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for human rights’’ (Alston, 2005, p. 769). As Tomasevski argues, defining education as a human right necessitates ‘‘the corresponding government responsibility’’ (2003, p. 69). Archer also claims that when education is characterized as a right, ‘‘it is clearly the responsibility of the state’’ (2006, p. 7). Private participation is therefore deemed problematic and/or arguably contradicts a rights-based approach (Manion & Menashy, 2013; Menashy, 2013). The above-described frameworks each can be applied to research into private sector engagement in education. However, as explained, each framework approaches issues, including that of equity, in different ways and holds certain assumptions. For instance, both the inherently desirable and neoclassical framings carry with them assumptions around the value of competition and choice, as well as a critical view of government, which is seen as often providing poor quality and inequitable education. The unfortunately necessary framework allows for some private participation, but does not view this as optimal. And the rights-based framework supports an assumption of government as the optimal financier and provider of education, and is therefore deeply critical of private involvement, based primarily on equity grounds. The complex nature of private sector engagement means that the researcher must be acutely cognizant of the variety of frameworks under which policies have been enacted, and studies have been conducted, in order to best evaluate findings and develop an appropriate research design.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

147

CURRENT TRENDS IN COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH INTO PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Outlined below are some dominant areas of research into the private sector which are currently attracting the attention of many scholars, drawing from some of the more prominent studies and publications. As well, each area of research will be tied back to the above described conceptual frameworks to better elucidate how different lenses view the same form of private actor participation. It is important to note that the examples described below in no way provide an exhaustive elucidation of the nature and scope of private engagement. For instance, I do not discuss the private production of textbooks, infrastructure, maintenance or food services to public schools, despite that these activities are indeed private participation. Private testing services commissioned by education providers and ministries are not included. I also do not grapple with the important issues of tutoring and private ‘‘shadow’’ schooling. The trends described below focus on the three areas of private school provision, financing, and/or policy-making and governance, which are arguably the most widely researched areas in CIE, and also engender the most divisiveness amongst scholars. As well, I focus on K-12 (primary and secondary) education, but not without an understanding that private sector engagement is also of great significance in the areas of higher and early childhood education. Public–Private Partnerships ‘‘PPPs’’ denotes a very broad category that covers any joining of the public and private sectors in education (Draxler, 2012). This section focuses on the more ‘‘typical’’ PPPs in educational finance and provision. PPP, however, is a term that could cover a much wider range of activities, including contracting for a variety of services. In the field of CIE, there has been an abundance of research into PPPs, sometimes termed school choice mechanisms. Most such mechanisms involve the creation of quasi-markets including voucher schemes or publicly financed but privately administered schools, such as charter schools. Such PPP policies are argued to respond to low government capacity to deliver quality education by suggesting a shift in the state’s function from a provider of

148

FRANCINE MENASHY

schooling to that of a financier and regulator of private operators (Fielden & Larocque, 2008; Patrinos et al., 2009; Robertson et al., 2012). Book volumes edited by prominent CIE scholars have provided comprehensive overviews on the wide topic of PPPs in both the Global North and South (for instance Belfield & Levin, 2005; Chakrabarti & Peterson, 2008; Plank & Sykes, 2003b; Robertson et al., 2012). More specifically, the history and ideological underpinnings of PPPs has also been tackled by several authors (Archer, 2010; Draxler, 2008, 2012; Ginsburg, 2012; Levin, 1999, 2000). Both qualitative and quantitative studies into PPPs have been conducted at the country level, including case studies on and evaluations of, for instance, public financing of private schools in Pakistan (Andrabi, Das, & Khwaja, 2008; Andrabi, Das, Khwaja, Vishwanath, & Zajonc, 2006; Bano, 2008; Fennell, 2012), India (Fennell, 2008; Srivastava, 2010) and Colombia (Barrera-Osorio, 2007). Voucher programs in Chile have garnered much attention (Carnoy, 1997; Carnoy & McEwan, 2000; Elacqua, Contreras, & Salazar, 2009) as have vouchers in Northern countries such as the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States (Anderson, 2008; Ladd, 2002; Molnar, 2001). Other research has included network analyses of the promotion of PPPs by policy entrepreneurs (Cardini, 2006; Verger, 2012), and the rise of PPPs as a global policy priority (Mundy & Menashy, 2012; Robertson & Verger, 2012). Community schools represent a growing form of PPPs. In Nepal, for instance, a number of studies have been conducted on such schools, which are managed by local community actors instead of government (Carney, Bista, & Agergaard, 2007; Khanal, 2010; Lohani, Singh, & Lohani, 2010). The rise in community providers has resulted from policies spearheaded by multilateral funders (in particular the World Bank), which have encouraged decentralization to increase efficiency and accountability, and arguably also empowerment. However, as found by Carney et al. (2007), the support of community schools has resulted in ‘‘the on-going marginalisation of many of the country’s poor and disadvantaged groups, a de-motivated and further politicised teaching force and continued chronic under-funding of public education’’ (p. 611). As well, research has been conducted on school-based managed community schools in Latin America, most prominently the PROHECO schools in Honduras and the EDUCO schools in El Salvador. Resulting from local efforts to create basic educational services in rural communities, where parents and local community members have control over such management tasks as teacher hiring and financial management, these

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

149

decentralized community schools were founded with the support of not only national governments, but of multilateral and bilateral agencies. They are therefore another form of PPP. Notably, findings from mixed-methods studies into community schools show varied results. In both the PROHECO and EDUCO cases, studies have found that parent involvement and student enrolment has increased, and attrition rates have decreased. Yet research questioning if publicly supported community-based schools in Latin America have significantly increased student achievement have yielded mixed conclusions (Desmond, 2009; DiGropello, 2006; Jimenez & Sawada, 1999, 2003). As well, questions have been raised concerning regulation of community schools, and the implications of school-based management for democratic processes to improve national public education systems (Desmond, 2009). A review of this literature on PPPs brings to light a polarized debate around the joining of private and public actors in education, and critical literature has primarily hinged on the equity implications of PPPs. While some researchers cite evidence that PPPs can improve access and efficiency through relieving a burden on the state and increasing quality via competition and choice (Fielden & LaRocque, 2008; Patrinos et al., 2009; Woessmann, 2005), critics of PPPs cite low access for marginalized groups due to admission screening, poor quality due to lack of proper regulation of private providers, and the possible deterioration of public education systems through the exit of parental voice (Ball, 2012; Carnoy, 1997; Ladd, 2002; Plank & Sykes, 2003b). Some supporters of PPPs employ arguments around efficiency gains and the value of choice, from a neoclassical economic framework, indicating that the inclusion of private participation to public education is inherently desirable. Others offer more cautious support to PPPs, by drawing attention to the critical importance of the roles that states must play in educational financing and regulation, even if lacking capacity to provide education, deeming PPPs unfortunately necessary. The rights-based framework, however, which envisages governments as the key duty-bearer and provider of education, might invoke criticisms around equity and the erosion of public education resulting from support to PPPs. Such criticisms, of course, are context-specific. In Chile, vouchers were found to greatly exacerbate inequities due to admissions screening and better access for students with stronger social capital (Carnoy, 1997; Carnoy & MacEwan, 2000), whereas targeted stipend programs in Pakistan have been argued to increase access to female populations (Andrabi et al., 2006). Working within the complex arena of PPPs, researchers in CIE need

150

FRANCINE MENASHY

to be mindful of such variables as country context, amount of regulation, the degree of risk-sharing between private and public actors, and of course the outcomes of any PPP intervention.

Corporate Actor Involvement Corporations are increasingly playing a role in education in the Global South via both corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, and through more arms-length private philanthropic activities spearheaded by corporate leaders. The landscape of corporate involvement is varied. CSR activities, or sometimes termed ‘‘corporate citizenship’’ programs are integral to a company, and are often funded through a corporations’ general operating budget. CSR programs promote a variety of activities, including cash contributions made to support a specific cause, in-kind contributions including for instance school supplies or classroom technology, or more leadership oriented policy engagement, including participation in educational forums or playing advocacy roles concerning a particular educational cause (van Fleet, 2012). On the other hand, foundations, or private philanthropies, are founded using the profits of corporate endeavors but operate independently of business interests, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the MasterCard Foundation or the Hewlett Foundation. Such foundations consider themselves separate from their associated corporation, where oftentimes the only overlaps can be seen in name or sharing of leadership (often the CEO of the corporation is head of the board of the foundation) (Bhanji, 2008; Colvin, 2005; van Fleet, 2011, 2012). Recent CIE research into corporate actors includes analysis of the corporate ‘‘social investments’’ of Fortune 500 companies, where a rise in dollar amounts has been seen in the past decade, but it has also been discovered that educational contributions account for a relatively small percentage of overall CSR and philanthropic dollars spent (van Fleet, 2011). Other studies have examined individual CSR programmes in education, such as Microsoft’s Partners in Learning initiative (Bhanji, 2008, 2012). Scholars have also provided more survey accounts of corporate activities, ‘‘mapping the terrain’’ of philanthropic work in education (Srivastava & Oh, 2010). Research providing overviews of corporate involvement in international educational policy-making and governance are also on the rise, on such global initiatives as the World Economic Forum’s Global Education Initiative and its joint initiative with UNESCO, Partnerships for Education (Cassidy, 2007; van Fleet, 2011, 2012). Some current corporate

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

151

activities, including those of the Pearson Foundation, have been understudied as yet. However, Pearson’s support to low-fee private schools is a topic likely deserving of more attention. Such surveys, evaluations, and studies have highlighted that the involvement of corporate actors cannot be researched, nor evaluated, as a monolith. What has been shown is that corporate actors each have their own mandate and aim. For instance, while the work of the Gates foundation has been widely critiqued for promoting a neoclassical vision of education in the United States, based on a notion of failed public education, the Azim Premji Foundation (founded by the Indian software entrepreneur Premji) has as its mission the improvement of publicly financed and publicly-provided education, and holds as key to its mandate the increase of equitable access to quality education in India (Bhanji, 2008; Colvin, 2005; Srivastava & Oh, 2010). As well, as detailed above, the variety of activities alone speak to the demand for a range of research foci and associated criticism. A rights-based framework, for instance, might support the Premji Foundation’s work, but would deem the Pearson Foundation’s support of low-fee private schools as problematic, as explained below. A more neoclassical vision of educational governance would likely make allowance for the idea of corporate actors as public policy-makers, while a rights-based approach to policy development would question, from a democratic standpoint, corporate involvement.

Low-Fee Private Schools Throughout the Global South, there has been a rise in the establishment of low-fee private schools. Such schools, which can be operated by either individuals or a larger entrepreneurial group, are fully private (as in both privately financed and provided), and charge what is considered to be nominal fee to parents. While some low-fee schools are not-for-profit, the majority are for-profit endeavors targeting low-income families (Rose, 2009; Srivastava & Walford, 2007; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). While many scholars agree that these schools are increasing in number worldwide, as mentioned earlier, many low-fee private schools are not captured in statistics, and so the true growth of such schools may be even greater (Woodhead et al., 2013). A large volume of research from CIE scholars has paralleled this rise, most notably from the South Asian and SubSaharan African regions (Ha¨rma¨, 2011; Heyneman, Stern, & Smith, 2011; Lewin, 2007; Rose, 2009; Srivastava, 2006; Srivastava & Walford, 2007).

152

FRANCINE MENASHY

One of the most prominent supporters of low-fee private schools is economist James Tooley, who argues that low-fee schools meet the demands of parents, including those living below poverty levels. Supporters claim that such schools have ‘‘mushroomed’’ in response to the very low quality of public schools, characterized by rampant teacher absenteeism and lack of capacity of Southern governments to finance and manage schools. In line with a highly neoclassical framework, Tooley has cited the large number of parents choosing to pay low fees instead of sending their children to free public schools as evidence that such schools are preferable. That the fees are considered ‘‘minimal’’ suggests that low-fee private schools in fact increase access to quality education for poor families, which they cannot otherwise receive in the public sector schools. Therefore low-fee private schools are argued to contribute to equality (see Probe Team, 1999; Tooley, 2001, 2004, 2005; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). However, another set of literature and research, coming primarily from the field of CIE, heavily criticizes such neoclassical economic-based arguments. A number of scholars have expressed serious skepticism that low-fee private schools can contribute to equity, and in fact private schools which charge even a nominal fee are still far out of reach for the poorest families and students living at the bottom of the pyramid. Moreover, such schools are of highly questionable quality, in some country contexts being completely unregulated (Lewin, 2007; Oxfam, 2012b; Rose, 2009; Walford, 2011; Watkins, 2004). Studies from India have shown that with the rise in low-fee private schools, government schools have become the ‘‘option of last resort for the poorest and most marginalized’’ (Ha¨rma¨, 2011, p. 156; Ha¨rma¨ & Rose, 2012; Srivastava, 2007). For instance, from a longitudinal study of primary school children in Andhra Pradesh, Woodhead et al. (2013) conclude: ‘‘While private schooling may provide a short-term solution to the educational needs of children in India today, it is unlikely to be the best means of providing education for all children in the longer term in ways that respect equity principles, especially in the absence of strong government regulation including comprehensive PPP arrangements’’ (p. 73). Studies from SubSaharan Africa (including Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria) echo these findings (Barrera-Osorio, 2007; Barrera-Osorio & Zable, 2011; CDC Consult, 2010; Rose, 2009). Even ‘‘minimal’’ fee charging schools create an additional tier of education that exacerbates already inequitable education systems. The rise of low-fee private schools has engendered a heated debate in development and CIE circles (see Oxfam, 2012b). It is notable that both sides allude to the equity implications of either supporting or not supporting

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

153

low-fee private schools. Most research, however, has shown that the most marginalized populations are unable to pay even the smallest of fees, and that those who do are often not receiving a superior education than what would otherwise be received in public schools. This critical research would be considered to adopt a rights-based framework in its evaluation of low-fee private schools, and several advocates of education as a human right have specifically argued against supporting low-fee private schools, which are deemed neither inherently desirable nor unfortunately necessary (see Lewin, 2007; Oxfam, 2012b; Watkins, 2004).

Religious Providers Religious organizations have long acted as both the financiers and providers of education. In many Northern countries, students attend fully private religious (or ‘‘faith-based’’ schools), and parents pay often very high tuition fees so that their children can receive a religious-based education. In the South it is also true that religious organizations run private schools, but often in a non-fee paying form. Depending on country context, public education can be separated from religious instruction (as in the United States), or might be integral to public school curriculum. Other countries primarily support nonreligious schools, but allow for a small number of religious public schools (as in Canada) (Wexler, 1996). Some country governments (including Pakistan, Colombia and Bangladesh) publicly finance private religious schools via forms of PPPs, such as vouchers (Barrera-Osorio, Patrinos, & Wodon, 2009). In such cases, and in cases where public education is primarily secular, and religious schools are both financed and administered separately, religious providers are generally considered ‘‘private.’’ Some scholars have argued that private religious actors who provide and/or finance education, have received limited attention from the field of CIE, despite the large role they can and do play in addressing challenges of education in the South. International organizations, however, seem to acknowledge the significance of religious educators and intersections with development (for instance, the World Faiths Development Dialogue; Center for Interfaith Action on Global Poverty) (Stambach et al., 2011). Much of the literature in CIE on the topic of religious providers of education centers on a debate concerning whether or not religious education can contribute to the public good (Nelson, 2006; Stambach et al., 2011; Wexler, 1996). Research studies into individual private religious providers,

154

FRANCINE MENASHY

however, have garnered less attention recently. One issue (again) is measurement – solid statistics on numbers and characteristics of private religious schools are difficult to find (Andrabi et al., 2006; Stambach et al., 2011), more so for Muslim schools than those of other faiths. One group of religious providers that have received much attention historically are Roman Catholic Schools, who have been found to play a large role worldwide, with hundreds of thousands of schools both Church-financed and administered globally (Carmody, 2013; Grace, 2009). The Jesuit Fe y Alegrı´ a network of schools in Latin America has been studied rather thoroughly by CIE scholars. These are autonomous schools that serve over a million students in 15 different countries, which are embedded within privately operated larger management system, yet are decentralized. Most research from CIE has targeted the quality of Fe y Alegrı´ a schools, by evaluating student performance indicators (Alcott & Ortega, 2009; Elacqua et al., 2009; Parra Osorio & Wodon, 2010). Others have looked at the influence of central management on these autonomous schools (Jaimovich, 2012) and the effectiveness of vouchers that publicly finance students to attend these schools. Given that the Fe y Alegrı´ a network target disadvantaged youth, the schools have been argued to increase access to quality education for poor and marginalized populations. Research into Madrasas in Muslim-majority countries has become more prevalent. Madrasas are schools that teach religious curriculum and are operated by religious leaders, and funded by either the state or religious actors. Some have argued that recent interest in Madrasas has resulted from popular media reports that religious education is more prevalent in recent times and that there are concurrent fears of the risk of indoctrination, mainly in Muslim communities (Andrabi et al., 2006; Singer, 2001). However, such concerns are not echoed in the literature coming out of CIE research. In fact, given problems of measurement, it is questioned if Madrasas are any more prevalent today than two decades ago. Andrabi et al. (2006) for instance, conducted a survey of household data in Pakistan to discern enrolment in faith-based schools and found Madrasas account for less than 1% enrolment. Again, the nature and implications of each form of religious participation would be evaluated differently depending on the conceptual lens through which one conducts research and analysis. But beyond the conceptual frameworks detailed earlier, research into religious private providers must often also take into account the issue of whether religion ought to be separated from schooling, and the impacts religious schools might have on equity and diversity within education systems.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

155

International Organizations and Support to Private Sector Wielding considerable power in shaping the educational agendas of countries in the Global South, a number of bilateral, multilateral and international nongovernmental organizations have recently voiced support to private sector engagement in education in their policies. And over the past decade, many international agencies have increased funding to engage private actors in education, most prominently international financial institutions, including the World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the Asian Development Bank, the United States Agency for International Development and the British Department for International Development, invoking highly neoclassical rationales for involvement (Mundy & Menashy, 2012; Robertson & Verger, 2012). As well, UNICEF has voiced support to PPPs in education, adopting language around the unfortunate necessity of private participation (UNICEF & ADB, 2011). On the other hand, some organizations have forcefully questioned the equity implications of support to the private sector and have stated that governments are the key duty-bearers of education, explicitly in line with a rights-based approach (ActionAid, 2012; Oxfam, 2012a; UNESCO, 2012). The vocal support of private participation at the level of international educational policy and financing is indicative of the global shift toward inclusion of the private sector in the traditionally public service of education. CIE researchers have studied the work of international organizations and the global-level support to private education, and the vast majority of the literature coming out of this research is critical of most global institutions, citing a narrow understanding of the implications of aid to the private sector for marginalized populations. As well, criticisms include the overriding neoclassical economistic lens through which education policies are designed by financial organizations (Klees, 2008, 2010; Mundy & Menashy, 2012; UNESCO, 2009).

NETWORK OF PRIVATE ENGAGEMENT Adding to the complexity of research into private sector engagement in education is the interconnectedness of private actors, including private providers, how they are financially supported, how policies are designed around private participation and who drives such policies. As shown in

156

FRANCINE MENASHY

Fig. 1, a private sector network exists from the global policy-making level down to local school provision. A number of possible links tie this network together. For instance, at the global policy level, international organizations (including multilateral, bilateral, UN agencies, international nongovernment organizations), have collaborated with private corporate actors to form global interagency initiatives (or multi-stakeholder partnerships), including UNESCO Partnerships for Education and the World Economic Forum’s Global Education Initiative (Cassidy, 2007; van Fleet, 2012). Through these coalitions, and more directly from individual agencies and businesses, international organizations and corporate actors have supported country governments in the Global South to in turn finance private providers (including religious, community and low-fee private schools) via PPPs. For instance, the World Bank and UNICEF have both supported governments to offer vouchers to families to allow marginalized populations to attend private schools without charge. On the other hand, the World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, has directly financed fully private schools (including those charging both low and high fee tuition), bypassing governments (Mundy & Menashy, 2013). Other direct forms of financial

International Organizations

Global Inter-Agency Initiatives

Religious Organizations

Religious Schools

Country Governments

Public Schools

Policy-Making

Fig. 1.

Community Schools

Corporate Actors

Parents/ Families

Low-Fee Private Schools

Management/Administration

Entrepreneurs

High-Fee Private Schools

Financing

Network of Possible Engagement of Private Sector Actors.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

157

support include religious organizations directly funding religious schools, parent user fees paying for both low-and high-fee private schools and, at times, public schools, and finally, the traditional mechanism of country governments financing public schools. The network described here, and again, this chapter as a whole, does not cover exhaustively the diversity of private actors, and the mechanisms in place which support private sector engagement in education, but instead aims to elucidate the extensiveness and possible complications that one might encounter when researching this issue. Part of the contextualization necessary of CIE research into private engagement therefore needs to also take into account the much broader context of policy-making and financing. It is also important that critiques of this system question decision-making power and if policy-making processes are democratic.

CONCLUSION: A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DIALOGUE ON PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION The review provided above is intended to give the reader an understanding of the complexity and diversity of private sector engagement in education and supports the argument that any criticisms of private involvement must be adequately contextualized, and that it is crucial that a robust definition and characterization of who or what is the ‘‘private’’ is provided. It is also crucial to identify the network of private participation beyond the specific actor or policy that is being researched. And the researcher must be aware that studies into private engagement in education are inevitably informed by some conceptual approach that can influence design, collection and analysis of findings. Below, I provide a series of preliminary ‘‘questions to ask’’ when embarking on research into an aspect of private sector engagement in education. These questions can assist in clarifying the definitional issues; the variety of private actors and activities, and their interconnectedness; and as well the difference and implications of adopting certain conceptual approaches. From the overview above, it is also clear that there is a rather heated ongoing debate on private sector engagement in education, and that this debate has in large part hinged on beliefs around equity implications of private involvement. And so the questions below also allow the researcher to

158

FRANCINE MENASHY

take the issue of equity into particular consideration. These questions are suggestions, and can act as a starting point during initial design of a study and/or analysis of findings.  What, or who, is the ‘‘private’’ actor involved?  What is the nature of this involvement?  What is the historical framework for this involvement (in the particular country, for instance)?  At what point(s) in the education system is this involvement taking place (for instance, at the level(s) of financing, provision, policy-making, etc.)?  How does this private participation connect to other forms of private engagement? Do other private actors influence the actor or activity that is the focus of the study?  Who is benefitting from this private educational engagement? Who is not benefitting?  What are the implications in particular for historically marginalized populations?  Who designed the policy which has brought about and/or supports this private involvement? What are the goals of such policies?  What implications does this private engagement have for accessibility, availability, acceptability and adaptability (i.e., does it support a rightsbased approach to education)?  Does this private engagement exist because it is considered ‘‘unfortunately necessary’’ or because it is ‘‘inherently desirable’’?  If considered ‘‘inherently desirable,’’ is its support rooted in any economic assumptions (for instance, around the value of competition and/or choice)? Beyond research, it is important to also ask similar questions during dialogue on this particularly divisive issue. The field of CIE is highly polarized on the value and implications of private sector engagement in education, which unfortunately causes a degree of gridlock in discussions and limits the effectiveness of dialogue. Those taking steadfast positions on this issue tend to adopt very limiting frameworks for seeing other perspectives. Taking seriously some of the questions listed above might enable either side to see that private engagement in education is not a uniform activity, and in particular grappling with questions concerning equity can enable both sides to see that any evaluation of private participation must be contextualized in order to provide a constructive analysis.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

159

REFERENCES ActionAid. (2012). Education. Retrieved from www.actionaidusa.org/what-we-do/education. Accessed on October 2012, Washington, DC. Alcott, H., & Ortega, D. (2009). The performance of decentralized school systems: Evidence from Fe Y Alegrı´a in Venezuela. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4879, Washington, DC. Alexander, N. (2001). Paying for education: How the World Bank and the IMF influence education in developing countries. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3/4), 285–338. Alston, P. (2005). Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and development debate seen through the lens of the millennium development goals. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(3), 755–829. Anderson, D. (2008). Productivism, vocational and professional education, and the ecological question. Vocations and Learning, 1(2), 105–129. Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, I. (2008). A dime a day: The possibilities and limits of private schooling in Pakistan. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 329–355. Andrabi, T., Das, J., Khwaja, A. I., Vishwanath, T., & Zajonc, T. (2006). Pakistan: Learning and educationalachievements in punjab schools (LEAPS). Washington, DC: World Bank. Archer, D. (2006). The impact of the World Bank and IMF on education rights. Convergence, 39(2/3), 7–18. Archer, D. (2010). The evolution of NGO-government relations in education: Action Aid 1972–2009. Development in Practice, 20(4/5), 611–618. Ball, S. (2012). Global education, Inc. London: Routledge. Bano, M. (2008). Public–private partnerships (PPPs) as ‘anchor’ of educational reforms: Lessons from Pakistan. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO, Paris. Barrera-Osorio, F. (2007). The impact of private provision of public education: Empirical evidence from Bogota’s concession schools. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4121. Washington, DC. Barrera-Osorio, F., Patrinos, H., & Wodon, Q. (2009). Emerging evidence on vouchers and faithbased providers in education: Case studies from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Barrera-Osorio, F., & Zable, I. (2011, June 4). A characterization of the private education sector: The Kenya Private Schools Support Program. Draft paper. Received from electronically from author. Belfield, C., & Levin, H. (2005). Privatizing educational choice: Consequences for parents, schools, and public policy. Herndon, VA: Paradigm Publishers. Bhanji, Z. (2008). Transnational corporations in education: Filling the governance gap through new social norms and market multilateralism? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 55–73. Bhanji, Z. (2012). Microsoft corporation: A case study of corporate led PPPs in education. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 182–198). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Bonal, X. (2002). Plus ca change y The World Bank global education policy and the post-Washington consensus. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12(1), 3–21.

160

FRANCINE MENASHY

Brighouse, H. (2004). What’s wrong with privatising schools? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(4), 617–631. Bulkley, K., Henig, J., & Levin, H. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge. Cardini, A. (2006). An analysis of the rhetoric and practice of educational partnerships in the UK: An arena of complexities, tensions and power. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 393–415. Carmody, B. (2013). Catholic conversion and school in Africa today. Journal of Church and State, 55(2), 245–263. Carney, S., Bista, M., & Agergaard, J. (2007). Empowering the local through education: Exploring community managed schooling in Nepal. Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 611–628. Carnoy, M. (1997). Is privatization through education vouchers really the answer: A comment on West. The World Bank Research Observer, 12(1), 105–116. Carnoy, M., & McEwan, P. (2000). The effectiveness and efficiency of private schools in Chile’s voucher system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 213–239. Cassidy, T. (2007). The global education initiative (GEI) model of effective partnership initiatives for education. Geneva: World Economic Forum. CDC Consult Ltd. (2010). Ghana country report: Market research project on low income private schools. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/enorwood/docs/final_ghana_country_report_ market_research_projec. Accessed on November 8, 2011. CfBT (2011). Engaging the private nonstate sector in education online toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.cfbt.com/epsetoolkit/home.aspx. Accessed on September 2011. Chakrabarti, R., & Peterson, P. E. (2008). School choice international: Exploring public–private partnerships. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chan, J. (2007). Between efficiency, capability and recognition: Competing epistemes in global governance reforms. Comparative Education, 43(3), 359–376. Colclough, C. (1996). Education and the market: Which part of the neoliberal solution are correct? World Development, 24(4), 589–610. Colclough, C. (2000). Who should learn to pay? An assessment of neo-liberal approaches to education policy. In C. Colclough & J. Manor (Eds.), States or markets? Neo-liberalism and the development policy debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Colvin, R. (2005). The new philanthropists. Education Next, 5(4), 34–41. Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education: An analysis of the restructuring of the state-education relationship. Education: Culture, economy and society, 273–282. Desmond, C. (2009). EDUCO schools in El Salvador: A democratic tree in a globalized forest? International Education, 38(2), 7–28. DiGropello, E. (2006). A comparative analysis of school-based management in central America. Washington, DC: World Bank. Draxler, A. (2008). New partnerships for education: Building from experience. Paris: UNESCO. Draxler, A. (2012). International PPPs in education: New potential or privatizing public goods? In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships and education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 43–62). London: Edward Elgar.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

161

EdInvest. (2001). Handbook on public private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: International Financial Corporation. EdInvest. (2012). EdInvest. Retrieved from http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/Topics_Ext_ Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/EdInvest_Home/. Accessed on September 2012. Elacqua, G., Contreras, D., & Salazar, F. (2009). The effectiveness of franchises and independent private schools in chile’s national voucher program. In F. Barrera-Osorio, H. A. Patrinos & Q. Wodon (Eds.), Emerging evidence on vouchers and faith-based providers in education. Case studies from Africa, Latin America, and Asia (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Fennell, S. (2008). Educational exclusion and inclusive development in India. RECOUP Working Paper No. 35. University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Fennell, S. (2012). Why girls’ education rather than gender equality? The strange political economy of PPPs in Pakistan. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships and education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world. London: Edward Elgar. Fielden, J., & Larocque, N. (2008). The evolving regulatory context for private education in emerging economies. Washington DC: World Bank. Fine, B., & Rose, P. (2001). Education and the post-Washington consensus. In B. Fine, C. Lapavitsas & J. Pincus (Eds.), Development policy in the twenty-first century: Beyond the post-Washington consensus. London: Routledge. Ginsburg, M. (2012). Public private partnerships, neoliberal globalization and democratization. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 63–78). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Grace, G. (2009). On the international study of catholic education: Why we need more systematic scholarship and research. International Studies in Catholic Education, 1(1), 6–14. Ha¨rma¨, J. (2011). Low cost private schooling in India: Is it pro poor and equitable? International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 350–356. Ha¨rma¨, J., & Rose, P. (2012). Is low-fee private primary schooling affordable for the poor? Evidence from rural India. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 243–258). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heyneman, S. P., Stern, J., & Smith, T. (2011). The search for effective EFA policies: The role of private schools for low-income children. Washington, DC: The Mitchell Group. Hinchliffe, K. (1993). Neo-liberal prescriptions for education finance: Unfortunately necessary or inherently desirable? International Journal of Educational Development, 13(2), 183–187. Jaimovich, A. (2012). The role of central management structure in public private partnerships: The case of Fe y Alegrı´ a schools in Peru. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 277–295). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (1999). Do community-managed schools work? An evaluation of el salvador’s EDUCO program. Oxford University Press, 13(3), 415–441. Jimenez, E. & Sawada, Y. (2003). Does community management help keep kids in schools? Evidence using panel data from El Salvador’s EDUCO program. CIRJE Working Paper. The Center for International Research on the Japanese Economy, Tokyo.

162

FRANCINE MENASHY

Jones, P. W. (1992). World bank financing of education: Lending, learning and development. London: Routledge. Jonsson, U. (2003). Human rights approach to development programming. New York, NY: UNICEF. Kaul, I., Conceicao, P., Le Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. U. (2003). Why do global public goods matter today? In I. Kaul, P. Conceicao, K. Le Goulven & R. U. Mendoza (Eds.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization (pp. 2–20). New York, NY: The United Nations Development Programme. Khanal, P. (2010). School decentralisation in Nepal: A disjuncture between macro-level advocacy and micro-level reality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(3), 145–158. Klees, S. (2002). World Bank education policy: New rhetoric, old ideology. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 451–474. Klees, S. (2008). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: Misleading analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4), 311–348. Klees, S. (2010). Aid, development and education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, Fall Issue. Klees, S. (2012). The world bank and education: ideological premises and ideological conclusions. In C. Collins & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: A conversation about the World Bank’s education policy development and revision. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Ladd, H. F. (2002). School vouchers: A critical view. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 3– 24. Ladd, H. (2003). Introduction. In D. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Levin, H. (2000). The public-private nexus in education: Occasional paper no. 1. New York, NY: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Lewin, K. (2007). The limits to growth of non-government private schooling in sub saharan Africa. CREATE Pathways to Access Monograph No. 5. Retrieved from http://www.createrpc.org/publications/pathwaystoaccesspapers.html. Accessed on September 7, 2012. Lohani, S., Singh, R. B., & Lohani, J. (2010). Universal primary education in Nepal: Fulfilling the right to education. Prospects, 40, 355–374. Manion, C., & Menashy, F. (2013). The prospects and challenges of reforming the World Bank’s approach to gender and education: Exploring the value of the capability policy model in The Gambia. The Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(2), 214–240. Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53, 307–333. Menashy, F. (2009). Education as a global public good: The implications and applicability of a framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(3), 307–320. Menashy, F. (2013) Interrogating an omission: The absence of a rights-based approach to education in World Bank policy discourse. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(5). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.728368 Molnar, A. (2001). School vouchers: The law, the research and public policy implications. Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, Milwaukee, WI. Mundy, K., & Menashy, F. (2012). World Bank and the private provision of K-12 Education: History, policies, practices. Sponsored Research Report for the Open Society Institute/ Soros Foundation Education Support Programme, London.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

163

Mundy, K., & Menashy, F. (2013). Investing in private education for poverty alleviation: The case of the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. The International Journal of Educational Development. Retrievd from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.06.005 NCSPE. (2012). National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncspe.org/. Accessed on May 2012. Nelson, M. (2006). Muslims, markets and the meaning of a ‘‘good’’ education in Pakistan. Asian Survey, 46(5), 699–720. OECD. (2010). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Geneva: OECD. Olssen, M., Codd, J. A., & O’Neill, A.-M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage. OSF. (2012). PERI Global. Retrieved from http://www.periglobal.org/. Accessed on October 2012. Oxfam. (2012a). Education. Retrieved from http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/healtheducation/education. Accessed on October 2012. Oxfam. (2012b). Blog: From poverty to power. debate on low-fee private schools. Retrieved from http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=11047. Accessed on October 2012. Parra Osorio, J. C., & Wodon, Q. (2010). Performance of Fe y Alegrı´a high school students in Colombia. Is it a matter of fe (faith) or alegrı´a (joy)? Policy Research Working Paper 5413, Washington, DC: World Bank. Patrinos, H., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guaqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank. Plank, D. (2005). Understanding the demand for schooling. Paper presented at the Meeting of National Experts on ‘‘Understanding the Demand for Schooling.’’ Sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/60/35393937.pdf Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (2003a). Why school choice? In D. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (2003b). Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. PROBE Team. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Robertson, S., & Verger, A. (2012). Governing education through public private partnerships. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Robertson, S., Mundy, K., Verger, A., & Menashy, F. (2012). An introduction to public private partnerships and education governance. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 1–17). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Robertson, S. L., Bonal, X., & Dale, R. (2002). GATS and the education service industry: The politics of scale and global reterritorialization. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 472–496. Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69–84. Rose, P. (2009). Non-state provision of education: Evidence from Africa and Asia. Compare, 39(2), 127–134.

164

FRANCINE MENASHY

Saltman, K. J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools – A threat to democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 11, 387–389. Singer, P. (2001). Pakistan’s Madrassahs: Ensuring a system of education not Jihad. Brookings Analysis Paper No. 14. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Srivastava, P. (2006). Private schooling and mental models about girls’ schooling in India. Compare, 36(4), 497–514. Srivastava, P. (2007). For philanthropy or profit? The management and operation of low-fee private schools in India. In P. Srivastava & G. Walford (Eds.), Private schooling in less economically developed countries. Oxford: Symposium Books. Srivastava, P. (2010). Public-private partnerships or privatisation? Questioning the state’s role in education in India, 20(4/5), 540–553. Srivastava, P., & Oh, S. (2010). Private foundations, philanthropy, and partnership in education and development: mapping the terrain. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(5), 460–471. Srivastava, P., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2007). Private schooling in less economically developed countries: Asian and African perspectives. Oxford: Symposium Books. Stambach, A., Marshall, K., Nelson, M., Andreescu, L., Kwayu, A., & Wexler, P. (2011). Moderated discussion: Religion, education, secularism in international agencies. Comparative Education Review, 55(1), 111–142. Starr, P. (1988). The meaning of privatization. Yale Law and Policy Review, 6, 6–41. Statplanet (2012). Statplanet. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEDSTATS/Resources/3232763-1314192505774/StatPlanet.html. Accessed on October 2012. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the public sector. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Tomasevski, K. (2001). Human rights obligations: Making education available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Gothenburg: Swedish International Development Agency. Tomasevski, K. (2003). Education denied: Costs and remedies. New York, NY: Zed Books. Tomasevski, K. (2006). Human rights obligations in education: The 4-a scheme. The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers. Tooley, J. (2001). Serving the needs of the poor: The private education sector in developing countries. In C. Hepburn (Ed.), Can the market save our schools? Vancouver: The Frazer Institute. Tooley, J. (2004). Private education and ‘education for all’. Institute of Economic Affairs, 24(4), 4–7. Tooley, J. (2005). Is private education good for the poor? Working Paper from a study in sub-Saharan Africa and India. Retrieved from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/pdfs/00% 20June%2023%2005.pdf. Accessed on June 2006. Tooley, J., & Dixon, P. (2006). ‘De facto’ privatisation of education and the poor: Implications of a study from sub-Saharan Africa and India. Compare, 36(4), 443–462. UNESCO. (2006). Non-formal education and basic education reform: A review. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009). Education for all global monitoring report: Overcoming inequality. Why governance matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Private Sector Engagement in Education Worldwide

165

UNESCO. (2012). The right to education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/right-to-education/. Accessed on October 2012. UNESCO and UNICEF. (2007). A human rights-based approach to education for all. New York, NY: UNICEF. UNICEF. (2008). Notes on a human rights based approach to programming in education. Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/244491/day1HRBAP%20in% 20Education%2080708.pdf. Accessed on July 3, 2011. UNICEF & ADB. (2011). Non-state providers and public-private partnerships in education for the poor. Bangkok: UNICEF. van Fleet, J. (2011). Half a billion dollars adding up to small change: The promises and pitfalls of corporate philanthropy to support global education. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland. van Fleet, J. (2012). Private philanthropy & social investments in support of education for all: A global monitoring report background paper. Paris: UNESCO. Verger, A. (2012). Framing and selling global education policy: The promotion of publicprivate partnerships for education in low-income countries. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109–130. Verger, A., & Robertson, S. (2012). The GATS game-changer: International trade regulation and the constitution of a global education marketplace. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalising world (pp. 104–127). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Walford, G. (2011). Low-fee private schools in England and in less economically developed countries. What can be learnt from a comparison? Compare, 41(3), 401–413. Waring, M. (1999). Counting for nothing: What men value and what women are worth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Watkins, K. (2004). Private education and ‘Education for All’ – or how not to construct an evidence-based argument: A reply to Tooley. Institute of Economic Affairs, 24(4), 8–11. Wexler, P. (1996). Holy sparks. Social theory, education and religion. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Woessmann, L. (2005). Public–private partnerships in schooling: Cross-country evidence on their effectiveness in providing cognitive skills. Paper presented at the Mobilizing the Private Sector for Public Education, World Bank and Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA. Woodhead, M., Frost, M., & James, Z. (2013). Does growth in private schooling contribute to education for all? Evidence from a longitudinal, two cohort study in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 65–73. World Bank. (2011). Education sector strategy 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank and IMF. (2009). Global monitoring report 2009: A development emergency. Washington, DC: World Bank.

PART 5 AREA STUDIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

INTRODUCTION TO PART 5: AREA STUDIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson Area studies are not only a cornerstone of the field of comparative and international education, they are how the field began (Brickman, 1960). Early contributions of area studies scholars helped to legitimate the field and aligned comparative education methodology with qualitative methods commonly found in more established disciplines (Altbach, 1991; Holmes, 1958; McDade, 1982), and the study of education in particular regional or geographic areas continues to be part of many comparative and international education scholars’ and professionals’ repertoires (Epstein, 1994; Kazamias, 2001; Lauterbach & Mitter, 1998). Yet, the role of area studies in comparative and international education has become less certain in the 21st century (Stambach & Cappy, 2012; Stambach, Raby, & Cappy, 2011). To address this changing role and recognition of area studies, Comparative Education Review, hosted a moderated discussion among 10 invited scholars focused on the role of area studies within the field of comparative and international education (Merkx et al., 2006). The scholars ranged from university faculty in the social sciences to development specialists with multinational policy agencies; each provided an initial essay and then a second-round discussion essay. Overall, these scholars agreed that area

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 169–174 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020017

169

170

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

studies were complementary to the discipline, however, no real consensus emerged on how area studies fit into the larger field of comparative and international education at the time the essay was published nor since. What reflective scholars and professionals in comparative and international education can glean from the Comparative Education Review’s (2006) moderated discussion, however, is the importance of recognizing and emphasizing that the current and future role of area studies are in a state of constant flux. Emerging area studies are particularly relevant in areas where there is rapid social, economic or political change or conflict, and they are also unique in their sometimes more qualitative origins or developing nation or community context. The Arabian Gulf and Slavonic South East European Countries (SSEEC) are two regions that reflect these trends, and serve as indicators of the ways that area studies are or have emerged recently. The two chapters included in this section highlight the emergence of these relatively new area study fields within comparative and international education. The first chapter by Kirk reviews the development of comparative and international education in the Gulf context; the second by Ermenc and her colleagues frames the evolution of comparative pedagogy (CP) (i.e., comparative education) in the SSEEC. As a preface to these contributions, we begin by identifying how comparative and international education is conceptualized theoretically and in practice in these two regions.

COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE The Arabian Gulf States discussed in the chapter by Kirk specifically refer to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates; however, the education policies established in these countries have a direct relationship to policies implemented across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. What makes the Gulf countries unique, however, is what is described as the ‘‘Gulf State Phenomena’’ (Wiseman, 2005; Wiseman & Alromi, 2007). These countries are characterized by the intersection of strong religious ideology, rapid economic change, and developing social infrastructures. As a result of these shared characteristics, the Gulf countries, and the GCC countries in particular, have invested heavily and similarly in education reform and innovation (Wiseman & Anderson, 2012) to support economic and social development. Because the

Introduction to Part 5: Area Studies and Regional Developments

171

Gulf countries are relatively new themselves, the development of comparative and international education is only just emerging in the region. The rapid development of education at all levels in the Gulf has involved extensive policy borrowing from Western countries, in particular, and accelerated the interest in this region as an emerging area of study in the literature (Aydarova, 2013; Gitsaki, 2011; Kirk & Napier, 2009). Gulf countries, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are at a crossroads in the development of education, society and the economy, which is both influenced and in some ways pushed back and forth by international trends and ideas. While global trends are important for national policymakers in the government education system to be aware of and track, the most fundamental element of any educational transition is the sharing of information (Kirk, 2011). Information is the gateway to understanding, strategy, and educational effectiveness. Information can be shared in many ways ranging from one-on-one meetings among Ministry-level educational decision makers to mass-market awareness programs that use the internet and electronic communication tools to disseminate information (Mitchell, 2011). Regional developments related to information sharing and exchange in specific areas being studied are increasingly important to recognize for comparative and international education scholars and professionals, too (Wilson, 2003). Of course, the most significant kind of information sharing in areas and regions worldwide is two-way (Grek et al., 2009), meaning that while the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, for example, knows about the specific reform programs, curricular development, and other educational improvement projects, the Ministry is also responsible for sharing that information with the public-at-large. But, it is not a one-way flow of information. The public-at-large also has information to share about what works, the characteristics or demographics of a particular school or educational region, personnel specifics, and the benefits and pitfalls of a large educational infrastructure (Oder, 2005). It is this reciprocal sharing of information that is the key to 21st century educational reform throughout the Gulf more than any specific global trend or model that a country adopts or adapts to local conditions. Counter to the more recent development of comparative and international education in the Gulf, comparative education, or CP as it is discussed by Ermenc and colleagues, has a long history in the Slavonic South East European Countries highlighted in this chapter. The countries contained in this area of study include Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia, and each has a unique history concerning the development of CP. Ermenc et al. describe the

172

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

two streams of CP development in the SSEEC as both practical and academic as follows: ‘‘the practical problem-solving nature of comparative studies; and the development of academic comparative pedagogy [is] a separate branch of the science of pedagogy’’ (this volume). These two streams are reflected in the growth of CP scholarship evidence by the development of dedicated academic study in universities throughout the region, but Ermenc et al highlight the differences in how the field has been institutionalized across the region as a whole. Although not discussed in this section’s chapters, South Africa provides another strong framework for discussing area studies in comparative and international education as well. As a country dealing with a legacy of extreme social and political inequality coupled with gender marginalization, this extremely low performing country and educational system is especially problematic (Chisholm, 2005). For example, students’ science performance is often used by policymakers and educators as a bellwether for national economic growth and community development (Ramirez, Luo, Schofer, & Meyer, 2006). Yet, South Africa’s disadvantaged students, particularly girls, are overwhelmingly failing in science. Furthermore, the gap between high and low achievers in science is highly associated with the gap between advantaged and extremely disadvantaged groups of students in South Africa (Wiseman, 2012). Disadvantaged children, especially girls, are often malnourished which research shows affects their ability to learn and perform academically (Reddy, 2005). In fact, girls in disadvantaged South African communities are part of a traditionally ‘‘excluded’’ group characterized by converging disadvantages stemming from gender, poverty, malnourishment, and racial marginalization in South Africa. In the three examples above of the Arabian Gulf region, SSEEC, and South Africa, a sample of area studies-related challenges to comparative and international education is presented. Country groupings versus single country studies are important distinctions in area studies because the complex mix of national political systems across grouped countries can often become a key indicator or component of area studies like this. It would be foolish to ignore the effect of conflicting or misaligned political system agendas in the Gulf or Slavonic Southeast; whereas, in single country studies like South Africa the single political system is often complex enough. In area studies, the rationale is often that national ethnic and linguistic groups can be academically isolated so that the particularities of each community can be explored in more depth. However, the challenge is that in multinational area studies and even in complex intra-national communities (like in South Africa), the goal of focusing on fewer ethnic or linguistic groups is often difficult to achieve.

Introduction to Part 5: Area Studies and Regional Developments

173

The area studies approach, however, provides rich opportunities to highlight and cherish single cases or communities from comparative and international education perspectives. The question for comparative and international education scholars is to what extent the global diaspora of certain ethnic, linguistic, religious, or otherwise affiliated communities fall within the scope of areas studies research. And, the challenge of translating research to practice when the area being researched is a global diaspora is increasingly complex because it includes not only the characteristics of the community at large, but also of the specific local context in which different communities within the diaspora are living, working, and educating themselves. By using the following chapters as a foundation, comparative and international education scholars can systematically reflect on the scope of the area being studied, the topics or issues relevant to development in both regions that are either shared or distinct, and the ways that area studies in these cases are aligned with the broader trends in comparative and international education scholarship and professional practice.

REFERENCES Altbach, P. G. (1991). Trends in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 35(3), 491–507. Aydarova, O. (2013). If not ‘‘the best of the west,’’ then ‘‘look east’’: Imported teacher education curricula in the Arabian Gulf. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 284–302. Brickman, W. W. (1960). A historical introduction to comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 3(3), 6–13. Chisholm, L. (2005). The politics of curriculum review and revision in South Africa in regional context. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(1), 79–100. Epstein, E. H. (1994). Comparative and international education: Overview and historical development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. London: Elsevier. Gitsaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Teaching and learning in the Arab world. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2009). National policy brokering and the construction of the European education space in England, Sweden, Finland and Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21. Holmes, B. (1958). The problem approach in comparative education: Some methodological considerations. Comparative Education Review, 2(1), 3–8. Kazamias, A. M. (2001). Re-inventing the historical in comparative education: Reflections on a protean episteme by a contemporary player. Comparative Education, 36(3), 279–296. Kirk, D. (2011). The ‘knowledge society’ in the Middle East: Education and the development of knowledge economies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gulf Comparative Education Society, Ras al Khaimah, UAE.

174

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Kirk, D., & Napier, D. (2009). The transformation of higher education in the united arab emirates: Issues, implications, and intercultural dimensions. Nation-Building, Identity and Citizenship Education, 131–142. Lauterbach, U., & Mitter, W. (1998). Theory and methodology of international comparisons. Washington, DC: National Center for Vocational Education Research. McDade, D. F. (1982). The things that interest mankind: A commentary on thirty years of comparative education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 30(1), 72–84. Merkx, G. W., Hayhoe, R., Luk, B. H. K., King, K., Gajardo, M., King, E., y Rudolph, L. (2006). Comparative education, area studies, and the disciplines. Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 125–148. Mitchell, R. B. (2011). Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1882–1890. Oder, E. (2005). The social cohesion role of educational organizations: Primary and secondary schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(4), 78–88. Ramirez, F. O., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2006). Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1), 1–30. Reddy, V. (2005). Cross-national achievement studies: Learning from South Africa’s participation in the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(1), 63–77. Stambach, A., & Cappy, C. (2012). What we see, what is missing, and what has fallen away: The 2011 comparative education review bibliography. Comparative Education Review, 56(3), 534–546. Stambach, A., Raby, R. L., & Cappy, C. (2011). Changes in the field: Analysis of the 2010 comparative education review bibliography through a lens of global norm making. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 457–472. Wilson, D. N. (2003). The future of comparative and international education in a globalised world. International Review of Education, 49(1–2), 15–33. Wiseman, A. W. (2005). The impact of the ‘‘gulf state phenomenon’’ on teaching in Iran and Kuwait. In K. Mutua & C. S. Sunal (Eds.), Research on education in Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East: Crosscurrents and crosscutting themes (vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Wiseman, A. W. (2012). The impact of student poverty on science teaching and learning: A cross-national comparison of the South African case. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(7), 941–960. Wiseman, A. W., & Alromi, N. H. (2007). The employability imperative: Schooling for work as a national project. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Wiseman, A. W., & Anderson, E. (2012). ICT-integrated national education systems in the Gulf cooperation council countries. Computers & Education, 59, 607–618.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION AND THE ARABIAN GULF Daniel J. Kirk ABSTRACT The purpose of this brief chapter is to set out the current trends and issues related to comparative and international education (CIE) in the Arabian Gulf region. As the field of comparative and education studies and research is relatively new in the Gulf, this chapter attempts to tell the story of the current state of the field in the region. One result of such an emergent area of the broader field is that there is little history and literature to draw upon, hence this chapter will defer to the literature regarding the field in general, drawing on specific area studies relating to the Gulf when available. Many aspects of education development, history, policy and practice have been examined, yet the distinct field of CIE, both as a teaching methodology and a research focus, remains a small, yet growing, part of the wider educational discourse and practice in the region. Keywords: Arabian Gulf; Arab spring; education policy; Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC); knowledge production

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 175–189 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020018

175

176

DANIEL J. KIRK

INTRODUCTION The field of comparative and international education (CIE) is still very much in its infancy in the Arabian Gulf region. Unlike many other regions of the world, the study of educational systems, policies and practices is a relatively new phenomenon, partly due to the somewhat short history many of the Gulf states have of self-determination and nationhood. As the modern Gulf states have evolved over the last half a century or so, political and social institutions and practices have developed, becoming the framework for the governance of the states. State sponsored education was among the priorities for these rentier states, as they sought to develop national infrastructures and capacity, using incomes from the growth in oil exploration and production. Rentier states in the Gulf, those nations that receive a large proportion of their income from selling its natural resources to external buyers (Beblawi & Luciani, 1987), whether they be private or governmental, have found themselves in control of large cash reserves, with little or no public influence over how the resources of the country are used for the national good. With national development a policy priority across the Gulf region, one area where Gulf nations have invested heavily has been public education. The relatively recent development of formal educational systems, and in particular the rapid growth and expansion of higher education access and opportunity, has led to an increased awareness of the role of research and development, and CIE has been an area that has seen a blossoming of interest and activity since the beginning of the twenty-first century (Kirk, 2010). It was around this time that governments of the Gulf, and in particular those that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), began to witness major shifts in national social and economic dynamics, prompting the need to explore a range of social and economic reforms to avoid future decline (Karolak, 2012) and stave off any possible social unrest in the future. The nations of the Arabian Gulf developed policies and reform efforts encompassing a wide, and at times confusing, array of differing social, economic and security policies and reforms, with the development, provision and increase in the quality of public education being one such priority.

THE CONTINUED INFLUENCE OF THE ARAB SPRING Since late 2010, much of the attention of the world has been focused on regional events as they have developed across the Arab world. The wave of

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

177

protests, demonstrations, revolutions, and popular uprisings that to date are continuing is causing much angst in the region, and in the Gulf states in particular, whose leaders fear that sustained social unrest will take hold on the streets. This period of unprecedented change, referred to as the Arab Spring or the regional preference of the Arab Awakening, has mainly avoided the countries of the lower Gulf, with the exception of Bahrain, resisting any large-scale protests or social unrest, yet the ongoing unrest in neighboring Arab nations has unsettled the leaders of the Gulf states. The role of youth movements and the influence of young people across the Arab world during the Arab Spring placed a spotlight on social issues and inequalities, and many governments looked at the role and purpose of education closely. National movements became international events, and the globalizing forces of social media and technology were at the forefront of many of the uprisings. Such a focus led many to reexplore the role education plays in preparing a nation’s youth to meet current and future challenges, a fundamental aspect of education that has been debated over the years (Mansilla & Gardner, 2007). In 2008 the World Bank reported that education reform needed to be a top priority in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including the Gulf states, so that educational attainment could go some way to combating growing youth unemployment and enhancing economic imperatives to diversify (Abouammoh, 2012). Much of what has been witnessed during the Arab Spring is, it could be argued, a direct consequence of the failure of many regional governments to invest and reform in education as a way to avoid the ticking time-bomb of youth disaffection in the Middle East (Kirk, 2012). In this respect, comparative education has a role to play in informing and assisting the governments of the Gulf in strengthening public education to meet the future needs of the economy and population.

THE SCOPE AND CONTEXT OF CIE IN THE GULF For the purposes of this chapter, it is prudent to set out the context and scope of the Arabian Gulf as an entity and how CIE will be presented and defined from a conceptual stance. First, for the purposes of this chapter the Arabian Gulf refers to the states that lie along the southern, eastern and western coastline of the Arabian/Persian Gulf, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. These states have deliberately been grouped for the purposes of the chapter for several reasons. The six states form a regional bloc called the Cooperation Council

178

DANIEL J. KIRK

for the Arab States of the Gulf, more commonly referred to as the GCC (AlSemmari, 2009). This political and economic union is drawn from the states that are located on the Arabian Peninsula, hence the current reference to the Arabian Gulf, as opposed to the often used Persian Gulf, which identifies the body of water with the northern neighbor Iran, which is ethnically Persian, not Arab. The shared political, economic and ethnic ties in the Arabian Gulf, and more exactly the GCC states, allow for the region to be discussed, examined and framed within the wider Middle East region. These nations also share many linguistic, religious, cultural, and social characteristics, although the experiences in social institutions, such as education, differ significantly. These differences influence the way that educational research, and comparative and international studies, are carried out in the region, and these will be discussed further in the chapter. Second, conceptualizing the field of CIE within the Arabian Gulf calls for a broader understanding of the current state of the field, and how this is being understood, problematized and employed in the region. CIE has some history in the wider Middle East, with it being evident in Egypt since the late 1950s, yet it does not hold a similar status or history in the Arabian Gulf. Other than scattered courses (as opposed to full programs) housed in several regional institutions, offered on an ad hoc basis, there has been little to no formal teaching, research or development in the field. When comparative education has been discussed or used in the region, it has mainly followed a simple model of studying another, usually foreign, education system, offering a simple comparison with little depth or analysis related to the Gulf context. In an attempt to fill this void, in 2008 the Gulf Comparative Education Society (GCES) was launched, with a mission and constitution designed to increase the profile, research output and broader understanding of CIE, and the role it can play in educational development in the region. It was an aim of the founders of the society that CIE be broadly conceived, with clear rationale and understanding of the field, including awareness of the difference between the teaching of comparative education through formal education programs and the deployment of the methods of comparative study in enhancing educational research in the region. From a conceptual basis, the scope of CIE in the region draws predominantly from the traditions of area and country studies and public policy research. The country, whether that is Bahrain, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates, predominantly forms the unit of analysis, often being placed in direct comparison with other countries in an attempt to make sense of national educational issues. In many ways, this approach makes sense, particularly as interregional reflection and competition are historical social

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

179

elements, but there is also a need for the field in the region to move beyond such a direct comparison approach, exploring the methodology and theoretical frameworks that underpin comparative studies, allowing the production of rigorous research that will have applied and tangible benefits to the education systems in the region. For the purposes of this discussion, however, the field of CIE will remain broadly conceived, as it is understood that taking a country as the unit of analysis, which has traditionally been the preferred frame of reference in the Gulf, often presents findings that tell only part of the wider story. Recently there has been a broader understanding of the role of comparative education in research related to education in the Gulf, with in-country analysis being complemented by large-scale data collection and wider regional studies. Much of this can be attributed to the rapidly expanding GCES, as well as an influx of academics and researchers into the Gulf as higher education provision and a regionally focused research agenda grow at a rapid pace. As mentioned, partly due to the establishment of the GCES, a professional, membership organization focused on developing the comparative and educational discourse in the region, along with the sudden and rapid influx of overseas higher education models, faculty, curricula and institutions, CIE has become part of the wider educational conversation in the Arabian Gulf. Mirroring significant and ongoing global changes to education, the local educational landscape is also fluid, currently in constant self-renewal and differing spaces, much like the shifting desert sand dunes that litter vast swathes of this peninsula. In the region, economic development, linked inextricably to wider global economic structures, have had important and fundamental influence on education in the Gulf states. This awareness has taken place at all levels, from individuals with a professional or personal interest through to national governments and regional organizations (such as the GCC and Arab League). This interest, and desire to understand more about the social and economic implications of education, has led to a greater interest in, and awareness of, global education systems, and the key role that national systems of schooling have in increasing and maintaining global competitiveness and economic sustainability.

EDUCATION POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF In all of the Arabian Gulf states, national level leadership has recently begun to show increasing levels of interest in educational systems, and the

180

DANIEL J. KIRK

development of ‘‘knowledge based economies.’’ As these nations continue to diversify and succession-plan for the inevitable end to oil exploration and production, creating an educated and productive national workforce is becoming a key strategic goal of the Gulf governments. Alongside the economic imperative to develop a highly educated and globally competitive citizenry to compete in the global economy, Gulf governments in the region have one eye on national security and the continuation of structures of governance. All of the GCC states are monarchies, with the ruling elite consisting of leadership based upon tribal and familial bloodlines, with the ruler (whether that be a king, emir, or sultan) appointed according to hereditary tradition as opposed to election by the citizenry. Although different Gulf states have varying degrees of participation in local politics for the national populace, in no Gulf monarchy is the leader elected by popular mandate. Education, then, becomes a key ‘‘battleground’’ in the perpetuation of the status quo, with Gulf leaders aware that the youth of their nation hold the key not only to the economic success of their nations, but to their own survival as heads of state. CIE, then, becomes a factor in national policymaking as governments and leaders seek to legitimize their own roles in governance and stave off much of the discontent and social unrest that they have witnessed in neighboring countries. It is no accident that the current waves of unrest in the region have come about at roughly the same time that Gulf states have forged closer educational links with foreign education providers. The rapidity of social change in the region has led to Gulf countries seeking support and advice from overseas as they scramble to build national education capacity and seek to placate the nation’s youth. Much akin to ‘‘panic buying’’ of gasoline in western nations when oil-producing states go through periods of turmoil, the Gulf states are looking to build education capacity and reform very quickly, and they are doing this, in some part, through the ‘‘panic buying’’ of educational models, expertise and systems from overseas. This is being done in a variety of ways, and each country is developing their own models for capacity building. Ranging from standalone partnerships with individual institutions (such as New York University in Abu Dhabi and Carnegie-Mellon University in Qatar) to broader technical assistance and expertise delivery for national development (e.g., the University of Bahrain’s invite to the Singaporean government to aid in the establishment of a national teacher preparation college). Whatever the model being used by a particular government in the Gulf, the aim is almost the same; to develop a national education system, quickly, that meets the needs and desires of the citizenry and at the same time maintains stability and safety for the ruling

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

181

elite. Comparative educationists in the region have an opportunity to explore the relationship between the various stakeholders and components of the current reform efforts being touted across the region. Moving beyond an examination of what is happening, researchers and academics with an interest in education will need to move into the culturally troublesome territory of investigating why this is happening, and the rationalization behind such moves by the government. There is no question that much of the education reform and policy shifts that have taken place recently are needed and will help improve the educational experience for students in the region. In fact, the notion of education being considered as a national good, intrinsically benefiting the nation and there for the benefit of society as a whole (Hugonnier, 2007), is as valid in the Gulf as elsewhere. But, as with any government-led initiative, questions must be asked regarding the deeper social implications such policies and moves will have. There is certainly more work needed, for example, on the national security concerns of the Gulf monarchies and their influence on educational policy and provision in the country.

THE LABOR MARKET AND KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION In the much publicized and referenced Arab Knowledge Report 2009, (MBRF & UNDP, 2009) a series of serious concerns and weaknesses regarding the state of education in the Arab world highlight the perceived need to refocus the educational structures to produce a highly-skilled and qualified indigenous workforce. In a follow-up report, Arab Knowledge Report 2010/2011: Preparing future generations for the knowledge society (MBRF & UNDP, 2010), a refocused effort was placed on the role of education to place nationals of the Gulf states at ‘‘the heart of the processes of building the desired knowledge society’’ (p. 1). The report is, by definition, comparative, as it draws upon data and evidence from across the Arab world, with a view to creating a regional knowledge base that can drive individual states, as well and the wider Gulf region, toward greater economic success and diversity. These two reports are recent examples of how the region is turning its attention to wider educational research and understanding, drawing upon what is perceived to be global best practice and economically rigorous investments in education. The labor market implications of the workforce demographic are another aspect of the

182

DANIEL J. KIRK

educational landscape in the Gulf that is unique to the region and that comparative education has a role in exploring (Obst & Kirk, 2010). Expatriate and nonnational workers far outnumber nationals in the labor markets of all GCC countries (Wiseman, 2011). Such is the concern among governments and nationals in the region, that a great deal of time and money has been invested in exploring the issue. Such international events such as the ‘‘Education and the requirements of the GCC labor market’’ conference, hosted by the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) and the ensuing publication of papers highlighted the growing disparity within the labor market. Yet only recently have governments and policymakers linked economic and labor market issues with education. Traditionally national economic development in the Gulf, focusing on diversification away from reliance on petro-dollars, has been viewed as a purely economic matter. With the number of expatriates in the region continuing to rise and dominate the labor market, the voices of employers is now being listened to, as they continually state that nationals entering the workforce lack many of the skills and qualifications necessary for them to be competitive (Al Shamsi, 2008). This is an educational policy issue, and comparative studies and methods are being deployed to seek ways to overcome this issue. An example of this currently being carried out in the United Arab Emirates is the participation of Dubai in large-scale international tests, specifically the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which is being used by the government to benchmark student attainment against international results, with the aim to use this data to identify areas of educational provision locally that need to be overhauled and reformed. However, the Arabian Gulf remains a net importer of ‘‘ideas’’ and relies heavily on a foreign workforce, both at the unskilled level as well as in the professional and highly educated sector. In fact, many high-ranking and influential personnel in national education systems are foreigners, both at the school, district, and national level. This highlights the educational deficit in qualifications and experience that exists across the Gulf. Many Ministries of Education around the Gulf rely heavily on the use of external consultants and consulting firms, such as Booz & Company and Nord Anglia, to drive policy and strategy formation and implementation. Comparative studies with a focus on the region have done much to highlight the often multitiered education systems in many of the Gulf states, which do little to build national and local capacity. It may be argued that the reliance of expatriates exacerbates the educational divide in the Gulf states, as the number of private schools offering external models and curricula now outnumber

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

183

government schools in many jurisdictions; Dubai is a good example of this as there are now more private schools in the emirate than public schools, increasing competition for students and creating a type of ‘‘brain drain’’ among Emirati students moving from public to private schools, resulting in lower enrollments and standards of attainment in the public sector. Such educational stratification mirrors the layering of social institutions and the different cultural and social norms and practices that perpetuate a hierarchical system of social capital. Over the last 5 years or so, many of the Gulf states have looked internationally for what is seen to be ‘‘best practice’’ in national education systems. This practice, to some extent, makes sense for governments in the Arabian Gulf, as they have a history of importing the necessary tools, frameworks, expertise, and knowledge to aid with all sectors of national development. This is one of the main contributing factors to the very high proportions of expatriates among national population figures, resulting in national citizens often being in the minority in their home nations. Yet this ‘‘looking over the fence’’ misses some of the fundamental challenges when exploring foreign systems and ways of working. Much that has been introduced into the education systems of the Arabian Gulf is of foreign or nonindigenous design. This includes curriculum, language of materials and instruction, contextualized resources, assessment structures, faculty and teacher credentials, assumption of ‘‘prior knowledge and cultural norms,’’ cultural references and traditions, along with systemic patterns such as length and format of academic year, the structure of the school day, student and parental expectations and a whole raft of other education-specific elements that are not easily plucked from the shelf of a provider and implanted into a very different educational importer. Such a situation in the Arabian Gulf is driven, primarily, by two different, yet interrelated, elements. First, the Arabian Gulf nations are still, on the whole, extremely wealthy. They have the resources and global reach to import models and expertise, whether that be to help build the world’s tallest building or establish a new ‘‘world-class’’ university campus. Secondly, the Arabian Gulf nations aspire to be globally competitive, and view themselves as being able to compete among the top-tier of leading nations. The ruling elite of the Gulf states dabble in the global political arena, willing to be prominent on the world stage when it suits them, but also reluctant at times to become to visible global radar of international relations and politics. Most of the Gulf states are still, to some extent, developing. Despite huge leaps in terms of industrialization and modernization over the last few decades, primarily on the wave of massive remittances from the sale of natural resources, many of the states still lack embedded

184

DANIEL J. KIRK

infrastructure and national capacity to fully compete with developed nations. This is not, however, just an issue of development from a structural perspective. The Gulf states are relatively young as national entities, and there is still an immaturity among national institutions and the understanding of the leadership toward the global community. The desire to compete globally may well be drawn more for a need to learn and develop as a nation more than a true desire to compete on an international stage. The move toward educational comparison that many Gulf states have undertaken is perceived and understood differently by nationals and the expatriates who study their systems. These differing notions of the efficacy and worth of such educational reform efforts is an area of future potential conflict and disagreement as various groups and stakeholders will have varying ideas for the path education should be taking. Education is one arena that the Gulf nations are keen to perform well in, winning what has been termed the ‘‘Ed-Olympics’’ (Kirk, 2009), and gaining the right to be included in the elite of nations. Although the Arabian Gulf nations are not yet standing upon the gold medal spot of the podium, they are certainly training hard by inviting in and actively encouraging the opening of internationally recognized and ranked institutions of higher education, while in the K-12 system, curricula and policy reforms are being implemented at an astonishing rate. The rationale behind, and arguments for and against, the borrowing of educational models and systems is widely discussed in the literature (see Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004; Suarez-Orozco, 2007). One of the issues for the Gulf nations is that they are trying to develop educational capacity in an age of rapid development. This creates problems for implementation, particularly when the nations concerned, and those who live in them, are used to having access to the latest and most advanced lifestyle and technological innovations. Education can be seen as being sloth-like in its pace of change, often taking several years before the benefits of reform are seen. In this respect, building national capacity from the ground-up is not a politically or socially acceptable option in the modern, fast-paced nations of the Gulf. Some might argue that what is the use of the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, if the local public school less does not have access to basic computer technology, high speed internet connectivity or even modern air conditioning units. It is in the space, the gap between the economic and social developments of the Gulf states and the education provision in the nation’s schools where comparative education can help understand the realities on the ground and explore solutions that meet the needs of the nation and, more urgently, the needs of the nation’s schoolchildren.

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

185

REGIONAL POLITICAL AND SOCIAL INSTABILITY A discussion regarding the educational development and policy plans of the Arabian states cannot be undertaken without an awareness of the current political and social instability in the wider region, and how, in wake of the Arab Spring, the rise in CIE may work in the region. There is a role for the contribution CIE can make in the education systems of the Gulf states. There is little doubt that the Arabian Gulf was deeply affected by the wave of popular protest and social and political change that swept across the region. Yet with the exception of Bahrain and some eastern regions of Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Gulf nations did not see the same mass protests, violence and calls for social and political change that occurred further to the north and west. As these movements for change impacted the Arabian Gulf, the youth of these nations (who are the largest demographic group across the peninsula, and therefore vocal and powerful) have begun to demand reform and change. This may not take the same form as for example Tunisia or Syria, but change is being demanded, and reforming and restructuring the educational system, with a view to offering the youth employment and mobility options in a global workplace, seems like a logical and wise step for governments to make. The governments of the GCC are engaged in a major debate, at least internally if not publically, about issues related to knowledge creation and how knowledge is to be transferred, as opposed to just distributed through a top-down model. This debate mirrors an ongoing dialogue in academic fields regarding the role, status, purpose and ownership of knowledge. This discourse takes place on two levels: (a) at the paradigmatic level discussing knowledge creation and (b) at the cultural level to discuss how to transfer this knowledge between cultures (Al Zeera, 2001). This discussion highlights the cultural transfer role of education and the problematic status of an imported education model form a foreign culture, the fabled east versus west dichotomy, or western–nonwestern dichotomy (Reagan, 2005). Comparative education will need to explore the social, cultural and political implications of such importation and knowledge creation, going beyond the ideas that this is somehow just a matter of implanting or grafting a foreign model into a different setting, trying instead to understand why and how such systems are influencing local education and the notion of citizenship, identity and belonging. Many in locals the region argue that their heritage is being eroded through the imposition of western values in their education system (The National, 2010), and if this is a perception among nationals, then it creates problems for real reform efforts in public school systems. This is an

186

DANIEL J. KIRK

area that is still underrepresented in the literature surrounding education in the Gulf states.

THE FUTURE FOR CIE IN THE ARABIAN GULF So, for those who work in the education sector, and in particular those academics, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers who take a comparative approach in their work, what does the future hold for the role comparative education can play in the region? CIE studies are often considered in the abstract (Young, 1997), we often miss the specificity of what we are looking at, the reasoning behind the study and how it will improve the educational landscape and experiences for those who are involved in the process. This has been the case in the Gulf, as recent studies have focused on issues that are either very narrow in scope and, therefore, not informing a wider discussion, or broad national and multinational studies, which can ignore the localized implementation recommendations that are needed in the Gulf. Studies have looked at aspects of the curriculum, types of schooling, school governance and a range of other issues, yet little has been explored relating to equity, social justice, gender identity, the role of government and funding issues in the Gulf. The field of CIE in the Gulf region mirrors the relatively recent development of the GCC states themselves; it is a fairly new field of inquiry, with a small number of researchers actively engaged in exploring the issues, yet it continues to evolve, mature and grow, with a shift in paradigmatic thinking and approach, what Mitter identified as the change of paradigms. There is still a long way to go, and the field of CIE in the Arabian Gulf will need to mature, grow, evolve and place itself at the heart of the educational discourse in the region. Many state that the reforms in the GCC are still nowhere near to the level they need to be if they are to deal effectively with the social frustration and expectations that come from a sustained period of high revenues and rapid commercial success (Youngs, 2012), and education is certainly one of the reform areas that need increased attention. It is in this cross-sector understanding of education that will allow comparative education methodologies to be successfully implemented in the Gulf. Education, as Kandel (1957) pointed out should not be viewed in isolation, but rather in relation to social, political, economic, and cultural elements of a nation (Kazamias, 1961), a comprehensive methodological approach

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

187

that is difficult to comprehend for many Gulf leaders who rule by isolation and keeping competing forces apart. Breaking through this model of governance and linking the various aspects of social and political life is a strength of the comparative approach, and one that future scholars in the region, and those beyond but looking in, will need to reconcile if comparative education is going to meet its potential as a driver of reform and change in the education sectors of the Arabian Gulf states. If successful in reforming and developing a highly effective education system and becoming a knowledge producer, rather than consumer, the Gulf states could see themselves become detached from the rest of the Arab world in terms of academic and scientific quality (Romani, 2009), output and reputation. This could become a catalyst for wider political and social reforms, placing the GCC nations at the center of the global knowledge economy. Such a shift will require researchers who are aware of the social, cultural, religious, and political aspects of the nations being studied (Arani & Sridhar, 2003), not necessarily locals, but those with the skills and experience to seek deeper understanding of the dynamics of this complex region. This could be supported through the development of CIE programs and courses at local and regional universities, supported and delivered by faculty with experience of field and region, and the development of research capacity in nonacademic settings, such as policy centers, think-tanks, government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. Alongside the research component of comparative education, there will need to be a strong and focused practical element to the work of comparativists in the region, linking their work with the realities of the school and education systems in the Gulf states. Such practical developments, informed by global norms, trends and best practices, will need to be viewed by policymakers and leaders as a fundamental and worthwhile aspect of development, allowing the current education systems to develop.

CONCLUSION It is clear, then, that the field of CIE is active and seeking to explore the educational landscape of the Arabian Gulf. The field is new to the region, and along with a regional modern education system that is still in its infancy progress may be limited and slower than desired. Through a newly established regional comparative education society, the GCES, an increase in the number of faculty and scholars in the region, a growing interest on the

188

DANIEL J. KIRK

part of the leadership to engage with educational research and a willingness by the citizenry to examine their own education systems, it is anticipated that CIE in the Arabian Gulf will have a positive impact upon regional educational development and reform. Finally, it should be noted that the region has a long history of foreign and nonindigenous education systems, beginning with the formation of educational provision for the children of expatriates in the Gulf (Szyliowicz, 1973). Foreign school systems and practices are increasingly controversial, particularly when looking at the favoring of the English language over Arabic in national schools systems. Such controversy and resentment is often a symptom of the unfamiliar being introduced into conservative social structures, and policymakers and education administrators will need to face the challenge of modernizing within social and cultural structures that are, by nature, resistant.

REFERENCES Abouammoh, A. M. (2012). Higher education in the GCC states: Reforms and regulations. In S. Hertog (Ed.), National employment, migration and education in the GCC (pp. 265–285). Berlin: Gerlach Press. Al-Semmari, F. (Ed.). (2009). A history of the Arabian Peninsula. London: I. B. Tauris & Co. Al Shamsi, M. (2008). The imbalance in the population structure and its impact on the states of the region. Arabian Gulf Security: Internal and external challenges. Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research Abu Dhabi (pp. 389–447). Al Zeera, Z. (2001). Paradigm shifts in the social sciences in the east and west. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 55–73). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Arab Knowledge Report. (2009). Maktoum bin rashid foundation & the United nations development programme/regional bureau for Arab states. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing & Publishing. Arab Knowledge Report. (2011–2012). Preparing future generations for the knowledge society. Maktoum bin Rashid Foundation & the United Nations Development Programme/ Regional Bureau for Arab States. Al Ghurair Printing & Publishing, Dubai. Arani, A. M., & Sridhar, Y. N. (2003, February). Status and value education in Iran and India: A critical analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference on Globalization and Challenges for Education, India. Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences. Beblawi, H., & Luciani, G. (1987). The rentier state. London: Croom Helm. Hugonnier, B. (2007). Globalization and education: Can we meet the challenge? In M. SuarezOrozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 137–157). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kandel, I. L. (1957). American education in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Comparative Education and the Arabian Gulf

189

Karolak, M. (2012). Bahrain’s tertiary education reform: A step towards sustainable economic development. Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Mediterranee, 131(June), 161–181. Kazamias, A. M. (1961). Some old and new approaches to methodology in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 5(2), 90–96. Kirk, D. (2009). Diversity, global practice, local needs: An international comparative study of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of initial teacher training in the United States, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates. In G. Wiggan & C. B. Hutchinson (Eds.), Global issues in education: Race, class (in neo-colonial societies), gender, ethnicity and culture (pp. 59–80). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield. Kirk, D. (2010). The development of hgher education in the United Arab Emirates. Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research, Abu Dhabi. Kirk, D. (2012). National dialogue and education: Teacher education and national reform in the Kingdom of Bahrain Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Puerto Rico. Mansilla, V. B., & Gardner, H. (2007). From teaching globalization to nurturing global consciousness. In M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era. International perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Obst, D., & Kirk, D. (Eds.). (2010). Innovation through education: Building the knowledge economy in the middle east. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Reagan, T. (2005). Non-western educational traditions: Indigenous approaches to educational thought and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Romani, V. (2009). The politics of higher education in the middle east: Problems and prospects. Middle East Brief, 36(2009). Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Suarez-Orozco, M. (Ed.). (2007). Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Szyliowicz, J. S. (1973). Education and modernization in the middle east. London: Cornell University Press. The National. (2010). Westernised education is no substitute for national identity. The National, October 14, Abu Dhabi. Wiseman, A. (2011). Impact of science education on the GCC labor market. Abu Dhabi: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. Young, R. (1997). Comparative methodology and postmodern relativism. In V. Masemann & A. Welch (Eds.), Tradition, modernity and post-modernity in comparative education (pp. 497–505). Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers. Youngs, R. (2012). The gulf in the new world order: A forgotten emerging power? In S. Hertog (Ed.), National employment, migration and education in the GCC (pp. 5–12). Berlin: Gerlach Press.

COMPARATIVE PEDAGOGY IN SLAVONIC SOUTH EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Klara Skubic Ermenc, Vera Spasenovic´, Natasˇ a Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, Sofija Vrcelj and Nikolay Popov ABSTRACT This chapter compares the historical development and current state of comparative pedagogy (CP) in four Slavonic South East European Countries – Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia. The authors also aim to put the historical background and contemporary developments of CP as a science and academic discipline in their countries on the worldwide comparative education (CE) map. The chapter starts with a short definition of the two streams of CP development: the practical problem-solving nature of comparative studies; and the development of academic CP as a separate branch of the science of pedagogy. The history of CP in the four countries is divided into four historical periods: (1) 19th century until World War I (1918); (2) interwar years (1919–1941); (3) from 1945 until 1989; (4) from 1989 to the present. The development of CP during each period is

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 191–218 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020019

191

192

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

examined in both national and comparative aspects and is analyzed within the appropriate political, social, and economic context. Some scientificpedagogical factors are also discussed, with the goal of providing a better understanding of the specific features of CP in the individual countries and in the region as a whole. On the one hand, the analysis shows common characteristics in CP development, mostly influenced by the fact that the historical development of the science of pedagogy (accompanied by the teacher training tradition and the education system structure) was strongly influenced by German theoretical and practical pedagogy in all SSEE countries. On the other hand, the comparison reveals some differences, especially between Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia. Keywords: Comparative pedagogy; Bulgaria; Croatia; Serbia; Slovenia; science of pedagogy

INTRODUCTION Two Streams of Comparative Studies Development The chapter compares the historical development and current state of comparative pedagogy1 (CP) in four Slavonic South East European Countries (SSEE countries) – Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia. In all four SSEE countries, two distinct, yet related, streams of development of comparative studies can be observed. The first stream began to develop in the education policy and practice context and was related to the development of modern public educational systems mostly at the beginning of the 19th century. At first, this approach evolved from descriptions of the educational systems in the European ‘‘cultured nations’’ (Germany, Austria, France, Russia, Switzerlandy) that were published in scholarly journals and government materials. The thinking was often based on the idea of developing an educational system that would help to place the country in the European community of nations. The ideological goal of making a country and its educational system more compatible with European political, sociocultural, and economic ideas, was at first – due to the Ottoman rule – more widely expressed in Bulgaria and Serbia. Much later, particularly after the abolishment of socialism in the 1990s, the idea of ‘‘bringing the country closer to Europe’’ was an important impetus for many comparative studies

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

193

and led to misuse of comparative data for educational policy purposes in all four SSEE countries. The second stream, which is the focus of our research, is related to the development of the science of pedagogy in European countries. Pedagogy began to develop as a distinct science at the same time that modern educational systems appeared. The birthplace of pedagogy was Prussia (part of Germany), and it later spread to other European countries, both west and east. German pedagogy was the most influential in the 19th century, and it had great influence on the development of pedagogy in the Balkan countries in the first half of the 20th century. Pedagogical ideas were rarely explored in England: Simon (1999) argues that there is no science of pedagogy in England2 (p. 34). Early pedagogical ideas were conceived by authors such as Comenius in the 17th century and Rousseau in the 18th century, but as a science, pedagogy was developed in the 19th century through the works of Herbart, Pestalozzi, Fro¨bel, Diesterweg, and many others (Radulasˇ ki, 2008; Zaninovic´, 1988; Zˇlebnik, 1959). The first important scholar to define pedagogy as an integral science was J. F. Herbart in the beginning of the 19th century (Potkonjak, 1978, p. 54; Protner, 2000, p. 26). He defined pedagogy as a deductive and normative science, based on philosophy, especially ethics. Ethics forms a basis for the definition of educational aims, which must be the starting point of every pedagogical thought and measure. He distinguished between two pedagogies: general pedagogy that rests on philosophy, and practical pedagogy that rests on psychology. Empirical facts cannot define the aims, therefore educational methodology should always rest on the deductively formed pedagogic aims (what values and knowledge to transmit, what kind of personality development to support). From the beginning, general pedagogy used comparison as one of its essential methodological approaches, allowing for the comparison of theoretical ideas and practical solutions between different traditions and theoretical streams (Krneta, Potkonjak, Schmidt, & Sˇimlesˇ a, 1967). Comparison is an inherent methodological approach used in pedagogical theoretical discussions. As pedagogical science developed in the First Yugoslavia (see below), for example, the most widespread comparison was the comparison of the ‘‘old’’ and the ‘‘new’’ school – terms that were used for the ‘‘Herbartarian school’’ and ‘‘progressive school’’ respectively (Lavrnja, 1985; Protner, 2000; Sˇevic´, 1920; Spasic´, 1935; Vidmar, 2009; Zaninovic´, 1988).

194

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

In the 1960s, a schism within pedagogy occurred. One group of authors declared that pedagogy was not a fundamental science; rather, they defined it as an ‘‘applied research area of various other disciplines which, on the basis of its own theoretical findings, develops proposals for the operation of schools and for improving educational practice’’ (Medvesˇ , 2010, p. 91). The schism is reflected in the use of terminology: Instead of pedagogy (German: Pa¨dagogik), the term educational science (German: Erziehungswissenschaft) began to be used. The changes in the definition of pedagogy were related to the general changes in the field of social sciences, which faced a tremendous upheaval with the introduction of the inductive approach. Empirical research methodology was introduced into the field of education and pedagogy, including in the SSEE countries and those that previously followed the German approach. This was a fruitful time for the development of CP as a distinctive pedagogic discipline, since it is closely related to the positivist-empiricist-inductive line of research: It tries to find the empirical data that would enable discovery of causal relationships between the level of a country’s development and its educational system (Frankovic´, 1971, p. 191; Potkonjak, 1978, p. 60).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES BETWEEN THE LATE 1800S AND WORLD WAR I (1918) Political, Social, and Economic Context As a result of the Russian–Turkish War of 1877–1878, Bulgaria gained independence from the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1878, thus establishing the Third Bulgarian State. The builders of modern Bulgaria began to lay the foundations of a new educational system. The liberation created favorable economic, social, and political conditions for development of a free Bulgaria. Parliament and other governmental institutions were immediately established. West European investments bolstered the Bulgarian economy. The new government and the infusion of capital both had positive influences on development of the educational system. The Berlin Congress of July 1878 divided the country into the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, but the Union of Bulgaria brought the country back together in 1885. Important laws related to education were adopted in 1881, 1885, 1891, and 1909.

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

195

In the 19th century, most of the territory of today’s Slovenia, Croatia, and a part of Serbia (Vojvodina) was part of the Austrian Empire (1804–1867) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867–1918). Between 1809 and 1813, part of the Slovenian territory and the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea belonged to the Napoleon’s Illyrian Provinces. Life in 19th-century Slovenia, Croatia, and Vojvodina was heavily influenced by the deep political and social reforms carried out by Maria Theresa (the last ruler of the House of Habsburg) and her son Joseph II in the second half of the 18th century. They transformed the Austrian part of the Habsburg monarchy into a highly centralized government that encouraged modernization. The modernization efforts included educational reform. In 1774, the state declared school to be a state (not church) matter and school became obligatory. Almost 100% attendance was achieved by the middle of the 19th century. It was a period of national awakening, including industrial and agrarian revolutions that helped to build a thriving bourgeoisie (Vidic, 2003). From the 18th century on, the majority of Serbs lived within the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The period was characterized by the Serbs’ constant struggle for national autonomy and by the development of democratic political ideas among the Serbian political elite (C`orovic´, 2009). The Serbs who lived on the territory of the Ottoman Empire did not have organized schooling: Education was maintained under the auspices of churches and monasteries. In the early 19th century, the Serbian revolution reestablished the country, but full autonomy wasn’t achieved until 1878.3 In the last decades of the 19th century, Serbian society developed in the economic and political sense: Industrialization began, a multiparty system was established, and parliamentary democratic life flourished. But Serbia was still small and economically weak, with an underdeveloped educational system. About 90% of the population was illiterate. Gymnasiums and universities were available only for upper-class males (C`unkovic´, 1971).

Practical Problems Influenced the Establishment of (Comparative) Pedagogy The end of the 19th century witnessed the establishment of pedagogy as a university course, and in some countries also as an independent academic and scientific discipline. Pedagogy was a part of the primary school teacher training in teachers’ colleges and a part of the gymnasium school teachers’ education in the faculties of arts or philosophy. As was pedagogy born out of the necessity to educate teachers how to teach and raise children, so were

196

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

studies of foreign educational systems born out of the necessity to organize national educational systems suitable for industrially developing countries. Among the four SSEE countries, comparative studies that followed this purpose and were also related to the national revival were most prominent in Bulgaria. A pioneer of Bulgarian CP, Luben Karavelov (1834–1879), studied education in Serbia, Russia, England, Austria, the United States, France, and Germany, and combined methods learned abroad while always remaining aware of each particular population’s own national traditions and needs (Popov, 2008, p. 28). Serbia, during the period of the development of the state and civic society in the 19th century, also began to develop and modernize its educational system. The introduction of compulsory education in 1882 and the efforts to improve teaching methods, the search for a secondary education model, and adjustment of curricula to the needs of the time increasingly required reliance on external experiences. The introduction of public education statistics enabled a comparison of domestic and foreign educational policies. Numerous articles in local educational journals addressed the reforms in European countries. Primary school teachers were interested predominantly in Russian sources (the organization of primary education, material status of teachers, etc.), while gymnasium teachers were well-informed about foreign education systems and meticulously observed gymnasium reforms in European countries in an effort to reach a model most suitable for the situation in Serbia (they discussed issues such as the advantages and disadvantages of classical and real gymnasiums). The responsibility of the Serbian political elite for the inadequacies of the educational system was emphasized by Vladimir Karic´ (Karic´, 1886). He used official statistics to compare the effectiveness of the systems of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Croatia. His book can be considered the first comparative education (CE) study in Serbia (Spasenovic´ & Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, 2013). Due to tighter political, societal, and cultural connections to Austria, Croatia and Slovenia developed their educational systems under a direct Austrian influence. The need to search for foreign ideas regarding the construction of the educational system was therefore not perceived at the time. The debates, however, revolved around the pros and cons of different pedagogic concepts, one of the most pronounced being the abovementioned fierce debate about the ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ school. The debates took place among academics and practitioners in all SSEE countries, heading in favor of a ‘‘progressive school’’ – which simultaneously also meant a turn to empirical, experimental pedagogy.

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

197

The Development of the Science of Comparative Pedagogy in Bulgaria Opened in 1888, the first Bulgarian university, Sofia University, played a very important role in the development of CE studies (Popov, 2008, p. 29). Peter Noykov (1868–1921) was the first Bulgarian professor of pedagogy. He lectured on the general and national history of pedagogy, general pedagogy, and was also the most prominent comparativist of the time (Chavdarova, 2009, p. 28; Popov, 2008, p. 29). He visited Germany, France, and England, and he was the first Bulgarian scholar to work on the theory of educational comparison. He designed his own method, ‘‘a general method of studying characteristics of a given national education,’’ consisting of three phases: categorization, comparison, and generalization. With lecture courses on ‘‘German Education,’’ ‘‘English Education,’’ and ‘‘School Organization and Management,’’ which he began to give at Sofia University in 1908–1909, Noykov prepared the ground for CE as a university discipline (Popov, 2008, p. 29).

The Development of the Science of Pedagogy in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia In 1892, on demand of gymnasium teachers, pedagogy was introduced at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, Serbia. The first professor of pedagogy at the Faculty was Vojislav Bakic´ (1847–1929) who studied pedagogy in Heidelberg and Leipzig, Germany. In 1874, he defended his doctoral thesis at the University of Leipzig and became the first Serbian doctor of pedagogical sciences. He was a follower of Herbert (‘‘scientific’’) pedagogy who also accepted the idea of ‘‘new’’ school and experimental pedagogy and also advocated school reforms modeled on some elements of German and Austrian educational systems. In 1900, Bakic´ established the Department of Philosophy and Pedagogy (Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, 2012). One of the first teachers of pedagogy in Croatia was Stjepan Novotny (1833–1867) in Zagreb. He authored the first general pedagogy textbook. In 1876, the Faculty of Philosophy was established in Zagreb, where in the same year Franjo Markovic´ held the first public lecture on pedagogy. The establishment of the second chair for theoretical and practical philosophy in 1893, and the separation of pedagogy and philosophy, marked the start of independent, continuous pedagogy lectures. In 1893, Œuro Arnold was named an associate professor of pedagogy. Two years later the Department of Pedagogy was opened (Vrcelj, 2008, p. 36). The first university in Slovenia (Ljubljana University) was established in 1919. The role of pedagogy will be discussed in the next chapter.

198

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CP IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD (1919–1941) Political, Social, and Economic Context After participation in three wars (the Balkan wars of 1912–1913 and World War I), Bulgaria was a broken country in 1919. In the years of the postwar crisis (1919–1923), the general aim was the rebuilding of the society, its economy, and education. In the 1930s, Bulgarian society saw very fast economic growth that contributed greatly to the development of general and vocational education, and teacher training as well. During World War I, Slovenia and Croatia were on the side of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, while Serbia was on the side of Antanta. In spite of that, after the war, the nations joined in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (KSHS), which was in 1929 renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (KJ) (also known as The First Yugoslavia). Vojvodina, previously under the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, also joined the new kingdom. World War I devastated the region, both economically and demographically. But KSHS and KJ were governed in a centralized manner, with officials promoting the notion that there was ‘‘one nation with three names.’’ But this idea was not accepted by the Croats and the Slovenians. Political life was characterized by unresolved national questions and by the struggle for power among liberal and conservative political parties. Between the world wars, Serbia remained an underdeveloped and predominantly agricultural country, despite the influx of workers into cities. But there was a positive shift in education: The number of children attending primary schools increased, the educational opportunities for girls improved, and the number of students attending universities increased considerably. Croatia was also an agrarian country, but it slowly developed new industries and an educational system. Crucial changes to the Croatian political leadership in 1921 were led by the Peasant Party. The new constitution abolished a number of historical and political entities, including Croatia and Slavonia, and centralized authority in the capital of Belgrade. This also caused the unification of the syllabi in the KSHS, which revealed the undemocratic and unitarianist tendencies of the newly established state. Better educational opportunities became available during the brief existence of the province known as the Autonomous Banovina of Croatia (1939– 1940) (Gac´ina-Sˇkalamera, 2004).

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

199

Political life in Slovenia was characterized by two main traits: the ideological clash between liberal and conservative political parties, and the fight against centralistic tendencies of the central government. But economically, socially, and culturally, Slovenia was rapidly developing. Industrialization and modernization were in full swing, some civil rights and workers’ rights were introduced, the health system was modernized, and culture and education blossomed (Vidic, 2003). The interwar period was very fruitful also for the science of pedagogy. Pedagogy in KSHS and KJ was not only a university discipline; it also became a separate science and study program, with first chairs or departments of pedagogy established. In Serbia, Croatia, and Bulgaria, pedagogy became an academic (university) discipline at the end of the 19th century, with Slovenia following it two decades later. Pedagogy was divided into branches such as Theoretical Pedagogy, Practical Pedagogy, History of Pedagogy, and Didactics. With the formation of departments for pedagogy in all four countries, a gradual formation of a professional profile of pedagogues emerged and developed. Pedagogues could be employed either as gymnasium teachers (because they studied also history, geography, Latin, and similar) or were employed by different government bodies who were responsible for the development of the educational system.

The Beginning of Comparative Pedagogy in Bulgaria Christo Negentzov (1881–1953) was the first Bulgarian scholar to introduce CP as a university course. In 1925, at Sofia University, Negentzov started a lecture course called General Theory of School Organization. It consisted of two parts: history of education in the 19th century, and comparison of school systems worldwide. His comparative pedagogical heritage consists of case studies on foreign education and systematic use of comparison as a basic research method. His comparative study of schooling in Germany and the United States (Negentzov, 1926) is a telling example in this respect (Popov, 2008, p. 31). Gencho Piryov (1901–2001) was the first author in Bulgaria to introduce the term comparative pedagogy and speak about it as a separate pedagogic discipline. He advocated its development in Bulgaria. He published many works on CP, where he dealt with the systematic research of education in other countries and comparative analyses of various educational problems.

200

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

His book New Education in the New World (Piryov, 1933) was an apology of pedagogical theory and educational practice in the United States. In Entire Education (Piryov, 1941), he examined in a comparative way the practical applications of various educational approaches in several countries (Popov, 2008, p. 31). The period between 1919 and 1944 was very fruitful for Bulgarian CP: Over 50 Bulgarian authors published work related to CE. Among them, Dimitar Katzarov was the editor of Free Upbringing, a journal that published many papers on foreign pedagogical theories and educational practices. The analytical character of CP studies in Bulgaria was improving compared to the previous period. Much attention was paid to the historical, economic, cultural, and social conditions affecting the development of educational systems. Interdisciplinary approaches (psychological, historical, sociological, statistical, etc.) to analyzing educational phenomena were often used. Horizontal and vertical comparisons were used. CP was introduced and developed as a university discipline. It also began to be considered as a science that was important for academic study, day-to-day school operations, and educational policy making.

The Beginnings of (Comparative) Pedagogy in the First Yugoslavia The period was marked by intensive development of pedagogy as a scientific discipline and university study program. Many pedagogues gained doctorates at European universities and advocated new pedagogical concepts, like experimental pedagogy, work school, and American progressive education. Pedagogical literature flourished. The most significant were professors at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, especially Milan Sˇevic´ (1866–1934) and Vic´entije Rakic´ (1881–1969), but there were a lot of doctors of pedagogy who worked at teacher training colleges and the so-called High Pedagogical school in Belgrade (Potkonjak, 2012). Most of the interest in studying foreign educational systems was still limited to teachers and practitioners. The works of German social-democrats were widely translated, and information on the school system in the Soviet Union spread. During the 1930s, Professor Milan Sˇevic´ fought to create the National Centre for Educational Documentation to enable cooperation with the International Bureau for Education in Geneva. Still, CP did not exist as a scientific discipline or a university course (Spasenovic´ & Vujisic´Zˇivkovic´, 2013).

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

201

In Croatia Stjepan Maticˇevic´ (1880–1940) contributed to the recognition of pedagogy as an individual scientific and academic field in Croatia. But it was Albert Bazala (1887–1947) who laid the groundwork for the development of CP in Zagreb University. He introduced the course of Modern Pedagogical Trends in the Department of Pedagogy. In the 1930s, books on education in the United States and Russia were published by university professors Franjo Mandic´-Higy (1877–1940) and Stjepan Pataki (1905–1953). Similar to the situation in Serbia, most interest in foreign educational systems was still confined to teachers’ associations and journals (Vrcelj, 2008, 2013). In Slovenia, the period saw the establishment of pedagogy as a separate science. Karel Ozvald (1837–1946), the first professor of pedagogy at Ljubljana University, based his pedagogy on cultural pedagogy, the successor to Geisteswissenschaftliche Pa¨dagogik (Medvesˇ , 2010, pp. 91–92). Cultural pedagogy formed educational aims on the basis of hermeneutic analysis of the ‘‘objective Zeitgeist,’’ and hence developed its value system as an independent research field. It researched cultural values ‘‘in terms of ethicality, sociality, religiosity, aesthetics. Through hermeneutics it sought the universal, the permanent, which in itself created an autonomous [y] pedagogical culture’’ (Medvesˇ , 2010, p. 94). Besides Ozvald, Stanko Gogala (1901–1987) also adopted this approach. He strove to establish pedagogy as a fundamental science, independent of politics, society, and the economy, and tied only to durable human values. Comparison is understood as a juxtaposition and comparison of different pedagogical concepts and ideas (Ermenc, 2013). In Slovenia, teachers were also, in a sense, forerunners of empirically based CP. They studied pedagogical ideas and educational systems from around the world. The discussion among the representatives of different pedagogies4 was in the interwar period very lively and fierce.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CP AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE FROM 1945 UNTIL 1990 Political, Social, and Economic Context After World War II, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia became socialist republics and were under the influence of Soviet communist ideology. The influence was especially strong in Bulgaria, while Yugoslavia began to develop its own socialist route after the 1948 Stalin–Tito split. In 1945 the Second Yugoslavia was established – Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.5 It developed a special type of socialist economic

202

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

system, a self-managed economy. This system substituted Soviet-type central planning with a decentralized, self-managed system after reforms in 1953 (Estrin, 1991). The socialist period of educational development in the Second Yugoslavia had negative and positive traits. The educational system was democratized: Access to education improved considerably, the number of schools increased, gender equality was supported, and education was secularized. But the communist ideology permeated all dimensions of education (Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´ & Spasenovic´, 2009). The one-party system also influenced pedagogy, which became much more monolithic and ideological. In Bulgaria, it followed Russian pedagogy, and CP was strongly dependent on the Soviet influence, Marxist–Leninist ideology, and the idea of building a communist society. Yet, some pedagogues in Yugoslavia developed their own type of socialist pedagogy that distanced itself from the Russian ‘‘statist pedagogy’’ (Schmidt, 1982) and based its theory on the concept of a free self-managed person. This was a period when CP in Yugoslavia began to develop rather intensively.

The Establishment of CP as a Scientific Discipline in Bulgaria In 1962–1963, Nayden Chakarov began a course on CP for students at Sofia University. Although it was not the first academic course considering foreign education in a comparative perspective, it was the first one entitled Comparative Pedagogy. That course continued until the 1980s. Chakarov published two crucial books: Problems of Comparative Pedagogy (Chakarov, 1969) and Comparative Pedagogy (Chakarov & Bishkov, 1986), working with Georgi Bishkov (Popov, 2008, p. 32). In Problems of Comparative Pedagogy, Chakarov discussed the basic problems of CP from a dialectical-materialistic point of view. The epistemological issues of CP were discussed and some educational systems analyzed. The early 1980s were marked by the gradual collapse of ideological monism in pedagogy. CP enabled a deeper understanding of education in Western countries and developed more reliable approaches to comparative studies.

The Establishment of CP as a Scientific Discipline in the Second Yugoslavia CP as a distinctive university course or a topic integrated in other courses was (and remains today) at all universities in Yugoslavia part of pedagogy

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

203

university programs; programs that educated graduates in pedagogy (pedagogues). Also, the opportunities for the professional engagement of pedagogues in Yugoslavia became greater during the second half of the 20th century. Beginning in the late 1950s, pedagogues began to be employed as regular members of the school staff. The main role of school pedagogues is still today to encourage students’ personal and academic development and to contribute to the improvement of the educational process in school settings (Resman, 2000; Trnavac, 1996). Along with emancipation from Soviet influence in the 1950s and debate about a new type of uniform eight-grade primary school, there was an opening toward the West and adoption of empirical research methodology developed in Western countries, and an increased interest in the educational systems in European countries (Potkonjak, 1994). These influences mainly came through cooperation with UNESCO; there was an increase in the number of articles on educational practice in the West (Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, 2006). Following the trend, the leading expert in comparative approach to education in the Second Yugoslavia, Dragutin Frankovic´, published his first paper on the history, tasks, and methods of CP (Frankovic´, 1955). Unfortunately, science was at the time still heavily influenced by ideology, which had a negative impact on the development of social sciences, including CP. Frankovic´ critically pointed out that ‘‘it was not by chance that we are far behind other countries in this area’’ (Frankovicˇ, 1971, p. 172). An interdisciplinary approach to comparative research in education was delayed for the same reason. Scientific production in CP therefore remained limited to theoretical and methodological reexamination and informative articles on foreign education. Among the most influential monographs on CP in Yugoslavia were: Frankovic´’s Comparative Pedagogy (Frankovic´, 1971), Darinka Mitrovic´’s Modern Trends of Comparative Pedagogy (Mitrovic´, 1981), and Dusˇ an M. Savicˇevic´’s Comparative Research of Education – Theoretical and Methodological Framework (Savicˇevic´, 1984). These authors discussed the epistemological and methodological issues regarding CP and its place in the science of pedagogy, described and analyzed educational systems in Germany, England, France, USSR, the United States, and occasionally other countries (Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Japan, China, India, a few in Africa), and analyzed the influence of pedagogic theories on the educational systems and pedagogic practice in different countries. They also discussed the development of vocational education, concepts of adult and lifelong education, and their influence on educational systems. The authors strove to develop CP as a distinctive research field and an academic discipline, and also as a policy making instrument (Frankovic´, 1971,

204

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

p. 193). They were only partially successful. In Serbia, where educational ethnocentrism was strongest, CP was still not introduced as a university course, but it soon appeared in Croatia. In Croatia, they saw the need for the recognition of different cultures and educational systems with the belief that education can become an instrument of peace. Because of that, comparative topics were intensified through introductory pedagogic courses. They covered issues such as school system organization, economic progress, and educational democratization. In 1960, CP was introduced at University of Zagreb as an academic course for the first time. University of Rijeka and University of Zadar followed soon after (Vrcelj, 2008, p. 37). Also in Slovenia, university pedagogy has started to deal with the challenges of modern education. Comparisons of pedagogical ideas have been joined with comparisons of school systems, which has also been reflected in the shift in emphasis in pedagogy to more practical education problems. Vlado Schmidt was the first Slovenian author to use the term comparative pedagogy. In his paper, Schmidt (Schmidt, 1982, pp. 96–131) discussed the methodology of school reforms in response to the (unrealized) proposal to extend elementary education to 10 years, following the example of Soviet schools. CP was introduced as a thematic unit within a course on the history of education and schooling, and included topics such as the 20th-century pedagogical thought and historical and modern development of the educational system (Ermenc, 2013).

THE STATUS OF CP FROM 1989 TO THE PRESENT Political, Social, and Economic Context In Bulgaria, the communist regime peacefully collapsed in 1989, catalyzing society-wide changes. Democracy and a market economy were reestablished in the country. Bulgaria became a member of NATO in March 2004 and a member-state of the European Union (EU) on January 1, 2007. In the late 1980s, Slovenians demanded more autonomy within Yugoslavia and strove for the country to become politically and economically more liberal. The collapse of inter-republic talks on transforming the country and the gradual spread of ethnic nationalism led to the country collapsing along ethnic lines. On June 26, 1991, Slovenia declared full sovereignty. On the same day, the Yugoslav Peoples’ Army attacked, leading to the Ten-Day War (Vidic, 2003). Slovenia became an independent

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

205

democratic republic and a social state in 1991; a member of the EU and NATO in 2004; and member of the OECD in 2010. After the failure of communism, Croatia declared independence, leading to the four-year War of Independence (1992–1995) between Croatian forces and the Serb-controlled Yugoslav People’s Army in coalition with local Serb forces. The war ended with Croatian victory; however, much of Croatia was devastated, and much of its economy and infrastructure were destroyed. Croatia and Serbia cooperate more today, but some tensions still remain. After the war, Croatia has become a democratic capitalist state and made a number of political, social, and economic changes. But the large-scale privatization of public services, property, and business has caused major job losses and a significant increase in social stratification. Currently, Croatia is implementing a number of structural changes, including in education, intending to keep pace with technological and social changes of the 21st century. It has become a part of EU in 2013. During the last decade of the previous century with the collapse of the Yugoslavian federation and its involvement with armed conflicts, Serbia faced a major social and economic crisis that involved the disruption and privatization of large economic systems, inflation, and the decline of living standards, along with an increased unemployment rate. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia also led to the destruction of federal scientific, research, and educational institutions. Since political changes in 2000, a long process of democratic transition and European integration has begun in Serbia. Revitalization of the educational system is a top priority, while educational research remains neglected. Serbia has gained the status of candidate country for EU membership.

The Current Status of CE in Bulgaria After 1989, comparative educators regained the freedom in defining their research subjects, questions, and methodology. The conditions for expanding international academic cooperation considerably improved, and academic mobility of Bulgarian lecturers and researchers was widened. CE was introduced as a course in many university teacher training programs. CE is studied in its traditional form, containing three parts: history; theory, methodology, and methods; description and comparison of educational systems. Its main goal is to offer deep knowledge on foreign educational systems to students. The CP professors still face the challenge how to strengthen the students’ methodological skills (Popov, 2013, p. 35).

206

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

Unfortunately, possibilities of conducting CE studies were constrained by limited finances. In 1991, the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES) was founded, which a year later became a member of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). Since its foundation, the BCES has been a small but active society. In 2012, the BCES withdrew from the WCCES. The renewed vigor in Bulgarian comparative research resulted in many new monographs:  Georgi Bishkov and Nikolay Popov published Comparative Education in 1994 (Bishkov & Popov, 1994, 1999) the third comprehensive monograph on CE in Bulgaria, which examines the historical, methodological, and practical aspects of CE.  Another book examining and comparing 20 educational systems in Europe was published by the same authors (Popov & Bishkov, 1997).  Two other books, examining and applying worldwide comparisons as a main methodological model of comparative study, appeared as the result of Nikolay Popov’s work in the field: Primary Education: Comparison of Structural Aspects in 90 Countries (Popov, 2001); and The World Comparison: A Challenge to Comparative Education (Popov, 2002).  Also, a detailed comparison of ABC books in nine Slavonic countries was done by Nikolay Popov and Marinela Mihova (Popov & Mihova, 2003).  In 2007, Popov and Pironkova published The Education System in Bulgaria (Popov & Pironkova, 2007). While the book is grounded in the national context, giving a thorough discussion of contemporary Bulgarian education, it also examines the Bulgarian educational system in a comparative context with many other national educational systems worldwide. The contemporary book production reflects the characteristics of the CE long development in Bulgaria: they focus on the descriptions and analyses of national educational systems. The analyses incorporate historical, economic, cultural, and social contexts. CE is predominately seen as a problem-solving tool serving the policy makers and educationists to provide solutions regarding the development of the Bulgarian educational system in line with the EU educational policy.

The Current Status of CP in Serbia Although CP as a separate pedagogic discipline has not been present at Serbian universities until recently, key themes and issues from the field have

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

207

been included in other courses, such as General or School Pedagogy, and History of Pedagogy. Students are trained to understand the basic characteristics of modern school systems and their development. After the higher education reform in 2005, based on Bologna principles, the changes in the university study programs were implemented. In the pedagogy study programs, CP was introduced as a compulsory course at the Bachelor level at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, and as an elective course at the master and doctoral level at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. The courses include topics from historical, theoretical, and methodological aspects of CP, as well as international experiences in education and European trends in the development of educational systems. Globalization and internationalization of education are also discussed (Spasenovic´ & Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, 2013). Some of the CP monographs published over the previous two decades include: The Ministry of Education initiated the publication of Primary and Compulsory Education Worldwide (Ministarstvo prosvete, 1995); and Secondary Education Worldwide (Ministarstvo prosvete, 1996). Nikola Potkonjak published The Future Developments of the Secondary Education (Potkonjak, 1989), where the author discusses the status and development tendencies of the secondary education in Serbia and elsewhere. In 2011 Radivoje Kulic´ published a comprehensive textbook titled Comparative Pedagogy: Theory, Systems, Reforms on the Historical Development of CP, Its Contemporary Methodological and Theoretical Issues (Kulic´, 2011). There are still some unresolved problems concerning future development of CP as a scientific discipline in Serbia. The first one is the lack of a critical mass of researchers. Yet, the basic challenge for CP remains its social relevance and attractiveness for a wider circle of professionals in education, as well as recognition of its status in the multidisciplinary field of pedagogical research. Efforts to move from ‘‘charismatically guided’’ to rational ‘‘scientifically informed’’ educational policy in Serbia may provide opportunities for more intensive comparative research. So far, experiences with cross-national evaluation studies on the effectiveness of the educational system (such as PISA and TIMSS) indicate that there is an interest among educational authorities to apply their recommendations. As Spasenovic´ and Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´ have recently pointed out, there is also a need for university educational science departments to assume a more prominent role in the conceptualization, realization and dissemination of comparative research results, and this role can be achieved only by participating in international trends of CE (Spasenovic´ & Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, 2013, p. 135).

208

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

The Current Status of CP in Croatia After 1991, the number of comparative studies in Croatia has increased due to the growing demand for educational reform. The reforms are guided by an official strategy for development of the Republic of Croatia, titled ‘‘Croatia in the 21st Century.’’ Under the strategy, educational policy is becoming more evidence-based, and educational development is built around two main ideas: lifelong learning and the integration of Croatia in the EU. The educational system is designed to produce competitive citizens, who are ready to meet the challenges of modern society. Croatian comparative pedagogues discuss these issues critically in several monographs. To list but a few:  Milan Matijevic´ published a comparative study of elementary education worldwide (Matijevic´, 1991), and a renowned study of alternative schools (Matijevic´, 1994, 2001), which is the first Croatian in-depth study of the concept of pedagogical pluralism.  Stanko Antic´ in 1993 (Antic´, 1993) edited a comprehensive monograph on the world’s educational systems that deals with global aspects of education from a European perspective.  Sofija Vrcelj published In Search for Identity – Comparative Pedagogy Perspective (Vrcelj, 2005). The book deals with an analysis of the historical and contemporary context of CP and discusses theoretical and methodological challenges of CP in the context of globalization.  Besides systemic comparative analyses, several studies have been carried out, focusing on specific educational issues, such as assessment methods (Matijevic´, 2004). Similar to Serbia, Croatia has reformed its university education in accordance with the Bologna declaration in 2005. CP is now a compulsory course at the first-level study of pedagogy, and at two universities (Rijeka, Zagreb) also at the doctoral level. There are some differences among universities, but they all include topics such as historical development of CP; subject, methods, and tasks of comparative research; perspectives of comparative research; globalization process and education.

The Current Status of CP in Slovenia The period from the end of the 1980s to the mid-1990s was very important for the Slovenian educational system. This was the time when citizens began

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

209

to publicly criticize the existing social system, a process which culminated in independence. At the same time, it was also a period of planning and implementation of major social reforms, including education reform. New strategic decisions in the area of education were made on the basis of research in Slovenia and abroad, with comparisons given significant weight. At Ljubljana University, CP has been offered as a separate course since 1992. At first, it focused on the study of modern educational systems, and the analysis of modern trends and problems in education. Later, the focus of the course was broadened to include an exploration of the equity of the system, and lifelong learning, with more emphasis on globalization (Ermenc, 2013). Slovenia has also signed the Bologna declaration, but due to the reluctance of the university sector, the reform has been implemented only in 2010. Today, CP has a vital role in the pedagogy study programs. It is subdivided into more courses at bachelor, master, and doctorate levels: Comparative Pedagogy, Education Systems, Education Development Strategy, Globalization in Education, Intercultural Pedagogy. A pedagogy study program is also offered at University of Maribor, where CP plays a minor role. But from 2008 onward, first-cycle students of pedagogy are obliged to take a CP course (Ermenc, 2013). Slovenia shares two similarities with modern Croatia and Serbia: first, pedagogy study programs have been reformed in accordance with the Bologna declaration; and second, the importance of CP within the programs has increased for the same reasons: due to integration with the EU, and more widely, participation in the globalizing forces and processes. Slovenia’s stance on these trends is specific: Slovenia (with its small cultural area) has always been responsive to global trends in pedagogy and education, but on the other hand deliberated them critically and introduced them into its educational system with caution and reflection. Slovenian university pedagogues actively participate in domestic and international discussions on the global pedagogical and educational issues. To list but a few of the topics: the effects of globalization on national and global education (Medvesˇ , 2008); the effects of the concept of lifelong learning as formulated through the Lisbon process (Kump, 2009); the impact of international student assessment (such as PISA) on national education (Gaber et al., 2006; Gaber, Cankar, Marjanovicˇ Umek, & Tasˇ ner, 2012); inclusion in education (Kroflicˇ, 2007, 2010; Lesar, 2009); interculturalism and the question of the place of cultural and ethnic minorities in national education systems (Ermenc, 2004, 2005); analysis of the effects of European education policy on Slovenian national policy (Ermenc, 2012; Medvesˇ , 2008); the concepts of critical literacy (Voncˇina, 2008); and the like.

210

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

However, CP in Slovenia does not have a long tradition, which makes it vulnerable. Comparative data and findings of international comparative research are one of the main sources for justifying any reform proposals. Not infrequently, a battle for the interpretation of comparative data develops between politicians and researchers, and their (mis)uses tend to influence policy decision-making. As Ermenc has recently pointed out: A far as the quality of Slovenian pedagogy and education system is concerned, comparative pedagogy plays at least two important roles: (a) regarding the policy objective to make Slovenia’s education system comparable with Europe, it must analyze the possibilities and impossibilities of transferring solutions between different environments; and (b) pedagogy has undertaken the task of participating in the development of a high-quality, fair education system. Quality education and fair education have been subjects of comparative education research since the very beginning (e.g., Husen, Faure), and it has developed its own methodological and categorial apparatus for them. It is worth continuing on this basis in order to contribute new knowledge to the treasury of pedagogical and andragogical science. (Ermenc, 2013, p. 145)

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Bulgaria Established CP as a Separate Pedagogic Discipline in the 1920s In SSEE countries, pedagogy started to develop as a research area and academic discipline in the 19th century. In the beginning, it was closely tied to primary teacher education, but it was developed as a university (academic) discipline in the framework of gymnasium teacher education. The process of introducing pedagogy at universities started in the last decades of 19th century, at first in Croatia, than Bulgaria and Serbia in 1892, and lastly in Slovenia. In the context of pedagogy development, CP also gradually emerged. Comparative research in Bulgaria was very popular from the 19th century on, primarily because it was seen as an important tool for the development of a modern European-style educational system. Comparative perspectives on education research were more widely adopted and developed at Bulgarian universities than at institutions in other SSEE countries. The driving forces behind comparative studies in Serbia in the second half of the 19th century were similar to those in Bulgaria. The studies were seen as tools that were needed to advance the modernization of the national educational system. In spite of that, CP was not developed as a separate scientific field. CP was, at the time, also not developing as a separate scientific field in Slovenia and Croatia but due to a different reason: Croatia

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

211

and Slovenia were parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and hence shared the Austrian educational system. Non-Austrian educational perspectives were therefore not explored as widely. Bulgaria developed CP as a separate university discipline in the 1920s. University professors and other authors wrote many articles and books, but the methodology they used was rather simple, descriptive research, and horizontal comparison prevailed. Although comparison had been an inherent method in academic and practical pedagogy, there was no such concept as CP in the developing Yugoslavian pedagogy. In the 1920s, general pedagogy was gradually gaining ground, becoming one of the first disciplines to be introduced in the emerging universities – in Croatia and Serbia at the end of the 19th century and in Slovenia after World War I.

The Place of Comparison within Pedagogy: The Bulgarian and the Yugoslavian Traditions The place of comparison within pedagogy differed among different countries: Even though a science is never monolithic at one university, let alone one country, our analysis reveals that comparison was basically understood in two different manners, one being more typical for Bulgarian, the other more typical for Yugoslavian pedagogy: (1) In Bulgarian pedagogy, empirical comparative research aimed at solving practical educational problems found its distinct role much sooner than in Yugoslavian pedagogy, reflected in rich production of books and papers, which predominately focus on structural elements of particular educational systems. The quality and the complexity of the methodology gradually improved: More attention was paid to the historical, economic, cultural, and social context, interdisciplinary approaches were often used, and horizontal as well as vertical comparisons were performed. (2) Yugoslavian pedagogy (in spite of its internal heterogeneity) began dealing with political and practical educational issues more reluctantly, because pedagogy was mostly conceived as a deductive science dealing with the conditions of moral, spiritual, intellectual, and aesthetic development of a human being (theory of education). University professors discussed them and used comparison as a basis for the discussion about pros and cons of different pedagogical theories and concepts. Nevertheless, there were authors who justified the need for

212

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

empirically based comparative research that could help improve the educational system. These claims often came from the teachers’ circles. In the socialist period (1945–1990) in Bulgaria, the communist regime did not have a positive influence on further development of CP. But the period was not homogenous; the second half of the 1940s and the 1950s was the darkest time. Any interest in a Western approach to education was seen as a provocation, even as a crime. The ideological curtain gradually started to open. However, researchers had to examine foreign educational theories and practices from a class-based point of view, applying the Marxist methodological approach. In the early 1980s, some new trends appeared that led to breaking the stranglehold of ideological monism; to a deeper understanding of Western educational methods; and to establishing more reliable approaches to comparative studies. In spite of the strong political agenda influencing Yugoslavian pedagogy, this period was, unlike in Bulgaria, relatively favorable for the development of CP. In spite of the fact that political elites wished to maintain science on a leash because they feared its subversive powers, many books on CP were written and CP began to be formed as a university course. University comparative pedagogues began to describe and analyze particular educational systems, theorize on epistemological and methodological issues of CP, and discuss international topics such as school reform, adult education, uniform elementary education, massification of secondary education, etc. The reasons for these favorable developments are at least twofold. First, there was a general paradigm shift in pedagogy: More and more pedagogues argued for the importance of the inductive approach, which gradually became predominant. The second reason is political: After the Yugoslavia– USSR split, Yugoslavia decided to take a more independent political path. As the initiator of – and the leading player in – the non-aligned movement, it was more open to global cooperation. And finally, we could also argue that due to partial ideological freedom (compared to the countries that were under direct Soviet political and ideological control), pedagogues were allowed to critically discuss – not only the ‘‘bourgeois pedagogy’’ but also the Soviet one (Schmidt, 1982). The Contemporary Continuation of the Two Distinct Approaches to CP/CE By the 1990s, CE already had a 100-year history as a university discipline in Bulgaria. In the current phase, CP has found its place within the pedagogy

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

213

programs in Croatia and Serbia, while Serbia, in spite of introducing comparative pedagogy, is still in the ‘‘struggling phase.’’ Our comparative research showed that there are two fundamental differences between Bulgaria on one, and Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, on the other side. (1) In Bulgaria, CE is an integral part of the university teacher training programs, while in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, it is not. In these three countries, it is part of the pedagogy programs – programs that train specialists in pedagogy and education: They are trained for counseling students, supporting teachers, and working as experts and researchers in governing bodies and academic institutions. (2) Different traditional roles for comparative research in Bulgaria on one hand, and in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia on the other: Even though CE in Bulgaria developed within the science of pedagogy, it is more closely connected to other social sciences (history, statistics, anthropology, etc.); while CP in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia still develops in close relation to general pedagogy. The difference is also reflected in contemporary book production: In Bulgaria, books on CE focus mainly on comparison of entire educational systems, while books published in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia focus a bit more on specific pedagogic issues, such as the comparison of pedagogical theories and concepts, but also contemporary education policy issues. To conclude, today CP/CE is a university discipline and a distinctive branch of the science of pedagogy. In all four SSEE countries, CP/CE is taught at an undergraduate and/or graduate level. Moreover, its role is expanding due to efforts to increase integration with Europe and due to overall globalization trends. The increased interest in comparison is expected, since the four analyzed SSEE countries are part of a global ‘‘comparative turn’’ in education policy (Pereyra, Kotthoff, & Cowen, 2011, p. 2), a process that all countries face today, marked by competitiveness and commercialization of education and schooling. The process is pushing governments to steer their educational systems using visible and measurable data, collected and compared according to quality standards defined by global players. This is also causing homogenization of the education space, at the European level and wider (cf. Ozga, Dahler-larsen, Segerholm, & Simola, 2011). CP, especially (but not exclusively) in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, faces similar challenges in view of its institutional and scientific development. Its development can be beneficial for national educational policies, which will be able to rely on more sophisticated research findings. But – perhaps more

214

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

importantly – CP can be beneficial for the general science of pedagogy itself: with its specific research foci and elaborated comparative methodology, it can provide for a better understanding of educational phenomena. Being a part of general pedagogy, CP can nurture its specific nature vis-a`-vis CE as developed in other parts of the world. One good consequence of CP being a part of general pedagogy is that it shares its scientific object, that is, education, avoiding ‘‘fracturing of understanding,’’ to use Rappleye’s words (Rappleye, 2012, p. 3). When researching education from the perspective of social sciences whose main research object in not education, education is only partially understood. Or, as Olivera (1988) put it: if education is not studied as a specific science, the most knowledge of a scientific level about education [y is] a heterogeneous collection of contributions coming from philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, politics ‘of education’. Their authors, usually not personally involved in the education system, naturally bring to these studies the bias of their particular disciplines. (ibid., p. 174)

Nevertheless, CP should not remain limited exclusively to the field of philosophically based general pedagogy, since – as Mitter (Mitter, 2009) has emphasized – its association with history and sociology in the 1960s laid ‘‘the ground for opening its borders to interdisciplinarity without, however, abandoning its traditional affiliation to ‘general pedagogy’ as its ‘motherdiscipline’’’ (ibid., p. 98). And finally, comparative pedagogy’s strength as a pedagogic discipline is its normative nature – which has, arguably, also influenced comparative education. As a normative discipline, CP/CE is committed to the development of autonomous, critical, emancipated, and creative citizens. As such, it needs to provide clear, critical arguments to counter trends that focus only on the development of competitive citizens. Or, as Wolhuter, Popov, Ermenc, Manzon, and Leutwyler have recently pointed out: ‘‘The original inspiration source of the scholarly field of Comparative Education, the philanthropic ideal of the time of Jullien remains the most noble cause of Comparative Education [y]. Serving and improving the state of humanity is more urgent than ever in the current age of globalization, i.e. by nurturing a global citizen. Equipped with a creative, critical, caring mindset’’ (Wolhuter, Popov, Ermenc, Mazon & Leutwyler, 2013, p. 373).

NOTES 1. A note on terminology and translation: similar words are used to refer to CP in the languages of the four SSEE countries: Bulgarian: sravnitelna pedagogika;

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

215

Croatian and Serbian: komparativna pedagogija; Slovenian: primerjalna pedagogika. The term is sometimes translated as ‘‘comparative pedagogy,’’ but sometimes – particularly under the English influence – as ‘‘comparative education.’’ In Bulgaria, the term ‘‘comparative pedagogy’’ was used from the 1920s to the early 1990s. Since the early 1990s, however, Bulgarian comparativists have followed the English terminology and taken the stance that pedagogy cannot comprise all aspects of education, so the science has been called ‘‘comparative education’’ (sravnitelno obrazovanie). 2. Simon explains this is the reason why today the term ‘‘pedagogy’’ in the English language has ‘‘amateurish, and highly pragmatic’’ character, while in the languages of the Continental Europe it denotes a science that attempts ‘‘to integrate theoretical knowledge with the practice of education’’ (1999, pp. 34, 35). 3. From 1883 until 1914 Serbia existed as Kingdom of Serbia. 4. Cultural pedagogy was not generally favored by the teachers, who spoke in favor of progressive pedagogy with its child-centered orientation, or in favor of catholic pedagogic ideas (Protner, 2000, p. 52). The third group united socialdemocratic and Marxist teachers, who derived their educational aims from sociology. Later they linked their ideas to the critical theory of the Frankfurt school (Gudjons, 1994, p. 37). 5. It was given this name in 1963.

REFERENCES Antic´, S. (Ed.). (1993). Sˇkolstvo u svijetu. Zagreb: Hrvatsko pedagosˇ ko-knjizˇevni zbor. Bishkov, G., & Popov, N. (1994). Comparative education (1st ed.). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. In Bulgarian. Bishkov, G., & Popov, N. (1999). Comparative education (2nd ed.). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. In Bulgarian. Chakarov, N. (1969). Problems of comparative pedagogy. Sofia: Narodna Prosveta. In Bulgarian. Chakarov, N., & Bishkov, G. (1986). Comparative pedagogy. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. In Bulgarian. Chavdarova, A. (2009). Die Geschichte der Pa¨dagogik in Bulgarien – als Fachdisziplin und Wissenschaft (ein historischer Diskurs und die gegenwa¨rtige Situation). In J. Hopfner & E. Protner (Eds.), Education from the past to the present. Pedagogical and didactic lessons from the history of education (pp. 25–35). Maribor: Mednarodna zalozˇba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in knjizˇevnosti. C`orovic´, V. (2009). Istorija srpskog naroda. Cetinje: Svetigora. C`unkovic´, S. (1971). Sˇkole u Srbiji u XIX veku. Beograd: Pedagosˇ ki muzej. Ermenc, K. S. (2004). The response of the Slovenian school to cultural pluralism in the country. In B. Kozˇuh, R. Kahn & A. Koz"owska (Eds.), Theory, facts and interpretation in educational and social research. Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Ermenc, K. S. (2005). Limits of the effectiveness of intercultural education and the conceptualisation of school knowledge. Intercultural Education, 6, 41–55. Ermenc, K. S. (2012). The shift to learning outcomes and achievements, national qualifications frameworks and (de)centralization: The Slovenian case. Profesinis rengimas, 23, 36–50.

216

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

Ermenc, K. S. (2013). The history of comparative pedagogy at universities in Slovenia. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, B. Leutwyler & K. S. Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universities worldwide (3rd expanded ed., pp. 137–146). Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Estrin, S. (1991). Yugoslavia: The case of self-managing market socialism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 187–194. Frankovic´, D. (1955). Historijat, zadaci i metode kompartivne pedagogije. Savremena sˇkola, 5(6), 379–391. Frankovic´, D. (1971). Komparativna pedagogija. Pedagogija, 2, 183–194. Gac´ina-Sˇkalamera, S. (2004). Dinamika razvoja osnovnih i srednjih sˇ kola u Hrvatskoj od 1900 do 1940. Anali za povijest odgoja, 3, 83–109. Gaber, S., Cankar, G., Marjanovicˇ Umek., L., & Tasˇ ner, V. (2012). The danger of inadequate conceptualisation in PISA for education policy. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. doi:10.1080/03057925.2012.658275 Gaber, S., Rutar Ilc, Z., Lorencˇicˇ, I., Pevec Grm, S., Ermenc, S. K., & Tasˇ ner, V. (2006). Zakaj Finci letijo dlje? Nova Gorica: Educa. Gudjons, H. (1994). Pedagogija. Temeljna znanja. Zagreb: Educa. Karic´, V. (1886). Sˇkolovanje u Srbiji i njegovi resultati. Beograd: Prva udeonic´ka sˇ tamparija. Krneta, L., Potkonjak, N., Schmidt, V., & Sˇimlesˇ a, P. (Eds.). (1967). Pedagogika I. Ljubljana: Drzˇavna zalozˇba Slovenije. Kroflicˇ, R. (2007). How to domesticate the otherness: Three metaphors in the European cultural tradition. Paideusis, 16, 33–43. Kroflicˇ, R. (2010). Pripoznanje drugega kot drugacˇnega – element pravicˇne obravnave marginaliziranih oseb in otrokovih pravic. In N. Licˇen (Ed.), Kulture v dialogu. Pedagosˇko andragosˇki dnevi 2010 (pp. 7–12). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Kulic´, R. (2011). Komparativna pedagogija: teorija, sistemi, reforme. Beograd, Banja Luka: Svet knjige, Filozofski fakultet. Kump, S. (2009). Can education solve the dilemmas of the welfare state? Andragoske studije, 1, 9–28. Lavrnja, I. (1985). Ucˇenik kao subjekt obrazovanja. Rijeka: Izdavacˇki centar Rijeka. Lesar, I. (2009). Sˇola za vse?: ideja inkluzije v sˇolskih sistemih. Ljubljana: Pedagosˇ ka fakulteta. Matijevic´, M. (Ed.). (1991). Osnovna sˇkola u svijetu. Zagreb: Institut za pedagogijska istrazˇivanja. Matijevic´, M. (1994). Alternativne sˇkole. Zagreb: Tipex. Matijevic´, M. (2001). Alternativne sˇkole (2nd ed.). Zagreb: Tipex. Matijevic´, M. (2004). Ocjenjivanje u osnovnoj sˇkoli. Zagreb: Institut za pedagogijska istrazˇivanja. Medvesˇ , Z. (Ed.). (2008). Globalizacija in slovensko sˇolstvo. Ljubljana: Zveza drusˇ tev pedagosˇ kih delavcev Slovenije. Medvesˇ , Z. (2010). O kontinuiteti in diskontinuiteti v razvoju pedagogike na Slovenskem. In N. Licˇen (Ed.), Kulture v dialogu. Pedagosˇko andragosˇki dnevi 2010 (pp. 91–104). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Ministarstvo prosvete. (1995). Osnovno i obavezno obrazovanje u svetu. Beograd: Author. Ministarstvo prosvete. (1996). Srednje obrazovanje u svetu. Beograd: Author. Mitrovic´, D. (1981). Moderni tokovi komparativne pedagogije. Sarajevo: Svijetlost. Mitter, W. (2009). Comparative education in Europe. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (Vol. 22, pp. 78–99). London: Springer International Handbooks of Education.

Comparative Pedagogy in Slavonic South East European Countries

217

Negentzov, C. (1926). Schooling in Germany and the United States. Teacher’s Thought, 2, 90–112. In Bulgarian. Olivera, E. C. (1988). Comparative education: Towards a basic theory. Prospects, 18(2), 167–185. Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). Introduction. In J. Ozga, P. Dahler-Larsen, Ch. Segerholm & H. Simola (Eds.), Fabricating quality in education. Data and governance in Europe (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge. Pereyra, A. M., Kotthoff, H. G., & Cowen, R. (Eds.). (2011). PISA under examination. Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Piryov, G. (1933). New education in the new world. Sofia: Culture Press. In Bulgarian. Piryov, G. (1941). Entire education. Sofia: Dobromir Chilingirov. In Bulgarian. Popov, N. (2001). Primary education: Comparison of structural aspects in 90 countries. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. In Bulgarian. Popov, N. (2002). The world comparison: A challenge to comparative education. Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. In Bulgarian. Popov, N. (2007). The history of Bulgarian comparative education. In C. Wolhuter & N. Popov (Eds.), Comparative education as discipline at universities world wide (pp. 95–110). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Popov, N. (2008). Comparative education in Bulgaria. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world wide (2nd ed., pp. 27–34). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Popov, N. (2013). Comparative education in Bulgaria. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, B. Leutwyler & K. Skubic Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world-wide (3rd expanded ed., pp. 29–36). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Popov, N., & Bishkov, G. (1997). Educational systems in Europe. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. In Bulgarian. Popov, N., & Mihova, M. (2003). ABC books in Slavonic countries: A comparative study. Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. In Bulgarian. Popov, N., & Pironkova, M. (2007). The education system in Bulgaria: History, current state, comparison to other countries. Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. In Bulgarian. Potkonjak, N. (1978). Teorijsko-metodolosˇki problemi pedagogije. Beograd: IPI. Potkonjak, N. (1989). Kuda ide srednje obrazovanje. Sarajevo: Svijetlost. Potkonjak, N. (1994). Razvoj shvatanja o konstitutivnim komponentama pedagogije u Jugoslaviji (1944/45–1991/92). Beograd: IPA. Potkonjak, N. (2012). Pedagogija u Srba (do 1945. godine). Beograd: Eduka i SAO. Protner, E. (2000). Pedagogika in izobrazˇevanje ucˇiteljev (1919–1941). Nova Gorica: Educa. Radulasˇ ki, Lj. (2008). Teorija vaspitanja Johana Fridriha Herbarta. In L. Radulasˇ ki (Ed.), Sabrane pedagosˇke studije (pp. 349–419). Beograd: Pravoslavni bogoslovski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. Rappleye, J. (2012). Educational policy transfer in an era of globalization: Theory – history – comparison. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Resman, M. (2000). Savjetodavni rad u vrtic´u i sˇkoli. Zagreb: Hrvatski pedagosˇ ko-knjizˇevni zbor. Savicˇevic´, D. (1984). Komparativno proucavanje vaspitanja i obrazovanja: teorijsko-metodolosˇki okvir. Beograd: Prosveta. Schmidt, V. (1982). Socialisticˇna pedagogika med etatizmom in samoupravljanjem. Ljubljana: Dopisna delavska univerza.

218

KLARA SKUBIC ERMENC ET AL.

Sˇevic´, M. (1920). Stara i nova pedagogija. Beograd: I. Œ. ŒurXevic´. Simon, B. (1999). Why no pedagogy in England? In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners & pedagogy (pp. 34–45). London: Sage. Spasenovic´, V., & Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, N. (2013). Comparative education in Serbia. Historical development, current Status and perspectives. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, B. Leutwyler & K. S. Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world wide. 3rd expanded edition (pp. 130–136). Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Spasic´, V. (1935). Stara i nova sˇkola. Beograd: Slovo. Trnavac, N. D. (1996). Pedagog u sˇkoli. Beograd: Ucˇiteljski fakultet. Vidic, M. (Ed.). (2003). Ilustrirana zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Vidmar, T. (2009). Cˇeri slovenske pedagogike – ob devetdesetletnici pedagogike na Univerzi v Ljubljani. In N. Licˇen (Ed.), Misliti vzgojo: Problemi oblikovanja vzgojno-izobrazˇevalnega koncepta. Pedagosˇko-andragosˇki dnevi 2009 (pp. 19–24). Ljubljana: Oddelek za pedagogiko in andragogiko Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani. Voncˇina, V. (2008). Literacy as a pedagogical concept: Shifts and current challenges. In E. Protner & M. Krasˇ na (Eds.), Pedagogical concepts between the past and the future (pp. 30–31). Maribor: Faculty of Arts. Vrcelj, S. (2005). U potrazi za identitetom – iz perspektive komparativne pedagogije. Hrvatsko futurolosˇ ko drusˇ tvo: Graftrade. Vrcelj, S. (2008). History of comparative education in Croatia. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, M. Manzon & B. Leutwyler (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world wide (2nd ed., pp. 35–41). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Vrcelj, S. (2013). History of comparative education in Croatia. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, B. Leutwyler & K. S. Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world wide (pp. 37–43). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, N. (2006). Sˇestdeset godina cˇasopisa Pedagogija. Beograd: FPSCG. Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, N. (2012). Vosjilav Bakic´ i razvoj pedagosˇke nauke u Srbiji. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´, N. & Spasenovic´, V. (2009). Modernisation, ideology and transformation of educational science – Former Yugoslavia case (1918–1990). Paper presented at ECER 2009, Vienna. Wolhuter, Ch., Popov, N., Ermenc, K. S., Manzon, M., & Leutwyler, B. (2013). The chequered global picture of comparative education at universities. In C. Wolhuter, N. Popov, B. Leutwyler & K. S. Ermenc (Eds.), Comparative education at universities world wide. 3rd expanded edition (pp. 371–392). Sofia: Bureau for Educational Services. Zaninovic´, M. (1988). Opc´a povijest pedagogije. Zagreb: Sˇkolska knjiga. Zˇlebnik, L. (1959). Obcˇa zgodovina pedagogike. Ljubljana: DZS. .

PART 6 DIVERSIFICATION OF THE FIELD

INTRODUCTION TO PART 6: DIVERSIFICATION OF THE FIELD Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson The topics of student achievement, teacher pedagogy, school management, financial impact, and others have been institutionalized into the research and literature produced throughout the history of the field of comparative and international education (Peterson, Baker, & McGaw, 2010; Postlethwaite, 1995), but the advent of newer social, economic, and political concerns have brought attention to new and diverse elements in the field as well (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2012). Crafting new spaces in the literature to examine critical areas not currently represented is necessary for the field to remain relevant to both scholars and professionals. In a time where funding for comparative and international education research is constrained by dire economic realities facing universities and funding agencies, scholars are pressed to find linkages with other academic disciplines to support their work in underrepresented and emergent areas of research. This presents a unique challenge for comparative and international education scholars and professionals because the field remains on the margin of more traditional education-related research and practice. At the same time, however, it provides an opportunity to expand and reimagine the field through the inclusion of new areas of study.

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 221–226 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020020

221

222

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

THE NEED FOR DIVERSIFICATION Diversifying the field requires universities, members of the research community, funding agencies, and publishers to develop support mechanisms to encourage scholars to pursue divergent and creative interests. As a field, comparative and international education is well positioned to promote the growth of new scholarship through its many professional societies worldwide. The diversification is evident by the expansion of new areas of research as well as the growth of special interest groups (SIGs) within comparative and international education societies representing both regional and global communities. The establishment of new topic-oriented SIGs creates an intellectual network for scholars and practitioners to explore common ideas and legitimates their contributions to the field. For example, in the largest society, the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES/USA), there is a notable increase in topic-oriented SIGs, which serve as a mechanism to facilitate the networking of scholars and practitioners involved with emergent areas of study. These groups include, but are not limited to, Education for Sustainable Development, Information and Communication for Development (ICT 4 Development), Cultural Contexts of Education and Human Potential, and Indigenous Knowledge and the Academy (http://www.cies.us/committees. shtml). The emergence of these SIGs within just one of the many academic societies dedicated to comparative and international education signals the growth of new areas of scholarship and the imperative to expand comparative and international education research and practice communities to accommodate new knowledge. By creating these professional networks, both new and established scholars can capitalize on opportunities to collaborate on new projects and push forward their own research agendas. These opportunities help to expand the field’s academic reach, and also connect research activities across areas of study. The strength of a multidisciplinary field like comparative and international education is the diversity of its scholarship and capacity to inspire new areas of inquiry in the literature, but this is also its greatest weakness (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). The chapter included in this section by D’Alessio and Cowan on inclusive and special needs education is a prime example of how scholars evaluate and reimagine typologies using a comparative lens. The conceptual frameworks, methodologies, issues, problems, and approaches to comparative and international education are certainly not standardized, although each of these are recurrent topics in comparative and international education debates and discussions. For example, the

Introduction to Part 6: Diversification of the Field

223

debate over research design methodology specific to comparative crossnational educational research has continued to wane since the 1970s in favor of field-specific methods (i.e., specific to anthropology, economics, political science, or sociology) (Bray, Adamson, & Mason, 2007). In fact, methodology specific to comparative, cross-national education has either failed to develop or has disappeared (Rust, Soumare´, Pescador, & Shibuya, 1999). But, adopting new lenses and fresh approaches to topics and issues that have been previously underemphasized or marginalized within comparative and international education research and professional discourse is one way to reflect on and reimagine the field as distinct and significant.

THE VALUE OF DIVERSIFICATION The value of cross-national comparisons of educational systems and outcomes is a long-standing point of debate among comparative education and educational planning specialists, and is relevant to all new or underemphasized areas of comparative and international education focus. For example, in discussing the role of special needs and inclusive education from a comparative and international education perspective, should D’Alessio and Cowan be making a distinction between ‘‘comparison’’ and ‘‘development’’? Some have argued that the purpose of comparison is to understand and analyze (Little, 2000), whereas the purpose of development is action and change. Which is the chapter by D’Alessio and Cowan representing, and more importantly, what is the purpose of introducing this new and underrepresented topic of study into comparative and international education. From a strictly methodological angle, ‘‘the purpose of comparison [is] to explore the influence of system-level factors on the interaction of within-system variables’’ (Little, 2000, p. 280). The challenge for scholars and professionals in comparative and international education is to decide which topics and issues have a home in the field, and which are either too far out of the scope of theoretical or methodological frameworks in order to be integrated into the field. Theoretically and policy-oriented questions frequently ask if it is valid to compare national educational systems. Perhaps a more appropriate way to phrase this question when looking at new directions and diverse developments in the field is to, more specifically, ask how a particular comparative education phenomenon or educational system has been compared with other phenomena or other nations’ systems, and whether these comparisons are valid. In answering these questions, many arguments as well as empirical

224

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

conclusions have already been made. From a strictly methodological perspective, the diversification of the field may rely more on how comparison occurs than why or what is being compared. For example, there has been much discussion that straightforward comparison of specific or unique national education phenomena is not a valid comparison of educational systems or outcomes. Thus, this perspective flatly rejects the ability of crossnational comparisons of educational phenomena to significantly predict or indicate anything about one country’s educational system at all. There are several points that support the core argument that it is potentially dangerous to include new approaches to comparative and international education in the research and practice umbrella of comparative and international education (Wiseman & Baker, 2005, pp. 11–14). The first criticism is that the instruments of assessment and evaluation themselves are invalid or unreliable measures of student achievement. Another criticism is that schools are often perceived as indicators of modernization and economic productivity, yet student achievement is not a consistent predictor of either. Some assert that cultural contexts uniquely shape educational communities and learners. And, of course, family background and socioeconomic status are often insurmountable obstacles to appropriate crossnational comparison of schooling. More solutions-oriented critiques suggest that alternative methods of cross-national comparison, which focus more on between-nation comparisons of within-nation change or variation in achievement, are reasonable approaches to cross-national comparison of educational phenomena. But, again it may be contextually inappropriate to compare across nations, even with specific data for distinct topics. Thus, the crux of this argument is that national development and productivity are often better represented by within-nation gains or variation than between-nation comparisons.

REFLECTING ON DIVERSIFICATION So, what are the criteria for expanding the scope of comparative and international education scholarship and professional practice? How do scholars and professionals in the field systematically reflect upon chapters like D’Alessio and Cowan’s to productively review and revise both the conceptualizations of the comparative and international education field and the practical applications of this scholarship? Generally, there are two approaches to diversification of the field. The first is concentric, meaning that the new topic or issue is strategically connected to established topics,

Introduction to Part 6: Diversification of the Field

225

issues, problems, or approaches in comparative and international education. The second is conglomerate, meaning that while there may not be any strategic fit with existing comparative and international education scholarship or practice, it is strategically beneficial to incorporate the new or emerging phenomena into the field nonetheless. The goal of concentric diversification is to expand into new areas of investigation and practice by leveraging expertise with existing phenomena and the scholarship and professional activity related to those existing emphasis areas to grow the field of comparative and international education (Carman & Langeard, 2006; Walton, 2007). D’Alessio and Cowan’s introduction of special needs and inclusive education is an example of concentric diversification of comparative and international education because it is a way to introduce an under-investigated approach to the study of disadvantaged communities of youth into the field. Since there is already a large community of scholars and professionals as well as an expansive comparative and international education scholarly literature on disadvantaged and marginalized youth, the special needs emphasis adds to and complements the existing approach in the field. The goal of conglomerate diversification is not to associate with or complement existing areas of emphasis among the scholarly or professional communities within comparative and international education, but is instead to expand the field by attracting new communities of scholarship and practice to it (Carman & Langeard, 2006; Walton, 2007). This is a frequent approach used in the private sector to increase growth, profitability or flexibility, for example, but is not often applied to nonprofit or public sectors. Since comparative and international education is already fairly wide and unfocused as a field, it may actually be counterproductive to diversify the field through the conglomerate strategy. If, however, the private sector becomes increasingly engaged in education worldwide, the conglomerate approach may be beneficial to those who are involved in education for profit-seeking motives. This is, of course, not an emphasis for the field of comparative and international education itself as much as perhaps another phenomenon to investigate. The institutionalization of norms, values, practices, and areas of study may stagnate a field of study or practice. This is potentially what has happened to comparative and international education. After decades of active, albeit uncoordinated, reflection, comparative and international education scholarship and professional practice has settled into routines of critical research, education for development, and alignment with social science disciplines as a way to avoid the development of a unique identity or

226

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

approach to research and practice. This section on the diversification of the field is, however, meant to question the status quo, and introduce new, emerging and underemphasized areas of study, issues for discussion, and approaches to both research and practice into the reflective process. As the field moves forward, identifying these new areas and diversifying the field in ways that complement the unique contributions the field has to make to educational scholarship and practice is a productive way to make real change for the future of comparative and international education.

REFERENCES Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2007). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods. Hong Kong: Springer. Carman, J. M., & Langeard, E. (2006). Growth strategies for service firms. Strategic Management Journal, 1(1), 7–22. Little, A. (2000). Development studies and comparative education: Context, content, comparison and contributors. Comparative Education, 36(3), 279–296. Peterson, P. L., Baker, E. L., & McGaw, B. (2010). International Encyclopedia of education. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Postlethwaite, T. N. (1995). International Encyclopedia of national systems of education (vol. 1). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Rust, V. D., Soumare´, A., Pescador, O., & Shibuya, M. (1999). Research strategies in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 43(1), 86–109. Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2012). Comparative pedagogies and epistemological diversity: Social and materials contexts of teaching in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 634–658. Walton, G. (2007). Theory, research and practice in library management 3: Diversification. Library Management, 28(6/7), 428–436. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy, international perspectives on education and society series (pp. 11–38). Oxford: Elsevier. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355.

CROSS-CULTURAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF ‘‘INCLUSIVE’’ AND ‘‘SPECIAL NEEDS’’ EDUCATION Simona D’Alessio and Steven Cowan ABSTRACT This chapter explores some of the complexities involved when undertaking research at an international level in the area of ‘‘inclusive’’ education and ‘‘special needs’’ education. The complexities encountered by researchers working in these fields, mirror many of the challenges that comparativists in education studies find themselves addressing. Drawing from earlier investigations and from reports by international organizations, this chapter highlights some of the dilemmas and challenges that researchers face when considering inclusion and special needs education in different countries. Differing interpretations of ‘‘inclusion’’ are discussed and then contrasted with thinking around ‘‘special needs’’ practices. The chapter moves forward to analyze how the adoption of differing theoretical frameworks can influence the way that ‘‘disability’’ is conceptualized and therefore how inclusive and special needs education are interpreted and then put into practice. The chapter argues that cross-cultural work opens up opportunities for further development and learning in this field.

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 227–261 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020021

227

228

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

We further argue that such cross-cultural work can become a mechanism to instigate fundamental change in education. Keywords: Cross-cultural; inclusive education; special needs education; European education; disability; comparative education

INTRODUCTION Researchers and policy makers coming from different academic fields have grappled with the issue of transferability of data between different regions and areas. Things become even more difficult when the main focus of a study is a subject such as inclusive education and special educational needs, whose meanings are constantly changing and are informed by a range of contrasting values and theoretical frameworks. Sharing data across international boundaries (D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009) is very difficult when countries and communities do not share the same terminology or do not agree on what constitutes a disability or a ‘‘special educational need.’’ Cross-cultural analysis aims to go beyond descriptions of education systems that refer solely to a single country as a unit of analysis, and to question the tendency to rely upon certain types of quantitative data as the only or prime source to describe and understand educational processes across national and community boundaries. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the main challenges that are inherent in undertaking cross-cultural studies and to make the case that despite the difficulties, there are a series of potential benefits that deserve acknowledgment (D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). Also, as is argued later, some of the challenges that usually characterize explorations in the fields of inclusive education and special needs education often connect with concerns found within comparative education. Studies in inclusive and special needs education address issues such as linguistic diversity as well as the differing understandings and uses of key terms (D’Alessio, Watkins, & Donnelly, 2010). We also need to draw upon a range of theoretical frameworks to help our work in conceptualizing disability and educational diversity. We need also to question the adoption of data collection and classification systems that fail to capture the complexity of these fields and the social/educational contexts under investigation. Novoa and Yariv-Marshal (2003) argue that the object of comparative research cannot be limited to a reiteration of facts or realities, as these have a tendency to be representations of perspectives held by dominating and

Cross-Cultural Approaches

229

official interests (D’Alessio, 2007). Cross-cultural and international studies attempts to foreground the challenges that countries and communities face, explore how such challenges are addressed and to seek pathways toward overcoming these. Such work is therefore engaged and undertaken from a committed standpoint. Drawing from our own experiences we argue that we can learn more from the mistakes and the problems faced by others and the strategies that have been put into place to address them, rather than simply reiterating and offering accounts of positive experiences and ‘‘good practice.’’ The very term ‘‘good practice’’ is itself a very ambiguous and value-laden as what is be good for one setting may not necessarily good for another. The examination of challenges and possibly mistakes involves the researcher in sequential analysis, looking at processes across period of time, tracking points of change and development, identifying who was involved, how and why and always seeking to highlight the complex interaction between competing players and perspectives. Where ever we have been around the world we also encounter examples of positive practice from which we can draw inspiration and through which we are able to develop professionally. The key is to understand that what works in one place does not necessarily transfer to another. We have preferred to use the term ‘‘cross-cultural,’’ ‘‘cross-national,’’ and ‘‘international’’ when referring to our way of undertaking research partly because we want to acknowledge that our academic backgrounds have not been within what has come to be described as comparative education studies. Our aim has never been to engage with the complexities of comparative education understood in it subdisciplinary sense. Additionally we have concerns that the appropriation of such a term might imply or evoke an idea of a standardized ‘‘model’’ or a template that is described and understood in order to be transferred and adapted from one setting to another. As inclusive educators we are keen also not to become in any way associated with competition-driven values that feed off comparisons across countries. The recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) launched in 1997 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has come to influence the way in which states governments perceive, assess and measure the performance and value of their own education systems. Under the political pressure for tangible ‘‘improvements’’ such methods of assessment underpinned as they are by ‘‘comparative’’ methodologies, has led to an intensification of pedagogies teaching to the test as well as a growth in hierarchically arranged accountabilities that burden classroom teachers with mountains of noncurricular paperwork. Such popularized research findings have influenced a

230

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

drift toward students preparing for high attainments levels in standardized tests rather than in pedagogies which are centered round learning for life. Such trends run counter to that of the inclusive education movement. Following Barton and Armstrong (1999, pp. 91–92) we argue that, ‘‘the cross-cultural paradigm is more powerful in terms of the possibilities it opens up of trying to understand different societies, their complexities and what we can learn from them.’’ The first section of this chapter discusses the complexities of conducting cross-cultural analyses and studies of inclusive education and special needs education. This section will address issues around theoretical frameworks, terminology, procedures of identification, classification, and categorization that are the core debates when interrogating policy and practice of inclusive and special needs education at an international level. This is followed in the second section where we draw a link between the complexities of conducting international studies in the area of inclusive education with those that are found in comparative studies.

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF DISABILITY Thomas (2002) has argued that disability is located spatially, temporally, and economically, as well as describing specific physical or psychological states. Therefore, we wish to consider how ‘‘disability’’ has been defined and incorporated into educational thinking and practice through four broad theoretical models. An analysis of the literature in the area of inclusive education and special needs education (Ainscow, 2007a, 2007b; Artiles & Dyson, 2005; NESSE Report, 2012; World Report on Disability, 2011) indicates that currently there are four main theoretical approaches to conceptualize disability. As argued elsewhere (D’Alessio, 2011, 2013) different conceptualizations of disability not only influence the way in which we understand ‘‘reality’’ but, most importantly, they provide different solutions to identified problems. Despite differences in the interpretation, disability has predominantly been analyzed from a medical perspective (Scull, 1979; Stiker, 1999; Stone, 1984). This dominant model has been derived from clinically informed practice and it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘medical model’’ or the ‘‘individual/medical’’ model (Oliver, 1990) of disability. An example of the dominance of this model can be taken from the United Kingdom where in 1911 and 1913 legislation was passed with the title of Mental Defectives Act. These items of legislation officially distinguished between ‘‘idiots,’’

Cross-Cultural Approaches

231

imbeciles’, the ‘‘feeble-minded,’’ and ‘‘moral imbeciles.’’ These officially sanctioned categories became transformed into institutionalized stereotypes and the terms gradually came to be used in the wider sociolinguistic arena as terms of abuse and insult. In this way what begins as a concern for medical conditions becomes transformed into a language and discourse for social abuse and segregation.1 The medical perspective has been dominant for over a 100 years and, especially so, after the International Classification systems developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). These schemas, the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps schema (ICIDH henceforward) produced in 1980, and the more recent International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF henceforward) that was produced in 2001 have been very powerful in shaping the way in which disability has been, and is being conceptualized. The individual/medical model of disability is characterized by a focus on what is not working within the child and posits its solution through compensatory measures that attempt to ‘‘adapt’’ the individual to the system. The individual/medical model conceptualizes disability as a consequence of biological conditions and impairments. Disabled people are those people whose bodies do not function according to an established norm (Shakespeare, 1996). Consequently, responses to individual deficits include specialist assistance, rehabilitation, and welfare policies and in case of chronic diseases, invalidity pensions, all of which are intended to adjust and compensate for what is perceived to be missing within the individual. Within a medical/individual model, it is rarely the case that attempts are made to understand if there are other reasons that may have caused the conditions in which people with disabilities live beyond their individual deficits (Oliver, 1996). This approach therefore has a tendency to leave social and cultural barriers unexamined and consequently untouched. As illustrated in the United Kingdom example above, it is not possible to divorce medicalized approaches from their social and historical contexts as one perspective is shaped by another such as the adoption of terms such as ‘‘lunacy,’’ ‘‘idiocy,’’ defectives’ for a period of time within both professional and legal fields.2 Even more concerning is the tendency for other legislatures to adopt and adapt that which is passed in another country thus spreading around the world not only key terms but also professional perspectives. Along with the medical/individual model of disability, the social model is gaining a great deal of attention at an international level. This can also be observed through the use of the definition ‘‘disabled people’’ rather than ‘‘people with disabilities’’ and the need to put the emphasis on how people are disabled by the way in which society is structured. The model was

232

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

originally developed by Vic Finkelstein and other disabled activists associated with the ‘‘Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation’’ (UPIAS henceforward) movement in the 1970s (Flood, 2005). Gradually, the model was developed and supported by the works of academics such as Oliver (1990), Barnes (Barnes, Mercer, & Shakespeare, 1999), Barton (Barnes, Oliver, & Barton, 2002), Shakespeare and Watson (1997), and Thomas (1999). The approach toward disability in this model involves a sociological theorization of disability which aims at changing society rather than helping an unfortunate minority of people with disabilities to adjust to society (Thomas, 1999). The social model of disability argues that disability is not about individual deficits but instead is a form of oppression and discrimination against people who differentiate from an established norm (UPIAS, 1976). Such a model, however, does not deny the place and value of specialist and medical support (Oliver, 1996). It is argued that the problem arises when the medical profession takes the lead in all aspects of the life of a disabled person (housing, education, employment). The social model of disability, while not ignoring individual deficits, is reluctant to use these highly personal and individual traits in people as things around which to mount campaigns for change. However the model allows people to associate with each other around the social barriers they collectively experience and encounter (Barnes et al., 1999).3 A social model of disability supports the need for social change and subjects to critical investigation issues such as normalization and the historical processes of pathologizing human diversity and difference. The importance of the social model seeks to find solutions through social change rather than medical interventions (Barnes et al., 1999) such as supporting the involvement of people with disabilities in the decision making process, and more specifically by making courses in teaching children with disabilities a compulsory part of all teacher education courses (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011a). An attempt to bring together the medical model and the social model of disabilities has been made by the WHO which, in 2001 created a so called bio-psycho-social model of disability. Researchers in the area of disability indicate that this tool is currently being used in many different countries as a research tool, as a theoretical framework and a tool for implementing educational processes (Alves, Fazzi, & Griffo, 2012; Moretti, Alves, & Maxwell, 2012). With the development of the ICF classification scheme, disability began to be interpreted as a form of interaction between biological conditions and the environment in which people with disabilities live (WHO, 2001). The ICF

Cross-Cultural Approaches

233

identifies circumstantial and environmental factors and constructs disability as an interrelational phenomenon that is inherent the human condition (Bickenback, Chatterji, Bradley, & Ustun, 1999). Supporters of the ICF model of disability argue that such a model provides a common language and a universalizing framework to theorize and understand disability across different cultures (Bickenback, 2001; Bickenback et al., 1999). Despite its positive intentions to encapsulate socially generated barriers within the conceptualization of disability, the bio-psycho-social model (as the first two definitions included in its name already suggest) remains fundamentally a medical tool of investigation that primarily categorizes people – and their deviation from a standardized norm – rather than forms of ‘‘disablement’’ and how they may limit human participation (D’Alessio, 2011). Soon after the enactment of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (UN, 2006), a human rights approach to disability began to be adopted and used worldwide. A human rights approach to disability argues that people with disabilities do not need to be ‘‘categorized as different’’ in order to be provided with the same rights as other individuals (Armstrong & Barton, 1999). This approach focuses on discriminatory policies and practices that remain in place and argues for their removal. The target of such an approach is not people with disabilities but instead, the barriers that such individuals encounter and how to remove them. Nevertheless, a human rights approach to disability continues to be very a contested terrain as many scholars argue that they are at risk of being used as a mere rhetoric rather than as a tool to construct a just and equitable society (D’Alessio, 2011; Rioux, Basser, & Jones, 2011). It is for this reason that more and more governments have not only signed the Convention but have also ratified its optional protocol, a sanctioning tool that grants people with disabilities with the power to act against discriminatory policies and practices in their own countries whenever rights have been breached. At the same time, human rights are often violated, even in countries that have ratified them. As McCowan (2011), among others, has argued, rights are often interpreted differently depending on variations in geographical, economic, cultural, and social contexts. Similarly, Young and Quibell (2000) pointed out that rights have often failed due the fact that individuals were not in an empowered position to exert those rights. An attempt to provide a conceptual framework to implement a human rights approach in different social, economic, and political contexts has been provided by the capability approach (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1992; Terzi, 2008). Supporters of the capability approach argue that this model is able to provide people with disabilities with what they actually need,

234

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

depending on their capabilities. They can ‘‘make use’’ of the possibilities that are provided for them. Although this model, in line with the ICF tool, conceptualizes disability as a form of interaction between individual and social/environmental conditions, it still conceptualizes disability in terms of people’s needs and capabilities and how it is possible to compensate for them. On the one hand, such a model is an important tool to redistribute resources to those who are perceived as the most ‘‘needy,’’ and this is of fundamental importance especially beyond the OECD/G8 countries often referred to as the ‘‘First World.’’ At the same time it does not seem to break the circle of inequality (D’Alessio, 2011) because it puts the emphasis on how to develop measures to equally redistribute limited resources in order to balance out differences. Overall, these different conceptualizations of disability indicate that international and cross-cultural studies of inclusive education and special needs education struggle to identify a common ‘‘target group’’ of their studies. Depending on the different conceptualizations of the same phenomenon, the target group can be represented by learners with disabilities (medical/individual model and bio-psycho-social model), societal barriers (social model), discriminatory policies and practices (human rights). It also indicates that Western countries are currently undergoing a shift of paradigm from a conceptualization of disability as a functional limitation to disability as a social construction (Armstrong, 2003; D’Alessio, 2013). While in the first paradigm we are still embedded in the special needs education way of thinking, with its regulatory framework of identification, classification and categorization of disability, the new paradigm supports the development of inclusive education. At the same time, it is necessary to underline that the borders between the two areas of studies are blurred and it is not unusual that special needs education discourses may still inform inclusive education policies and practice in different contexts (Slee, 2001). It is therefore fundamental that cross-cultural and international studies in the area of inclusive education and special needs education take account of the theoretical premises in which they are embedded in order to avoid the reproduction of forms of marginalization and segregation in education, despite their overt attempts to do otherwise (D’Alessio, 2011). For example, there is a need to understand the conceptual framework to interpret disability in order to fight against all forms of discrimination, both visible (e.g., issues around accessibility) and invisible (e.g., cultural biases) and to make sense of the different approaches to disability. Without acknowledging the different cultural and theoretical premises, which inform inclusive education and special needs education such as those outlined

Cross-Cultural Approaches

235

above (i.e., the medical model of disability, the ICF, the social model of disability, the capability approach and the human rights approach to disability) cross cultural and cross-national analyses will remain at the level of ‘‘educational folklore.’’

THE EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL AGENDAS FOR EDUCATION European Union countries have shared agreements in many areas such as economics and finance but there maintain greater degrees of national state independence when it comes to the formulation and expression of educational policy (Opertti, Brady, & Duncombe, 2011). Such a situation results from the idea that an education system is deeply connected with issues around national identity of a country and the system has as one of its main functions the transmission to future generations of the national culture, purpose and history. European countries have developed their own systems of education based on their cultural, historical, religious, and political conditions and there are strong political and ideological currents arguing that decisions relating to education cannot and should not be imposed externally to the national entity. Nevertheless, both European and non-European countries, especially developing countries operating under the influence of Western or North American nations are more and more subject to international educational imperatives and are under the pressures of international agencies to homogenize education systems to a seemingly emerging international norm. It is noteworthy to underline that, although on the one hand such pressures may foster the development of systems of education that are aligned with principles of human rights and democracy, on the other hand, they tend to underestimate local solutions of schooling and education (e.g., nonformal education), contributing to the perpetuation of dominant forms of schooling that do not always match with the reality of developing countries. At the same time, any acknowledgment of local cultures should always be alert not to celebrate local solutions that do not respect human rights principles, however they are defined locally. What remains crucial is that the process of change toward inclusive education is not simply overimposed but coconstructed in collaboration with local actors and oppressed minorities as far as possible. How to address the diversity of student population as well as how to guarantee that all learners are able to access, participate and achieve to their

236

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

full potential, regardless of their gender, disability, socioeconomic status, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds, are two of the most important debates for educators around the world today. Principles such as ‘‘inclusive education’’ and ‘‘education for all’’ have been identified by international organizations as touchstones for best practice as thus as educational imperatives for schools in the coming decades. Since the Salamanca Framework (UNESCO, 1994) the number of international reports and guidelines promoting the development of inclusive education continues to grow. Most European Union communications and reports emphasize the crucial role played by inclusive education for the development of a cohesive, democratic and just society (Council Conclusions, 2009, 2011). The 2009 Strategic Framework for European Co-operation in Education and Training (known as ET 2020) indicate that European countries have agreed that education systems should combat all forms of discrimination and ensure that all learners including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special needs and migrants should complete their education. The May 2010 Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training, underline that education systems should pay particular attention to the requirements of learners with special educational needs by creating the conditions for the successful inclusion of these learners into mainstream settings and they recommend adoption of personalized teaching and learning approaches. The 2012 NESSE report prepared by the network of experts of the European Commission, underlines the role of the European Commission to continue to develop policies on inclusion in the field of education, training and employment that promote the learning of people with special educational needs in all sectors and levels of education and training and to ensure that learners receive the necessary support to gain educational qualifications levels that are likely to help them finding employment. Similarly, the 2009 UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education underline that inclusive education is a fundamental process aiming at strengthening the capacity of the education systems to reach out to all learners and that it is a basic principle of human rights and thus part of the foundation of a more just and equitable society. The UN Convention in 2006, Article 24, stressed the importance of promoting inclusive settings and the provision of reasonable adjustments and accommodations to promote the development of inclusion. In particular States Parties shall ensure that people with disabilities are educated in inclusive settings at all levels and life-long learning, from preprimary to higher education institutions.

Cross-Cultural Approaches

237

As indicated in these international documents, countries are requested to align with these principles and to change their education systems. Such documents also indicate that inclusive education is a global issue (Artiles & Dyson, 2005; Pijil, Hegarty, & Meijer, 1997) also because we are living in a time of globalization and global interactivity. At the same time, the concepts of inclusive education, and of special educational needs, are not at all clear and unproblematic. The next section of the chapter will attempt to discuss the different meanings of the concepts of inclusive education and special needs education, and how such different understandings need to be taken into account when conducting cross-cultural analysis.

DEFINITIONS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION Although the terms ‘‘inclusive education’’ and ‘‘special needs education’’ are often deployed interchangeably, they have different and differing meanings when used within specific sociocultural contexts. Many commentators have asked the question of who is using the terms and in what way and for what purpose (Ainscow & Booth, 1998; Cigman, 2007; D’Alessio, 2011; D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). Inclusive education necessarily means different things to different people because understandings begin at home with the specific characteristics of each country, including taking account of regional and local diversities (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011). Some countries, like Italy, for example, use the term ‘‘inclusion’’ and ‘‘integration’’ as if they were synonyms even though these terms are formed and informed by different theoretical premises and have different implications for practice (D’Alessio, 2011). While inclusive practitioners usually interpret disability as a form of socially based discrimination, denial of rights and thus as a form of oppression directed toward disabled people, the term ‘‘integration’’ is usually embedded in understandings of disability as an individual deficit that needs to be compensated. At an international level, therefore it is possible to identify two main interpretations of inclusive education, a narrow and a broad conceptualization of inclusion (by Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006; Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Armstrong et al., 2011) The former is mainly concerned with the process of mainstreaming learners identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities in regular classes. Such an approach is evident in the literature that addresses the issues of inclusive education in relation to

238

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

learners with disabilities (Cigman, 2007; Warnock, 2005) and in international documents (see NESSE Report, 2012) where the issue of inclusive education is generally discussed in terms of a minority group (migrants, learners with disabilities, or Roma community) that needs to be integrated in the mainstream society. The latter is instead concerned with an interpretation of inclusive education in terms of a systemic approach to learners diversity, hence as a way of transforming and strengthening the mainstream setting in order to respond to the wider range of the student population (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011a; UNESCO, 2009). Within these interpretations, it is possible to distinguish a series of further developments or explanations. Within the former definition, it is possible that inclusive education is discussed in terms of provision for learners with disabilities both in terms of additional resources and specialized personnel (NESSE Report, 2012), or/and a way of ensuring that all accommodations and adaptations are put in place to guarantee that the education of learners with disabilities can take place (UN, 2006). It generally has a particular emphasis on groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion and underachievement. Clearly, such perspectives are very important, as issues around the provision of resources and of reasonable accommodations are key themes for the education systems to operate for all learners. At the same, to discuss inclusive education (and special educational needs) only in terms of ‘‘additional’’ resources is particularly risky, especially in a time of expenditure cuts and economic crisis. It derives that if there is a need to cut resources, the first resources that will be reduced will be those ones that are described as being ‘‘additional.’’ It is therefore important that resources for inclusive education are considered ‘‘normal’’ resources required by an inclusive mainstream system. Similarly, although issues around adaptations and accommodations are clearly important and necessary they do not challenge the way in which education systems are currently structured and arranged. Inclusive education requires that problems are addressed in a preventive way by transforming the way in which teaching and learning routines and schools are organized in order to avoid the emergence of ‘‘needs’’ (D’Alessio, 2011; Thomas & Loxley, 2001). Within the second definition of inclusive education, inclusive education as a systemic approach, it is possible to discuss inclusive education in terms of identification and removal of barriers to learning and participation (Ainscow, 2005, 2008; Barton & Armstrong, 2007; Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Donnelly, Meijer, & Waktins, 2011; WHO, 2011) and as being about the presence, participation and achievement of all learners (Ainscow, 2008;

Cross-Cultural Approaches

239

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011b; UNESCO, 2009). This interpretation of inclusion does not refer to learners with disabilities that must be ‘‘included’’ in regular school settings but it is concerned with how it is possible to reform education systems so that they can meet the diversity of learners’ requirements (D’Alessio, 2009, 2010, 2013; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011a; UNESCO, 2008, 2009). In line with this second definition, Armstrong (2003) and Slee (2001) indicate that inclusive education is usually discussed in relation to learners with disabilities because it is along the lines of disability, gender, race and/or ethnicity that the limits of our education systems become more visible and tangible. Although, the authors of this chapter find themselves in agreement with the second interpretation of inclusive education, the one which considers inclusion as a systemic approach aiming at transforming the education systems to improve the educational opportunities of all learners (D’Alessio, 2011), we have became more and more aware that when we address the meaning of inclusive education from a cross-national perspective, assumptions of what inclusive education means must be challenged and substituted with an open-mind and willingness to understand different cultures and how they make sense of inclusion. First of all, the different interpretations of inclusive education have different implications for practice and while at a European level we may deal with more similar cultural, political, social, medical, and economic situations (although this is not always the case), the interpretation of inclusive education and its implications for policy and practice become more crucial for the so defined ‘‘developing’’ countries of Africa or Asia. As Opertti et al. (2011) and McCowan (2010, 2011) have shown, such countries have different histories and cultures and are faced with different educational challenges than those that can be found in Europe. While in European countries inclusive education debates usually focus around how to strengthen the capacity of mainstream settings or how to support the move from special schools into mainstream schools, in other parts of the world such discourses may not be as meaningful because of the difference in priorities and circumstances. Where educators are struggling to address issues of learners with disabilities who are hidden from the public gaze, of young disabled women who are at risk of sexual abuse and violence if they attend a school, or accounts of people with intellectual impairments who are kept in institutions in caged beds, many European perspectives, discourses and policy priorities seem less relevant. This cross-cultural fracture has been highlighted by Alana Officer from the WHO who

240

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

articulated the range of her concerns while attempting to transfer disability discourses from the ‘‘Western’’ world into the ‘‘Southern’’ world (Officer, 2010). As a result of this, the World Report on Disability (WHO, 2011) has attempted to come to terms with and understand the diversity of requirements when addressing the issue of disability across national and cultural boundaries. In more localized and of a smaller scale, different interpretations of inclusive education are also to be found at a European level, often characterized by the emergence of local agendas, which reproduce the boundaries of regional or linguistic differences within the European Union (e.g., Scandinavian countries, German speaking countries, or Slavic countries). Although from a European Union perspective, a tendency to form groups based upon regional geographies may be perceived as a challenge to the process of integration of Europe, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge that such groupings exist and reinforce the idea that inclusive education is strongly embedded in cultural, political, social, and economic conditions that bring together geographical areas with shared backgrounds. It is fundamental that cross-cultural studies keeps the flux of dialogues and exchanges constant and alive among different regions and countries while simultaneously identifying common challenges and solutions at the broader regional level. For example, it is apparent that when discussing issues of inclusive education Eastern European countries may be struggling with the cultural tradition of defectology, while Scandinavian countries may have overlapping concerns around the stability of welfare systems and on how to abandon categorization procedures (Riddell, Tisdall, Kane, & Mulderrig, 2006). Although it is crucial to discuss the development of inclusive education worldwide and to identify a common global agenda, and how to agree meaning across states and cultures is another matter. Additionally, there is no ‘‘perfect’’ model of inclusive education that can be exported (Artiles & Dyson, 2005) but rather a range of positive and seemingly successful practices and initiatives. Nevertheless, when working in international settings, it is not unusual that we find ourselves talking about national education systems that are lagging behind or that have not reached the goal of inclusion (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). The peril of drawing such conclusions is to forget that inclusive education is not an end in itself, rather a means to an end, that of creating a more just and equitable society (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Barton, 2000). Global agendas may be considered a ‘‘lighthouse’’ that needs to be seen in order to avoid the peril of drifting away, but inclusive education is also grounded in local cultures, histories

Cross-Cultural Approaches

241

and conceptualizations which resist transposition from one setting to another. Put briefly, inclusive education needs to be engaged in dialogue with local contexts as these always reflect the outcomes of historical and cultural situations. It is important to recognize the risk of inclusive education advocates overlooking legitimate local differences and in the process replicating cultural imperialism in a new form (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). The need to take into account local solutions and developments of inclusive education can also be found in the attempt to transfer the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002), a tool to investigate the inclusive cultures, policies and practices of school settings from the English to nonEnglish contexts. Relevant attempts to transfer such a tool did not only engage with the issues of simply translating the tool into the national language but also to adapt it in order to respond to local problems and specificities (Boban & Hinz, 2005; Dovigo & Ianes, 2008; Medeghini, 2009; Nes, 2009). Second, there is the issue of the hegemony of the English language that needs to be examined critically depending upon the context one is examining. Non-Anglo-Saxon countries may found themselves tackling with the difficulties that are inherent in the process of translation of English terms into their national language. Also countries may found themselves adopting the same terminology as a result of the pressures of international organizations without really grappling with what these terms actually mean in terms of practice in their own countries. It is not unusual in fact that countries adopt the same language as a ‘‘linguistic exercise’’ (Slee, 2001) without making any relevant change. In contrast, inclusive education requires policy-makers, activists and scholars working at an international level to engage with issues around language and not to interfere with the language chosen by different countries. Researchers working from a cross-cultural perspective should seek to refrain from ‘‘correcting’’ terminology or from carrying out any ‘‘linguistic cleansing’’ (Barton & Armstrong, 2007), especially if they wish to understand and explore the subtle cultural differences that are enshrined in using different languages. The issue of language becomes extremely relevant especially when investigating the resilience of special needs education in current discourses of inclusive education and to identify the differences between inclusive education and its focus on how to remove social and cultural barriers to participation, and special needs education and its focus on individual deficits and how to compensate for them. Language is a powerful and meaningful tool and the language of ‘‘special’’ (Corbett, 1996) is weighted down with traditional interpretations of disability as an

242

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

individual/medical problem. The problem with the language of ‘‘special’’ is that it inevitably reproduces forms of exclusion and labeling that mark the boundaries between those learners that are considered ‘‘normal’’ and those learners who are considered to be ‘‘special,’’ and the consequences that this may entail in terms of educational provision (e.g., special schools versus mainstream school).

ISSUES OF IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND CATEGORIZATION OF DISABILITY Issues around identification, classification and categorization of disability are usually considered in order to establish eligibility criteria for additional resources and services that are required for learners with disabilities to fully participate in the process of learning in mainstream schools. Nevertheless, such processes need to be problematized, especially when discussed from a cross-cultural perspective: first, because the way in which learners with disabilities are identified varies a great deal in different countries; second, because identification, classification and categorization procedures are not neutral acts. Although identification, classification and categorization procedures allowed learners to be provided with the necessary resources and staff they may need, so that teachers take responsibility for all learners, there can be a range of ‘‘unintended consequences’’ (Florian et al., 2006) that stem from the process of statementing that should be acknowledged. Such consequences may include individual problems such as low self-esteem for learners, low expectations for teachers in relation to learners identified as having disabilities, peer rejection, which professionals learners will meet in their life and which school they will attend (Florian et al., 2006).

Identification procedures A survey of international accounts about numbers of people with disabilities around the world suggests that the figures are increasing: Currently around 10 per cent of the total world’s population, or roughly 650 million people, live with a disability. In most of the OECD countries, females have higher rates of disability than males. Having a disability places you in the world’s largest minority group. As the population ages this figure is expected to increase. Eighty per cent of persons with disabilities live in developing countries, according to the UN Development Program (UNDP). The World Bank estimates that 20 per cent of the world’s poorest

Cross-Cultural Approaches

243

people have some kind of disability, and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantaged. Statistics show a steady increase in these numbers. (from Disabled World.com)

Nevertheless, although it is common around the world to find these reports about the number of people with disabilities, it emerges that ‘‘policy makers, practitioners, researchers and the wider community do not always agree on who does and does not have a disability, impairment or special need.’’ As D’Alessio and Watkins (2009) have already argued this is also due to the fact that Special Educational Needs (SEN henceforward), is a ‘‘construct’’ that countries define within their legislation. The same can be said for disability that is interpreted in different ways depending on the theoretical framework in which the education system in enshrined. Such definitions of SEN therefore are the results of legislative, administrative and procedural regulations and do not correspond to the actual incidence of given impairments in one country (Donnelly, Meijer, & Watkins, 2011). Definitions of SEN varies across countries, with countries that have only one general category of SEN or/and disability and others that have at least ten categories of SEN and/or disabilities (OECD, 2012). Drawing on statistical data from the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (the Agency henceforward), the OECD (2012) indicates that the highest number of category of SEN children are located in Iceland while in countries like Greece and Sweden the number of learners with SEN is very small. Such information cannot be interpreted as if all learners identified as having SEN were born in Iceland rather than in Sweden or Greece (at least this is not at all possible in European countries with the same level of hygienic and epidemiological conditions). What can be found instead is that countries are identifying and ‘‘counting’’ learners in a different way. So Iceland, for example, counts in the number of learners with SEN all learners that receive additional resources even for a short time in the mainstream setting, while Sweden, for example, identifies only those who attend special schools and programs. Currently, therefore, there are no accepted definitions of disability and/or SEN available to use comparatively across European countries, some countries are currently considering incorporating different aspects or elements of international definitions within their legislation (see the next section on classification). An attempt to provide a common terminology for special needs education (and related SEN) can be found in the Revision of the International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED4 (UNESCO, 2011)

244

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

Special Education Needs is ‘‘Education designed to facilitate the learning of individuals who, for a wide variety of reasons, require additional support and adaptive pedagogical methods in order to participate and meet learning objectives in an educational programme. Reasons may include (but are not limited to) disadvantages in physical, behavioural, intellectual, emotional and social capacities. Educational programmes in special needs education may follow a similar curriculum as that offered in the parallel regular education system, however they take individuals particular needs into account by providing specific resources (e.g., specially trained personnel, equipment, or space) and, if appropriate, modified educational content or learning objectives. These programmes can be offered for individual learners within already existing educational programmes, or be offered as a separate class in the same or separate educational institutions.’’ (UNESCO, 2011, p. 81)

Similarly, the OECD (2012) drawing on the ISCED 2011, identifies special education needs with the support provided to those learners who are not able to benefit from the school education that is made available to learners of the same age unless additional resources or special programs are provided for them. In order to address such limitations, the Agency, for example, has chosen to use the definition of learners identified as having SEN provided by each country within their own legislation. The Agency agreed that there was no need to impose an overarching definition of SEN that could be used by all countries, as this would have had a number of methodological problems (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010, 2011b). For example, countries may not have an official definition of SEN or they may count only those learners who are educated in segregated settings. Nevertheless, there are still many differences in the number of learners identified as having SEN and making comparisons would require the sharing of a conceptual and administrative framework that currently is not available.

Classification and Categorization Procedures Usually data concerning inclusive education and special needs education for comparative studies are collected by means of categories. When conducting studies in inclusive education and special needs education at an international level, it emerges that countries use different systems of classification and categorization to identify learners’ needs (D’Alessio & Watkins, 2009). At the moment, two main systems of classifications and categorization of disability and of SEN seem to emerge: the Disabilities, Difficulties, and Disadvantages (DDD henceforth) model developed by the OECD in 2004 (with revisions in 2005, 2007, and 2009) and the ICF developed by the WHO in 2001.

Cross-Cultural Approaches

245

The DDD is based on a tripartite classification and categorization system (OECD, 2004). As countries have different ways in which they identify and count learners with disabilities, the OECD has decided to count the amount of resources allocated to schools in order to support the education of learners who fall into three macro-categories, respectively named Disabilities, Difficulties, and Disadvantages. The first category, named category A, includes the learners whose problems have an organic origin. The Disability category is concerned with learners with sensory, motor and generally more severe types of physical and intellectual impairments. The Difficulties or category B, refers to those learners whose problems are not organic and seem to arise from cultural, social, and economic factors (e.g., mild learning difficulties, behavioral difficulties). The Disadvantages or category C is concerned with those learners whose problems have a socioeconomic, cultural, or linguistic origin, for example, because they belong to ethnic minorities such as the Roma Community. Although, it is important to underline that from a comparative perspective such a classification system is used to understand the distribution of resources to schools and how such resources are currently spent, they nevertheless present a series of challenges. Categories are often assigned to people on the basis of perceived differences in attainment, behavior, and appearance and depend on social and cultural interpretations of what is conceived as being normal (Armstrong & Barton, 2001; Barton & Armstrong, 1999). In addition, classification procedures from an international perspective often tell us more about the vested interests of professionals and their need to pathologize human diversity. In this concern, in fact, the European Commission required that countries monitor the use of medical categories in order to avoid an excessive use of clinical diagnoses as a means of obtaining additional resources (Daniels, 2006; NESSE, 2012). An example of this can be found in the increasing rate of learners identified as having Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) or Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders (NESSE Report, 2012). No attempt is currently being made to understand if the increase in the number of these learners is due to an increase of birth rates, or rather to an increase of medical diagnoses and the vested interests of those professionals who work in the area of consultancy. Similarly, the authors would argue to the need to question the increasing rate of learners identified as having SEN conveys more about school failures to meet learners’ diversity rather than the actual incidence of learning difficulties. The Agency data collection exercises (2010), for example, indicate that in some countries some categories of SEN do not exist while in other countries

246

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

they represent an important voice on the financial expenditure for education. In a recent Agency publication (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011b) it results that some countries have disability categories only (e.g., Greece, the Netherlands), while others include disability categories plus disadvantaged learners (e.g., Belgium, Cyprus), disability categories plus gifted and talented learners (e.g., Spain), disability categories plus disadvantaged learners and talented learners (e.g., Estonia), and a non categorical system (e.g., Denmark, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Another classification tool that is currently used at an international level is the ICF (WHO, 2001) and its more recent developmental tool known as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY henceforth) (WHO, 2007). As previously discussed, such a tool attempts to bring together biological and social aspects in order to classify and categorize disability. Disability results from the interaction between the individual functioning and the way in which environment is structured (including policy and legislation). The ICF-CY focuses on developmental issues that characterize young learners and the potentially transitory nature of their difficulties. Currently, a number of countries has decided to use the ICF or the ICF-CY systems of categorization of disability (e.g., Portugal, Italy, and Switzerland) while others are still in the process of evaluating this possibility (Alves et al., 2012; Moretti et al., 2012). The use of classification systems clearly raises a series of problems that need to be addressed when conducting cross national studies, in particular the need to find a system of classification that does not label and stigmatize some learners as ‘‘others’’ in order to provide them with the same rights of education of other learners and it stresses the need to provide resources for all without marginalizing some (Daniels, 2006; Florian et al., 2006). The inadequacy of a special educational needs classification system based on types of impairments is seen as being problematic in many countries that are attempting to modify their systems of funding and of provision of resources and support services allocated on the basis of categories of impairments (Mitchell, 2010).

DATA COLLECTIONS Cross-cultural and international studies in the area of inclusive education and special needs education have traditionally drawn on quantitative data

Cross-Cultural Approaches

247

collections in order to gather the information deemed necessary to make ‘‘comparisons.’’ Nevertheless, when conducting cross-cultural studies the collection of quantitative data at an international level presents a series of challenges that need to be acknowledged. As indicated by Donnelly, Mejier, and Watkins (2011): Collecting data relating to pupils with SEN presents methodological problems at the individual country as well as international levels. These problems mean that there is no agreed method for collecting data that is universally accepted as being reliable and valid for cross-country comparisons – at national, European or international levels. (p.104)

Countries collect data in different ways depending on their different interpretations of what is disability and special needs education and how the country responds to it. It therefore becomes very difficult to compare information that is fundamentally different. The risk is to draw general conclusions without taking into account the different perspectives as well as administrative, political and cultural differences embedded within a country. Different international organizations are now involved in the process of collecting data about education at a cross-national level.5 There is the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) that collects information about policies and educational programs. In particular, UNESCO draws from the ISCED classification tool (UNESCO, 2011) in order to ‘‘compare’’ educational programs across countries. WHO is collecting data about children with disabilities through the ICF (WHO, 2001) and the ICF-CY (WHO, 2007). There are also the data collections conducted by the OECD through the DDD model, and the more recent SEN DDD model developed in 2009 in a joint research project on SEN with the Baltic countries, Eastern European countries and Malta. In addition, Eurostat, a European Union organization, is collaborating with UNESCO and OECD to collect and report statistics concerning education systems. Similarly, Eurydice, a network of information within the European Commission, provides national overviews of education systems and how they are organized. Most of the organizations discussed so far and in particular the European Commission (see the NESSE Report, 2012), the World Bank and the WHO (see the World Report on Disability, 2011) rely on the data collections of the Agency. The Agency collects statistical data every two years based on a set of criteria agreed by member countries. The Agency collects data based on the legal and procedural definitions of SEN currently available in each member country, without imposing any overarching definition of SEN or category of disability/SEN. Statistical data are collected via the Ministries of Education of member countries following different procedural and

248

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

administrative regulations but according to a series of criteria such as: the number of compulsory school aged learners (including those with SEN); the number of compulsory school aged learners who have been identified as having SEN (in all educational settings); the number of learners with SEN in segregated special classes in mainstream settings; the number of learners with SEN in inclusive settings. The data collection applies an agreed operational definition of a segregated setting: ‘‘Segregation refers to education where the learner with special needs follows education in separate special classes or special schools for the largest part (80% or more) of the school day.’’ Despite the attempt to find criteria that can be shared among all member countries, such as learners who are formally recognized in countries as having SEN (identification) and where they are educated (placement), this type of data collection is perceived as being restricted. It is for this reason that the member countries of the Agency have agreed that it is necessary to develop new ways of collecting quantitative and qualitative data at an international level that may provide useful information to policy makers and practitioners for the implementation of inclusive education. In a recent study conducted by the Agency, the Mapping the Implementation of Policy for Inclusive Education (MIPIE) project in 2011, it emerged that, at a European level, data collection with regard to special and inclusive education was being collected using three main approaches: 1. They are based on placement of learners identified as having SEN; 2. They are based on categories of SEN; 3. They are based on allocation of additional resources (e.g., the OECD studies). Such approaches indicate that the collection of statistical data concerning inclusive education and special needs education continues to focus on pupils who experience difficulties at school, rather than upon possible inadequacies or failures within an education system. These approaches rely on the collection of statistical data that talk about exclusion (e.g., the number of learners in special settings, or number of learners with a diagnosis) rather than upon the experience and quality of learning for children within mainstream classrooms. Problems arise, as there is a lack of clarity concerning what is meant by ‘‘quality’’ and how this can be measured at an international level. The Agency in this concern has argued for the development of a shared framework for data collection that would build upon existing national data, and to develop indicators that are based both

Cross-Cultural Approaches

249

on quantitative as well as qualitative data in order to provide evidence of quality in relation to inclusive education. For example, the MIPIE project focused on what information could be collected as well as how it could be collected. In this concern, a feasible indicator to collect data relating to inclusive education, rather than exclusion, would be to focus on data that shows the percentage of all learners of a certain age group that follow the mainstream curriculum with their peers of the same age for at least 80% of their time at school (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011b). Also Agency member countries have decided to align with the principles of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) and the need to develop tools to monitor its implementation in terms of learners’ rights to education. Artiles and Dyson (2005) argue that when conducting data collections it is necessary to clarify what is the target group benefitting from inclusive education and to describe such populations in terms of key additional demographic information such as socioeconomic background, ethnicity, language, and religion. In contrast, the present authors argue that it is equally important to question whether learners with disabilities should be the target group of data collections and inclusive education research. In a quest for inclusive education we should start to wonder if statistical analyses should collect data about the barriers (discriminatory policies, segregated institutions) that are still in place. The target of statistical analyses from an international perspective that really wish to understand the level of ‘‘inclusiveness’’ of countries should focus on an identification of the barriers to participation that are still in place rather than on counting the number of learners in terms of categories/ disabilities (see D’Alessio, 2011). Although the collection of statistical data remains an important exercise to understand global and local trends of inclusive education, it is nevertheless important that statistical data collections articulate and take into account the complexities that lie behind the procedures of classification and categorization of disabled students. There should be an attempt to report why statistical data are collected, how, by whom, for what purposes and with what consequences (Armstrong & Barton, 1999; Daniels, 2006). For example, Mitchell (2010) brings to the fore the problematic nature of quantitative data collections in the area of special needs education that show a disproportionate representation of some groups of learners in the disability categories. In particular, students from ethnic minorities and students from underprivileged backgrounds are often counted in the number of learners identified as having special educational needs in countries such as

250

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

the United Kingdom and the United States (Mitchell, 2010). Such imbalance in the incidence of disabilities for some social categories suggest that inclusive schools should attempt to understand the reasons behind such figures, including the school inability to address and celebrate heterogeneity, the incongruence between children’s culture and the school culture, as well as the issue of poverty and finally evaluate their policies to address such factors. We follow Ainscow’s (2008) view that statistical data arising from targeted research becomes valuable as a resource for inclusive education practitioners when it focuses on the barriers to access, participation and achievement, rather than on the number of learners identified as having SEN. Moreover, quantitative studies relying on statistical data, should be considered as a topic of investigation itself rather than being viewed as a taken for granted resource for research (Prior, 1997). For example, from a sociological perspective, the focus on statistical descriptions of the increasing number of disabled students currently attending mainstream schools, should be questioned as a way of organizing and assembling a constructed reality by experts, rather than being viewed as solely as research evidence for the effective implementation of a policy.

CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION As anticipated in the introduction of this chapter, the challenges that inclusive education and special needs education experts need to face when conducting research at an international level often reflect the challenges that comparativists have to face in their attempts to deal with changing paradigms, concepts and methods of analysis. Nicholas Hans argued that comparative study developed during the nineteenth century in order to improve national educational systems by gathering useful information from foreign systems (Hans, 1958). An example of this process was the work of the English school inspector Matthew Arnold visiting Switzerland and Germany and the adoption by English schools authorities of Prussian style architectural designs for public schools (Connell, 1950). This original need, often leading to national reforms, gradually gave way to more theoretical and philosophical approaches, that attempted to formulate a philosophy of education that goes beyond national boundaries and current interpretations of education in terms of time, organization and space (Broadfoot, 2000; No`voa & Yariv-Marshal, 2003).

Cross-Cultural Approaches

251

The distinctiveness of comparative study during the first half of the Twentieth Century arose from the way many practitioners worked with procedures and classifications that facilitated the understanding of a foreign context. Crossley and Watson (2003) state that earlier writers, such as Hans, Arnold, and Sadler, were mainly concerned with education at a macro-level often resulting in classifications and categorization of the educational system which enabled the reader to understand the foreign context, but they often spent less time analyzing the complexity of educational policy-making at the micro-level. Crossley and Watsons (2003) argue that many traditional comparative writers did not engage with methodological issues of how their data were being collected and by whom. There was an overreliance upon official data gathered by state bodies or upon opportunity gathering arising from what could be viewed during personal visits (Crossley & Watsons, 2003). Today, researchers and scholars in the area of cross-cultural and international studies are engaging with the methodological complexity and the need to dialogue with local contexts. It is our view that such an approach will positively impact the development of inclusive education across different countries and cultures. Barton and Armstrong (1999), both leading theorists within inclusive education studies, have identified three strands of comparative studies: the single case study, the small-scale study and the large scale study. While the first type of comparative study usually refers to the description of one single country with no or limited attempts to make comparisons beyond the individual country, the small-scale and the large scale studies are meant to make comparisons across a number of countries. Small-scale studies they argue, usually present more in-depth analyses of the countries under investigation, while large-scale studies are usually conducted by international organizations with the goal of describing one aspect of the countries and in general terms. Wolhuter (2008), has argued that national case studies remain predominant in comparative works. For example, in the area of special needs education and inclusive education, Ainscow and Booth (1998) remark that, there is the risk that researchers discuss countries as monocultures and present the ‘‘official’’ and over-simplified description of a country, without any attempt to address regional and local diversities and/or interpretations of inclusive and special needs education. Our own recent professional and academic experiences in nation states as diverse as Oman, India, and China suggest much higher degrees of variety and difference within politically defined entities than may often appear to be the case especially in states like Oman6 whose society can be characterized as being essentially multicultural.

252

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

Drawing upon our experience of working within international and crossnational organizations we have seen how knowledge can be constructed, and lessons can be learnt when conducting small-scale studies and intensive focused study visits. Sometimes the knowledge that emerges from such processes differs from that which emerges from a single case study or a larger-scale study. This is due to the fact that case study visits allow international observers and researchers to focus on practice and to use such practice as a unit of analysis (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). International organizations and researchers working in the field of inclusive education at a cross-cultural level make the case that ‘‘The principles of inclusion, set out in international declarations, need to be interpreted in the context of individual countries’’ (UNESCO, 2005, p. 26). Inclusive education is not a project with ready-made solutions, but a process of change that needs to take into account and start with local existing resources and practice (UNESCO, 2005). Put briefly, international and cross-cultural studies in the field of inclusive education are required to introduce local governments and stakeholders to the principles of inclusion and its implications for practice so that they can promote a change in the way in which educators and policy makers think about education, in particular the education of those students at a risk of exclusion. In agreement with the principles underpinning inclusive education, such as respect for diversity, equality of opportunities, and systemic change, cross-cultural studies should address the need to question the dominant idea of how education systems should look like in terms of their arrangement and organization both in different geographical places and in different epochs. Additionally we should address the need to reconceptualize the purpose of conducting cross-cultural analyses beyond simply ‘‘comparing’’ countries and move instead toward the urgency of sharing responsibilities for the implementation of a transformative agenda. Researchers working in the area of cross-cultural studies should focus on the need to implement a transformative agenda as the main purpose of their work. One important aspect of this concern is the urgency of y creating inclusive research conditions and relations, generating adequate conceptual and theoretical frameworks to advance knowledge and understanding and to raise the question of the purpose of research, its transformative nature and our responsibilities as researchers. Generating collegial, supportive and sustained comparative research networks is a perennial task which needs much more serious and focused effort. (Barton & Armstrong, 2007, p. 2)

Cross-Cultural Approaches

253

This statement indicates that there is a need to move from a policyborrowing paradigm to creating research conditions in the area of crosscultural analyses in education that can promote change that benefits learners, rather than boosting national governmental statuses. Despite the limits of conducting comparative research, Artiles and Dyson (2005) argue that researchers in the area of inclusive and special needs education can benefit from comparative approaches for scientific, pragmatic and global purposes. Such approaches can help researchers to understand variations and to identify patterns in the ways education systems around the globe are shaped by social, political, economic, and cultural forces (Bray & Thomas, 1995). They can also help to transfer knowledge, to discover what can be learnt from other countries and to improve policies and practices at home, while at the same keeping the idea of international interdependencies to the fore. A comparative approach therefore may help in carrying out a meta-analyses of an education system, bringing to the fore an account of how ideologies influence education systems and how such ideologies are reproduced and/or counteracted within fields of discourse around inclusive and special needs education as they are situated in national and local policies. As already argued within this chapter, one practice cannot be transferred from a context to another as what is good for one context may not be good for another (Fielding et al., 2005). What can be transferred, Fielding et al. (2005) argue, is the meta-practice of improvement, or rather what teachers and practitioners think about and how they would like to change their practice. It is often the case that the work of transferring practice usually sees one school/teacher as the originator of change, especially when a teacher is supported by the work of ‘‘critical friends’’ (Carrington & Robinson, 2006; Watkins, 2007). As argued by Artiles and Dyson (2005) people are embedded in specific cultural interpretations of inclusive and special needs education and only through encounters with others they may decide to counter-act the specific circumstances surrounding their local events and therefore choose to either adapt, reproduce or change them. Fielding et al. (2005) showed that teachers were more willing to share good practice and to learn from other colleagues than from centrally driven programs and training. It is for this reason that the transferring of good practice should be viewed as a social process rather than a simple transferring of practice from one context to another. Following this, we would like to reinforce the importance of small-scale studies and in particular of case studies as a way of promoting change. In particular when conducting small-scale studies or when drawing on narratives and local

254

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

accounts, international experts and observers can assume the role of critical friend and support local actors in their efforts to secure change, rather than simply attempting to transfer one practice from one context to another. A cross-cultural researcher can assist in involving local actors in forms of collaborative inquiry (Ainscow, 2005), and stimulate discussion about reconceptualizing the purposes of education. What becomes crucial in undertaking cross-cultural analysis therefore is not the transferability of policy and practice, embedded in localized solutions and conditions, but the experience of learning (Artiles & Dyson, 2005) from other contexts. The possibility of looking at what is happening in other countries may help researchers to problematize the choices we have made (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). Such alternatives become ‘‘interruptions,’’ ‘‘contradictions,’’ and ‘‘disruptions’’ (Ainscow et al., 2006; Artiles & Dyson, 2005) that make people question and reflect upon their taken-for-granted practice and eventually to consider other educational alternatives. Evidence that local solutions promoting inclusive education can benefit learners with disabilities can be found in a variety of academic studies of inclusive education (Ainscow & Booth, 1998; Barton & Armstrong, 2007; Mitchell, 2010) as well as in the work of international bodies (the United Nations Agencies, the Agency and UNESCO in particular). Nevertheless, the support from international bodies and organizations, such as UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education and United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to identify human rights principles for people with disabilities remain a standpoint for the development of inclusive education (Mitchell, 2010) as they provide the conceptual framework necessary to drive change towards inclusion. What remains crucial however are that international trends in inclusive education are also carefully interpreted through the lenses of local culture, values and politics to determine their relevance and application in different geographical contexts (Mitchell, 2010). The role of the international and cross-cultural researcher therefore is to engage with the complexities of observed local solutions, while at the same time being able to abstract ‘‘regularities’’ (Artiles & Dyson, 2005) that can tell us about human diversity at a global level. Consequently, the fundamental role played by local solutions of inclusive education does not intend to diminish the importance of global agendas and interventions in education. In contrast, there is a need for the dissemination of international principles, such as the human rights approach to disability, in order to avoid the risk of overlooking local solutions that do not respect human diversity, rather celebrate intolerance and legitimate discrimination.

255

Cross-Cultural Approaches

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter we have considered issues that emerge while conducting cross-cultural research and analyses with a particular focus in the area of inclusive and special needs education. The authors have argued that we cannot assume that inclusive education means the same in different countries nor even within a single country. We need to examine critically the way that international organizations have tried to collect data to make ‘‘comparisons’’ across countries in order to understand the development and implementation of inclusive policies and practice. Interpretations of inclusive and special needs education, although extremely influential in the development of education systems in the past two decades, remain temporary and contingent. We have made the case that however valuable some quantitative data may be, it cannot by its very nature, provide insights about the actual quality of the educational experience those learners with disabilities have within the education system. Some research approaches and styles in the use of data have a tendency not to challenge the way in which educational systems are currently structured and organized. Instead, they reinforce institutionalized arrangements. More often than not, they do not acknowledge local dimensions and cultural factors that impact upon issues of inclusion and exclusion. The authors make the case that often quantitative data tell us more about the experience of exclusion and of the failure of the education systems to meet student diversity, rather than about the experience of participation in learning. Nevertheless, the role of international bodies in the conduction of cross-cultural large-scale studies remains fundamental to identify and disseminate an inclusive way of thinking and working in education. Our aim has been to draw attention to the importance of conducting cross-cultural studies in the area of inclusive education and special needs education in order to generate advances in our knowledge and to promote a transformative agenda in educational research (Barton & Armstrong, 2007).

NOTES 1. In Parliament in February 1911 Winston Churchill spoke in favour of forced labour in separate institutions for ‘‘mental defectives.’’ 2. All terms used in titles of previous UK legislation.

256

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

3. An attempt to take into consideration the effects of impairments and their consequences in the life of people with disabilities can be found in the work of Carol Thomas (1999). 4. The ISCED is the tool used by the United Nations to assemble, compile, and analyse cross-nationally comparable data. It is adopted formally by the General Conference of UNESCO Member States and has been agreed internationally as the reference classification for organizing educational programs and related qualifications by education levels and fields. Such a tool is used to aggregate national information into categories that can be used internationally. 5. For a thorough description of the different organisations involved in the process of data collection please refer to the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2011b). 6. One of the authors spent much of 2011 teaching a course in Special Needs and Inclusive Education at the University of Nizwa located 140 km from Muscat in the Ad Dakhiliyah region.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our thanks to Professor Felicity Armstrong for having commented on our very first draft of the paper.

REFERENCES Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124. Ainscow, M. (2007a). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, 3–7. Ainscow, M. (2007b). Towards a more inclusive education system. In R. Cigman (Ed.), Included or excluded. The challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children. Oxon: Routledge. Ainscow, M. (2008). Speech given at the conference Inclusive Education: The way of the future. International conference on education, 48th session. Final Report. Annex Xb. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/ICE_ FINAL_REPORT_eng.pdf Ainscow, M., & Booth, T. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge. Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., et al. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. Alves, I., Fazzi, L., & Griffo, G. (2012). Human rights, UN convention and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: Collecting data on persons with disabilities? American Journal Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 91(suppl.), S159–S162.

Cross-Cultural Approaches

257

Armstrong, F. (2003). Spaced out: Policy, difference and the challenge of inclusive education. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D., & Barton, L. (Eds.). (2000). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton Publisher. Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29–39. Armstrong, F., & Barton, L. (Eds.). (1999). Disability, human rights and education. Crosscultural perspectives. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Armstrong, F., & Barton, L. (2001). Disability, education and inclusion. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 693–710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age. The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Michell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 36–62). London: Routledge. Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. Barnes, C., Oliver, M., & Barton, L. (Eds.). (2002). Disability studies today. Cambridge: Polity Press. Barton, L., & Armstrong, F. (1999). Difference and difficulty: Insights, issues and dilemmas. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield. Barton, L., & Armstrong, F. (Eds.). (2007). Policy, experience and change: Cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education. Dordrecht: Springer. Bickenback, J. E. (2001). Disability human rights, law, and policy. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565–583). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bickenback, J., Chatterji, S., Bradley, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1173–1187. Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (2005). Working with the index for inclusion in a segregated school system: Experiences in Germany. In Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress, August 1–4. Glasgow, Scotland. Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.isec2005. org.uk. Access on March 28, 2013. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (Rev. ed.). Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472–490. Broadfoot, P. (2000). Comparative education for the 21st century: Retrospect and prospect. Comparative Education, 36(3), 357–371. Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2006). Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4–5), 323–334. Cigman, R. (Ed.). (2007). Included or excluded? The challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children. London: Routledge. Connell, W. F. (Ed.). (1950). The educational thought and influence of Matthew Arnold. London: Routledge. Corbett, J. (1996). Bad mouthing. London: Falmer Press.

258

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

Council of the European Union. (2009). Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for european cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) (2009/C 119/ 02). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:C:2009: 119:0002:0010:EN:PDF Council of the European Union. (2010). Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training 3013th education, youth and culture council meeting. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/114374.pdf. Accessed on November 5. Council of the European Union. (2011) Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy (2011/C 70/01). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:070:0001:0003:EN: PDF Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and international research in education: Globalization, context and difference. London: Routledge Falmer. D’Alessio, S. (2007). Made in Italy: Integrazione scolastica and the new vision of inclusive education. In L. Barton & F. Armstrong (Eds.), Policy, experience and change: Cross cultural reflections on inclusive education (pp. 53–72). London: Springer. D’Alessio, S. (2010). Is the policy of integrazione scolastica an inclusive policy? Challenges and innovations in a lower secondary school in Italy. In N. Be´langer & H. Duchesne (Eds.), Des e´coles en mouvement. Inclusion d’e´le`ves en situation de handicap ou e´prouvant des difficulte´s a` l’e´cole (pp. 187–234). Ottawa: PUO. D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy: A critical analysis of the policy of integrazione scolastica. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. D’Alessio, S. (2013). Researching disability in inclusive education: Applying the social model of disability to policy analysis in Italy. In S. Symeonidou & K. Beauchamp-Pryor (Eds.), Researching disability: Purpose, process and future direction. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. D’Alessio, S., & Watkins, A. (2009). International comparisons of inclusive policy and practiceare we all talking about the same thing? Research in Comparative and International Education Journal, 4(3), 233–249. D’Alessio, S., Watkins, A., & Donnelly, V. (2010). Inclusive education across Europe: The move in thinking from integration to inclusion. Revista de Psicologı´a y Educacio´n Madrid, 1(5), 109–127. Daniels, H. (2006). The dangers of corruption in special needs education. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 4–9. doi: 10.1177/1477878511419566 Donnelly, V., Meijer, C., & Watkins, A. (2011). Inclusive education Diversity across European countries. In R. Opertti, J. Brady & L. Duncombe (Eds.), Interregional and regional perspectives on inclusive education: Follow-up of the 48th session of the international conference on education (pp. 97–110). Paris: UNESCO/IBE. Dovigo, F., & Ianes, D. (2008). L’Index per l’inclusione. Promuovere l’apprendimento e la partecipazione nella scuola. Trento: Erickson. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). SEN data collection 2010. In A. Watkins (Ed.), Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011a). Teacher education for inclusion across Europe. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Cross-Cultural Approaches

259

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011b). Mapping the implementation of policy for inclusive education. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/publications/ ereports/mapping-the-implementation-of-policy-for-inclusive-education/mapping-theimplementation-of-policy-for-inclusive-education Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., y Thorp, J. (2005). Factors influencing the transfer of good practice. Sussex, UK: Department for Education and Skills. Flood, T. (2005). ‘Food’ or ‘Thought’? The social model and the majority world. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), The social model of disability: Europe and the majority world (pp. 180–192). Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsson, J. R., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L., & Holland, A. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 36–45. Hans, N. (1958). Comparative education: A study of educational factors and traditions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. McCowan, T. (2010). Reframing the universal right to education. Comparative Education, 46(4), 509–525. McCowan, T. (2011). Human rights, capabilities and the normative basis of ‘Education for All’. Theory and Research in Education, 9(3), 283–298. Medeghini, R. (2009). Il Questionario per l’Autoanalisi dell’inclusione Scolastica (QAIS). In R. Medeghini, et al. (Eds.), L’inclusione scolastica. Brescia: Vannini Editrice. Mitchell, D. (Ed.). (2005). Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special educational needs. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/ publications/special_education/education-that-fits-review-of-international-trends-in-theeducation-of-students-with-special-educational-needs/executive-summary. Access on March 28, 2013. Moretti, M., Alves, I., & Maxwell, G. (2012). A systematic literature review of the situation of the international classification of functioning disability and health and health-children and youth version in education: A useful tool or a flight of fancy? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(13), p-1p S103–S117. doi: 10.1097/ PHM.0b013e31823d53b2 Nes, K. (2009). The role of the index for inclusion in supporting school development in Norway: A comparative perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(3), 305–320. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.3.305 Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training (NESSE) Report. (2012). Education and disability/special needs. Policies and practices in education, training and employment for disabled people in the EU. Brussels, Belgium: DG Education and Culture. Novoa, A., & Yariv-Marshal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2004). Equity in education. Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages. Statistics and indicators. Paris: OECD.

260

SIMONA D’ALESSIO AND STEVEN COWAN

OECD. (2012). Family database: Child well being module. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/els/familiesandchildren/50325299.pdf Officer, A. (2010). Research and policy working together to improve the lives of disabled people worldwide, Conference proceedings, Lancaster conference 2010, Lancaster, UK. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: from theory to practice. New York, NY: Palgrave. Opertti, R. Brady, J., & Duncombe, L. (2011). Interregional discussions around inclusive curricula in light of the 48th session of the international conference on education. In R. Opertti, J. Brady, & L. Duncombe (Eds.), Interregional and regional perspectives on inclusive education: Follow-up of the 48th session of the international conference on education (pp. 13–32). Paris: UNESCO/IBE. Pijil, S. L., Hegarty, S., & Meijer, C. W. (1997). Inclusive education: A global challenge. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Prior, L. (1997). Following in foucault’s footsteps. Text and context in qualitative research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice. London: Sage. Riddell, S., Tisdall, K., Kane, J., & Mulderrig, J. (2006). Literature review of educational provision for pupils with additional support needs: Final report to the Scottish Executive Education Department. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh. Rioux, M., Basser, L. A., & Jones, M. (2011). Critical perspectives on human rights and disability law. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Scull, A. T. (1979). Museums of madness. The social organisation of insanity in 19th century England. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity and difference. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide (pp. 94–113). Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. chapter 6. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (1997). Defending the social model. Disability and Society, 12, 297–300. Slee, R. (2001). Inclusion in practice: Does practice make perfect? Educational Review, 53, 113–123. Stiker, H.-J. (1999), A history of disability (W. Sayers, Trans.). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Press. Stone, A. D. (1984). The disabled state. London: Macmillan. Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality in education. London: Continuum. Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms. Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Thomas, C. (2002). Disability theory: Key ideas, issues and thinkers. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability studies today (pp. 38–57). Cambridge: Polity Press. Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. UNESCO. (1994). The salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Salamanca: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2005). Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education: A challenge and a vision. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. UNESCO, Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgibin/ulis.pl?catno=177849&set=4A9F89E7_2_250& gp=1&ll=1

Cross-Cultural Approaches

261

UNESCO. (2011). Interregional and Regional Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Follow up of the 48th session of the international conference on education, UNESCO, Paris. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: United Nations. UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and the Disability Alliance. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Watkins, A. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment in inclusive settings: Key issues for policy and practice. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. WHO: Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/site/icftemplate.cfm?myurl¼ introduction.html%20&mytitle¼I WHO. (2007). International classification of functioning disability and health, children and youth. Geneva: WHO. WHO and World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: WHO. Wolhuter, C. C. (2008). Review of the review: Constructing the identity of comparative education. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(4), 323–344. Young, D., & Quibell, R. (2000). Why rights are never enough: Rights, intellectual disability and understanding. Disability and Society, 15(5), 747–764.

PART 7 CONCLUSIONS

REFLECTIONS ON THE ANNUAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING REFLECTION IN THE FIELD Alexander W. Wiseman and Emily Anderson ABSTRACT This chapter synthesizes the key themes and issues from across the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013, and reflects on how the input from the regional society presidents and representatives was developed in each section of the review. Ways to think about making the Annual Review a reflective process for the field as a whole, and to engender input from all corners of the global comparative and international education community are suggested as well. Keywords: Comparative and international education; critical reflection; annual review; global community; definition; conceptual development

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20, 265–291 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000020022

265

266

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Reflection is a necessary part of growth, just like comparison is a natural part of knowing (Epstein, 2008; Wilson, 2000). Yet, reflection alone is neither sufficient for professional development nor large-scale change (Day, 1993). This inaugural volume of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education (ARCIE) is a unique opportunity to systematically, consistently, and holistically reflect on the field from a field-specific point of view. The sections of this volume have addressed everything from the regional and cultural voices from different parts of the field to the ways that research translates to practice to new and underemphasized topics and issues.

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS There are several ways to gauge the trends and directions in the field of comparative and international education. The difficulty is in defining what is included in the field versus what is excluded. There are multiple ways to define comparative, international, and development education, which are all relatively similar while being unique in their own ways. Manzon (2011, p. 204) provides one definition as follows: Comparative education, strictly speaking, refers to the academic sub field of education studies, which analyses in comparative perspective educational systems and processes in two or more national or cultural contexts, and their interaction with their social environments. Its purpose is academic, that is for theoretical understanding and theory building. In these three domains – object of study, method and purpose – comparative education is distinguishable from neighboring fields closely associated with it.

Her definition of comparative education is meant to distinguish it from other cognate fields by identifying the unique application of object, method, and purpose. The problem, however, is that the object, method, and purpose that she outlines are still indistinguishable from other fields of study in that the only truly unique component is the fixation on comparing education systems and processes across nations, societies, and cultures. But, there is plenty of comparative and international education research that examines the phenomena of youth and studies the many institutions and conditions that are specific to youth, which certainly includes education, but not exclusively. Manzon is also clear that her definition of comparative education is not synonymous with international education, which also includes development education. So, the field of comparative and international education is not only difficult to define, but the domain and scope of it are immediately in

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

267

question compared to those representing and conceptualizing the field around the world. Manzon (2011, p. 215) continues her analysis of the discourse surrounding the field of comparative education by summarizing and defining specifically ‘‘academic comparative education’’ as, an interdisciplinary subfield of education studies that systematically examines the similarities and differences between educational systems in two or more national or cultural contexts, and their interactions with intra- and extra-educational environments. Its specific object is educational systems examined from a cross-cultural (or crossnational, cross-regional) perspective through the systematic use of the comparative method, for the advancement of theoretical understanding and theory building.

Again, Manzon focuses on the three factors of object, method and purpose, but with a serious caveat to begin with; this is only a definition of ‘‘academic comparative education.’’ This definition omits, then, academic international education, academic development education, applied or professional comparative education, international education, and development education as well. The question is whether or not there is even an applied or professional version of comparative education from Manzon’s perspective, or is that all that international and development education are? Granted, Manzon’s approach was to analyze the discourse in the field and then pull together a synergistic and representative definition of comparative education, which she did admirably. Yet, this synthesis of the discourse does not serve not to clarify the field and resolve disputes or inconsistencies, but instead to highlight the disjointed nature of the field as it stands in the early 21st century. Other definitions of comparative and international education exist as well. The standard definition, which Manzon largely builds off of, is the one provided by Epstein (1994) in the International Encyclopedia of Education almost two decades prior. Since Manzon approaches the distinctions between comparative and international education in a way that reflects Epstein’s definition so closely, his will not be summarized here. It is perhaps enough to note that the incorporation of international into the comparative was not and still is not an easy transition. In much of the world the field is simply known as comparative education, and the international component is either ignored, separately defined, or contested in relation to the comparative. There have been high caliber discussions about the validity of international being a part of the comparative or whether these are two separate – yet ‘‘twin’’ – fields (e.g., Wilson, 1994). Some have given up on the hope of ever finding a universally accepted definition of the field (Van Daele, 1993, p. 15), but others still strive for

268

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

something that can be agreed upon across regions, cultures, and both scholarly and professional communities. For example, Phillips and Schweisfurth (2006, p. 24) define comparative education as, The study of any aspects of educational phenomena in two or more different national or regional settings in which attempts are made to draw conclusions from a systematic comparison of the phenomena in question.

Again, the international component is either assumed, implied, or accounted for and does not provide any unique elements of comparative and international education that cannot or already are not accounted for by the conceptual or methodological approaches coming from other social science disciplines. There is nothing unique about comparative and international education in either the Manzon or Phillips and Schweisfurth definitions, although both are extremely helpful in understanding the assumptions and approaches that are both applied and validated by scholars and professionals worldwide. In reviewing the comparative education trends and directions identified by the society presidents and past presidents, published in ARCIE 2013 there is some indication that these formal definitions do indeed reflect the state of understanding about comparative and international education worldwide. These statements are more focused on the specific topics and issues that are relevant to the comparative and international education communities in different regions and cultures than they are on conceptualizations of the field and definitions of what comparative and international education is. As Wolhuter (2008) observes, it is difficult even for those who are senior scholars and respected experts in the field to define comparative and international education. This is a definite threat or at least a serious obstacle to the reflection on and development of the field. The first challenge for a serious reflection on the field of comparative and international education is, therefore, to identify what is truly unique about it and to articulate that. This may be a difficult challenge, but it is not sufficient for CIE to be a distinct field of study if it is merely a subdiscipline of education studies or a marginalized offshoot of more predominant social science disciplines. The fact is that scholars and professionals also investigate and actively engage with education and youth issues. What is it that comparativists of education do that is unique from those others? So, others use a comparative method for investigating how educational phenomena occur and the effects of those phenomena. How is the comparative and international education researcher’s theory or method somehow unique or different from what sociologists or economists of education are doing, for example? How are the applications of research and

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

269

theory to real world situations and events somehow unique for comparative and international education professionals versus others? These are difficult questions to answer, but the challenge of a systematic and consistent reflection on the field of comparative and international education is not only to define the state of the field, hone the goals and purposes of the field, and evaluate the progress or development of the field, but also to determine what makes the field unique. This is especially relevant to a field like comparative and international education where scholars and professionals alike experience an identity crisis of sorts. In other words, how can a field of study develop or transform into a unique discipline or full profession when it cannot distinguish itself from other disciplines or identify how professionals in the field are relevant or distinct from those in other more established fields? The challenge for this and future reflections on the field is not to simply identify what comparative and international education has done or even to determine where the field is going. It is crucial for those who comprise the field to develop a sense of identity and distinctiveness by identifying and articulating how the field of comparative and international education and those who comprise it want to define themselves, what they do to distinguish themselves and their field from closely aligned disciplines and professions, and how comparative and international education is both perceived and interpreted by those outside of the field. One way to begin to distinguish comparative and international education from other fields, disciplines, and professions is to develop conceptual and methodological distinctiveness. The potential shift to a distinctive field with its own theories and methods does not suggest a homogenization or universalization of the field. To the contrary, distinguishing comparative and international education is to create unique spaces both conceptually and methodologically, which encompass the range of social, cultural, political, and economic contexts and conditions that make comparative and international education unique. In other words, to transform into a vibrant yet distinct field, comparative and international education scholars and professionals must begin to own expert knowledge in the field, specifically that knowledge and those skills that include research and empirical analysis.

CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS The chapters in the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 by Malet and Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral, which address

270

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

the conceptual and methodological developments in the field, focus more exclusively on (1) the debate between more and less critical theoretical approaches to understanding comparative and international education phenomena and (2) the alternatives to quantitative and institutional research approaches as well as conceptual misunderstandings and miscommunication, which are prevalent in the field of late. These chapters express a couple of things of which scholars and professionals in the field should be proud. First, the willingness of those in the field to critically examine themselves and their contributions to both theory and research is commendable. It is an admirable task to critically reflect on one’s own field and work, which also aligns with the goals of this annual review. Second, the passion with which scholars in the field have approached these critical perspectives and theoretical disputes suggests that there is a major investment and that much value is assigned to the work of comparative and international education scholars and professionals. But, these chapters also suggest some major shortcomings in the field. First of all, the discussions in both chapters indicate that a schism has developed within the field and that there are those who are assigning blame and value judgments on the work of others in the field. While debate and critical reflection contribute to the health and growth of the field, the degree to which it is taken should be considered. If the field is irreconcilably divided then there would potentially be a break in the field, which may not be reconciled. This is one reason for the value of critical reflection in an annual review. Those areas that are disputed or contradict other groups within the field of scholars and professionals can be openly discussed in a balanced and public forum. Yet, if criticism is solely offered without suggestions for adjustment or reconciliation through either compromise or an understanding of the unique contributions of both approaches then the likelihood of bringing the field together to develop and progress as a diverse yet complete field could be lost. Second, by aligning with different social science disciplines and different methodologies as a function of the field’s borrowed identity, there seems to have developed an inability to communicate across theoretical and methodological styles and approaches within comparative and international education. Granted that there are some in the field who complement and collaborate with colleagues whose conceptual and methodological approaches contrast with their own, but there is a potential for more disagreement than discussion. The Annual Review is one way of communicating across these lines within the field, but it is also a way to communicate critical as well as complementary comments. One goal then

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

271

could be to move away from polarizing perspectives to those that are more constructively critical. One approach to begin moving from polarization to constructive communication is to identify what is uniquely comparative and international about the theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding and analyzing educational phenomena worldwide. The distinctions between functional and critical may remain, but the approaches to these conceptual differences could move away from establishing oppositional identities to developing ways to critically complement or constructively contradict each other. There will also remain the qualitative and quantitative differences in methodologies, but fully educating or at least owning the different ways of examining empirical data that these methodological approaches offer is one way to begin developing a uniquely comparative and international education approach to theory and method. Another potential route to developing a uniquely comparative and international education conceptual and methodological approach is to integrate approaches. Both previous and current approaches tend to isolate global from local and assign a causal effect direction or agenda to one or the other. This is an often used approach to managing otherwise complex and highly integrated educational phenomena, but it is also overly reductionist. To develop a unique approach to theory and method, comparative and international education scholars, in particular, could consider building constructs that integrate phenomena rather than isolate effects. The integrative approach is one that has been tried in other fields, but has not been systematically developed in regard to comparative and international education specifically. Bray and Thomas’s (1995) cube has come to signify what is now a common approach to simplifying comparative and international education analyses in a way that isolates phenomena and reduces them to intersecting relationships. This was groundbreakingly relevant to the field as comparative and international education research developed from single case studies to complex data analyses, but is not sustainable for understanding comparative and international education phenomena in all of their complexity. In fact, the trend in many fields has been to reduce phenomena for investigation into the fewest possible parts, whether that is in terms of units of analysis or constructs that define meaning. But, this approach is also ultimately reductionist rather than elucidating. At this stage in the development of the field, it may be more valuable to move away from oppositional identity and overly simplified analyses, and to move toward developing complex and multilayered conceptual and methodological

272

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

approaches to understanding and analyzing comparative and international education phenomena. One of the criticisms of the mass education model that many comparativists of education concern themselves with is that it illogically and counterproductively separates curriculum and school content into artificially divided subjects and skills (Apple, 1978; Dewey, 2004). This is true as well for comparative and international education. The danger of making these artificial divisions in the body of knowledge and activity is that it moves the knowledge and skills of those who are scholars and professionals in the field farther away from the real world of classroom, school, or community life. In other words, moving from research to practice becomes increasingly difficult as the conceptual and methodological approaches to comparative and international education are increasingly siloed.

RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE Menashy’s chapter on research-to-practice focuses on private sector engagement in education worldwide because the shift from state-sponsored mass education back into the hands of privately held interests, individuals, and organizations is a prominent concern in comparative and international education scholarship and professional activity. Since the advent of mass education systems aligned with and sponsored by national governments during the 19th century, the trend toward nation-state involvement in education has dominated research and reform in education worldwide. However, as national education systems and youth enrollment have become increasingly ubiquitous in most countries around the world, the responsibility for and control over educational provision and content have increasingly shifted into shadow education systems (Baker, Akiba, LeTendre, & Wiseman, 2001; Mori & Baker, 2010; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Much of the research related to shadow education systems have focused on only one form of shadow education: private tutoring (Bray, 1999; Waldow, 2007). But, Menashy’s (2013) chapter imagines the impact of private sector involvement in education at a much wider level. The development and international legitimization of multilateral advocates for private sector involvement fundamentally shifts control and any vestiges of democratic responsibility of education to those more directly engaged in profit-seeking agenda setting. Yet, the question of how this topic is relevant to research-to-practice is important as well. The Annual Review’s

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

273

commitment to providing a systematic and consistent opportunity to reflect on the ways that research is both translated to practice and reflects the ways that research responds to practice are represented by the discussion on private sector involvement in education. The question is one of synthesizing, examining, and responding to complex real world events. Private sector involvement in education is not only a result of power imbalance or dominant wealth-oriented organizations setting agendas for the eventual weakening of public sector education at the expense of the marginalized or disenfranchised. It is in fact each or all of those, yet also much more. Overt power imbalances do not play out like a political cartoon. They are much more subtle, and often indirect. For example, the World Bank is often the focus of criticism about educational and economic inequality, and the charge is that the Bank creates opportunities for itself to prosper by manipulating the environment to suit its purposes and agenda. And, rightly, these criticisms emphasize the fact that the influence and scope of the World Bank is wide enough to accomplish this goal. Yet, the actual process is much more subtle and if critics from within the comparative and international education community were to examine the situation of educational influence more widely, there would also be more frequent critical accusations leveled at other supposedly philanthropic or democracy seeking organizations like the Soros Foundation or even smaller development organizations, which concern themselves with single country or even single community educational change and influence. Yet, these are rarely or at least less frequently the target of the critical eye, which is focused on the World Bank. This is not to excuse or avoid recognizing incidents of harmful impact that the World Bank has had on education worldwide since its inception in the mid-20th century. But, it does serve as a reminder that many of the more critical approaches common in comparative and international education research and practice reflect a specific bias in this regard, and are used to promote a self-serving research agenda. Another result of a review of the field’s research-to-practice agenda is to recognize that there is in many ways a disconnect between comparative and international education scholarship and its practical application. Part of this is due to the nature of international development or aid organizations. They provide the resources and the mechanisms for providing education and other essential resources to historically and persistently poor and marginalized communities. Few professionals in the field of comparative and international education can claim to have been a part of as many meaningful and needed relief or aid missions as those who work with large

274

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

international development or aid organizations – those organizations in fact that are often criticized for their bias and imbalance in agenda setting and resource provision. Yet without the services, logistical support, and mechanisms for delivering aid or education in remote, poor, and marginalized communities most of those communities’ population would be dead or dying, often literally. The irony (or rather, the hypocrisy) of many scholars in the field of comparative and international education is that they simultaneously criticize development and aid organizations for enslaving whole countries through neoliberal economic and educational policies and reform, while serving as consultants for the very same organizations that they critique. It is also ironic that the organizations that receive most of the criticism (e.g., the World Bank) seek out those who are the most critical and invite them to engage in discussions about how to revise their organizations’ policies or provide paid consultation or evaluation of the development or aid organization’s efforts on the ground in poor and marginalized communities, in particular. It is also of great importance to recognize how the field of comparative and international education trains or recruits those who become professionals in the field – apart from university faculty and other paid scholars. In a study of the institutional affiliations of members of one of the largest comparative and international education associations in the world (Comparative and International Education Society, USA), it was reported that 14% of members were affiliated with development, aid, research, or policy organizations (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). In other words, a significant percentage of professionals in the field were affiliated with the large, multilateral organizations that much of the work done by scholars in the field critique. This significant community of comparative and international education professionals is often not trained specifically or at all in the field of comparative and international education scholarship, knowledge, or skills (Chabbott, 2002). Instead, this large community of development professionals comes from economics, foreign service, international relations, or business programs in universities worldwide. It is only through their eventual work in international development or aid related to education that they become professionals from a comparative and international education perspective. The growth of international development professionals within the field means that the work domain is easily and often permeated by individuals and communities far from the comparative and international education knowledge and skill base. In order for research to effectively translate into practice it is imperative that those doing the work of international education development do not

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

275

only think of education as a mere function or outcome of development. This awareness requires that they have a comprehensive understanding of not just the contextual issues of the communities in which they work, but an understanding of the power of education as a primary social institution as well. In other words, the practical application of research from comparative and international education perspectives requires specialized expertise of education, and an awareness of area or regional development needs. But, knowledge of context should not replace knowledge of education as a formal prerequisite for international development work in education. Translating research to practice requires an ability to integrate an understanding of the processes and impacts of globalization to regional and local circumstances, needs, and conditions. By bridging the gap between research and practice, development professionals and scholars can work together to move beyond many of the conceptual and methodological disputes currently reflected in the literature and, at the same time, potentially change the educational experiences and outcomes of literally hundreds or thousands of children and youth worldwide.

AREA STUDIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS The chapters emphasizing the Slavonic Southeast European countries by Ermenc et al. on the one hand and the countries of the Arabian Gulf by Kirk on the other offer a stark contrast to one another. Traditionally, area studies are subfields dominated by rich cultural and historical context, and that is certainly the case in the Slavonic Southeast European countries, but the Arabian countries offer quite a different perspective. In the Arabian Gulf, the history of education and more specifically comparative and international education is much newer and has not been documented or debated to the degree that it has been in other parts of the world, particularly Europe. Therefore, the importance of context is differently interpreted for these two regions, and is one of the reasons why these two regions are emphasized in the area studies and regional developments section of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013. Area studies and regional developments reveal the ways that educational boundaries and influences shift within specific geographic, cultural, social, economic, and political areas and regions. The balance between endogenous and exogenous influences on education and its development in specific areas and regions worldwide depends often on the historical, social, and cultural context as much as the perceived or anticipated future economic and

276

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

political context. For example, the strong influence of German pedagogy on Slavonic Southeast European countries’ educational development, and specifically teacher training, is a result of the complex developments in the region which led to a scholarly emphasis on and borrowing from German educational academic traditions rather than from other communities worldwide (Ermenc et al., 2013). In stark contrast to the rich historical, social, and cultural context of comparative and international education developments, and specifically pedagogical training and traditions in the Slavonic Southeast of Europe, stand the Arabian Gulf countries (Kirk, 2013). These countries, which are often conceptually defined as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – even though Yemen and Iraq are not official members of this association – have a much less documented and more recent colonial past that they are only recently reconciling. Instead, the focus for the Arabian Gulf countries’ educational systems and their development more often looks forward to anticipated political and economic changes rather than to historical context. For example, the Arabian Gulf is in the midst of debating the ways that labor market development and transition to the labor market among youth can be supported through the educational systems in the Gulf, and is also fixated on the perceived transformation of the Gulf economy from a natural resource-based economy to a knowledge-based economy (Kirk, 2013; Wiseman, 2010). Moving forward with the idea of recognizing regional developments and incorporating area studies in education into the study and practice of comparative and international education, therefore, is largely dependent on the unique contexts and shifting boundaries of areas or regions in question. As the field of comparative and international education reflects upon its own developments and shifting boundaries, scholars and professionals in the field may also want to take stock of which areas and regions are the focus of particular study or application. There are regional associations of comparative and international education, many of which are members of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES), which are defined by their geographic and political boundaries as much as their ethnic and linguistic boundaries, but there are also those that are more defined by their ethnic and linguistic affinities than the political or geographic limits of state authority. For example, the French Association for Comparative Education and Exchanges, represented by the essay from Dominique Groux (2013) in the Comparative Education Trends and Directions section of this volume, encompasses the concerns and study of education from comparative and international perspectives across the Francophone diaspora rather

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

277

than limiting itself to the political boundaries of French nationalism or citizenship. Likewise, the Gulf Comparative Education Society represents the issues and concerns across all of the Gulf countries rather than in only individual Gulf States. But, as regions develop the areas that comprise various affinity groups within those regions shift boundaries resulting from different exogenous influences and endogenous legitimacies. Reflecting on and understanding these shifts are the challenge for comparative and international education as a field. Increasingly the availability of and participation in international education assessments, studies, and other data shifts the boundaries of area studies and regional developments because the information about education in these areas and regions is no longer limited to those with special linguistic or geographic access to the area or region in question. As Kirk (2013) points out, many ministries of education in the Gulf invited large, international consulting firms and external consulting groups to not only provide evaluations or recommendations for educational reform and development in unique Gulf countries’ educational systems, but Gulf ministries of education are often inviting these consulting firms or groups to plan the strategic development of the whole educational system or completely revise the national mathematics and science curricula. In situations like this, the development of a region or area studies is influenced by the complex mix of exogenous and endogenous educational legitimization pressures, external access to educational data, and the expectations of national educational decision- and policy-makers for rapid and empirically measurable educational change. The long historically situated development of conceptual distinctions about pedagogy and teacher training more often give way to rapid exchanges of information about education and short-term outcomes rather than long-term goals for educational development. This may be a cynic’s approach to comparative and international education, but the international and comparative evidence seems to bear this perspective out, certainly in less developed communities and systems worldwide (Kirk, 2013). Thus, area studies in comparative and international education research may be less about what makes a particular area unique in terms of its educational system or practices, and much more about how particular areas or regions of the world develop education in response to or in conjunction with educational developments and trends that are also happening in other areas and regions worldwide. Examining and reflecting on alignment in education across and between areas and regions suggests that the unique elements of each area or region are being increasingly lost to the dominant trends in educational

278

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

development worldwide. This is the lament associated with more critical approaches to globalization studies and the impact of increasingly internationalized educational policy and practice (Wiseman & Baker, 2005). One approach to investigating the influence of globalization on education in areas and regions worldwide is to examine the trends and impact of system-specific characteristics of education as a technical science on educational systems, teacher thinking and practice, and student learning and achievement. Since the 1920s, the emergence of education as a discipline has been linked to a professional field – primarily teaching – and hence to the development of a model educational system that developed as a result. However, education, which is enacted in nations and communities around the world, does not simply follow a model; it is also a diverse formation of different organizations, networks, and their relationships (Amos, 2012). The proposed research project suggests that the present reconstruction of education is closely related to a conceptual reconfiguration in the field of professional educational practice, with academic knowledge production playing a crucial role. Others take a less empirical and more conceptual approach to identifying the shifts in the boundaries of area studies and regional developments in education, but in order to do so they must first identify what is unique or different about particular communities and situations in the field. Globalization is defined and debated in many different ways, but it is most often discussed in terms of the spread or transfer of goods, services, knowledge, and policies across national, social, and political boundaries. The most frequent version is economic globalization as a result of the commodification of goods and services, which spread across national, political, or societal borders. This resonates with educators, educational administrators, and educational researchers mostly in the forms of policy transfer, policy borrowing, and educational legitimacy seeking. The problem with this is that schools exist in unique cultures both in terms of the community environment in which schools are embedded as well as the organizational environment, which dominates the national education systems and the institution of education worldwide.

DIVERSIFICATION OF THE FIELD Recognizing the contributions of underrepresented or marginalized topics and issues within comparative and international education is a key element of reflection on and by the field. As D’Allessio and Cowan’s chapter on

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

279

special needs education suggests, there are various approaches to these relatively new topics and issues that bridge both conceptual and methodological approaches to comparative and international education scholarship as well as the practical application of special needs education across social, cultural, and political boundaries. While D’Alessio and Cowan (2013) provide a critical interpretation of the scholarly and practical context of special needs education, the role that reflection plays in a broader comparative and international education review may be more informed by this approach than defined by it. How then does a field that has difficulty even defining itself in the most basic way, address and incorporate new or underinvestigated topics, issues, areas of study, regional developments, conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, and practical applications into the panoply of items already incorporated or assumed under the widely cast and weakly defined umbrella of comparative and international education? One response is to return to the beginning and argue that a field that is undefined cannot incorporate anything; it can only latch onto other fields, disciplines, approaches, and applications and call its approach unique. This is the danger that comparative and international education is faced with, and in its worst case scenario leads to field-wide sycophantism. This is, however, a grisly future for comparative and international education if the only way to realize the identity of the field is to act obsequiously toward other disciplines and fields in order to gain an advantage in scholarly and professional pursuits. Instead, the idea of being a field that is strong and independent enough to make room for and embrace new and underinvestigated issues or topics is a much brighter future for the field. How then do comparative and international education scholars and professionals define themselves, or at the least engage in a process whereby they can define themselves based on what is unique about them in terms of what they do, how they do it, and what the results or outcomes are? This is a process that the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education can support because it provides an open forum for the discussion and debate over those very issues. The complacency of those who work in the academic and professional sides of the field has become a hindrance to developing the field itself. Instead of seeking to distinguish comparative and international education for its own merits, there has been a push to more closely align with the social sciences in order to benefit from the merits and legitimacy of those disciplines (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). Instead of owning the expert knowledge base and delimiting the approaches that are and are not within the scope of comparative and international education, the tendency has

280

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

been to accept and support all approaches regardless of how tightly they are linked to the core values and goals of the field (or at least the associations in the field). Instead of controlling who can permeate the scope of work that falls within the domain commonly associated with comparative and international education, both scholars and professionals have shrugged off any notions of excluding others from the field and have instead engaged in passive aggressive academic criticism, which is often based in hypothetical analyses, but enacted in ironic or hypocritical dualism. In short, the field of comparative and international education is in a rut, but it is also at a crossroads. As the field expands in terms of number of university programs dedicated to the scholarly pursuit of comparative and international education degrees or affiliated programs (Wolhuter, Popov, Leutwyler, & Ermenc, 2013), and the availability of increased modes of communication, transportation, and data on education grows worldwide, scholars and professionals in the field must decide either to coalesce as a distinct field or disassemble and dissolve back into the social science and other disciplinary traditions from whence they came. This is the challenge moving forward. The response from the field is what matters next. It will not be an overnight transformation in either direction, regardless of the explicit or implicit choice that comparative and international education scholars and professionals make. But, it will have a measurable impact on the field during the next several decades, and perhaps by the mid-21st century the fate of comparative and international education will be known.

HOW TO USE THE ANNUAL REVIEW TO REFLECT AS A FIELD One of the fundamental reasons the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education was introduced was to discover and encourage ways that comparative and international education scholars and professionals create and sustain a developing field with diverse interests and varied needs. While the content of comparative and international education as a field is too large to address in a single volume, it is nonetheless important to recognize that the scholars and professionals in the field come from many different educational and training backgrounds as well as quite a wide range of disciplinary and professional parent fields. Comparativists of education include teachers as well as bank economists, graduate students, and school district administrators, world travelers as well as people whose whole life is dedicated to the development of one specific community.

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

281

However, recognizing who comprises the field and managing who becomes part of the field or joins the field go hand in hand. Strategies to increase and focus participation, both locally and globally, may assist in the development of the field as a whole. There are several activities that could encourage incorporation of scholars and professionals into the field, and which can be engaged in as complementary activities to the Annual Review. Using the Annual Review content as a foundation, national, regional, and international communities of comparative and international education scholars and professionals could explore the programs of universities and colleges worldwide to identify what is offered in international and comparative education specifically and peripherally. Some of this work has already begun through the Comparative and International Education Course Archive Project (CIECAP) at Loyola University (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009), but without a conceptual framework upon which to base this field-wide identity development. The Annual Review can provide a framework and momentum to begin to identify the scope of the expert knowledge in the field and which disciplines or fields outside of comparative and international education control that expert knowledge. Using this strategy, the Annual Review could serve as a forum for discussing what expert knowledge in the field is and how it is unique to comparative and international education relative to other disciplines and fields. Another approach based on the Annual Review, is to either reflect on the Annual Review content or invite a team of scholars to reflect on the ways that comparative and international education is unique or distinct from other fields and disciplines in terms of object, method, and output. This is one way to provide a reason for scholars and professionals aligned with other more dominant disciplines or legitimized fields to recognize the contributions and characteristics of comparative and international education. The role of the Annual Review is not to defend the field of comparative and international education, but it can be to provide evidence for decision-making related to disciplinary focus, methodological content, topic and issue development, and the incorporation of other unique regional concerns. Perhaps one way to build off of the Annual Review content and engage in active reflection would be to develop regional seminars, which actively reflect on the chapters published in the Annual Review or establish targeted international interchanges and cooperative arrangements, which emphasize the topics and issues that are shared across disciplinary, methodological, and regional boundaries within the field of comparative and international education. But, regardless of the specific method of actively engaging with the Annual Review content or reflecting on the discussions and debates highlighted in the Annual Review, by providing support for the creation and

282

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

facilitation of a conversation within the comparative and international education community about the scholarly and professional identity and collective memory of the field, the field will have already moved one step closer to establishing itself as a distinct identity amid the many associated disciplines and fields. Previous research has analyzed membership data for professional societies in the field and reviewed some analyses of this data in terms of professional background, geographic location, and institutional affiliation of the members (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). This data suggests that those affiliated formally with comparative and international education through society membership may be experiencing an identity crisis. Ways to address this issue of identity are to develop new or enhance existing ways for scholars and professionals to communicate and connect. The Annual Review of Comparative and International Education is one such opportunity. As the sections of the Annual Review suggest, an emphasis on relationship building between individuals, around specific topics of interest, and with the broader community of comparative and international education scholars and professionals is an appropriate way to address these concerns. By connecting the larger comparative and international education community with subgroups within the field, ownership and empowerment of the community and individuals that comprise it can occur. Systematic and consistent conversations about the field, like those offered in the Annual Review, also promise to improve the public perception and participation in the field of comparative and international education because it becomes clearer what members of the comparative and international education community do, why they do it, and for whom or to what end. Perhaps the conversation in the Annual Review will eventually include a need to develop a shared vision, mission, and goals. Or, perhaps that is anathema to the inclusiveness of the community. Either way, the Annual Review can serve as a conceptual and scholarly foundation for strategic discussions or both virtual and live events that involve input from the whole comparative and international education community, but be specifically and actively engaged in by a manageable yet representative group.

Recommendations for Annual Review Reflection Recommendation 1: Be consistent. An annual review of the field must be published annually, and be in preparation throughout the year prior to

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

283

publication. The focus of the annual review needs to have enough consistency to provide a stable forum for discussion of the issues of greatest concern, but flexible enough within those structures to allow for the development and progress of the field as well. This discussion and the planning for and implementation of activities leading to the Annual Review must be nurtured and well-thought out. While this inaugural volume of the Annual Review was in development for longer than a year, which gave the authors, editors, and advisory board plenty of opportunities for discussion and reflection themselves, the schedule must march forward yearly from now onward in order to provide the basis that the field needs to productively reflect. In short, the annual schedule gives the Annual Review editors, authors, and advisory board the opportunity to conduct preliminary investigations, while also providing a solid foundation for change resulting from the reflective activities that the Annual Review engenders. If the Annual Review is successful, it should become priority reading for scholars and professionals alike in the field of comparative and international education. Recommendation 2: Be informed. Self-discovery is often the hardest form of reflection, yet for the community of scholars and professionals in comparative and international education it is long overdue. There are scattered and uncoordinated efforts to document what the field is and how it is developing represented by historical reflections on specific comparative and international education societies and associations (McNess, Crossley, & Sprague, 2013; Wilson, 2006), volume series or special journal issues published either by academic centers (Holsinger & Jacob, 2008; Jules, 2012; Noah & Eckstein, 1998), or as a result of well-articulated professional meetings (Popov et al., 2012), or books attempting to summarize the field (Manzon, 2011), but there is little that is done to holistically and collectively gather and disseminate information about the field. A strong start for comparative and international education would be to comprehensively collect and share basic information on our field by broadly identifying how expert knowledge in the field is developed, who certifies or accredits both training programs and individuals in the field, what the occupational domain for comparative and international education scholars and professionals is, how the comparative and international education community has ownership or control over those domains, and whether or not there are ethical codes or monitoring efforts to ensure that the professionalism of the field is maintained. As mentioned, one way to begin would be to use the Annual Review as a venue to collectively explore the programs of universities and colleges to see what they offer in international

284

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

and comparative education and find out what their program and course structures for undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs in the field are. Exploring the curricula and frameworks of academic degree programs in comparative and international education does not mean that programs should be standardized or that there is, or should be, a particular model of training in our field. Sharing programmatic resources across universities offering comparative and international education degree programs would provide the field with a better understanding of how new scholars and professionals are trained. What we suggest here is not to standardize but to use evidence to inform the ways young scholars and practitioners are trained to meet the demands of an ever-changing global educational landscape. It would also be helpful to know which institutions are forming, expanding, or modifying programs related to comparative and international education. This information could be reported in the Annual Review and would serve to complement the detailed directories of comparative and international programs produced by Altbach and Enberg (2001) and later Wolhuter et al. (2013). In addition, there are many K-12 schools around the world that are promoting international programs, curricula, or other information relevant to comparative and international education. Yet, those teachers typically have no formal training in the field of comparative and international education. Historically, comparative and international education had an important role in initial teacher education and training but it has diminished as a result of increased national-level pressures to standardize the content-specific training and certification requirements of preservice teachers. The influence of globalization and the use of cross-nationally comparative achievement data in education policy worldwide can actually support the reintegration of comparative and international education within initial teacher preparation. If teachers are to be evaluated (and often blamed) for student learning outcomes as measured through large-scale international testing schemes, it is of the upmost importance to empower them to counter public misunderstanding of what these tests actually measure. This is only one benefit of reintroducing comparative and international education within initial teacher education programs. The most salient benefit would be the ways CIE-informed curricula would support the development of preservice teachers as public intellectuals. Reintegrating comparative and international education within initial teacher education programs would achieve this goal through rigorous academic curricula in education studies and the social and behavioral sciences to develop preservice teachers’ multi- and cross-cultural knowledge and pedagogical skills.

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

285

This suggests a need for the Annual Review to perhaps identify and foster comparative and international education awareness or expertise in teacher preparation programs around the world. Once the basic information on what expert knowledge in the field is and how it is disseminated, revised, or otherwise controlled, there are opportunities for the Annual Review to look at occupational domain and other elements of the field’s identity and professionalization to discuss. Recommendation 3: Establish a unique identity. While the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a venue for getting to know the emerging needs in the field better by updating the information about theoretical conceptions, country-specific systems, and the needs and conditions of education and society in specific global regions or communities, there is a lot of international education information available. The scope of this information is constantly expanding, too. Comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike need a greater and more comparative and international education-specific theoretical understanding of the field, country-level and regional aspects of different systems, and real world needs emerging in the field. Again, the Annual Review may serve as the virtual venue for developing a field-wide conversation about and reflection on each of these issues, but would also involve coordinated collection and reporting of relevant data. Recommendation 4: Become the experts. This seems so obvious that it may not need to be said; however, the marginalized status of comparative and international education in the wider scholarly and professional communities, as well as among those working in the field itself requires it. Comparative and international education as a distinct field must be positioned as the source for expertise in academic and professional areas relevant to the field. One area, for example, that has not been discussed yet is academic internationalization, especially at the higher education level. All universities are now involved in internationalization to some extent. Many are internationalizing in a narrow sense; for example, they are increasing the number of foreign students, but not internationalizing the curriculum. The Annual Review provides an opportunity to document the ways that comparative and international education can and does position itself as the field that provides expert advice and direction for universities undergoing internationalization efforts. This could include engaging university presidents and boards of trustees in the conversations included in the Annual Review, and these published discussions and debates can supplement or provide full conceptualization of what internationalization could mean.

286

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Recommendation 5: Be visible and active. Again, this recommendation seems to go without saying, yet it is important for the Annual Review to recognize and explore alternative ways of presenting the research and work that goes on in the field of comparative and international education. While many professional societies in the field publish or are affiliated with academic journals, the research that appears in these journals often does not reach a large audience, judging from the limited citations this work receives (Foster, Addy, & Samoff, 2012; Wolhuter, 2008). Instead, the Annual Review provides a truly global audience, which certainly targets those who are already doing work in the field, but also is available to those outside of the field who are still connected either conceptually or practically to comparative and international education. Readers of the Annual Review are encouraged to consider how to disseminate research with objectives that will be helpful to those who are not scholars or academics, but are doing applied professional work in the field of comparative and international education. This is one of the goals of the Annual Review as well; to reach an audience beyond that which is only available to experts in comparative and international education. The Annual Review, for example is available through electronic means of publication and access, and is held by publicly accessible libraries worldwide as well. In short, if members of the comparative and international education field itself or those whose interests comparative and international education experts think they are targeting do not know what research has been done or what the policy and practice implications of that research are, then the field is failing its community. Recommendation 6: Articulate collective identity for individual belonging. In short, the Annual Review must be able to not only represent and review what is happening in the field as a whole, but articulate it in such a way – either through reflection or other interpretive means – so that individuals within and affiliated with the field recognize their own work and sense of community in comparative and international education. Comparative and international education has not developed to the point where there are clear indicators of membership or participation in the field. Those who are identified as scholars and professionals in the field are largely self-identified rather than through independently confirmed characteristics, education credentials, or other means. The Annual Review can serve as a basis for discussing and disseminating a clear, comprehensive, and collectively defined set of characteristics for belonging to the comparative and international education field.

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

287

Recommendation 7: Balance theory, policy, and practice. Scholars and professionals in the field of comparative and international education represent a healthy mix of those working in academia, policy reform, educational development, and other areas. While many of these members are interested in and can actively contribute to theoretical debates about comparative and international education issues, there are many others (e.g., Ministers of Education, education policymakers and planners, teachers and administrators working in educational systems) who need more applied information or whose public positions prevent them from engaging in completely transparent discussions about the field and its effects. They may ask how to take the theoretical arguments some members make and translate them into real world practice. This element of comparative and international education scholarship is consistently neglected in both fieldspecific publications and annual meetings. The Annual Review explicitly provides more of a balance between theory, policy, and real world applications. Recommendation 8: Connect the global community. Currently, the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) is the only way that comparative and international education formally connects to societies and communities of practice around the world. The Annual Review, however, provides an opportunity for scholars and professionals in the field to be more proactive in understanding and knowing what other groups are doing. For example, the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society has been in the middle of the socialist to capitalist transition, which provides both theory and application possibilities to explore. There are also other societies around the world that are growing at phenomenal rates (e.g., the Bulgarian Society again), which suggests that comparative and international education scholars and professionals may be able to learn something from them in terms of both establishing a comparative and international education identity and in meeting the needs of diverse communities and constituents.

NEXT STEPS The benefit of an Annual Review of Comparative and International Education is that it provides a systematic and consistent opportunity for scholarly and professional reflection and change both for individuals and for the field more broadly. As the chapters in the 2013 volume of the Annual Review

288

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

suggest, there is still much scholarship and professional activity to cover. An Annual Review like this can only cover so much in one volume, but it can provide a foundation and an impetus to move forward reflectively and professionally. It is also the first step toward moving the field forward rather than maintaining the status quo decade after decade. Comparative and International Education scholars and professionals have a chance to bring their interests and activities together in a way that defines the field as a unique and distinct entity rather than a subfield of education or a sycophantic pseudo-field that calls itself ‘‘interdisciplinary.’’ The field of comparative and international education has made and has the potential to continue making significant contributions to the scholarly literature and research investigating educational phenomena worldwide. The professional practice of comparative and international education, however, has never been firmly rooted in a conceptualization of comparative and international education as a profession because the field has never fully professionalized (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). A next step, therefore, is to move the field further toward this goal of professionalizing by not only defining and owning expert knowledge in the field, but also by moving the work of comparative and international education within a firmly rooted and clearly defined occupational domain – not to limit it, but to care for it and nurture it. Diversification of the field, particularly in the concentric sense, will continue to provide opportunities for the expansion and flexibility that the field needs and those who align themselves with the field seem to want. And, a next step in terms of growth might be to focus on those who have been somehow affiliated with the field already, either in an academic program, a research project, or a professional position. As growth in the field continues, comparative and international education will also be primed for invigorating scholars and professionals to more clearly conceptualize what it is that they do and how it is comparative and international education rather than economics or sociology with a comparative and educational spin to it. Finally, it is our hope as editors of this inaugural volume of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education that readers will find inspiration in the examples of the regional society presidents and past presidents, that they will engage more purposefully with conceptual and methodological frameworks in their own scholarship or professional practice after considering the critical frameworks and conceptual debates, which have gained prominence in the field of late. We hope that readers will share the topics, issues, and concerns that the area studies chapters highlighted and recognize how those specific regional concerns and

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

289

characteristics are either similar to their own or how they demonstrate a unique characteristic and context of that particular regional community. We hope that readers will connect with the research-to-practice section in a way that encourages them to consider the practical applications of their own work as well as that of others, and how to continue the cycle of research-topractice moving forward. And, last but not least, we hope that readers continue their involvement in the field of comparative and international education reinvigorated and inspired by the content in the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education.

REFERENCES Altbach, P. G., & Enberg, D. (2001). Higher education: A worldwide inventory of centers and programs. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. Amos, S. K. (2012). Comparative education in late modernity: Tensions between accelerating the disenchantment of the world and opening pedagogical spaces of possibility. In L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson & U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, creativity and education: Polities, politics, performances (pp. 27–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and educational reform. Comparative Education Review, 22(3), 367–387. Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–18. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Fundamentals of Educational Planning Series, Number 61. Paris: UNESCO. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472–491. Chabbott, C. (2002). Constructing education for development: International organizations and education for all. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. D’Alessio, S., & Cowan, S. (2013). Cross-cultural approaches to the study of ‘‘inclusive’’ and ‘‘special needs’’ education. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 83–93. Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Epstein, E. H. (1994). Comparative and international education: Overview and historical development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. London: Elsevier, Ltd. Epstein, E. H. (2008). Cultural and educational policy studies, ELPS 455. Unpublished course syllabus description. Retrieved from http://www.luc.edu/education/syllabi/fall%2008/ ELPS/ELPS455-Epstein-1086.pdf Accessed on March 25, 2013.

290

ALEXANDER W. WISEMAN AND EMILY ANDERSON

Ermenc, K. S., Spasenovic´, V., Vujisic´- Zˇivkovic´, N., Vrcelj, S., Popov, N., Wiseman, A. W., & Anderson, E. (Eds.). (2013). Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Foster, J., Addy, N. A., & Samoff, J. (2012). Crossing borders: Research in comparative and international education. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 711–732. Groux, D. (2013). Comparative education: Inventory and perspectives from an ‘‘AFDECE’’ point of view. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Holsinger, D. B., & Jacob, W. J. (Eds.). (2008). Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Jules, T. D. (2012). Re-reading the anamorphosis of educational fragility, vulnerability, and strength in small states. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 15(1), 5–13. Kirk, D. (2013). Comparative education and the Arabian Gulf. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Manzon, M. (2011). Comparative education: The construction of a field (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Springer. McNess, E. M., Crossley, M. W., & Sprague, T. (2013). BAICE history archive: The First Fifteen years of contribution to international and comparative theory and research. Unpublished Research Paper, University of Bristol, UK. Menashy, F. (2013). Private sector engagement in education worldwide. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Mori, I., & Baker, D. P. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the supplemental education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 36–48. Noah, H. N., & Eckstein, M. A. (1998). Doing comparative education: Three decades of collaboration. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.fe.hku.hk/cerc/part0.htm. Accessed on March 25, 2013. Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Comparative and international education: An introduction to theory, method, and practice. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Popov, N., Wolhuter, C., Leutwyler, B., Hilton, G., Ogunleye, J., & Almeida, P. A. (Eds.). (2012). International perspectives on education. Sophia, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639–1657. Van Daele, H. (1993). L’e´ducation compare´e. Paris: PUF. Waldow, F. (2007). Mass schooling: A local game with global rules. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 451–457. Wilson, D. N. (1994). Comparative and international education: Fraternal or Siamese Twins? A preliminary genealogy of our twin fields. Comparative Education Review, 38(4), 449–486. Wilson, D. N. (2000). To compare is human: Comparison as a research methodology. Paper delivered at the 2000 Waseda International Symposium, Tokyo, March. Wilson, D. N. (2006). The world council of comparative education societies: A preliminary history. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy

Recommendations for Institutionalizing Reflection in the Field

291

(Vol. 8, pp. 289–307). International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The employability imperative: Global educational requirements and the future of the GCC labor market. In Education and the requirements of the GCC labor market (pp. 185–212). Abu Dhabi: The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (pp. 11–38). International Perspectives on Education and Society Series. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355. Wolhuter, C. (2008). Review of the review: Constructing the identity of comparative education. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(4), 323–344. Wolhuter, C., Popov, N., Leutwyler, B., & Ermenc, K. S. (Eds.). (2013). Comparative education at universities world wide (3rd ed.). Sofia, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society & Ljubljana University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Emily Anderson is an Assistant Professor of Education at Centenary College (on leave), and a Ph.D. student in Educational Theory and Policy and Comparative and International Education (dual degree) at Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on girls’ empowerment through education, teacher education and professional development, and education policy and reform in the Arabian Gulf region. She holds degrees in History with Secondary Social Studies certification (BA, Centenary College), Educational Leadership (M.Ed., Lehigh University) and Comparative and International Education (MA, Lehigh Universtity). Audree Chase-Mayoral is the Assistant Director for the Office of International Programs at the College of Education at Lehigh University. She has 10 years experience in higher educational associations and international NGOs, working with more than 1,000 academic and diplomatic professionals from around the world. She served as adjunct faculty at Northampton Community College’s Center for Adult Education and taught Advanced Academic Reading and Writing for the Office of International Programs. She has a M.Ed. in Globalization and Educational Change (Lehigh University) and a BA in Russian and Soviet Studies and Russian Language (Dickinson College). Her published articles and international conference presentations are focused on international education, recruiting international students, and internationalizing college campuses. Steven Cowan has coauthored a recent book on the history of raising the school leaving age and has been working on a research project tracing the social organization of Education Studies in the United Kingdom. He has worked in Oman teaching a Diploma course in Inclusive Education and for the past three years has visited schools and universities across China where he speaks about inclusive education principles and practice. He currently teaches at the Institute of Education, London. He is completing a book on exclusion, poverty and education in India, a study of working children in the State of Haryana, India.

293

294

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Simona D’Alessio is a Researcher and teacher in the area of inclusive education, disability studies in education (DSE) and policy analysis. She is a Visiting Research Associate at the Institute of Education, University of London, UK. Since 2006 she has been working part-time for the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education supporting agency project work specifically focusing upon cross-cultural analysis and international research activities. She is the editor and founder of an online academic journal (Italian Journal of Disability Studies). A former special needs education secondary school teacher she has a wide experience in school practice and in teaching learners with disabilities in mainstream settings. She has published extensively in the area of inclusive education and special needs education in English, Italian, and French. Her most recent book is: D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy: A critical analysis of the policy of Integrazione Scolastica in Italy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Marta Luz Sisson de Castro was born in Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil where she lives and teaches at Pontificia Universidade Cato´lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Graduate Program in Education. She started a career in education as a Secondary Philosophy Teacher. She got an MA degree in Human Development from the University of Maryland (1976) and Doctoral degree in Education from Boston University (1987). She is a Full Professor of Education and her main research is in the area of educational administration; specifically, the challenges and practices of municipal education principals and superintendents. She did a postdoctoral program (1988–1989) at Indiana University receiving support from Capes-Fulbright. She always maintained an interest in international and comparative education and has international experience in Canada, and more recently in Mexico. She was the Vice-President for the South Region of the ANPAE (National Association of Policies and Education Administration). She is the President of the Brazilian Society of Comparative Education since 2004. She is a Researcher of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). She has published several articles and books in Brazil, and also internationally. Klara Skubic Ermenc is an Associate Professor of Comparative Pedagogy at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her fields of research are intercultural education and education of students with immigrant background, concepts of knowledge in pedagogical science, European trends in vocational education, and the development of comparative pedagogy in the region. She published more than 50 articles and chapters in books.

About the Authors

295

She has participated in 10 research or professional projects. She is a member of Comparative Education Society Europe. She works as a Consultant for the development of vocational education and training in Slovenia. She teaches several undergraduate and graduate courses: Comparative Pedagogy, Educational Systems, European Education Policy, Intercultural Pedagogy. Dominique Groux is a Professor in Comparative Education at the University of the Antilles and Guiana. She is now working as Director of the Research Department at the Catholic University of Paris (Faculty of Education). Her specialities are Didactic of the languages and the cultures and Comparative Education. Some of the 21 works published by her are as follows: L’e´ducation compare´e (Comparative Education), Nathan, 1997 (with Louis Porcher), translate in Japanese in 2012. L’apprentissage pre´coce des langues (the early language learning), PUF, Que sais-je?, 2003 (with Louis Porcher), Dictionnaire d’Education Compare´e (Dictionary of Comparative Education), L’Harmattan, 2003. She is also the President of AFDECE (French Association of Comparative Education and Exchanges). Ali S. Ibrahim is an Associate Professor at the College of Education, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). He holds a Ph.D. in Social and Comparative Analysis in Education and an M.Ed. in International and Development Education – both from the University of Pittsburgh, USA. He worked for Carnegie Mellon University and consulted for Michigan State University. He Codirected the Institute for International Studies in Education (IISE), University of Pittsburgh for one year and was involved in development projects carried out by IISE in a number of countries. Before moving to the United Arab Emirates, he taught in Zagazig University, Egypt and Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. While in Egypt, he has been a consultant for the USAID Egypt Education Reform Project on teacher education reform and decentralization of the education system. In the UAE, he cofounded the Gulf Comparative Education Society (GCES), a not-for-profit organization that enables academic, professional, and educational discourse from a comparative stance with a focus on the Arabian Gulf region. His research interests include cross-cultural education policy studies, school leadership, education reform in the Middle East, and teacher professionalism in the Arab Gulf States. Daniel J. Kirk is an Associate Professor and Researcher based in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. He also holds a Ph.D. in Language and

296

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Literacy Education (University of Georgia, 2008) as well as a MA degree in Special Education (2001); a Postgraduate Certificate of Education (1997); and a BA (Honors) degree in English Studies (1996), all from the University of Sunderland, UK. He spent almost a decade teaching secondary school students English literature and language in schools in England, Qatar, Bermuda and Dubai. His research interests cover teacher education, globalization and education, the global movement of teachers, and comparative educational issues. He is a former faculty member at the American University of Sharjah (UAE) and Macon State College (US) and Researcher in Education Policy at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (UAE). He is also the Founding President of the Gulf Comparative Education Society, a membership-based organization that aims to enhance educational research and discourse in the Gulf and wider Middle East. Luis Miguel La´zaro is a Full Professor of the Department of Theory and History of Education at the University of Valencia, where he specializes in the fields of Comparative Education and History of Education. He has served the University of Valencia as Director of Continuing Education, Dean of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, Director of the Department of Comparative Education and History Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Valencia, Director of the Doctoral Program ‘‘Social and Political Studies Education’’ from the Department of Comparative Education and History Education, and a member of the Coordinating Council of ‘‘Doctorate in Education’’ at the Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences. His research interests include education policies and indigenous communities in the Andean Pact countries; public policies to combat school truancy in Spain; Children Rights and education in Latin America; equity, gender and education in Central America; early childhood education in Latin America, and education reform and teacher training in Bolivia. He is the author of numerous articles and books on the history of popular education in Spain, higher education in developed countries and the problems of education in Latin America. He is a member of the advisory board of the journals Educacio´ i Histo`ria (Education and History) (Barcelona), Revista Espan˜ola de Educacio´n Comparada (Spanish Review of Comparative Education) (Madrid), Revista Latinoamericana de Educacio´n Comparada (Latin American Review of Comparative Education) (Buenos Aires), and Orientaciones Pedago´gicas (Pedagogical Orientations) (Bogota). Since 2008 he has worked as an evaluator of Research and Development Projects with Spanish National Agencies of

About the Authors

297

Evaluation and Planning, Management of University finance and Research, and Quality Assessment and Accreditation. Since May 2010 he has been the President of the Spanish Society of Comparative Education, member of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies. Re´gis Malet is a Professor in Comparative Education at the University of Bordeaux, France. He is currently director of LACES (Laboratoire Cultures, Education, Socie´te´s) and Chief Editor of Education Compare´e (International Research Journal in Education). He is also the current president of AFEC (French-speaking Society in Comparative Education). His main research interests are comparative and international education, globalization, schooling and teaching reforms, and educational policy analysis. Francine Menashy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership in Education at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Her research centers on aid to education and private sector engagement, with a focus on the policies and operations of international financial institutions. Her studies have been funded by such sources as the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Open Society Foundation. She has published extensively on the topics of public–private partnerships, international education policies, and educational theory. In the past she has worked with an NGO in Laos, and as a Teacher in Canada. Marco Aurelio Navarro holds a Ph.D. in Pedagogy from the Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico and a Masters Degree in Educational Planning and Development from the Institute of Education, University of London. He has been a planning officer at the Secretarı´ a de Educacio´n Pu´blica, at the Universidad Auto´noma Metropolitana and at the Universidad Auto´noma de Tamaulipas. He is currently a Profesor of the doctoral program in International Education at this University and also acts as Academic Coordinator at El Colegio de Tamaulipas. He is one of the founders and current President of the Sociedad Mexicana de Educacio´n Comparada (SOMEC). He is a member of the National System of Researchers. Carlos Ornelas is a Professor of Education and Communications at the Metropolitan University in Mexico City. He is the author of Educacio´n Colonizacio´n y rebeldı´a: la herencia del pacto Caldero´n-Gordillo (Me´xico: Siglo XXI Editores, 2012); Polı´tica, poder y pupitres (Me´xico: Siglo XXI Editores 2008; 2nd edition 2010); El sistema educativo mexicano (Me´xico:

298

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica, 1995; 12th reprint, 2011). Author, Coauthor, or Editor of other 6 books, 30 chapters in other volumes, more than 50 articles, and 20 unpublished policy and research reports. He also has a weekly column in Exce´lsior, a Mexican national newspaper. He speaks often at international academic and policymaking conferences. He earned a Ph.D. in Education from Stanford University in 1980, and has been a visiting faculty at several higher education institutions, including Harvard University. He was a Visiting Professor of Education at Teachers College Columbia University (2008–2009). Nikolay Popov graduated from Sofia University, Bulgaria, in Education and Philosophy in 1986. He obtained two doctorates in Comparative Education – Ph.D. (1990) and Dr. habil (2002). All his teaching and research activities have been focused on the history, theory, and practice of comparative education. He has conducted comparative studies on management, finance, structures, teacher training, education laws, and school curricula at Sofia University. He is currently Professor of Comparative Education at Sofia University. He is author of 21 books and 105 articles and chapters on Education in Bulgaria and Comparative Education. Vera Spasenovic´ is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Education, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia. She gained much of her research experience as a researcher at the Institute for Educational Research in Belgrade. She published 1 monograph, and more than 40 articles or chapters in books. Her current academic interests focus on comparative analysis of national education systems, comparative perspectives in international education reform, education system in Serbia, and social relationships in school context. She teaches different courses at basic, master’s and doctoral level, such as: School Education, Comparative Education, Development Directions of Education Systems, Theoretical, Historical, and Comparative Research. Sofija Vrcelj is a Full Professor at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka, Croatia – Department of Pedagogy. Her research interests are focused on comparative pedagogy and feminist pedagogy. She published several monographs and more than 70 articles in scientific journals. She teaches different courses: Comparative Pedagogy, Feminist Pedagogy, School Pedagogy, and School Counselling at undergraduate and graduate level and doctoral study.

About the Authors

299

Natasˇ a Vujisic´-Zˇivkovic´ is an Associate Professor at The Department of Education, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia. Her research interests are (1) history and epistemology of pedagogy and (2) comparative, historical and ethical aspects of teacher education. She published several monographs, and more than 50 articles or chapters in books. Her latest book, Vojislav Bakic´ and the Development of Pedagogy in Serbia, was published in May 2012. She teaches different courses: General History of Pedagogy, National History of Pedagogy, Contemporary Approaches to Teacher Education and Theoretical, Historical and Comparative Research. Wang Yingjie is a Chair Professor of Education at Beijing Normal University (BNU) and President of the National Comparative Education Society of China. He received his Ph.D. in Education from BNU in 1988. He worked as a Visiting Scholar or Professor at Stanford University, Harvard University, University of Vermont (USA), University of Trento (Italy), and University of Education of Naruto (Japan). He was a Dean and Vice-President at BNU. He is a panel Chair of the Academic Degree Committee of the State Council of China. His main research interests are comparative higher education, higher education administration, and policy analysis. He has received a number of academic distinctions in China. He is the author of several books and numeral articles on higher education and educational administration and policies in both Chinese and English. He is a member of editorial boards of several academic journals in China. He now has research grants from the state government agencies and national funds for research projects in the field of higher education. He has completed joint research projects together with scholars from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and other countries. Alexander W. Wiseman is an Associate Professor of Comparative and International Education in the College of Education at Lehigh University. His research focuses on a range of educational topics including internationally comparative analyses of national educational systems, the transition from school to work, gender and education, the managerial activity of principals, and institutional approaches to comparative education. He holds a dual-degree Ph.D. in Comparative & International Education and Educational Theory & Policy from Pennsylvania State University, an MA in International Comparative Education from Stanford University, an MA in Education (and Teacher Certification) from The University of Tulsa, and a BA in Letters from the University of Oklahoma.

SUBJECT INDEX Access, 34, 45, 76, 103–105, 112–114, 116–120, 134, 138, 142, 144–146, 149, 151–152, 154, 176, 184, 202, 235, 250, 277, 286 Accountability, 77, 143, 145, 148 Africa, 4, 36, 70–71, 152, 170, 172, 177, 203, 239 Arabian Gulf, 12, 16–17, 36, 73, 170, 172, 175–179, 181–188, 275–276, 293, 295 Arabian, 12, 16–17, 36, 73, 170, 172, 175–179, 181–188, 275–276, 293, 295 Area studies, 11–12, 17, 21, 35, 88, 169–173, 175, 275–278, 288, 301 Asia, 4, 23, 36, 70–71, 112, 239 Benchmark, 22, 182 Benchmarking, 22, 76, 115, 182 Best practice, 33, 74, 111, 181, 183, 187, 236 Bilateral, 140, 149, 155–156 Brazil, 16–17, 32–34, 36, 43–46, 54, 294 Brazilian, 33–34, 43–48, 53, 294 Bulgaria, 191–192, 194, 196–202, 204–206, 210–213, 215, 298, 303 Bureaucracy, 47

301

Canada, 54, 63, 71, 139, 142, 153, 294, 297 Capitalism, 205, 222, 287 Capitalist, 205, 287 Castro, 43–44, 46–47, 117, 294 Centralization, 7, 59, 143, 148 Centralized, 8, 77, 195, 198 China, 16–17, 34, 36, 65, 67–72, 203, 251, 293, 299 Civic participation, 118, 196 Civic, 69, 141, 196 Civil society, 8, 199 Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), 5, 17–18, 23, 31, 74, 130, 222, 274, 302 Concentric, 224–225, 288 Conceptual, 17–23, 32, 35, 59, 78, 85–89, 91–92, 137–138, 143–144, 147, 154, 157, 177–178, 222, 233–234, 244, 252, 254, 265, 268–272, 275, 277–279, 281–282, 288, 301–302 Conglomerate, 225 Consultant, 295 Consultation, 274 Contextualization, 10, 21, 33, 101–102, 106, 110, 113, 138, 157 Corruption, 145 Credentialing, 14, 183, 186 Credentials, 14, 183, 286

302

Critical theory, 215 Croatia, 171, 191–192, 195–199, 201, 204–205, 208–211, 213, 298 Cultural, 4, 8, 15, 17, 21, 39–41, 60, 91, 93, 95–97, 101–102, 141, 178, 183, 185–188, 196, 200–201, 206, 209, 211, 215, 222, 224, 227–231, 233–237, 239–243, 245–247, 249–255, 266–267, 269, 275–276, 279, 284, 294–295 Culture, 21, 31, 39, 60, 62–63, 66, 88, 92, 94–95, 97, 99–100, 116, 185, 199, 201, 235, 250, 254 Curriculum, 43–44, 53–54, 68–70, 113, 118, 153–154, 183, 186, 244, 249, 272, 285 Data, 44–45, 47, 54, 79, 93, 99, 101, 104–105, 110, 112–120, 130, 132–135, 140, 154, 179, 181–182, 193–194, 210, 213, 224, 228, 243–251, 255–256, 271, 277, 280, 282, 284–285 Decentralization, 7, 51–52, 59, 143, 148, 295 Decision making, 92, 232 Development discourse, 45 Development professional, 19, 130, 274–275, 302 Development studies, 12 Disability, 227–228, 230–237, 239–247, 249, 254, 294 Disadvantaged, 148, 154, 172, 225, 236, 243, 246 Discipline, 6, 9–10, 15, 18, 23, 35, 37, 39–41, 43–44, 46, 52, 58, 65–69, 71–72, 87, 141, 170,

SUBJECT INDEX

191, 194–195, 197, 199–203, 206–207, 210–214, 269, 278 Diversification, 17, 22, 35, 40, 87, 182, 221–226, 278, 288, 301 Diversity, 15, 22, 31–32, 34, 39–40, 85, 87–89, 92–93, 95, 137–138, 154, 157, 181, 222, 228, 232, 235, 238–240, 245, 252, 254–255 Economic development, 7, 13, 44, 179, 182, 297 Economics of education, 13 Education policy, 9, 32, 40, 80, 93, 131, 175, 179, 192, 209, 213, 284, 287, 293, 295–296 Education sector, 55, 130, 186–187 Educational studies, 14, 18–19, 52, 66, 116 Employment, 185, 232, 236 Engagement, 131–132, 137–147, 149–151, 153, 155–158, 203, 272, 297 Equity, 40, 69–70, 137–138, 143–146, 149, 152, 154–155, 157–158, 186, 209, 296 Ethnicity, 22, 239, 249 Europe, 5, 12, 36, 38–40, 42, 45, 54, 63, 71, 97, 192, 206, 210, 213, 215, 239–240, 275–276, 295 European Union, 39, 41, 70–72, 204, 235–236, 240, 247 European, 18, 33, 37–42, 63, 70–72, 93, 170–171, 191–197, 199–201, 203–205, 207–211, 213, 228, 232, 235–236, 238–240, 243–249, 256, 275–276, 294–295 Expert knowledge, 14, 19, 269, 279, 281, 283, 285, 288

Subject Index

Finance, 140, 147, 152–154, 156, 235, 297–298 Foreign, 15, 38, 43, 45, 54, 65, 68, 74, 79, 178, 180, 182–183, 185, 188, 196, 199–203, 205, 212, 250–251, 274, 285 France, 16–17, 34, 36, 38, 57–60, 192, 196–197, 203, 297 GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), 21, 76–77, 170, 175–176, 178–180, 182, 185–187, 276 GCES (Gulf Comparative Education Society), 34, 73–76, 78, 80, 178–179, 187, 277, 295–296 Gender, 22, 39, 108, 172, 186, 202, 236, 239, 296, 299 Globalization, 7, 10, 21, 42, 44, 54, 58, 63, 67, 72, 78, 101–102, 104–105, 110, 113, 120, 141, 207–209, 213–214, 237, 275, 278, 284, 293, 296–297 Governance, 140–141, 147, 150–151, 176, 180, 186–187 Gulf, 12, 16–17, 21, 32–34, 36, 73–80, 170–172, 175–188, 275–277, 293, 295–296 Health, 37, 41, 68–69, 199, 231, 246, 270 Hegemony, 68, 241 History of education, 11, 46, 112, 199, 204, 275, 296 Human capital, 53 Human rights, 42, 62, 107–108, 111, 146, 233–236, 254

303

Ideology, 107, 170, 201–203 Inclusive education, 68–69, 223, 225, 228, 230, 234–241, 244, 246, 248–252, 254–256, 293–294 Inclusive, 68–69, 96, 222–223, 225, 227–230, 234–241, 244, 246, 248–256, 293–294 Inclusiveness, 249, 282 Indigenized, 15 Indigenous, 15, 107, 181, 222, 296 Inequality, 8–9, 41, 108, 172, 234, 273 Institution, 39, 101, 110, 118, 275, 278 Institutional, 34, 37–38, 40–41, 52, 59, 99–107, 109–111, 113–115, 117, 119–120, 213, 270, 274, 282, 299 Institutionalization, 31, 96, 100, 103, 110, 225 Institutionalize, 35 Intellectual, 61, 85–89, 92, 211, 222, 239, 244–245 International education development, 130–131, 274, 276 Internationalization, 15, 54, 59, 69, 207, 285 Islam, 74 Italy, 237, 246, 294, 299 Knowledge economy, 76, 141, 187 Knowledge society, 181 Knowledge, 14, 16, 19, 34–35, 44–45, 55, 58–60, 62–63, 66–67, 73, 75–77, 80, 88, 94–96, 114, 133–134, 141, 175, 180–181, 183, 185, 187, 193, 205, 210, 214–215, 222, 252–253, 255, 269, 272, 274–276, 278–279, 281, 283–285, 288, 294

304

Labor market, 13, 77, 104, 108, 115, 117–118, 181–182, 276 Language skill, 12 Language, 12, 34, 43, 45–47, 60, 63, 69, 91, 94, 97, 155, 183, 188, 215, 231, 233, 241–242, 249, 293, 295–296 Latin America, 33, 39–41, 45–46, 53–54, 71, 148–149, 154, 296 Learning, 6–7, 9, 13–14, 48, 63, 67, 77, 81, 106, 113, 135, 150, 208–209, 227, 230, 236, 238, 242, 244–245, 248, 254–255, 278, 284, 295 Legitimacy, 21, 120, 278–279 Level of analysis, 104, 110 Loose coupling, 104, 107, 120 Macro, 59, 89, 99, 101, 103–109, 111, 113–114, 119–120, 245, 251 Marginalized, 4, 10, 93, 138, 149, 152–156, 158, 223, 225, 268, 273–274, 278, 285 Methodological, 14, 16–19, 22–23, 32–33, 35, 41, 58–59, 61, 75, 85–89, 93–94, 109, 186, 193, 203, 205–208, 210, 212, 223–224, 244, 247, 251, 268–272, 275, 279, 281, 288, 301–302 Mexico, 16–17, 32, 34–36, 51–55, 63, 294, 297 Micro, 59, 89, 99–101, 103–110, 113–114, 119–120, 251 Ministry of education, 45, 171, 207 Multilateral, 131, 140, 142, 148–149, 155–156, 272, 274 Multinational, 115, 117–118, 169, 172, 186 Muslim, 154

SUBJECT INDEX

National development, 8–9, 14, 20, 39, 118, 130, 155, 176, 180, 183, 224, 273–275, 302 Neo-institutional, 53, 99–107, 109–111, 113–115, 117, 119–120 Neo-institutionalism, 111 Neoliberal, 142, 144, 274 Neoliberalism, 21 Noneducation sector, 9 North-South, 36, 48 Occupational domain, 14, 283, 285, 288 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 38, 40, 42, 54–55, 72, 92–93, 111, 115–116, 142, 205, 229, 234, 242–245, 247–248 Pedagogy, 38, 43–44, 51, 53, 77, 129, 170, 172, 191–197, 199–205, 207–215, 221, 276–277, 294–295, 297–299 Philosophy of education, 11, 52, 250 PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), 93 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), 40, 46, 54, 93, 111, 118, 132–133, 207, 209, 229 Planning, 12, 47–48, 118, 134, 202, 209, 223, 283, 297, 302 Policy borrowing, 38, 106, 171, 278 Policymaking, 80, 106, 115, 137, 140, 180, 298 Political, 4, 6–8, 14, 17, 21–22, 32, 39, 41, 67, 70, 87–88, 91–93, 95–96, 100, 102–103, 107–108, 115, 120, 141, 170, 172, 176,

Subject Index

178, 183, 185–187, 192, 194–196, 198–199, 201, 204–205, 211–212, 221, 223, 229, 233, 235, 239–240, 247, 253, 269, 273, 275–279, 296 Positivism, 53 Positivist, 11, 41, 53, 97, 194 Poverty, 39, 152–153, 172, 250, 293 Practical application, 20, 22, 35, 129–130, 200, 224, 273, 275, 279, 289, 301 Practice, 5, 11, 17–20, 22, 31–33, 35, 41, 45, 48, 67, 73, 75, 80, 94–95, 104, 108, 111, 115, 120, 129–135, 170, 173, 175, 181, 183, 192, 194, 200, 203, 215, 221–222, 224–227, 229–230, 234, 236–237, 239, 241, 252–255, 266, 272–276, 278, 286–289, 293–294, 298, 301–302 Primary education, 38, 196, 206 Primary school, 152, 195–196, 198, 203 Private sector, 118, 131–132, 137–147, 149, 151, 153, 155–158, 225, 272–273, 297 Private tutoring, 47, 272 Private, 47, 51, 54–55, 62, 69, 76–77, 80–81, 118, 131–132, 137–158, 176, 182–183, 225, 272–273, 297 Privatization, 39, 69, 76, 119, 137–138, 140, 142, 205 Profession, 4, 6, 14–15, 53, 232, 269, 288 Professionalization, 4, 15–16, 63, 130, 285 Professionalize, 4, 13, 15, 16, 130–131, 283, 285, 288 Public education, 148–149, 151, 153, 176–177, 192, 196

305

Public sector, 141, 144–145, 152, 183, 225, 273 Quality, 8, 13, 46, 54–55, 59, 73, 75–76, 78, 104, 116, 143–147, 149, 151–152, 154, 176, 187, 210–211, 213, 248–249, 255, 297, 302–303 Race, 22, 239 Reflection, 3–4, 6, 8, 10, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 23, 31, 35–37, 40, 43, 58, 60–61, 66, 86, 89, 130, 178, 209, 225, 265–271, 273, 275, 277–279, 281–283, 285–287, 303 Research-to-practice, 17, 19–20, 129–134, 272–273, 289 Saudi Arabia, 170–171, 177, 185 Scholars, 3–4, 6–7, 9–10, 12–14, 16, 18–24, 31–35, 43–44, 48, 51–55, 65–66, 74, 76, 78, 85–89, 92–94, 96–97, 101, 104, 129–132, 134, 138, 140–141, 144–145, 147–148, 150–154, 169–171, 173, 187, 221–225, 233, 241, 251, 268–272, 274–276, 279–288, 299, 301–302 Scholarship, 4, 6, 8, 10–13, 22, 24, 31–35, 85–89, 94–95, 138, 172–173, 222, 224–226, 272–274, 279, 287–288, 302 Scientific, 40, 43, 45, 52, 59–62, 91–92, 94–97, 114, 187, 195, 197, 200–203, 205, 207, 210, 213–214, 253, 294, 298 Secondary education, 42, 196, 207, 212 Secondary school, 294, 296

306

Serbia, 171, 191–192, 195–199, 201, 204–211, 213, 215, 298–299 Slavic, 240 Slavonic, 170–172, 191–193, 195, 197, 199, 201, 203, 205–207, 209, 211, 213, 275–276 Slovenia, 171, 191–192, 195–199, 201, 204, 208–211, 213, 294–295 Social science, 6, 11, 14, 18–19, 35, 61, 67, 72, 74, 79, 85, 87, 94–97, 169, 194, 203, 213–214, 225, 268, 270, 279–280, 297–298 Social, 4, 6–9, 11, 14–15, 17–19, 21, 32, 35, 40–42, 61–62, 67, 72, 74, 79, 85, 87–88, 91–92, 94–97, 100, 103, 108, 115, 117–120, 141, 149–150, 169–170, 172, 176–181, 183–188, 192, 194–195, 198, 200–201, 203–207, 209, 211, 213–214, 221, 225, 228, 231–236, 239–241, 244–246, 250, 253, 266, 268–270, 275–276, 278–280, 284, 293, 295–298, 303 Socioeconomic status, 22, 224, 236 Sociology of education, 11, 13–14, 100, 106 South Africa, 172 Spain, 16–17, 33, 36–41, 246, 296 Special needs, 222–223, 225, 227–228, 230, 232, 234, 236–239, 241, 243–244, 246–251, 253, 255–256, 279, 294 Stakeholder, 140, 156 Standards, 59, 75, 92, 142, 183, 205, 213 Strategic planning, 277 Student achievement, 63, 104, 149, 221, 224

SUBJECT INDEX

Subdiscipline, 268 Sub-field, 87 Sub-Saharan Africa, 4 Symposium, 75–77, 80 Systems, 4, 7–9, 11, 15, 20–21, 37–41, 52–55, 58, 61, 63, 72, 74, 77–79, 92–93, 99–100, 103–104, 107–111, 113, 115–116, 118–119, 131, 133, 139, 141–142, 149, 152, 154, 172, 176, 179–180, 182–185, 187–188, 192–193, 196–197, 199–209, 211–213, 223–224, 228–229, 231, 235–240, 244, 246–247, 250, 252–253, 255, 266–267, 272, 276–278, 285, 287, 295, 298–299 Teacher, 7, 46–47, 55, 63, 68–69, 107, 133–134, 148, 152, 180, 183, 192, 195, 198, 200, 205, 210, 213, 221, 232, 253, 276–278, 284–285, 293–299 TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), 118, 132–133, 182, 207 Unemployment, 177, 205 UNESCO, 38, 42, 55, 72, 104, 111, 115–118, 142, 146, 150, 155–156, 203, 236, 238–239, 243–244, 247, 252, 254, 256 Unit of analysis, 77, 178–179, 228, 252 United Arab Emirates, 75, 139, 170, 177–178, 182, 295–296, 303 United Kingdom, 70–71, 139, 230–231, 246, 250, 293, 299 United Nations, 104, 111, 233, 249, 254, 256

Subject Index

United States (U.S.), 7, 18, 23, 45, 54, 68, 70–71, 130, 148, 151, 153, 155, 196, 199–201, 203, 250, 299 Universal, 61, 87, 103, 112, 201 Universalism, 15, 87, 108, 112, 233, 269 Universalization, 269 University, 19, 33, 38, 40, 45, 48, 53–55, 63, 65, 68, 74, 76, 81, 140, 169, 180, 183, 195, 197, 199–205, 207–213, 256, 274, 280–281, 285, 293–299, 303 USA, 5, 17, 74, 222, 274, 295, 299, 303

307

Vocation, 198, 203, 212 Vocational, 69, 198, 203, 294–295 Workplace, 14, 185 World Bank, 42, 55, 72, 131, 140, 142, 144, 148, 155–156, 177, 242, 247, 273–274 World culture theory, 99 World culture, 99 World society, 110 World system, 15 Youth, 8, 20, 154, 177, 180, 185, 225, 246, 266, 268, 272, 275–276, 303