| The contributions to this issue of the journal are a selection of
revised papers originally presented at the Worldwide Forum of Comparative Education,
held in Beijing, China, in 2002. The Forum brought together scholars from many
countries, and advanced understanding on some important themes. The focus
of the Forum was ‘Globalisation and Education Reform’. As some of the papers noted,
the concept of globalisation has a long history. However, contemporary awareness
of the nature and impact of globalisation is unprecedented, and it was quite clear
from the papers and the discussions which flowed from them that the choice of
theme for the Forum fitted the academic and practical concerns of all participants. The
Forum was sponsored by Beijing Normal University, which is widely considered the
premier institution of its type in China. The event was co-sponsored by the Chinese
Comparative Education Society (CCES) and the Comparative Education Society of
Hong Kong (CESHK). These are two of the 30 constituent societies of the World
Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). Several keynote speakers at
the Forum were current or past presidents of other WCCES constituent societies,
and two of the addresses were given by the President and the Secretary General
of the WCCES. The articles presented here have diverse perspectives to reflect
the diversity not only of authorship but also of geographic and thematic foci.
Like the field of comparative education itself, the articles have plurality in
disciplinary bases and in conceptualisation. Thus, the authors identify different
explicit or implicit meanings of globalisation, and choose different ways to comment
on links between globalisation and education. All authors are aware that the forces
of globalisation are evolving in nature and impact. Comparative Education
and Globalisation The first group of articles focuses on the field of
comparative education. It begins with an analysis of the way that the field has
evolved over the decades, and points out that the emergence of globalisation has
changed the nature of the field by bringing new perspectives and foci for research.
The opening article remarks that it would be unrealistic to assert that the field
of comparative education will ever reach unanimity in perspectives on globalisation,
but adds that comparative education can contribute to the agenda of improving
understanding the nature and impact of cross-national forces. This opening article
has been written particularly from the perspective of the WCCES, of which the
author is Secretary General. The second article, by Gu, is written from
the perspective of the past President of the CCES. Gu’s focus is on the features
of comparative education in China, and on the mission for the field in the era
of the knowledge economy. Gu feels that scholars in China are less competent in
theorising than are their counterparts in other parts of the world, but observes
that the field in China has greatly matured in recent decades. Gu suggests that
the advances of communication through the Internet and other means facilitate
the spread of cultures but can also contribute to conflict between West and East.
Comparative education, Gu suggests, can help promote intercultural as well as
international understanding. Scholars in China are encouraged to develop greater
sophistication and also to embark on dialogue with foreign scholars in a more
balanced way. In the past, Gu suggests, scholars in China chiefly absorbed foreign
countries’ experiences without exporting Chinese perspectives. He exhorts Chinese
scholars to participate in worldwide educational affairs and to publish in international
journals in order to ensure that the Chinese voice is heard appropriately in a
more balanced way. Writing as a Japanese scholar, Suzuki commences with
remarks which have an instructive resonance to those of Gu. Suzuki remarks on
the contrasts between the views of Europeans and those of Chinese and other Asians
during a 2002 international workshop on comparative education held in the Catholic
University in Leuven, Belgium. Suzuki indicates that most of the European participants
showed a keen interest in the relationship between globalisation and newly emerging
forms of ethno-centred nationalism. The Asian scholars, by contrast, were more
interested in functional outcomes from comparative study and, in particular, what
they saw as urgent tasks in the development of quality education. At the same
time, Suzuki identified what he described as an ‘Asian anxiety’ about global restructuring. Suzuki
also makes remarks about units of analysis within the field of comparative education.
Like other contributors to this issue of the journal, Suzuki focuses on the question
of whether the nation-state remains a meaningful unit of analysis in the field.
His conclusion is that it is still meaningful – and indeed national governments
do still see education systems as an instrument within their control, or at least
influence, for shaping the identities of their citizens. However, other units
for comparison, both subnational and supranational, are needed for many purposes.
This is another domain in which the field of comparative education has evolved
beyond its traditional confines, in part as a response to the forces of globalisation. Zha
takes a related line, focusing on the internationalisation of higher education.
This sector, Zha observes, has now become really part of the globalisation process.
The fact that higher education can no longer be viewed in a strictly national
context calls for a definition of internationalisation which embraces the entire
functioning of higher education. Zha develops conceptual schema to show how global
and local forces may be linked, and stresses that processes of internationalisation
may be cyclical rather than linear. At the same time, Zha recognises that the
forces of internationalisation – and by implication globalisation – do not impact
equally on all institutions. In some universities internationalism is essentially
a marginal activity which provides an interesting and stimulating addendum to
a predominantly regional or national focus. For other universities, internationalism
is a core activity which permeates every aspect of institutional life. The
final article in the first part of the collection is by Schriewer, a former President
of the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE). A particular focus of his
article is world-system theory as advocated by various scholars in the 1980s and
1990s. According to some of these scholars, educational policy is among the domains
having the highest degree of global standardisation of organisational structures,
policy-relevant models, and reform discourse. Indeed, these scholars have asserted,
global standardisation in education is stronger even than in the domains of economic,
social and environmental policy. Schriewer calls these findings into question.
He does so with particular reference to data collected from Spain, Russia and
China in the ‘Multiple Constructions of Internationality’ project operated by
his university in Germany. These data, Schriewer indicates, do not strongly reveal
increasing alignment of the reference societies, world views and corresponding
reform options embedded in the three societies’ educational discourses with presumed
world-level patterns. Rather, the data make manifest significant variations and
fluctuations. The findings are perhaps not yet substantial enough to refute the
world-systems theory, but are significant in the extent to which they call into
question the core element of that theory. The analysis shows the danger of oversimplifying
commentary on the nature and impact of globalisation in the domain of education. Economic
and Political Forces The second group of articles in some respects dovetails
with the first. The group commences with an analysis by Tikly et al of the nature
and impact of globalisation in two low-income countries of Africa. These two countries,
Tanzania and Rwanda, are at the periphery of global systems, and in some ways
are threatened by the forces of globalisation. Tikly et al emphasise, however,
that the threats of globalisation – and also the opportunities – are different
not only between the two countries but also within them. The article examines
patterns of change in considerable detail, and thus provides a strong empirical
as well as conceptual analysis. The particular focus of Tikly et al is skills
development. The analytical framework is based on four ‘pressure points’ which
concern (i) the way that different individuals and groups understand skill formation
in relation to national development priorities, the changing role of the State,
and the private sector; (ii) the capacity of education and training systems to
deliver the skills required; (iii) global competition versus social and economic
inclusion; and (iv) the extent to which cultural norms and values encourage or
inhibit skill formation. Rwanda is identified in general to have a more serious
shortage of skills than Tanzania, in part because of its tragic political history
including the 1994 genocide and subsequent flight of refugees and of persons attempting
to escape retribution. Other factors include the higher proportion of the population
in Rwanda that is engaged in agriculture and the attendant lower level of urbanisation.
In both countries, however, globalisation is perceived as containing both threats
and opportunities for national development. Unlike high income countries, the
chief threat is of increasing marginalisation from the global economy, the dominance
of foreign political interests, and the ‘swamping’ of indigenous cultures. As
a result, rapid integration into the global economy was seen as a priority by
the majority of respondents, balanced with a recognition of the immediate need
to eradicate poverty and promote national unity. However, policy makers in Rwanda
were more anxious to globalise and to open their economy, in part because of the
political history of the country and because of a desire to ‘leapfrog’ the experiences
of other countries. The article which follows is presented by the President
of the US-based Comparative & International Education Society (CIES), and
takes a very different pair of countries, namely Hungary and China. The chief
justification for placing these two countries together is that both have undergone
major economic transition since the early 1990s. Hungary’s transition was abrupt,
with the collapse of the Communist regime and the advent of the market economy.
China’s transition was more controlled, with the introduction of the socialist
market economy within a political framework that emphasised continuity. The commonality
between Hungary and China on which Freeman focuses is the link between higher
education institutions and multinational corporations. Freeman’s article presents
more information on developments in Hungary than in China, but it concludes by
suggesting that China can learn useful lessons from the Hungarian experience.
Patterns in the two countries are linked by the increasing pervasiveness of the
market in higher education. This is to a large extent a global phenomenon, but
is especially striking in countries which until the late 1980s were governed by
strong Communist regimes on socialist economic principles. Lee’s article
is in some ways related to Suzuki’s, through its emphasis on national identity.
Writing as a Korean, Lee presents with feeling what he calls the ‘history of agony’
of the Korean people over their identity in the midst of turbulent forces. One
element was ‘a longing for a kind of Sino-centralism in their relationship to
China’; but another element was shame during the twentieth century over the loss
of their country to Japanese colonialism. More recently, Korean youths and educated
people have felt their identity shaken by their ‘English language complex’. These
remarks lead Lee to consider the ways in which Koreans in particular and Asians
more generally view the forces of globalisation. Culturally, Asia is one of the
four cradles of civilisation and is home to some of the main religions of the
world; but many Asians view the tide of what they see as Westernisation with considerable
ambivalence. In such circumstances, Lee, who is a past President of the
Korean Comparative Education Society (KCES) and current President of the Comparative
Education Society of Asia (CESA), presents a role for the field of comparative
education. In this respect, Lee’s work is linked to the articles in the first
group of the present collection. Lee concludes with three roles for the field
of comparative education. First, he suggests, comparative education can advance
understanding of other countries. Second, comparative education can ‘produce the
opportunity to internalise the virtues of coexistence’, and to promote collaboration
in terms of cooperation and equality rather than superiority and inferiority.
Third, Lee suggests, comparative education should play a role of helping groups
to establish their identities. This echoes the remarks of other scholars who have
stressed the possibilities of better understanding of oneself through the understanding
of others. Lee thus presents an agenda for Koreans and others in relation to the
forces of globalisation. Vanlathem’s contribution is rather different in
focus, but can still fit with Lee’s observations. The starting point for Vanlathem
is a 2002 conference about liberalisation of education services held in the US
and organised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
and by the US Departments of Commerce and of Education. The conference took place
just before the end of the first phase of negotiations about services in the context
of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organisation
(WTO). Vanlathem expresses concern about the commodification of education and
its marketisation through the channels of the WTO. He has misgivings about the
global trend towards privatisation of educational services, particularly at the
level of basic education. Echoing the remarks of Tikly et al with specific reference
to Tanzania and Rwanda, Vanlathem stresses the need for a continuing role of the
State in order to achieve education for all. Finally in this section, Gupta
begins by highlighting the change in global attitudes and consciousness since
the events on September 11, 2001 when terrorists flew two aeroplanes into the
New York World Trade Center. Gupta’s opening remarks also note the growing resentment
against the forces of globalisation not only in less developed but also in industrialised
countries. On the one hand, Gupta suggests, recent trends have brought more integration
across the globe; but on the other hand they have increased stratification and
marginalisation. Echoing others, Gupta highlights the value of comparative education
as a field which will permit scholars to identify the forces of change and to
learn from past mistakes. Social and Cultural Issues The third
cluster of articles opens with Peters’ analysis of knowledge capitalism – a term
which emerged in the 1990s to describe the transition of the so-called knowledge
economy, and popularised by the OECD and the World Bank. These bodies have argued
that knowledge and information are among the principle engines of globalisation,
and, as Peters expresses it, that education is a ‘massively undervalued form of
knowledge capital that will determine the future of work, the organisation of
knowledge institutions and the shape of society in the years to come’. Peters
then presents various accounts of knowledge capitalism, each of which has different
emphases. He asserts that the distinction between ‘knowledge economy’ and ‘knowledge
society’ is too dualistic, and instead argues that ‘knowledge cultures’ may be
a more appropriate term. Peters concludes by predicting that governments in the
West will further ease themselves out of the public provision of education as
they begin in earnest to privatise the means of knowledge production and to experiment
with ways of designing and promoting a permeable interface between knowledge businesses
and public education at all levels. This may indeed be an accurate prediction,
even though the trend worries other contributors to this issue of the journal
including Tikly et al and Vanlathem. Next in the group is the article by
Hickling-Hudson, who is a past President of the Australia & New Zealand Comparative
& International Education Society (ANZCIES), and is the current President
of the WCCES. The focus of her article is on multicultural education and what
she calls the postcolonial turn. In some respects, she points out, the forces
of colonialism were strongly globalising. Thus when Hickling-Hudson migrated from
her native Jamaica to Australia in the 1980s she found in this predominantly white
society many structures that were very similar to the structures that the British
had established in the predominantly black societies of the Caribbean, in spite
of differences in the resource base and mode of operation. Similar transplants
of structures, processes and ideologies occurred in much of Asia, Africa the South
Pacific and North America. From this broad context, Hickling-Hudson turns
to the specifics of schooling in Australia. She highlights what she describes
as a culturally problematic school, which uncritically reflects and perpetuates
Anglocentrism in a way that does emotional and intellectual violence to some of
its students. Hickling-Hudson is particularly concerned about the cultures of
the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who comprise about two per cent of
Australia’s total population. She observes that even when teachers make an effort
to teach Aboriginal children in an interesting way, the curricula that they use
are often culturally inappropriate. Most of the materials offered to the children
come from the assimilationist, neo-colonial tradition, with textbooks, wall pictures,
chalkboard writing, art, singing, toys, and sports facilities all typical of the
ethnocentric white school. Some classrooms, she adds, blend Euro-American traditions
by highlighting Disney versions of European fairy tales such as Snow White, Red
Riding Hood and Cinderella. This is form of global cultural colonialism is rarely
questioned and is all the more pernicious because of that fact. Hickling-Hudson
makes a plea for greater awareness and for new curricula and teacher-education
approaches. The last article, by Richardson et al, presents a study of ways
in which secondary school students in Canada and Japan understand and imagine
the responsibilities of world citizenship. The students in the two countries expressed
substantial agreement concerning the nature of environmental and social issues
that the world community will need to address, the degree to which science and
technology have made the world a better place in which to live, and the need for
international cooperation and dialogue to help resolve global issues. However,
their views were sharply divergent in other ways. Only 20% of the Japanese students
were hopeful about the future of human beings, compared with 75% of the Canadians.
Japanese students also expressed stronger concerns over war, pollution, resource
depletion, and the negative effects of technology. These findings reflect the
sentiments expressed in other articles about the diverse ways in which people
in different communities may view the forces of globalisation. Conclusion This
collection of articles presents valuable and diverse perspectives on the theme
of education and globalisation. As noted at the beginning of this Editorial, although
globalisation is not a new phenomenon, in recent years it has become more obvious
in its manifestations and has penetrated the popular consciousness in an unprecedented
way. The conference on this theme hosted by Beijing Normal University clearly
hit a note which resonated with the concerns of a wide range of scholars from
different parts of the world. These scholars, however, brought very different
perspectives arising in part from their countries of origin and the foci of their
research. The contributions have also demonstrated that comparative education
is itself on the one hand an evolving field and on the other hand a very fertile
arena for debate and exploration. As noted above, the event was co-sponsored by
the Chinese Comparative Education Society (CCES) and the Comparative Education
Society of Hong Kong (CESHK). This Editorial has noted that several other comparative
education societies were represented through their presidents or past presidents,
namely the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE), the Comparative Education
Society of Asia (CESA), the Korean Comparative Education Society (KCES), the US-based
Comparative & International Education Society (CIES), and the Australia &
New Zealand Comparative & International Education Society (ANZCIES). These
bodies are among the 30 constituent societies of the World Council of Comparative
Education Societies (WCCES), of which two authors in this collection of articles
are respectively President and Secretary General. As a global body, the WCCES
acts as a forum for bringing together different perspectives from around the world. The
value of bringing these perspectives together is well illustrated by contrasting
the viewpoints in this set of articles. As might be anticipated, for example,
the tone of the article by Tikly et al, which focuses on Tanzania and Rwanda,
is very different from that presented by Freeman, who focused on Hungary and China.
Likewise, Suzuki’s perspective from Asia is rather different from Peters’ perspective
from Western Europe; and similar remarks apply to the other contributions. The
articles are therefore worth considering as a collection as well as on their individual
merits. One domain in which they all agree is that the relationships between globalisation
and education need ongoing research to identify the processes and impact of forces
in different contexts in this rapidly changing world. |
