In Ruth Hayhoe, Caroline Manion and Karen Mundy (eds.

), Comparative and
International Education: Issues for Teachers, Second edition (Toronto: Canadian
Scholars Press, 2017), pp. 1-28

Chapter One: Why Study Comparative Education?

By Ruth Hayhoe, Karen Mundy and Caroline Manion

What is Comparative Education and why study it? The answers to these questions

are rich and varied, as we hope you will discover through this introduction to the field.

For centuries, educators have acted on what we might call the “comparative” impulse:

attempting to understand and improve their systems of learning by looking at others.

This impulse is captured in the title of one of the most popular and enduring books in

Comparative Education, Other Schools and Ours (King, 1979). Throughout the 20th

century the comparative impulse fed wide-ranging efforts to solve problems of economic

development, social conflict and social inequality through educational reform. It also

spawned important critical comparisons of such efforts, leading to pioneering work on

the role played by education in the construction of global and national social systems.

There is no one answer to the question of what Comparative Education is, though

many scholars have attempted to define the field over the years (see for example, Bray,

2003; Crossley & Watson, 2003; Manzon, 2011). Some definitions are quite simple:

“comparative education has developed as a field devoted broadly to the study of

education in other countries” (Kelly, Altbach, & Arnove, 1982, p. 505, cited in Kubbow

& Fossum, 2003, p. 5). Others focus on the element of change and the use of comparison

to understand and modify our own educational policies and practices based upon lessons

learned from others and other systems:

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

BLOCK QUOTE

By the expression ‘comparative study of education’ we mean a systematic examination of

other cultures and other systems of education derived from those cultures in order to

discover semblance and differences, and why variant solutions have been attempted (and

with what result) to problems that are often common to all. (Mallinson, 1975, p. 10, cited

in Crossley & Watson, 2003, p. 17)

END BLOCK QUOTE

At its most basic, Comparative Education offers a starting point for improving our

educational systems and our classroom practices. It also challenges us to think broadly

about the link between local practices and global issues, and to explore the overlapping

values and social systems that underpin the educational enterprise itself. For teachers, an

understanding of the Comparative Education literature helps for reflection on issues of

concern in their own classrooms such as diversity, conflict/peace, teaching approaches,

curriculum and classroom organization in a wider global context and for learning from

the innovations, experiences and practices of other teachers, schools, countries and

regions.

Comparative Education has been developed over a period of nearly two centuries,

and its rich literature constitutes a resource for teachers, which is now more accessible

than ever before, through the availability of web-based materials. The purpose of this text

is to introduce you to the main ideas and literature of the field, and to give you a taste of

Comparative Educational analysis in the twelve theme-based chapters that follow this
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

introductory chapter. We have selected themes relating to teaching and learning, the

child’s right to education, alternative schooling, gender, curriculum and pedagogy, school

improvement, indigenous knowledge, multiculturalism, conflict resolution and global

citizenship, all topics important for new, as well as more seasoned teachers. We have

invited experienced scholar-educators to present comparative analyses that will enable

you to see how much can be learned from attention to education in one or several other

societies, nations, regions or civilizations.

In this introductory chapter, we will begin with an overview of the early history of

Comparative Education, then look at how the field developed in the 19th and 20th

centuries, and how it expanded to include international education after the Second World

War. We also suggest that socio-cultural, economic, technological and political changes

and processes associated globalization have impacted Comparative Education research

and practice. And finally, we look at the ways in which educators have contributed to the

development of the field, and its close links with such international organizations as

UNESCO and the World Bank.

The Early History of Comparative Education

Comparative Education developed along with such other social sciences as

sociology and psychology in Europe in the early 19th century. However, the field had

many early antecedents in the experiences of learning across regions and civilizations that

can be found throughout ancient and medieval history. Plato’s famous master-work, The

Republic, drew upon some ideas of education and society he found admirable in the city
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

state of Sparta, which he saw as having greater discipline and order than his native

Athens. The Greek scholar and general, Xenophon, introduced Persian education to

Greece through the biography he wrote of the magnanimous King Cyrus. Subsequently

during the Roman Empire, the famous scholar Cicero made a comparison of Greek and

Roman education systems, and concluded that a state controlled education system was

superior to a family-centred private system, since it nurtures bonds with the state that are

important to a democracy (Jones, 1971; Trethewey, 1976).

Over the same period, Chinese thinkers developed educational ideas and texts in

the Five Classics, compiled by Confucius and later philosophers, which formed the core

of a uniquely Chinese approach to education. While teaching and learning took place

largely in family or clan-based schools at the local level, the imperial government

administered examinations at prefectural, provincial and national levels to select the most

knowledgeable and talented young people for government service. This very early

meritocracy attracted attention from such nearby states as Japan, Korea and Vietnam,

resulting in profound educational and philosophical influences from China on these

societies, including the adoption of the Chinese ideographic script. China also remained

open to learning from its neighbours to the west, sending numerous emissaries to India to

bring back ideas and texts from Buddhism. Hundreds of texts were translated into

Chinese and had a long lasting influence on education and society in the whole East

Asian region for many centuries (de Bary, 1988).

The medieval period saw the beginning of travel and interchange between Asia

and Europe, over the fabled Silk Route and by sea. Marco Polo’s account of China in the

13th century tells little about its education system, since the civil service examinations
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

had been halted under the Mongol dynasty. Later European visitors, such as the Jesuits of

the 16th and 17th centuries, however, wrote admiring accounts of Chinese education that

had considerable influence in Europe. One result was the development of highly selective

examinations in France for entry to the Grandes Écoles, which in turn assured

employment in the nation’s civil service. While the Enlightenment and the emergence of

modern science and industrialism are often regarded as European achievements,

Comparative Education explorations make it clear that diverse educational contributions,

such as mathematics from India, and optics and medicine developed by Arabic scholars,

were essential foundations for European science (Hayhoe & Pan, 2011).

Comparative Education in the 19th Century

Marc Antoine Jullien, who is often regarded as a founder of the field of

Comparative Education, was born in 1775 and experienced the French Revolution as a

teenager. Always a democrat in spirit and orientation, his liberal ideas were unacceptable

to Napoleon, and he was given low-level positions in the inspectorate that required travel

to Holland, Germany and other countries of Europe. He became more and more

interested in education, visiting progressive educators such as Johann Pestalozzi and

Philipp von Fellenberg in Switzerland, and corresponding with leaders as distant as Czar

Alexander of Russia and Thomas Jefferson of the United States.

After years of travel, observation and writing, Jullien developed a plan for

Comparative Education, which he published in 1816. In it he called for the establishment

of a Normal Institute of Education for Europe, which would educate teachers in the best-

known methods of teaching as a model for Europe. The Institute was to publish a regular
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

bulletin to encourage periodical communication among “all informed men engaged in the

science of education” (Fraser, 1964, p. 39). It was also to stimulate the writing of

“elementary books… in the different branches of science, which can direct childhood and

youth from the first elements to the most advanced steps of human knowledge… by a

continuous series of well-linked exercises” (Fraser, 1964, p. 40). Finally, education itself

was to be developed into a “positive science” through the collection of facts and

observations from different countries and their arrangement in analytical charts, which

“permit them to be related and compared, to deduct from them certain principles… This

would ensure that teachers were not abandoned to narrow and limited rules, to the

caprices and to arbitration of those who control [education]…” (Fraser, 1964, p. 40-41).

Jullien died in 1848, at the age of 73, never having been able to realize this dream

of an international institute for Comparative Education. Those who did carry forward the

work of Comparative Education were mainly educators involved in developing new state

systems of education, who looked to societies other than their own for ideas that would

help in this process. Victor Cousin, who became Minister of Public Instruction in France

in 1840, found inspiration in the Prussian system of primary education, and in approaches

to technical education in Holland (Brewer, 1971). Horace Mann, who was the first

Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts, made a six-month tour to Europe

in 1843 and wrote a report comparing educational systems in Scotland, Ireland, France,

Germany, Holland and England. This report greatly influenced the development of

common schools for all children in the United States.

K. D. Ushinsky, a Russian reformer who lived from 1824 to 1870, wrote

extensively on educational practices in European countries and the United States, seeking
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

to identify principles that would facilitate educational reform. Sir Michael Sadler, a

British scholar and educator, who lived from 1861 to 1943, was responsible for an Office

Of Special Reports for the British government between 1897 and 1903, which published

studies of education in Germany, India, and many other countries. Sadler is best known

for his warning against the borrowing of educational patterns from one society to another,

and his insistence that educational institutions need to be understood first in relation to

the culture and society in which they are found (Bereday, 1964a; Jones, 1971).

TEXT BOX HERE

“We cannot wander at pleasure among the educational systems of the world, like a child

strolling through a garden, and pick off a flower from one bush and some leaves from

another, and then expect that if we stick what we have gathered into the soil at home, we

shall have a living plant.”

— Sir Michael Sadler (cited in Crossley & Watson, 2003, p.6)

END TEXT BOX

If European, American and Russian educators had a degree of freedom in their

search for educational ideas outside of their own societies, Japanese and Chinese

educators worked to create modern systems of education under a tremendous sense of

threat and pressure. They saw modern education as essential for strengthening their

nations from within, so that they could resist the forms of colonial domination and

control that they saw imposed on many other regions of the world. In 1870, the Japanese

government drafted a policy for sending students abroad, which identified those areas of

strength that Japan wished to emulate – engineering and commerce from Britain,
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

medicine, economics and some basic sciences from Germany, mathematics and basic

sciences from France, architecture and shipbuilding from Holland, agriculture from the

United States (Nakayama, 1989, p. 100). This pragmatic form of Comparative Education

laid a sound basis for Japan’s economic development, while maintaining fundamental

aspects of the Japanese spirit and cultural identity.

A few decades later, Chinese thinkers and educators also tried to study the

educational systems of countries they might emulate and select those patterns that would

help them establish a strong modern nation. Unfortunately, their political and economic

progress was hindered by Japanese as well as Western imperialism. Nevertheless, they

had the opportunity to experiment with educational patterns from Europe, Japan and the

United States. By contrast places such as India, Vietnam, the Philippines, and much of

Africa had modern education systems imposed by Western colonizers. A darker side to

Comparative Education emerged through the increasing use of comparative research in

the design and reform of colonial education in the early 20th century (Advisory

Committee on Native Education in British Tropical African Dependencies, 1925; White,

1996).

Comparative Education in the first half of the 20th Century

Only in the 20th century did Comparative Education begin to be taught in

universities as an academic field of study, in spite of the fact that Jullien had laid a

foundation for the field even earlier than Auguste Comte’s work in founding sociology as

a discipline. Many of the pioneering scholars of Comparative Education were either

refugees or émigrés, who had personal experience of education in several different

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

societies. In England, Nicholas Hans wrote one of the early textbooks, in which he

emphasized the importance of understanding factors such as religion, language,

geography and economy, which shaped the educational patterns of each nation

differently. Hans had left Russia and moved to London at the time of the Soviet

revolution of 1917. He maintained a great interest in Soviet education and society,

nevertheless, and his comparative analysis of national education systems included

England, France, the Soviet Union and the United States (Hans, 1967).

The counterpart to Hans in the United States was Isaac Kandel, who was the

leading comparativist at Teachers College, Columbia University from 1921 to the early

1950s. Kandel was born in Romania and did a Masters degree at Manchester University

in England. He then emigrated to the United States and did a doctorate under John Dewey

at Columbia University. Like Hans, Kandel hoped to see Comparative Education develop

as a positive science, with appropriate use of statistical data on education in various

countries of the world. He emphasized the importance of understanding the contexts of

education in different societies, especially the impact of different political systems on

educational development. He felt the distinction between highly centralized systems of

education, such as that of the Soviet Union, and decentralized ones, such as that of the

United States, was of great significance. His Comparative Education textbook, first

published in 1933, covered education in England, France, Italy, Germany, the Soviet

Union and the United States (Kandel, 1933).

Kandel also identified what was to become a central issue within the study of

Comparative Education: the importance of education in the construction of world peace.

This is a topic dealt with in Chapter 10 of this volume. At the end of World War I,
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

women’s suffrage organizations, international teachers’ associations, and progressive

educators each advocated the formation of an educational body within the League of

Nations, to promote peace through international understanding and the expansion of

educational opportunity. Among them were two women, Beatrice Ensor of England and

Elisabeth Rotton of Germany, who went on to found the International League for New

Education in 1921, and to promote the Geneva Declaration for the Rights of the Child in

1922. Comparative and progressive educators on both sides of the Atlantic were

convinced that educational systems played a part in the development of what Kandel

described as “sinister” forms of nationalism (Kandel, 1933, p. xxiv). British and

American governments, however, rejected an educational role for the League, arguing

that education was a purely national concern.

Despite the absence of a footing inside the League of Nations, progressive

educators went on to build the first international educational organization. Founded in

1929 and based in Geneva, the International Bureau of Education (IBE) came into being

as an independent professional organization whose goals included the promotion of

public education for all and the enhancement of education for international

understanding. Operating under the leadership of noted Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget

from 1929 to 1967, with Spanish Comparative Educator Pedro Rossello as vice-director,

the IBE gained the status of an intergovernmental organization and developed many of

the functions later taken on by UNESCO after World War II. It hosted an Annual

Conference on Public Education that brought together leaders from national educational

systems, and collected and published educational statistics from as many nations as were

willing to contribute information. In 1933, it launched an International Yearbook of

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Education as well as four bulletins per year. The IBE was merged with UNESCO in 1967

(Suchodolski…[et al.], 1979).

Published histories of Comparative Education between the two World Wars have

tended to focus on prominent scholars in Europe and North America, yet Comparative

Education was also being developed and taught in other parts of the world. The first

Comparative Education textbook in the Chinese language, for example, was published in

1928, five years before Kandel’s famous textbook. It was written by Zhuang Zexuan, a

professor of education at Zhejiang University. Three other books on Comparative

Education were published in China between 1930 and 1934, showing the great

importance this field was given in Chinese universities of the time (Jing & Zhou, 1985, p.

241). Like Hans and Kandel, Chinese scholars were trying to understand the broad

principles of education that could be learned from comparative study. They also had

urgent concerns about China’s survival as a modern nation. Many Chinese educators had

studied with John Dewey at Columbia or at other American universities, and there was

huge interest in progressive child-centered education, with many experimental schools

established in the Chinese coastal regions. However, it was extremely difficult for these

ideas to be widely disseminated in circumstances of national economic collapse and a

looming military invasion by Japan.

Chinese educators were also interested in the centralized French system of

education, since it had succeeded in a geographic distribution of educational facilities

throughout the country. This was a matter of great concern for China, where most of the

modern schools were located in coastal areas and hinterland areas lagged far behind. At

the same time, educators feared their nationalist government would use educational
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

centralization as a means to suppress freedom of thought and to exert direct political

control over schools. Comparative education studies provided important contextual

analysis to help them wrestle with these difficult questions.

Comparative and International Education in the second half of the 20th Century

After the Second World War, Comparative Education developed very rapidly as a

field of research and practice. The development of the United Nations Education,

Science, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, f. 1945) and the gradual inclusion of

education in the work of other international development organizations, such as the

World Bank, UNICEF, the United States Agency for International Development, and the

Canadian International Development Agency, created a new demand for Comparative

Educational research. The Comparative and International Society (CIES) of the U.S. was

founded in 1956, the Comparative and International Education Society of Canada

(CIESC) in 1967, and many other national societies came into being over these years. In

1970, the World Council of Comparative Education Societies was established, with its

first Congress held in Ottawa in 1972. In addition to the many national societies that

belong to the World Council, regional Comparative Education societies such as the

Comparative Education Society in Europe and the Comparative Education Society of

Asia are also members. Many national societies have their own academic journals, and

participate actively in various kinds of international work, including liaison with such

international organizations as UNESCO. Because they give equal importance to the

academic work of comparative education analysis and to active involvement in

international development concerns, many have broadened their description of the field
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

by using the term “Comparative and International Education.”

The intellectual development of Comparative Education reflects the developments

that one can see in such major social science disciplines as sociology, political science

and anthropology. In the first two decades after the Second World War, its focus was

almost entirely on the relationship between education and national development. Great

attention was given to ensuring that Comparative Education be made fully “scientific,”

given the availability of more reliable and comprehensive educational statistics and the

possibility of large-scale quantitative analysis using computers. This “positivistic” phase

gave rise to lively debates over the purpose and method of the field.

By the mid-1970s, however, it became clear that many of the findings of

Comparative Education had limited relevance for developing nations of the Third World.

Most had gained political independence but their educational systems were still

dominated by the ideas and influences of former colonial powers. Dependency theory or

World Systems theory, both rooted in neo-Marxist scholarship, helped to identify barriers

to independent and culturally authentic educational development in the structures of the

world capitalist system.

Processes of globalization, an economic and technological phenomenon with

political and socio-cultural dimensions, alongside the collapse of the Soviet Union in

1991, have spawned a new era of contention in the field of Comparative Education

(Crossley & Watson, 2003). For two centuries Comparative Education tended to draw its

analytic frameworks from Western civilization. In the most recent period, however,

Comparative Education has emerged as a stage for an enhanced dialogue among peoples

and civilizations. Examples of this are evident in many chapters of this textbook, which
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

bring forth perspectives from indigenous peoples, women and multicultural communities,

as well as different geographical regions, such as Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Current debates are colored by theories of postmodernity and postcolonialism; as well as

by heightened awareness of global topics such as equality, peace, and cultural and

ecological sustainability. The brief overview of three widely debated approaches to

Comparative Education that follows offers a critical perspective on its literature.

Comparative Education as Science?

One of the most influential comparative educators of the early post war period

was George Bereday, an immigrant from Poland, who succeeded Isaac Kandel at

Teachers College, Columbia University. His 1964 textbook, Comparative Method in

Education, laid out a systematic approach to collecting facts about different educational

systems, juxtaposing them in tables or diagrammatic representation and then identifying

principles or laws of education and societal development through inductive logic.

Bereday recognized the difficulties of collecting comparable data and emphasized the

need for Comparative Education researchers to learn the languages of the societies they

studied and to limit their analyses to four or five countries. His textbook book included

comparative analyses of educational issues in Poland, the USA, the USSR, England,

France, Germany, and Columbia (Bereday, 1964b).

Bereday stimulated others in turn to reflect on how Comparative Education could

become a science. In 1969 Harold Noah and Max Eckstein, two scholars who had

immigrated to the U.S. from Britain, published an influential book entitled Towards a

Science of Comparative Education. In this book they proposed an approach to

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Comparative Education that would make it possible to use educational data from a large

number of countries, in order to discover causal relationships between desired

educational outcomes, and the educational and societal inputs which were responsible for

them. The more countries whose data could be used for these large-scale studies, the

more “scientifically” reliable would be the findings, they suggested. With the dawning of

the computer age, it was seen as less important to study the languages and historical

contexts of different education systems – rather, the essential data about education and its

relation to societal development could be quantified and expressed numerically (Noah &

Eckstein, 1969).

Two major questions have occupied the attention of Comparative Educators

working in this positivistic mode from the 1960s to the present time. The first explores

the relation between education and economic development. What kinds of investment in

“human capital” will produce the highest “social rates of return” (benefit to the economy)

or “individual rates of return” (income for the individual)? Economists are also interested

in cost-benefit analysis and what are called “production function” studies, in which the

unit costs of inputs are weighted against the outputs of schools. For example, is teacher

training or the purchase of textbooks a better investment? These types of study are of

particular importance for development agencies, such as the World Bank, whose

educational loans are premised on successful economic outcomes, and the ability of the

borrowing country to pay back the loans over time. In spite of increasingly sophisticated

scientific techniques of analysis, however, these studies are far from precise.

The second question, which is of even greater interest to educators, is what factors

in both school and society have a significant causal relationship with high educational
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

achievement. What teaching styles produce the best results in mathematics? What size of

class is optimal for high achievement in physics? What types of curricular organization

result in most effective language learning? Beginning in the 1960s, the International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) began a series of

studies to address these questions. Over the years more and more countries have

participated, and alternative international studies of achievement, such as the Programme

for International Student Assessment (PISA) have been developed. Chapter Thirteen of

this text, by Anna. K. Chmielewski, Joseph Farrell and Karen Mundy, introduces the

methods and findings of these large-scale cross-national studies.

Not all comparativists of the 1960s and 1970s agreed that Comparative Education

should try to become “scientific” in its methodology. British scholar Edmund King

believed that human society could not be compared with the workings of a machine. It

was more like the exchange of ideas in a conversation than the interaction of forces in a

physical system. He thus put great emphasis on a comparative understanding of core

concepts of education in different societies and nations.

TEXT BOX

“It is not only the top-level planner who is so engaged nowadays, but the teacher in the

classroom too, and also the parent or politician or employer who may be no expert in

comparative studies per se, but who has an experiential contribution to make to the

world’s comparative analysis.”

—Edmund King (1979, p. 20)

END TEXT BOX

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

King’s textbook, Other Schools and Ours, was first published in 1962, and

reappeared in five subsequent editions. King dealt with Denmark, France, Great Britain,

the USA, the USSR, India and Japan in this text (King, 1979). In his approach to

research, King rejected the kinds of neutrality and objectivity that characterized scientific

method, and emphasized subjective understanding of the hopes and expectations of

teachers, students and administrators as vitally important inputs for educational policy. In

the early 1970s, he carried out a large-scale comparative study of schools, teachers and

students in England, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, with a focus on gathering ideas

for a new approach to post-compulsory education. This was a time when universities

were still highly elitist institutions admitting only about two percent of young people

aged 18 and above (King, 1974, 1975).

TEXT BOX

“…attempts to equalize educational opportunity on a global scale have led to the ignoring

of local cultural values and traditional forms of knowledge and ways of thinking, which

are in danger of becoming extinct.”

— Vandra Masemann (2013, pp. 128)

END TEXT BOX

Although King was not an anthropologist, his attention to the ways in which

students and teachers understood and constructed their social worlds anticipated the kinds

of approach to social theory associated with phenomenology and ethnography. One of the
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

most influential comparative educators of a later period, Canadian scholar Vandra

Masemann, developed an ethnographic approach to Comparative Education which

attends to the ways in which human beings create meaning through education in different

cultural contexts. Masemann describes her approach to Comparative Education as critical

ethnography: She views neo-Marxism as an essential frame for a critical analysis of

oppressive structures in the global economic system whose influence reaches right down

to local schools (Masemann, 1982). In recent years, there has been increasing attention

given to what actually happens within schools, including the organization of learning,

teaching practices and efforts at school improvement, as demonstrated in Chapter Three

by Joseph Farrell, Caroline Manion and Santiago Rincon-Gallardo, Chapter Four by

Sarfaroz Niyozov and Chapter Five by Stephen Anderson and Malini Sivasubramaniam.

Another challenge to Comparative Education as a “science” came from Brian

Holmes. He did not reject scientific method, but claimed that Bereday, Noah and

Eckstein were following an outmoded approach to science in their focus on causality.

Holmes’ problem approach to Comparative Education followed Karl Popper’s idea of

science as a series of imaginative conjectures that are subjected to rigorous testing in the

specific conditions of the laboratory experiment. Those hypotheses that survive rigorous

testing can be considered tentatively true until such time as they are proven false (Popper,

1963). Holmes felt comparative educators should identify important problems in

education, look for solutions in the experiences of different societies, then predict which

solutions would produce desirable educational results in the specific conditions of one

society. These predictions would be tested not in the laboratory, but in the future

unfolding of educational developments. For Holmes, the most significant elements in

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

these specific conditions were cultural. He suggested ideal types as a sociological tool

for taking into account deep-rooted religious and cultural beliefs about human persons,

the nature of society and the nature of knowledge. He thus developed a methodology that

he regarded as scientific in a post-positivist way, and which gave great importance to

non-quantifiable religious and cultural values (Holmes, 1981).

Le Than Khoi and Gu Mingyuan challenged the limited notion of Comparative

Education as science from a different direction by demonstrating the deep historical and

cultural roots of non-Western educational systems – systems that could not be simply

engineered through positive science. Both come from East Asia: - Le from Vietnam and

Gu from China. Whereas Le has spent much of his career in France and written mainly in

French, Gu Mingyuan studied in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, then returned to China to

revive the field of Comparative Education there, beginning in the early 1960s.

Le Than Khoi’s work suggests that Comparative Education could make possible a

general theory of education derived from an in-depth study of the reciprocal relations

between education and society in different types of civilizations over human history.

Such a theory would achieve a universalism that acknowledges how the achievements of

modernity were derived from multiple civilizations, not only that of Europe. Le Than

Khoi’s approach to Comparative Education thus looks back into history, and recovers

aspects of human heritage that have been forgotten in the rush to constitute Comparative

Education as a science (Le, 1986).

Gu Mingyuan’s approach to Comparative Education developed in a very different

context. He entered university in the year of China’s successful Communist revolution.

After two years of study in Beijing, he was sent to study in the Lenin Normal College in
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Moscow for five years. On return to China in 1955, he was full of enthusiasm for all that

Soviet ideas could offer to China’s socialist educational development, only to face

disappointments and setbacks as China’s new leaders rejected Soviet assistance as social

imperialism in 1958, and threw the country into turmoil by unleashing a cultural

revolution in 1966. The centre and journal that Gu had established for the study of

foreign education in the early sixties were closed down, and he was sent for hard labor in

the countryside. Only after Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978 was he able to draw

upon his extensive comparative knowledge of education systems in different parts of the

world to advise China’s leadership on educational reforms that would make possible the

modernization of China’s economy and society (Hayhoe, 2001).

Gu’s first approach was to introduce human capital theory, and to show how this

was not the preserve only of capitalist countries but was used by Karl Marx in Das

Kapital. Gu presented a comparative analysis of the modernization experiences of

Western countries and the Soviet Union, which drew on extensive empirical data. On this

basis, he persuaded the Chinese government to invest heavily in education (Gu, 2001a).

Gu’s scientific approach to Comparative Education proved liberating to educators who

had long felt themselves the victims of political movements outside of their control. They

were delighted to be freed from “the caprices and…arbitration of those who control

education,” to use a phase from Jullien’s Plan for Comparative Education (Fraser, 1964,

p. 40-41).

TEXT BOX

“Neo-classical development theory views schooling as being a ‘liberating process,’ in

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

which the child is transformed from a ‘traditional’ individual to a ‘modern’ one…. But in

dependency theory, the transformation that takes place in school cannot be liberating,

since a person is simply changed from one role in a dependent system to a different

role…The kind of economic structure able to absorb all the educated is not possible under

conditions of the dependent situation. Thus a system of schooling which complements all

people’s social utility is also not possible.” (Carnoy, 1974, pp. 56-57)

<END TEXT BOX

Gu was not satisfied, however, to stay with this Western approach to Comparative

Education. He developed a long-term research project to explore China’s own cultural

and educational traditions, and to identify educational patterns and ideas that would

provide an indigenous basis for China’s educational modernization (Gu, 2001b). He has

also stimulated Chinese educators to reach out to the world and explain the unique

educational ethos of East Asian countries, where Confucian traditions have been strong,

and what this ethos can offer to educators elsewhere. Chapter Two of this volume, by

Ruth Hayhoe and Li Jun, deals with this topic from a comparative philosophical

perspective.

Comparative Education, Imperialism and the World System

In 1974 a book entitled Education as Cultural Imperialism by Martin Carnoy

exploded like a bombshell in Comparative Education circles. Up to this time, the main
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

units of Comparative Education analyses had been nation states and national systems of

education, with educational systems in Europe and North America tending to dominate

the literature. Carnoy’s book showed how difficult it was for nations in the Third World

to develop modern schools to serve their own social, political and economic

development. Much that went on in schools in Africa, India and Southeast Asia was not

decided by their own educators but was determined by the languages, curricular patterns

and approaches to school organization that had been left behind by their colonizers.

Educational policy was also shaped by ongoing dependence on development aid, which

was described as “neo-colonialism.”

Dependency theory was a form of neo-Marxism that had been developed by

economists in Latin America to explain the widespread experience of underdevelopment

or distorted development in countries of that region. They saw the cause for this in their

role as peripheral parts of a world economic system controlled by centre countries in

Europe and North America. Their education systems, which were dominated by

European concepts they had inherited, served to make this subservience appear a normal

and unavoidable stage of development. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire was one of

the first to challenge this educational imperialism with his idea of “conscientization.” He

sought to stimulate Latin American young people and adults to see with their own eyes

and to struggle for independence, dignity and self-determination (Freire, 1972). Freire’s

work has had wide ranging influence, most notably among educators interested in

transformative and liberatory approaches to learning (Schugurensky, 1998). The spread

of Freirean pedagogy illustrates an important development in the field of Comparative

Education: the expansion of South-North flows of educational ideas.

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

TEXT BOX

“For feminist scholars of education in the Third World, our goal is to find ways in which

schools can be made a force to better women’s lives.”

— Gail Kelly (cited in Kelly, 1996, p. 37).

END TEXT BOX

Some of the best-known scholars who pioneered this approach to Comparative

Education are Robert Arnove, Philip Altbach, Gail Paradise Kelly, and Nelly Stromquist.

Robert Arnove worked to relate Comparative Education to world system theory, another

form of neo-Marxism which is based in a historical analysis of the development of the

capitalist world system, and looks at the way core, semi-peripheral and peripheral regions

are shaped by economic and capital flows (Arnove, 1980). Gail Kelly is recognized as

one of the early women pioneers of the field of Comparative Education. As co-editor

with Philip Altbach of the important book Education and the Colonial Experience, she

built on her early research on education in Vietnam and French West Africa, where one

could see the persisting influence of French colonial influences, to develop a critical

approach to education in Third world countries (Altbach & Kelly, 1984). She also

became a leading figure in feminist approaches to Comparative Education, editing several

important studies on women in education in different parts of the world (Kelly, 1996;

Kelly & Elliot, 1982). Similarly, Nelly Stromquist sought to blend dependency and

feminist theories, documenting the nature of gender inequality in education first in Latin

America and later at the global level (Stromquist, 1995). Grace Mak has carried forward
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

this work in Asia, with titles such as Women, Education and Development in Asia: cross-

national perspectives (Mak, 1996). Chapter Seven of this volume, on Gender and

Education, by Kara Janigan and Vandra Masemann deals with this literature.

Another critical approach to problems of education and imperialism came from a

group of scholars who initiated the World Order Models Project (WOMP) in the late

1960s and described themselves as non-Marxist socialists. Johann Galtung, a Norwegian

who held one of the world’s first chairs in Peace Studies, developed a structural theory of

imperialism. He identified structures of domination in political, economic,

communications and cultural arenas, and proposed ways of countering them through

solidarity among Third World nations (Galtung, 1971). Chapter Ten, by Kathy Bickmore,

gives many insights into the field of peace studies pioneered by Galtung and its

importance for education.

The loosely organized group of sociologists, educators, and political scientists

associated with the World Order Models Project created space for visioning a more just

and sustainable world order. They brought ideas from the civilizations of India and Africa

into the mainstream of Western social sciences. While there were not many Comparative

Education scholars among them, one article that became a classic in the field was Ali

Mazrui’s “The African University as a Multi-national Corporation” (Mazrui, 1975). The

more recent scholarship of George Dei, with its focus on understanding the roots of

African culture and spirituality as a source for educational innovation, is another

important contribution to the goal of inter-civilizational dialogue and sustainability

envisaged by the WOMP scholars (Dei, 2002, 1994).

Globalization and Comparative Education

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Perhaps more than any other theme, globalization has provoked expanding

interest and lush debate within the field of Comparative Education. Most definitions of

globalization begin with the idea that the integration of human societies across pre-

existing territorial units has sped up, assisted in part by the development of new

information, communication and transportation technologies that compress time and

space (Mundy, 2005). For some authors, the main motor of integration is economic – the

expansion of truly global chains of commercialized production and consumption and the

development of a knowledge economy. Others focus on the cultural and political drivers.

Whatever the focus, central to all theories of globalization is the notion that interregional

and “deterritorialized” flows of all kinds of social interaction have reached new

magnitudes in recent history. Conceptually, globalization challenges Comparative

Education’s traditional focus on national systems of education. It also creates new

opportunities for understanding those aspects of the educational enterprise that transcend

national borders.

Several dimensions of engagement with the issue of globalization in the field of

Comparative Education are worth highlighting. First, comparativists have been at the

forefront of scholarship that shows how economic globalization has contributed to

increasing fiscal constraint among states – with profound implications for the funding and

organization of national systems of education (Carnoy, 1999). Escalating pressures for

the expansion of free trade and global competition have forced national governments in

all parts of the world to reposition their economies. They find themselves under pressure

to view education more as an investment in human capital for competitiveness than as

part of a range of measures of social provision and protection to ensure the welfare of all
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

citizens. Economic globalization raises demand for skills and qualifications, but reduces

the state’s capacity to meet it. This creates new openings for the expansion of private

educational services, particularly at higher levels, and new incentives for efficiency

reforms at lower levels. Reduced budgets and increased migration and cultural exchange

have also challenged the state’s ability to use education to achieve social cohesion

(Green, 2002).

Many scholars in Comparative Education have begun to document how a

common set of educational reforms, organized around goals of market-like accountability

and efficiency, have spread around the world (Ball, 1998; Steiner Khamsi, 2004). In this

volume, Chapter Five by Stephen Anderson and Malini Sivasubramaniam and Chapter

Thirteen by Anna K. Chmielewski, Joseph Farrell and Karen Mundy explore two aspects

of these global reform agendas – the heightened effort to engineer school effectiveness

and improvement and the expansion of international testing regimes. Comparativists

have also studied the expanding influence of key intergovernmental organizations – the

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, the World

Trade Organization, as well as regional organizations such as the European community,

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (see for example Dale and Robertson, 2002; Henry et al.,

2001; Mundy, 1998; Robertson et al., 2002). They have begun to make sense of the

expansion of other transnational flows – for example, the growth of transnational social

movements, teachers unions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating for

a universal right to education (Mundy & Murphy, 2001); and the implications of

expanding transnational flows of students and transborder delivery of services in higher

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

education.

The infusion of postmodernism and postcolonial theories into the field of

Comparative Education has profoundly shaped the field’s engagement with the concept

of globalization. Postmodern and postcolonial theories challenge the assumption that

globalization is mainly an economic process. Instead, globalization is understood as a

cultural process, in which Western modernity, science and rationality play a powerful

role in the subjugation of other peoples and cultures (Crossley & Tikly, 2004, see also

Paulston, 1996). In turn, postmodern and postcolonial scholars focus attention on the

subversive and hybrid nature of local responses to cultural globalization, using

ethnographic and subjective approaches to research (Hickling-Hudson, 2006). In the

recent work of Kathryn Anderson Levitt, Michel Welmond, Anne Hickling Hudson, and

Amy Stambach, among others, we see how local communities engage and reshape

globalization in the everyday practices surrounding the school (Anderson-Levitt, 2003).

In Comparative Education, postmodern and postcolonial scholarship has promoted the

inclusion of diverse perspectives and ways of knowing, drawing upon Freirian pedagogy,

transformative learning, and the experience of indigenous and subaltern cultures.

Chapter Seven by Kara Janigan and Vandra Masemann, and Chapter Six by Katia Sol

and Jean-Paul Restoule bring forth some of these perspectives by highlighting the

comparative study of gender in education and of Indigenous ways of knowing and

learning.

Today, most research in Comparative Education still acknowledges the

importance of national governments in shaping the educational destinies of the world’s

people. However, globalization has stoked interest in what Arnove, Torres and Franz
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

have described as the “dialectic between the local and the global” (Arnove,Torres &

Franz 2013). The field is now animated by questions of whether and why systems of

education are homogenizing or retaining their local characteristics (Baker & LeTendre,

2005; Ramirez & Boli, 1987), and whether national educational systems can enhance

social equality and social cohesion in the context of globalization (Green, 2002). Joseph

Farrell, Caroline Manion and Santiago Rincon-Gallardo (Chapter Three), Sarfaroz

Niyozov (Chapter Four) and Karen Mundy and Robyn Read (Chapter Eleven), each

tackle these questions in quite different ways in their contributions to this volume. These

include the rise and spread of a global "Education for All" movement, alternatives to

traditional schooling and the influences of developing country cultural contexts on

teaching practices. We will also learn how educational traditions in East Asian countries

have shaped their response to globalization in Chapter Two, by Ruth Hayhoe and Li Jun.

Comparativists also remain deeply concerned with the role that education can

play in the normative construction of society both globally and locally, and are deeply

exploring educational practices that can enhance opportunities for dialogue among

peoples, cultures, societies and civilizations and prepare active, self-reflexive global

citizens. The growing comparative study of civics and moral education, multicultural and

anti-racist education, conflict and peace education, and education for global citizenship

has reached an all-time high, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Eight by Monisha Bajaj,

Chapter Nine by Mark Evans and Dina Kiwan, and Chapter Ten by Kathy Bickmore in

this volume (see Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2002).

Forward to this Volume

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Chapters in this volume illustrate some of the main contributions of Comparative

Education to the study of teaching and schooling. The authors draw on comparative

research from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, and touch on themes

including educational cultures, the right to education, teacher formation, alternative

pedagogies, testing, conflict resolution and global citizenship. Each chapter is paired

with a suggested audiovisual resource, intended to provoke further thinking and debate,

and to give students a visceral feeling for the challenges and rewards of looking at

educational issues through a comparative lens. In addition, each chapter concludes with

key questions for discussion, and a list of suggested readings.

Why study comparative education? We hope this chapter has given you a sense of

how understanding education in other cultures, regions and contexts may enable you to

think freshly and differently about the curriculum, classroom organization and

approaches to teaching commonly used in North American schools. We hope that the

approaches to comparative education we have introduced will enable you to reflect

critically on widely held assumptions about education and society that may need to be

questioned. Most of all, we hope you will be stimulated to develop your own principles

of education in dialogue with educators and scholars who have developed the field of

comparative and international education over the past century and a half.

Discussion/Reflection Questions for Chapter One

1. What experiences of cross-cultural learning are you aware of from ancient or medieval

history? In what ways is comparing a natural aspect of human learning?

2. What role has human emigration played in Comparative Education? Do you think it is
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

still important in the present period? Why or why not?

3. Which names of educators in this chapter were already familiar to you? Which of those

new to you attracts your interest and why?

Film: Finland Phenomenon: Inside the World’s Most Surprising Education System

(2011) [running time is 60 minutes]

This film comparatively explores the Finnish and US education systems, the former being

amongst the highest performing systems in the world. Using observation and interviews

with students, teachers, parents, administrators and government officials, the film seeks

to highlight the factors of success characterizing the education system in Finland and then

use these to suggest gaps or areas where the US may learn and improve. Topics include,

but are not limited to, teacher recruitment and training, curriculum, organization of

schooling, pedagogy, system reform and vision, and the wider policy, socio-cultural,

economic and political context. The film can serve as an excellent resource for studying

and thinking about what makes an education “successful” and the challenges of applying

lessons learned from one system to another.

Suggestions for Further Reading

Adamson, Bob. (2012). International comparative studies in teaching and teacher

education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 641-648.

Alexander, Robin J. (2001). Border crossings: Towards a comparative pedagogy.

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Comparative Education, 37(4), 507-523.

Ball, Stephen. (1998). Big policies, small world: An introduction to international

perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130.

Carney, Stephen. (2008). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: exploring

educational ‘policyscapes’ in Denmark, Nepal and China. Comparative Education

Review, 54(4), 577-601.

Dei, George. (2002). Learning culture, spirituality and local knowledge: Implications for

African schooling. International Review of Education, 48(5), 335-360.

Hickling-Hudson, Anne. (2006). Cultural complexity, post-colonialism and educational

change: Challenges for comparative educators. International Review of Education, 52(1),

201-218.

Le, Than Khoi (1986). Toward a general theory of education. Comparative Education

Review, 30(1), 12-29.

Masemann, Vandra Lea. (2013). Culture and Education. In Arnove, Robert, Torres,

Carlos and Franz, Stephen (Eds.). Comparative education: Dialectic of the global and the

local (pp. 113-132). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. (4th Edition)..
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Mundy, Karen. (2005). Globalization and Educational Change: New Policy Worlds. In

Nina Bascia, Alister Cumming, Amanda Datnow, Kenneth Leithwood and David

Livingstone (Eds.). International Handbook of Educational Policy, Part I (pp. 3-17).

Netherlands: Springer.

O’Sullivan, Margo C., Wolhuter, Charl C. and Maarman, Ruaan F. (2010). Comparative

education in primary teacher education in Ireland and South Africa. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 10, 775-785.

Schugurensky, Daniel (1998). The legacy of Paulo Freire. Convergence, 31(1-2), 17-29.

Vavrus, Francis and Bartlett, Lesley (2012). Comparative pedagogies and

epistemological diversity: Social and materials contexts of teaching Tanzania.

Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 634-658.

References

Advisory Committee on Native Education in British Tropical African Dependencies

(1925). Education policy in British tropical Africa. London: Her Majesties

Stationary Office.

Altbach, Philip and Kelly, Gail P. (1984). Education and the colonial experience. New

Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

Anderson-Levitt, Kathryn (2003). Local meanings, global schooling. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Arnove, Robert (1980). Comparative education and world systems analysis. Comparative

Education Review, 24(1), 48-62.

Arnove, Robert, Torres, Carlos and Franz, Stephen (2013). Comparative education:

Dialectic of the global and the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Publishers. (4th Edition)

Baker, David P. and LeTendre, Gerald,(2005). National differences, global

similarities. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ball, Stephen (1998). Big policies, small world: An introduction to international

perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130.

Bereday, George (1964a). Sir Michael Sadler’s ‘Study of foreign systems of education’.

Comparative Education Review, 7(3), 307-314.

Bereday, George (1964b). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt Rinehart

and Winston.

Bray, Mark (ed.) (2003). Comparative education: Continuing traditions, new challenges

and new paradigms. London: Kluwer Publishers.

Brewer, Walter, V. (1971). Victor Cousin as a comparative educator. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Carnoy, Martin (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to

know. Paris: International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).

Carnoy, Martin (1974). Education as cultural imperialism. New York: D. McKay Co.

Crossley, Michael and Watson, Keith (2003). Comparative and international research

in education: Globalisation, context and difference. New York: Routledge and

Falmer.
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Crossley, Michael and Tikly, Leon (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative

and international research in education: A critical introduction. Comparative

Education, 40(2), 147-156.

Dale, Roger and Robertson, Susan (2002). The varying effects of regional organizations
as subjects of globalization of education. Comparative Education Review, 46(1),
10-36.

de Bary, William Theodore (1988). East Asian civilizations: A dialogue in five stages.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dei, George (2002). Learning culture, spirituality and local knowledge: Implications for

African schooling. International Review of Education, 48(5), 335-360.

Dei, George (1994). Afrocentricity: A cornerstone of pedagogy. Anthropology and

Education Quarterly, 25(1), 3-28.

Fraser, Stewart (1964). Jullien’s plan for comparative education 1816-1817. New York:

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Freire, Paulo (1972). The pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Sheed.

Galtung, Johan (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research,

8(2), 81-117.

Green, Andy (2002). Education, globalization and the role of comparative research. Centenary

Lectures. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Gu, Mingyuan (2001a). Modern production and modern education. In Gu, Mingyuan

(ed.). Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in

comparative education (pp. 27-51). Hong Kong: Comparative Education

Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Gu, Mingyuan (2001b). Modernisation and education in China’s cultural traditions. In Gu

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Mingyuan (ed.). Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in

comparative education (pp. 101-110). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Hans, Nicholas (1967). Comparative education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hayhoe, Ruth (2001). Introduction. In Gu, Mingyuan (ed.). Education in China and

abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in Comparative Education (pp. 5-24). Hong

Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Hayhoe, Ruth and Pan, Julia (Eds.). (2001). Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to

dialogue among civilizations. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research

Institute, University of Hong Kong.

Henry, Miriam, Lingard, Bob, Rizvi, Fazal and Sandra Taylor (Eds.) (2001). The OECD,
globalisation and education policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hickling-Hudson, Anne (2006). Cultural complexity, post-colonialism and educational

change: Challenges for comparative educators. International Review of

Education, 52(1), 201-218.

Holmes, Brian (1981). Comparative education: Some considerations of method. London:

George Allen and Unwin.

Jing, Shi-bo, and Zhou, Nan-zhao (1985). Comparative education in China. Comparative

Education Review, 29(2), 240-250.

Jones, Philip, E. (1971). Comparative education: Purpose and method. St. Lucia:

University of Queensland Press.

Kandel, Issac (1933) Comparative education. Boston: Houghton & Mifflin Co.

Kelly, David (ed.) (1996). International feminist perspectives on educational reform: The

work of Gail Paradise Kelly. New York: Garland Publishing.

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Kelly, Gail P. and Elliot, Carolyn M. (1982). Women’s education in the third world:

Comparative perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

King, Edmund (1974). Post-compulsory education: A new analysis in Western Europe.

London: Sage.

King, Edmund (1975). Post-compulsory education II: The way ahead. London: Sage.

King, Edmund. (1979). Other schools and ours (5th ed.). London: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Kubbow, Patricia K. & Fossum, Paul R. (2003). Comparative education: Exploring

issues in international context. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Le, Than Khoi (1986). Toward a general theory of education. Comparative Education

Review, 30(1), 12-29.

Mak, Grace (ed.) (1996). Women, education and development in Asia: Cross-national

perspectives. New York: Garland Publishing.

Manzon, M. (2011). Comparative education: The construction of a field. Hong Kong:

Comparative Education Research Centre and Springer.

Masemann, Vandra Lea (2013). Culture and education. In Robert Arnove, Carlos

Torres, Stephen Franz (Eds.). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global

and the local (4th Edition) (pp. 113-131). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little Field

Publishers.

Masemann, Vandra Lea (1982). Critical ethnography in the study of comparative

education. Comparative Education Review, 6(1), 1-15.

Mazrui, Ali (1975). The African university as a multi-national corporation. Harvard

Educational Review, 45(2), 191-210.

Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

Mundy, Karen (2005). Globalization and educational change: New policy worlds. In Nina

Bascia, Alister Cumming, Amanda Datnow, Kenneth Leithwood and David

Livingstone (Eds.). International Handbook of Educational Policy, Part I (pp. 3-

17). Netherlands: Springer.

Mundy, Karen (1998). Educational multilateralism and world (dis)order. Comparative

Education Review, 42(4), 448-478.

Mundy, Karen and Murphy, Lynn (2001). Transnational advocacy, global civil society:

Emerging evidence from the field of education. Comparative Education Review,

45(1), 85-126.

Nakayama, Shigeru (1989). Independence and choice: Western impacts on Japanese

Higher Education. In Philip G. Altbach and Viswanathan Selveratnam (Eds.),

From dependence to autonomy: The development of Asian universities (pp. 97-

114). Dordecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Noah, Harold and Eckstein, Max (1969). Towards a science of comparative education.

London: MacMillan.

Paulston, Rolland (ed.) (1996). Social cartography: Mapping ways of seeing social and

educational change. New York: Garland Publishing.

Popper, Karl (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ramirez, Francisco and Boli, John (1987). Global patterns of educational

institutionalization. In George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez

and John Boli. Institutional structure: Constituting the state, society and the

individual (pp. 150-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Robertson, Susan, Bonal, Xavier and Roger Dale (2002). GATS and the education
Carly Manion - Edits – Summer 2015

service industry: Politics of scale and global territorialisation, Comparative

Education Review, 46(3), 472-496.

Schugurensky, Daniel (1998). The legacy of Paulo Freire. Convergence, 31(1-2), 17-29.

Steiner Khamsi, Gita, Torney-Purta, Judith, Schwille, John (Eds.) (2002). New paradigms

and recurring paradoxes in education for citizenship. Oxford: Elsevier Science

Ltd.

Steiner Khamsi, Gita (ed.) (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Stromquist, Nelly (1995). Romancing the state: Gender and power in education.
Comparative Education Review, 39(4), 423-454.

Suchodolski, Bogdan, et al. (1979). The International Bureau of Education in the service

of educational development. Paris: UNESCO.

Trethewey, A. R. (1976). Introducing comparative education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. .

White, Bob (1996). Talk about school: Education and the colonial project in French and
British Africa, 1860—1960. Comparative Education, (32)1, 9-25.