Search results

As a field, comparative and international education has received a wash of attention in recent times. It is a field that is not easily defined, but beneath its fragmentations lies a vigorous, relevant, and determined foundation. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in particular the re-dedication of the international community to equitable education by 2030 present comparative and international education with a unique opportunity: to further define its nature and its purpose – against the backdrop of the current, highly volatile economic and socio-political environment; and to fulfill an important, concretely transformative role, with regard to the post-2015 global education agenda. The article provides a brief review of the journal Prospects over the past few years in terms of criteria it has set for itself; identifies directions that have emerged from the themes of its articles and the work of the International Bureau of Education (IBE), which can enrich comparative and international education; and concludes with suggestions about the future development of the field of comparative and international education.

Over the years, International Organisations have started to look at Cross Border Higher Education (CBHE) with more attention, namely, at the impact and challenges entailed by this type of educational provision due to the emergence of low-quality offers and degree mills. This paper aims to discuss the role of these organisations in the development and promotion of CBHE and its quality assurance in Europe.

This paper conducts interviews using a previously drafted guideline with top-level managers of seven relevant international organisations involved in quality assurance at European and international level, namely, INQAAHE, EUA, ENQA, ESU, EQAR, ECA and EURASHE. It analysed the data collected using a grid created through the articulation of the guidelines’ questions and the empirical data.

The interviews’ content analysis indicated that these international organisations are important stakeholders in the development of CBHE quality assurance in Europe, particularly through the promotion of cooperation and trust between the different actors involved in it. These organisations can assume two different roles: a Technical-Professional Role and a Community Building Role.

This work’s originality stems from the fact that at least to our knowledge there is no other empirical work so far on the role and the views of different international organisations on the challenges CBHE entails for quality at the European level.

The scope and breadth of the field of comparative and international education (CIE) is immense. There are few, if any, limitations on theme, issue, theory, method, or data that are relevant to CIE. In addition, every context or combination of contexts – social, political, economic, cultural – are available for both CIE scholars and professionals to do research on or work in. The flexibility and scope of the field can be a benefit, but create serious challenges to those who work in and study it. It also poses problems for those attempting to professionalize the field by creating areas of specialization or ownership. At the same time, the development of the field has historically been one of push and pull between international educational agendas and organizations with local or stakeholder-driven needs and situations. This chapter highlights those challenges and introduces the volume’s chapters.

This study aims to contribute to understandings of how international universities in China construct institutional narratives to attract Chinese students by leveraging themes of global citizenship and international mobility.

Qualitative analysis of web and other university materials, and mixed-method analysis of social media (WeChat) to identify and quantify recurring themes in the universities’ student-facing presentation.

Despite differing operational models, both universities emphasize Western education’s prestige and global citizenship, primarily appealing to affluent families and positioning themselves as pathways to international postgraduate study.

The research provides new insights into the student recruitment strategies of international universities in China, contributing to the broader understanding of higher education internationalization in non-Western contexts.

Australia has made impressive efforts over the past two decades in the internationalisation of higher education. Particularly impressive has been the expansion of fee-paying international students. Australia today is the third largest exporter of higher education services internationally, with international students comprising well over 20% of total student enrolments in Australian universities. Expansion of international student enrolments has had major impacts on Australian universities and Australia. On balance, the effects have been strongly positive, producing substantial financial benefits and export income, attracting large number of well-qualified undergraduate and postgraduate students, and leading to a more international orientation for Australia's universities.

This chapter introduces the tenets of international student critical race theory (IntlCrit) by expanding the critical race methodology to better account for the racialized experiences of international students of color (SOC) in higher education. IntlCrit emphasizes recognizing international SOC as a racialized student body and acknowledges international students' different racial contexts and experiences in their home countries beyond the US dominant monolithic paradigm of racism (Black and White). IntlCrit provides a conceptual foundation for scholarly discourse on race and racism by offering a set of tailored tenets while utilizing tenets of critical race theory (CRT). The tailored tenets can further advance critical analyses to examine developmental processes of racial “othering” and understand the ways that racism affects international SOC in the internationalization of higher education. The IntlCrit tenets include: recognizing and humanizing international SOC as a racial body; evolving international students' eyes (racial identity development); acknowledging intersectional and transnational identities; using an expansive and inclusive historical approach; centering race and racism on international students' experiential knowledge; challenging notions of color-evasiveness and meritocracy in the internationalization of higher education; and committing to global justice. While IntlCrit tenets are focused on addressing the contexts of international students, the framework provides critical perspectives that can be useful in understanding the experiences of different international student groups by nationality or region. Indeed, it can contribute to more extensive discussions regarding how racism functions globally and in the United States. Lastly, it is important to note that the IntlCrit tenets are not definitive or permanent but are a meaningful initiative that challenges inequities and inequalities toward international students' racial experience. I hope the IntlCrit perspectives contribute to including race and racism in international education scholarship and enhancing the policies and practices in diversity, equity, and inclusion to embrace the global, multicultural, and multi-ethnic/racial contexts.

Scholarly literature on the Internationalization of Education has generated important theories, debates, and insights supporting in-depth understandings of the field, yet we lack comprehensive reviews exploring the design, implementation, and impact of practical approaches. The present review addresses this gap, mapping the literature on international curriculum design, identifying trends and themes across approaches and pedagogies while revealing limitations and lack of attention to issues that inhibit practice in the field. It highlights the privileging of “instrumental,” or quantifiable skills-based curricula, over “transformative” internationalization dedicated to social justice and equity, and observes important disconnects between theory and practice: publications in the field offer critical conceptualizations of what internationalized curricula should achieve and why but with little attention to specific content and teaching practice that would lead to achieving these objectives. The review further analyzes such disconnect in the literature dedicated to decolonial internationalizing pedagogies, while simultaneously illuminating how prevailing decolonial theories of international education erase and ignore parts of the world. It concludes by contending that approaches to the internationalization of curriculum would benefit from increased practical frameworks that could guide educators, practitioners, and students in crucial conversations at the intersections of social justice and International Education.

This chapter discusses the nature of International and Comparative Education in East and South East Asia through the different organizations, networks, and programs formed to cater to the field. It gives an overview of the existing networks in international and comparative education, related activities, and studies instituted to strengthen the field in the region. Given the more developed network in East Asia, this chapter also highlights the increasing importance of international and comparative education in South East Asia, through the broader base of objectives also defined in the Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) of 2015. Opportunities and policy reorientations (in education) set to present and utilize the field in both regions are also examined.

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.

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.