BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Session Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

New directions in comparative education policy (Part 2): The translation and instrumentation of policy

Wed, March 13, 4:45 to 6:15pm, Hyatt Regency Miami, Floor: Third Level, Johnson 1

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

In Rethinking Comparison, Simmons and Smith (2021) argue that comparative methods are at the cross-roads of two main trends: on the one hand, a trend towards controlled comparative methods that has taken the route of natural experiments; and, on the other, an opposing trend towards ‘deconstructing comparison’, heavily indebted to postcolonial theory, which sees comparative methods as outdated and regressive, given their legacy of comparing ““civilizations” through hierarchical, evolutionary social scientific paradigms” (p.1). The dilemmas and challenges posed by such disjuncture have directly impacted comparative policy analysis (CPA), inspiring a number of research innovations, and leading scholars to embrace methodological pluralism, interdisciplinarity and a more sophisticated understanding of movement and scale in policy-making.

The challenges and criticisms faced by the comparative method have reinforced cross-fertilization and dialogue between CPA and the plurality of approaches beyond the comparative method. CPA increasingly combines once divorced research traditions: statistical research of a probabilistic nature are used in combination with theory-building approaches such as process tracing, whereas qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to account for necessary conditions are combined with more in-depth historical within-case studies (Peters and Fontaine 2020). Methodological pluralism contributes to strengthening causality and causation in comparative research, as well as to capturing the role of complex factors such as time, context and networks in processes of policy change. Relatedly, CPA benefits from a stronger embeddedness in social sciences and the confluence of various (sub-)disciplines such as policy studies, policy sociology, global studies and political analysis.

Policy transfer is one of the lines of inquiry that has witnessed a more substantive transformation as a result of these developments. Conventional approaches to transfer mechanisms have evolved to account for new modes of policy movement and pathways of influence (Blatter et al 2022). Transfer is no longer conceived exclusively as the movement of policy between similar administrative units, or between policy “levels”. Rather, different political scales are simultaneously involved in processes of policy change, although with fluctuating emphases over the policy process. Federal countries have consolidated as a vantage point to observe how political scales structure and are structured by given power relations and social dynamics. Federal settings represent a unique scenario to study the uneven diffusion of policy ideas, solutions, and institutional templates, and how these patterns generate different layered policy complexities (Wimmer, 2021).

The fact that globalization processes have challenged the nation-state as a monopolistic form of agency in policy-making does not necessarily render cross-country comparisons less meaningful. CPA conceives countries (or the policy models that countries represent) as main study cases, at the same time that is increasingly open to focusing on a broader range of research units. Beyond conventional cross-country studies, comparative research is also being conducted across other geographical areas (e.g. regions), across time, or across policy areas (e.g. health and education) (Schaffer 2015). Furthermore, to be explanatory, cross-country comparisons need to involve within-country case study designs, which involve other types of relevant comparisons (e.g. between other units within the same country) (Peters and Fontaine 2020). Overall, rather than taking the objects of comparative analyses as a given, ‘comparativists’ are being increasingly encouraged to actively construct them (Barlett and Vavrus 2017).

Comparative education research has not been alien to such dynamics. In fact, the criticisms behind the evolution of CPA resonate directly with recurrent debates within CIE - such as its reliance on ‘methodological nationalism’ (defaulting on countries as the main unit of comparison) and ‘educationism’ (a disciplinary parochialism that encourages researchers to base education policy analysis on approaches that come exclusively from within the field of education) (Dale and Robertson 2009). Growing awareness of the limitations posed by a reductionist approach to comparative education inquiry has given rise to efforts to ‘de-parochialize’ the field, and to a reconceptualization of comparative education as part of a broader field of studies with a strong interdisciplinary approach. Comparative education research focusing on policy dynamics, in particular, increasingly reflects the innovations advanced by CPA - including the reliance on a richer, more sophisticated toolbox, as well as on a more refined understanding of the notion of scale, context and comparison.

Studies on education policy transfer are a testament to the growing sophistication of comparative education research. Here, it is possible to discern at least two major shifts in the conceptualization of education transfer dynamics. To start with, studies on transfer dynamics have shifted from a focus on horizontal movement (i.e. bilateral relationship) to a multi-scalar approach that takes seriously the agentic role played by transnational organizations and spaces in such processes. Secondly, scholars of education policy transfer increasingly pay attention to (interpretation) and translation processes, as well as to the sources of variation in the recontextualization of globalizing policy ideas, veering away from the convergence thesis.

This double-panel includes papers that make an effort to innovate in comparative analysis methods and forms of inquiry. It features a selection of empirically rich studies covering different contexts and policy programmes - such as school-autonomy-with-accountability, the proliferation of national assessments, human rights policy, or alternative teacher education. Such themes are explored from two main angles: transnational dynamics of agenda setting and policy movement, on the one hand, and policy translation and instrumentation on the other. Beyond their particular case, the presenters will advance theories of the policy process by introducing a transnational perspective that takes into account the politics and economics of policy instrumentation and change. Several papers also take up the challenge of analyzing how apparently similar policies work in dissimilar environments, and with what outcomes. Ultimately, the panel offers a fresh approach to policy transfer debates that have long centered CIE research - one that takes advantage of recent advances in CPA and brings them into a dialogue with more endogenous developments.

The double-panel is a reflection of how the field has evolved in the last decade. Taking a forward-looking perspective, the panel aims thus at stimulating reflection on the possibilities opened by new comparative methods, tools and forms of inquiry, and will reflect on the research questions posed by this changing environment that merits further investigation.

Sub Unit

Organizer

Chair

Individual Presentations