SECTION A:  COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Theme 1: ISSUES OF THEORY AND METHOD

International Convenors: 

Juergen Schriewer  (juergen.schriewer@educat.hu-berlin.de), 

Anthony Welch  (a.welch@edfac.usyd.edu.au)  

Regional Convenor: Ana I. Madeira (aicm@fpce.ul.pt)  

Local Convenor: Mujo Slatina (slatinam@bih.net.ba)

    

It is proposed to organize the Thematic Group on Theories and Methods in Comparative Education around three distinct, though complementary, lines of analysis:

1. As regards the field's disciplinary identity, the Group will pay particular attention to the historical emergence, anthropological conditions, and mental predispositions of the comparative approach both in the social sciences in general and in comparative education in particular. In so doing, the works of the Thematic Group are meant to come towards meeting the apparent need for serious socio-historical analyses of the field and its development over time. All too often, historical accounts of comparative education have been informed by either legitimizing intentions or polemical dispute meant to essentially justify one’s own theoretical position and methodological approach. It is understood, however, that such accounts are in blunt contrast with one of the crucial prerequisites of the “comparative mind” – to take up an expression once coined by Max Eckstein – namely the de-centering of one’s intellectual preoccupations and the attendant detachment from orthodox philosophies, socio-centric positions, or value-laden expectations. What is required, instead, are serious analyses informed by concepts and methods of the history and sociology of the sciences. Such attempts to link questions of methods in comparative education, to the development of social theory, should in no sense be confined to the Western tradition, but as is appropriate to the field, be open to diverse cultural and intellectual genealogies. 

1. In terms of theory and theory construction, comparative educationists have by and large not yet fully taken into account the far-reaching shifts that have taken place, over the last decades, in the development of the sciences more generally. One of the very key documents summarizing these developments from a deliberately inter-disciplinary vantage point is the report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences published in 1996. As the authors of this report explained, recent developments in the natural sciences themselves –
2. by emphasizing nonlinearity over linearity, and complexity over simplification;
3. by revealing an unstable and unpredictable world;
4. by showing the impossibility of removing the measurer from the measurement; or
5.  by highlighting the fact that nature itself has to be conceived as active and creative –

have thrown into relief the importance of deliberately taking into account both the "arrow of time" and the complexity of social dynamics. As a consequence, cleavage lines that have traditionally structured the scholarly arena, and delimited legitimate knowledge, increasingly came to be questioned. This holds true for the rigid distinction between the human and social sciences, on the one hand, and, on the other, the natural sciences. It also applies, however, to the gap between idiographic history and nomothetic social sciences, as well as, within the latter, to the sharp demarcation lines between disciplines such as economics, political science, sociology, or education. Developments in those fields of study have in turn paralleled, to an extent, the insights stemming from those contemporary developments in the natural sciences listed above. Thus, there is an increasing awareness, in recent social theory developments as well, of the necessity to take into account phenomena of "time" and "space," and to seek to re-introduce them as internal variables into sys­tematic theory-building. Likewise, one of the most pertinent conclusions of the Gulbenkian Commission – with respect to comparative methodology and the causal inference logic intimately linked with it – points to the utmost significance both of the complexity of causal networks and of the dynamics of social systems. And what, finally, may be the theories that allow one to systematically analyze, let alone explain, the intricate interaction of global processes with local agency, or of world-level forces with the self-evolutional patterns of culture-specific meaning, as well as the resultant phenomena of hybridization and métissage ?

In terms of critical self-reflection, finally, comparative educationists are called upon to take into consideration the consequences, for an increasing standardization of educational programs, models, and ideologies world-wide, of their own production: e.g., the bulk of merely descriptive studies on present-day educational reform policies and programs; comparative educationists' normative involvement in policy development and intervention; or their often superficial run towards fashionable trends and purportedly international standards. What is required, then, are sociology-of-knowledge analyses of the “semantic construction of world society” (Schriewer) that is continuously being generated – largely, though not exclusively – by comparative and international scholarship, conferences, and associations themselves. Participants are therefore invited to critically re-examine both the models and the methods elaborated by diverse strands of comparative research, and to apply critical self-reflection to the chosen research agenda.

---

Theme 2:  Intercultural education and Human Rights:                  Theory and Practice

International Convenors:  Barry von Driel (barry@iaie.org), Vandra Masemann (Masemann@interlog.com)
Regional Convenor:  Mohammed Kerrou

Local Convenor:  Adila Kreso

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration states that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups...
This is basically a call for an intercultural approach to education. In this thematic group, we look at this fundamental right from a broad, critical and intercultural perspective.

The sub-themes are:

1. Genocide and Holocaust Education from a Human Rights perspective

2. Responding to the PISA study results “Where immigrants
succeed” (panel to discuss PISA results)

3. Roma Educational Issues

4. Social Justice and Intercultural Education

5. Educating Against Racism and Ethnocentrism

6. The religious dimension of intercultural education

7. Identity and education in multicultural societies

8. Peace Education

9. Theories of Intercultural Education and Intercultural Dialogue

10. Intercultural Education and Social Justice: An open-ended dialogue