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.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the major differences between the government's role in building energy efficiency (BEE) in China and three developed countries, and to further the understanding of market expectations of the most effective government measures to encourage BEE development in China.

The approach taken was: establish a framework for a critical comparative study; compare and assess the BEE promotion measures available to governments in the USA, Canada, the UK and China; survey the BEE market expectations of building design professionals to better understand the favourable measures the Chinese Government could take to further promote BEE; and triangulate the findings of the comparative study and questionnaire survey to develop recommendations for BEE promotion in mainland China.

Economic incentives are important for BEE promotion at the current stage, but they are lacking in China. Active government interventions, such as adjusting energy pricing and implementing BEE legislation, are needed in China if BEE is to become economically viable and efficient.

Owing to limited resources, the questionnaire survey did not reach every part of China. A further study should be carried out to extend the investigation to more areas of China and to obtain wider stakeholder coverage.

The originality of this paper lies in its development of a theoretical framework to further understanding of the government's role in BEE promotion and its use of first‐hand data collected from industry to verify market expectations of that role in China.

The primary aim of the paper is to draw attention to the similarities in the historical background and in the transitional period of the post‐socialist CEE (Central and East European) countries, which make this region a distinctive cluster in Europe.

In this paper, the authors attempt to supplement existing research by outlining the modernisation of a range of HR functions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and would like to explain how this special issue arose, to provide a historical perspective for the work undertaken by the Cranet research team from Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary and to outline the context and significance of each of the attempts at modernisation in the HRM field.

This analysis of developments, based on the Cranet surveys, aims to describe and explain the similarities and differences found among the three specific countries (Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary), the somewhat broader sample comprising the CEE region and the full sample of those participating in the survey. All of these signs increase the need for a contextual Comparative HRM model – which supports not only the snapshot analysis, but also a longitudinal one, incorporating both the path‐dependent and the path‐creation considerations of the changes taking place.

The need to understand HRM from a European – as opposed to a merely Western – perspective has become a dominant theme as the HR peculiarities of the new capitalism emerge. However, during the transition period, everyone needed – somehow – to meet the great challenge of turning the omelette back into eggs!

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 purpose of this paper is to empirically test two opposing theoretical hypotheses from research literature: low quality of public education boosts support for public education; and low quality of public education weakens support for public education.

The authors use microdata from 27 post-communist countries over a period of five years. This study uses two outcome variables in order to capture the level of support for public education: the willingness to elevate investments in public education to an important policy priority; and the willingness to pay more taxes to improve public healthcare. A series of logistic regressions is used to find how the outcome variable is influenced by six dimensions of the quality of the public education system.

The main finding is that a lower quality of public education strengthens the willingness of citizens to make investments into public education by: making it a political priority for the government; and through a professed increased willingness to pay more taxes towards improving public education. These findings remain valid for both years of investigation and for both EU and non-EU samples. In contrast, the authors could not find support for the hypothesis that postulates that a lower quality of public education will reduce support for public education.

The main implication of these findings is that despite the increases in availability of private schooling opportunities, the citizens of post-communist countries have not abandoned their support for public education. Even if citizens of post-communist countries believe that public education is no longer of an appropriately high quality, they continue to support the provision of resources to it in order to improve on the current situation.

The current low quality of public education can be seen as providing an impetus for encouraging support for public education.

In terms of policy-making, the findings demonstrate the opportunity to shore up public support for further reforms in public- education in post-communist countries.

The current education policy research literature is silent about the direction of the effect of low quality public education on the willingness to provide support for public education. Against this background, this is the first study which empirically tested whether quality of public education affect willingness to support it. Covering a period of five years, the authors test the above-postulated hypotheses using a diverse sample of 27 post-communist countries.

The current work provides a framework for the ranking of ontology development methodologies (ODMs).

The framework is a step-by-step approach reinforced by an array of ranking features and a quantitative tool, weighted decision matrix. An extensive literature investigation revealed a set of aspects that regulate ODMs. The aspects and existing state-of-the-art estimates facilitated in extracting the features. To determine weight to each of the features, an online survey was implemented to secure evidence from the Semantic Web community. To demonstrate the framework, the authors perform a pilot study, where a collection of domain ODMs, reported in 2000–2019, is used.

State-of-the-art research revealed that ODMs have been accumulated, surveyed and assessed to prescribe the best probable ODM for ontology development. But none of the prevailing studies provide a ranking mechanism for ODMs. The recommended framework overcomes this limitation and gives a systematic and uniform way of ranking the ODMs. The pilot study yielded NeOn as the top-ranked ODM in the recent two decades.

There is no work in the literature that has investigated ranking the ODMs. Hence, this is a first of its kind work in the area of ODM research. The framework supports identifying the topmost ODMs from the literature possessing a substantial amount of features for ontology development. It also enables the selection of the best possible ODM for the ontology development.

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.