1.1 Introduction
In recent decades, globalization has increasingly become a central concept of social research analysis and discourses regarding social change (Bartelson, 2000). Globalization generally refers to processes of increasing international interdependence in areas such as economics, politics, culture, environment, and communication. However, it is not always clear what this term means, and especially what it means for the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Globalization refers to multifaceted and complex processes, not only because globalization implies rapid changes, but also because these changes simultaneously affect multiple dimensions and the resulting different transformations interact with each other (Tomlinson, 1999). Nevertheless, globalization is often, especially in everyday communication, reduced to processes that simply refer to general or large-scale changes. Such changes are commonly understood as concerning the international exchange of finance and goods, the legal relations between states, the actions of international organizations, international educational programs, studies, or technical innovations, such as the internet. Furthermore, globalization is quite often perceived as a cohesive process with uniform consequences. Against this backdrop, it is first and foremost understood as a process that implies a fundamental transformation of economic and social conditions—a phenomenon that affects the big picture, a phenomenon at the macro level.
1.2 Globalization or “Glocalization”?
Such a macro-level perception, though, can overlook the fact that globalization impacts not only the macro but also other levels, furthermore affecting various actors in different ways. Thus, it seems to be more meaningful to speak of “glocalization;” a term coined in the context of social research analysis and theory development on the subject of globalization (Robertson, 1992, 1995). Glocalization refers to “the simultaneous occurrence of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies in contemporary social, political, and economic systems” (Blatter, 2006, p. 357). Zygmunt Bauman argues similarly by suggesting “to speak of glocalization rather than globalization, of a process inside which the coincidence and intertwining of synthesis and dissipation, integration and decomposition are anything but accidental and even less are rectifiable” (1998, p. 42). Globalization is not only effective at the macro, but also at the meso and micro level, and here the effects are often multifaceted, inconsistent, and not uniform. Besides, while global levels are increasingly gaining prominence, it is occurring together with the increasing salience of local levels. While tendencies toward homogeneity and centralization appear, tendencies toward heterogeneity and decentralization can be witnessed simultaneously. In this perspective, globalization does not mean cultural unification or the emergence of anything like a global culture. “‘Globalization’ and ‘localization’,” as Bauman (1998, p. 45) puts it, are different, but “inseparable sides of the same coin”—however, these different sides become relevant for different people in different ways.
It can, therefore, be said that the global touches the local fundamentally, and vice versa (Blatter, 2006). In addition, and especially Bauman (1998) has emphasized this aspect of globalization, while it offers opportunities for some, it presents risks and problems for others. Moreover, while it gives the local and everyday life a cultural sense, it simultaneously constructs the local and the “normal” as the backward one. It implies that globalization not only affects the system, but primarily the lifeworld of an individual (Habermas, 1987), as well as the lifeworld or the everyday life of children, changing it, but not always for the better. “Glocalization is first and foremost a redistribution of privileges and deprivations, of wealth and poverty, of resources and impotence, of power and powerlessness, of freedom and constraint” (Bauman, 1998, p. 43). While it means more opportunities for some, it is a cruel fate for others—a reality that can be seen in the field of ECEC, on a global level as well as in local contexts.
With that said, the concept of globalization implies not only a scientific but also a socio-critical and political perspective and dimension which ultimately refers to various possibilities of analysis, discourse, and theory on the subject (Brunkhorst, 2010). Consequently, various assessments and patterns of interpretation have developed. In a more affirmative view, the consequences of globalization are primarily seen as an opportunity and an individual challenge (Beck, 2000; Giddens, 1990); in a more critical perspective, they are interpreted as a social task, and critically analyzed with regard to the underlying ideology (Appelbaum & Robinson, 2005; Scheuerman, 2011), or questioned with reference to the realization of human rights (Brysk, 2002).
1.3 Globalization in Educational Contexts
It should have become clear that globalization is multi-faceted in its significance and analysis, and the associated change processes raise issues that affect all areas of life—not least in the field of education, including and, maybe in particular, ECEC. Here, globalization has led and will continue to lead to ambivalent and complex developments. It is also true for the analysis and interpretation of phenomena of the field. International communication about education has increased at various levels, especially in the context of international comparative studies and the dissemination of transnational educational programs. On the one hand, it has resulted in a huge exchange of ideas, concepts, and approaches, but on the other hand, national education systems from early childhood education to higher education are increasingly under intense pressure to reform. Many countries are forced to implement educational reforms, often referring to international research findings and trends in order to meet expectations based on these results and trends. What can be witnessed are new, allegedly innovative approaches such as results-based teaching and learning, prescribed lessons, standardized curricula, and technology-based teaching, especially in the areas of literacy, numeracy, and science. These educational trends are increasingly applied worldwide, though there are objections and resistance to them (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2011; Ramberg, 2014). Such strategies and developments are, in principle, similar to one another and very narrow in scope (Gogolin, Baumert, & Scheunpflug, 2011). These transnational education policies have been summarized as the Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM), a term coined by Pasi Sahlberg (2011). Such features of GERM have also impacted the field of ECEC (Wasmuth & Nitecki, 2017), with the tendency to lead to standardized ways of approaching education with little regard for local contexts and traditions (see also Nitecki & Wasmuth in this book).
With that said, the following questions should be asked and investigated: How are transnational concepts implemented in pedagogical practice and what effects and side effects occur when the global unfolds in the local context of ECEC settings? Furthermore, are these transnational concepts sufficiently taking into account the historical and social dimensions of education, as well as established practices of everyday life—in addition to the importance of negotiation processes in this context? For research, it raises the need for critical analysis and reflection that considers educational developments and changes in education systems and educational practice, especially in the context of historical and social developments, as well as practical or action-related implications (Faas, Wu, & Geiger, 2017; Kasüschke & Faas, 2019).
1.4 Different Perspectives on Globalization and Transformation
The research-related examination of such questions of globalization, their significance for national education systems, especially for ECEC, requires a specific theoretical perspective or analytical framework. In social research, such an analytical framework—more precisely, several of them—were developed in connection with the concept of transformation. In general, three distinct paradigms or approaches of “transformation” and transformation research can be distinguished: institutions, systems, and actors (Kollmorgen, Merkel, & Wagener, 2015).
Institutional approaches analyze transformations as changes of institutions, networks of institutions, or relationships between institutions—in our context, the education sector. Thereby, institutions are generally defined as well-known rules that structure recurring interaction situations (e.g., in educational contexts) and are connected with an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the interactions structuring rules (Dauner & Voigt, 2015). This perspective is currently being taken up and further developed by neo-institutionalist approaches—here in the educational discourse. Thus, the perceived convergence of education systems is attributed in particular to the ever-present interconnectedness of nation-states with overarching political, economic, and religious developments. It implies, especially for education, a tendency toward interdependence and to the convergence of structures or institutions. From this point of view, the adaptation and transformation processes mentioned above are not understood as short-term developments but rather as a long historical process of converging national education systems which began in the eighteenth century and has experienced various phases of acceleration (Adick, 1992; Amos, Keiner, Proske, & Radtke, 2002). Thus, international organizations such as the OECD are playing an important role, not only by developing programs and concepts but also in prioritizing them through agenda-setting activities, publications, and other dissemination strategies. As ...