Search results

Consistent and systematic reflective practice is a key element of professionalization. Reflecting on the current status and trends highlights areas of success and areas for further examination within the field of comparative and international education (CIE). This research examines the characteristics of articles in peer-reviewed comparative and international education journals from the last three years in order to identify how the field has changed. Data explored include number of authors, author(s) institutional location(s), research methodology, content or context of analysis, and keywords. Results were compared to questions and recommendations posed by Bereday in 1964 and in the initial Annual Review in 2013. Single-country studies continued to dominate the field for the third year; however, there has been a shift in methodological approaches, with more balance between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Collaboration, evidenced by an increase in co-authored articles, has increased across the field. Findings from keyword analysis show that although six keywords have remained at the top of the field across the three years, there are few topics which unite the field. These results indicate that although one strength of the field has been cited as its diversity, CIE lacks a common focus on methods, theories, or contents that set it apart from other education-affiliated disciplines. Scholars are encouraged to continue consistent and systematic reflection in determining future directions of the field by identifying unique approaches to distinguish CIE.

As a field of research and practice, comparative and international education addresses many of the same issues, ideas, problems, and policies repeatedly in research articles, policies and policy briefs, and in the implementation of intra- and international projects and programs. But, in order to develop as a field, diversification of these issues, ideas, problems, and policies to address new or different priorities and contexts occurs as well. In comparative and international education, diversification since 2013 has been largely static. This brief chapter suggests that dynamic diversification is needed as well if scholarship in the field is to continue to mature and implementation or practice in the field is to further professionalize.

Since the 1970s, gender has been a research focus in the field of comparative and international education (CIE) (Unterhalter, 2014). The extensive work on the issue of gender and access to education by academics and practitioners has proven instrumental in elevating the issue to the forefront of global educational policies (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). More recently with the goal of increased enrollment achieved and global improvements in gender parity, the focus has shifted from access to agency and empowerment (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). From policy to practice, CIE appears to advocate for inclusiveness, interdisciplinarity, and contextualization in research and practice. This chapter interrogates the assumption that CIE promotes these same concepts of gender equality, empowerment, and inclusiveness in the field itself. Through the use of data published in leading CIE journals, the following questions are addressed: How are issues of gender and power manifested and addressed within CIE-related research? Is research published in the field of CIE shifting and adjusting to changing societal gender norms? A critical examination of the role of gender in CIE scholarship and practice challenges the assumption that CIE professionals and researchers lead by example. In other words, although CIE professionals and researchers “talk the talk”, do they really “walk the walk” when it comes to gender and education?

This chapter provides an examination of the characteristics of comparative and international education research published in 2020 as well as an overview of the trends in this research since 2014. This analysis of published research includes a special focus on authors situated in the Global South as well as those authors who are affiliated with organizations outside of academic (i.e., professional, non-teaching organizations). These two focus characteristics reflect the shifting composition of authors and research in comparative and international education in the twenty-first century as well as the professionalization aspirations of the field of comparative and international education more broadly. Evidence from the seven years of data collection suggests that there is a marked shift toward increasingly more co-authored research, a shift from predominantly qualitative methods to non-empirical research content, and a rise in topic oriented research over the otherwise dominant single-country study in comparative and international education research.

Evidence suggests that international comparison has become a ubiquitous component of educational innovation and entrepreneurship in spite of significant variation among educational contexts worldwide. This chapter provides an overview of educational innovation and public sector entrepreneurship from an internationally comparative perspective. The influence that the global shift from natural resource and industry-based economies to knowledge-based economies has had on the development of educational innovation and entrepreneurship is explained. Several examples of educational innovation and education-oriented public sector entrepreneurship highlight the discussion, which concludes with an examination of specific knowledge society issues related to educational entrepreneurship and its reciprocal effect on innovation.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an annual review of comparative and international education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.

This chapter examines the trends in published comparative and international education research from 2014 to 2019 with a special focus on 2019 publication in open access journals and by authors situated in the Global South. In particular, two trends from 2019 are (1) the increasing number of research publications in the field of comparative and international education that are being published in online, open access journals and (2) the representation among these research publications between authors situated in Global North versus Global South contexts. Evidence from the six years of data collection suggests that single country studies and qualitative methods continue to dominate published research in comparative and international education journals. 2019 data also show that there are significant different in the publication trends in subscription versus open access journals in the field, and that authors from the Global South are more likely to publish in open access journals, especially if they are female.

Osmosis is the movement of particles across a boundary until the saturation of particles has been equalized on both sides of the boundary. Although this term is most often used in biology, it is a relevant metaphor for comparative and international education (CIE), as the boundaries which define the field are permeable, with few limitations on what is and is not considered CIE. Previous introductory chapters to the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education have examined the professionalization of the field through the characteristics of articles published in prominent CIE journals. While drawing on a similar framework, this chapter, rather than examining CIE from the inside, examines the development of the field from the outside by considering what, where, and why CIE-related articles appear in journals outside of the field. In addition to data on articles from CIE journals for 2017, education-related articles from domestic and international journals with the highest impact factor from the fields of sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, psychology, and education are also included. These components will provide multiple points of comparison and discussion to examine how non-CIE journals include CIE related topics to identify which themes permeate the CIE boundary.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an Annual Review of Comparative and International Education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered, and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; and (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.