Cross-National Analysis

This is the third post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at cross-national analysis.

Archer, M. S. 1979. Social Origins of Educational Systems. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Margaret Scotford Archer is placed under cross-national analysis of the epistemological spectrum for several reasons. Archer argues in defense of Macro-Sociology as a means to explain large-scale, complex social phenomena on education and in the case of Archer’s specific study, how sociology can add to the understanding of how educational systems develop and how they change.[1] Several statements made by Archer stand out as placing her under a cross-national analysis theoretical approach. Archer argues that “individual’s interpretations of their situations are important in macro-sociology; its advocates simply insist that there are things about these (disagreeable and rewarding) situations which encourage certain interpretations of them.”[2] Further, Archer argues that “in complex societies the number of cross-cutting inter-dependencies between parts is so high, any change induced in one element will have repercussions for others.”[3] The most compelling statement from Archer is that “macro-sociologists do not deny that the actions of individuals are the causal origin of complex phenomena…they simply maintain that because at present we are unable to know what this causal chain is, we must acknowledge this non-deducibility and thus consider individual actions to be necessary but not sufficient conditions.”[4] Archer’s nomothetic approach to comparative education place her in the company of other comparative scholars such as Torsten Husen, Adam Curle and Philip Foster.

Christenson, M., and E. Crenshaw. 1999. “Democracy’s Handmaiden: The Influence of Mass Education on Political and Economic Change,” in Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in Democratization: Part I: Transitional States and States of Transition, ed. N.F. McGinn and E.H. Epstein, 81-116. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

It is immediately evident in Christenson and Crenshaw’s article that they are employing a cross-national analysis theoretical framework to their research. They highlight in the abstract of their article that they “use cross-national samples and multivariate statistical techniques to test this hypothesis with respect to three dimensions of modernization.”[5] Christenson and Crenshaw describe the purpose of their research by using cross-national samples from 55 to 100 countries. In doing so, they hope “to demonstrate empirically that mass education plays a unique, integral role in macrosocial change, exerting direct influences on the antecedents of democracy, economic development and social stratification/inequality, thereby indirectly affecting democracy, as well as exercising a direct effect on democracy itself.”[6] Christenson and Crenshaw’s nomothetic approach to comparative education is quite evident throughout their article.

[1] Archer, M. S. Social Origins of Educational Systems. (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1979), 1.
[2] Archer, M. S. Social Origins of Educational Systems. (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1979), 28.
[3] Ibid, 29.
[4] Ibid, 36.
[5] Christenson, M., and E. Crenshaw. “Democracy’s Handmaiden: The Influence of Mass Education on Political and Economic Change,” in Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in Democratization: Part I: Transitional States and States of Transition, ed. N.F. McGinn and E.H. Epstein, (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 81.
[6] Ibid, 83-84.

IIE Study Abroad White Paper, Issue 2 released

The Institute of International Education has released it second study abroad white paper entitled Exploring Host Country Capacity for Increasing U.S. Study Abroad. You can access this white paper as well as their first study abroad white paper Current Trends in U.S. Study Abroad & the Impact of Strategic Diversity Initiatives (May 2007) at the following link: www.iie.org/StudyAbroadCapacity

Assessment Toolbox for International Educators

At the NAFSA: Association of International Educators conference next week in Washington, D.C. I will be part of a panel discussion entitled Assessment Toolbox for International Educators with my colleagues Lee Sternberger from James Madison University, Elaine Meyer-Lee from Saint Mary’s College, Victor Saviki from Western Oregon University and Darla Deardorff from Duke University & AIEA. Here is the abstract of our session:

Student outcomes assessments are important in communicating the value of international education to key stakeholders. This interactive session will explore tools and methods for assessing student outcomes in international education and study abroad, and for communicating the findings.

I plan to discuss the Global Perspectives Inventory (GPI).

What We Know About Diversity in Education Abroad: State of the Research

The following text is excepted from:

Comp, D. (2007, May). What We Know About Diversity in Education Abroad: State of the Research. The Proceedings for the Colloquium on Diversity in Education Abroad: How to Change the Picture, 48-53. Colloquium organized and hosted by the Academy for Educational Development on May 2, 2006 in Washington, DC.

The best understanding on the state of diversity in education abroad can obtained by comparing the Institute of International Education (IIE) Open Doors summary that reports demographic data on U.S. students studying abroad to the data that the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) prepares on U.S. higher education enrollment. As evidenced by the longitudinal demographic data on the Open Doors website, the racial and ethnic makeup of U.S. students studying abroad has remained virtually unchanged percentage wise from 1993/94 to 2003/04. For example, the percentage rate of African-American students, as part of all racial and ethnic groups, during this time period increased only 0.6%. However, the actual total number of Asian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, and multiracial students studying abroad during this same time period increased substantially. For example, the total number of African-American students studying abroad during the 1993/94 academic year was 2,136 and by the 2003/04 academic year African-American participation increased to 6,505 students. This represents a 67% increase in the total number of African-American students studying abroad during this eleven year period. Increase amongst themselves as a group is significant but, compared to other groups, more progress needs to be made.

There are three rather large disparities to point out in the demographic data between U.S. higher education enrollment and U.S. study abroad participation rates. In particular, the 16.6% positive difference between U.S. higher education enrollment and studying abroad for Caucasian students is the most striking. For all other racial and ethnic groups there is a negative difference between U.S. higher education enrollment and study abroad participation. The largest gaps are found in the Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino-American student populations with 8.5% and 5.0% decreases respectively. The demographic data on the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship provides some interesting insight. This table shows that without Gilman funding, even fewer numbers of minority students would study abroad.

Positivism

This is the second post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at positivism.

Noah, H.J. 1973. “Defining Comparative Education: Conceptions,” in Relevant Methods in Comparative Education: Report of a Meeting of International Experts, ed. R. Edwards, B. Holmes and J. Van de Graaff, 109-117. Hamburg: Unesco Institute for Education.

Very early on in his remarks at the meeting of international experts to whom he was presenting, Harold Noah stated that “the conceptual and practical problems of conducting theory-oriented comparative research are not only not immediately and obviously tractable, but are also being widely aired.”[1] Noah provides a brief overview of how the social sciences were changing at the time and that the “transformation in our thought lies in the attempt inherent in the social sciences to explain and predict, rather than merely to identify and describe.”[2] Noah’s positivistic approach to comparative education is evident as he summarizes his discussion with “the crux of all this is the necessity at some point in the analysis to stop further within-country analysis and to change the level of analysis to incorporate among-country variables. For this is the essential condition for a study to be classified as “comparative”: data are collected at more than one level and analysis also proceeds at more than one level.”[3] Noah’s comments set the stage for later critiques in the ideographic approach to comparative education.

Farrell, J.P. 1979. “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience of Science and the Problem of Comparability,” Comparative Education Review 23, no. 1: 3-16.

Joseph Farrell’s presidential address to the Comparative and International Education Society put forth a positivistic epistemological approach to comparative education. In his work, Farrell states “a basic assumption of my argument is that there is no such thing as comparative methodology. There are comparative data, to which a variety of analytical tools may be applied, the whole enterprise is being constrained by the requirements of the scientific method.”[4] Farrell points out that science is systematic, empirical and comparative and writes that “the object of science is not simply to determine that relationships exist, but to determine the range over which they exist. It is simply not possible to conceive of a generalizing science which is not inherently comparative.”[5] Farrell ends his presidential address by stating “when working with concepts, data comparability is not the apparent problem that it is when working with observables. One uses for the concepts whatever empirical indicators are relevant for each country of time period.”[6] There are just a few of the many statements made by Farrell that place him on the nomothetic side of the spectrum.

[1] Noah, H.J. “Defining Comparative Education: Conceptions,” in Relevant Methods in Comparative Education: Report of a Meeting of International Experts, ed. R. Edwards, B. Holmes and J. Van de Graaff, (Hamburg: Unesco Institute for Education, 1973), 110.
[2] Ibid, 112.
[3] Ibid, 114.
[4] Farrell, J.P. “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience o Science and the Problem of Comparability,” (Comparative Education Review 23, no. 1, 1979), 4.
[5] Ibid, 5-6.
[6] Ibid, 6.

Bibliographies on Public Diplomacy and Assessing Intercultural Competence

During my recent research efforts I stumbled upon the following two bibliographies that are think are excellent. They are as follows:

Literature on Public Diplomacy by Ali Molenaar (2008)
http://www.clingenda...public-diplomacy.pdf

Assessment Tools of Intercultural Communicative Competence by Alvino E. Fantini (2006)
http://www.worldlearning.org/SITOccasionalPapers/feil_appendix_f.pdf

Denials of Transportation Worker Identification Credential from the Transportation Security Administration

An interesting article appeared in today’s New York Times about international oceanography graduate students from M.I.T. being denied a Transportation Worker Identification Credential from the Transportation Security Administration to work around ships and docks. Additionally, the letter these students received stated that it was “determined that you pose a security threat.” One student, Wilken-Jon von Appen who is a 23 year old student from Germany, is funded by a $65,000 grant from the National Science Foundation.