thesis on comparative education

Understanding Others, Educating Ourselves: Getting More from International Comparative Studies in Education (2003)

Chapter: 1 introduction and rationale, 1 introduction and rationale, introduction.

The increasing scrutiny of earlier studies has revealed their limitations and the consequent need for improvement in the planning, execution, and dissemination of international comparative research…. The lack of an adequate system of education indicators to inform education policy making has become increasingly apparent. Data are not collected regularly, systematically, or with enough coordination either to satisfy natural curiosity about education systems around the world or to answer the questions of researchers and policy makers about changes over time in education in a variety of countries. Trend data are needed on many aspects of education.

A Collaborative Agenda for Improving International Comparative Studies in Education (National Research Council, 1993, hereafter the 1993 Agenda)

By the last half of the 1990s, many concerns described in this excerpt from the 1993 Agenda of the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education had been or were well on the way to being resolved. The proposed solutions, however, produced several new, somewhat overlapping problems. Previously, there was a scarcity of data sufficiently robust to support valid cross-national comparisons; today, a glut of good-quality data overwhelms the field and remains largely unanalyzed, even as new follow-on surveys are launched. Previously, large-scale cross-national education surveys were initiated sporadically, every few years; however, between 1999 and 2003, data collection for at least one and as many as three surveys was scheduled annually.

Previously, U.S. schools faced few mandated tests, and most were willing to participate in the occasional voluntary, internationally oriented tests; today, with increased requirements for mandatory testing, increasing numbers of schools are unwilling to add to their testing burden by participating in voluntary assessments. The infrastructure for conducting large-scale international studies that has developed over the past decade, which plays an important role in ensuring the quality of large-scale international education surveys, has become institutionalized, and the desire to keep this infrastructure engaged has played a role in decisions to support new and more frequent studies. Indeed, there is an increasing concern that international assessments are now conducted more frequently than reforms can produce change in the U.S. education system, which may discourage ongoing, longer term reform efforts.

In addition, the results of large-scale domestic and international surveys are raising a host of questions that often are addressed best by smaller scale studies requiring a wide range of research methods, both qualitative and quantitative. For example, although a full series of more detailed thematic analysis of the data was commissioned before the completion of the first Programme for International Assessment of Student Achievement (PISA) 1 international report, it was of necessity carried out by researchers closely aligned with the study. Few new initiatives have been launched either to cull insight from ongoing nonsurvey-based international studies or to support systematic new ones attuned to independent research agenda.

Despite major investments in a half-dozen large-scale international surveys over the past decade, U.S. public discourse about education remains curiously untouched by international comparisons. Beyond the common knowledge that U.S. students are not first in the world in mathematics and science, educational rhetoric in the United States remains essentially one-dimensional, lacking the sense of rich possibilities that international perspectives can provide. Possible reasons for this deficiency include the general imperviousness of U.S. education policy to domestic or international education research (Lagemann, 2000), and widely shared assumptions that other areas of the world are simply not relevant to the United States. The lack both of interpretive international comparative education studies and of secondary analysis focused on issues of primary concern to the public and policy makers, however, certainly contributes

to the persistence of an inwardly focused approach to education studies in the United States.

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 places strong emphasis on using rigorous scientific methods to study education (U.S. Congress, 2002). This act has reorganized the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement by creating the Institute of Education Sciences, which includes three centers: the National Center for Education Research, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), one of the main U.S. funders of international comparative education research. This is an important moment to examine the nature of international comparative education research and to reaffirm its critical contribution to a well-rounded program of domestic education research in the United States.

The purpose of this report—which is directed to federal sponsors of international comparative education research, domestic and international researchers, private foundations, and state and district officials who are eager to improve their part of the U.S. education system—is to lay out the rationale for such research; describe its scope, purpose, and potential impact; and make recommendations regarding future directions. Fundamentally, international comparative studies contribute to basic education research by documenting the existence of a much broader array of educational practices and outcomes than is available in the United States alone. International studies, however, can do much more than this. The rest of this chapter explores the current rationale for U.S. participation in international comparative studies and discusses the scope of such studies. Chapter 2 outlines the range of international comparative studies and their relative costs and presents recommendations for moving toward a more balanced research agenda for these studies. Chapter 3 draws on some recent studies to illustrate different ways that international comparative studies have—or, in some cases, have not—made an impact on the U.S. education system. Chapter 4 begins by offering suggestions for continuing to improve one type of study—large-scale, cross-national surveys— with which the board has been mainly involved since its inception, and to address key issues that persist or have emerged with those types of studies since the board’s 1990 report, A Framework and Principles for International Comparative Studies in Education (National Research Council, 1990, hereafter referred to as the 1990 Framework ). It continues by addressing the pressing need for more public access to the findings of all types of international comparative studies and the consequent need for an array of studies addressing a wide range of questions that call for many different research methodologies. Chapter 5 examines the implications of recommendations from earlier chapters for supporting infrastructure, both fi-

nancial and organizational, for future international comparative studies of education. The final chapter provides a summary of the board’s recommendations.

Although many features of international data collection in educational research have changed over the past decade, at least one has not: research that provides comparative information across nations continues to expand understanding of education as a social and economic institution and provide rich sources of ideas about how nations can strengthen teaching and student achievement. Throughout its history, the U.S. education system has benefited immensely from ideas borrowed and adapted from education systems in other countries. These ideas range from methods for early childhood education (France, Germany, and Italy), a model for the structure of higher education (Germany), and goals for mass urban education (England), to the Suzuki method of teaching music (Japan).

Holmes (1985) traces the earliest efforts to observe and learn from foreign education systems to Plato’s reference to Sparta in The Republic . He dates the beginning of comparative education as a systematic study to the early 19th century. He mentions early reservations about the limitations of what is likely to be learned from such study. He cited one educator who claimed that “the practical value of studying other systems of education is that much can be learned about one’s own system of education.” His second claim was that “what goes on outside the schools matters even more than the things inside schools to an understanding of any system of education” (p. 866).

U.S. interest in international education studies has waxed and waned over the decades, but it grew particularly keen after the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued its report, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) . That report made extensive use of findings from then-current national and international comparative studies of student achievement, portraying them in provocative terms. 2 The data cited in that report seized the interest of policy makers, who had little previous knowledge of or interest in comparative international education statistics but who subsequently evolved into strong proponents of comparative research at both state and cross-national lev-

els. 3 Some scholars, however, questioned the use of these particular international studies to judge the U.S. education system, given their imperfect sampling and other technical problems at that time. 4 Nonetheless, by 1990, the president and the governors acknowledged the importance of international perspectives in formulating domestic education policy when they defined national education goals for the nation. The United States was challenged to be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement by the turn of the century, and to ensure that every adult “will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy” (Rothman, 2002).

This focus on comparisons of achievement brought valuable attention to the potential benefits of learning about education in other countries. However, the country rankings that were so widely publicized did little to suggest the breadth of international research.

Cuban (1988) has argued that one remarkable feature of U.S. schools is how alike they are. In contrast, education systems in many other countries encompass a far greater degree of diversity. For example, there tends to be great diversity across nations regarding what citizens expect of their schools, what roles teachers play in society, and what education services governments and private organizations provide. International comparative research in education can help to expand the repertoire of possible practices and policies in several ways.

International education studies help to define what is achievable. How much can students learn and at what age can they learn it? How do different countries mix different amounts of pre-service and in-service professional development for beginning teachers at the early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels? How do different countries determine the optimal number of hours of schooling at each of these levels? What roles do parents with different levels of education play in governing and supporting schools? Most people would be reluctant to conduct controlled experiments with their children’s educations, but naturally oc-

curring variation in other countries can help develop more confidence in—or courage to consider changing—U.S. policies and practices. Studies such as PISA, for example, demonstrate that high average performance does not have to be associated with the wide disparities in performance found in the United States.

International comparative research can help researchers and policy makers to observe and characterize consequences of different practices and policies for different groups, under different circumstances . Research can examine correlates of various approaches (Holmes, 1985; Postlethwaite, 1999) and explore the reasons for observed differences in student performance, thus enhancing confidence in the generalizability of studies ( 1990 Framework ). It can also contribute to and possibly influence the content and direction of useful debate concerning public issues, such as teenage employment, and the terms of service of teaching, by enhancing the discourse through increasing knowledge about a wider range of alternatives and possible consequences.

International comparative studies often bring to light concepts for understanding education that have been overlooked in the United States, helping U.S. educators to think in terms of new principles and categories. The Second International Mathematics Study helped to popularize the concept of the intended, implemented, and achieved curriculum and facilitated more nuanced discussions and studies about relationships between curriculum and student achievement. A recent book highlighting the expert, “profound” understanding characteristic of Chinese elementary mathematics teachers (Ma, 1999) casts new light on layers of understanding within subject matter knowledge. PISA’s efforts to measure “preparedness for life” have led to new ways to operationalize different types of literacy.

International comparisons of education often lead us to identify and question beliefs and assumptions that are taken for granted . This contribution is sometimes characterized as making the familiar strange and the strange familiar (Kluckhohn, 1944). International comparisons help to raise questions about the universality of particular features of the U.S. education system and offer new insight into current disputes. For example, Japanese teachers can offer cogent reasons why classes of fewer than 20 students are more difficult to teach than larger classes, and why, at the preschool level, teachers often should not discipline a misbehaving student.

Large-scale cross-national surveys have received much attention in the United States in the two decades since the release of A Nation at Risk. Many of the benefits of international comparative education studies, however, are achieved by relatively small-scale, low-cost, more open-ended studies. Such studies, in addition to contributing to our understanding of

the broader range of possibilities in education, are essential precursors to large-scale studies because they help to identify contextual features of school systems that are common to many countries and can be quantitatively measured. Similarly, questions raised by counterintuitive findings of large-scale studies are often best explored by smaller scale, targeted studies.

International comparisons of education systems often produce outcomes that are not part of their original rationale but that nonetheless make valuable contributions to the improvement of U.S. education and international relations.

In an increasingly interdependent world, they provide useful insights into the socioeconomic structure of other countries and cultures. For example, the insights of comparative education scholars who, in relative obscurity, had studied religious schools in Central and South Asia became more valued at the end of 2001, when graduates of those schools attacked the United States.

The challenges posed by international studies can increase the educational research capacity of the United States as well as that of other countries ( 1990 Framework ). For example, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 5 Videotape Classroom Study helped to raise the technical sophistication of video research methods in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, questions of sampling, instrument design, data gathering, and data analysis that had to be addressed in the second and third international mathematics studies yielded results and experience that have been useful in national surveys of achievement.

All these benefits do not flow automatically from every study. Rather, they are more likely to result from systematic investments in a variety of studies, differing in methodology, scope, and purpose, at least some of which try to test and build on earlier findings. Simply observing and measuring apparently effective practices in other countries is not sufficient to bring about desired improvement in U.S. schools. Ideally, promising practices would undergo several rounds of study in the context of their country of origin, and in the United States, in which practitioners and researchers attempt to construct and test hypotheses about the rela-

tionship between the practice and desired outcomes in different settings. More often, informal experiments initiated by practitioners using innovations from other countries attract the attention of researchers post hoc; policy makers call on researchers to investigate promising practices; and, of course, researchers themselves may initiate exploratory studies. Instances of each of these cases are highlighted in boxes throughout the next chapter.

Since 1988, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) at the (U.S.) National Research Council of the National Academies has engaged in activities designed to increase the rigor and sophistication of international comparative studies in education by encouraging synergies between large and smaller scale international comparative education research, to identify gaps in the existing research base, and to assist in communicating results to policy makers and the public. Under the current grant (1998-2002), funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, BICSE has sponsored public events and commissioned papers on the effects of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the power of video technology in international education research, international perspectives on teacher quality, and advances in the methodology of cross-national surveys of education achievement. This report responds to a request from the board's sponsors under the current grant to produce a report that builds on its previous work.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Globalization and Comparative Education

• First Online: 25 March 2021

Cite this chapter

• Joseph Zajda 41 &
• Val Rust 42  

Part of the book series: Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research ((GCEP,volume 24))

851 Accesses

During the past four decades globalization has been widely researched in comparative education and other academic circles. The forum of debate among comparative educators has penetrated to all corners of the world. Earlier, Lynn Davies (2004) argued that comparative education has possibly never had such an important function than in this age of different globalisations. She identified two complementary roles for comparative education for global pedagogies: ‘destroying myths and fighting simplistic or dangerous universalisms; and extracting signs of hope which show how education – both within and regardless of culture, could contribute to a better world’ (Davies 2004, p. 1). In addition, Epstein (2006) suggested that ‘comparative education applies the intellectual tools of history and social sciences to advance our understanding of international issues in education’ (Epstein 2006, p. 579). Numerous books by comparative educators on the subject have been authored and edited not only in the intellectual centers of the world but by scholars in the UK, USA, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere (Daun 2002; Daun 2020; Tjeldvoll and Holmesland 1997; Hawkins and Rust 2001; Zajda 2005a, b; Zajda and Rust 2009; Zajda 2020a; Bray 2003a, b; Bray et al. 2007; Hung 2001). Movements usually have a clear context and emerge out of the broader forces that define the direction societies take. In the United States, for example, the curriculum reform movement, with the emergence of the new math, PSSE physics, and chemical-bond chemistry of the late 1950s, was in direct response to the launching of Sputnik on 4 October 1957 by the USSR, and the attempt on the part of the United States to recapture its technological superiority. The educational movement, known variously as humanistic education, the free school movement or ‘alternatives in education’, was an outgrowth of the Vietnam War and the student protest movement of the 1960s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

For example, Lisa Laumann (2000) examined the rich educational programs for girls being conducted in nongovernmental organizaions in Pakistan. See Laumann, L. (2000). Teaching gender: Pakistani nongovernmental organizations and their gender pedagogies. Education. Los Angeles, University of California, Los Angeles.

A number of people have developed typologies of theories. Leslie Skair, for example, discusses five different theories of the global system: (i) imperialist (colonialist); (ii) modernization and neo-evolutionist; (iii) neo-Marxist including dependency; (iv) world system theory; and (v) modes of production theory.

Ideal types come from Max Weber and makes reference to an analytical construct that serves the investigator as a measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases. It provides the basic method for comparative study. See Weber ( 1947 ).

Aburdene, P., & Naisbitt, J. (1990). Megatrends . New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Google Scholar  

Adams, D., & Bjork, R. (1971). Education in developing areas . New York: McKay.

Albrow, M. (1997). The global age: State and society beyond modernity . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Almanac. (2003). Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2002 . Chicago/London: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Almond, G., & Coleman, J. (1960). The politics of developing areas . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anderson, A., & Bowman, M. (1965). Education and economic development . Chicago: Aldine Press.

Arnove, R. (1980). Comparative education and world-systems analysis. Comparative Education Review, 24 , 48–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arnove, R. (2015). Globalisation and public education policies in Latin America. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Second international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research (pp. 431–441). Dordrecht: Springer.

Barber, B. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld . New York: Times Books.

Berman, M. (1988). All that is solid melts into air . New York: Penguin Books.

Bergsten, C. F. (1988). America in the world economy: A strategy for the 1990s . Washington, DC.

Bhalla, S. S. (2002). Imagine there’s no country . Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (Eds.). (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizataiaons since 1875 . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bowman, M. J., & Anderson, C. A. (1967). Concerning the role of education in development. In M. J. Bowman & C. A. Anderson (Eds.), Readings in the economics of education . Paris: UNESCO.

Boyd-Barrett, O. (1977). Media imperialism: Towards an international framework for the analysis of media Systems. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 116–135). London: Edward Arnold.

Boyd-Barrett, O. (1998). Media imperialism reformulated. In D. Thussu (Ed.), Electronic empires: Global media and local resistance (pp. 157–176). London: Arnold.

Bray, M. (2003a). Control of education: Issues and tensions in centralization and recentralization. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), The dialectic of the global and local (pp. 204–228). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bray, M. (2003b). Comparative education: Continuing traditions, new paradigms and new challenges . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2007). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods. Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong & Springer.

Brembeck, C. (1962). Education for national development. Comparative Education Review, 5 , 223–231.

Brenner, R. (1977). The origins of capitalist development: A critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism. New Left Review, 104 , 25–92.

Brickman, W. W. (1968). In S. E. Fraser (Ed.), A history of international and comparative education . Boston: Scott, Foresman, and Co.

Cardoso, F. H. (1972). Dependency and development in Latin America. New Left Review, 74 , 83–95.

Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Carnoy, M. (1977). Education as cultural imperialism . New York/London: Longman.

Carnoy, M. (1984). The state and political theory . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. (1976). The limits of educational reform . New York: David McKay Co..

Chesterfield, R. (1974). The teaching of food production tasks in a modernizing pre-industrial society, education . Los Angeles: University of California.

Clignet, R., & Foster, P. (1981). French and British Colonial Education in Africa. Comparative Education Review, 8 , 191–198.

Coombs, P. (1964). The Adjustment of the educational structure to the requirements of economic development. International Review of Education, 10 (1), 53–66.

Coutinho, J. M. (1988). Industrial modernization, education and occupation in Aracruz, Espirito Santo: A survey case study of Brazilian Dependency . PhD Department of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.

Curle, A. (1964). Education, politics, and development. Comparative Education Review, 7 , 226–245.

Cutright, P. (1963). National political development: measurement and analysis. American Sociological Review, 28 , 25–45.

Daun, H. (Ed.). (2002). Educational restructuring in the context of globalization and national policy . New York/London: Routledge Falmer.

Daun, H. (2020). Globalizations, meta-ideological hegemony and challenges from populism in education. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education reforms: Emerging paradigms . Dordrecht: Springer.

Davies, D. (2004, January). Comparative education in an increasingly globalised world . Paper presented at the Honk Kong Comparative and international Conference.

Demont-Heinrich, C. (2011). Cultural imperialism versus globalization of culture: Riding the structure-agency dialectic in global communication and media studies . Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00401.x

Deutsch, K. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55 , 493–514.

Epstein, E. (2006), Commentary on Carnoy. Comparative Education Review, 50 (4), 571–580.

Foster, P. J. (1965). Education and social change in Ghana . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America . New York: Monthly Review Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man . New York: Free Press.

Garrett, G. (2000). Globalization and national autonomy. In N. Woods (Ed.), The political economy of globalization . New York: St. Martin's Press.

Gibson, M., & Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority status and education . New York: Academic.

Giddens, A. (1995). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gómez García, R., & Birkinbine, B. (2018). Cultural imperialism theories. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326132192_Cultural_Imperialism_Theories

Habermas, J. (1990). The philosophical discourse of modernity (F. G. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hall, J. (1965). Changing conceptions of the modernization of Japan. In M. Jensen (Ed.), Changing Japanese attitudes toward modernization . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hans, N. (1955). Comparative education: A study of educational factors and traditions . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hanson, J., & Brembeck, C. (1966). Education and the development of nations . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14 (Fall).

Harbison, R. W., & Myers, C. (1964). Education, manpower, and economic growth . New York: McGraw Hill.

Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hawkins, J., & Rust, V. (2001). Shifting perspectives on comparative research: A view from the USA. Comparative Education, 37 (4), 501–506.

Held, D. (Ed.). (1991). Political theory today . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1996a). Introduction. In P. Hirst & G. Thompson (Eds.), Globalisation in question . Oxford: Polity Press.

Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1996b). Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibilities of governance . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hobsbawm, E. (1994). The age of extremes: A history of the world, 1914–1991 . New York: Pantheon.

Hung, W-J (Daisy). (2001). Dialectic process of globalization and localization: Its implication for comparative education . Comparative Education, Chi Nan University, Nanton, Taiwan.

Hunt, F. J. (1969). The study of education in society: Education and development. Comparative Education Review, 13 , 217–220.

Huntington, S. (1971). The change to change. Comparative Politics, 3 , 283–322.

Inkles, A., & Sirowy, L. (1984). Convergent and divergent trends in national educational systems. In G. Lenski (Ed.), Current issues and research in macrosociology . E. J. Brill: Leiden.

Iriye, A. (2002). Global community: The role of international organizations in the making of the contemporary world . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jones, P. (2000). Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world education. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalisation and education: Integration and contestation across cultures . Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kandel, I. (1933). Comparative education . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kazamias, A. (1966). Education and the quest for modernity in Turkey . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

King, A. (Ed.). (1997). Culture, globalization and the world system . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kinsey, D. C. (1971). Efforts for educational synthesis under colonial rule: Egypt and Tunisia. Comparative Education Review, 15 , 172–187.

LaBelle, T., & Hawkins, J. (Eds.). (1991). Education and multiethnic integration . New York: Praeger.

Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society . New York: Free Press.

Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53 , 69–105.

Lipset, S. M. (1963). Political man: The social bases of politics . Garden City/New York: Doubleday.

Mattelart, A. (1976). Cultural imperialism in the multinationals age. Instant Research on Peace and Violence, 6 (4), 160–174.

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society . New York: Free Press.

Meyer, J. W., et al. (1977). The world educational revolution, 1950–1970. Sociology of Education, 50 , 242–258.

Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2003). The state, social movement, and educational reform. In R. A. Morrow & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 92–114). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Noah, H., & Eckstein, M. (1969). Toward a science of comparative education . London: Collier Macmillan.

Phillips, D. (2015). Policy borrowing in education: Frameworks for analysis. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Second international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research . Dordrecht: Springer.

Ramirez, F., & Boli-Bennett, J. (1982). Global patterns of educational institutionalization. In P. Altbach, R. F. Arnove, & G. Kelly (Eds.), Comparative education (pp. 15–36). New York: McMillan.

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture . London: Sage.

Rust, V. (1989). The democratic tradition and the evolution of Schooling in Norway . Westport: Greenwood Press.

Rust, V. (1991). Postmodernism and its comparative education implications. Comparative Education Review, 35 , 610–626.

Samoff, J. (2003). Institutionalizing international influence. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local . New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Schiller, H. (1976). Communication and cultural domination . White Plains: ME Sharpe.

Schiller, H. (1989). Culture, Inc . New York: Oxford University Press.

Schiller, H. (1992). Mass communication and American empire (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.

Schneider, F. (1961a). Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft . Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.

Schneider, F. (1961b). European education. Comparative Education Review, 36 (3), 333–342.

Schwartz, K. (1971). Filipino education and Spanish colonialism: Toward an autonomous perspective. Comparative Education Review, 15 , 202–218.

Schriewer, J. (1999). Coping with complexity in comparative methodology. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-9547-4

Sklair, L. (1991). Sociology of the global system . New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

Stromquist, N. (1990). Gender inequality in education: Accounting for women’s subordination. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11 , 137–154.

Tjeldvoll, A., & Holmesland, I. (Eds.). (1997). Globalization and education: Essays on quality of equality . Oslo: University of Oslo.

Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift . New York: Bantam.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

van Elteren, M. (2014). Reconceptualizing ‘cultural imperialism’ in the current era of globalization. In R. S. Fortner & P. M. Fackler (Eds.), The handbook of media and mass communication theory (pp. 400–419). New York: Wiley.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world economy in the sixteenth century . New York: Academic.

Waters, M. (1995). Globalization . London: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wehler, H. (1975). Modernisierungstheorie und Geschichte . Goettingen: Vandenjoeck und Ruprecht.

Wilms, W. (1996). Restoring prosperity: How workers and managers are forging a new culture of cooperation . New York: Random House.

Wolf, D. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork . Boulder: Colorado.

Zajda, J. (2003). Why education reforms fail? European Education, 35 (1), 58–88.

Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2005a). The international handbook of globalisation and education policy research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J. (2005b). Globalisation, education and policy research. In J. Zajda (Ed.), The international handbook of globalisation and education policy research . Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J. (2012). Globalisation, credentialism and human capital. Educational Practice and Theory, 34 (2), 45–60.

Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2015) Second international handbook of globalisation and education policy research. Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/book/978-94-017-9492-3 .

Zajda, J. (2017). Globalisation and national identity in history textbooks: The Russian Federation . Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2020a). Globalisation, ideology and neo-liberal higher education reform . Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2020b). Human rights education globally . Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J., & Freeman, K. (Eds.). (2009). Race, ethnicity and gender in education: Cross-cultural understandings . Dordrecht: Springer.

Zajda, J., & Rust, V. (Eds.). (2009). Globalisation, policy and comparative research: Discourses of globalisation . Dordrecht: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education & Arts, School of Education, Australian Catholic University, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Joseph Zajda

Center for Education and International Development, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature B.V.

About this chapter

Zajda, J., Rust, V. (2021). Globalization and Comparative Education. In: Globalisation and Comparative Education. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2054-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2054-8_1

Published : 25 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-024-2053-1

Online ISBN : 978-94-024-2054-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: ISSUES, PROCESSES AND ENGAGEMENTS

Studies in Comparative Education is an academic guide that focuses some contemporary and controversial issues associated with the field since its evolution as an academic discipline. The processes, not limited to the approaches and other requirements of engaging in the study of or researching Comparative Education in the contemporary existence were all carefully treated.

Related Papers

Jeremy Rappleye

Multiple comparative educations naturally produce multiple receptions for new works in the field. The wider the ambitions of a particular work – to speak to the entire field at its most aspiring – the more it must engage with the tremendous diversity of epistemological and contextual variations (historical, linguistic, cultural), and purposes that readers assign, a priori, to comparative educational research....

International Handbook of Comparative Education

Brian Johnstone

European Education: Issues and Studies

Educação & Realidade

Lesley Bartlett

Merli Tamtik

Levi Carbos

Comparative education forms an integral part of the science of education but it is distinguishable on the other pats od disciplines of education because of a unique perspective on educational reality.

Research in Comparative and International Education

Dr. Antony Fute

Asia Pacific Journal of Education

Sonia Mehta

Anthony Welch

RELATED PAPERS

Hamidreza Ayatollahy

Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira

CRISTINE CAROLE Muggler

Kebir Boucherit

Migena Hoxha

Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia

Ira Akhdiana

Electrochimica Acta

tayyaba kokab

Journal of the Korean Physical Society

Nguyen Duy Hieu (K13_HN)

2019 II Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 and IoT (MetroInd4.0&IoT)

Daniele Evangelista

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

ENRIQUE ARMIJO

Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza

Aamir Al-Mosawi

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education & Social Sciences (ICESS 2021)

dwi hermawan

Universidad César Vallejo eBooks

Angie Díaz Vásquez

Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy

Chris LaVallee

Journal of Park and Recreation …

kevin Nichol

Retno Widihastuti

Garth Cloete

Family Process

John Cleese

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Susan Doctrow

Advances and Applications in Statistics

Rodrigo Salimaco, Jr.

Reginald Ewesuedo

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024