An Introduction to Methodology in Comparative and International Education

By nature, Comparativists engage in explanations of why educational systems and processes vary and how education relates to wider social factors and forces. The comparativists’ interest in explanations leads to the use of epistemologies in order to study issues and the comparativists’ preference of a particular epistemology over another lead to distinctions between the methodological schools of comparative education.

In academia, the common distinctions in methodology are the dichotomies of qualitative and quantitative under which fall all sorts of methods or research designs, i.e., historical analysis, content analysis, discourse analysis, phenomenological, hermeneutical, case study, statistical analysis, ethnographic, grounded theory, survey research, experimental studies, etc. While acknowledging the distinctions qualitative and quantitative, Comparative education adds distinctions based on mode of reasoning that are unique to its field; these distinctions cannot pin-pointedly be matched with qualitative and quantitative, i.e., nomothetic and ideographic. The tendency of equating ideographic with qualitative and nomothetic with quantitative is to be avoided because a study can be ideographic and use quantitative elements or nomothetic yet use qualitative elements. Therefore, while appropriate to use qualitative and quantitative, comparative education approach is better characterized as ideographic or nomothetic. The word nomothetic is rooted in the Latin nomo, which means law or rule; while the word ideographic is rooted in the Latin ideo, which means individual or particular unit.

Nomothetic approach isolates a few social factors to identify underlying trends and patterns and apply these trends and patterns to schooling in order to arrive at a general explanation of a class of educational actions or events. It depends on the idea of regularity and that if phenomena are regular then there is a possibility of prediction, and in the assumption that phenomena are related (or correlated) and influence each other. Here the researcher uses the scientific method to test hypothesis cross-culturally (cross-nationally), an instrument developed by Durkheim in the late nineteenth century. In short, nomothetic epistemology seeks to find a predicting stream of social phenomena by hinging on hypothesis testing and generating cross-national generalizations.

Ideographic approach analyzes the special social and cultural circumstances that differentiate schooling in one society from another. It seeks to yield (deep) understanding or verstehen of issues related to education, an acquisition of a special insight deriving from intensive study of school-society relationships. Ideographic studies do not necessitate hypothesis testing to legitimize their claim, but hinge on socio-cultural expertise. Sadler went beyond the cross-national generalizations by introducing the concept of spiritual force, which he viewed as the force that upholds the school system and accounts for its efficiency. His major discontent with nomothetic generalizations was embodied in the metaphor of a child strolling through a garden and picking off flowers form one bush and leaves from another with hope of planting a tree from the gathered ingredients.

Nomothetic scholars advocate that everything is related independent of context. For example, studies of returns to investments in education are strictly based on numeric indicators (e.g., statistical comparison of level of education between men and women) of various countries across the world; uniqueness of context is not a concern in describing why returns in education are higher in some countries and low in others nor why are they different within one country and between men and women in view of cultural and historical considerations.

On the other hand, ideographic scholars advocate that everything is relative to context, particularly cultural context. This school comes close to relativism, phenomenology, postmodernism, hermeneutics, etc.

[I am of the opinion that when combined, both approaches generate a formidable study. When we manage to back up our socio-cultural versthen with hypothesis testing (not necessarily testing a complex relationship between independent and dependent variables), our findings not only become less susceptible to criticism by one camp or another, but they become enhanced with a cross-field appreciation and respect.]

Session #2: Informational Power

Informational power manifests in the relationship between a provider, rather than a mere emissary, and a recipient. Informational power can result from a lack of shared understanding between the producer and the consumer of the information being disseminated or from the lack of a shared understanding between the international parties involved in its production. It is also characterized by an emphasis on the responsibility of providing information that leads to an effective decision-making. The perception herein is that to provide information is in essence empowering. Although this is a commonly held perception of empowerment within functionalist contexts where information is transmitted to mold the individual to “better function” within a given society, and “functional” is defined by the dominant culture, this perception is problematic. In the international context where rationalist conceptions such as context-bound considerations co-exist with realist conceptions informed by functionalism it is problematic to assume that the culture-bound information being passed is empowering to all who receive it regardless of their cultural context.[i]
There is a tendency for international institutions, and to some extent regional institutions, to place local governments at the mercy of their information by defining what successful institutions should look like, how policies should be crafted and implemented for better societal functioning, what constitutes good governance, how educational reform should look like, and so forth. This renders international institutions, both at the global and regional level, to a position of indispensable expertise, which makes them guardians of indispensable information.
For me, as an expert in comparative and international education, this should be disconcerting and a matter to be addressed. In my observation, the field of comparative and international education is at a cross-road of defining itself in regards to its agenda. This position of being at a cross-road, amidst the pressure of competition to accumulate informational power, would require that comparativists ask themselves very hard questions such as, ‘should we sponsor a perspective of international and of development education founded on the information era project [my own term] of creating information banks to inform the so-called developing world on educational policy formation and implementation, teacher training, curricula, good governance of educational and political institutions, literacy campaigns, peace education, etc.?’ or ‘should we embark on a learning experience and a campaign for equality of acceptance and equity of engagement of multi-contextual knowledges from the various ethno-geographic contexts about each of these issues?’ This is a matter to be tackled by those whose burden is to continue the legacy on which the field seems to have been founded, as many delight in citing Sadler’s analogy, of mutual learning amidst the pressure of competition for monopoly of expertise and intellectual colonialism [my term].
In summary, although not always recognized by those involved in negotiations over (educational) policy, informational power plays an important role in the fairness of negotiations. The more active role a party has in establishing an agreement, the more likely it is to actively participate as expert in bringing the terms of the agreement to fruition. The goal should be to have no provider and recipient, but co-sharers of information that has the same weight in value and utility.

[i] According to Moseley (2006) political rationalism emphasizes the employment of reason in social affairs: that is, individuals ought to submit to the logic and universality of reason rather than their own subjective or cultural preconceptions. Rationalists argue that reason unifies humanity politically, and hence it is a conducive vehicle to peace. Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage; nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest.

Reflecting on “Education as that which liberates” and “Worldwide Education Revolution”

Reflecting on “Education as that which liberates” and “Worldwide Education Revolution”: Themes from the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) Conferences, 2011 & 2012
To reflect on/about something requires that we have a memory of some aspects about such a thing we are wishing to reflect about. In this podcast, I wish to reflect on the CIES 2011 theme “Education is that which Liberates” as a gateway to preparing our minds to the CIES 2012 theme “The Worldwide Education Revolution”.
In my view, as expressed in the poem I read, with Yvonne Kamugisha’s vocal accompaniment in song, during our opening highlighted session, there is a need to push the boundary of our discussions beyond the comfortable zone of educational rhetoric and what sounds like genuine problematizing of education framed within an appeasing of (higher spirits and) forces that could jeopardize our professional careers, if offended. We educators, in this sense, tend to be very superstitious; aware of the realities of everyday injustices yet holding on to the constant appeasing of those who have the power to influence our economic security. We engage in the problematic to the extent that it is within the comfort zone of the dominant powers in our most influential institutions (e.g., government, funding agencies, universities, etc.). This conflict between the awareness (and dislike) of social injustices and social evils amidst the need to preserve our socio-economic comfort turns the old Sanskrit motto “education is that which liberates” into a myth, adding to the many myths that have characterized formal education since its inception. This is not to say that all educations are myth-laden, but that the dominant form of education, upon which we have made many messianic claims is myth-laden; perhaps only by virtue of our own narcissistic presentation of such education as the solution to the world’s problems, which in turn dictates how we shape its appearance in regards to curricula, values, and ultimate goals. If we were true to our own struggles with global injustice and even more true to the fact that, despite our claims, we often contribute to the perpetration of such injustice, perhaps we would be myth-ridden in our articulation of the ends of the education we promote.
Today, it is very fashionable in academia to claim militancy for social justice; yet, we often miss the fact that claiming social justice does not imply living a social justice life-style. We are comfortable talking about social justice and liberation, to some extent within comfortable philosophical settings, yet we are not bold enough to confront ourselves about how our human core has been tempered with by misconceptions of the essence of justice and, therefore, of liberation. Does education really liberate? If my answer is ‘yes’, I will be succumbing to the status quo; if my answer is ‘depends’ or ‘maybe’, I will be succumbing to the realm of mere intellectual argumentation; if my answer is ‘no’, I will be entering a rebellion against all that I have been taught that is founded on some of what I have learned from those who have sacrificed their comfort for the sake of those who are not recognized as part of the mainstream—in this case, I may not be denying the mere fact that “education is that which liberates” as much as I may be accepting the possibility of another form of education as a means of liberation provided I do not frame such education and freedom within the framework of my comfortable perception of what it means to be an educated person, i.e., a liberated person.
In my article “African Renaissance and Globalization: A Conceptual Analysis” (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8k7472tg) I argue that,
there is a deeper dimension of freedom demanding that its meaning be interpreted by the oppressed in a way that the oppressed auto-conceives its nature. This auto-conceived meaning is beyond one that is communicated (even if consensually) to the oppressed; that is, beyond what a class of educated and concerned people think freedom means. Therefore, it is imperative that those who interpret freedom and progress do so in view of, not only the audience’s languages but also, their cognitive processes and abilities…
This, then, would lead me to reflect about a true “worldwide educational revolution”.