Comparing National Education

8/9/2019 Comparing National Education

1/11

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES' REVIEW

Comparing national educationsystems in the global era

S IMON MARG INSONMonash Cent re f or R e se a rc h in Internat ional Educat ion

MARCELA MOLL ISUni'Oersity o f Buenos Aires . Argen t ina

Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) licensed copy. Furthercopying prohibited. Formore information ccmtac& CAL cm(02)9394 7600 O! [email protected]

Introduction: internationalcomparison in educationAs global communications thicken, a growing number ofstudents cross borders for par t of their education, university staff travel more and international collaborationsmultiply, Australians in higher education are increasinglyaware of education systems other than their own, especially the ubiquitous American universities. Likewise, governments are increasingly mindful of international competitors and cases when they frame policies; and the calculations of vice-chancellors now routinely incorporate globalmarkets and systems of quality assurance, and the strategies of this or that international university comparator.While the national dimension still matters, no longer are

judgements and decisions referenced only to the nationalcontext . Global relat ionships , global comparisons andglobal benchmarks have all become impor tant . Highe reducation in Australia - as in all countries - is now framedsimultaneously by the local, the national and the global.

But more than one global standard is possible, drawingon the many d if fe rent cul tural t rad itions . Further, in aglobal context more than one kind of engagement withother and complex national contexts is possible: shallowor deep. In making international comparative judgements,the basis of companion, including the theories and methods (whether hidden or explicit) which inform compari-.son, are determining of what we see.

Such comparative judgements create varying policymessages, depending on how the judgements are reached.For example if the measure of comparative school achievement is test scores, national systems will tend to focus onimproving their test scores. To do this they might need toinstall American-style standardised tests, and a curriculumto match. This also illustrates the point that when nationalsystems focus on performance as measured in the common comparison, a homogenising logic is installed. Overtime all systems tend to become the same. In the 1990s, thiskind of homogenising logic entered university evaluation

and quality assurance around the world (Mollis andMarginson 2000).

This article is about how international comparisons ineducation are made and might be made; and the varyingimplications of different comparative methods for nationalpolicy and university identity. I t is also about the dramaticeffects of globalisation on the methods used in internat iona l compari son in educa tion , and the new potentialsthat globalisation creates.

Though it has o lde r roots, ' comparative educat ion' hasbeen significant in education policy studies for at least fourdecades. As with other social sciences, comparative education has been affected by a continuing, fragmented bu tcompelling relationship with the world of government andpolitical-economic power.The dominant strand of comparative education is largelyquantitative, and emerged in the USA in the 1960s, at thesame time as the positivist brand of structural functionalism in sociology which influenced it (Hesse, 1980; Morrowand Torres, 1995). Orthodox American comparative researchers accepted positivist notions of linear development, social regularity and equi librium, and the instrumen ta l ro le of education in national development asframed in universal .theorisations of the relat ionship between education, economy and society, such as humancapital theory (Marginson, 1997, 92-118). At the same timecomparative education became l inked to Ameri can foreign policy and the of ten congruent work of globalagencies such as UNESCO and the World Bank. Much ofthe research in the field since has consisted of large-scalecross-country dat a col lect ion financed by governmentsand global agencies .

The global templates of education systems used in suchstudies, grounded in social models mostly tak en fo rgranted and implici t, are 'Western' and English-languagein content and fashioned by an idealised version 0 f(especially) American education. As Benjamin Barber pu tit almost 30 years ago - and it is more true today - incomparative education, the 'models of development and

2/1999 - 1/2000 Page 53. -- ---- - - - - - ----,


2/11


modernisation turn out to bear a remarkable resemblanceto the evolution of American industrial capitalism' (Barber,1972, 424-436).At the same time there are other strands of comparative

educat ion. An older school sought to draw ou t nationaldifferences as much as similarities, using philosophicaland historical methods. There are contemporary researchers wh o use qualitative studies to focus on what isdis tinctive in national si tes, or are located in countrieswhere the standardising policy role of global agencies isproblematic and 'Americanisat ion' is a ser ious concern.'Sameness' and 'difference' in comparisonMaking educational comparisons always involves both'difference' and 'sameness' (Mollis, 1991). Difference andsameness are philosophical opposites, bu t these oppositesare no t necessarily antagonistic or mutually exclusive,either in logic or in the real world.

In the real world an education sys tem can exhibitdiversity in one respect and Sameness in another, and therelation between the two may be complementary ratherthan antagonistic. For example, take 'league table ' institutional ranking in higher education. The process of rankingrests on the common template used for comparativepurposes , and it encourages inst itut ions to converge witheach other. Yet it also establishes a hierarchy of institutional outcomes, thereby creating one form of difference.Likewise, the logic of comparison incorporates both

Sameness and difference. First , any ac t of comparisonassumes an a priori notion of difference, whether difference of degree as in unequal quantities of the same kindof object, or difference of kind as in the contrasting ofobjec ts with varying qualities. Second, comparison involves a search not just for variations between cases bu tfor resemblances between them. Comparison is onlypossible on the basis of common criteria, including theidentification of uni ts for comparison, the quantitativeand/or qualitative methods used in making comparisons,and the theoretical framework linking the criteria together.Neither sameness no r difference can be absolute. Ifsameness was absolute and the world was one homogenous place, there would be no meaningful variation, andhence nothing to compare. If difference was absolute,there would be no common basis that would permi tcomparison. In that sense, each t erm, sameness anddifference, provides the condition of possibility of theother.

I t is important to n ote th at the relat ionship betweensameness and difference is no t fixed, it is variable. Thosecomparing national education systems can vary the focuson one element in relation to the other, depending on thetheories and methods employed. Qualitative studies aremore readily associated with focus on di ffe rence, whilequantitative work lends itself to projects which emphasisesameness: the fit between the pairings of sameness/

Page 54 2/1999 1/2000

difference and quantity/quality is no t exact, bu t it issuggestive. Fundamentally, ho w much sameness, ho wmuch difference, depends on the purposes of the work.

To illustrate these points, it is useful to look closer at theprocess of comparison. When we use qual itat ive techniques to examine phenomena drawn from a common set,the closer we look and the more complex the criteria usedin observation, the more that 'sameness' dissolves intod if fe rent cases. In qualitative studies based on complexcase work, where there is always more to investigate thancan ever be encompassed, there is a prima facie bias to thecreation of difference and incommensurability betweencases. In terms of logic, this tends towards the eliminationof the possibility of comparison itself.At the same time, comparison can be used to turn

'different' phenomena into similar phenomena. For example, in quantitative cross-national comparisons of educational achievement, though the same numerical data mayhave different contextual meanings in each national context, in a cross-country table the different contexts disappear. A '7' from Norway looks the same as a '7' fromMalaysia regardless of the circumstances in which each '7'was produced. Indeed, even in quali ta tive s tudies designed to prepare a content-r ich and context-rich description of each national case, there is a moment of abstractionwhich occludes at least some elements particular to eachnation. Here the process of comparison contains a primafacie bias towards the creat ion ( 'discovery') of sameness.Again, this tends towards the elimination of the possibilityof comparison itself.Ultra-relativismThough educational comparison requires both samenessand difference, the field of comparative education isbedeviled by work pushing to one extreme or the other,either of sameness (universalism) or difference (ultrarelativism).

The universalist imposes a uni fo rm model on everyspecific case. The ultra-relativist treats each case as completely different (Epstein, 1998, 31-40).Ultra-relativism treats different cultures as wholly heter

ogenous. It is premised on di fference, but an abstractedand ahistorical 'difference', Bob Young comments that'notions of cultural incommensurability appear to rest onthe assumption that f rameworks are total ly c losed andunchangeable' (Young, 1997, 497-499). But ident it ieswere always more fluid than this, and in a global eraidentities have become ever-more multiple, hybrid, cosmopolitan and changeable (Appadurai, 1996). This suggests that the ultra-relativist position, far from beingfashionably post-modern, is increasingly obsolete. Ultrarelativist 'comparative' education obscures what is common to national systems and denies mutual effect s ininternational relationships. This no t only blocks comparison, it handicaps understandings of the dynamics of each


3/11


system, in which national, international and global elements combine. Ultra-relat ivism ult imately precludes sympathetic engagement with the object of research. It cannotinterpret difference.The dominant approach: universalismIn contrast, the dominant approach in comparative educat ion, connect ing to the requirements of American government and global agencies, is semi-universalist, Here Comparative Education is akin to Hegemonic Education. Theunderlying assumption is that all education sys tems a refundamentally the same and if they are not, they ought tobe .The dominant approach encourages sameness across

national sites while preserving a limited form of difference.This is expressed as unequal quant it ie s of the sameness,enabling ranking. Comparative league tables of nationalsystem performance are prepared e ith er by mat chi ngnat iona l data sets to each other, or by cross-countrysurveys. Here the comparativist e limina te s all local features, all forms of difference except for measured differences in th e particular 'universal' cri te ri a selec ted forcomparison. The result is an outcome deceptively simple:the transparent 'performance' of each nat iona l system,t hough sho rn of the r icher national context data thatwould expla in each 'performance'.Thus comparison is reduced to two steps , aiming to: (1)

identify similarities be tween t he object of stu dy andanother object; and (2) identify a limited form of differenceas deficiency, by comparing one education system againstanother, or an ideal type. This is difference expressed notas quali tative difference, bu t as unequal quantities of asingle quality. This approach to comparison excludes the'other', and the possibility of discovering 'otherness' or'alterity', the state of being other or di fferent (Kempner etal., 1998, xiii-xvii). It excludes recognition of what mightbe called 'deep difference'.

H. J. Noah provides a revealing insight into this universalising positivist strand of comparative education. Fo rhim, the primary goal of comparative education is toestablish generalised statements about education that arevalid for more than one country; 'law-like' cross-nationalstatements on relations between educa tion and society,and teaching and learning (Noah and Ecksrein, 1969, 114).To Noah comparative education focuses on 'the carefulidentification, validation and measurement of variables',maps relat ions between the var iables in each nation andsynthesises the national equat ions into a general equation .'Country names' are brought in 'only when the ability tomake val id generalisations across countries fails' and'when no amount of within-system (nation) adjustment ofeither the independent or dependent variables can reducethe across-nation differences in observed relationships'(Noah, 1988, 12). OnlY at this point are national characteror historical background introduced into the equation.

Noah contrasts this method favourably with what 'usedto be' the primary goal of comparative education, whichwas ' th e mos t complet e descr ip ti on possible of othereducation systems, and the most telling comparison of onesystem with another' (Noah, 1988, 12). His own 'comparative' educati on has no intrinsic interest in specific countries, or in subjecting its would-be universal 'laws' to testsof local relevance and cross-national transferability. Thisunderlines the point that like ultra-relativism, universalismin comparison precludes sympathetic engagement withthe object of research. I t cannot interpret differenceIn the face of complex questions, the positivist cornpar

ativist strives for single models and dualistic yes or notruths. Yet much social theory suggests that in contras t tothe natural sciences, the social sciences exhibit a principleof ambiguity. Given the open -ended and ultimately idiosyncratic nature of social life, many events do not conformto rules of universality. When such rules are invoked, thenotion of universali ty is invalidated; or, rather, it becomesno t a precondition for scientific work but another contested terrain. To account for this the convent ional sociologyof education now resorts to quant itat ive, s tat is tical probabilistic models, in place of laws or law-like explanations.But the underlying problem remains. The dominant strandof comparative education suppresses much that is realfrom view.For the positivist comparativist, more complicated anal

yses seeking to understand the his to ri ca l nuances andinterrelations of things, using multi-disciplinary analysesthat are uncertain or problematic, are simply unnecessary(Samoff, 1990). I f pertinent in theoretical terms, they areseen to lack usefulness for government, which is concerned with (apparently) wel l-defined and immedia teproblems and motivated not by the search fo r richexplanations, bu t actions which efficiently resolve thoseproblems. Instrumental positivism in comparative education is intel lectually simple and polit ically pragmatic. I t isa striking example of the manner in which the socialsciences have learned to speak to power in easily digestible terms, regardless of the cost for our deeper socialunderstandings and larger capacit ies for action.This article takes an agnostic posit ion on the relationship

between sameness and difference, rejecting the extremesof both universalism and relativism. In comparative educar ion nei ther sameness or dif ference can be absolute.Theor ies and methodologies should reflect this. Againstthe universalist position, method in comparative educat ion should be orien ta ted towards the interpretat ion ofdifferences, and the recognition of the "other'. It is necessary to devise techniques that foreground identified formsof difference, and enable unexpected real world differences to surface within t he discourse. Against the ultrarelativist position, comparative education needs to interpret individual differences not as terminal, but in thecontext of a wider set of variations; recognising that there

211999 - 1/2000 Page55


4/11


are also cornmonalities tha t are s tructured by the relationsbetween 'others' and between 'other' and 'self.Between Scylla and CharybdisIn summary: in comparative international education, sameness and difference are interpenetrated and omnipresent:no t as uniform 'same-sameness' and 'same-difference' butcapable of t aking a myriad of heterogeneous forms. Theinteractions and tensions between the two poles give thefield much of it s ambiguity, vibrancy, dynamism andvaried potential s. This underlines the point that comparative education must avoid priv ileging either sameness ordifference" in any lasting sense , using each to interrogateth e o th er , constant ly moving between them. Further,because choices of t heory and method have implicationsfo r sameness and difference - and because the relationbetween sameness and difference in education can bepowerful, for it can affect education policies and shapecultures - t hen tpe imp li ca ti on s of those theoretical/methodological choices should be made explicit. Thiswould enable comparative education as a field to becomeImore reflexive.!

In other words cornparat iv is ts should pu t aside theconjuring tricks, the posturing about the one road to 'true'comparison, and acknowledge th e field is politicallyrelative.The impact of 'globalisation'Into these long-standing debates has stepped 'globalisation'. I t is rapidly remaking the terrain on which education ,an d international educational comparison, are takingplace. All social science fields which emerged in themodern nation-building era a re exper ienc ing dramaticdiscont inui ties in the global era: comparative education isno exception.

'Global isat ion' is character ised by t ransformat ions in theeconomic, technological, social, cul tu ra l and political,often separated in conventional analyses (Appadurai,1996) and little theorised so far in comparative and

. international education itself. These transformations areremaking the central unit of comparative analysis, th enat ion- st at e, and touch all aspects of identity. Relationsbetween sameness and dif ference, and the sel f and o ther ,are being reworked. So far comparative education hasremained largely iso la ted from the ext raordinary fecundityof contemporary social and cultural theory, still sustainingthe concepts, methods and development narra tives of theprevious era. It deploys the nat ion-state as its basic uni t ofanalysis much as it did in the 1960s.

First a comment about the term 'globalisation'. In thisarticle it is u sed s imply to mean 'becoming global'.'Globalisation' is not used in the neo-liberal sense to meanthe formation of a world market, though this interpretat ionis potent in gove rnmen t, the co rporat e world and popular

Page 56 211999 - 1/2000

cultures. To distance the t erm here from neo-liberal usage,it is placed in inverted commas ('globalisation') . What thendoes 'becoming global' mean? I t refers to systems andrelat ionships beyond the scale of the nati on, at con tinen tal, regional and world levels.

'International' t rade , inter-nat ional t rade , t rade betweennat ions , has a very long history (Hirst and Thomson,1996). Cross-continental religions with universal ambitions date back two thousand years and more. 'Western'academic knowledge dates perhaps from the Renaissance.Nevertheless, in the last three decades or 50 a furtherchange has occurred, in which global relat ions havebecome more extensive and intensive. This change ismarked above all by thickening networks of instantaneousmedia and communication, and the new forms of identity,community and action they facilitate. 'Globalisat ion' is alsocharacterised by the increasing mobil ity of people for thepurposes of business and l abour , m igr at ion and study,creating a more complex cultural mix and cosmopolitanand hybrid ident it ies (Babha, 1990; Appadurai, 1996).In this environment people undergoing new culturalinf luences use media, communications and return travel tomaintain contact with their previous place-locations, theirprevious selves. Travelling is less a passage f rom oneabsolute place-identity to another, more an absorption ofadditional strands of identity in a setting in which 'selves'are cosmopolitan, li nked to multiple cul tu ra l groups andcentres of activity and simultaneously affected by kinbased, local , national, regional and global markers . Manyi nt er na ti onal s tudent s and academic faculty come toassume hybrid ident ities . While this kind of 'globalisation'excludes the poorest par t of the wor ld 's populat ion wholack access to telecommunications and whose experienceof th e global is limited to (and by) images of globalconsumption, it has a broad and ever-growing impact onother social layers. Held et al. note that 'notions ofcit izenship and nat ional ident ity are being renegotiated inresponse to contemporary patterns of global migrationand cultural globalisation .. . in many cases the trajectoryof these negotiations is far from clear' (Held et al., 1999,326).

Theorisations of cultural 'globalisation' conjure up anincessant changeability, flicker and fleetingness, derivedfrom the rapid turnover of images and systems. I t isimportant no t to fall into a universalistic 'globalisation'which loses locality, con tingency and cul tu ra l contextamid a supposedly transcendent 'world-culture' subject tocontinuous reinvention . Much of what is described asreinvention is the same practices recycled, attached to afew novel signs. Perpetual reinvention is on e of themarkers of the neo-l iberal ideology of 'globalisation',creating a continuous obsolescence and ever-new products and markets , while basic relat ions of power remainunchanged. However, in the real world, whi le there is


5/11


novelty and discontinuity, 'globalisation' does not constitute a complete break from the past.'Globalisation' and education'Globalisation' has immense implications for education. Aswell as chang ing the potentials of national government,the incubator of modern higher education systems, 'globalisation is associated with the growth of internationalmarkets in on-site and on-line educa tion, and ever-moremobility and communications. World-wide the number ofinternational s tudents has grown from one to two millionsince 1980. On-line education, crossing national borders,hastens the cultural inter-penetration of nat ions and education institutions. In policy, international comparisonsthat were once the province of a few specialists are oftennow the terrain on which national policy is conceived andformulated. This raises the stakes in compara tive education. E. Oyen remarks:

People flo between countries in ways that have neverbeen seen before, at the same rate that internationalorganisation! are established non-stop. Politicians go fo rcomparisons to increment their comprehension andcontrol of na tional events, though they end up acceptingintuitive comparisons to justi fy a great part of their policypreferences. Bureaucrats make extensive use of nationaland in terna tional s tatistics in their comparisons, andindustry and the world of business constantly comparethe social context of national and international markets... This tendenry to globalisation has changed our cognitive map. While some cultural differences tend to vanish,others become more pronounced. Comparative investigation probably has to change, going [rom emphasisingthe search of uniformity in the variety, to studying thepreservation of enclaves of unity amid an ever increasing homogeneity and uniformity (Oyen, 1990).It is often noted that 'globalisation' is associated with two

contrary trends: a trend to world-wide convergence,homogeneity; and a trend to difference via more extensiveand complex encounters with cultural 'others'. Paradoxically 'globalisation's' homogenising systems, reaching intoevery corner, render heterogeneous difference more uniform than before. Globalisation foregrounds those differences that appear within the frame of global systems,while progressively eliminating the potential for 'others'located outside those systems and opaque to them. Globa lsystems in finance and communica tions, and most worldproducts, are carriers of particular Anglo-American national traditions. For example, four fifths of all electronicallycoded information is in English (Held et al., 1999, 346).Despite 'globalisation's' dual potential for homogenisa

tion and diffe rence , it would no t be hard to mount theclaim tha t homogenising aspects are presently uppermostin education. The nee-liberal argument for school reformby John Chubb and Ter ry Moe (1990), grounded in theunique circumstances of locally-controlled US public

----- . - ~ - - - - - _ . _ - -

schools, became required reading in policy circles everywhere. In the Anglo-American countries, courses fo rinternational students in bus iness and information technology are forming a global elite steeped in Americanlanguage and business practices. The World Bank (1994)mode l for h ighe r educa ti on reform -rnixed publ ic andprivate sector provision and funding, corporate-style competing institutions, and the t ransfer of responsibility foreducational quality from government to institutions - hasbecome a widely adopted benchmark.The means of transmitting this model are global, the

reach of the model is global, yet the model has a local firstworld, 'Northern' and particularly American identity. Global hegemony in comparative education does not meanthe methodological extinction of the nat ional dimensionand its replacement by abst ract universalism, so much asthe world-wide elevation of the educational practices ofone n atio n (or rather, an idealised version of thosepractices). Other nat ions do no t vanish, they are subordinated.Outside the USA, educators often experience the ho

mogenising side of 'global isation ' as a strong 'Americanisat ion' which threatens to overwhelm all forms of identityno t minor var iations on global themes. Never theless, thenotion of 'globalisation' as an automatic, universal, un-stoppable Americanisation should be resisted. Appadurai(1996) comments that the newly mobile identities are no tso much determined by hegemonic cu lture as chosen bytheir subjects . There is still room to move. There is also thepossibility of plural global systems. A strong version ofAmericanisation is one set of possibilities. More fragmented and diverse kinds of 'globalisation' constitute otherpossibilit ies. Likely we will exper ience a mix of the two,vary ing by sec tor, with unitary 'globalisation' strong insec tors such as finance. Where educational practices willfall is as yet uncertain.Comparative education in the global eraIn relation to th e cognitive map used in comparativeeducation, the implications of 'globalisation' vary, depending on the theorisation of 'globalisation' that isadopted , and also on the approach taken to comparativeeducation itself.As discussed ear lier, comparative education has neverbeen innocent of the global, in tha t its positivist form hascontributed to the homogenising 'globalisation' of national sys tems. Of course orthodox comparative educationwill not acknowledge its own global effects (let aloneacknowledge th e content of those effects): positivistscience is, after all, neutral ! An Americanising globalmission is concealed within a pre-global methodology,and the global d imensi on appea rs as merely an appendage of American national identity.No doubt the re are practical re asons for avoiding the

issue, and these have blocked the theorisation of th e

2/1999 1/2000 Page 57


6/11

A U S T R A L I A NUN I V ER SIT I E S . R E V I E W

changing global/national relationship. It might suit thepositivist comparativist to op t for more of the same, so thatcomparative education continues to t es t nat iona l educat ion systems against global templates and advise nationalgovernment s on how to reach ideal global forms. It mightseem convenien t to leave the nation-s tate at the centre ofthe methodology, thereby pro tect ing agencies such as theWorld Bank from scrutiny and deba te while maximisingt he p re ssur e on ' sove re ign' national governmen ts t oconform. Yet this posit ion is becoming increasingly untenable, g iven the empirical weight of global agencies andsupra-national regional groupings such as the EuropeanUnion, not to mention the globalisation fever in socialscience and cultural studies.For comparative international education, the immediate

issue posed by 'globalisation' is its relat iv isat ion of thenation-state. Governance remains national in form, andnation-sta tes continue to be central players in a globalisingworld. Nevertheless, the nation-state now operates withinglobal economic constraints , and is often the a gent ofg loba l fo rces. Whi le it r et ai ns t he potential fo r selfdetermination and g lobal influence, it no longer p rovidesa sealed political-cultural environment. This is a greatchange, and it suggests the need for research on the globalagencies, and other global institutions and relationships;investigation of the new geo-pol it ical -educational s tructures of power in a globalising world; th e study ofinterna tional educa tion inc luding on- line educa tion ; andthe implications of new forms of governance and identityother than the national. In turn, these sites of research callup the need for a post-positivist comparative education.'Globalisation' creates both sameness and dif fe rence,

and the relationship between them is open-ended andcontingent, reinforcing the earlier point tha t comparativeeducation should no t privilege either sameness or difference in a las ting sense. Similarly, comparative educationshould be framed so as to encompass both hegemonicculture and the alternative voices, and move between themacro and the micro, and between the qualitative andquantitative. To exercise this strategic intellectual freedom, it is essential that to a significant degree comparativeeducation is beyond the control of government or globalagencies. Within th e field, th e stran d of independentresearch needs to be enhanced.Such independent research is a able to acknowledgethat in terms of it s explanatory power, the pos it iv is t

method has entered an irreversible crisis. First , the crisis ofepistemologic universalism: the inability of universalistarguments to account for relativistic part ia l t ru ths grounded in gender, class or culture. Second, th e crisis ofuniversal explanation: the inability of one model toencompass all aspects of the real, and the need forcomplex multi-variable models to enable complex understandings. Third, th e crisis in the relat ionship betweenHistory and Sociology. Fukuyama's sta tement about th e

Page 58 2/1999- I /2000

end of history signified positivism's abandonment of socialhistory, in the neo-liberal era. But to dispense with historyis to lose no t only the explanatory power of the past, butthe sense of possible futures, of becoming.The new cogni tion requi red by comparative education

rests on scepticism about grand narratives, data collectionand data analysis techniques, without falling into thenihilism of gross relativism.This new cogni tion takes into account the uniqueness of

the object of study, the historicity of the life world, and theheterogeneity of social subjects and their evolving identities. It draws on a broad range of academic disciplines,with a tt en ti on to t he j unct ions between h is to ry andsoc io logy (Braudel, 1972; T il ly , 1984; Marginson andMollis, 2000), and takes a flexible approach to theory. Atthe same time it subordinat es methods to theories, ra the rthan vice versa as at present. I t encompasses both quantitative and qualitative methods, tending to subordinatethe former to the latter rather than vice versa. It is reflexive:it understands th e implications of t he p rac tic al ro le ofcomparative education for its theories and methodologies,and vice versa.This article will now touch on three elements of this new

cogn it ion: t he et hic s of sameness/difference and self/other in comparat ive educat ion; theor ies, methods anddisciplinary frameworks; and elements of a researchagenda for the global era.Ethics for the global era: difference, the selfand the otherWhen modern education systems were being built, democratic reformers focused on th e sp read of educationalopportunities. They favoured universal and homogenoussystems that weakened old exclusions and hierarchies.With difference understood as inequality, the goal was toreduce di ffe rence (Tedesco and Blumentha l, 1986, 9-28).With cultural diversity a tool of elite power, the goal wasa common culture, with its double-meaning of 'universal'and 'popular -democra ti c' . But in a global era, homogeni sing systems of unprecedented cultural power are able tobreak down subaltern identities without lifting subalternstatus or material posit ion. This suggests the old democratic agenda should become pluralised, and that on e of itsaxes should be reversed.Oyen's point was that the need is no t for sameness amidvariety, it is to sustain the capacity for difference: the right

to cultural self-determination, the universal human right toidentity. This raises the question of the conditions underwhich the right to difference is p romoted. In comparativeeducation , it invokes relat ions between self and o ther.The forgoing argument suggests that in comparative

education in the global era, the approach to sameness anddifference needs to be grounded in an explicit ethic ofrelations between self and other ( this refers no t just to


7/11


individual self/others, but cross-national and cross-cultural relations between institutions, between national authorities, etc.). Research in comparative education should no tprivilege the self over the other, or vice versa. Rather, itshould be concerned to recognise the other , and explaindifference. W'hile all national education systems should bet ransparent to exte rna l scrutiny, these systems also havethe right to self-determining identity, including the cultivat ion and express ion of national or regional differences.This suggests that the a priori bias towards global modelsshould be replaced with an a priori bias against claims tohegemony and in favour of cultural diversity. Negative' ot he ring' is replaced by empathy with the other.To argue for a greater capacity for diversity is no t to take

the ultra-relativist position that all imitation and samenessare 'wrong' . Fo r example cross-national educational convergence in participation rates, levels of public spendingand aspects of institutional modernisation may well bewelcome. However, the i ssue of concern is the culturalcontents of curricula, pedagogies and socialisation ineducation. All else being equal, greater cul tural divers itybetween national systems is a sign of a more po tent selfdetermination. From this perspective, a key quest ion forcomparative education is the pedagogical , cultural, pol it ical and economic precondit ions necessary for, say, indigenous identities in education; or the conditions for national pol icy-determinat ion in a globalising environment .

This kind of research requires a capacity to engage withthe identity of the other via deep comparison, without thecollapse into ultra-relativism. Deep comparison requires acapacity and willingness to change the self, opening thepossibility of partial hybridity. Understanding of the o theris never complete, bu t this is true of all relationships.Young argues that:

The appropriate remedy for xenophobia and ethnocentrism is not a culturally relativist embrace of al l cultures.. . but the development of bi-cultura] or hybrid awareness, fo llowed by more pluralist ic perspectives (Young1997, 504).The guiding principle is equality of respect. The compar

ative educationist willing to incorporate part of the objectof study into he r/h is own identity - and thus able to makethe transformation of subjectivity a fruitful part of theprocess of comparison - can engage more effectively inand draw more p rofound lessons from the research. Thisrequires recognition tha t the self lies, as Young puts it,' somewhere between, on the one hand, heterogeneity andtotal plasticity' and , on the other, 'the entirely homogenous, harmonised single self of the myth of character'(young, 1997, 499). The self and other are each open tochange, bu t they are also each valued and sustained.Appreciation of the other does not have to rest ondeconst ruct ing the o ther, or dissolving the self.

Opening the self in this manner can be uncomfortable,even laden with risk. For the pos it ivist , the process of

distancing oneself from the other (from t he ob jec t ofstudy) is defensive, the assertion of an unchanging inviolable self. The hegemonic comparativist expects all identities and practices to be open to transformation excepthis/her own. A fixed self is preserved, at the expense ofunderstanding the other, undermining the comparativeproject. In contrast, when 'deep compari son' is used thenno one system has hegemonic or privi leged s tatus. Alleducation systems can be relativised for analytical purposes, without exception. Questions can be raised about theeducation system from which the comparison is beingmade, as well as the system or systems with which it iscompared. Questions of relative status and value are openfor the duration of the project.

One way to actualise this 'deep comparative' perspective in cross-nat ional comparison is via reciprocal methodologies. Instead of a solo researcher comparing anothernational system against her/his own system, two researchers each compare the other system against t hei r ownsystem. They then col laborate in ident ifying similari tiesand differences between the two nations, using a hybrid.set of criteria constructed in mutual consultation. Subsequently, in the process of validation, they return to the bilateral and reciprocal. As Young states, 'an interpretat ionis verified by the other, in the new mutual interculturalground that the communicative exploration of meaningcreates' (young, 1997, 503).Theories, methods and disciplinesTo produce a comparative thought we elaborate a set oflinked characteristics within a system. The linking system,the 'prism' used in the research, determines the richnessof the outcome. In constituting this 'prism' which aims tothrow light on the object, theories, methodologies, empirical observations and quant itat ive analyses all const ituteuseful inputs. AI!>' tools that can assist the task of explanation should be available. The re is no one single path tounderstanding, whether via discipline, theory, method, orthe schema of their integration. Recent perspectives in theSociology of Education envisage reality as ever-changing,with a number of dimensions or layers which const ituteindependent spheres but share intertwined dynamics. Theacid test is not the internal consistency of the intellectualsystem per se, sti ll less the capacity of that sy stem toproduce numerical data, bu t its capacity to generate betterexplanations, however def ined. As Dow note s in relationto political economy, within the overall research program,a wide range of tools may be employed to secure acommon purpose of inquiry (Dow, 1990, 146-147).

To those who argue that the choice of theory or methodis driven no t by its purpose but by its alleged 'universal'applicabi li ty as a privi leged source of truth, it can beargued that no one approach can produce all relevant' truth' , that dif ferent theories and methods are associatedwith different truth effects and all truths are partial truths,

2/1999 - 112000 Page 59-- ,


8/11

A U S T R A L I A NUN I V E RS I TIE S ' RE V I E W

and that we are no t so rich in ou r understandings ofcomparative education that we can a ffo rd to neglectinsights from a range of approaches. This is not to arguethat all theories , methods and disciplines are interchangeable, equivalent or 'equally valid'. On the contrary, it is toargue they are in commen su rab le and hen ce eanno: beequally ranked truths.Hitherto in comparative education, debate about analyt

ical t ool s has mostly centred on methodology. Fo r thepositivist, claims to superior research are underpinned bystatements about quantitative rigour, so that the path toknowledge is reduced to the maintenance of internallogical consistency in research design, and fidelity to theempirical protocols. While theory is never absent, it ismostly implicit, bur ied deep in various methodologialpositions. However , th eo ry t ends to be determining,whether or no t it is made explicit. In a reflexive field thecontents of theory are made explicit; and all theories,methods and research protocols are open to interrogation.A field unable to reflect on its own theoretical preconcept ions is ul timately doomed to obsolescence.The distinction between quantitative and qualitative

methods is problematic o nly when the categories areopposed and mutually exclusive. While quantitative toolsare indispensable for certain kinds of explanation, such asthose tabulat ing elements common to different cases;qualitative tools enable data to be si tuated in their real lifecontext, foregrounding difference and isolating problemsof transferability between cases. The two kinds of methodcan be worked in conjunction, in the same researchproject. This is not to argue that qualitative and quantitative methods are 'equal' or equivalent to each other.Qualitative methods are able to encompass a widerspectrum of sameness-difference than are quantitativemethods, which by definit ion emphasise singular quality,sameness.In comparative education the argument for a plurality of

foundation disciplines is widely accepted because of therange of disciplines already used in comparative work. Yetfew compara, tive researchers themselves employ a genuinely multi-disciplinary approach. The field largely consists of competing singular approaches: it is multi disciplinary, bu t no t multi-disciplinary. Multi-disciplinary andinter-disciplinary approaches - for example by combininghis tory and cultural anthropology, with the sociology ofeducation and polit ical economy, joining the identif ication of particularities to the process of comparison - enablea richer set of methods and insights, and hence enable agreater complexity in the research. At the same time, thisposes the problem of which foundation disciplines, and ofthe concep tua l arch itecture used in thei r integrat ion andmutual interrogation.

Page 60 2/1999 - 112000

Aresearch program: globalcomparative educationIn conclusion, the article draws at tention to five implications of the global dimension for a reforged comparat iveeducation.Aglobal framework of analysisFirst, 'globalisation' suggests that nation-to-nation compari sons should be located in a larger analytical framework, noting tendencies to convergence and other globaleffects, and noting also that these effects are contested anduneven, and vary between nations, regions and ins ti tu tions. At the same time, in nation-to-global-standardcompar isons , such as large scale cross-count ry da ta sets,the cultural content of global standards (which mostlyreflect one or another set of national practices) should bemade explicit. There is also a new necessity for comparisons in which the pan-national region is the key unit,including the ED, NAFrA, and MERCUSOR in the 'South.ern Cone' o f the Americas.

Further, the global dimension itself is now a key site forcompara tive and international research: the role andeffects of global agencies, and their relationship withnational governments and non-government agents; themanner in which global effects feed through nat ionaleffects and vice versa; patterns of cross-national influenceincluding regional effects; global inequalities in resourcesand educational power. There are already some relevants tudies, such as Martin Carnoy's path-breaking Educationas cultural imperialism (1974); and more recent work byKaren Mundy (1998), Phillip Jones (1992, 1997), MiriarnHenry et al. (1999) and Marcela Mollis (1999/2000). Still,further critical-empirical study of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund , Asian Development Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank and similar agencies; and ofthe shift from the socio-cultural UNESCO to the economically-defined-World Bank as the primary global agency ineducation; would be illuminating. Other research sites aresuggested by global trade agreements such as GATT; andthe politics of cultural harmonising and respect for cr05Snational difference, in education and other sectors.Anew geo-political cartography of educationSecond, the traditional comparative map of the world, inwhich all nat ions are formally similar and ranked according to their level of development on a single scale, is moreinadequate than ever. I t eliminates global phenomena, itfails to explain power relations between nati on s, andbetween national and global, and it hides qualitativenational differences. This suggests the need for a new geopolit ical car tography tracing the flows of global effects,and the patt erns of imitation, difference, domination and


9/11


subordination in education policy and practice. Many newquestions are on the agenda:Are the categories of 'thi rd wor ld ' and 'North/South'

relevant? Does the 'centre/periphery' framework providea useful s tructure for understanding hegemony in education policy? Is there more than one hegemonic centre ofpower? For example, does the European Union have amajor role to play in global developments, and what is itsrelationship to Anglo-America? Given the spread of English-language communications what is the longer termscope for other global systems from China, Japan or theIslamic world? What are the prospects for Spanish as asecond global European language?Cross-border international educationThird, the growth of cross-border international educationforegrounds it as an object of research in itself, only partlyencompassed by studies of particular national practices.International education sits between global, inter-nationaland national systems.This opens a host of inquiries, from hybrid subjectivitiesamong mobile students; to the attributes required foreducators , insti tu tions and systems in a nationally-interpenetrated educational world; to comparative policies onlanguages and bi-lingualism; to the patterns of international research collaboration and competition; to the spread ofcommercial practices in interna tional educa tion and theresulting tension with pedagogical practices and nationalcultures; to the mushrooming of on-line education communit ies and their relat ionship with national regulat ion,and so on. Research in internat ional comparat ive education needs to encompass the cross-national recognition ofeducation qualifications (Harman and Meek, 1999), theemerging pan-national systems of accreditation and quality assurance (Van Damme, 1999), and cross-border elect ronic d is tance educat ion, which par tly evades na tiona lregulation altogether.New forms of place-identity in educationFourth, as noted 'globalisation' opens up a new potentialfor forms of place-identity other than the national. Thesingular methodological focus on the nat ion has downplayed supra-nat ional cul tura l and religious identities(Shamsul, 1999) and obscured intra-national regionalvariety in educational participation, resourcing and outcomes (Fry and Kernpner, 1998) despite some research inthis area (Parrado, 1998). This near exclusion of theregional is un surprising. The modern nation-state hasbeen a mechani sm for ach ieving nat iona l def in it ion,political reconciliation and homogeneity; a set of tools forovercoming diversity. Now, the global relativisation of thenation-state allows reg iona l and cul tu ra l diversities toresurface, in education and other sectors.

Nevertheless, and despite the fact that groups such asindigenous people draw suppor t from the global level, inthe overwhelming majority of cases it is only wherenational infrastructure provides protection from the homogenising effects of 'globalisation' that diverse identitiesfurthered. For example, minority cultures are stronger inWestern Europe than in African countries that lack theresources and policies needed, including policies on languages in education and government to facilitate indigenous identities.The Impact of the global at national levelFinally, a fur ther set of research problems art generated bythe impact of the global dimension at the national It vel.Modern education systems are still organised locally andnationally, subject to national regulation, and powered bya nation-building mission, albe it an often fragile one(Marginson, 2000). The t rends to mobility and cosmopoli tanism have major implications for policies on the preparation of citizens in education.Another set of research is suggested by patterns of globalpolicy borrowing and imitat ion, which suggests the needfor a methodology for studying conditions for successfultransfer of educational policies and practices. For example, the 1994 World Bank model of higher education urgessystems to move to mixed public and private funding. No tall nations can draw on a domestic capital base sufficientto underpin major private funding: no o ther nation, withthe possible exception of Japan, has the American capacityfor tuition financing, corporate research, and donationsfrom alumni and foundations. Comparative educationcould research the varying capacities of individual nationsto meet this and other global policy norms. In turn thiswould allow the development of a more nuanced, variablemodel of public and private financing.A further research agenda triggered by 'globalisation' is

to directly examine education policy borrowing itself: tomap in and between nations the forms and instances ofisomorphism and convergence, and their opposites , selfdetermination and diversity, in education systems" andinsti tu tions. (Marginson and Considine, 2000). Here thekey policy issue is whether, to what extent , and withinwhat limits, nationally-determined education practices areviable. What are the condi tions necessa ry to sustainnational and local self-determination and difference in theglobal era? Clearly, the answer will vary by nation.To take the extreme case, educational self-determina

tion is not an issue in the USA. In that country there is arobust national agenda. I t is no t contradicted by 'globalisation' which is partly constituted by that American agenda. But in many other parts of the world, 'globalisation'appears in conflict with national identity, and self-determination is a burning issue. The problem of Americanisationcreates a principal dividing line in the academic field of

211999. 1/2000 Page 61


10/11

A U 5 T R ,A L I ,A N U' N P V' E R' 5 I T I 'E. 5" R, E' V. j E.W

comparative education. Within the USA itself there is as yetlittle internal critical reflexivity in relation to the globaleffects of national American practices, effects mediatednot only by government but by universities also. Nevertheless, this problem is at the heart of both the dyad ofsameness/difference integral to comparison, and the power/knowledge effects of compara tive educa tion in theglobal era.As such Americanisation is a principal policy and re

search site for independent scholars inside and outside theUSA, and provides coordinates for dialogue and debate inacademic forums. Though comparative educa tion is anAmerican-dominated field complicit in the global-as-convergence, its theories and methods can also be redeployedto explain hegemony, difference and self-determinationon a world scale.Comparative education could do this more effectively ifthere was genuinely equal sharing between the traditionsin the field, manifest in a multi-lingual approach. Diversityof tongues shapes the diverse and multiple phenomenaaccounted for by comparat ive education: that linguisticdiversity is not the norm is symptomatic of Americanisation. Significant communities in comparative education inSpain and Latin America, Europe and China are undertranslated and under-published in English (Altbach, 1991).Data from Held at al. show that tit is books originallywritten in English that are overwhelmingly the object oftranslation into other languages' not vice uersa (Held et al.,1999, 346).In comparisons which cross language barriers, compar

ative researchers ought to be conversant with the languages and cultures of all of the nations under study, precluding 'intellectual tourism'. To the extent that comparativeeducation is focused on difference as well as sameness, onlocal specificity as well as global standards, we shouldexpect more curiosity about what non Anglo-Americanvoices are saying, and greater sensitivity to the rights of theother.ReferencesAltbach, P., (1991), 'Trends in comparative education', Comparativ,Edura/ion Revi,w, 35 (3), pp. 491-507.Appadurai, A., (1996), Madernity at Larg,: Cultl iral dimensions ofglohalitafion, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Babha, H., (1990), Nation and Narration, London: Routledge.Barber, B., (1972), 'Science, salience and comparative education: somereflections on social scientific inquiry' , Comparative Edlltation Revie,..,16 (3), pp. 424-436.Barbules, N., and Torres, C, (eds.) (2000), Globalisation and Ed/Nation.Becher , T., (1993), 'Las disciplines y la i dent idad de los academicos' ,Penlamiento Universitari, Ano 1, 1, pp . 56-78.Braudel , F., (1972), Tb Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World inthe Age DjPhi/ip If, London: Harper-Collins,Carnoy, M., (1974), Ed1i.ation as Cl/lIl/ralImp,rialism, MacKay: NewYork.Casrells, M., (1996), Tbe Ris, Dj the Network Sod,ty, Oxford: Blackwell.Chubb, R. and Moe, T. , (1990), Palitics, Markett and Amerita's Srhoolt,Washington: The Brookings Institute.

Page 62 2/1999 - 1/2000- - - - - ----

Crossley, M., (1999), 'Reconceptualising comparative and internationaleducation', C a m p a ~ , 29 (3), pp. 249-267.Diker, G., (1993), 'Acerca de la diversidad del trabajo academico', &visladel lnstitet de Ciencias de la Eduradon (lICE), Ano Il , 3, pp. 39-48.Dow, 5., (1990), 'Beyond dualism', Camhridge Journal ofEronomirs, 14,pp. 143-157.Epstein, E.H., (1998), 'The problematic meaning of "comparison" incomparative education', in K. Kempner , M. Moills and W. Tiemey (eds.),Comparative Eau.alion, pp. 31-40. Needham Heigh ts : S imon andSchuster.Fry, G. and Kernpner, K., ( 1998), 'A subnational perspective forcomparative research: education for development in Northeast Braziland Northeast Thailand, in K Kempner,M. Moills and W. Tiemey (eds.)Comparati/l, Eduration, pp. 384-408, Needham Heights: Simon andSchuster,Harman, G. and Meek, V.L., (1999), Quality Amlranre and Arrredita-lion in Higher Eduration: A r,part for tb Depar/m,n/ of Edurafion,Training and YOII/h Affairs, Armidale: Cen tr e f or H igher Educa ti onManagement and Policy, University of New England.Harvey, D., (1990), Tb, Condition of Pos/modmlity, Oxford: Blackwell.Held, D., McGtew, A., Goldblatl, D. and Peraton, ). , (1999), GlohalTrantjorma/ians, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Henry, M., Lingard, B. Rizvi , F. and Taylor, S., (1999), 'Working with/against globalization in education', Journal ofEdurafion Poliry, 14 (1),pp. 85-97.Hesse, M.B., (1980), Revolutions and Rrronstrurtions in the Philosoph)ofSd,nre, London: Harvester Press.Hirst, P. and Thomson, G., (1996), GlIJha/isation in question, Cambridge:Polity Press.Jones. P., (1992), World Bank Finanring of Bducatio: Lending, learn-ing and dev,lopmen/, Routledge: London.Jones, P., (1997), 'On World Bank education f inancing pol ic ies ands trategies for development : a World Bank review', Comparativ, Edura-tion, 33 (1), pp. 117-129.Kempner, K., Mollls, M. and Tierney, W., (1998), ' In troduction ', in KKernpner, M. Mollis and W. Tie rney (eds.), Comparative Eduration, pp.xiii-xvii, Needham Heights : Simon and Schuster,Keyman, E.F., (1997), Globalisation, Stat" Identity/DiJfmnu: Towarda tritisa] sorial th,ory of intemational relations, New Jersey: HumanitiesPress.Marginson, 5., (1997), Marke/s in Edutation, Sydney: Allen and Unwin,Marginson, S., (2000). 'Nation-building universit ies in a global environment: the case of Australia', Higher Education [forthcoming].Marginson, S. and Considine, M., (2000), The Enterprise University:Governanre and reisuentio in .As str ai ian higher , du .a /ion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Marginson, S. and Mollis, M., (2000). 'The Door Opens and the TigerLeaps': Theory and method in comparative education in the global era',paper to the Comparative and International Education Society Conference, San Antonio, March.Mature, A., (1991), 'El Metodo de Acercamicnto Critico, Otro pun to devista sabre catidad de la educacion', Revista La/inaam,rirana deEs/udioI Eduratipos, 21 (2), Mex ico, pp. 89-108.Mollis, M., (1990), 'La education comparada de los 'BD: Memor ia ybalance', ReviIta de Edl/tati6n, 293, Sep/Dic, Centra de Investigaci6n,Documentation y Evaluaci6n (CIDE), Ministerio de Educaci6n y Ciencia,Espana, Madrid, pp. 311-323.Molli s, M., (1991), Estado Narional J Univerlidad, Argentina J JaP6n1885-1930, Buenos Aires: Biblos.Mol li s, M., (1996), 'El uso de la Comparacion en la Historia de laEducation', in R. Cucuzza, (ed.), His tone de la Edl/rati6n In Debate,Instituto de Ciencias de la Educaci6n, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Mifioy Davila Edirores, Buenos Aires, pp. 184-206.MoWs, M., (1999/2000), 'The Americanisation of university reform or therejection of university tradition in Argentina', .Australian Univ,rIitiu'Review, 42(2) 43 (1).

------


11/11

A U ' 5 T R::A' L' I .A NUN r V E R 5' T k E 5 ' . R E V I ' E W

Mollis, M., and Marginson, S. (2000), 'The assessment of universit ies inArgentina and Austral ia : between autonomy and heteronomy' , HigberEdNcation, [forthcoming).Morrow, R. and Torres, C, (1995), Sotial Theory alld EdJltation. AcritiqNe of /htorill of socis! and rNI/ural rep/"tu/Netion, New York: SUNYPress.Mundy, K., (1998), Educational multilateralism and world (dis)order,Comparative Eduration Review, 42, 448-478Nosh, H., (1988), 'Methods in compara tive educat ion ', in T. N. Pest le hwaite (ed.), Tb Ent,}tlopedia of Comparative EdNra!ion and NationalSJlftllu of EdNtation, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 10-13.Noah, H. J. and Eckstein, M.A., (1969), Toward a Slitll" of ComparatilJlEdutatio", New York: Macmillan.Oyen, E., (1990), 'The imperfection of comparisons', in ComparativeMe/bodology: Tbeory and prartill i/l i/l/er"a#OIIal sotial researsb,London: Sage.Parrado, E.A. (1998), 'Expansion of schooling, economic growth, andregional inequalities in Argentina', C011/para/ive EdNro/ion &IIiell', 42(3), pp. 338-364.Samoff, J.. (1990), 'More , Less, None? Human resource development:responses to economic const ra in t' . Paper prepared for the InteragencyTask Force on Austerity, Adjustment, and Human Resources of theInternational Labor Office and the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organisation, May.

- -- - ~ - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - '

Shamsul, A.B., (1999), 'Colonial Knowledge and the Shaping of Europe.Asia Relations: A Critical Evaluation', Paper for the conference Asia-Europeon the eve of the 21" century, Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 19-20 August.Skocpol, T. , (1984), L ~ Estados J Rtvo/llfio1ltJ S ~ t i a / t J , Pondo deCultura Econ6mica.Tedesco, J.C and Blurnenthal, H., (1986), 'Desaflos y problemas de laeducacicn super io r en Americ a La tina , in La fuve1I/ud Universitaria e1IAhfirica Latina, CRESALC UNESCO ILDIS, Caracas, pp. 9-28.Tilly, C, (1984), Big SlrNc/um, Large P ~ W J e l , HNge Comparilonl, NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO,(1979a), La l CIt//uras y el Tiempo, Paris: UNESCO.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO,(1979b), El Titmpo J La! Filoloflal, Paris: UNESCO.Van Damme, D., (1999), In/erna/iOlla/ila/iOll and Quality .Assxranre:Towardl WorldDlide Amtditation?, Paper for the IAUP XII th TriennialConference, Brussels, 11-14 July.World Bank, (1994), Higher Education: Tht lessons of exp.rience, WorldBank, Washington.Young, R., (1997), 'Comparative methodology and postmodern relativism', lnternatiena] Rtvie.. of Edltca/ion, 43 (5-6), pp. 497 -505.

2/1999 112000 Page63

Documents

Comparing National Education