Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2015: Volume 28

Reflecting on scholarship and professional practice is a hallmark of a developing scholarly field and its professionalization. Yet, reflection requires data or evidence to support the ideas and directions of the field as it develops. Although there is an increasing amount of data examining comparative and international education scholarship, it is neither coordinated nor systematic. This research identifies a foundation plan for creating a systematic and consistent evidence base for reflective practice. First, by examining the full-text articles in four leading comparative and international education journals published in 2014, the research reported here empirically analyzes both the content coverage in the field as well as how the research published in the field is methodologically approached. This gives an indication of where the field of comparative and international education has been and where it is going. And, by finding the answers to the “what” and “how” questions, scholars and professionals in comparative and international education are better equipped to reflect on the field and revise, expand, and develop it accordingly. This foundational research finds that single-country, qualitative research authored by single authors dominates the field of comparative and international education. But, there is also evidence that the dominant discourse in the field – represented by the most frequent title, abstract, and keywords – is incorporated into quantitative and theoretical work more than in any other. This suggests that the nature of research in comparative and international education may be characterized by a particular type (single country, single author, qualitative), but that the dominant discourse published in the comparative and international education field does not necessarily align with the most frequently used methodologies in comparative and international education research.

In recent years, the field of comparative and international education (CIE) has experienced an outburst of self-reflective papers wherein comparativists study the nature of the field and map its content. This study contributes to this trend by drawing attention to a previously unstudied aspect of CIE: its purpose. Using Arnove’s dimensions as a starting point to create five new purpose categories, four prominent CIE journals are surveyed to test whether the pragmatic history of CIE is evident in its current body of research. In this process, a complete and clear genetic mapping of the journals is created, which explores their similarities and differences, as well as the changes in their content over time. Findings indicate that the pragmatic purpose of CIE dominates, though it is primarily emancipatory and transformative in its prescription. Furthermore, articles rooted in specific situational contexts were more prominent than expected considering the comparative and international nature of the field.

In this chapter, I reflect on the past, present, and future of gender and education research, policy, and practice in the context of the field of comparative and international education. Points of discussion include who comprises the gender and education professional community, common challenges, shifting development paradigms and terminology (i.e., from Women in Development to Gender and Development), the historical roots and trajectory of the field in terms of research, policy and practice, and future directions, including new topics, approaches, and methods.

This chapter uses two recent Canadian policies to frame and discuss emerging topics in Canadian comparative and international education. The first policy is the Accord on the Internationalization of Education (AIE) (ACDE, 2014) prepared by the Association of Canadian Deans of Education. The second policy is the Canadian government policy on higher education: Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing our knowledge advantage to drive innovation and prosperity (CIES) (Government of Canada, 2014). Given Canada’s traditionally decentralized education system with universities working autonomously, a joint Deans’ Association policy, a federal government policy on education, and the substantially enhanced role of the corporate sector in setting education goals provide a very different and contested context for conducting comparative and international education research. This chapter provides some insight into how Canadian comparative and international education researchers are approaching this context.

The purpose of this essay is to evoke meaningful debate regarding the actual and desired impact of CIE on the lived cultures and daily challenges of teachers and their students, and whether academe has an obligation to ameliorate and transform these conditions. In doing so, the essay questions the true value of scholarship and its role in the attainment of effective and sustained educational transformation through greater access to quality education for all children worldwide. Reflecting on previous scholarship which considered the role of academic-practitioners and the need to create research that directly impacted the lives of teachers and students in the academic “trenches,” this essay asks academics to consider whether their scholarship contributes more to the improvement of their curricula vitae or to the improvement of lives in school. To this latter end, the essay provides suggestions for the development of more effective and impactful scholarship designed for the educational “trenches,” and concludes with reflections on the necessity for this work to reflect Freire’s challenge to ameliorate, emancipate, and empower the learner.

Comparative education is not merely a subject area or a discipline. It is the multidisciplinary study of educational phenomena in social and cultural contexts. It also studies the interconnectedness of education and society at many levels, including individual, classroom, and global levels. I can sum up our concern in Egypt in studying (researching) and teaching comparative education through major social science paradigms like ethnomethodology, structural functionalism, feminist paradigms, and globalization. This chapter suggests a new general paradigm for comparative and international education and proposes its main elements.

By juxtaposing Paulston’s [Paulston, R. G. (1999). Mapping comparative education after postmodernity. Comparative Education Review, 43(4), 438–463; Paulston, 1977] demonstration of relationships between theories of social and educational change/‘reform’ and Delamont’s Four great gates: dilemmas, directions and distractions in educational research (2007), this metanarrative explores how comparative and international education research in Australia and China has evolved in terms of self-determination, planned change and strokes of luck. The tendency to adopt a deterministic/fatalistic perspective in comparative education research in this part of the world rises from the general perception that, unlike its North American and European counterparts, the field is too narrowly defined by local institutions [Denman, B. D., & Higuchi, S. (2012). At a crossroads? Comparative and international education research in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 4–21] and often resorts to ‘hits’ and ‘misses’. By utilizing Paulston’s work and comparing it with Delamont’s, this analysis serves as a stop-gap measure to not only help justify its means and recognize its potential but also to counter the persistent dissatisfaction that scholars try to prove and promote comparative education as a field of study in the region. In addition, the terms of reference of self-determination, planned change and strokes of luck are broadly interpreted metaphorically, using the iChing or Book of Changes (Van Over, 1971), in order to help rationally order and rhetorically clarify trends in educational scholarship, policy and practice. In the Asia and Pacific region generally, comparative and international education research can be viewed as different ways of thinking and knowing, regardless of the research methods employed. The trends, challenges, opportunities and risks associated with the field are identified as location-specific, time-sensitive and culturally unique.

Comparative education is deeply embedded in the Czech education tradition. Its development has primarily joined with the effort to improve national education. In every period the state of the field was interdependent with the social situation and political orientation of the country. A revival in the 1990s was challenged by a social and political shift. Now comparative education is a constituted field developing with increasing relevance for educational policy and practice. By descriptions, explorations and interpretations, comparative education helps to understand the substance of the world of education in its diversities and similarities. However, there are some weak points. Comparative education is taught at universities, but it is not a degree specialization. Comparative research is performed in various institutional frameworks primarily designated for other purposes. Contributions to the international community are limited by the Czech language of the most produced publications. To steer activities, to develop the theoretical and methodological discourse, to encourage young scholars to participate in comparative research, and to be more visible internationally are challenges for the future development of Czech comparative education.

In this chapter, I will first describe the field of comparative education in Italy, especially in terms of teaching. I will then describe the topics of interest for comparative education research in 2015. In Italy, not all comparative education studies are singled out as such (Palomba, 2011): some of them formally belong to other areas of educational research. Because of this, it is difficult to draw a topography of what is being done in comparative education. I will rather point at transversal and relevant topics concerning education and Italian society and policy, which are potential subjects for comparative research, today and in the near future. I will close the chapter by describing the activities of the Italian Comparative Education Society (SICESE) and the initiatives they have undertaken to gather in a more cohesive, homogeneous academic space, the researchers who, under heterogeneous labels, de facto, are doing comparative education research in Italy.

The chapter discusses Comparative and International Education (CIE) in Germany and reviews some recent developments that are seen to impact the field in important ways. The current state of CIE in Germany is characterized by three major developments. First, there are visible signs of intensified interest in comparative knowledge – both from policy and academic circles – as illustrated by external indicators such as publications, activities in academic-professional societies, etc. Second, there is an increasing diversification of CIE, with intercultural, international and development education attracting much attention. Finally, since the early 2000s, there has been growing significance and reception of large-scale international comparative assessment studies. The essay discusses these current developments in turn and poses questions as to their relevance and potential impact for CIE in Germany.

This chapter seeks to provide an overview of current directions in the areas of methodology, with a focus on examining the ways in which ontology and epistemology are being reframed within the context of international comparative education by established as well as new and emerging scholars. We highlight recent efforts to contest larger epistemological/paradigmatic issues including the importance of reflexivity and interrogating the role of the researcher (i.e., subjectivity and positionality), draw attention to epistemological issues of what can be known and how, and underline research that challenges dominant and hegemonic discourses and presents alternative perspectives/knowledge. The second half of the chapter documents scholarship that over the past five years has attempted to do what we highlight as contested in the first half. Finally, we will work to contextualize the intersections between theory and practice with a goal toward anticipating some potential directions for research methodologies in international comparative education and ways professional and academic centers might foster deeper and more nuanced dialogue on the topic in the future.

Mixed methods research is an approach for blending quantitative and qualitative data analyses in a single study. It emerged as an alternative to the dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative traditions in the past 20 years. Some strengths of mixed methods research include the ability to generate and test theory, the capability to answer complex research questions, and the possibility of corroborating findings.

We argue the mixed methods approach fits well with comparative education studies because they seek to acquire data to make sound and meaningful comparisons about the experience and performance of education systems in different countries. By nature, comparative education attempts to explain why educational systems vary and to explore how education relates to wider social factors and forces. It consists of both confirmatory and exploratory inquiries that are based on the fundamental belief that education can be improved in all nations. Essentially, the mixed methods approach can adequately support the goals of comparative education studies, with its quantitative components serving the confirmatory objectives and the qualitative components attending to the exploratory end.

In this study, we conducted a survey of articles published between 2000 and 2014 in Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, and Compare to discern the changes in patterns and preferences of dominant research methods. By surveying the three major journals in the field, we hope to reveal the means by which comparative education is conducted in its constituency. At the very least, we believe our study can provide important reference points for speculation about where comparative education might be headed in terms of methodology and methods.

Using conceptions of transnationalism to (re)evaluate the field of comparative and international education (CIE), this chapter analyzes educational programming and policy for migrant refugee youth at the margins and borderlands of the nation-state system. Drawing from newspaper articles about displaced youth on Kenya’s eastern border and the southwestern U.S. border, this chapter focuses on comparative and international education’s potential influence on programming and policies in borderland regions. Both populations present the need for targeted educational programming within and outside of formal education systems and urgency for research linked with practice. We argue that CIE scholars can fill a critical, activist purpose to draw attention to educational access and curricular content in educational projects at the borders of the nation-state system, to investigate programming, and to work with practitioners and policy makers to address the needs of youth on the physical and figurative margins of education.

The education system in Kenya is continually challenged to adapt and improve, in part because its mission has become far more ambitious than it once was due to the massive investment in education by successive governments over the last two decades. Today, most Kenyans expect schools to prepare all students to succeed in postsecondary education and to prosper in a complex, fast-changing global economy. To identify the most important measures for education and other issues and provide quality data on them to the country, there is a need for the ministry of education to establish a National Education Indicators framework. This criterion is hoped to enable policy makers and the public better assess the position and progress of the country across the education sector. The key task in developing education indicators will be to identify a clear and parsimonious set of measures and data that will be easy for non-specialists to understand but which will also do justice to the complexities of the ailing education system. These indicators will amplify the existing situation and will be drawn from a large, and sometimes conflicting, body of information about students, teachers and schools. The purpose of this study is to propose and urge the government to develop a national framework of indicators that will inform stakeholders on the performance of the education system, both at school and national level.

Botswana enjoys the celebratory status of a shining example of a successful democracy in Africa. As such, one expects democracy to underpin policy formulation and the running of the education system. This chapter problematizes the relationship between democracy and education in Botswana. It focuses on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2010 Examinations. The conduct of the examinations marked a crisis which resulted in a deadlock between the Botswana’s Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD), Botswana Examination’s Council (BEC) on the one hand and teachers’ unions-Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU) and Botswana Teacher’s Union (BTU) on the other hand. Teachers’ unions complained about poor conditions of service and remunerations associated with the administration of national examinations. This action triggered a national strike in the public service in general and consequently revealed Botswana Government’s undemocratic response to what was a sensitive issue of national interest. When the examinations results were released, it became evident that students performed horribly BEC was persecuted for the poor performance. This chapter therefore registers that the 2010 Examinations crisis in Botswana is a classic indication that democracy and education are two worlds apart in Botswana’s education system.

International assessments have shown gender disparity in STEM among middle school students. Little is known of the gender disparity, the role of psychosocial factors, and school-to-work aspirations in STEM fields in the Cambodian context. The sample included 100 15-year-old students (53% females) from 10 schools in four provinces and the capital city. Classroom observations included eight classrooms from one of the 10 surveyed schools. This study’s measures were adapted from TIMSS’s including science and math interests, and perceived STEM support from teachers and parents. Results indicated that non-STEM subjects are on top of the most enjoyed subjects reported by the students. No statistical significance between genders on STEM interests was found. A multiple regression analysis showed that parents’ and teachers’ support in math, and teachers’ support in science, were predictive of STEM interests. Both parents and students tended to value math more than science, indicating a possible lack of understanding of science. Students showed a significant disconnect between STEM education received in classrooms and aspirations toward an actual career in STEM fields. Classroom observations indicated that while females tended to be shy in the classroom, most teachers did not exhibit behaviors suggesting gender discrimination patterns. Explanations of students’ interests in STEM regardless of gender, as well as the current climate in higher education and careers regarding the gender disparity in STEM, were discussed based on socioeconomic and sociocultural issues within the Cambodian context.

The aim of the text is to present a historical foundation of the changing conceptualization of citizenship and to outline the present trends in citizenship theory from a social and educational perspective. Based on a 132literature review from the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium, an attempt is made to describe possible changes in school curricula in order to demonstrate the diversifying content and role of civic education. These considerations must be placed in a broader context of the transforming content of current public debates on citizenship and nationhood, including the increasingly ethnicity-oriented views of nationhood in many European and non-European countries, accompanied by the rise of anti-immigrant discourse.