Discerning Trends, Contours, and Boundaries in Comparative Education: A Survey of Comparativists and Their Literature

Abstract

Surely the health and vitality of any academic field relies on the periodic review of its intellectual history, evolving theoretical frameworks, and thematic shifts. Attempts to define a field typically involve lively debates over boundary maintenance. 1 Indeed, the question of whether comparative education is a "discipline" has been debated at least since the earliest issues of the Comparative Education Review 2 and has continued to be debated in different forums. 3 Leon Tikly and Michael Crossley believe that a comparative and international canon is discernible, although it is one that is "continually being challenged by new theories and approaches from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, and its boundaries in this sense are fluid and permeable rather than hermetically sealed." 4 Many are the entreaties to alter the field. Michael Crossley and Peter Jarvis wish to reconceptualize comparative and international research, though doing so by building on the "positive" traditions gained from past experience. 5 The research reported in this article relied heavily on the financial support of Utah Valley State College and the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at Brigham Young University. We express our sincere gratitude to those institutions and to our assistants. In particular, we want to thank Raija Kemppainen and her dedicated research team for their indefatigable efforts in gathering the data contained in this article under severe time and resource constraints. Tables 1-12 and apps. A and B of this article may be found in the electronic edition of CER.

Knowledge production in a constructed field: reflections on comparative and international education

“…1 This is not at odds with Cook, Hite and Epstein's (2004) mapping of characteristics of comparativists (in a survey of CIES members), finding that Nearly one-third of respondents indicated they had no specific region that was foremost as a research interest but rather had multiregional interests. Of those indicating a single regional interest, about 23 percent listed Asia, 14 percent indicated Latin America, and slightly more than 13 percent listed Africa.…”

“…National "problem-based" studies still seem to be the "anchor" of CIE. Also, as of the nature of these "problems," Easton (2014a) note that the field is expanding. According to the aforementioned survey by Cook et al (2004), which received "419 usable responses" ("representing 49 percent of the 853 accessible members;" p. 131), there are almost as many "problems" (or themes) in comparative education as there are comparativists:…”

“…As we have seen, instead of identity and focus, the most salient feature, then, of the field of CIE, is its focus on education "in many lands," using a thematic approach that is, as demonstrated by Cook et al (2004), almost as diverse as the constituency of the field.…”

“…(p. 31). If there are no commonly accepted theoretic or methodological foundation of CIE, one must ask, with Cook et al (2004), what comparativists are up to and which (various) theoretical frameworks they are using, especially since they are purportedly seeking to make education systems "better." Connell (1983, vii) underlined that "The business of theory is to help us think clearly and see what is difficult to see.…”

The Professionalization of Comparative and International Education: Promises and Problems

“…They are still in many ways two sides of the same coin: research versus teaching; basic versus applied; theory versus practice (Cook et al, 2004). But, in the words of a former president of the CIES, David N. Wilson (1994, p. 450): 'the merger of the two perspectives has resulted in the education of a new breed of academic-practitioner, who has brought this "scientific" perspective to bear on his or her melioristic international education activities'.…”