Search results

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.

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.

This paper seeks to address the recent challenges in the international human resource development (HRD) research and the related methodological strategy.

This inquiry is based on a survey of literatures and integrates various comparative research strategies adopted in other major social science disciplines.

Based on comparative strategies found in other disciplines, the authors propose a framework to advance comparative HRD research and theory development.

The proposed framework emphasizes methodological consistency in HRD research and improving the relevance and rigor in theory development. It also highlights the required qualities of comparative researchers.

This is an initial effort in analyzing the emerging comparative HRD literature for an alternative framework to advance methodological research on HRD theory building.

Although many of the problems currently being faced in accounting education have also been expressed in educational debates within other professions such as medicine, law and architecture, changes in accounting education policy and practice have not been greatly influenced by comparative study of other professions. This paper aims to examine the potentiality of the comparative research method in order to inform the future direction of accounting education.

Comparative methodology has been defined as “a method of analysis that focuses on several objects of study in order to identify similarities and differences”. This paper begins by critiquing the comparative research method before considering how comparative research can make a contribution to research into accounting education policy and professional issues. The extent to which comparative research has been undertaken in accounting education research is then examined.

The potentiality of incorporating ideas from other professional education systems has not been fully exploited in accounting education.

This paper advocates comparing accounting education with that in other professions. Other types of comparative research, for example, international comparisons, are not covered in detail.

Accounting educators and education policy setters should be encouraged to explore the accounting systems of similar professions to generate new ideas for change.

The paper discusses how comparative study, with particular reference to other professions, can be used to inform change in accounting education policy.

Comparative education research in Japan is strongly oriented toward emphasizing fieldwork, unlike Western methodologies that aim for theorization. For this reason, it is sometimes regarded as peripheral research without a theorizing orientation or as a counterstrategy to Western research. This study examines why Japanese comparative education research emphasizes fieldwork, focusing on discussions at the Japanese Society of Comparative Education from the 1990s to the present, and considers whether the discussion far from aimed at theorizing. It can be said that Japanese comparative educational research, while characterized by a field-oriented orientation, has been trying to analyze the subject with sincerity through more in-depth fieldwork and is aware of the back and forth between theorizing and differentiation. Furthermore, recently, an international, agenda-based approach and the concept of transboundary fieldwork based on triangulation and Border Studies as a new way of looking at the field itself have also emerged. Therefore, it can be said that Japanese comparative educational research, while characterized by a field-oriented orientation, is increasingly aiming for a multilayered and relative analysis of the field, which is an argument autonomously derived from a focus on the field rather than being a strategy or a challenge to Western universalization-oriented methodologies.

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.

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.

Precise and rigorous international comparative research requires methodological reflections and determinations at each step of the empirical research process. This chapter analyzes the precision and rigor of international comparative higher education research by diagnosing their comparative methodology, particularly their country selection and case sampling. It evaluates 202 studies that have been published in journals of both higher education and comparative education, because international comparative higher education intellectually and institutionally intersects both interdisciplinary fields. The major empirical findings show a relative lack of explicit and elaborate justification strategies, as well as a lack of comparative methodology. But they also show that the intellectual and institutional context, represented here in the form of the journals, influences the implementation of comparative methodology. The use of comparative methodologies is more thorough in the context of comparative education, where a continuous debate about the theoretical and methodological aspects of comparative studies takes place. One of the implications of the study is that the debate regarding comparative methodologies within higher education research should be intensified.

Comparative consumer research is one of the neglected areas of marketing and consumer behaviour. This article advocates the importance and contribution of comparative consumer research to the field of consumer behaviour. Following a brief discussion of the “emic”, “etic”, and hybrid approaches to comparative consumer behaviour, the article focuses on the major considerations in the design of comparative consumer studies. It concludes with a brief discussion of the consumer behaviour and marketing areas which can benefit most from a comparative perspective.

The research aim is to investigate the impacts of comparative ads used by retailers to compare the prices of their store brand (SB) products with those of equivalent national brand (NB) products. More specifically, this research examines if consumers perceive retailers as legitimate when they use comparative ads to compare the prices of their SB products to those of equivalent NB products, and how effective are these comparative ads in terms of actual purchases. This research also explores for which SB type (economy, standard or premium) and consumers are comparative ads most effective.

This research investigates consumers' reactions to comparative ads used by retailers to compare the prices of their SB products with those of similar NB products through an experiment within a store laboratory. A between-subject design has been used. The participants of the first/second/third group (n₁ = 93/n₂ = 92/n₃ = 91) were exposed to ads comparing the prices of retailer's economy/standard/premium SB food products with their equivalent NB food products, in the same product category. The participants of each group carried out a shopping trip in the store laboratory.

Consumers consider retailers legitimate when they use comparative ads. This favourable evaluation improves their attitude towards these ads. However, the impact of retailers' legitimacy of (1) means, (2) objectives and (3) historical legitimacy on consumers' attitude towards comparative ads depends on the SB type (economy, standard and premium). By contrast, comparative ads are effective in terms of consumers' attitude towards these ads and towards SBs, along with purchase intention and actual purchases of these brands, whatever the SB type. Lastly, this research highlights that comparative ads for SBs are mainly directed at consumers with high levels of price consciousness and resistance to NBs.

This research only tested the impact of direct comparative advertising and an extrinsic attribute (price). The research experiment was conducted on a convenience sample, which limits its external validity.

This research encourages retailers to use comparative advertising for their SBs (economy, standard and premium) for several reasons. First, this study suggests that comparative advertising is an effective tool for retailers to shape or improve consumers' attitude towards SBs, via their attitude towards comparative ads. Second, this research proposes that comparative advertising contrasting the prices of SB products with those of NB products could increase retailers' in-store sales of their SBs. Lastly, this research underlines that comparative advertising is particularly effective for consumers with high levels of price consciousness and resistance to NBs.

This research supplements previous research in the field of SBs and comparative advertising. Previous research on comparative advertising has examined NBs exclusively (Dianoux et al., 2013; Beard, 2018). Comparisons between SBs and NBs are lacking. This research thus validates the use of this specific form of communication for SBs, given the paucity of studies of the effects of the use of mass media communication on SBs (Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk, 2014; Gendel-Guterman and Levy, 2017).