Dr. Ruth Hayhoe

Email: ruth-hayhoe@sympatico.ca

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.