Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2019

Alexander W. Wiseman

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781838677244
• eBook ISBN: 9781838677251
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica comparata

Since 2013, the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education has covered the significant developments in the field of comparative and international education. The Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2019 begins with a collection of reflection essays about comparative education trends and directions written by both professional and scholarly leaders in the field. Topics covered in the 2019 volume include major theoretical and methodological developments, reports on research-to-practice, area studies and regional developments, and the diversification of comparative and international education. A special introductory chapter builds on the assumption that scholarship and professional practice in comparative and international education often supports and encourages inclusiveness, interdisciplinarity, and contextualization in research and in the field. However, the introductory chapter interrogates the assumption that comparative and international education scholars and professionals promote these same concepts of gender equality, empowerment, and inclusiveness in the field itself.

PART I

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS

CHAPTER 1

QUESTIONING “THEORY TO PRACTICE” IN COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

Kelsey Skic

ABSTRACT

Similar to joining comparative education and international education, bridging theory to practice is a hallmark of the field of comparative and international education (CIE). Despite the commonality of citing “theory to practice,” a disconnect exists between comparativists who develop theories and practitioners who supposedly implement them. This article questions the use and meaning of this phrase. Specific questions are posed to explore how “theory to practice” is referenced in CIE publications: What does “theory to practice” mean? Who are theorists? Who are practitioners? Do practitioners know they are practitioners? How do practitioners apply theory? Perspectives from comparativists and practitioners are supplied in response to these guiding questions. These opposing perspectives demonstrate the continued disconnect between and misunderstanding of “theory to practice.” Further research is requested to better understand how these questions are currently represented in the field and how the field should evolve to better reflect theory and practice in the future.

Keywords: CIE; comparative education; international education; theory; practice; practitioners; comparativists

INTRODUCTION

Bridging theory and practice is a hallmark of the field of comparative and international education (CIE). A review of any CIE journal, article, or book will likely produce at least one reference to “theory to practice.” But what does “theory to practice” mean? Who are theorists? Who are practitioners? Do practitioners know they are practitioners? How do practitioners apply theory? This essay delves into how CIE publications address these questions and investigates the reality of the phrase “theory to practice.” There is a disconnect between comparativist authors who develop and debate theories in academic publications and practitioners who implement educational programs around the world. This essay ultimately calls for future research into the relationship between theory and practice in CIE.

WHAT DOES “THEORY TO PRACTICE” MEAN?

The phrase “theory to practice” is often used without further explanation of its meaning. Breaking down the phrase into parts helps to better understand it as a whole. Theory is defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-a). Per this definition, theories are developed to offer an understanding or explanation for why certain phenomena already exist. In CIE, multiple theoretical perspectives offer explanations for the same phenomena, causing debate in academic journals and conferences (Ninnes, 2008; Psacharopoulos, 1990). Merriam Webster (n.d.-b) defines practice as “carry out, apply.” This concise definition, compared to the verbose description of theory, reflects the assumed simplicity of implementing, carrying out, or applying something without providing answers as to “who,” “what,” and “how.”

WHO ARE THEORISTS? WHO ARE PRACTITIONERS?

The identification of theorists and practitioners is referenced in histories of the joining of comparative education with international education to form CIE. The fields of comparative education and international education were formally joined in 1969 with the creation of the Comparative International Education Society (Wilson, 1994). Despite the marrying of two fields together, authors generally agree that “theory to practice” follows the divide of the field, with theory produced by comparativists and practice implemented by international educators. Comparative education has been described as the developer of theory (Arnove, 2001; Epstein, 1992), the “disinterested study” of theory (Lawson, 1972), “knowledge-driven” (Theisen & Adams, 1990, p. 286), and a way to “explain” educational phenomena (Epstein, 1992, p. 409). Scholars associated with academic institutions and graduate students are highlighted as members of comparative education. In contrast, international education is referred to as the way theory is practiced (Arnove, 2001; Epstein, 1992; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009), or “solution driven” (Theisen & Adams, 1990, p. 283).

If international education represents the practical half of CIE, then, likewise, practitioners must work in international education. Some international education professionals are easily identifiable as “international educators,” working in higher education study abroad offices, international student support services, or third-party student exchange providers such as the Institute of International Education (Epstein, 1992; Wilson, 1994; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). Other practitioners of international education work in educational departments at international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as UNESCO, UNICEF, International Labor Organization, and World Bank (Wilson, 1994; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009), as well as regional or country-specific NGOs (Epstein, 1992). Other CIE practitioners may not have an international slant to their job description but are claimed by CIE because their practice can be compared to other nationalities. Such “professional educators” (Wilson, 1994) include K-12 teachers, principals, and school administrators, either domestic or abroad (Maseman, 1990). Non-educators who fall within the practical category are governmental policymakers (Epstein, 1992; Wilson, 1994; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009).

Wilson (1994) proposes another dual approach category that mimics CIE itself, the “academic practitioner.” According to Wilson (1994), academic-practitioners, are:

equipped with a viable academic understanding of comparative education and who has used that orientation to further the meliorative [sic] function common to both international and comparative education in his or her subsequent international activities. (p. 450)

Two examples would be an academic scholar, possibly a tenured professor, who consults for an international aid organization such as UNESCO, or alternatively, a practitioner scholar, such as a UNESCO employee publishing their research in an academic journal (Arnove, 2001; Wilson, 1994).

DO PRACTITIONERS KNOW THEY ARE PRACTITIONERS?

From a CIE perspective, CIE practitioners know they are part of this field their training in CIE. However, CIE is an interdisciplinary field, thus its practitioners work in a variety of industries and may or may not have formal training in CIE. Just because practitioners work in an organization or program that CIE would claim does not mean they identify with the field of CIE.

An emphasis for membership in the field of CIE is receiving formal training through a CIE or comparative education graduate program (Epstein, 1992; Rodman, 2011; Tikly & Crossley, 2001; Wilson, 1994; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). Wilson (1994) posited that “many – but by no means all –contemporary international educators have been trained in comparative education and consider themselves primarily comparative rather than international educators” (p. 455). Wiseman and Matherly (2009) have called for credential-granting CIE programs to further the professionalization of the field. They argue that as CIE has evolved into a unique field, it must follow the principles of professionalization which include: (1) ownership of expert knowledge; (2) training and credentials; (3) self-policing and ethical codes; (4) occupational domain; and (5) the workplace (Abbott, 1988; Davidson, Park, Dzotsenidze, Okogbue, & Wiseman, 2018).

Attempts to quantify participation in CIE have also been based on graduate programs. Wilson (1994) attempted to estimate CIE membership through a genealogical study of CIE-founding members and subsequent generations of students through graduate programs. Wilson’s (1994) study emphasized CIE graduate programs by following the career trajectory of doctorate recipients but admitted a limitation that “there are hundreds of former comparative and international education students for whom I am unable to account” (p. 463). In a separate study, Wiseman and Matherly (2009) cited similar difficulties in tracking CIE membership because many practitioners trained in CIE no longer maintain affiliation with an academic program or a professional organization such as the Comparative International Education Society.

It is also possible to claim CIE practitioners’ work in non-CIE fields. CIE blurs the lines between disciplines that usually stand-alone such as education, sociology, political science, anthropology, economics, psychology, and history (Davidson et al., 2018). While discussing comparative education through Bourdieu’s premise of the social field, Epstein (2011) says it is “not bounded or separated in ways that are always clear or distinct from other fields, and the internal dynamics involving participation within the field are fluid rather than static” (p. 98). The fluidity of CIE means it can claim external research for itself. Davidson et al. (2018) investigated research publications that fit within the parameters of CIE but appear in non-CIE journals. They suggested that authors’ choice and prestige of journals in other disciplines are reasons for this trend (Davidson et al., 2018).

Whether or not practitioners were trained in CIE or if their work is claimed by CIE, their membership in the field is determined by his or her own judgment. Rather than joining the field of CIE, practitioners likely identify with professions in other, more recognizable disciplines (education, sociology, political science, etc.) because “the potential for reward is greater from a disciplinary perspective than from a [CIE] perspective” (Wiseman & Anderson, 2013, p. 345). Also, practitioners who do claim membership to CIE do so “quite individually and according to their own selected and selective definitions of what international education is and should represent” (Rodman, 2011, p. 51). Thus, as Wiseman and Anderson (2013) state, “the bulk of the field remains tied together by an imagined affiliation” (p. 23).

HOW DO PRACTITIONERS APPLY THEORY?

Once a practitioner identifies with CIE, it is assumed that he or she will apply theory produced by comparativists and complete the “theory to practice” cycle. But this false assumption creates a disconnect between comparativists and international educators. Psacharopoulos (1990) questions the practicality of “theory to practice,” stating, “few comparative lessons can be drawn to assist decision makers in educational planning” (p. 369). While working as a consultant to provide professional workshops to teachers, acting as an “academic-practitioner” (Wilson, 1994), Maseman (1990) noticed “teachers tended to select a part of the curriculum that was most ‘practical’ in terms of their needs and to ignore the overall complexity of the topic at hand” (p. 466). Implementing scholarly theory, often formed in a vacuum, is difficult due to the demands of everyday life and work demands (Lawson, 1972; Maseman, 1990).

Just because practitioners may not implement CIE theory does not mean they do not consider new approaches to their work. Maseman (1990) anecdotally describes that teachers she observed acquired knowledge based on anecdotes, conversations with other teachers, lived experience, and other informal learning methods, in addition to professional workshops and scholarly publications. Teachers and other practitioners also may conduct their own empirical research to inform their organization’s decision-making, sharing the results with internal stakeholders rather than publishing in an academic journal (Davidson et al., 2018; Madden & Blanco, 2018). Evoking Paulo Freire, Hall (1984) objects to studies conducted about a target group and promotes participatory research. A principle of which includes the “creation of knowledge which may or may not [sic.] involve people who have been professionally trained as researchers” (Hall, 1984, p. 291). Based on these observations, practitioners can successfully produce and incorporate research without the support of comparativists’ scholarly theories.

The notion that practice must be informed by CIE theory also produces unequal power dynamics between the two. The phrase “theory to practice” would have us believe theory must inform practice. The phrasing indicates a “knowledge hierarchy,” (p. 472) where comparative education scholars determine “what knowledge forms are called legitimate” and produces a top-down flow from comparativists to practitioners (Hall, 1984; Maseman, 1990, p. 467). However, the earlier discussion of definitions...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Talking the Talk, Walking the Walk: A Critical Examination of Gender in CIE
• PART I. Comparative Education Trends and Directions
• PART II. Conceptual and Methodological Developments
• PART III. Research-to-Practice
• PART IV. Area Studies and Regional Developments
• PART V. Diversification of the Field
• Index