Search results

This article is intended to stimulate theoretical reflection in international comparative studies in library and information science (comparative LIS).

The need for theory is emphasized and shortcomings in comparative LIS in respect of theory are identified. On the basis of literature from other comparative disciplines, a framework for examining issues of metatheory, methodology and methods is constructed. Against this background the role of theory and metatheory in the literature of comparative LIS is evaluated. General observations are illustrated using examples selected from comparative studies in LIS.

Much of the literature of comparative LIS is atheoretical and based on assumptions that reflect naive empiricism. Most comparativists in LIS fail to link their work to that of colleagues, so that no body of theory is built up. Insufficient use is made of theory from other social science disciplines. There is a little evidence of awareness of metatheoretical assumptions in the sociological, teleological, ontological, epistemological and ethical dimensions.

While general observations are presented about the literature of comparative LIS, this is not a bibliometric study. Issues of methodology and method are not dealt with.

Recommendations are made for improving teaching and research in comparative LIS. Concepts presented here are of value to the wider LIS community, particularly in internationally oriented research and practice.

Since the 1980s there has been very little conceptual and methodological reflection on comparative LIS. This article alerts the LIS profession to new thinking in other comparative disciplines.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

Utilising dialogic meta-narrative analysis, a form of inquiry based on examining the difference between voices in meaningful and relevant dialogue (Wegerif, 2006, p. 347), the purpose of this paper is to present an examination of three relevant works on theories of the global South for identifying educational patterns, themes, and biases from the worldview perspectives of the respective authors.

In comparative and international education “qualitative” research, the acceptance of differing points of view and reference have often resulted in a fragmented and fractitious affirmation of cultural relativity, whereby the pursuit of truth (Veritas) has been replaced by the pursuit and contestation of a plurality of knowledges and truths. Davies defines this as “discursive practice”, which refers to the way discourse and the production of selves produce and reconstitutes one’s social and psychological realities (Davies, 1999, p. 88). The positional and discursive worldviews relative to “other” are not only dependent on locational, contextual, and time (Zeitgeist) dimensions, but also on disciplinary methodological foundations and subjective interpretations of both experience and choice.

The analysis of the three scholarly works identifies issues of comparative education research from a dialogic and dialectic perspective, suggesting that relativistic notions of research are required and necessary in order to expand horizons and “break out of the box” to broaden one’s imagination.

The questions raised by all three worldviews require further research: Who pays? Who benefits? Should the field contest the positional points-of-reference of comparativists? Should theory and mode of inquiry be made more clear in order to understand and discern the positional authority of the researcher and the researched? Should relevant literature addressing subject material involve greater scrutiny – if not collaboration – between scholars from different worldview perspectives?

Subjectivity, validation and significance of findings contribute to dissemination and advancement of knowledge, and if not robust or rigorous, are simply another point of view.

This is a new paradigmatic approach to problematising comparative and international research from three positional worldviews. The value in problematising the three worldviews helps to delve deeper into the issues at hand regarding the global South.

Promotes and justifies a stronger comparative emphasis in the study of educational administration and management. Addresses questions such as, why adopt a comparative approach to educational administration? Why ground a comparative approach in culture? and, why focus on school organisation, leadership and management as the baseline unit for comparison? In systematically addressing these questions, the paper begins by acknowledging that comparative educational administration has, at best, a weak knowledge base. It goes on to clarify the potential importance of a comparative dimension to the field, and in particular, a comparative approach reflecting a cross‐cultural perspective. Finally, the paper briefly addresses a number of key issues which, it is argued, could inform initiatives to create a robust cross‐cultural approach to comparative educational administration

The purpose of this study is to better understand the nexus between environmental taxes and other environmental management systems (EMSs) and to propose an alternative framework for implementing environmental protection tax (EPT) in China.

The study uses a multimethod approach encompassing document analysis and comparative analysis. The archival data covers laws, reports, regulations, guidelines and standards related to the EPT and EMS sub-systems in China.

The study identifies several institutional features of environmental taxes that have not been fully explored in past tax research. In addition, the study reveals that information-sharing mechanisms are key to addressing the risks and uncertainties associated with the implementation of an environmental tax and that the mechanisms are grounded in the nexus among EPT and two EMS sub-systems.

The findings of this study have implications for the understanding of China’s environmental tax system, the Environmental Impact Assessment system and the pollutants discharge permit (PDP) system. The construction of an alternative framework provides insights for approaches to environmental taxation. A limitation of this study is that the application of the framework might be undermined by the inaccurate manual sampling, as some pollutants may be non-replicable.

The findings of this study are relevant to policymakers who are designing, improving or abandoning environmental taxes for alternate solutions to environmental issues.

The insights gained from this study may be of assistance to lower the risks and uncertainties associated with the implementation of an environmental tax.

The study contributes to approaches to environmental taxes by constructing an alternative framework that connects an environmental tax system with two EMSs. The framework lays the groundwork for some promising research opportunities. Additionally, the study extends the tax accounting literature (Hanlon and Heitzman, 2010) by connecting accounting and environmental knowledge and developing a transdisciplinary approach. The study also contributes to the emerging body of literature that addresses the challenges in implementing environmental taxes in China.

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical overview of the field of knowledge transfer and educational change and a discussion of the issues raised in the six papers in this special edition.

A theoretical analysis of the field of knowledge transfer.

The six papers consider issues such as the interplay of ideas between British and Indian educationalists, post-war debates over literacy standards, the use of curriculum materials for the process of citizen formation, the influence of international exchanges in the education of adolescents for citizenship, Vigotsky and the transfer of knowledge across time, space, culture, disciplines and networks, and the way constructions of Chinese identity within history books were shaped by knowledge processes that transcended nation states.

This special issue of the History of Education Review engages with new approaches that have become available to historians in the past decade illustrating how they might be applied for the first time to key issues in the history of education across colonial and state borders. It addresses questions about the movement of knowledge across national and cultural boundaries, and examines key problems facing educators in a range of colonial and postcolonial contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences between Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and Mainland in terms of education and also the influence of it on doing comparative educational research. Hong Kong SAR is ruled by the Chinese Government under the framework of “One country, two systems.” It makes Hong Kong SAR different from other Mainland cities based on different aspects including, education. The finding of this paper provides a systematic review about the differences between these two Chinese societies in terms of education and also implication for conducting comparative educational research in these two societies and also generating some implications for cross-national and cross-cultural study in education.

This paper made references from the framework proposed by Bray and Thomas (1995) in relation to comparative educational research to make comparison between Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China. Multi-level comparison is conducted between two societies in terms of education, especially aspects relating to conducting educational research sat social, school and individual levels.

This paper identified the influence of “One county, two systems” on education at different levels such as ideology, school management system and use of languages in teaching. Such differences affect the choice of topics, sampling strategy, research design, data analysis and interpretation and also ethical considerations when conducting comparative research between Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China.

This paper is an integrated analysis of conducting educational research in two Chinese societies and provides insights for further discussions and possible research about this topic.