Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Compare, 2015
Vol. 45, No. 3, 341362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1006944
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Conjunctions of power and comparative education
Roger Dale*
Introduction
In this paper I will be attempting to demonstrate the nature, basis and
consequences of power in, over and through Comparative Education (hereafter CE) by means of what might be seen as a sociological analysis of CE
itself as an object of study. This will entail taking CE itself as a kind of
case study of the operation of different forms of power and their outcomes
in an academic eld. In essence, the purpose of the paper is an attempt to
demonstrate the explanatory potential of CE which I take to be by far its
*Email: r.dale@bristol.ac.uk
2015 British Association for International and Comparative Education
342
R. Dale
Compare
343
distinction John Seeley (1967) made between the making and taking of
social problems. The basis of the distinction is that the nature of an issue,
and the expectations of how it might be addressed, are taken more or less
unproblematically, as they are identied by various interested parties, while
there is, rather, a need to (re-)make them as problems that can be
approached from a less pre-determined (and hence less interested) stance,
a process that starts from problematising the categorisation itself.
What this entails in the context of this paper is: (1) to consider how,
when, in what circumstances and conditions and with what consequences
both (what everybody knows about) CE and power are taken as
resources, rather than made into topics in their own right, and (2) to
indicate some ways that these circumstances, conditions and consequences
depend as much on the institutional and power relationships over and within
CE its conditions of existence as they do on internal disciplinary
debates. In brief, the main aim of the paper will be to make CE, by establishing some of the bases on which it has been taken, in particular by
focusing on its conjunctions with power.
I will attempt to develop this argument in three stages, taking up particular conjunctions between CE and Power power over CE, power in CE,
and power of CE.
Power over CE
By Power over, I refer to the ways that CE itself as a eld of study has
been, and is being, framed by the operation of power of various kinds. I
rst advanced the argument I will develop here in an analysis of the sociology of education in England (Dale 2001). That analysis drew on Karabel
and Halseys (1977) argument that, sociology of education has been inuenced more by its social context than by any inner logic of the development of the discipline (28).1
I suggested that the social context of the discipline could be seen as
formed across three axes of what I referred to as a selection principle that
informs practitioners foci, justications and activities, and frames the
conditions of knowledge production in the eld. These axes were:
a broadly shared Project, or Mission;
a shared Location;
shifting political/economic/cultural Contexts.
If we approach CE through these axes, we see that what is distinctive about
the Projects of all Education sub-disciplines is their desire to improve the
world, to demonstrate the capacities and value of education, rather than treat
it merely as an academic exercise. Comparative Education is no exception
here, being driven by what we might refer to as a modernist/meliorist
344
R. Dale
Compare
345
That is, they have a shaping effect on the degree to which, and the forms in
which, what count as policies, for instance, or methodologies, and
ultimately CE itself, are to be implemented through them.
Methodologically, we might see the idea of opportunity structures as providing a level of abstraction from which we may be able to understand and
explain the nature and forms of CE more effectively including the different
national forms taken by CE for, after all, theory is concerned not with
empirical events, but with the structures that brought them about. To put it
another way, the opportunity structures approach leads us to focus on how the
menu of choices is formed, as a preliminary to choosing within it. It should
also be clear that opportunity structures are analytic categories, not empirical
ones; comparative educationists do not consult lists of possibilities, but
346
R. Dale
necessarily act within opportunity structures that legitimate, favour and prioritise some forms of decision and action over others. Decisions and understandings about what counts as CE are not random, but not necessarily
consciously follow particular framings of the possibilities over others.
One crucial point to be made here is that the various opportunity structures that I will discuss in this section are to a degree nationally based, and
differ from each other on that basis, though with considerable elements in
common (this point is developed further below, especially in the section on
methodological opportunity structures). Thus, a major rationale for adopting
the opportunity structure strategy is that it does provide a means of
comparing different national models of CE, and isolating and explaining
those differences and their consequences.
In the remainder of this Power Over CE section, though it will not be
possible to go into them in any depth, I will briey outline and consider the
forms taken by four different opportunity structures, whose contents and
combinations to some extent underlie, among other things, different national
understandings and practices of CE. In particular, these opportunity structures provide the frameworks within which conceptions of power within CE
are formed, and the potential of CE is delimited. The four opportunity
structures are Political, Discursive, Theoretical and Methodological.
Political opportunity structures of CE
To exemplify what is meant by political opportunity structures, it might be
useful to consider their value in making sense of the work and inuence of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in particular. One
important way of understanding why and how PISA arose in the forms it
did and when it did is to see it as a response to a particular set of political
opportunity structures. The political opportunity structure within which the
OECD operates is one framed in part by competition between advice suppliers. The OECD competes in this arena with other organisations, such as
the World Bank, the United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organisation, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the European Union,
and increasingly with private organisations such as McKinsey, Pearsons
and international rankers of Higher Education so that what it chooses to
do is framed not only by what it might like to do, but by the need to compete in a certain area and according to a particular set of priorities. For
instance, OECD, too, works within a particular political opportunity structure, one key element of which is that well over half its funding comes
from two member countries, the USA and Japan.
In this section, I will emphasise three key components of CEs political
opportunity structure: funding, focus and standing, and I will briey
consider CEs relationship to three important areas where political
Compare
347
opportunity structures shape it in signicant ways. The rst of these is concerned with the traditional relationship between education and development,
which has been a signicant element of CEs political opportunity structure
for several decades, to the point where it could be claimed that the changing
nature of that relationship has been a dominant feature of the political
opportunity structure. Aid and development are central elements of this
relationship, which inuence all three of the components of the political
opportunity structure. They provide, for instance, on the one hand, a powerful rationale for CE, and, on the other, a steady ow of doctoral students
who are to learn what is current in Western education and how it might
benet the education systems to which they will return with that knowledge;
and this mission, though it may vary somewhat in specics over the years,
remains a central feature of what is to count as CE.
In terms of the second area of CE activity that is shaped by its political
opportunity structure, it seems fairly clear that at what might be seen as
macro-level policy, of Politics with a large P, or possibly, as structurally
selective (see Jessop 2012), CE has attracted more attention and moved
closer to the limelight in recent years as a result of the proliferation of competitive comparative measures of school performance at an international
level. It seems like the obvious place for governments to seek expert
advice on these matters, whether concerned with their technical standing or
the interpretation of their meaning.
It could appear that these two sets of activities are not only framed by
power, in the shape of the political opportunity structure, but could become
beholden to it, as what the political opportunity structure enables and offers
may become somewhat constraining and restrictive, as focus follows funding.
There is clear evidence of this in the UK Research Excellence Framework, a
key element of CEs political opportunity structure, which powerfully shapes
and polices the terrain of legitimate academic knowledge production.
The third element of the political opportunity structure of CE operates at
an entirely different level, that where standing becomes important. Like
any other discipline or eld of study, CEs prospects depend to a considerable degree on the elds general standing within academia. And here,
notwithstanding the generally low prestige of education within universities
(certainly in most Western countries), CEs academic standing may be a
positive aspect of its political opportunity structure, certainly by comparison
with Teacher Education, for instance. The major bases where CE is
practised include many of the most prestigious universities in the world
Stanford, Columbia, Toronto, London, Hong Kong and Beijing Normal, to
name but a few. Such associations offer a serious degree of political connection and protection to the practice of CE elsewhere.
Perhaps the best example of shaping of issues by political opportunity
structure is Novoa and Yariv-Mashals (2003) celebrated account of the
dilemmas caused for CE by the shifting political opportunity structures that
348
R. Dale
confront it. These present polarised opportunities for CE as, on the one
hand, complicit in, the handmaiden of, the ofcial political opportunity
structure, as reected in its potential as a tool of governance, and, on the
other, the difcult-to-realise possibility of making it a potentially emancipatory historical study.
Discursive opportunity structures
Ruud Koopmans and Paul Statham (1999) distinguished discursive opportunity structures from the broader concept of political opportunity structure on
the grounds that the latter tends to neglect cultural dynamics that also play
a pivotal role in movement outcomes (228); that is to say, they focused on
how the content of policies, as well as their processes, was shaped
strategically selected by the political processes through which it was
formed. As they explain it in a later paper:
Political discourse analysis takes the emergence and public visibility of frames
as an indicator for the meaning giving side of challenges to dominant political and cultural norms, values and problem denition, relating framing [of
problems] to the dominant set of cultural and political norms, i.e., to discursive opportunity structures. (Koopmans et al. 2005, 23)
Compare
349
people. We chose this issue because though it was not at the centre of any
countrys education policy, they all recognised it as a problem that they had to
nd a means of tackling. It was in addressing this problem that the value of
the discursive opportunity approach became apparent. In essence, the countries all construed and constructed the problem, what it was a problem of
and how it could be solved in quite different ways. One key basis of these
differences in construing and addressing the problem was the ways that they
wrote and talked about it and, especially, how they tried to categorise and
relate it to existing and available problems. That is to say, their responses were
all framed, at quite a deep level, by the different (national) political and discursive opportunity structures available to them. This was most clearly
demonstrated in the ways that they categorised and named the migrants. For
the Dutch, they were Allochtoon meaning from elsewhere, but subject to
several meanings entailing forms of otherness; the Italians referred to nonItalian speakers and the British to ethnic minorities, while the French
Republican tradition effectively prevented them from naming differences that
were not supposed to exist. One fundamental and exemplary difference was
that found between countries like France, where citizenship is based on ius
soli (country of birth), and Germany, where it is based on ius sanguinis (the
law of blood). Recognising these differences enabled us to provide much
more nuanced accounts not just of countries attitudes to migrant children, but
also, for instance, to compare the nature and consequences of conceptions of
the national within the education system.
Colin Hay (2011) summarises the interplay of what we are referring to
as discursive opportunity structures as follows:
established ideas become codied, serving as cognitive lters through which
actors come to interpret environmental signals also concerned with the conditions under which such established cognitive lters and paradigms are contested, challenged and replaced access to strategic resources and to
knowledge of the institutional environment is unevenly distributed actors
perceptions about what is feasible, legitimate, possible and desirable are shaped
both by the institutional environment in which they nd themselves and by
existing policy paradigms and worldviews. It is through such cognitive lters
that strategic conduct is conceptualised and ultimately assessed. (69)
Here, the feasible, the legitimate and the possible can be seen as elements
contained within the discursive opportunity structure.
Theoretical opportunity structures
Trying to identify and account for the different kinds of theoretical opportunity structures that frame CE is a formidable task indeed, well worthy of a
study in itself, which means that this section will tend even more to the
illustrative rather than substantive than the rest of the paper. To this end, I
want to establish from the start that my focus will be on the assumptions
350
R. Dale
about power on which theories rest rather than on their explanatory effectiveness though, of course, these things can be separated only for purposes of exposition.
It is useful to start by returning to Karabel and Halseys (1977) argument
about what might be called the sources of theory choice, which they locate
outside disciplines rather than internal to them and which, of course, is
fundamental to the opportunity structure argument in general. We might
then start with the location of CE within the academy, which, notwithstanding the prominent sites mentioned above, may more generally be
regarded as a sub-eld of a low-status area of study that struggles with its
own disciplinary distinctiveness and claims. Indeed, agonising over claims
to and denitions of its scope, purpose and identity has constituted a signicant strand of work within CE since its beginnings. This has often entailed
difcult entanglements between concepts and consequences of the relationships of theory, methodology and methods.
One major consequence of these two things (academic location and failure to agree on what identies the eld in terms of approaches, etc.) is that
theories tend to be appropriated from a range of disciplines and theoretical
traditions. (Lest we think this necessarily casts a long shadow of piecemeal
eclecticism over the process, we should bear in mind the enormous success
of the development of world culture theory, which was very largely accomplished within the eld of CE). However, as I have just noted, the issue
here is not so much the effectiveness of theories as the opportunity structures that frame their choice, and the consequences of this for their assumptions about the nature and consequences of power.
The most directly useful tool of analysis here is Robert Coxs (1996) distinction between problem-solving and critical theories, and the ways in
which these have been appropriated whether implicitly or explicitly in CE
constitute a major element of its theoretical opportunity structure. Cox distinguishes what he calls problem-solving theory from critical theory, where:
The general aim of problem solving is to make [social and power] relationships and institutions [into which they are organised] work smoothly by dealing effectively with particular sources of trouble. The strength of the
problem-solving approach lies in its ability to x limits or parameters to a
problem area and to reduce the statement of a particular problem to a limited
number of variables which are amenable to relatively close and precise examination. (88)
By contrast:
Critical theory, unlike problem-solving theory, does not take institutions and
social power relations for granted but calls them into question by concerning
itself with their origins and how and whether they might be in the process of
changing. It is directed toward an appraisal of the very framework for action
which problem-solving theory accepts as its parameters. (8889)
Compare
351
Partly inspired by this distinction, around 10 years ago I (Dale 2004) wrote
a brief commentary on what could be seen as some parameters of the theoretical opportunity structures of education policy studies an appropriate
comparator for CE in many ways. In addition to the Coxian distinction, I
pointed to three other sets of metatheoretical or pretheoretical assumptions made in the study of education policy, which are directly relevant
here. These were the degree of disciplinary parochialism (which in that case
was determined by the existence of the word education in the title of the
article or the journal in which it was published); the level of ethnocentrism
they contained; and the relationship between analysis and advocacy in the
texts. In the case of contemporary CE, we could say that disciplinary
parochialism has been replaced by something of a disciplinary smorgasbord,
drawing, sometimes rather promiscuously, on a variety of elements culled
from a range of approaches.
These issues emerge in somewhat different ways in what we might see
as the major substantive elements framing CEs current theoretical opportunity structures: the availability of large-scale international educational databases, on the one hand, and the nature and consequences of globalisation,
on the other, both of which, albeit in somewhat contrasting ways, contribute
strongly to the theoretical opportunity structures.
In terms of the second, ethnocentrism, especially in the form of methodological nationalsm, had to give way to developing understandings of the
relationships between globalisation and education, which is clearly an issue
that is absolutely central to CE. However, while a range of theories have
been advanced, the dominant approach in CE over the past two decades has
been the world-polity or world-culture theory advanced in particular by
John Meyer and Francisco Ramirez and colleagues. This approach has set
the agenda for CE and laid down a theoretical opportunity structure that has
become an orthodoxy that has until relatively recently been almost unchallenged. While I do not have time or space to go into the details of the
approach (but see Dale 2000), it is crucial for the current argument to try to
isolate the assumptions about power that underlie this dominant framework.
These are especially important since they have consequences not just for
what counts as CE, but also implications for the understanding of power.
The theoretical opportunity structure framed by World Culture Theory
has a number of key features with consequences for conception of power
within CE. First, it posits and assumes a preference among nation-state
actors for the principles of market economies and democratic polities, so
that:
Instead of describing and explaining, world culture scholars have been
increasingly involved in selectively identifying and advocating for the global
diffusion of particular education models [which] reect particular Western
and, especially, North American ideals, thus legitimizing dominant
352
R. Dale
while:
their conception of actors is to remove them from mattering by making them
passive recipients of scripts from outside about what people like them
should or should not do. This substitutes a cultural kind of structuralism for a
more resource-based view of structure. (219)
Compare
353
the local and regional focus of most history theses, the politicization of historical debates mainly on a national basis, and the assumed uniqueness of
France based on the Revolution, an exceptionalism that limits the possibility
of comparison with other countries. (68)
Such prejudices have been a decisive obstacle to comparison (69), especially, perhaps, as they may also be found in other countries (in the case of
the UK, its whig approach to history).
Alongside such different genealogies, we nd much more mundane, but
also much more pressing, inuences on methodological opportunity structures. These relate most importantly to the need for funding to carry out
studies in CE. It is possible to carry out very successful and valuable
library-based studies in CE, of which Charles own, and that of Schreiwer
in the same volume are notable examples, but such studies are not sufcient
in themselves to carry the whole weight of CE inquiry as the merest
glimpse at the contents of the elds journals quickly attests. The fact is that
almost any of CEs methodologies and methods carry major implications of
time and resources, generating considerable funding requirements, necessitating explicit and implicit trade-offs. At its most basic, in order to compare different countries it is useful to have rst-hand knowledge of them,
and to know them well enough to base academic comparative analyses of
them, it is highly desirable to be able to visit them, preferably for extended
periods of eldwork, which is very expensive. And, of course, similar cases
could be made for other forms of data collection and analysis in CE.
Thus, issues of nancial feasibility are central elements of CEs methodological opportunity structure, with at least three serious implications. One
of these is the likelihood of serious cost-benet trade-offs in designing
research. The second is even more signicant. It is that comparative
methodologies, like practically all education research methodologies/methods, have been subjected to considerable direct political control over the
past two decades at least. The extreme example of this was the US Department of Educations refusal to fund any research on the No Child Left
Behind programme that was not quantitatively based. Similar, if slightly less
extreme, examples can be seen in the very high emphasis placed on evidence-based research, where what counts as evidence is similarly closely
policed. At the very least, we may expect such patronclient relationships
(which is not putting the nature of much research funding too strongly) to
frequently generate explicit and implicit methodological trade-offs.
And, third, it is crucial to recognise that where it is possible to access
adequate funding, it rarely comes without a (methodological) price. Beyond
tight funding and political constraints on CEs methodological choices, we
354
R. Dale
Power in CE
By power in CE I am referring to the ways that it (power) has historically
been conceptualised in academic work in the area. My intention is not to
point to what might be seen as typical deployments of the concept, but to
focus as far as possible more broadly to the forms and assumptions about
the nature and operation of power within the eld. There is no shortage of
references to power in CE textbooks and articles but, with a few notable
exceptions, often the concept is somewhat ineffectively problematised. The
focus and contexts of references to power tend to refer to discussions about
power in Education, rather than to Comparative studies in other areas of
social science, where power may be differently problematised. Meanings
tend to be somewhat implicit and consequential, typically assuming Lukes
(1974) rst dimension of power,3 the ability to prevail in decision-making,
and based on forms of methodological nationalism and methodological statism, and it may be signicant in this regard that one of the commoner ways
that the term seems to be used is as a means of referring to a national state
as in Western powers (see Dale 2005).
However, there are clear signs that this situation may be changing. In
particular, there has been a retreat from the state-centred assumptions that
Compare
355
356
R. Dale
So, while the focus of this paper will tend in the direction of the structural, rather than the cultural, it is crucial to bear in mind that these are
not to be seen as mutually exclusive alternatives, in the sense of having to
pick sides, as often appears to be the case in social science, but rather as
not only mutually compatible but potentially mutually productive. These
arguments draw considerably on the work of Andrew Sayer (2004), who
explains the mutual compatibility of the two approaches through demonstrating how they can both be understood through the medium of a realist
approach. He proposes that:
[What we have been referring to as cultural approaches] in the form of ideas
such as performativity, governmentality and capillary power can all be theorized in a realist way [i.e., as mechanisms] [and this] avoids the kind of identity thinking which assumes that discourses and their effects correspond.
Discourses can be performative [which implies that they cause change],
though they can fail as well as succeed in producing intended effects. Power
as productive ts well with critical realist accounts of causal powers [for realists, a cause is whatever produces a change] concepts of governmentality
and capillary power can be seen as forms of dispersed power which operate
partly through processes of internalization and self-discipline by actors rather
than internal pressure. (17)
Power of CE
The potential power of CE lies fundamentally in providing different ways of
seeing the world, of going beyond and behind concrete examples of educational practice, with a view to indicating how they might be improved or
how they might be explained. These reect, reproduce and generate, respectively, two quite different forms and purposes of the potential value of CE,
on the basis of a distinction that has run right through this presentation,
which we might refer to here as the distinction between CE as a producer
of expertise and CE as a producer of explanation.
However, the nature and forms of power that CE is able to exercise are
themselves subject to opportunity structures, and in this case the crucial
opportunity structure framing the power of CE is essentially the market
for CE knowledge. We might refer to this as a valorisation opportunity
structure, which frames the ways that CE knowledge and understandings are
realised and deployed in the world. The evidence below suggests that this
opportunity structure comes down decisively on the side of the production
of expertise rather than of explanation.
Compare
357
The consequences of these arguments for CE valorisation opportunity structure are that as experts, exponents of CE can be seen to be triply detached
from their academic roots, from their national origins and from accusations of partiality, a fairly thorough deracination.
358
R. Dale
Having pointed to the salience of conceptions of expertise, it is important to consider the implications of this for social science in general, as well
as for CE. Some of these implications have been very well elaborated by
Bruno Theret (2005), who refers to:
the autonomy of knowledge from power as a condition of the truly democratic exercise of scholarly comparison which is essential to enable us to
take distance from the societies we grew up in [but] can be easily threatened
in multiple ways by political or administrative logic because it is very
difcult for researchers totally to free themselves from forms of state
thought, where we are thought by our own states. This state thought
occurs at an individual level, in the organization of research, where it takes
the form of academicism and is objectied in the research instruments
that shape the political form of the problems that science is called upon to
address, and the information available to do it. These forms of dependence
are experienced at several levels, such as the status of the researcher role,
means of access to empirical information, and forms of recognition of academic work. The interplay of all these things can lead researchers to convert themselves more or less voluntarily into experts, or at least make such a
change easier. (9192)
Theret concludes, The extent to which a researcher carrying out the role of
expert can still count him/herself as involved in the logic of the scientic
eld becomes a key issue for the scientic community (92, all translations
mine, RD).
Summary and conclusion
It may be helpful at this point to indicate briey the directions in which the
various opportunity structures I have discussed might direct the efforts and
effects of CE.
In terms of discursive opportunity structures, it matters considerably
which discourses are seen as dominant and most compelling for exponents
of CE in seeking to carry on with their trade. We might see here a clear distinction between educational and economic discourses.
The discussion of political opportunity structures suggests that CE is
under pressure to move in the direction of expertise, with an element of
political dependence and possibly also accountability.
Theoretical opportunity structures might be seen to frame CE as essentially problem solving, and addressing external audiences rather than the
development of the eld itself.
And as we saw, methodological opportunity structures seem to be moving towards implementing a patronclient relationship, which seems to be
reinforced by a valorisation opportunity structure that places an emphasis
on the need to provide policy-relevant expertise.
Compare
359
360
R. Dale
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. There are afnities here with Maria Manzons (2011) outstanding analysis of
CE as a eld constructed not purely out of an inner logic based on cognitive
criteria, but also [by] power relations (2) and, in a rather different way, with
Michelle Schweisfurths (2014) entertaining and insightful quasi-anthropological account of CEs tribes.
2. I am quite aware that there are several different strands of CE, but identifying
them, and discussing their differences, interesting and important as it would be,
is not central to the purpose of this paper, which is to identify some of the
wider elements framing the eld as a whole. Differences between tendencies
within CE are taken as different interpretations of sets of external opportunity
structures that are broadly common to all of them. However, it will be useful in
this context to briey indicate the differences between what I will refer to as
external opportunity structures, which frame the eld as a whole, and internal path dependencies, which help explain the formation and continuities and
discontinuities of the ways that CE has responded to the external opportunity
structures. Perhaps the simplest way of doing this is to suggest that opportunity
structures frame all possibilities for the eld, but they do not determine the outcomes of the activities taking place within the discipline in (typically tacit)
response to them. Those responses themselves develop along different lines
ontologically, epistemologically, theoretically, methodologically and so on
and these different sets of responses not only differentiate themselves from each
other, but separate themselves into possibly quite distinct schools, or approaches. These schools and approaches themselves become sedimented in
particular ways, in a process that can be seen as laying down distinct paths
for others to follow. Such a process is at the heart of the theoretical approach
known as path dependency, whose central argument is that initial sets of decisions and conditions affect and may set limits to subsequent decisions and
occurrences, or that the ways that things have previously been organised and
imagined inuence the ways they are organised now. So, to put it at its simplest, the bottom line of this discussion is that opportunity structures constitute
the external framing of CE, while the internal responses to these framings
themselves may be signicantly path dependent. And it is in the interplays
between the two that the eld develops, though it is crucial to note that the
external framings, opportunity structures of academic elds, are not constant or
consistent, but subject to varying degrees and directions of external pressure.
3. Lukes (1974) distinguishes three dimensions of power. In the rst, the person with
the power in a situation is the person who prevails in the decision-making process.
In the second dimension, shaping the agenda around which decisions are to be
made is an important source of power. The third dimension applies to the power of
shaping the preferences of those involved in political choices, for instance.
References
Burawoy, Michael. 2004. Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas, and
Possibilities. Social Forces 82 (4): 16031618.
Compare
361
Carney, Stephen, Jeremy Rappleye, and Iveta Silova. 2012. Between Faith and
Science: World Culture Theory and Comparative Education. Comparative
Education Review 56 (3): 366393.
Charle, C. 2013. Comparative and Transnational History in the Sociology of Pierre
Bourdieu. In Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, edited by Philip S. Gorski,
6785. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Cowen, R. 2006. Acting Comparatively upon the Educational World: Puzzles and
Possibilities. Oxford Review of Education 32 (5): 561573.
Cox, Robert W. 1996. Social Forces and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory. Millenium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126155.
Crossley, Michael. 2000. Bridging Cultures and Traditions in the Reconceptualisation of Comparative Education. Comparative Education 36 (3): 319332.
Dale, Roger. 2000. Globalisation and Education: A Globally Structured Agenda
for Education or a Common World Education Culture? Educational Theory 50
(4): 427448.
Dale, Roger. 2001. Shaping the Sociology of Education over Half-a-Century. In
Sociology of Education Today, edited by J. Demaine, 529. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Dale, Roger. 2004. Approaches to the Study of Recent Educational Reform in
England and Wales. In Researching Education Policy: Ethical and Methodological Issues, edited by D. Halpin and B. Troyna, 3141. London: Falmer.
Dale, Roger. 2005. Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative
Education. Comparative Education 41 (2): 117149.
Davies, William. 2011. Economic Advice as a Vocation: Symbioses of Scientic
and Political Authority. British Journal of Sociology 62 (2): 304323.
Ferree, Myra Marx. 2003. Framing the Abortion Debates of the United States and
Germany. American Journal of Sociology 109 (2): 309344.
Ferree, Myra Marx. 2009. Inequality, Intersectionality and the Politics of
Discourse: Framing Feminist Alliances. In The Discursive Politics of Gender
Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policymaking, edited by Emanuela
Lombardo, Petra Meier, and Mieke Verloo, 86104. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2014. A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gornitzka, Ase. 2007. Networking Administration in Areas of National Sensitivity
The Commission and European Higher Education. Arena Working Paper 02,
January. Oslo: Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo.
Grek, Sotiria. 2013. Expert Moves: International Comparative Testing and the Rise
of Expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy 28 (5): 695709.
Grek, Sotiria. 2014. OECD as a Site of Coproduction: European Education Governance and the New Politics of Policy Mobilization. Critical Policy Studies 8
(6): 266281.
Hay, Colin. 2002. Globalisation as a Problem of Political Analysis: Restoring
Agents to a Process without a Subject and Politics to a Logic of Economic
Compulsion. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15 (3): 379392.
Hay, Colin. 2011. Ideas and the Construction of Interests. In Ideas and Politics
in Social Science Research, edited by Daniel Beland and Robert Henry Cox,
6582. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jessop, Bob. 2012. Marxist Approaches to Power. In The Wiley-Blackwell
Companion to Political Sociology, edited by E. Amenta, K. Nash, and A. Scott,
314. Oxford: Blackwell.
362
R. Dale
Karabel, Jerome, and A. H. Halsey, eds. 1977. Power and Ideology in Education.
New York: Oxford University Press.
King, E. J. 1997. A Turning-point in Comparative Education: Retrospect and Prospect. In Comparative Education: Challenges and Intermediation: Essays in
Honour of Wolfgang Mitter, edited by Christoph Kodron, Botho von Kopp,
Uwe Lauterbach, Ulrich Schafer, and Gerlind Schmidt, 8190. Koln: Bohlau
Verlag.
Koopmans, Ruud, and Paul Statham. 1999. Ethnic and Civic Conceptions of
Nationhood and the Differential Success of the Extreme Right in Germany and
Italy. In How Social Movements Matter, edited by Marco Giugni, Doug
McAdam, and Charles Tilly, 223251. Minneapolis and London: University of
Minnesota Press.
Koopmans, Ruud, Paul Statham, Marco Giugni, and Florence Passy. 2005.
Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis and
London: University of Minnesota Press.
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Manzon, Maria. 2011. Comparative Education: The Construction of a Field.
Dordrecht: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong/
Springer.
Marx, Karl. 1852. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House.
McGrath, S. 2001. Research in a Cold Climate. International Journal of
Educational Development 21 (5): 391400.
Normand, Romuald. 2010. Expertise, Networks and Indicators: The Construction
of the European Strategy in Education. European Educational Research
Journal 9 (3): 407421.
Novoa, Antonio, and Tali Yariv-Mashal. 2003. Comparative Education: A Mode
of Governance or a Historical Journey? Comparative Education 39 (1):
423438.
Orloff, Ann Shola. 2012. Remaking Power and Politics. Social Science History
36 (1): 121.
Roberts, K. 2009. Opportunity Structures Then and Now. Journal of Education
and Work 22 (5): 355368.
Sayer, Andrew. 1982. Explanation in Economic Geography: Abstraction Versus
Generalization. Progress in Human Geography 6 (1): 6888.
Sayer, Andrew. 2004. Why Critical Realism? In Critical Realist Approaches in
Organisation and Management Studies, edited by S. Fleetwood and S. Ackroyd,
620. Abingdon: Psychology Press.
Schweisfurth, Michelle. 2014. Among the Comparativists: Ethnographic
Observations. Comparative Education 50 (1): 102111.
Seeley, J. 1967. The Making and Taking of Social Problems: Toward an Ethical
Stance. Social Problems 14 (4): 382389.
Theret, Bruno. 2005. Comparisons Internationales. La Place De La Dimension
Politique. In Politiques Sociales: Enjeux Methodologiques et Epistemologiques
des Comparisons Internationals, edited by Jean-Claude Barbier and
Marie-Therese Letablier, 7195. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.