Search results

Mixed methods research is an approach for blending quantitative and qualitative data analyses in a single study. It emerged as an alternative to the dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative traditions in the past 20 years. Some strengths of mixed methods research include the ability to generate and test theory, the capability to answer complex research questions, and the possibility of corroborating findings.

We argue the mixed methods approach fits well with comparative education studies because they seek to acquire data to make sound and meaningful comparisons about the experience and performance of education systems in different countries. By nature, comparative education attempts to explain why educational systems vary and to explore how education relates to wider social factors and forces. It consists of both confirmatory and exploratory inquiries that are based on the fundamental belief that education can be improved in all nations. Essentially, the mixed methods approach can adequately support the goals of comparative education studies, with its quantitative components serving the confirmatory objectives and the qualitative components attending to the exploratory end.

In this study, we conducted a survey of articles published between 2000 and 2014 in Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, and Compare to discern the changes in patterns and preferences of dominant research methods. By surveying the three major journals in the field, we hope to reveal the means by which comparative education is conducted in its constituency. At the very least, we believe our study can provide important reference points for speculation about where comparative education might be headed in terms of methodology and methods.

Comparative Education is conceptually difficult to define. It has been described as having an unusually wide terrain. It suffers from a host of identity crises, and this chapter enumerates and explains 10: deciding whether Comparative Education is a discipline, a field or a method, what does ‘comparison’ in Comparative Education denote?, the minuscule place of the comparative method in Comparative Education, the dominance of single unit studies, the dearth of taxonomies, the problem that globalization makes Comparative Education seems like a field past its shelf-life, the question as to whether Comparative Education should graduate to International Education, the fact that it can show very little evidence of achieving the lofty goals it purports to pursue, the many pitfalls in practicing Comparative Education and the lack of autochthonous Comparative Education theory. The chapter concludes by indicating the potential from other comparative sciences, in order to address this problem.

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.

We investigate the evolution of corporate risk management practices in Slovenian non-financial firms in the period 2004–2009 and compare the findings several surveys conducted for other countries. We mail questionaires to non-financial companies, where the target group included non-financial companies listed on Ljubljana Stock Exchange and the largest exporting companies in Slovenia. We find that the current use of derivatives for hedging purposes is still at a lower level than in the majority of developed countries. The great expansion of Slovenian economy in the period 2004–2008, the development of Slovenian financial system, the convergence of Slovenian and EU accounting standards and recent financial crisis did not sufficiently induce Slovenian firms to adopt risk management practices. The most often stated reasons for the low use of derivatives are (1) insufficient risk exposure, (2) problems with the evaluation and monitoring of derivatives and (3) the costs associated with the implementation of derivatives programme. In our opinion, the institutional environment in Slovenia does not induce managers to undertake proper risk management activities. We argue that not only managers, but also owners and creditors should be more accountable for the decisions they take (or do not take).

The main aim of this chapter is to argue that a sound conceptualization and methodology for measuring the quality of education is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for establishing a link between research and policy to improve the quality of education. The following elements have been provided to support this argument: (1) a literature review of the different concepts and methods of measuring the quality of education that are in place internationally, as well as their importance; (2) a UNESCO desk review of 35 developing countries to compare the way educational quality is featured and monitored in National Education Sector Plans (NESPs); and (3) case studies of two developing countries focusing on the implementation of research to measure the quality of education, its impact, and the link between research and policy. It was found that the quality of education is recognized as an important factor in most NESPs, but it has not been defined, measured, or interpreted in a consistent way. Furthermore, while sophisticated and innovative methodologies have already been developed to measure the quality of education, the processes of linking research results with policy still seem to be at a developmental stage. This is a challenge not only for researchers and policy makers, but also for development partners to ensure that (i) policy and planning become more firmly grounded in objectively verifiable scientific evidence and (ii) through its impact on policy and planning, research leads to improvements in the quality of education.

This chapter, drawing on my personal experience as the project manager for a large-scale survey – the European Survey on Language Competences – reflects on the aspects that influence my own research most strongly, namely the limitations of the methodology used in such surveys to produce data that can feed into policy formation and positively impact what goes on inside classrooms around the world. Future trends and directions for research in comparative education are then explored, where I suggest practical case studies focusing on comparative pedagogy within a policy learning approach as a possible way forward in providing a rich and robust supplementary source of evidence for policymakers.

This chapter discusses the main challenges in higher education comparative research, focusing on cross-national forms of comparison and presenting examples from European research. The first part stresses the importance of constructing concepts which can travel across countries. This part identifies the different vertical levels of comparison involved in higher education cross-national research, discussing how the need for exploring general patterns in higher education (e.g. globalisation and Europeanisation) is confronted with the importance of taking into account the diversity within the particular cases (e.g. institutional and individual experiences). The second part focuses on the equivalence of meaning in large-N (in particular, the Eurostudent and REFLEX datasets) and small-N studies, identifying the respective limits of the two forms of comparison. The chapter contends that comparative research in higher education could benefit from more collaboration between small-N qualitative comparativists and experts of large-N studies used in European policy-making.