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.

Research has established that reflective practice is a key to professionalization, but reflective practice requires data upon which to reflect. This research provides a two-year synthesis of data on comparative and international education scholarship, and the institutional, relational, topical, and methodological characteristics of the field producing this scholarship. By examining the scholarship published in comparative and international education journals in 2014 and 2015, analyses empirically examined the researcher characteristics, content coverage, and methodological approach of this published work. The analyses reported here find that about half of the publications in CIE in 2015 were by single authors and focused on single countries. The dominant methodology in the published scholarship continues to be overwhelmingly qualitative. This suggests that scholarship in comparative and international education over this two-year period may be characterized as single-author, single-country, qualitative case studies.

Reflecting on scholarship and professional practice is a hallmark of a developing scholarly field and its professionalization. Yet, reflection requires data or evidence to support the ideas and directions of the field as it develops. Although there is an increasing amount of data examining comparative and international education scholarship, it is neither coordinated nor systematic. This research identifies a foundation plan for creating a systematic and consistent evidence base for reflective practice. First, by examining the full-text articles in four leading comparative and international education journals published in 2014, the research reported here empirically analyzes both the content coverage in the field as well as how the research published in the field is methodologically approached. This gives an indication of where the field of comparative and international education has been and where it is going. And, by finding the answers to the “what” and “how” questions, scholars and professionals in comparative and international education are better equipped to reflect on the field and revise, expand, and develop it accordingly. This foundational research finds that single-country, qualitative research authored by single authors dominates the field of comparative and international education. But, there is also evidence that the dominant discourse in the field – represented by the most frequent title, abstract, and keywords – is incorporated into quantitative and theoretical work more than in any other. This suggests that the nature of research in comparative and international education may be characterized by a particular type (single country, single author, qualitative), but that the dominant discourse published in the comparative and international education field does not necessarily align with the most frequently used methodologies in comparative and international education research.