Search results

Many contemporary societies are experiencing a convergence between forces of economic globalisation and conservative ideologies that threaten to capture the educational space. Several countries are faced with the challenge of ineffective reforms apparent in increasing rates of school failure and poor learning outcomes. Never before have there been such striking similarities in the dilemmas and challenges faced by societies across the world in the field of education. Underlying these striking similarities are the unique trajectories that diverse countries have taken in their struggle to provide equitable education and preserve systems of democracy. As comparative educators, we need to take cognizance of these unique trajectories while engaging deeper with the postcolonial response to the challenges of failed reforms in education and development. Foremost among these concerns is the need to unravel the intimate, yet deeply challenged, relationship between education and society in a globalised economy. Using the heuristics of comparative education, international research will need to engage critically with the narratives of educational thought and practice emerging in these diverse contexts. Drawing upon some reflections from the South, this essay attempts to implore the critical voice of the comparative educator at a time when educational reforms driven by the agenda of internationalisation, repudiate people’s aspirations for an education that fosters socially just societies.

This chapter reviews the challenges facing educational research and knowledge production, in the independent post-Soviet Central Asia through examination of the case of Tajikistan. The chapter revisits issues discussed in Niyozov and Bahry (2006) on the need for research-based approaches to with these challenges, taking up Tlostanova’s (2015) challenge to see Central Asian educational history as repeated intellectual colonization, decolonization, and recolonization leading her to question whether Central Asians can think, or must simply accept policies and practices that travel from elsewhere. The authors respond by reviewing Tajikistan as representative in many aspects, if not all particulars, of the entire region. Part one of the review describes data sources, analyses, and our positionalities. Part two reviews decolonization in comparative, international, and development education and in post-Soviet education. Part three describes education research and knowledge production types and their key features. Thereafter, the authors discuss additional challenges facing Tajikistan’s and the region’s knowledge production and link them to the possibilities of decolonization discourse. The authors conclude by suggesting realistic steps the country’s scholars and their comparative international education colleagues may take to move toward developing both research capacity and decolonization of knowledge pursuits in Tajikistan and Central Asia.

The intervention of international organizations in the development of the Global South has been credited with expanding the freedoms, capabilities, and well-being of people so that they are more able to lead valuable and flourishing lives. There are, however, critical issues that need to be considered regarding the extent to which powerful donor countries of the Global North shape educational development work in the Global South. The need for education might be universal, but local communities should have a leading role in shaping its content and determining its goals. Drawing on postcolonial perspectives, we raise questions about northern involvement in educational interventions in the Global South including the role of loan conditionalities; the gradual encroachment of international business and corporate interests; the hegemonic control of knowledge; the dismantling of cultural values and ways of life; and the stereotype, racism and deficit perspectives that are frequently perpetuated. We argue for the need to rethink, reframe and reconstruct educational development in a way that will place the Global South at the front and center of the education process.

Through the ideas of and within Oceania that we outline, and within which we locate architecture and institutions for CIE regionally, we illustrate the identified turning points through analysis of dynamic and intersecting trajectories of the Oceania Comparative and International Education Society (OCIES), formerly the Australia and New Zealand Comparative and International Education Society (ANZCIES), and the Vaka Pasifiki, formerly the Rethinking Pacific Education Initiative for and by Pacific Peoples (RPEIPP) project. We offer initial responses to an over-arching theme in posing the question: how, and through what processes, have these groups influenced understandings of ‘regionalism’ for CIE within Oceania? This involves examining the conferences, financing, membership, the Society journal/publications and aspects of CIE education of the two bodies.

This qualitative descriptive research study served to clarify sustained social and economic natures of African business innovation and entrepreneurial development leadership. The research question included interviewed African leader participants (5), “How do you describe your experience in African leadership?” In-depth phone interview responses detailed familiar leadership words and phrases about historic, cultural, and economic environments. African leaders described how they understand, discover, observe, and share perspectives on African leadership experiences for personal hardship, survival, and societal, cultural, physical, and organizational change. Using phenomenological research methods, transcript analysis of interview experience responses integrated common properties. Verbatim transcriptions, and reading, sifting, combining, reducing, and interpreting the data collection resulted in thematic coding and categorizing. Investigation results included interpreted meaning for facilitated interactions in African leadership descriptions. Study conclusions highlighted many, varied, and unusual pathways for African leadership, rather than a single model. Sensitivities to participative, divergent, and non-linear thinking characterized transformational African leadership styles (Green, 2014). Possible research implications contributed to future work, connecting the study findings with Network Theory.

Taking an inter-Asian perspective on the perception of China’s rise and power shifts in Asia, this reflection draws on the examples of Hong Kong’s years-long pro-democracy movement, Taiwan’s democratization and India’s anti-China sentiments to discuss the growth of domestic and international discontents against China’s projection of sharp power, even military power, along its peripheries. The severity of these crises suggests that an assertive China has trapped itself in a perpetual cycle of intensifying authoritarian rule at home and seeking expansionary outreach abroad. China’s diplomatic and military adventurism is likely to antagonize potential allies, jeopardizing the hope for inter-Asian solidarity and cooperation.

The authors consult relevant secondary literature to contextualize the perception of China’s rise to domination from an inter-Asian perspective.

Following the end of the Cold War in 1990 and the demise of the Soviet Union as a Eurasian empire, some cultural theorists proposed a postcolonial, inter-Asian perspective to de-globalize the Euro-American-dominated humanities and social sciences, recognizing that many areas once deemed by the West as marginal and peripheral had contributed to the transformation of the modern world. The nineteenth-century Western imperialists and early twentieth-century Japanese militarists once deployed the geopolitical concept of “Asia” to advance their respective discourses of modernity and progress. Thus, the very notion of Asian solidarity or Pan-Asianism is deeply problematic because it reminds us of the entwined histories of colonial oppression and resistance against imperialistic intrusions.

The conventional “inter-Asian” perspective that emphasizes relational connectedness across and within nations does not seem applicable to explaining the troublesome relationship between American universalism and China-centric authoritarianism.

In today’s multipolar world, the USA and China are embroiled in a competitive relationship regarding the shape the global order should take. The recent US-China trade war is only the opening shot in the wider bilateral conflict. Behind this contest for global leadership in economic influence and technology is a serious battle of ideas.

China is still coming to terms with many unexpected consequences of globalization. Steady recovery gave China a temporary reprieve but the overall economy has weakened due to many years of trade disputes with the USA and the COVID-19 pandemic. China has yet to find a way to coexist with a fast-developing India, address the genuine grievances and demands for democratic change in Hong Kong and accommodate a stronger pro-independence force in Taiwan. To revive the vision of inter-Asian solidarity, China should build trust at home and abroad and reimagine institutional mechanisms for conflict resolution. Otherwise, it would trap itself in endless cycles of tensions and conflicts that benefit no one.

The rapid rise of China to power in the Eurasian continent and Asian waters has not only distorted the inter-Asian vision of seeking unity among postcolonial states but also accelerated competitions for territorial resources and regional dominance. By reflecting on the latest interventions of China in geopolitical affairs, this paper shows that despite the rhetorical appeal of horizontality, the engagement of many emerging Asian powers has diverged from the ideal of inter-Asian cooperation. The task for scholars is to gain a more accurate understanding of the fluid situations on the ground.