Search results

In this chapter, we develop an argument in support of comparative framing in teacher education research with the purpose of strengthening the education profession and particularly the professional field of teaching and teacher education. There is little agreement in the field on the required knowledge needed to become a highly effective teacher and on how to know that teachers know enough of a subject to teach it. We argue that comparative and collaborative cross-national studies serve as ideal catalytic forces to develop much-needed ontologies to develop definitions and realize contrasts, possibilities, and limitations. The construction of ontologies supports the epistemological bases of the profession. Comparative studies help to understand what others with similar goals such as the education and support of teachers have been able to achieve under what conditions, resources, and contexts.

The significant contribution and relevance of Comparative and International Education (CIE) mainly depends on how closely it studies the interplay between society and education, considering what is dubbed as the global and the local. Many CIE studies including critical reviews seems to dwell on the topic, purpose, conceptual, and methodological aspects of the field, magnifying what appears to be the global. Our understanding of the role particular sociocultural, economic, and political contexts play in education seems inconclusive. Using appropriate analytical frameworks that delineate society–education dynamics, this study further problematizes the comparative and international elements of CIE area studies, with a focus on context analysis. The critical review considers area studies published over the last seven years in leading CIE journals and answers this question: How and to what extent do CIE area studies operationalize context analysis? The aim is not so much to bring consensus but to further highlight tensions and issues in conducting context-sensitive comparative and international education studies. The findings indicate that CIE research over the last seven years does not seem to live up to the expectation of producing meaningfully contextualized knowledge. The role of context analysis in CIE research seems ill defined and practiced. Alternative explanations for this and considerations for further scholarship are discussed.

The purpose of this article is to explore the methodological framework used for comparative marketing systems studies. To this end, a comprehensive literature search was carried out to describe and evaluate the comparative marketing studies undertaken to date. An attempt is also made to identify unresolved research issues in the area and an alternative methodology is suggested to develop an improved conceptual basis for studies in comparative marketing.

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.

Public administration as an aspect of governmental activity has existed as long as political systems have been functioning and trying to achieve program objectives set by the political decision-makers. Public administration as a field of systematic study is much more recent. Advisers to rulers and commentators on the workings of government have recorded their observations from time to time in sources as varied as Kautilya's Arthasastra in ancient India, the Bible, Aristotle's Politics, and Machiavelli's The Prince, but it was not until the eighteenth century that cameralism, concerned with the systematic management of governmental affairs, became a specialty of German scholars in Western Europe. In the United States, such a development did not take place until the latter part of the nineteenth century, with the publication in 1887 of Woodrow Wilson's famous essay, “The Study of Administration,” generally considered the starting point. Since that time, public administration has become a well-recognized area of specialized interest, either as a subfield of political science or as an academic discipline in its own right.

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.

Accounting historians have long recognised accounting’s international scope but have typically concentrated their research endeavours on region‐ or country‐specific studies, or on investigating the diffusion of accounting ideas, techniques and institutions from one country to others. Much potential exists to study the development of accounting from a comparative international perspective, mirroring the attention paid over the past two decades to the comparative study of international accounting practices and standards. This paper proposes a definition of comparative international accounting history (CIAH) and examines the nature and scope of studies within this genre. The CIAH approach is exemplified through an exploratory comparative study of agrarian accounting in Britain and Australia in the latter half of the nineteenth century. In the light of this study, the paper evaluates the potential of CIAH to contribute to an understanding of accounting’s past and provide insights into accounting’s present and future.

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.

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.

It is appropriate to begin with some observations on the development of Public Administration, for the development of Comparative Public Administration and its present problems are most clearly viewed in historical perspective: The logical problems are related to a chronological development.