International Education: What's in a name?

​I’ve been trying my best as I work my way through the readings in my doctoral studies to come up with my own working definition of international education. It hasn’t been easy, but at the very least it’s encouraging that I’m not alone in finding it difficult. As Bray (2010, p. 711) states, the debate about the overlap between international education begins and comparative education ends has been going on for some time, and Tarc’s (2013) chapter provides a close look at how the dual forces of socio-cultural progressiveness and ‘pragmatic neo-liberal agendas’ and their sometimes opposed, sometimes parallel goals make defining the goals of international education a difficult prospect (pp. 4, 5). While seeking to define and determine boundaries for international education, both readings left me with a sense that the field may in fact ultimately benefit from its vague boundaries, malleable definitions, and overlap with comparative education.

For one, the intermingling of the two fields may support them in academia. Bray (2010), citing Becher and Trowler, suggests that to be considered a separate discipline, a field of study depends on the degree to which institutions have created separate departments to support the field, and the existence of well-supported professional journals publishing research related to the field (p.713). By their definition, education in its entirety might be called a discipline, albeit a ‘soft and applied’ one (p. 713). He cites further papers that place comparative and international education, and various combinations of the terms, in the hazy realm of sub-disciplines, fields, or sub-fields of study (p. 714).

Further complicating the drawing of boundaries between the two studies, Bray (2010) relates that historically, despite being labeled ‘comparative education’, the field hasn’t often focused on the methodology of comparison or definition of common units for comparison, and has focused for the most part on comparing national systems of education at the expense of other comparative studies (p. 714). Postlethwaite (as cited in Bray, 2010, p. 715), in discussing the renaming of The Comparative Education Society to the Comparative and International Education Society, states that many studies in comparative education, “do not compare, but rather describe, analyse or make proposals,” and that the name change reflected this reality. As Bray (2010) outlines the evolution of the editorial statements of the journal Compare, a trend towards a broadening of the scope of the articles emerges, including, finally, a number of different types of analyses within its purview (p. 718).

Is the trend towards an inclusive and overlapping definition of comparative and international education in the editorial policy increased over the years, so did the volume of published issues and quality content (Bray, 2010, pp. 719, 720). Insofar as blurring the boundaries of the fields (or sub-fields, or sub-disciplines as the case may be) has supported an expansion of the number of issues published and income to support the CIES, by Becher and Trowler’s criteria, the indistinct boundaries between international and comparative education that allow them to bolster one another may ultimately bring them closer to being defined as a discipline.

If one might find benefit then, in viewing comparative and international education as conjoined twins, as Bray (2010) refers to them, how might one define comparative and international education setting aside the need to separate them? Tarc (2013) outlines further difficulties in defining international education due to the conflicting goals of the different actors in the field (p. 2). He reports that,despite progressive socio-cultural goals being oft-considered the ultimate goal of international education they are the least researched (Tarc, 2013, p. 4).  He posits that, most often, more ‘pragmatic neoliberal agendas’ drive international education (pp. 4, 5). Despite this, Tarc (2013) believes that both progressive and pragmatic goals can at times support one another (p. 7), and that individuals acting within neoliberal structures and processes can still advance ethical ideals. If neoliberalism is taken for granted as the dominant global economic theory, then framing progressive educational agendas in a positive way within its constraints might provide a way for high-minded educators to surreptitiously advance their ideals, or at least put forward policies that have a fighting chance of being adopted. Given the interrelation of the mechanisms for creating both pragmatic and dedicated cosmopolitan learners, having a loosely-defined definition of international education allows actors in the field to reflect on the complex relationships involved in their programs, and being able to reflect on the historical inequalities and exploitative practices that may have led to the social and economic substrate upon which new policies will be built can help to prevent reinforcing power imbalances (p. 15).

Finally, Tarc (2013) outlines his framework for studying international education in global times as existing in ‘trans-local’ spaces existing in one’s own and other countries, and includes ideas like aboriginal education that don’t immediately call to mind ‘international’ contexts (p. 3). He argues that increasing connections due to globalization necessitate expanding international education’s scope beyond simple interactions across geopolitical borders (p. 3) and that it needs to be redefined to account for present realities (p. 18).

Tarc’s analysis of the numerous actors involved in international education and the interconnectedness of their processes and outcomes, and his belief that the definition of the field should be updated in modernity both favor, at least for the time being, a broad and inclusive definition of international education.

I’m left with the feeling that a vaguely defined international education serves its actors well. Broadening the scope of the field to include significant overlap with comparative education research allows researchers flexibility when writing for publication, and allows international and comparative education journals access to more quality content to publish. On the applied end of the spectrum, given the spider-web of relationships between both idealistic and material goals in international education, it behooves actors of either inclination to be aware of the ramifications of their projects. Finally, given how rapidly technology and globalization are advancing, a flexible definition of international education allows for research in the field to be agile, current, and relevant.  
Perhaps one of the reasons that defining international education remains so difficult is because the players in the field prefer it that way, whether or not they are aware of it.

---

Bray, M. (2010). Comparative education and international education in the history of Compare: boundaries, overlaps, and ambiguities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 711-725.

Postlethwaite, T.N. (1988). Preface. In: The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education, ed. T.N. Postlethwaite, xvii-xxvii. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
​
Postlethwaite, T.N. (1988). Preface. In: The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education, ed. T.N. Postlethwaite, xvii-xxvii. Oxford: Pergamon Press.