Over the past fifty years, the field of Comparative and International Education (CIE) has moved from a sole focus on measurement, through the application of nomothetic research aimed at improving evidence-based findings, to recognizing the importance of qualitative inquiry with the goal of understanding context and meaning. The inclusion of qualitative research has brought with it concerns over issues such as hegemonic power, limited understanding of cultures and peoples and a desire to decolonize the field of CIE. Such questions have also begun to be applied in the context of quantitative and mixed-methods approaches as well. As the series editor for New Research – New Voices, I was delighted that the seven editors have chosen this series for the publication of a collection of papers from the second CIES Symposium, held from October 26–27, 2017, at the Arlington campus of George Mason University (GMU). The symposium was hosted by members of the Gender and Education Committee, the South Asia SIG and faculty at GMU, with the theme “Interrogating and innovating CIE research”.
To some degree the symposium aimed to problematize and challenge us to move beyond the “what works” agenda, founded on the belief that “education should be or become an evidence-based practice and that teaching should be or become an evidence-based profession” (Biesta, 2007, p. 1). For Phillips this agenda is closely linked to the concept of evidence and necessitates an understanding of empirical research. Phillips (2005) argues that empirical educational research faces a number of challenges:
On the one hand, there are influential figures who countenance only rigorous scientific research; they use as their model of science the randomised controlled experiment or field trial, and they point to experimentation in medicine as the ideal model for educational research. The existence of this group of hardliners fills many other members of the research community with feelings of despair and utter hopelessness … at the other extreme pole of opinion – there are those who see the members of the first group as advocating ‘their father’s paradigm’ (here Phillips borrows the expression from Patti Lather, 2004) – [this] … paradigm … is hopelessly modernist, positivistic and imperialistic; those clustering at this second pole want to see an educational research that (again in Lather’s words) moves ‘toward a Nietzschean sort of ‘‘unnatural science’’ that leads to greater health by fostering ways of knowing that escape normativity’ (Lather, 2004, p. 27). This second position is so murky and fraught with danger that it is regarded by the advocates of scientific rigour as leading to the total extinction of the empirical research enterprise … Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly! Or rather, let us have the wisdom to reject both poles – for neither point the way to the development of an empirical educational research that can illuminate educational phenomena and that can be useful to practitioners or policymakers as they hone their practice or shape their policies. (Phillips, 2005, p. 579)
In order to justify educational investment and assure trust in educational policymaking this volume points to the need for careful scrutiny of the epistemological, ontological and ideological basis of educational research findings. Equally, the volume attempts to challenge the epistemological basis and the narrow idea of what counts as research and in doing so points to the need for discussion and dialogue amongst CIE scholars who are committed to fostering a deeper understanding of methods and methodological issues. This goal corresponds well to the two strands of the New Research – New Voices series:
Strand 1: New Voices and New Knowledge in Research Methodology
This strand is dedicated to producing cutting-edge titles focusing on Research Methodology and intends to contribute to the knowledge foundation in educational research by specifically seeking out those who work both across disciplines and inter-disciplinary in terms of their methodological approaches.
Strand 2: New Voices and New Knowledge in Educational Research
This strand focuses on theoretical and empirical contributions that are unique and will provide important insights into the field of educational research across a range of contexts globally. This part of the series will collectively communicate new voices, new insights and new possibilities within the field of educational research.
The book has new voices who otherwise would not be heard without the CIES support for the symposium. This symposium served as a platform for the seven editors to locate voices that seek to challenge the narrow idea of what counts in educational research and in doing so suggestion alternative directions for the CIE field. The dedication and commitment of the seven editors to undertake the responsibility for the realization of the volume means that important and new voices are included in how we can understand and approach educational research.
This volume serves to share a collection of papers from the symposium that aim achieve the overall goal of offering a platform for discussion and dialogue amongst CIE scholars, while making a significant contribution to both strands in the book series. The volume is divided into four parts with each focusing on distinct aspects from the four symposium plenaries: Plenary I: Interrogating and Innovating CIE Research; Plenary II: Decolonizing methodology by invoking local voices; Plenary III: Destabilizing power and authority: Taking intersectionality seriously; Plenary IV: Implications for methodology: Towards more equitable futures.
The volume and the voices in it reflect not only on moving us beyond what works in educational research, but moreover takes up the challenges we face in relation to larger philosophical questions and how we can know what we know. Questions this volume attempts to tackle are: who has power over knowledge production and its dissemination, to whom access is granted, while also questioning the role of researcher identity and what researchers and practitioners can do to displace entrenched power relations in and through the production and use of CIE knowledge. The last part in this volume takes up the future of CIE research and reminds us of the need “to move beyond the more narrow definitions of empiricism and science and the pursuit of objectivity and neutrality as the Gold Standard to embrace new onto-epistemological approaches, fresh methodological designs, and innovative and increasingly technology-savvy tools”.
I applaud both CIES for supporting this important symposium and to the seven editors for taking up the challenge to move the field forward and to questions the future of CIE research.
References
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” wont’ work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.
Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Quarterly, 10(1), 15–34.
Phillips, D. C. (2005). The contested nature of empirical research (and why Philosophy of Education offers little help). Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 577–597.