Strengthening the Comparative
Dimension in Comparative
Education (Research)
Aaron Benavot
Visiting Professor, Center for the Study of International
Cooperation in Education (CICE)
andProfessor, Dept. of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, School of
Education
University at Albany-State University of New York

CICE Seminar, Hiroshima University
February 2, 2012Outline of Presentation
What is Comparative Education (CE)? Changing definitions of the fieldWhat is International Education? (will mention in passing)

Four dimensions to characterize Comparative Education:
Institutions/Organizations; Intellectual corpus/Theories;
Research strategies and Policy Orientation

This presentation focuses on the research dimension of CEWhich sources of data/information can we draw upon to examine theresearch dimension? Advantages and disadvantages of each source

CE research in North America (CIES): key findings and trends

Why so few “comparative” studies in Comparative Education?

To what extent is this pattern true of CE research in other countries
and regions? In Japan?

Strengthening the comparative dimension in Comparative Education
Research: Possible steps

Questions for debate

Changing Definitions of Comparative Education
Comparative Education is the comparison of various philosophies of
education based not only on theories but the actual practices which prevail(Isaac Kandel 1957).
Comparative Education is a field of study dealing with the comparison ofcurrent educational theory and practice in different countries for the purposeof broadening and deepening understanding of educational problems
beyond the boundaries of one's own country (Carter Good 1962).
If custom and law define what is educationally allowable within a nation, theeducational systems beyond one’s national boundaries suggest what is
educationally possible. The field of comparative education exists to examine
these possibilities (Arthur Foshay 1962: 7)
Comparative Education is a systematic examination of other cultures andother systems of education deriving from those cultures in order todiscover resemblances and differences, and why variant solutions havebeen attempted (and with what result) to problems that are often common toall (V. Mallinson 1975)

What is Comparative Education (2)?
Comparative education has four purposes:• To describe educational systems, processes, or outcomes.
• To assist in the development of educational institutions andpractices.
• To highlight the relationships between education and society.
• To establish generalized statements about education that are valid
in more than one country. (Harold Noah 1985)
Comparative education is a “loosely bounded field” and is “heldtogether by a fundamental belief that education can be improved andcan serve to bring about change for the better in all nations.” (R.
Arnove, Altbach and Kelly 1992)[Comparative education is] an intersection of the social sciences,education and cross-national study which attempts to use crossnational data to test propositions about the relationship between
education and society and between teaching practices and learning
outcomes (David Wilson 2003)

What is Comparative Education (3)?
The following definitions are included in the concept of CE:• A study of two or more education systems.
• A study of how the philosophy, objectives and aims, policy andpractice of education in other countries influence the generaldevelopment, policy and practice of education in a particularcountry.
• A study of how the development of education in the past, acrossthe ages and continents, has influenced the development ofeducation in particular countries.
• A study of the school systems of two or more countries, and of theadministrative machineries set up to implement or to control theimplementation of government policies at various levels of
education systems (Adeyinka 1994) [Nigeria]
Comparative Education is a fully established academic field of study
that examines education in one country (or group of countries) byusing data and insights drawn from the practices and situation inanother country, or countries [Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Tentative Conclusions
Changing definitions of field of CE indicate:• A move away from comparing educational philosophies,
ideologies, and practices for purposes of insight (verstehen)
and possible policy reform to an adoption of social science
approaches, methods and norms to study and compare
educational systems, or their elements• A growing diversification of definitions of the field of CE, andits purposes, with little apparent consensus• A growing recognition that educational conceptions andpractices in one part of the world influence/affectconceptions and practices in other parts of the world:
recognition of transnational influences, neo-colonialism, etc.

What is international education?
Two main conceptions of IE:1) Education that transcends national borders through the exchange(geographical mobility) of people--for example, when students travel tostudy at an international branch campus (cross-border higher education),or as part of a study abroad program (e.g., SUNY programs outside US,
Stanford in Florence, U of Chicago in Paris), or in a student exchange
program (e.g., Fulbright, Erasmus, DAAD, Monbukagakusho)
2) A comprehensive approach to education that intentionally prepares
students to be active and engaged participants in an interconnected,
multicultural world and dynamic global economy.
International primary or secondary schools (different languages of instruction,different curricula, aims, children of foreigners)

European schools (Savvides 2006)



International curricula in (national) private and public schools (Doherty et al.
2009)



7
International tracks (like IB) in state sponsored (public) schools (Weenink 2008)

4 Dimensions that Characterize CIE field
Institutional, Intellectual, Research, Policy-oriented

Institutional Dimension
Indicators of CIE organizational strength (infrastructure) at the national, regional andinternational levels
 University-based graduate CIE programs, CIE courses in other programs
 Research centers focusing on CIE issues and policies
 CE Professional societies (eg, CIES in USA 1956, CESE in Europe 1961, WCCES
in 1970, KCES 1970?, Comparative Education Society of Asia in 1991), almost 40
associations are members of WCCES Specialized journals, book series, yearbooks, encyclopedia, edited volumes in CIE
 Annual, or regular conferences
 Graduate students enrolled in MA and PhD programs in CIEIntellectual DimensionWhat is the intellectual corpus and theoretical substance of the CIE field?

What are the main theories and concepts used by (or available to) CIE scholars?



What philosophical and epistemological assumptions are present in CIE work?

Which theoretical paradigms from the social sciences and humanities have been
integrated in CIE?



What types of discourses are prevalent?

Dimensions for characterizing the CIE fieldResearch-related

What are the main types of research strategies employed by CIE
researchers?

How have these changed over time?

What data collection methods and forms of analysis do CIE researchers
use to study the phenomena, issues and topics of interest to them?



Geographical focus and units of analysis of CIE research

Policy-related

What is the role of CIE scholarship in policy formation?

What are the relationships between CIE research and policy recommendations?



How do CIE scholars study educational policies?

What kinds of policy-oriented or practice-oriented research are prevalent in thefield of CIE?



Who are the consumers of CIE research in the policy world?

This seminar concentrates on the research dimension of CE

Data/Information Sources to characterize
CE Research (and other dimensions)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Surveys of researchers and practitioners who are membersof CIE associations and societies
Surveys of courses taught in CIE programs
Analysis of literature: articles in CE journals, books, otherpublications
Analysis of citations/ references to work of CIE scholars
Content analysis of web sites presenting CIE programs

Advantages and disadvantages of each. Emphasis on (3) and (1)Relevant bibliography (select)
John N. Hawkins and Val D. Rust (2001) “Shifting Perspectives on Comparative Research: A
View from the USA,” Comparative Education 37, no. 4 (November): 501–506.
Heidi Ross, Cho-Yee To, William Cave and David E. Bair (1992) “On Shifting Ground: The
Postparadigm Identity of U.S. Comparative Education, 1979–88,” Compare 22, no. 2: 113–131.
David Post, Joseph Farrell, and Heidi Ross (1995) “Prologue to the Investigation ofComparative and International Education Graduate Programs in North America, Part I,” CIES
Newsletter, no. 108 (January): 4, 14, 18; and Heidi Ross, David Post, and Joseph Farrell, “Prologue
to the Investigation of Comparative and International Education Graduate Programs, Part II,”
CIES Newsletter, no. 110 (September): 1, 4–5.
Robert L. Koehl (1977) “The Comparative Study of Education,” Comparative Education Review(“Special Issue: The State of the Art”) 21, 2/3 (June/October): 177–194.
Val D. Rust, Aminate Soumare, Octavio Pescador, and Megumi Shibuya (1999) “Research
Strategies in Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 43, 1 (February): 86–109.
Angela Little (2000)“Development Studies and Comparative Education: Context, Content,
Comparison, and Contributors,” Comparative Education 36, no. 3 (August): 279–296.
Timothy A. Drake (2011) “U.S. Comparative and International Graduate Programs: An
Overview of Programmatic Size, Relevance, Philosophy, and Methodology” Peabody Journal of
Education Vol. 86, 2: 189-210.
Bradley J. Cook, Steven J. Hite, Erwin H. Epstein (2004) “Discerning Trends, Contours, andBoundaries in Comparative Education: A Survey of Comparativists and Their Literature.”Comparative Education Review,Vol. 48, no. 2 (May):123-149.
Shoko Yamada and Jung Liu (2011) “Between Epistemology and Research Practices,” Chapter
20 in J. Weidman and W.J. Jacob (eds) Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and Its Application
to Practice. Sense Publishers.

Findings from Survey of CIES members
Cook et al (2004) conducted a survey of CIES members based on 2000 membershipdirectory in 2001. The written and telephone surveys ended up including 419 usable
responses (70% from US; 30% non-US). Different languages used over phone. Closed
demographic questions; open ended ones re: the main themes (550), works (537),
figures (451), universities (240) and organizations (743) of CE. Sample: Relatively high% of women, younger gen, recent degree recipients, no regional specialization

Findings: Many themes, influential works and figures noted byrespondents. This reflects diversity of CE conceptions, approaches,
methods; Many voices, much inclusion, little consensus on borders“The field [of CE], as reflected by CIES, is composed of a membership whose
disciplinary lenses, research interests, and academic training are highly
disparate. While broadly situated to study the forces shaping education
around the world, the field of comparative education lends itself naturally toa multidisciplinary approach and is continually recasting itself as new
partners enter the conversation. And, hence, its boundaries are much more
flexible and pliant because of the larger epistemic contests facing othersocial sciences disciplines. It is also susceptible to a variety of calls forchange because of the polyvocality inherent in its member compositionand scholarly endeavors…

A paradox: A field with weak consensus, flexible
identity, few boundaries, yet strong growth/vitality
Because of the Society’s disciplinary eclecticism and open admission criteria, it
appears to be a group with a relatively flexible [and transient] professional
identity…. Because of its disparate nature CE is also being defined by a degree ofinternal antagonism and suspicion of any trend that seeks uniformity andby boundaries that are continually challenged, stretched, and blurred. It [is]a field…determined by the diversity of its research and interpretive enterprises,
rather than one that has any established or consensual agenda….Common points ofreference that characteristically unite other fields [are] thematic content, historic
tradition, or boundary continuity. Comparative education exhibits little or noconsensual references or orientations…
Despite its multifarious difficulties, the field exhibits continued vitality andgrowth. University programs and centers dealing with issues relating to comparativeand international studies are growing worldwide. Membership activity and interest in
professional organizations focused on CIE is multiplying. The field has grown from asmall enclave of scholars…in North America and Europe before WWII to aworldwide contingent of scholars, teachers, policy makers, and students. While there
have been robust and cumulative increases in theory and knowledge, the strength of
the field is that it is woven of threads of many kinds of thinking. As such, the field
seems to have a commitment to inclusion as a conversational andtheoretical ideal.” (Cook, Hite and Epstein 2004)

A more recent view: similar picture
Foster, Addy and Samoff (2011) in Int’l. Journal of Educational Development report ananalysis of 605 articles that were published between 2004 and 2008 in 4 journals:
Comparative Education, Comparative Education Review, Compare and IJED.

“…Our mapping effort [of CIE] shows clearly the permeability of field,
disciplinary, and methodological boundaries. The community of CIE
researchers moves in multiple directions simultaneously, does not
feel constrained by the walls that commonly separate, say, economists
from anthropologists or survey research from textual analysis, and regularly
insists that understanding education requires studying not only what
happens within schools’ walls but also where the schools sit and whoenters their doors.”

Findings from analysis of CE literature (1)Robert Koehl (1977) analyzed all articles published in the Comparative
Education Review (1957-1976). Defined “comparative education” as “thesystematic study of two or more systems of childhood socialization,
particularly formal schooling, and usually across cultures.”
Of the 386 CER articles he analyzed, he found (among other things):
Number

Percentage

Adjusted %One country only

162

42.0

53.3

2 countries

59

15.3

19.4

3-4 countries

20

5.2

6.6

5 countries

14

3.6

4.6

6-11 countries

34

8.8

11.2

12 or more

15

3.9

4.9

Indeterminate/
Irrelevant

82

21.2

-

Total

386

100

100

“Only about a third of the CER articles are cross-national comparisons”

Analysis of CE literature (2)Research strategies found in articles published in 3 comparative education
journals (CER, CE and IJED), in 1964-66 and then from 1985 to 1995 (every 2
years). Source Rust et al., (1999) Comparative Education Review 43 (1): 86-109.
1964-1966
1985-1995
Ten Research Strategies
TheoryExperiment
Existing Data Analysis
Literature Review
Historical Analysis
Comparative Project
Project evaluation/ Review
Content Analysis
Participation/ Observation
Interview
Questionnaire
Total
Number of Strategies
Number of Articles
Strategies per article

8
0
8
48
15
15
1

7
0
11
26
5
16
6

0
2
1
1
100
158
112
1.4

6
8
8
8
100
834
427
1.95

Analysis of CE literature (3)Foster, Addy and Samoff (2011) in Int’l. Journal of Educational Development report ananalysis of 605 articles that were published between 2004 and 2008 in 4 journals:
Comparative Education, Comparative Education Review, Compare and IJED.

Research design/ main method of the article
Employed Document Review or Historical Analysis
Case studies
Survey/Quantitative Analysis
Comparative studies (explicitly noted by author)
Employed Interviews or Focus groups
Observations
Experimental/Quasi‐experimental
Tracer/Longitudinal

Total
Number of Articles Reviewed

Supply:Published
ArticlesReviewed

Demand:Cited Articles

26
22
17
14
14
6
<1
<1

29
23
16
14
14
4
0
0

100

100

605

?

Why so few “comparative” studies in CE?
Most studies estimate the percentage of cross-national, cross-country or directcomparison studies at between 15-35% of CE articles published. (If you consider
papers submitted and not published, then percentages are likely to be lower). Why
then is a comparative dimension explicitly missing from the research carried out by
so many CIE researchers?
In a deeper sense, why is a comparative dimension also absent or weak in otheraspects of this research literature-eg, in the justification of cases to be analyzed; inthe literature reviewed; in the explanations, interpretations and discussion of theissues studied; and in the policy debates entered into?
Possible reasons:1.
Region/area studies were established and expanded in elite US universities (duecold war conflict and development aid policies) with funding from gov’t, Ford
Foundation etc.. They tend to be interdisciplinary programs with a focus oncase studies, and a relatively weak comparative dimension;
2.
Dominant orientations of leading scholars at traditional centers of CE graduate
study and research: U of Chicago, Teacher’s College, SUNY-Buffalo, OISE
3.
Dependence of researchers on funding/ grants from govt. agencies (USAID, etc.)that are interested in knowledge about single cases.
4.
Differences in disciplinary orientations: economics, demography vs.
anthropology or educational policy (sociology split)
5.
Other reasons?

To what extent does this pattern obtainin other countries?
Anecdotal evidence: (need to conduct a more systematic examination)
Based on my coeditor experience at CER, which annually receives about(or over) 200 manuscripts from all over the world, and increasingly from
Asia, I find a very large percentage of single case studies among thesubmitted manuscripts and little attempt by the author(s) to engage in an
explicit comparative analysis.
In addition, most case studies examine one country’s educational policies
in relation to a selected issue or topic(s). Few case studies attempt tojustify the case selection, to characterize the position of the case inrelation to others, to explain the relevance of the case analysis for othercases (eg, in a region, in a development category, among language groups).
Often, due to the paper’s weak comparative dimension, it is either not sentout for review (50%), or sent for review and eventually rejected (25%).
(This is not the only reason for rejection, but an important one, given thecriteria according to which reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts)
Obviously this evidence says little about CE research submitted to other
CE journals, esp in the non-English speaking world

Is this also the case in Japan?
Source: S. Yamada and J. Liu (2011). Authors analyse the ‘general’ articles in theJapanese journal Comparative Education (1990-2009), published by the Japan
Comparative Education Society. They find:(Japan) CE articles tend to be “…descriptive of the educational
practices of a particular society and foster an attitude of close
observation among the authors….The journal appreciates articles which
capture education in the web of culture, religion, history, and otheraspects of the social life of people in particular contexts, instead ofevaluating the effectiveness or the function of education (especiallyschooling) seen from the side of the service provider or outsiders.”“…The mainstream of Japanese CE is country studies, with a clear
effort not to link it to any agenda or theory, but to be precise indescription. While there has been heated discussion about theories suchas modernization, world-systems, structuralism, and postmodernism inEnglish literature throughout the post-World War II period (Arnove 1980;
Eckstein and Noah 1985; Welch 1985), Japanese comparative educationists
seem not to have needed the theoretical framework to demonstrate their
sophistication or draw boundaries from other academic fields.

Is this also the case in Japan? (2)“…12% of articles in CEJ [n=261] take the individual (learner or parent) as the unit ofanalysis. Among CEJ articles, the first six units which are smaller than a single country
constitute 72% of all articles. Only 3% of all CEJ articles focused on a unit larger thana single country. By contrast in JID and JICE, only 31% [of 130 articles] focused onunits smaller than a single country. 53% took a single country as their unit, with mostwriting about national education systems…”

Additional thoughts about thepattern in Japan (3)Possible additional reasons why the case study approach dominates the work
conducted and published by Japanese CE scholars: Japanese education system is seen by Japanese researchers as unique, deeply
embedded in Japanese culture, and not well understood by foreigners, especially ifthey haven’t done extensive ‘field work’; Japanese scholars tend to emphasize holistic accounts of education and society(how all the different aspects are interrelated: culture, religion, politics, etc.),
rather than cross-cutting analytical accounts of education and schooling; They view an education system as embedded in, and reflected of, the surrounding
society and relatively immune from external, sometimes pernicious, influences; Japanese scholars are often interested in policy implications for a particularcountry and not for a broader set of cases; Based on the above, it can be argued that many Japanese scholars project theseassumptions on foreign education systems. The kind of comparative education
research they value is a reflection of their own perceptions and assumptions
about Japanese education. “A thorough study of a foreign education system
requires a deep understanding of the society in question…” (Yamada & Liu 2011)
 Other reasons?

The Challenge: How to strengthen the‘comparative’ dimension in CE research?
• Begin by revising the training of young CE researchers/scholars in

•
•
•
•

graduate programs. Alter the messages (explicit/implicit) conveyed byfaculty. Reconsider the examples of “ideal” or “highly valued” CE
research in required readings and class discussions. Help students
reframe research questions and course assignments with a stronger
comparative dimension. Can one do good CE research based on
secondary sources, and not traditional ‘field research’?
In comments to colleagues during talks or on draft papers, indicate thelimitations of research with a weak comparative dimension.
Develop and organize conference sessions or book chapters that have aclear comparative dimension.
Change the evaluation criteria used by the editors of CE journals.
Other ways…

Questions for Debate
To what extent do the arguments and evidence appear clear,consistent and valid?
In what ways could the arguments, evidence andrecommendations be improved?
What, in your opinion, are the reasons for the prevalenceand dominance of ‘qualitative’ studies of single cases(countries/systems) in North America, in Japan, elsewhere?
Are there implications for the Japan Comparative Education
Society, and the (Japanese journal) Comparative Education inthis regard?
Other questions?

Thank you!
For more information:
Contact Aaron BENAVOT
abenavot@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
orabenavot@albany.edu

What is the Mark Bray and Murray Thomas “Cube”

What is missing from the cube?
26

Which Subject Areas are Taught Worldwide? 1980s and 2000s
Proportion of all countries requiring instruction in curricularsubject areas (n in parentheses)
Grades 1-3

Grades 4-6

Grade 7-8

1980s

2000s

1980s

2000s

1980s

2000s

Subject Categories(83-84)(122-23)(72-77)(120-24)(77-84)(116-123)

All Languages

100

100

100

100

100

100

Mathematics
Sciences

100
74

100
69

98
89

100
90

99
96

98
97

Comp. & Technology

6

20

5

29

17

41

Social Sciences*

78

79

96

97

96

100

Religion & Moral
Education

60

61

64

63

59

56

Aesthetic Education

90

90

90

91

88

83

Sport/ Physical Ed.

92

90

93

92

94

94

Skills &Competencies

72

53

83

68

77

67

Electives &Other Subjects

40

50

50

59

45

58

27
* Social Sciences includes social studies, history, geography, civics, citizenship education and environmental studies

Worldwide Prevalence of Foreign Language
Instruction in Grades 1‐8, Circa 2000, by Region

A world of change in baseline qualifications
Approximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualficationsin the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
1980s

1990s

1970s

1960s

100

%

90
80
70

1

13

60
50
40
30
20

1

27

10

1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes
2. Year of reference 2004
3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes
3. Year of reference 2003.

l

GreeceChile2

Korea

Ireland

PolandBelgium

Iceland

Australia

FranceOECD average

EU19 average

Luxembourg

Netherlands

United Kingdom3

Finland

Hungary

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

IsraelSlovenia

Austria3

Russian Federation4

SwedenNorwayCanadaDenmark

Switzerland

Germany

Estonia

Czech Republic

United States0High science performance
565
FinlandHigh average performance
Large socio-economic disparities

Average performance
15-year-olds
Highofaverageperformancein
science – extrapolate
High social equity
545
Hong Kong-China
and apply

CanadaJapan
New ZealandAustralia
525
Netherlands
Korea
LiechtensteinSlovenia
United Kingdom Germany
Czech Republic Switzerland
Macao-China Austria
Belgium
IrelandSocially equitable
505
Hungary
Swedendistribution of learning
Polandopportunities
France Denmark
Iceland Croatia
United States Latvia
Republic, Spain, Lithuania
Norway Slovak
Luxembourg
485
Chinese Taipei
Estonia

Strong socioeconomic impact on
student performance

Portugal

Russian Federation
Italy
Greece465

IsraelLow average performance
Large socio-economic disparities

Low average performance

445

16

Low science performanceHigh social equity
6

The global divide: Age–specific enrolment ratios by
age in the world’s richest and poorest nations
OECD countries:

Sub-Saharan Africa: By age 7, almost all
children are in school At age 7, only about 40% are in schoolAt 17 yrs, 30% are in secondary….but
20% still in primary At 17 yrs, 70% insecondary school
Primary

SecondaryPost-secondary

100%

80%

60%

age 24age 23age 22age 21
age 20age 19age 18age 17age 16age 15age 14age 13age 12
age 11age 10
age 9
age 8
age 7
age 6

Sub-Saharan Africa

OECD countries

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Proportion enrolled by age and level of education

80%

100%

Wealth disparities: Grade attainment by wealth quintile in
sub-Saharan Africa, South and West Asia and Latin America
100

Grade attainment
Latin America andCaribbean, average

OECD countries (Finland)

LAC, Richest 20%
South and West Asia,
average

SWA, Richest 20%

80

Sub-Saharan Africa,
average

Survival to grade (%)

SSA, Richest 20%

60

LAC, Poorest 20%

Children in thepoorest 20% ofhouseholds more
likely to drop outthat those in therichest 20%

40

SSA, Poorest 20%
SWA, Poorest 20%
Grade attainment by wealth quintile in sub-Saharan Africa,
South and West Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean

20
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9