Universality of culture and neo-intuitionalism: Do they make a difference to comparative education?

Abstract

Comparative education (CE) addresses culture through the lens of global culture which increasingly puts so much emphasis on human capital. Also, convergence of educational systems has become one of the main issues of global culture in CE, particularly with so many nationalities melting into the global society to become part and parcel of the global culture network. As a result, these nationalities have been under considerable pressure to accredit and adopt similar institutional structures including models of bureaucracy, inclusive education, democratic transition, and spread of science which is based on universities and social sciences, all of which are considered as major knowledge systems. In addition, there are calls for growing interest in the contributions of neo-institutional theory as a distinct approach to the study of social, economic, political and educational phenomena, particularly in the field of CE because it takes into account the dual power of globalization and contextualization and accommodates the multi-directional influence on the macro-level educational phenomenon and both the institutional and individual level. Hence, the current research aims mainly at identifying the most significant changes in culture, particularly global culture. It also investigates the effective roles these changes play in the field of CE and their relation to the neo-institutional theory. Finally, it aims at developing a number of recommendations to promote the institutional construction of CE at the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities.

Keywords

Comparative education culture neo-institutional theory Egyptian universities

Introduction

Over the last two decades globalization tended to influence conceptual frameworks, researches and empirical studies within the field of Comparative Education (CE). In addition, Functional perspectives of globalization such as, neoliberalism and neo-institutional theory have had considerable influences in the field of CE, particularly in the formation and promotion of global educational policies and agendas as well as their relevant practices. Furthermore, it is clear that CE is significantly more likely to develop in different directions to what it meant over the last decades (geography of education or descriptive education), and that it is in a dire need of further new visions and reconsideration of its concept in order to cope with the current changes in society, economy, culture and education. For example, educationalists acknowledge the decline of nationalism and the growth of localism, and argue that “Distinction between developed and developing countries” has no longer to do with the current changes. Instead, they use another term: “Distinction between rich and poor countries.” In the context of present developments and in response to the current changes and transitions, CE seeks increasingly to emphasize the similarities of so many features and issues of education such as (Ungureanu, 2010):

Geopolitical areas, not countries.

The response of education to the labor market demands.

Complementary forms of assessment.

Change of infrastructure.

mpact of reforms.

Adult learning and E-learning.

Degree of decentralization and autonomy.

Comparative education addresses culture, as being one of the basic components of its intellectual construction, through the lens of global culture which increasingly emphasizes commitment to the logic of human capital (from professional learning to focus on the global knowledge economy) and human rights (processes of democracy, individualism, and social justice) (Carney et al., 2012). Furthermore, convergence of educational systems has become one of the major issues when discussing global culture in CE. On the one hand, CE theorists argue that both education and convergence are two phases of Modernism which arose from the myth of progress and which is guided by the logic of technology and science. On the other hand, these theorists face challenges of local law and legislation regulating the educational phenomenon worldwide, through shedding light on centralization of governments, and the policies of educational reforms in various national contexts (Schriewer, 2012a). In addition, various nationalities have been melting into the global society and have become part and parcel of the global culture network. As a result, these nationalities have been under considerable pressure to accredit and adopt similar institutional structures which include some models of bureaucracy, inclusive learning, democratic transition, and spread of science based on university and social sciences. All of these models constitute basic knowledge systems (Kamens, 2012). In this context, theses institutional structures would undertake defining and organizing the concepts and roles suitable for individuals, institutions, and nationalities in order to achieve a kind of integration between individuals (individualism) and national countries.

The above-mentioned idea explains the reasons that lie behind the growing interest in the contributions of the neo-institutional theory as a distinct approach to the study of social, economic, political, and educational phenomena, particularly in the field of CE. This is due to the fact that this theory takes into consideration the dual forces of globalization and contextualization, and accommodates the multi-directional influence on the macro-level educational phenomenon, and both the institutional and individual level. Key examples have included the use of information and communication technology in education and the availability of globally comparative data (Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral, 2013).

Moreover, there is a growing interest in the institutional frameworks of CE at departments of CE in the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities. Attention is also paid to the academic programs offered by these departments (undergraduate programs, post graduate programs, Master’s programs, and doctoral programs) as well as the scientific production of the scholars of CE in Egypt including specialized books, scientific conferences, and specialized journals in this field. In regard of professional associations, the Egyptian Comparative Education and Educational Administration Society, which was established in 1991 at the Faculty of Education in Ain Shams University, is the only association specialized in CE in the Arab world. This association undertakes several effective efforts reflected in the scientific activities it organizes such as symposiums, seminars, conferences, journals, and specialized periodicals (Mohammad, 2007).

Context

What are the basic tools of CE?

What are the delimiting lines between CE and other “foundations,” such as history of education, sociology of education, philosophy of

Education, etc.?

What is the proper balance between qualitative and quantitative studies

between theorizing and empirical approach?

Where does the area study end and comparative study begin?

What is the relation of CE and development studies?

What are the language skills that researchers need?

If we are to aid planning, what is the place of recommendations in comparative analysis and how do we preserve the line of demarcation between recommendations and moralizing?

These questions represented the core concerns and areas for potential or recommended development in CE. It is fairly easy to declare—almost 50 years after these questions were originally posed—that comparativists of education are no closer to the answers to these questions now than they were 50 years ago (Wiseman and Anderson, 2013). Some suggest that the reason why CE has not developed beyond the same questions, which were asked 50 years ago, is perhaps because scholars and professionals in the field itself are hindering progress (Epstein and Carroll, 2011). But the problem does not stop there. Educational studies—whether they are internationally comparative or not—borrow methodologies and theories from other social science disciplines rather than developing and celebrating their own (Foster et al., 2012). Some CE scholars have tried to contribute unique theoretical or methodological approaches in comparative and international education (Amos, 2012), but many have been eventually dismantled and critiqued out of relevance by those within the comparative and international education field itself (Crossley, 2012). So, comparative and international education scholars borrow methods and theoretical frameworks from sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics. And, CE scholars never developed or owned their own knowledge base; thus, they never become professionals in their own field. Instead, they are comparativists in the sociology of education, or economists who specialize in international development through formal education. But, other than in academia, nobody is a comparativist of education (Wiseman and Anderson, 2013).

At another level of analysis, the impacts of globalization raise the following question: “If globalization advocates convergence, uniformity and standardization of the global society, then what is left for comparison?” (Kopp, 2010).

Despite the validity of the above question, comparison has proven an indispensable approach and method. However, at the same time, CE must liberate its identity and reconfigure the components of its intellectual structure in accordance with the new facts which necessitate more in-depth comparison for the following reasons:

Educational phenomena and systems are still in a dire need of new maps charting and explaining both society and culture in the postmodern context, which would require further investigation, testing and revision of the new worlds of the postmodern culture. This would also necessitate seizing the opportunities to go beyond the familiar to adopt the new ideas and approaches (Weidman and Jacob, 2011).

Since the reason that lies behind borrowing the good practices from other countries is no longer in the front line, CE should thus go beyond facts and real structures (anything that could be presented through description) to address issues that are invisible, but are existing at the same time as a result of what is actually existent (impacts, effects, and trends). In other words: CE must abandon superficial judgments which determine what is good and what is bad on the basis of putting facts, forms and data together. Instead, it has to take into account the growing changes in the world through adopting fundamental assumptions, new values, new visions of life and new balances between science and mind, art and emotions, all of which have great and various impacts on the educational systems nowadays all over the world (Ungureanu, 2010).

Comparison itself is an indispensable necessity in making educational policies, reforms and implementations which in turn make the field of CE more important and related to educational researches and global decision-making than ever before. This inevitable comparison is significantly evident at both the macro-level and micro-level of educational decision-making, teaching and learning. At the macro-level, the need of comparison is significantly clear through borrowing policies which have been documented by researchers and scholars. On the other hand, emphasis on individuals instead of society inevitably leads to comparisons at the individual level from student to student, teacher to teacher, and manager to manager in educational contexts. This can be seen very clearly in the use of the rankings of students and the results of exams in many of the highest achieving schools (Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral, 2013).

Comparative education, as an academic course, uniquely offers skills needed by those who face challenges resulting from direct changes in the global system (how they think strategically and how they think flexibly). Furthermore, CE is aware of/and accommodates new situations so quickly and offers solutions for pragmatic problems (Degaeghere and Vu, 2011).

The most important reason is the fact that CE has a choice to be “…the voice of criticism and opposition, not only to face the imbalances of globalization, but also as a major function of knowledge-based science” (Kopp, 2010). Accordingly, CE has become as a conceptual lens which profoundly affects the interpretation and treatment of the academic parlance about education.

While CE faces criticism, criticism is welcome and necessary in the light of the above justifications as long as it would lead CE to change (as a science and specialization), to go beyond description and appearance in addressing educational phenomena, and to predict the educational context before taking place: “Comparative studies can be viewed as a laboratory in the social sciences, in which new ideas or theories could be discovered, tested, and verified or refuted. One of the functions of CE is to discover, test, and verify or refute new ideas or theories in education” (Yingjie, 2013). Other CE scholars suggest that the potential power of CE lies fundamentally in providing different ways of seeing the world, of going beyond and behind concrete examples of educational practice, with a view to indicating how they might be improved or how they might be explained (Dale, 2015).

Objectives of the research

The current research aims mainly at identifying the most significant changes in culture, particularly global culture. It also investigates the effective roles these changes play in the field of CE, and their relation to the neo-institutional theory. Finally, it aims at developing a number of recommendations to promote the institutional structure of CE at the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities, as the professionalization in the field of CE fundamentally depends on: (a) the establishment of a legitimate knowledge base through university (i.e., graduate) training; and (b) the development of specific professional networks and behavior guidelines through the establishment of a professional association dedicated to the unique concerns of the field (Wiseman and Matherly, 2009).

Research methodology

The nature of the current study, its subject matter and objective dictate that the researcher adopts the philosophical analysis method in order to revise and analyze the theoretical and intellectual frameworks of CE, particularly the intellectual construction and the changes it undergoes in its most important element, namely culture. In addition, several aspects of the institutional construction, through which CE is offered, would be analyzed. The research concludes with a set of recommendations that may be useful in developing the institutional construction of CE at the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities.

In the light of the philosophical analysis method, the research follows the following steps.

The intellectual construction of CE: transitions and culture.

Contributions of the neo-institutional theory in the field of comparative research.

The institutional construction of CE.

The institutional construction of CE in the Egyptian universities: suggested recommendations.

The current study presents the previous steps in detail as follows:

The intellectual structure of CE: transitions and culture.

The dynamic nature of thought in social sciences in general and CE in particular emphasizes the significant impacts of postmodern changes and transitions upon reconstructing the intellectual construction of CE since research knowledge is not neutral, but it is contextual because it relates to social contexts. Therefore, the visions and trends of thought of CE scholars vary as to the conception of CE and the components of its intellectual construction. As a result, there have been increasing calls for the recognition of plurality of CE. In this respect, Kopp (2010) argues that CE is essentially a theory and practice about crossing borders; and that its plurality is considered as something unique and unprecedented owing to its position between human and social sciences on the one hand, and its position between policies and practices of education on the other hand.

Bray (2014) emphasizes variation in the meanings of CE. He says, “In different parts of the world, in different societies, and at certain points of time, variation is evident in the meanings of Comparative and International Education.” Hence, geomorphologic transitions have greatly affected the visions of CE scholars on plurality and variation of the meanings of CE. The most significant transitions include the following (Benson and Kosonen, 2013; Bray, 2014; Wiseman, 2014):

Foreign aid policy

Multilateral agencies and governments, whether in rich or poor countries, have affected the extent to which certain countries have gained great recognition on the international scene.

This can best be illustrated by presenting both Nigeria and China as key contrasting examples in CE conferences. In the 1970s and 1980s, Nigeria was clearly present on the international scene for many reasons. The first reason is foreign aid projects in Nigeria. Secondly, Nigeria used its oil revenues to employ so many foreigners in its educational system. Thirdly, the Nigerian government offered financial support to many citizens to complete their higher education abroad. By the 1990s, the oil boom in Nigeria had declined; therefore, the offshore entities had become less interested in Nigeria. Furthermore, research conditions of non-citizens in Nigeria had become more difficult than ever before, partly owing to social unrest.

By contrast, before the 1990s, there were few research papers on China in the American and British CE conferences and associations. This is mainly because the Chinese government relatively adopted the closed-door policy; it did not allow foreign researchers to carry out researches there, and it also did not encourage Chinese scholars to go abroad. Accordingly, the British and American projects were clearly rare in China.

By the 1990s much had changed and many Chinese students had studied in the British and American universities. As a result, many of them learned English, had greater access to literature in English and communicated with others in English. Moreover, China has received a set of aid-funded projects from foreign governments.

Break-up of the Soviet Union

Being an influential country of the “socialist” world, the Soviet Union served as a major scene for comparative analysis. However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union into fifteen sovereign states has resulted in spread of the English language in these states more than ever before, but on the other hand it has increased pressures on the academicians to publish as a result of the practices of the United Kingdom with regard to research assessment. In respect of the field of CE, this transition has contributed to the expansion of the existing journals of comparative and international education and the emergence of new ones. For example, in 1993, the British journal of CE Compare expanded upon the topics it discusses to publish three issues per year. Then the number increased to four issues in 2003, five issues in 2007, and six issues in 2009. In addition, the sub-title of the journal has changed to become: Journal of Comparative & International Education.

Examples of the new journals in comparative and international education include:

Current Issues in Comparative Education (USA 1998).

The American Comparative and Institutional Education Review (USA 2010).

Increased funding pressures

Government funding for higher education institutes has been reduced to the extent that competition has intensified among these institutions. As a result, they sought to increase the non-governmental sources of funding through raising the tuition fees of overseas students. This is clearly apparent in Australia where higher education for overseas students has become a major industry. In addition, this shift has contributed to the growing phenomenon of internationalization in CE.

Technology

The growth in inexpensive air travel has facilitated the work of students and scholars who are willing to carry out researches outside their own countries. With the advent of the internet, information has become more accessible and available anywhere and at any time. E-mails have allowed academicians all over the world to communicate instantaneously with each other at a low cost. Furthermore, technology has changed the publishing industry: there has been electronic publication of some of the journals of CE, and so many journals have moved to electronic publication alongside paper-based publication.

Manzon (2011) claims that the above transitions have directly influenced the meanings and definitions of CE, and she argues that the academic definitions of CE are neither static nor based on intellectual criteria. Instead, they are dynamic and relational. CE is an intellectual field where scholars and theorists occupying hierarchical positions work and compete with each other to legitimize their definitions of the field. In this context, they use the scholarly discourse as a textual media through which power relations between knowledge and functional structure are codified into definitions of the field. While it can be argued that there are cognitive elements by which CE can be defined theoretically as a distinct field, the sociological dynamism of the intellectual field within which comparativists work, and their interest to preserve and increase their positions in the field by adapting to new structural demands and available opportunities offered by the institutions in which they work and the wider field of political–economic power, impart diversity and continuity on the intellectual features of CE, which affects the definitions and meanings of CE.

Culture in CE

Being one of the most significant theorists of culture in the 20th century, Williams (1985) asserts that culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language, partly due to the complex historical development of culture in many European languages. Yet, the main reason behind this problem is that culture is now used in numerous fields and thought systems which are distinct and incompatible at the same time.

The effective impact of globalization upon culture is clearly revealed through three main processes.

1. Presenting national cultural identities in a more powerless form than they actually are.

2. Strengthening local identities as a result of resistance to globalization processes.

3. Prevalence of new hybrid identities at the expense of national identities (Bray et al., 2014).

Bouman (2011) stresses the above-mentioned idea in a more metaphorical expression: ways of life are now drifting in diverse directions, not necessarily compatible, and are floating in a suspension of cultures. Modernity is like liquid and there is no longer any form of contemporary social life capable of permanence and survival for a long time. Thus, the anthropological definition of culture questions the existence of homogeneous cultures.

In the light of the foregoing, CE has been developing its conception of culture, not through the concept of national country, but instead through the most dynamic sense of the word “actor-hood” which is not limited to either spatial or objective perspectives. Kamens (2012) has emphasized three properties of the current international system that lead to rapid diffusion of cultural models of “actor-hood” for nations, organizations, and individuals. First, it is a decentralized system of nation-states with no authoritative center to impose rules or limits on innovations. Second, over time this system has become highly integrated as a result of the success of the forces of economic, political, and cultural globalization. Third, the cultural models are highly rationalized around universal laws and truths, promulgated by modern science and the professions, notably the law. As a result, they have high external legitimacy. Hence, culture is “Participation in a form of life” in such a way that makes the cultural and relational aspects of education at the heart of CE research to unveil human creativity and diversity (Malet, 2013).

Milligan at al. (2011) indicate that the common meaning of culture in CE postulates that no culture or tradition can be held in a distinct position in the game of observing the other, and that comparison for searching for solutions for educational problems requires that we handle these problems from both sides. Moreover, the concept of culture in CE highlights dialogue, or conflict at other times, among numerous voices (individuals, nations, globalization powers, and international and regional agencies) each of which attempts to defend a set of values, interests and goals through a complex network of meanings and various cultural models which are pervasive among countries, institutions and individuals, and which are significantly characterized by rationality on the one hand, and credibility from external powers on the other hand.

Hence, comparativists have to tackle the different aspects of globalization of culture, some of which are set out below (Kamens, 2012; Tarc, 2012; Xu and Hampden-Thompson, 2012):

1. Quick spread of the models of modern society because they are easily adopted at no significant costs, without necessarily re-organizing the society, and they carry much credibility and legitimacy in the international context. These models are based on: “Social and technological advances that make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works – artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles – in short: anything that can be represented in digital form” (Peters, 2012).

2. The key importance of international agencies for those countries which embraced modernism and its responsibilities. This means the quick flow of loans and foreign aids for these poor countries to enact modern institutional structures such as massive education reforms and implementation of democratic elections.

3. Growth of standardized values (unified) of what a country should be like on the organizational level, and of the goals and rules which should be included within its Constitution. It is widely acknowledged that, for example, citizens anywhere should be educated in modern schools until the stage of adolescence and youth. Given this consensus, schooling is expected to expand with support from various international processes.

4. Some countries may emulate other leading countries, in the hope of promoting and stimulating social development. For example, the Soviet Union and South Africa had been so quick in participating in the first sessions of international achievement tests to participate in the same rituals of successful nations. These countries do not want loans or aids; instead they are willing to gain “status” by joining the same agency (place) such as economically rich countries in Western Europe.

5. Weakening the “Charisma” of national countries which constitute a source of power, whether countries or moral communities. The question thus arises as to “how can these countries be different and distinguished if they adopted societal models similar to other countries?” Therefore, there have been frequent writings on what is now called “states without nations” or “stateless societies” to indicate the growth of internal diversity of countries and the global cultural orientations of their populations.

6. As is so often the case with countries, the same occurs at the individual level through what is called “Psychic globalization” which happens in two ways. Firstly, the “cognitive citizens” of national states are aware of their dependence on the out-of-country citizens. For example, those who work all over the world recognize that their destiny is dependent upon the success of the global economy. Secondly, the proliferation of international institutes like universities has resulted in a kind of demographic and cultural similarity among national countries in so many different aspects. As a result, peoples in all societies share similar cognitive frameworks heavily oriented towards universality. This is clearly revealed through the fact that schools and universities have transcended the national boundaries to share new curricula which increasingly introduce students to the regional and international contexts.

Having investigated the concept of culture (global culture) with its common meanings and standardized aspects, it can be argued that CE no longer needs to compare the West to the East or to pay much greater attention to the existing cultural and historical boundaries. Most importantly, CE should not interpret the non-Western educational systems through the lens of Western philosophies since globalization of culture has also removed bias in favor of a certain culture or society at the expense of another culture or society. Therefore, comparativists have to take into account both aspects when searching for appropriate solutions for the current educational problems. The question about the “other” nonetheless remains at the heart of comparison since knowledge in the field of CE is acquired through intercultural relations and at the same time is interested in the social rationality of national states by providing more role options suitable for both individuals and institutions to deal with global cognitive visions and to create what is called the “global citizen.”

Contributions of the neo-institutional theory in the field of CE research

The influence of the neo-institutional theory upon studies and researches in the field of CE raises many discussions among scholars and theorists of CE, particularly investigating the effects of globalization on education. While theories of globalization have provided many comparative interpretations for the reasons that lie behind the development, expansion, and change of the educational systems across the world, the neo-institutional theory takes a close look at the functional processes of change which takes place through explicit or implicit imitation, especially of the educational policies and constructions across the world. The neo-institutional theory puts so much emphasis on both culture and context, and its theoretical analysis expands to include both the macro-level and micro-level (Wiseman et al., 2013). Hence, it can be argued that the neo-institutional theory is flexible enough to account for both the formal and informal forms of education at the international and national level.

The concept of neo-institution presupposes that there are also old institutions which is governed by authority and politics. The neo-institution, on the other hand, is called “world society.” Having been applied in most CE researches, it has the advantage of reducing conflicts of interests in the educational contexts and outcomes through emphasizing irrationality at both the macro-level and the non-local sectors. This significantly means that much of educational impact and performance which reflect the national policies and the local practices exist in transnational places where the economic, social and political global ideologies persist through the developed institutions and multilateral agendas (Schofer et al., 2012).

The neo-institutional theory, which was laid down by John Meyer and his colleagues in Stanford University, is regarded as a distinct approach to the study of the educational phenomenon (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). Neo-institutional theory is part of a much larger branch of organizational theories that spans across many social science disciplines, but especially political science, economics, and sociology. One of the main reasons which lie behind the emergence of the neo-institutional theory is the permeation of a Western idea advocating the key importance of individuals in societal and organizational cultures all over the world, even those cultures and societies which did not embrace the idea. This has led theorists of the neo-institutional theory to consider the global expansion of mass education as a “triumph,” not because of the global spread of this kind of education, which means that the Western ideology is neither right nor better than other ideologies. Instead they attribute this triumph of mass education to its permeation all over the world although it is not related or appropriate to the cultures of indigenous peoples or local societies (Bromley and Suárez, 2013).

The neo-institutional theory has significantly contributed to the field of CE research through the following aspects and assumptions (Breidlid, 2010; Gross, 2010; Schriewer, 2012b; Wiseman et al., 2013);

The neo-institutional frameworks deemphasize conflicts of interests within and between organizations and emphasize how organizations respond to conflicts through developing a set of complex administrative structures. In other words, the neo-institutional arguments in CE research put much more emphasis on the impact of seeking to gain legitimacy and common expectations than vested interests of political alliances. This would help scholars in CE to understand the interests and actors as shaped by culture and institutions.

The neo-institutionalism locates irrationality in the formal structure of education itself, not in the outcomes of educational systems and schools. For example, in the societies where sexes are separated, there is a huge difference between females in their choices to reach high levels in academic achievement on the one hand, and the institutionalized sexism that characterizes formal education in those societies on the other. In other words, the choices of female students and their families are bounded by the available options in each culture. Since schools are institutions at both the local and global level of culture neo-institutional frameworks help CE researchers to locate the irrationality in the educational structure that both limits and expands opportunities for females at the same time. So, the conceptual significance of the neo-institutional theory is the ability of researchers to see the possible contradictions in the culture and context of the educational systems, not in rational actions themselves.

Neo-institutionalism focuses on nonlocal environments since local environments have much greater impact through the ways they utilize to create contextualization of educational organizations such as schools, political organizations, and non-governmental organizations; not through the direct impact on students, teachers, and parents. The neo-institutional frameworks in the field of CE research emphasize that the process of institutionalization has the advantage of reducing diversity within and across educational institutions although homogeneity itself is not always possible or preferable. Therefore, the neo-institutionalism argues that diversity and variance in the expectations, criteria, practices, and structures of education create an atmosphere of organizational stability and organic isomorphism within and across organizations.

Neo-institutionalism suggests that institutions are macro-level abstractions. Accordingly, education can be described as an institution characterized by impersonal rationality or as an entity independent of any other institutions. In other words, institutions consist of considerably trustworthy rules and classifications, cultural standards, and values that are acceptable only to a certain society, whether this society is the local surrounding of a school or a regional alliance consisting of several countries. In this way, educational systems in the societies which are totally far from the Western model (such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) have the ability to align the construction and policies of their education to the Western model, while at the same time preserving the significant elements of their traditional culture (such as separation of sexes in education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

Neo-institutionalism asserts that institutionalization is a process which makes schools all over the world less institutionally rational through reducing the range of options they can seek either as organizations, or individuals or groups within schools (administrators, teachers, and classes). This respectively means that rationality, within certain limits, is an essential element of the process of globalization and can account for some forms of educational development and change which comparativists have been pursuing all over the world.

For example, class teachers, school administrators and policy-makers at the ministerial level are frequently working with the same mental model which presupposes equal treatment and activities for students coming from widely diverse backgrounds and communities. This is evident in the nature of curricula designed by national and local experts as well as in the policies of equal treatment within schools that are enacted and enforced by local law. Yet, the fact still remains that students have various patterns of learning, preparation and ability levels, and that school environments vary greatly within and across educational systems. It is significantly clear that opportunities for access to education as well as its outcomes are still unequal all over the world in spite of the policies of educational equality which characterize the formal structures and policies of national educational systems.

6. Neo-institutionalism emphasizes the relationship between schools and their environments to reveal the aspects that are contrary to schools and the formal interests of educational systems. One example is the fact that formal education operates within the context of violent conflict in so many parts of the world. From post-conflict communities in Sudan and Liberia to active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, schools are expected to provide much more stability and security for both teachers and students.

Despite the controversies surrounding the ideological tradition through which education can be provided in conflict and post-conflict communities, multinational governments and organizations have proven successful through designing standardized curricula in Mathematics, Science and Language, in addition to some other subjects which do not often address or even ignore the daily situation of violent conflict in the lives of students, teachers and society.

7. Neo-institutionalism stresses the role of culture in shaping the organizational reality within schools and educational systems all over the world. Culture is not merely what students and teachers bring to schools, but it is also a set of traditions, habits, rituals and expectations imposed upon schools by both policy-makers and public. It is worth mentioning that there are organizational cultures emerging from within schools and transcending both society and the educational system.

This is the way through which textbooks are centrally implemented and frequently used in classrooms and schools, even if the content of these books may not be appropriate or valid at all. Textbooks in many schools and local communities in African countries, for example, are the same textbooks donated by Western aid organizations and often come from Europe or North America. These textbooks represent the language, values, experiences and ideas of the Western culture. However, organizational culture in schools cannot easily reject such textbooks which are frequently adopted and used to varying degrees rather than totally changed since they are not related to the educational reality within these schools.

8. Neo-institutionalism has brought back culture as a dynamic causal force in determining educational development, explicitly in the form of world culture and its influence on formal education (Baker and LeTendre, 2005). This advantage has broadened comparative research on education in the past several decades to go beyond educational expansion by examining the substance of curriculum and values spread by worldwide education (Wiseman and Baker, 2006).

9. Neo-institutionalism theory provides a rationale for unique empirical descriptions of factors in education that often went unobserved and untheorized before the application of institutional theory to comparative research on education. Some of these factors include the global homogeneity of education, the unique differences between schools within individual nations, and the isomorphic change in school structure, curricular content, and educational impact occurring over time (Jepperson, 2002; Wiseman and Baker, 2006).

The above-mentioned assumptions indicate that bounded rationality, environmental relativity, and alignment between different cultures represent forms of problems and challenges that comparativists investigate. Although the neo-institutional theory with its multiple approaches to CE may be inconsistent with political agenda and conflict-oriented interpretations of educational phenomena, there are moments and contexts in which the effect of power differences and conflicts on educational transitions are significantly clear. This has provided CE researchers with broader frameworks with which global educational phenomena are explained (Wiseman et al., 2013).

On the other hand, the neo-institutional theory has expanded to include several levels of analysis and various conceptual approaches to tackle the elements which have not been addressed in depth in the literature of CE, particularly the levels of analysis and the roles of actors in educational phenomena at both the micro and macro levels.

The neo-institutionalism argues the inevitability and significance of comparison since expectations and common meaning (at the level of individuals, organizations, and global institutions) are the result of comparison and common expectations, even if they are party the outcome of human rights instruments which postulate that education is a right, is free and a necessity as an indicator of healthy societies as well as their political and economic systems. Thus, comparison remains an essential motive for preserving these norms, even if there is a clear gap between the actual educational practices and these norms.

The institutional construction of CE

The institutional construction of CE did not only emerge from intellectual efforts, but it was also the result of the effects of political and pragmatic factors. Institutional organization does not necessarily follow cognitive criteria alone, but there is a complex interaction of societal power at the macro and intermediate structural level one hand, and the political interests in the field at the micro-level.

Epstein identified five criteria of the organizational construction of CE: academic courses, textbooks and journals, academic programs in universities, professional associations and databases expansion to document and analyze courses and programs in order to develop the field of CE (Epstein, 2008). Accordingly, CE, in its institutional construction, is a profession and has the fundamental characteristics of a profession that Abbott (1988) defines as: (a) expert knowledge; (b) training and credentials; (c) self-policing and ethical codes; (d) occupational domain; and (e) the workplace.

Of these criteria and characteristics, the current study addresses the institutional construction of CE through the following aspects.

Academic courses and programs in academic institutions

Many scholars have provided different working definition of CE programs. Bergh et al. (1999) define a program as an academic offering leading to the awarding of a degree or a corresponding qualification. A course, on the other hand, is a component/or a building block of a program. He also distinguishes between teaching CE as a core course and as a serving course. CE is a core course in specialized programs of CE and a serving course, whether optional or compulsory, in programs of other specializations such as adult learning and educational administration (Bergh et al., 1999).

Walterová (2008) cites three models of teaching CE which are taken from the context of the Czech Republic to be widely applied in other countries. These models are as follows:

(a) CE as an independent compulsory specialization. This model is so common in the Faculties of Education.

(b) CE as a compulsory element or component in an introductory course about general education which is so often associated with the history of education.

(c) Teaching CE as selected topics within several courses such as school policy, European Studies, and methodology of educational research.

Comparative education is usually, either a separate discipline or academic course, taught in Faculties of Education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. According to a survey conducted in 2008 and encompassing 50 countries, CE exists in universities as follows (Wolhurter et al., 2008):

As a specialist program at the bachelor level in two countries (4%), namely Norway and Taiwan, and at the Master’s level in 14 countries (28%).

As a compulsory course entitled “Comparative Education” taught through lectures at the Bachelor level in 27 countries (60%) and as an optional course in 18 countries (40%).

It should be noted that around half of the countries surveyed indicate that compulsory teaching of CE is usually up to universities and their judgments except for three countries, namely Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Spain, where teaching of CE is a nationally compulsory course at the Bachelor level.

Concerning the membership for the previous two categories, Wiseman and Matherly (2009) identified three main categories of members’ institutional affiliations, which are:

University or tertiary education. The members included in this category are affiliated with a university or other tertiary educational institution (such as a community or technical college) as their primary institutional affiliation. Examples include the larger, more well-known universities with comparative and international education programs like Stanford and Teachers College.

Development, research, and policy. Members included in this category are affiliated with a development, research, or policy organization as their primary institutional affiliation. Development organizations are those that are primarily financial, such as the World Bank, as well as those that address social justice and community development. Research organizations are those that may be involved in development or policy as well, but are largely focused on the collection, analysis, and interpretation of comparative and international education data. Finally, policy organizations are those that count among their primary functions the analysis and development of educational policy.

Education (other). The members in this category are affiliated with educational organizations that are not at the tertiary level and could be either classroom- or administration-related.

Professional societies

Formation of professional associations is considered as another institutional form of CE. Associations of scholars have the advantage of promoting and facilitating the dissemination of the field regardless of institutional boundaries. They are particularly significant for interdisciplinary sciences such as CE (Manzon, 2011). In this respect, Cowen (2009) stresses that scholar networks (journals, centers, and associations) provide significant indications of the introduction, supply and demand of the field on a global basis. For example, the North America-based Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), the largest society among members of the World Congress of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES), had approximately 2500 individual members in 2013, which is nearly twice what it had in 2000. Also, as of 2001, more than half (52%) of the CIES members had joined after 1990. This steep growth has continued for two decades. A similar phenomenon occurred with the Japan Comparative Education Society (JCES), whose membership also doubled, from 601 in 1990 to 1153 in 2010 (information provided by JCES secretariat). The growth in membership was particularly significant after the 1990s in both organizations. While the increasing size of the society would be an indicator of the liveliness of the academic field, it also hints at a further dispersion in terms of methodology, epistemology, and practice (Yamada, 2015).

At the micro-level, political and pragmatic reasons lie behind the formation of many national and regional associations of CE. These professional associations strive for excellence in the WCCES, partly in order to lend credibility and legitimacy to their existence on both the national and international scene as a large entity on par with other large entities, regardless of their unequal political, economic, and academic power. This is evidenced in the fact that some leaders of CE associations (for example in Australia, Cuba, Spain, and Turkey) acknowledged that the formation of CE societies was merely to be representative in the WCCES. In other cases, the formation of CE societies reflect struggle for power (positions) and institutional resources. Moreover, the dynamism of the intellectual field of CE has resulted in competition for excellence among participants in the CE societies and dissemination of these associations all over the world (Manzon, 2011).

Specialist publications

Publications of scientific books, textbooks, and encyclopedias represent the key means of laying the pillars of CE as well as of transferring accumulated knowledge. Journals and periodicals are also considered as the major tools for comparativists to gain access to the latest developments in the field of CE (Arnove, 2010). Epstein (2008) points out the importance of specialized publications as the most powerful tools for the discursive construction since they are easily accessible to a broad audience and ensure the continuity of academic programs. He also argues that the value of journals lies in laying the scholar foundations and quality standards of CE and strengthening the sense of identity about the field.

Thus, it can be said that the institutional construction of CE is significantly affected by both contextual and sociological powers, and that the intellectual tracks of CE as a science and approach may vary and diverge. Yet, the forms of institutional construction can be a significant tool in the critical analysis of the nature of CE as well as its contextual and cultural determinants.

Institutional constructions of CE in the Egyptian universities: Suggested recommendations

The institutional construction of CE in the Egyptian universities is based on the following orientations:

Education, as being the main issue of CE, is the new philosophy and the key to contemporary analysis in the postmodern era regarding knowledge, experience, concepts, analysis, application, learning and pedagogy, which focuses on how humans come to know and be (Kalantzis and Cope, 2014).

Though globalization has given birth to standardization and convergence of the global society, the art of comparison still remains the king’s road to knowledge as argued by Menzel (2004).

Comparativists must possess a set of intellectual and conceptual tools and a base of empirical evidences of continuous development as a basis of how to think. They also must approach educational problems and phenomena.

Research knowledge is not neutral. Instead, it is contextual and has to do with social settings and the prevailing culture in these settings.

To compare means to change visions and to emphasize the meaning of questions in comparative research rather than of data quality since questions reflect researcher’s points of view on the observed educational phenomenon (Kopp, 2010).

The theoretical foundation laid by sociological neo-institutionalism suggests that university programs and professional associations in any field become institutionalized as professional entities and structures through a process of legitimation. This process occurs as these associations and programs follow established and accepted scripts for legitimate activity and content (Jepperson, 2002; Wiseman and Matherly, 2009).

With the increase in the number of participating scholars and changes in the research environment in the globalized world, the academic identity of CE is ever more contested at both global and national levels (Yamada, 2015).

These orientations raise so many questions which require close attention of the thinkers and scholars of CE in the Egyptian Faculties of Educations to offer appropriate answers for these questions and to adopt a different vision and perspective through the institutional forms of CE in these faculties. Examples of these questions are listed below (Yingjie, 2013):

Should we seek to provide a standard definition of the field or allow for multiplicity and variance of definitions?

Should we set clear limits for the field or merely borrow models from other social sciences?

Should we consider a national country as a building block of our study? Or should we go further to different levels within the national country boundaries?

Should international borrowings be the major objective in the field of CE? Or should we go beyond to the understanding of different cultures?

Should the studies of CE search for new theories of learning? Or should they instead contribute to understanding and evaluation of education in other countries?

And as a profession, Wiseman and Matherly (2009) pose two fundamental research questions: First, do university programs and professional associations in comparative and international education contribute to the development of or secure control over expert knowledge, training, and credentials? Second, has the merging of “comparative” and “international” education contributed to the professionalization of the field?

These questions highlight the great importance of practicing critical functions for the thinkers and scholars of CE in the Egyptian universities for the purpose of exploring new knowledge, acquiring much awareness of the shortcomings in the current forms of the institutional construction of CE, and sharing experiences with their peers in the Egyptian universities. This would result in unveiling the reality of the Egyptian education and carrying out a better analysis through the study of the “Other” since the service of the educational community is continually representing the ultimate aim and motive behind the studies and researches of CE.

It is worth noting that CE has increasingly developed in the Egyptian universities through different institutional forms such as academic programs and courses, textbooks and journals, conferences and symposiums, in addition to professional associations represented in the Egyptian Society of Comparative Education and Educational Administration. Yet, CE is constantly changing due to the impact of its intellectual components and empirical evidences upon knowledge societies, and the postmodern innovations from the emergence of concepts of nation and citizenship to the growth of individualism and globalization. All of these factors are reflected in the levels of comparative analysis. Hence, it can be argued that institutional construction of CE in the Egyptian universities still needs the following recommendations:

Reconsideration of the course description of CE which is taught at the Bachelor level in the Faculties of Education as well as the textbooks of this course to be consistent with both contemporary trends of thought in the field of CE and the new conception of learning in the 21st century.

Emphasizing the global standards and the best practices when developing the academic programs and courses of CE in the Egyptian universities, particularly at the postgraduate, Master’s and doctoral level.

Encouraging Master’s and doctoral students to research and study the contributions of the neo-institutional theory and its approaches, particularly the global culture approach. This has a significant impact on the analysis and interpretation of education in the field of CE.

Motivating students, through seminars held by CE departments in the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities, to employ the latest approaches in Master’s and doctoral research, particularly the trans-regional analysis and the time-series analysis approaches.

Establishing an electronic network that facilitates communication among the departments of CE in the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities to exchange experiences in the field, particularly with teaching staff members and researchers in remote governorates.

Promoting uniformity and standardization among departments of CE in the Egyptian universities and the corresponding departments in other countries with the purpose of achieving mutual benefit and participating in the educational experiences and intellectual frameworks of CE.

Formulating an intellectual map of the changes in concepts of the intellectual construction of CE as well as explaining these changes to Master’s and doctoral students through lectures and seminars.

Establishing a specialized database of Master’s and doctoral dissertations in the field of CE, benefiting from its results and activating its recommendations in order to develop the institutional construction of CE in the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities.

Allotting a part of the seminars held at the departments of CE in the Faculties of Education in Egyptian universities to put forward new ideas and concepts for discussion among teaching staff members and CE scholars. In this context, different topics can be addressed, for example, comparison as an evaluation tool, global culture theory and its multiple effects in achieving convergence and homogeneity among educational systems and changing the levels of comparative analysis, stimulants to dissemination of global culture and its “actor-hood” models at the levels of countries, organizations and individuals, and the impact of the neo-institutional theory upon the institutions of education at the micro-level.

To ensure leadership continuity of the Egyptian Association of Comparative Education and Educational Administration which is considered the only association specialized in CE in the Arab world, it needs the following recommendations:

◦ Creating an electronic website for the association which gives an overview of its history as well as it various activities for the promotion and advancement of CE in Egypt and the Arab world. In addition, this website should be provided with a database of the members of the association and their researches, the annual conferences held by the association, and the different issues of the official journal, namely the Journal of Education (electronic publishing).

◦ Allotting a section of the journal to discussion of the renewably controversial scientific and intellectual issues, and to researches of the theorists and scholars of CE all over the world.

◦ The journal should be issued regularly at a particular time of year even if there are no published researches. Issuance of the journal should not also be delayed due to administrative or technical obstacles (e.g., printing problems) since regular publication is regarded as one of the most essential criteria of scientific journals and periodicals all over the world.

◦ Promoting communication with the WCCES to benefit from all that is new in the field as well as introducing the significant efforts and the various activities of the Egyptian Association Association of Comparative Education and Educational Administration through an English periodical that publicizes the work of the association.

Conclusion

Over the last two decades, CE has faced severe criticism regarding its traditional methods in dealing systematically with new problems, and abrupt changes and issues. In this respect, it is so limited in the description, presentation and comparison of data. At the same time this raises the following question: “If globalization advocates convergence, uniformity and standardization of the global society, then what is left for comparison?” Despite the validity of the above question, comparison has proven an indispensable approach and method. However, at the same time, CE must liberate its identity and reconfigure the components of its intellectual structure in accordance with the new facts which necessitate more in-depth comparison.

Accordingly, the dynamic nature of thought in social sciences in general and CE in particular emphasizes the significant impacts of postmodern changes and transitions upon reconstructing the intellectual construction of CE since research knowledge is not neutral, but it is contextual since it relates to social contexts. Therefore, the visions and trends of thought of CE scholars vary as to the conception of CE and the components of its intellectual construction. As a result, there have been increasing calls for the recognition of plurality of CE, and that its plurality is considered as something unique and unprecedented owing to its position between human and social sciences on the one hand, and its position between policies and practices of education on the other hand.

With regard to culture, the effective impact of globalization upon it is clearly revealed through three main processes: (a) presenting national cultural identities in a more powerless form than they actually are; (b) strengthening local identities as a result of resistance to globalization processes; and (c) prevalence of new hybrid identities at the expense of national identities. Hence, comparativists have to tackle the different aspects of globalization which interpret the common meaning of culture in CE and postulate that no culture or tradition can be held in a distinct position in the game of observing the other; and that comparison for searching for solutions for educational problems requires that we handle these problems from both sides. Moreover, the concept of culture in CE highlights dialogue, or conflict at other times, among numerous voices (individuals, nations, globalization powers, and international and regional agencies) each of which attempts to defend a set of values, interests, and goals through a complex network of meanings and various cultural models which are pervasive among countries, institutions, and individuals, and which are significantly characterized by rationality on the one hand, and credibility from external powers on the other hand.

World culture as well explains the influence of the neo-institutional theory upon studies and researches in the field of CE, particularly investigating the effects of globalization on education. While theories of globalization have provided many comparative interpretations for the reasons that lie behind the development, expansion, and change of the educational systems across the world, the neo-institutional theory takes a close look at the functional processes of change which take place through explicit or implicit imitation, especially of the educational policies and constructions across the world. The neo-institutional theory puts so much emphasis on both culture and context, and its theoretical analysis expands to include both the macro-level and micro-level (Wiseman et al., 2013). Hence, it can be argued that the neo-institutional theory is flexible enough to account for both the formal and informal forms of education at the international and national level.

The neo-institutionalism argues the inevitability and significance of comparison since expectations and common meaning (at the level of individuals, organizations, and global institutions) are the result of comparison and common expectations, even if they are party the outcome of human rights instruments which postulate that education is a right, is free, and a necessity as an indicator of healthy societies as well as their political and economic systems. Thus, comparison remains an essential motive for preserving these norms, even if there is a clear gap between the actual educational practices and these norms.

Comparative education in its institutional status (professional) reflects the overlapping effects of the world culture and the neo-institutionalism. Accordingly, the institutional construction of CE did not only emerge from intellectual efforts, but it was also the result of the effects of political and pragmatic factors. Institutional organization does not necessarily follow cognitive criteria alone, but there is a complex interaction of societal power at the macro and intermediate structural level on the one hand, and the political interests in the field at the micro-level on the other hand. In this respect, Epstein (2008) identified five criteria of the organizational construction of CE (academic courses, textbooks and journals, academic programs in universities, professional associations, and databases expansion) to document and analyze courses and programs in order to develop the field of CE.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Amal Abdel Fattah Mohammad is an Associate Professor of Comparative Education and Educational Administration at Ain Shams University. He is a working member in the Egyptian Association for Comparative Education and Educational Administration. His special areas of research are Comparative education, public education.

References

Abbott

(1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Amos

(2012) Comparative education in late modernity: Tensions between accelerating the disenchantment of the world and opening pedagogical spaces of possibility. In: Wikander

Gustafsson

Riis

(eds) Enlightenment, Creativity and Education: Polities, Politics, Performances. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.27–44.

Arnove

(2010) Introduction: Reframing comparative education. In: Arnovae

Torres

(eds) Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, pp.1–26.

Baker

LeTendre

(2005) National Differences, Global Similarities: Current and Future World Institutional Trends in Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bauman

(2011) Culture in a Liquid Modern World. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Benson

Kosonen

(eds) (2013) Language Issues in Comparative Education: Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Non-Dominant Languages and Cultures. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bereday

GZF

(1967) Comparative Method in Education. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bergh

A-M

Claassen

Horn

et al . (1999) Teaching Comparative and International Education. Report on a Workshop held at the 10th World Congress of Comparative Education Societies, Cape Town, South Africa (14–15 July 1999). Pretoria, South Africa: Comparative and International Education Interest Group, Faculty of Education, University of South Africa.

Bray

(2014) Understanding international and comparative education research. In: Reid

Hart

Peters

(eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+ Business Media, pp.333–339.

10.

Bray

Adamson

Manson

(eds) (2014) Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

11.

Breidlid

(2010) Sudanese images of the other: Education and conflict in Sudan. Comparative Education Review 54(4): 555–576.

12.

Bromley

Suárez

(2013) Institutional Theories and Levels of Analysis: History, Diffusion, and Translation. Utah: The University of Utah, Department of Political Science. Available at: http://www.patriciabromley.com/SuarezBromleyInstitutionalisms.pdf (accessed 17 January 2017).

13.

Carney

Rappleye

Silova

(2012) Between faith and science: World culture theory and comparative education. Comparative Education Review 56(3): 366–393.

14.

Cowen

(2009) Then and now: Unite ideas and comparative education. In: Cowen

Kazamias

(eds.) International Handbook of Comparative Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.1277–1294.

15.

Crossley

(2012) Comparative education and research capacity building: Reflection on international transfer and the significance of context. Journal of International and Comparative Education 1(1): 4–12.

16.

Dale

(2015) Conjunctions of power and comparative education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 45(3): 341–362.

17.

Dejaeghere

(2011) Transnationalism and its analytic possibilities for comparative, international and development education. In: Weidman

Jacob

(eds) Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and its Application to Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.269–291.

18.

Epstein

(2008) Setting the normative boundaries: Crucial epistemological benchmarks in comparative education. Comparative Education 44(4): 373–386.

19.

Epstein

Carroll

(2011) Erasing ancestry: A critique of critiques of the postmodern deviation in comparative education. In: Weidman

Jacob

(eds) Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and its Application to Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.31–48.

20.

Foster

Addy

Samoff

(2012) Crossing borders: Research in comparative and international education. International Journal of Educational Development 32(6): 711–732.

21.

Gross

(2010) Rewriting the nation: World War II narratives in Polish history textbooks. In: Silova

(ed.) Post-Socialism is not Dead: (Re) Reading the Global in Comparative Education, International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 14. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.213–246.

22.

Jepperson

(2002) The development and application of sociological neoinstitutionalism. In: Berger

Zelditch

Jr (eds) New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.229–266.

23.

Kalantzis

Cope

(2014) Education is the new philosophy, to make a metadisciplinary claim for the learning science. In: Reid

Hart

Peters

(eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+ Business Media, pp.101–115.

24.

Kamens

(ed.) (2012) Beyond the Nation-State. (Research in the Sociology of Education, Volume 18). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

25.

Kopp

B Von

(2010) Do we need comparative education in a globalized world? Orbis Scholae 4(2): 7–20.

26.

Malet

(2013) Comparative education facing the new politics of the otherness: Some conceptual developments for the field. In: Wiseman

Anderson

(eds) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.91–98.

27.

Manzon

(2011) Comparative Education: The Construction of a Field. CERC Studies in Comparative Education 29, The University of Hong Kong. China, The University of Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center /Springer.

28.

Menzel

(2004) Paradoxien der neuen Weltordnung: Politische Essays. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

29.

Milligan

Stanfill

Widyanto

et al . (2011) Philosophers without borders? Toward a comparative philosophy of education. Educational Studies 47(1): 50–70.

30.

Peters

(2012) Open works, open cultures, and open learning systems. In: Luke

Hunsinger

(eds) Putting Knowledge to Work and Letting Information Play. 2nd Edition. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.55–72.

31.

Powell

DiMaggio

(1991) Introduction. In: Powell

P. DiMaggio

(eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.1–38.

32.

Schofer

Hironaka

Frank

et al . (2012) Sociological institutionalism and world society. In: Nash

Scott

Amenata

(eds) The New Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp.57–68.

33.

Schriewer

(2012a) Re-conceptualizing the global/local nexus: Meaning constellation in the world society. Comparative Education 48(3): 411–422.

34.

Schriewer

(2012b) Editorial: Meaning constellations in the world society. Comparative Education 48(4): 411–422.

35.

Tarc

(2012) The use of globalization in the shifting landscape of educational studies. Canadian Journal of Education 35(3): 4–29.

36.

Ungureanu

(2010) Comparative approach in education as it stands now. Journal of Educational Sciences 12(1): 5–7.

37.

Walterová

(2008) Comparative education for teachers in the Czech Republic: Aims, models, problems. In: Wolhuter

Popov

Manzon

et al (eds) Comparative Education at Universities Worldwide. Sofia, Bulgaria: Bureau for Educational Services, pp.42–46.

38.

Weidman

Jacob

(eds) (2011) Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and its Application to Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

39.

Williams

(1985) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

40.

Wiseman

(ed.) (2014) Internationally Comparative Approaches to Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

41.

Wiseman

Anderson

(eds) (2013) Comparative Education: Trends and Directions. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

42.

Wiseman

Baker

(eds) (2006) The Symbiotic Relationship between Empirical Comparative Research on Education and Neo-Institutional Theory. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

43.

Wiseman

Matherly

(2009) The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education 4(4): 334–355.

44.

Wiseman

Chase-Mayoral

(2013) Shifting the discourse on neo-institutional theory in comparative and international education. In: Wiseman

Anderson

(eds) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.99–126.

45.

Wiseman

Astiz

Baker

(2013) Globalization and comparative education research: Misconceptions and applications of neo-institutional theory. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education 1(1): 31–52.

46.

Wolhuter

Popov

Manzon

et al . (2008) Mosaic of comparative education at universities: Conceptual nuances, global trends and critical reflections. In: Wolhuter

Popov

Manzon

et al (eds) Comparative Education at Universities Worldwide. 2nd edition. Sofia, Bulgaria: Bureau for Educational Services, pp.319–342.

47.

Hampden-Thompson

(2012) Cultural reproduction, cultural mobility, cultural resources, or trivial effect? A comparative approach to cultural capital and educational performance. Comparative Education Review 56(1): 98–124.

48.

Yamada

(2015) The constituent elements of comparative education in Japan: A comparison with North America. Comparative Education Review 59(2): 234–260.

49.

Yingjie

(2013) Comparative and international education in China: Definitions, functions and trends. In: Wiseman

Anderson

(eds) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013 (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 20)., Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.65–72.