The Professionalization of Comparative and International Education: Promises and Problems

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify, describe, and analyze historical trends in the professionalization of the field of comparative and international education, as indicated by the founding, expansion, and evolution of the professional associations and graduate programs serving the field. Using historical and university data as well as unique membership data from the Comparative and International Education Society, the authors find that (1) professional associations and university programs in comparative and international education contribute to and secure control over expert knowledge, training and credentials; and (2) the merging of 'comparative' and 'international' education has contributed to the professionalization of the field. In particular, the authors find a simultaneous and complementary process of professionalization and fragmentation occurring within the field of comparative and international education.

Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: a review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions

“…When it comes to theoretical frameworks for comparative education research, ample evidence suggests that there is strength in a diversity of approaches (Schriewer 2000a;Wiseman and Matherly 2009). However, as Tolbert and Zucker (1994) note, 'the institutional approach is not highly institutionalized' and there is 'very little consensus on measures or methods within this theoretic tradition' (1).…”

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013

“…Previous approaches to examining the development of CIE included a variety of definitions posed by CIE scholars (Bereday, 1966;Epstein, 1994;Manzon, 2011;Ragin, 1989;Wiseman & Matherly, 2009, 2016. Neo-institutionalism, professionalization, globalization, and scientization have also all been used to explain the field's contemporary and historical development (Wiseman et al, 2017).…”

“…Systematic and consistent reflection on how these characteristics are or are not apparent in CIE allows scholars to trace the development of the field (Wiseman et al, 2017). While other research has attempted to address some of these characteristics in relation to CIE (Wiseman & Matherly, 2009, 2016, the research examined here goes in depth regarding expert knowledge and occupational domain. However, the broad and overlapping nature of these categories necessitates a more specific framework (see fig.…”

“…Although comparative and international education (CIE) traces its roots to the late 1800s and early 1900s (Passow, 1982), it was not until the 1950s that professional societies and scholarly journals were established (Wilson, 2006;Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). Throughout the last 70 years, scholars have debated and critiqued understandings of CIE (Bereday, 1966;Epstein, 1994;Manzon, 2011;Olivera, 1988;Ragin, 1989); however, there have not been consistent, systematic, and empirical reflections on the field (Wiseman & Anderson, 2013a, 2013b.…”

“…Manzon (2011) describes the field's unique approaches to objects of study, methods, and purposes as domains whose contents distinguish CIE from other fields. Numerous other comparative and international scholars have also attempted to define and describe the field and its contents and methods, including Sell (2015), Wiseman and Matherly (2009), and Bekele (this volume). However, these additional approaches focus on snapshots of the field rather than examining the progression of the field over time, as led by the Annual Review of Comparative and International education and by this third round of publication research.…”