dr. ruth hayhoe email: [email protected] … education and the question of what...
TRANSCRIPT
Dr. Ruth Hayhoe
Email: [email protected]
Office: 6-219
Office Hours: By appointment – please email to schedule a meeting
LHA1825: Comparative Education Theory and Methodology
Autumn 2014, Tuesday 13:00 – 16:00
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Purpose of the Course
This course is intended as an introduction to the field of Comparative Education, including the
various academic schools that have emerged and the literature linked to such international
organizations as UNESCO and the World Bank. We will also see a film entitled “Comparatively
Speaking” which features presidents of the Comparative International Education Society of the
USA, including three OISE professors.
The course was developed in the mid-1980s, and first taught in 1986. It has been taught at OISE
fairly regularly ever since. It is can be seen as a kind of intellectual history of the field, with the
different schools or paradigms presented in a roughly chronological way. The intention is to trace
changing approaches to Comparative Education research over time, and link them to wider debates
in the literature of the social sciences. It is also to reflect on the connection between theoretical
paradigm and research methodology. The roots of the course go back to the ideas and
methodology of Professor Brian Holmes at the University of London Institute of Education, one of
the leading figures in the development of the field. The course has been updated and changed a
number of times, but the original framework and many of the core readings have been kept, in
order to maintain this link to history. Sessions that have been added in recent years include Session
7 on Comparative Education and the Postmodern Challenge, Session 8 on Globalization,
International Organizations and Comparative Education, Session 9 on Policy Borrowing,
Globalization and Comparative Education and Session 11 on mixed methods in Comparative
Education. For session eleven, Dr. Anne Wong will serve as our guest lecturer.
Students are encouraged to focus their attention on such fundamental questions as the purpose of
Comparative Education, the views of social change that underlie different approaches to
Comparative Education and the question of what "scientific" methodology entails and whether or
not it should be a goal in Comparative Education research. By the end of the course students
should have developed their own critical perspective on the various paradigms found in the
literature through careful reading and sustained thought and discussion.
Class Format:
Class sessions will involve brief lectures, elaboration on the common readings, some small group
2
discussions and student presentations from the additional reading list.
Student Assessment and Evaluation:
Two short papers (400-600 words or 1-2 typed pages) should be prepared for class presentation
and handed in during the term. The first will be a brief critical summary of an additional reading,
either an article or book (chapter) that relates to one of the paradigms under consideration. This
will be presented in class at the appropriate session, and will be due to be handed in by
mid-October. The second will be a summary of one or several items from the additional readings,
or freely selected from the wider literature in consultation with the instructor, that may be used in
preparing the final research paper. When presenting this short paper in class, the student is
encouraged to get feedback on their tentative thinking for the final research paper. The paper is due
by the end of term. These short review papers will make up 30% of the final mark. 70% will be
based on a final research paper of 3-4,000 words (15-20 typed pages). Students may choose their
own topics in consultation with the instructor and the paper will be due in later December.
In evaluating the final research paper, I take several things into consideration: the clarity with
which you have presented your topic or theme, the originality of your argument, the range and
appropriateness of the reference materials you have drawn upon, the degree to which your paper
achieves a thoughtful analysis and makes a coherent presentation of your argument, and/or your
findings. Let me try to give you a sense of my approach to grading: B is a basic pass mark, while
B+ is awarded for acceptable and solid work; A- is for work that achieves considerable clarity of
argument and richness of thought; A is for work that is excellent in terms of coherence of the
analysis, and the thoughtful use of the reference materials drawn upon. A+ would be for a paper
that I judge might be acceptable for publication in a refereed journal in the field. The final mark for
the course is reached through a careful consideration of both your research paper and your two
short papers and their presentation in class.
Expected Learning Outcomes:
At the completion of this course, successful students will be able to demonstrate their learning by
explaining and distinguishing several basic theoretical approaches in the field of Comparative and
International Education, which may include positivism, interpretivism, the problem approach, critical
approaches and postmodernism, among others. Students will also be able to connect those theoretical
paradigms with corresponding research methodologies and methods. In addition, they will be capable
of critiquing theoretical literature in the field, within the wider context of debates in sociology, history
or philosophy. Above all, students will be able to develop a conceptual/analytical framework, based
on a particular theoretical paradigm in the field, and use it in their final paper and in future research
investigation.
Beyond their cognitive learning, it is expected that all students will be strengthened in their ability to
communicate clearly and logically about theoretical concepts and issues concerning comparative and
international education. Students will be capable of articulating their own opinion in a coherent and
defensible way, supported by their increased understanding of the theories and methodologies in the
field. Finally, students will be active participants in ensuring a respectful and collaborative class,
3
grounded in respect for and appreciation of different viewpoints, regardless of their own preferred
worldview or theoretical orientation.
Overview of Course Themes and Topics
Introduction: The Origins and early development of Comparative education
1. The Historical Approach
2. The Positivist Approach
3. Phenomenological, Ethnographic & Narrative Approaches
4. The Developmental Approach: Neo-Marxism, Dependency Theory and World Order
thinking
5. The Problem Approach
6. Ideal Types in Comparative Education
7. Comparative Education and the Postmodern Challenge
8. Globalization, International Organizations and Comparative Education
9. Policy borrowing, Globalization and Comparative Education
10. The Collection and Classification of Statistical Data in Comparative Education
11. A Dialectical Paradigmatic Stance and Mixed Methods in Comparative Education
Major Influential Books
Altbach, P., Arnove, R., and Kelly, G., (eds.), Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative
Perspectives (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992). See especially Part 1 "Debates
and Trends in Comparative Education" by Gail Kelly.
Altbach, P. and Kelly, G., Education and the Colonial Experience (N.B., U.S.A. and London:
Transaction Books, 1984)
Altbach, Philip, Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University and Development
(Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong and Springer,
2008)
Arnove, Robert F. and Torres, Carlos Alberto (eds.) Comparative Education: The Dialetic of the
Global and the Local (Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowen & Littlefield Publishers
Inc, 1999, second edition 2003, third edition, 2013, with Stephen Kranz as a third editor).
Bereday, George, Comparative Method in Education [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964],
Bray, Mark, (ed.), Comparative Education: Continuing Traditions, New Challenges and New
Paradigms (Dordrecht, London, Boston: Kluwer Publishers, 2003)
Bray, Mark, Adamson, Bob and Mason, Mark, Comparative Education Research: Approaches
and Methods (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong,
2007.)
4
Broadfoot, Patricia, Changing educational contexts, issues and identities: 40 years of comparative
education (London: Routledge, 2007).
Burns, R. and Welch, A. (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in Comparative Education (New
York: Garland Press, 1992).
Crossley, Michael and Watson, Keith, Comparative and International Research in Education:
Globalisation, context and difference (London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003).
Delors, Jacques et al, Learning: The Treasure Within (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1998).
Fägerlind, Ingemar and Saha, Lawrence, Education and National Development: A Comparative
Perspective (Oxford: Pergamon 1989).
Green, Andrew, Education, Globalization and the Nation State (New York: St Martin’s Press,
1997).
Gu Mingyuan, Education in China and Abroad: Perspectives from a Lifetime in Comparative
Education (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong,
2001).
Halls (ed.), W. D. Comparative Education: Contemporary Issues and Trends (London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, 1990).
Hans, Nicholas, Comparative Education (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967).
Holmes, Brian, Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method (London: George Allen
and Unwin, 1981).
Holsinger, Donald and Jacob, James, Inequality in Education: Comparative and International
Perspectives (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong
and Springer, 2008).
King, Edmund, Other Schools and Ours (London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973, 5th Edition).
Kandel, Isaac, The New Era in Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton and Mifflin Inc., 1955).
Manzon, Maria, Comparative Education: The Construction of a Field (Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong and Springer, 2011).
Masemann, Vandra Lea and Welch, Anthony (eds.), Tradition, Modernity and Post-Modernity in
Education (Amsterdam: Kluwer, 1997)
Mundy, Karen, Bickmore, Kathy, Hayhoe, Ruth, Madden, Meggan and Madjidi, Katherine,
5
Comparative and International Education: Issues for Teachers (Toronto: Canadian Scholars
Press, New York: Teachers College Press, 2008)
Noah, H. and Eckstein, M., Towards a Science of Comparative Education [London: MacMillan,
1969.
Noah, H. and Eckstein, M. Doing Comparative Education: Three Decades of Collaboration
(Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1998).
Paulston, Rolland, Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change
(New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000)
Schriewer, J. and Holmes, B., Theories and Methods in Comparative Education (Frankfurt am
Main, Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang, 1988).
Schriewer, Juergen, Discourse Formation in Comparative Education (Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
2003)
Trahar, Sheila, Narrative Research on Learning: comparative and international perspectives
(Oxford: Symposium Books, 2006)
Major Comparative Education Journals
Canadian and International Education (CIE),
Comparative Education Review (CER) [USA.],
Comparative Education (CE) [UK],
Compare [UK]
International Review of Education (IRE) [Europe]
Prospects (UNESCO)
Session 1: The Historical Approach to Comparative Education (September 16)
Common Readings
1. Hans, Nicholas, Comparative Education (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967),
Chapter 1, pp. 1-16.
2. Kandel, Isaac, The New Era in Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton and Mifflin Inc.,
1955), Chapter 1, pp. 3-18.
3. Cummings, William, “The InstitutionS of Education,” Comparative Education Review
Vol. 43, No. 4, November, 1999, pp. 413-437.
Discussion Questions:
1. Compare and contrast the way in which Hans and Kandel viewed the purposes of
6
Comparative Education.
2. What underlying notions of social change do you find in the historical approach to
Comparative Education?
3. Do you find any view of scientific method implicit in the historical school?
4. How has William Cummings applied a historical perspective to his suggested approach to
comparative education through what he calls “institutionalism”?
5. How does Cumming’s insistence on understanding historical context enable him to deal
critically with many of the widely accepted views of educational convergence, and the
effects of globalization on education systems?
Additional Readings
Archer, Margaret Scotford, Social Origins of Education Systems [Original full version, London:
Sage, 1979; abridged university version, London: Sage, 1984].
Blake, David, "The Purpose and Nature of Comparative Education: The Contribution of I.L.
Kandel", CE, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1982, pp. 3-13.
Connell, Raewyn, “Northern Theory: The political geography of general social theory,” Theory
and Society, 25, 2006, pp. 237-264.
*Cowen, Robert, “Acting Comparatively upon the educational world: puzzles and possibilities,”
in Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 32, No. 5, November, 2006, pp. 561-573.
Cremin, L. A. (ed.), The Republic and the School - Horace Mann on the Education of the Free
men, Classics in Education, 1. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1957).
Durkheim, Emile, The Evolution of Educational Thought: Lectures on the Foundation and
Development of Secondary Education in France [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977].
Eisenstadt, S.N., Tradition, Change and Modernity [New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973].
Fägerlind, Ingemar and Saha, Lawrence, Education and National Development: A Comparative
Perspective (Oxford: Pergamon 1989)
Fraser, Stewart, and Brickman, William (eds.). A History of International and Comparative
Education: 19th Century Documents [Illinois: Scott Foresman and Co., 1968].
Fraser, Stewart (ed.), M.A. Jullien's Plan for Comparative Education: 1816-1817. [New York:
Teachers College Columbia, 1964].
Green, Andy, Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France
and the USA [Hampton: MacMillan, 1990].
Grier, Lynda, Achievement in Education: The Work of Michael Ernest Sadler 1885-1935 (London:
7
Constable, 1952).
Kazamias, A. and Massialis, B., (eds.) Tradition and Change in Education: A Comparative Study.
[Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1965].
*Le Than Khoi, "Toward a General Theory of Education", CER, Vol. 30, No. 1, February, 1986,
pp. 12-29.
*Mallinson, Vernon, An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Education [London: Heineman,
1975]
Monroe, Paul, Essays in Comparative Education [New York: Teachers College Columbia, 1927].
Parsons, Talcott, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall Inc., 1966].
Ringer, Fritz, Education and Society in Modern Europe [Bloomington and London, Indiana
University Press, 1979].
Rostow, W.W., The Stages of Economic Growth [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971].
M. Sadler, "How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value from the Study of Foreign
Systems of Education?" (1900) in J.H. Higginson (ed.), Selections from Michael Sadler, Studies in
World Citizenship (Liverpool: Dejaal & Meyoe, 1979), pp. 48-51.
Ulich, Robert, The Education of Nations: A Comparative and Historical Perspective [Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967].
Session 2: The Positivist Approach to Comparative Education (September 23)
Common Readings
1. Bereday, George, Comparative Method in Education [New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1964], Chapter 1, pp. 3-28.
2. Noah, H. and Eckstein, M., Towards a Science of Comparative Education [London:
MacMillan, 1969], Part II, pp. 85-122.
3. David Baker, Brian Goesling and Gerald Letendre, “ Socioeconomic Status, School
Quality and National Economic Development: A Cross-National Analysis of the
“Heyneman-Loxley Effect” on Mathematics and Science Achievement, Comparative
Education Review Vol. 46, No, 3, August, 2002, pp. 291-312.
Discussion Questions:
1. Compare views on the purpose of comparative education in the two positivist
8
approaches to the field presented in the readings.
2. What underlying notions of social change do you find in these two approaches?
3. What did Bereday mean by making comparative education "scientific"? How did
Noah and Eckstein further develop this move towards being more scientific in
method?
4. Explore the progress that has been made in the degree of precision and
sophistication in positivist scientific method by following the argument in Baker,
Goesling and Letendre. What are the benefits of this kind of comparative study?
What limitations may it have?
Additional Readings
Baker, David and LeTendre, Gerald K., National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture
and the Future of Schooling (Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences, 2005).
*Bennett, K., & LeCompte, M., How schools work: A sociological analysis of education (New
York: Longman1990), pp. 2-33.
*Bray, Mark and Thomas, R. Murray, “Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different
Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses,” in Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall, 1995, pp. 472-490.
Comparative Education Review, "Special Issue on the Second IEA Study," Vol. 31, No. 1,
February, 1987.
Comparative Education Review, “Moderated Discussion on Comparative Education and Area
Studies, Vol. 50, No. 1 (February 2006), pp. 125-148.
Dickson, O. and Cumming A. (eds), Profiles of Language in 25 Countries: An Overview of Phase
One of the IEA Language Education Study (Slough, Berkshire: National Foundation for Education
Research, 1996).
Etzioni, A. and Etzioni-Halevy, E. (eds.) Social Change: Sources, Patterns and Consequences
[New York: Basic Books, 1973].
Farrell, Joseph, "The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience of
Science and the Problem of Comparability", CER, Vol. 23, No. 1, February, 1979, pp. 3-16.
Gezi, Kalil (ed.), Education in Comparative and International Perspectives [New York: Holt,
Rinehard and Winston, 1971]. Note seminal articles by Bereday, Noah and Eckstein, Arnold
Anderson etc., in Part 1 of this selection.
Goldschmidt, Peter and Eyermann, Therese, “International Educational Performance of the United
States: is there a problem that money can fix?” CE, Vo. 35, No. 1, March, 1999, pp. 27-33.
9
Grigoenko, Elena L., “Hitting, Missing and in between: a typology of the impact of western
education on the non-western world,” in Comparative Education, Vol. 43, No. 1, February, 2007,
pp. 165-186.
Husen, T., International Study of Achievement in Mathematics: A Comparative of Twelve
Countries [New York: Wiley, 1971].
*Husen, Torsten and Postlethwaite, T. Neville, “A Brief History of the International Association
for the Evaluation of Education,” in Assessment in Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1996, pp. 129-141.
*Kogan, Maurice, “Models of Knowledge and Patterns of Power,” Higher Education: The
International Journal of Higher Education Research, Vol. 49, No. 1, July, 2005, pp. 9-30.
Lee, S.K., Lee, W.O., Low E.L. Educational Policy Innovations: Levelling Up and Sustaining
Educational Achievement (New York: Springer, 2014).
Ma, Xin, “Within-School Gender Gaps in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy, in
Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 3, August, 2008, pp. 437-460. (Focus on PISA
Research)
Nagel, Ernst, The Structure of Science [New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961].
*Noah, Harold J. and Eckstein, Max, Doing Comparative Education: Three Decades of
Collaboration [Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong,
1998], Chapters 18-21, pp. 179-210.
Park, Hyunjoon, “The Varied Educational Effects of Parent-Child Communication: A
Comparative Study of Fourteen Countries, in Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 2,
May, 2008, pp. 219-243. (Using PISA data)
Passow, A. Harry, Noah, Harold J., Eckstein, Max A., Mallea, John R., The National Case Study:
An Empirical Study of Twenty-One Educational Systems [New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976].
Peaker, Gilbert T., An Empirical Study of Education in Twenty-One Countries; A Technical Report
[New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975].
Porter, A.C. & Gamoran, A. (eds.) Methodological Advances in Cross National Surveys of
Educational Achievement (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001)
Purves, Alan and Levine, Daniel, Educational Policy and International Assessment [Berkeley,
California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1975].
Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J. (eds.) Civic Education Across Countries:
Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (Amsterdam:
Internatioanl Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1999).
10
Xu, Jun, “Sibship Size and Educational Achievement: The Role of Welfare Regimes
Cross-Nationally,” in Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 3, August, 2008, pp. 413-436.
Websites:
http://nces.ed.gov/timms - for the most recent IEA study on achievement in mathematics and
science
www.pisa.oecd.org - for an alternative study of educational achievement in OECD countries
Session 3: Phenomenological, Ethnographic and Narrative Approaches to Comparative
Education (September 30)
Common Readings
1. King, Edmund, Other Schools and Ours [London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973,
5th Edition], Part II, Chapter 3, pp. 47-62.
2. Masemann, Vandra Lea, “Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative
Education,” CER Vol. 6, No. 1, February, 1982.
3. Fox, Christine, “Stories within Stories: dissolving the boundaries in narrative research
and analysis,” in Trahar, Sheila, Narrative Research on Learning: comparative and
international perspectives (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2006), pp. 47-60
Discussion Questions:
1. What role does language play in King’s approach to comparative education, and how does
this contrast with the scientific approach of Noah and Eckstein?
2. What does King see as the purpose of comparative education, and how does this shape the
framework he suggests, which moves from context to concepts, institutions and
operations?
3. Compare the approach to "participant observation" suggested by King with the
ethnographic approach suggested by Masemann in her 1982 article? How do they differ in
their views of social change? What is the importance of the adjective “critical” in
Masemann’s approach to ethnography?
4. What new elements does narrative methodology bring to comparative education? Why is it
seen as particularly important in a period of globalization?
Additional Readings
Berger, Peter, The Social Construction of Reality [New York: Doubleday, 1967].
Cowen, R., "Sociological Analysis and Comparative Education", International Review of
Education, No. 22, 1981.
11
Delamont, S. and Atkinson, P., "The Two Traditions in Education Ethnography: Sociology and
Anthropology Compared", British Journal of Sociology of Education, No. 1, 1980.
Hayhoe, Ruth “Language in Comparative Education: Three Strands”, in Hong Kong Journal of
Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 2, Dec 1998, pp. 1-16.
*Hayhoe, Ruth, “Ten Lives in Mine: Creating Portraits of Influential Chinese Educators,”
International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 41, Nos. 4-5, 2005, pp. 324-338.
Heyman, Richard, "Comparative Education from an Ethnomethodological Perspective", CE, Vol.
14, No. 3, 1979, pp. 241-250.
Hoffman, D. Culture and comparative education: Toward decentering and recentering the
discourse. Comparative Education Review, 43(1), 1999, pp. 464-488.
Jones, P., Comparative Education: Purpose and Method, [St. Lucia: University of Queensland
Press, 1971].
King, E., Comparative Studies and Educational Decision, [New York: The Bobbs Merrill
Company, 1968].
King, E., Education and Social Change, [Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966].
*King, E. , Post-Compulsory Education: A New Analysis in Western Europe [London: Sage, 1974]
King, E., Post-Compulsory Education II: The Way Ahead, [London: Sage, 1975]
King, Edmund, “Education Revised for a World in Transformation” CE, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1999, pp.
109-117.
King, Edmund, “ A Century of Evolution in Comparative Studies,” CE, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2000, pp.
267-277.
Liu, Judith, Ross, Heidi A., Kelly, Donald P., The Ethnographic Eye: An Interpretive Study of
Education in China [New York: Falmer Press, 2000]
Maddox, Bryan, “What can ethnographic studies tell us about the consequences of literacy?” in
Comparative Education, Vol. 43, No. 2, May 2007, pp. 253-271.
Masemann, Vandra, "Anthropological Approaches to Comparative Education", CER, Vol. 23, No.
3, October, 1976, pp. 368-380.
*Masemann, Vandra Lea, “Ways of Knowing: Implications for Comparative Education,” in
Comparative Education Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1990, pp. 465-473.
*Masemann, Vandra Lea, “Culture and Education,” in R. Arnove and C. Torres, Comparative
12
Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (Lanham: Rowen & Littlefield Publishers,
1999), pp. 91-114.
Nellmann, Karl, "Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Educational Research - Problems
and Examples of Controlled Understanding through Interpretive Methods", in IRE , Vol. 33, No. 2,
1987, pp. 159-170.
Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (Eds.) Interpretive ethnography in education: At home and abroad.
(Hillsdale: New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987).
Stenhouse, Lawrence, "Case Study in Comparative Education: Particularity and Generalization",
CE, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1979, pp. 5-10.
Vavrus, Frances and Bartlett, Lesley (eds.) Critical Approaches to Comparative Education:
Vertical Case Studies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas (New York:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2009).
Winch, P., The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, [London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1958].
Session 4: The Developmental Approach to Comparative Education: Neo-Marxism,
Dependency and World Order Thinking (October 7)
Common Readings
1. Altbach, P., "Servitude of the Mind? Education, Dependency and Neo-Colonialism",
Teachers College Record, No. 79, 1977, pp. 187-203.
2. McLean, Martin, “Educational Dependency: a critique” Compare, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1983,
pp, 25-42.
3. Galtung, Johann, “Is Peaceful Research Possible? On the Methodology of Peace Research”
in J. Galtung, Peace: Research. Education. Action [Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers, 1975].
pp.263-279.
Discussion Questions:
1. What views of social change lie behind the dependency approach to comparative
education? What kinds of major problems does it bring to the fore for consideration? How
are they different from the problems addressed within positivist or historical approaches?
2. How far might comparative research within this framework claim to be scientific, and on
what basis?
3. Which aspects of the dependency framework does McLean find helpful, and which does he
suggest may be misguided? Do you agree?
4. What elements in Galtung's suggestions for peaceful research open up the possibility of
positive action in relation to global inequalities? How does his approach differ from the
13
classical dependency/world systems analysis, with its basis in Marxism or neo-Marxism?
Additional Readings
Altbach, P., Arnove, R., and Kelly, G., (eds.), Comparative Education [New York: Macmillan,
1982].
Altbach, P. and Kelly, G., Education and the Colonial Experience [N.B., U.S.A. and London:
Transaction Books, 1984].
Altbach, P. Globalization and the Universities: Realities in an unequal world. In J. J.F. Forest & P.
G. Altbach, International Handbook of Higher Education (volume 18) (121-141). (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers, 2006).
Arnove, R., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism [Boston: C.K. Hall, 1979].
*Arnove, R., "Comparative Education and World Systems Analysis", Comparative Education
Review, No. 24, February, 1980, pp. 48-62
Arrighi, G , & Silver, B., “Capitalism and world (dis)order,” Review of International Studies, 27,
2001, pp. 257-279.
Cardoso, F. and Faletto, E., Dependency and Development in Latin America [Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1979].
*Carnoy, Martin, Education as Cultural Imperialism [New York: MacKay, 1974]
Carnoy, M., "Education for Alternative Development", CER, Vol. 26, No. 2, June, 1982, pp.
160-177.
Carnoy, Martin, “Rethinking the Comparative and the International,” (Presidential Address,
Hawaii, 2006) in Comparative Education Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 551-570,
also Commentary by Arnove, Epstein, Levin, Masemann and Stromquist, pp. 571-580.
Carnoy, Martin and Samoff, Joel, Education and Social Transition in the Third World (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).
*Chase-Dunn, C., & Grimes, P., “World-Systems Analysis,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 21,
1995, PP. 387-417.
Eisemon, Thomas, "Scientific Life in Indian and African Universities: A Comparative Study of
Peripherality", CER, Vol. 25, No. 2, June, 1981, pp. 164-182.
Epstein, E., "Currents Left and Right" plus Commentaries by Carnoy, Foster, Masemann, Noah
14
and Holmes, CER, Vol. 27, No. 1, February, 1983.
Frank, A. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America [New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1967].
Frank, A.G., “Development and underdevelopment in the New World: Smith and Marx vs. the
Weberians,” Theory and Society, 2(4), 1975, pp. 431-466.
Frank, A.G., “A plea for world system history,” Journal of World History, 2(1), 1991, pp. 1-28.
Freire, P., The Pedagogy of the Oppressed [London: Sheed, 1972].
Galtung, J., "A Structural Theory of Imperialism", Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1972,
pp. 81-117.
*Hayhoe, Ruth, “Penetration or Mutuality: China’s Educational Cooperation with Europe, Japan
and North America, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1987, pp. 532-559.
Hoppers, Odora C. A., “The center and periphery in knowledge production in the twenty-first
century.” Compare, 30(3), 2000, pp. 283-291.
Lenin, V.I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (New York: International Publishers,
1939).
Noah, H. and Eckstein, M., "Dependency Theory in Comparative Education” in Doing
Comparative Education: Three Decades of Collaboration (Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1998), pp. 75-91.
Shukla, S., "Comparative Education: An Indian Perspective", CER, Vol. 27, No. 2, June, 1983, pp.
246-258.
*Tipps, D., “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical
Perspective,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1973, pp. 199-226
Woodhouse, Howard, "Knowledge, Power and the University: Nigeria and Cultural Dependency",
Compare, Vol. 17, NO. 2, 1987, pp. 119-136.
Session 5: The Problem Approach to Comparative Education (October 14)
Common Readings
1. Holmes, Brian, “The Positivist Debate in Comparative Education – An Anglo-Saxon
Perspective, (Chap. 3) and “A Framework for Analysis – ‘Critical Dualism’ (Chap. 4) in
15
Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method [London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1981], pp. 57-97.
2. Hayhoe, Ruth, "A Chinese Puzzle," Comparative Education Review, Vol, 33, No. 2, 1989,
pp. 155-173.
3. Bray, M. & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Insights
from different literatures and the value of multilevel analysis. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 472-490.
Discussion Questions:
1. What does Holmes see as the purpose of Comparative Education?
2. In what sense does he try to make Comparative Education research "scientific"? What
does Holmes mean by critical dualism and how important is it to the endeavour of making
Comparative Education “scientific”, in Holmes’ view?
3. What does Holmes mean by a "problem" in education? How does he draw upon the
philosophers John Dewey and Karl Popper to define problems and clarify the steps of
problem analysis and solution?
4. How far has Hayhoe followed Holmes’ problem approach in her research journey? How
has she deviated from it and why?
5. Why do Bray and Thomas see the multilevel (CUBE) model as an important “analytical
tool” in comparative education research? In what way might this CUBE analytical model
be used within Holmes’ problem approach?
Additional Readings
Dewey, John, How We Think [Boston: D.C. Heath & Co., 1933], pp. 102-118.
*Epstein, Erwin, “The Problematic Meaning of ‘Comparison’ in Comparative Education,” in
Schriewer, Juergen (ed.), Theories and Methods in Comparative Education (Frankfurt am Main,
Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang, 2nd
edition, 1990), pp. 3-23.
Holmes, B., Problems in Education: A Comparative Approach [London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1965].
*Holmes, Brian, “The Problem Solving Approach and National Character,” in Keith Watson and
Raymond Wilson (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Comparative Education (London: Croom Helm,
1985), pp. 30-52.
*Holmes, Brian (ed.) Diversity and Unity in Education: A Comparative Analysis (London: Goerge
Allen and Unwin, 1980), Introduction and Chapters 1-3, pp. 1-30.
*Hurst, Paul, “Comparative Education and Its Problems,” Compare, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1987, pp.
7-16.
Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969].
16
Magee, B., Popper [Glasgow: Fontana, 1973].
McLean, Martin, "Papers in Honour of Brian Holmes", Special issue of Compare, Vol. 17, No. 1,
1987.
Medawar, P., Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought [London: Methuen, 1969].
Nisbet, Robert, Social Change and History [New York: Oxford University Press, 1969].
Novoa, A. & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative Research in Education: a mode of governance
or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423-438.
Ogburn, W.F., On Culture and Social Change [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964].
Popper, K., Conjectures and Refutations [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963].
Session 6: Ideal Types in Comparative Education Research (October 21)
Common Readings
1. Weber, Max, The Methodology of the Social Sciences [New York: Free Press, 1948], pp.
85-112.
2. Holmes, B., Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method [London: George
Allen and Unwin, 1981], chapter 6, “Ideal Typical Normative Models,” pp. 111-132
3. Hayhoe, Ruth, “The Use of Ideal Types in Comparative Education: A Personal
Reflection,” in Comparative Education, Vol. 43, No. 2, May, 2007, pp. 189-206.
Discussion Questions:
1. How does Weber define the "ideal type"?
2. What is its importance with reference to problems of scientific method in sociology?
3. How could it be used within different approaches to social change?
4. How is it applied to Comparative Education research by Holmes?
5. How has Hayhoe used ideal types within different paradigms and which use do you find
most persuasive?
Additional Readings
Hayhoe, Ruth “Made to Be Broken: Universal Theories as Ideal Types,” in, Anders Örtenblad,
Roshni Kumari, Muhammad Babur & Ibrahim Ahmed Bajunid (eds.) Are Theories Universal?
(Exploring Leadership and Learning Theories Associate (ELLTA), 2011), pp. 91-99.
*Hickling-Hudson, Anne, “Towards Caribbean ‘Knowledge Societies’: dismantling neo-colonial
17
barriers in the age of globalisation,” in Compare Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 293-300.
Lauwerys, J., "The Philosophical Approach to Comparative Education", International Review of
Education, Vol. V, No. 3, 1959, pp. 281-298.
Le Than Khoi, "Conceptual Problems in International Comparison", in Schriewer, J. and Holmes,
B., Theories and Methods in Comparative Education (Frankfurt, Bern, New York, Paris: Peter
Lang, 1989), pp. 87-121.
*Louisy, Dame Pearlette, “Whose context for what quality? Informing education strategies for the
Caribbean, “in Compare, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 285-292.
Session 7: Comparative Education and the Postmodern Challenge (October 28)
Common Readings
1. Cowen, Robert, “Last Past the Post: comparative education, modernity and perhaps
postmodernity,” Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1996, pp. 151-170.
2. Val Rust, “From Modern to Postmodern Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change,”
in Rolland Paulston (ed.) Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and
Educational Change (New York: Garland Publishing, 1996), pp. 29-52.
3. Paulston, Rolland, “Mapping the Postmodernity Debate in Comparative Education
Discourse,” Occasional Paper, Dep’t of Administrative and Policy Studies, School of
Education, University of Pittsburgh, 1998, pp. 1-30.
Discussion Questions:
1. What does Cowen see as the crisis leading to the emergence of late-modernity and its
educational patterns? How does postmodernity connect to this?
2. How does Val Rust explain the emergence of postmodernism? What key concepts does he
identify and how does he see their relevance to comparative education? What cautions does
he suggest for doing comparative education within a postmodern framework?
3. How helpful is Paulston’s map for reflecting on the various theoretical paradigms used in
comparative education? Are you convinced by his defence of postmodernity?
4. Which of the five versions of postmodernity, on Paulston’s map (p. 8) do you resonate with
most and why?
5. Can you find your own position somewhere on this map, either the modern or postmodern
side?
Additional Readings
Cowen Robert, “Performativity, Post-modernity and the University,” CE, Vol,. 32, No. 2, 2002,
pp. 245-258.
18
Doherty, Joe et al, Postmodernism and the Social Sciences (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992)
*Gu Mingyuan, “Modernisation and Education in China’s Cultural Traditions,” in Gu Mingyuan,
Education in China and Abroad: Perspectives from a Lifetime in Comparative Education (Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 2001), pp. 101-110.
Habermas, Juergen, “Conceptions of Modernity: A Look Back at Two Traditions,” in Habermas,
Juergen, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,
2001), pp. 130-156.
*Hayhoe, Ruth, “Redeeming Modernity” CER, Vol. 44, No. 4, November, 2000, pp. 423-439.
Larsen, M. A. & Beech, J. (2014). Spatial theorizing in comparative and international education
research. Comparative Education Review, 58(2), 191-214.
Paulston, Rolland and Liebman, M. “An Invitation to Postmodern social cartography,” CER, Vol.
38, No. 2, 1994, pp. 215-232.
Paulson, Rolland, “Mapping Visual Culture in Comparative Education Discourse,” Compare, Vol.
27, No. 2, 1997, pp. 117-152.
*Popkewitz, Thomas, “A Changing Terrain of Knowledge and Power: A Social Epistemology of
Educational Research. Educational Researcher,”Vol. 26, No. 9, 1997, pp. 18-29
*Rust, Val, “Postmodernism and its Comparative Education Implications,” CER, Vol. 35, No., 4,
1991, pp. 610-626.
Schriewer, Jürgen, “Comparative Education Methodology in Transition: Towards the Study of
Complexity,” in Schriewer, (ed.) Discourse Formation in Comparative Education (Frankfurt:
Peter Lang, 2000), pp. 3-51.
*Welch, Anthony, “The Triumph of Technocracy or the Collapse of Certainty? Modernity,
Postmodernity and Postcolonialism in Comparative Education,” in Robert Arnove (ed.),
Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (Lanham, Boulder,New York,
Oxford: Rowman Littlefield, 1999), pp. 25-50.
Session 8 Globalization, International Organizations and Comparative Education
(November 4)
Common Readings:
1. Boulding, Elise, "Prologue" and "A Planet in Transition: The Intergovernmental Order", in
Building a Global Civic Culture: Education for an Interdependent World, (New York and
London: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1988), pp. xvii-xxiv, 16-33.
19
2. Crossley, Michael and Watson, Keith, Comparative and International Research in
Education: Globalisation, context and difference (London and New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, 2003, Chapter 4, Globalisation, context and difference, pp. 50-69,
142-171 (References)
3. Mundy, Karen and Murphy, Lynn, “Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society?
Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education,” CER, Vol. 45, No. 1, Feb, 2001, pp.
85-126.
Discussion Questions:
1. What kind of picture does Elise Boulding give of the potential role UNESCO and other UN
agencies might play in the global community? What understanding of social change and
culture underlies this vision? What radical changes have taken place in the world community
since the publication of this volume? How would they affect the role of international
organizations?
2. Why do Crossley and Watson see globalization as requiring a reconceptualization of
comparative education? What three conceptions of globalization do they put forth, and how
are these related to the issues facing comparative education as a field?
3. How does the analysis of Mundy and Murphy illustrate the role of comparative education in
clarifying possibilities for action on the part of educators in an increasingly globalized world?
Are there similarities with Boulding’s vision? Differences? How is Mundy’s approach
different from the developmental approach discussed in Session 4?
Additional Readings
Arnove, R., “Revisiting the Big Three Foundations,” Critical Sociology, 33, 2007, pp. 389-425.
Castro, Claudio de Moura, “The World Bank Policies: damned if you do, damned if you don’t,”
CER Vol. 38. No. 4, November 2002, 387-400.
Collins, C., & Rhoads, R., “The World Bank, support for universities, and asymmetrical power
relations in international development.” Higher Education, 59, 2010, pp. 181-205.
Dale, R. and S. Robertson, “The Varying Effects of Regional Organizations as Subjects of
Globalization of Education.” Comparative Education Review 46(1), 2002, 10-36.
Dale, R. “Globalization, knowledge economy and comparative education.” Comparative
Education, 41(2), 2005, pp. 117-149.
*Drake, Earl, "World Bank Transfer of Technology and Ideas to India and China", in R. Hayhoe &
J. Pan (eds.), Knowledge Across Cultures: A Contribution to Dialogue Among Civilizations (Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 2001), pp.215-228.
Finnemore, M., “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations
Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.” International Organization
47(4), 1993, 565-597.
20
*Green, Andy, “Education and Globalization in Europe and East Asia,” The U.K.-Japan
Education Forum Monograph, No. 4, 1997.
*Green, Andy, “Education, globalization and the role of comparative research”, London Review of
Education 1(2), 2003, pp.84-97.
Held, D., “At the Global Crossroads: The End of the Washington Consensus and the Rise of
Global Social Democracy? Globalizations 2(1), 2005, 95-113
Henry, M, B. Lingard, F. Rizvi, and S. Taylor.,The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2001. Pp. 39-105
Heyneman, S., History and Problems of Making Educational Policy at the World Bank,
1960-2000. International Journal of Educational Development. 23, 2003, pp. 315-337.
*Jones, Philip, “The World Bank Education Financing,” Comparative Education, Vol. 33, No. 1,
1997, pp. 117-129.
Jones, Philip, The United Nations and Education: Multilateralism, development and globalisation
(London: Routledge Falmer, 2005).
Jones, Philip World Bank Financing of Education: Lending, Learning and Development
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1992.
*King, Kenneth, “Banking on Knowledge: the new knowledge projects of the World Bank,”
Compare, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2002, pp. 311-326.
King, Kenneth, “Multilateral agencies in the construction of the global agenda on education,”
Comparative Education, 43:3, 2007, pp. 377 – 391.
Mundy, Karen and Madden, Meggan, “UNESCO and Its Influences on Higher Education,” in
Robert M Basset and Alma Maldonado-Maldonado (eds) International Organizations and Higher
Education Policy: Thinking Globally Acting Locally (New York and London: Routlege, 2011), pp.
46-63.
Marginson, S. “After Globalization: Emerging Politics of Education.” Journal of Education
Policy. 14(1), 1999, 19-31.
Pang, Nicholas, Globalization: Educational Research, Change and Reform (Hong Kong: The
Chinese University Press, 2006)
Rizvi, F. and B. Lingard, Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Robertson, Susan, “Re-Imagining and Rescripting the Future of Education: Global Knowledge
21
Economy Discourses and the Challenge to Education Systems,” Comparative Education, Vol. 41,
No. 2, 2005, pp. 151-170
Robertson, S., Bonal, Xavier, and Dale, Roger, “GATS and the Education Service Industry,” CER,
Vol. 46, No. 4, November, 2002, pp. 472-496.
Steiner Khamsi, G., The Politics and Economics of Comparative Education. Comparative
Education Review. 54(3), 2010, pp. 323-342.
Tikly, Leon, “Globalisation and Education in the Postcolonial World: towards a conceptual
framework,” Comparative Education, 37:2, 2001, pp. 151 – 171
*Suchodolski, Bogdan, et al, The International Bureau of Education in the Service of Educational
Development, [Paris: UNESCO, 1979].
Tabulawa, Richard, “International Aid Agencies, Learner-Centred Pedagogy and Political
Democratisation: A Critique, Comparative Education, Vol. 39, No. 1, February 2003, pp. 7-26.
Robertson, Susan and Dale, Roger (2008). ‘The World Bank, the IMF and the Possibilities of
Critical Education’, at:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/21slr/
Session 9: Policy Borrowing, Globalization and Comparative Education (November 11)
Common Readings:
1. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological
challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6),
773-784.
2. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding policy borrowing and lending: Building
comparative policy studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow, (Eds.), Policy borrowing
and lending: World yearbook of education (pp. 3-17). London and New York: Routledge.
3. Bartlett, L. & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: A methodological
approach to studies of educational policy as practice. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 45(2), 131-147.
Discussion Questions
1. What are the main elements of an analysis that Phillips and Ochs see as necessary for a
deep level understanding of specific cases of educational borrowing? What role do the
disciplines of history and sociology play in their approach? How far do you see them as
building on earlier theories or paradigms of comparative education?
2. What main considerations come out of Steinar-Khamsi discussion of the change from
bilateral to international frames in policy borrowing under globalization? What role do
22
international organizations play? Why does she see ‘policy borrowing’ as the most suitable
concept for scholars of comparative education, in face of the different terms used in policy
sociology and political science?
3. Why do Bartlett and Vavrus insist on qualitative method for understanding policy
borrowing under globalization? Why do they develop case study methods into multiple
layers and directions? How far does this enable them to move from understanding policy to
understanding practice?
Additional Readings
Beech, J. (2006). The theme of educational transfer in comparative education: A view of time.
Comparative and International Education, 1(1), 2-13.
Carney, Stephen, “Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: exploring educational
‘policyscapes’ in Denmark, Nepal and China, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 54, No. 4,
2008, pp. 577-601.
Crossley, M. (2014). Global league tables, big data and the international transfer of educational
research modalities. Comparative Education, 50(1), 15-26.
Forestier, K. & Crossley, M. (2014). International education policy transfer – borrowing both
ways: the Hong Kong and England experience. Compare, 1-22.
Halpin, D. & Troyna, B. (1995). The politics of education policy borrowing. Comparative
Education, 31, 303-310.
Johnson, D. (2006). Comparing the trajectories of educational change and policy transfer in
developing countries. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 679-696.
Ochs, K. (2006). Cross-national policy borrowing and educational innovation: Improving
achievement in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Oxford Review of Education,
32(5), 599-618.
Phillips, D. (1989). Neither a borrower nor a lender be? The problems of cross-national attraction
in education. Comparative Education, 25(3), 267-274.
Phillips, D. (2000). Learning from elsewhere in education: some perennial problems revisited with
reference to British interest in Germany. Comparative Education, 26(3), 297-307.
Phillips, D. (2006). Investigating policy attraction in education. Oxford Review of Education,
32(5), 551-559.
Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2010) Comparative Studies and ‘Cross-national Attraction’ in Education:
A Typology for the analysis of English interest in educational policy and provision in Germany,
Educational Studies, 28/4, 325-339.
23
Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (Eds.). (2004) Educational policy borrowing: Historical perspectives.
Oxford: Symposium Books.
Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and
analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451-461.
Qiang, H. & Kang, Y. (2011). English Immersion in China as a Case of Educational Transfer.
Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 8-36.
Rappleye, J. (2006). Theorizing education transfer: Toward a conceptual map of the context of
cross-national attraction. Comparative and International Education, 1(3), 223-240.
Rappleye, J., Imoto, Y. & Horiguchi, S. (2011). Towards “thick description” of educational
transfer: Understanding a Japanese institution’s ‘import’ of European language policy.
Comparative Education, 47(4), 411-432.
Silova, I. (2005). Travelling policies: hijacked in Central Asia. European Educational Research
Journal, 4(1), 50-59.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2006). The Economics of policy borrowing and lending: A study of late
adopters. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 665-678.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2009). Transferring education, displacing reforms. In J. Schriewer, (Ed.),
Discourse formation in comparative education (pp. 155-187). Frankfurt/M & New York: Lang
Publishers.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. & Quist, H. (2000). The politics of educational borrowing: Reopening the case
of Achimota in British Ghana. Comparative Education, 40(1), 29-53.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import: Local encounters with global forces
in Mongolia. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. & Waldow, F. (Eds.). (2012). World yearbook of education 2012: Policy
borrowing and lending in education. London: Routledge.
Tan, C. (2010). Educational policy trajectories in an era of globalization: Singapore and
Cambodia. Prospects, 40, 465-480.
Tan, C. & Chua, C. (2014). Education policy borrowing in China: Has the West wind overpowered
the East wind? Compare, 1-19.
24
Waldow, F. (2009). Undeclared imports: silent borrowing in educational policy-making and
research in Sweden. Comparative Education, 45 (4), 477-494.
Rui, Y. (2007). Comparing policies: In M. Bray & B. Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative
education research: Approaches and Methodology (pp. 241-262). Dordrecht: Springer, and Hong
Kong: The Comparative Education Research Center, the University of Hong Kong.
Vavrus, F. & Bartlett, L. (2006). Comparatively knowing: Making a case for the vertical case
study. Current Issues in Comparative Education.
Vavrus, F. & Bartlett, L. (Eds.). (2009). Critical approaches to comparative education: Vertical
case studies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Yin, R. (2011). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Session 10: The Classification and Use of Statistical Data in Comparative Education
(November 18)
Common Readings
1. Mundy, Karen and Farrell, Joseph, International Educational Indicators and Assessments:
Issues for Teachers in Mundy et al, Comparative and International Education: Issues for
Teachers (Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2008), pp. 189-214. 2. Cussó, Roser and D’Amicob, Sabrina, From development comparatism to globalization
comparativism: towards more normative international education statistics, in
Comparative Education Vol. 41, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 199–216.
3. Carnoy, Martin, “Rethinking the Comparative – and the International, “Comparative
Education Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, November, 2006, pp. 551-570.
Discussion Questions
1. How does the Mundy and Farrell chapter help you to understand the historical
development of statistical data sets and their relation to comparative education as a field?
2. What are some of the dilemmas arising from the new and highly sophisticated sets of
educational indicators recently developed and used by OECD countries? How do they
differ from UNESCO statistics?
3. What do Cusso and D’Amicob mean by their distinction between comparatism and
comparativism?
4. In reflecting on Carnoy’s presidential address and his journey through the major paradigms
of comparative education, what strikes you as his most significant contributions to the
25
field? Which of the paradigm he identifies makes the most sense to you and why?
Additional Readings
Henry, M, B. Lingard, F. Rizvi, and S. Taylor., The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2001, pp. 39-105
*Heyneman, Stephen, “The Sad Story of UNESCO’s Statistics,” International Journal of
Educational Development No. 19, 1999, pp. 65-74.
Holmes, B. and Robinsohn, S., Relevant Data in Comparative Education [Hamburg: Unesco
Institute for Education, 1960], pp. 39-72.
International Bureau of Education (Geneva) and UNESCO (Paris), The International Yearbook of
Education, 1948 to the present, with some gaps. Website: http://www.uis.unesco.org/
Kelly, Gail, An International Handbook of Women's Education (London: Greenwood, 1989).
*OECD, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators (Paris, OECD, 1995 and subsequently)
Website: http://www.cmec.ca/releases/prsrlse.htm
Postlethwaite, Neville (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of
Education (Oxford: Pergamon, 1988). See the article by J. Porras-Zuniga, "Comparative Statistics
in Education".
*Rossello, Pedro, “The Structure of Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review,
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963, pp. 103-107.
Takayama, K,The Politics of Externalization in Reflexive Times: Reinventing Japanese Education
Discourses through Finish PISA Success, 2009.
UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks, 1963-1999, and website for UNESCO Institute of Statistics in
Montreal, from 2000: http://stats.uis.unesco.org
*Walberg, Herbert J., and Zhang, Guoxiong, “Analyzing the OECD Indicators Model,”
Comparative Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1998, pp. 55-70.
The World Bank Development Report (not all statistics are accessible free on-line, but see the
following website for one interesting set: http://genderstats.worldbank.org/eoutcomes.pdf)
Wolhunter, C.C., “Classification of National Education Systems: A Multivariate Approach,” CER
Vol. 41, No. 2, May, 1997, pp. 161-177.
Session 11: A Dialectical Paradigmatic Stance and Mixed Methods in Comparative
26
Education (November 25)
Common Readings
1. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Chapters 1 &2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.1-37.
2. Greene, J. C. & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods
practice. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddle (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioural research (pp. 91-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3. Bray, M. & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Insights
from different literatures and the value of multilevel analysis. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 472-490.
Discussion Questions:
1. What is mixed methods research? Describe the different ways in which it can be a
method, a research design and a methodology.
2. How would you define paradigms in research? What are examples of the paradigms that
have been proposed for mixed methods research? Discuss the controversies and debates
about paradigms in mixed methods.
3. What are some of the mixed methods research designs that are proposed by Creswell?
4. Referring to Bray & Thomas’ (1995) paper, how might mixed methods be applicable to
research in comparative education? What are other examples where mixed methods may
be considered?
5. How would you evaluate the rigour or validity of a mixed methods study in comparative
education?
Additional Readings
*Esterberg, K.G., Qualitative Methods in Social Research, (Boston, Mass.: McGraw Hill, 2002),
See pp. 10-21 for an overview of major paradigms.
*Greene, J.C. & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in
mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5-17.
Howe, K. & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A
prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9.
Jang, E., McDougal, D., Pollen, D., Herbert, M. & Russel, R., Integrative Mixed Methods Data
Analytic Strategies in Research on School Success in Challenging Circumstances (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2008).
*Merriam, S., Qualitative Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009). See pp. 9-13 for an
overview of epistemological orientations: positivist, constructivist, critical,
postmodern/poststructural.
27
Reichert, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D.
Cook & C. S. Reichert (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp.
7-32). London: Sage Publications.
Tashakorri, A. & Teddle, C. (Eds.). Handbook of Mixed methods in social and behavioural
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wong, AK. (2011). Culture in medical education: Comparing a Thai and a Canadian residency
programme. Medical Education, 45, 1209-1219.