Search results

The shift from data-informed to data-driven educational policymaking is conceptually framed by institutional and transhumanist perspectives. Examples of the shift to large-scale quantitative data driving educational decision-making suggest that data-driven educational policy will not adjust for context to the degree as done by the data-informed or data-based policymaking. Instead, the algorithmization of educational decision-making is both increasingly realizable and necessary in light of the overwhelmingly big data on education produced annually around the world. Evidence suggests that the isomorphic shift from localized data and individual decision-making about education to large-scale assessment data has changed the nature of educational decision-making and national educational policy. Big data are increasingly legitimized in educational policy communities at national and international levels, which means that algorithms are assumed to be the best way to analyze and make decisions about large volumes of complex data. There is a conceptual concern, however, that decontextualized or de-humanized educational policies may have the effect of increasing student achievement, but not necessarily the translation of knowledge into economically, socially, or politically productive behavior.

Since the 1970s, gender has been a research focus in the field of comparative and international education (CIE) (Unterhalter, 2014). The extensive work on the issue of gender and access to education by academics and practitioners has proven instrumental in elevating the issue to the forefront of global educational policies (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). More recently with the goal of increased enrollment achieved and global improvements in gender parity, the focus has shifted from access to agency and empowerment (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). From policy to practice, CIE appears to advocate for inclusiveness, interdisciplinarity, and contextualization in research and practice. This chapter interrogates the assumption that CIE promotes these same concepts of gender equality, empowerment, and inclusiveness in the field itself. Through the use of data published in leading CIE journals, the following questions are addressed: How are issues of gender and power manifested and addressed within CIE-related research? Is research published in the field of CIE shifting and adjusting to changing societal gender norms? A critical examination of the role of gender in CIE scholarship and practice challenges the assumption that CIE professionals and researchers lead by example. In other words, although CIE professionals and researchers “talk the talk”, do they really “walk the walk” when it comes to gender and education?

Osmosis is the movement of particles across a boundary until the saturation of particles has been equalized on both sides of the boundary. Although this term is most often used in biology, it is a relevant metaphor for comparative and international education (CIE), as the boundaries which define the field are permeable, with few limitations on what is and is not considered CIE. Previous introductory chapters to the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education have examined the professionalization of the field through the characteristics of articles published in prominent CIE journals. While drawing on a similar framework, this chapter, rather than examining CIE from the inside, examines the development of the field from the outside by considering what, where, and why CIE-related articles appear in journals outside of the field. In addition to data on articles from CIE journals for 2017, education-related articles from domestic and international journals with the highest impact factor from the fields of sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, psychology, and education are also included. These components will provide multiple points of comparison and discussion to examine how non-CIE journals include CIE related topics to identify which themes permeate the CIE boundary.

This chapter examines the trends in published comparative and international education research from 2014 to 2019 with a special focus on 2019 publication in open access journals and by authors situated in the Global South. In particular, two trends from 2019 are (1) the increasing number of research publications in the field of comparative and international education that are being published in online, open access journals and (2) the representation among these research publications between authors situated in Global North versus Global South contexts. Evidence from the six years of data collection suggests that single country studies and qualitative methods continue to dominate published research in comparative and international education journals. 2019 data also show that there are significant different in the publication trends in subscription versus open access journals in the field, and that authors from the Global South are more likely to publish in open access journals, especially if they are female.

Research has established that reflective practice is a key to professionalization, but reflective practice requires data upon which to reflect. This research provides a two-year synthesis of data on comparative and international education scholarship, and the institutional, relational, topical, and methodological characteristics of the field producing this scholarship. By examining the scholarship published in comparative and international education journals in 2014 and 2015, analyses empirically examined the researcher characteristics, content coverage, and methodological approach of this published work. The analyses reported here find that about half of the publications in CIE in 2015 were by single authors and focused on single countries. The dominant methodology in the published scholarship continues to be overwhelmingly qualitative. This suggests that scholarship in comparative and international education over this two-year period may be characterized as single-author, single-country, qualitative case studies.