Problems with Borrowing and Lending in Education Policy

timer Asked: Feb 23rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

In order to prepare

use the following questions as guides:
sub-headings to indicate which piece you are responding
What are the authors trying to say?
What is motivating their exploration of this topic?
What does this research contribute?
What academic conversations are the authors trying to align with?
What are the main arguments of each piece?
How does this relate to the other assigned readings?
What questions do I have?

Required Readings/Resources:

Larsen, M. A. & Beech, J. (2014). Spatial theorizing in comparative and international education research.

Comparative Education Review 58, (2) 191-214.

Select 1 of the 3 pieces below:

Bartlett, L. & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: A methodology approach to studies of educational policy as practice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(2), 131-147.

Discussion Reader’s Response: Problems with Borrowing and Lending in Education Policy

After reading the Larsen & Beech (2014) and one of the other three articles for this week, post a shortreader’s response for the pieces as one post (at least 500-1000 words). Use sub-headings to indicate which piece you are responding to within your post. Please see the section Reader’s Response Discussionsabove for more details.

Featured Article : Spatial Theorizing in Comparative and International Education Research Author(s): Marianne A. Larsen and Jason Beech Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 58, No. 2 (May 2014), pp. 191-214 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International Education Society Stable URL: . Accessed: 23/08/2014 11:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact . The University of Chicago Press and Comparative and International Education Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review. This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Featured Article Spatial Theorizing in Comparative and International Education Research MARIANNE A. LARSEN AND JASON BEECH The authors argue for a critical spatial perspective in comparative and international education. We briefly summarize how time and space have been conceptualized within our field. We then review mainstream social science literature that reflects a metanarrative, which we critique for contributing to false dichotomies between space and place and oversimplified views of the relationship between the global and the local. We present some of the key ideas associated with the “spatial turn,” including a relational understanding and productive capacity of space. In the final part of this article, we analyze the significance of new spatial theorizing for comparative and international education by reviewing examples of both comparative and educational researchers who are engaging with critical spatial theorizing. We argue that a possible way to confront binary thinking about space and place is by shifting attention to the relational conceptions of space, through analyses of networks, connections, and flows. There are many reasons for the argument that we live in spatial times and that spatial thinking now matters (e.g., Massey 1993, 2005; Soja 1996, 2009; Warf and Arias 2009). Global transformations have provided us with opportunities to consider wider and more complex concepts of space and spatiality in our research. These include the changing nature and effects of the mass media and new information technologies, the predominance of free-market relations, migration within and across national borders, and increasing evidence—blatantly so—of cross-national environmental threats, including natural disasters. While such processes of globalization have provoked many researchers in the social sciences to rethink how they research and understand the social world, the field of comparative and international education has been slower to engage with spatial theories. We suggest that there is much to gain from foregrounding spatial thinking in comparative and international education research and offer our thoughts in this article on how and what that might look like. Much research in comparative and international education is based on territorial and geopolitical definitions of space, mainly centered on the nation-state as a unit of analysis, which derive into binary distinctions between Received September 19, 2012; revised November 9, 2013; accepted January 8, 2014; electronically published February 7, 2014 Comparative Education Review, vol. 58, no. 2. 䉷 2014 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved. 0010-4086/2014/5802-0005$10.00 Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 191 LARSEN AND BEECH “the global” and “the local,” despite the efforts of authors to attend to local specificities (e.g., Baker and LeTendre 2005; Beech 2011; Arnove and Torres 2012).1 To overcome these limitations, we suggest that the field should engage more thoroughly in theorizing about the concepts of space and place and, in particular, understand space not only as an object in its concrete form but also as sets of relations between individuals and groups. In addition, we argue that the productive aspects of space should be given more attention in research in comparative and international education. In other words, we argue for the privileging of space and, in particular, spatial theorizing as a primary point of focus and framework for the comparative study of education. In order to unfold this argument, we have divided the article into five sections. We begin with an overview of how time and space have been conceptualized within much comparative and international education research. In the second section, we review some of the mainstream literature in the social sciences, showing how the binary distinction between space and place has been constructed through a major metanarrative that takes for granted certain spatial changes from premodern to modern and globalized times. A critique and deconstruction of this metanarrative are offered by suggesting that the conceptualization of place as the local, the real, and the stable, and of space as the global, more abstract, and futuristic has contributed to false dichotomies between space and place and oversimplified binary views of the relation between the global and the local. In the third section, we note the reassertion of space in the social sciences and humanities, especially since the 1990s, in a process that has been labeled “the spatial turn.” We then present some of the key ideas associated with the spatial turn, including a relational understanding of space and the productive capacity of space. This section works as a justification for our main argument that comparative and international education needs to engage more deeply in theorizing about space. The final part of this article shifts to an analysis of the significance of new spatial theorizing for comparative and international education. We review and comment on two examples of research in our field that we have found promising, and three areas of study taken up by educational researchers engaging with critical spatial theorizing. We argue that a possible way to confront binary thinking about space and place is by shifting our attention to the relational conceptions of space, through the analysis of networks, connections, and flows. In particular, we suggest that some inspiration to move forward can be found in social network analysis. We provide some specific examples of what comparative and international education research might look like reimagined through the lens of new spatial thinking. Our 1 The titles of Arnove and Torre’s edited volume Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local and Baker and LeTendre’s book National Differences: Global Similarities illustrate this binary thinking in suggesting that the global and the local/national are separate entities. 192 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING argument, again, is that spatiality, the relations and productive capacity of space, can provide a relevant tool for the analysis of the comparative and international dimensions of educational research. Time and Space in Comparative and International Education: Background Processes associated with modernity, as well as the later (nineteenth century) rise of historicism and related developments of industrial capitalism, western Marxism, and the social sciences, contributed to the privileging of time over space. According to Michel Foucault (1986, 1), “the great obsession of the nineteenth century was history: with its themes of development and of suspension, of crisis, and cycle, themes of the ever-accumulating past, with its great preponderance of dead men and the menacing glaciation of the world.” By the last decades of the nineteenth century, the spatial was (re)conceived as being fixed, immobile—a closed system. Space, as Foucault (1980, 70) writes, “was treated as the dead, the fixed, the undialectical, the immobile. Time on the contrary was richness, fecundity, life, dialectic.” Thus, space became subordinate to time in critical social thought. Hence, up until the early twentieth century, within the field of comparative education (like most social sciences), time largely took precedence over space. Although early reformers who visited other educational systems since the seventeenth century, but especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were traveling to other settings and spaces, they thought that their journeys allowed them to experience educational systems at different stages of development. In this way, they felt they were “time travellers” (Sobe and Fischer 2009). Many comparativists in the first half of the twentieth century were historians and emphasized the importance of evolutionary time in their work. Isaac Kandel (1933) and Nicholas Hans (1959), for example, can be located within the “forces and factors” tradition of comparative education in their writing about how past events and antecedent factors and forces influenced educational forms, policies, and practices, and “determined” the evolutionary development of educational systems.2 Even into the second half of the twentieth century, time has remained an important concept in research in the field. Other historical accounts published in the 1960s and 1970s, for instance, also reflected an emphasis on evolutionary notions of time (e.g., Kazamias 1966). However, despite this emphasis on time (in our history), it can also be argued that space has always been a central concern in comparative and international education, defining and legitimizing our field. The very nature 2 Not all early comparativists viewed time this way. Schneider (1961), for example, rejected the national case studies favored by Kandel and Hans, emphasizing instead the notion of “historical immanence,” a kind of ideational and institutional cumulative tendency possessed by societies, and the “transnational,” anticipating, in some ways, later work by globalization theorists. Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 193 LARSEN AND BEECH of our field suggests a focus on spatial units of analysis. Most comparativists focus their attention on geographic entities as units of analyses, comparing educational phenomena across and within different places, including countries, regions, or cities.3 This reveals the emphasis on geographic entities (places) in comparative analysis with most, although not all, of the focus still being on the nation-state.4 Such studies have largely assumed that countries are homogeneous, equivalent units of analysis and that the nation-state is the container of society. Thus, comparing societies necessarily entails comparing nation-states (Dale and Robertson 2009). The term “methodological nationalism” has been coined to underscore the focus within social sciences research on the nationstate. Methodological nationalism operates both about and for the nation state, to the point where the only reality we can statistically describe is the national or, at best, an international one (Dale and Robertson 2009). As a result of these limitations, a number of scholars within the field of comparative and international education have proposed new or modified scales of analysis beyond the country or nation-state (e.g., Cowen 2009). For example, Mark Bray and R. Murray Thomas (1995) created a cube to classify comparative and international education studies by level and type. The geographic/locational dimension of the cube includes world regions/continents, countries, states/provinces, districts, schools, classrooms, and individuals. We have, therefore, a number of edited volumes in our field that deal with education in specific geographical regions such as Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Nordic countries (e.g., Gvirtz and Beech 2008; O’Dowd 2011; Donn and Manthri 2013). Most of these, however, are still divided into chapters on specific countries within these regions, demonstrating the emphasis once more on the nation-state. Other groupings, related in some cases by geographical contiguity, include economic and political regional organizations (e.g., Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Mercado Común del Sur, North American Free Trade Agreement, the European Union, and Caribbean Community and Common Market), cultural and political links such as the Commonwealth or the notion of “Iberoamerica” (including Portugal, Spain, and all the American countries colonized by Iberian empires), as well as the concept of “civilizations” (Thanh Khoi 2001). However, while we agree that it is important to expand our spatial units of analysis to include geographic entities previously downplayed in comparative studies, this does not necessarily provoke us to engage in the kind of spatial theorizing that we propose in this article. In other words, while we may develop new spatial units of analysis or scales of analysis beyond the nation-state, this is still an approach that views space as an object of study, 3 Some within our field have conducted temporal comparisons (see Sweeting 2007), but the majority of the work has involved comparisons across space (i.e., geographic entities). 4 See, e.g., Kandel (1933); Hans (1949); Green (1993); McGinn (1997); O’Dowd (2011). 194 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING rather than a framework for analysis. Before reviewing some key ideas associated with the spatial turn, we turn our attention to a binary framework between space and place that many social scientists, including comparative and international education researchers, have deployed and which has hindered the kind of broader thinking about space that we propose here. The Construction of Binary Distinctions between Space and Place This section examines a major metanarrative in the social sciences that has contributed to the construction of binary distinctions between the concepts of space and place. We argue that this dominant account is based on a linear and evolutionary notion of time in which concepts of space and place, what they mean for individuals and social groups, and the relationship between them have “evolved” from premodern isolated populations to the current hyperconnected globalized world. We start by describing this metanarrative and the evolution on which it is based in order to, later, offer a critique and a discussion of the empirical and theoretical limitations that the construction of this binary has produced in the social sciences. According to prevailing accounts, modernity brought about a rupturing of space from place (and from time, as noted above). In premodern times, place assumed a definite, bounded social meaning. Social relations were by and large circumscribed to a community inside given territorial boundaries. External space was weakly grasped and was normally understood as a mysterious place dominated by external authorities or mythological figures. Thus, in premodern societies, space generally coincided with place (Harvey 1989). The intensity and interconnections of global flows were considered low compared to more local interconnections in premodern times (Held and McGrew 1999). A number of shifts occurred with modernity—most importantly, the dislocation of space from place. Anthony Giddens (1990) is one of the key theorists to write about the impact of modernity on space-place relations: “The advent of modernity increasingly tears space away from place by fostering relations amongst ‘absent’ others. . . . In conditions of modernity . . . locales are thoroughly penetrated by and shaped in terms of social influences quite distant from them” (18–19). Following this line of thought, it has been argued that more recent processes of globalization have further contributed to new space-place configurations. While modernity brought about the separation of space from place, there are “hyper” globalists who view globalization as the erasure of place. According to these accounts, globalization means the end or demise of the nation-state (or other local places). This is either celebrated by neoliberals such as Kenichi Omhae (1995) or decried by post-Marxists such as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2000). From these perspectives, as institutions of global governance such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 195 LARSEN AND BEECH (GATT), and the world market take on bigger roles, the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation-state is further eroded. The result of economic globalization is the construction of new forms of social organization that will replace the nation-state as the primary economic and political unit of world society (Held and McGrew 1999). Place, according to this dominant metanarrative, is thereby eliminated or at least attenuated, and space rules supreme. As will be discussed, these types of spatial perspectives render “globalization” as a grand narrative of domination (by space) and resistance (of places). This dominant account of the shift in place-space (or inside-outside) relations, from premodern to contemporary times, works from a number of assumptions about space and place. Place, according to this particular understanding, has territorial contiguity and refers to a physical setting of social activity that is situated geographically (Giddens 1990; Castells 2000b). Places have names and figure on maps. Following this line of thought, place signifies experience, meaning, and belonging (Tuan 1977; Creswell 2004). Place, as an object, has generally come to be associated with the “local” (i.e., our homes, community, city or town, region): that which is lived, everyday and meaningful. It is the familiar setting we go to where we feel safe and secure. In this way, place is the center of our memory and experience: that which is authentic, real, and the lived (Tuan 1974, 1977; Dirlik 2001). Space, on the other hand, is not confined by territorial contiguity (Castells 2000b). There are no geographical borders with space; it is always somewhere out there, beyond place. It has come to be associated with something more abstract and ubiquitous—without boundaries. We speak of outer space, not inner space. Space is also considered forward-looking and futuristic. As YiFu Tuan (1974, 8) writes, “The future is out there in open space.” Space is also equated with movement, flow, and activity—the opposite of place, which is fixed, stable, and secure. Space, moreover, is seen as being “more generic, more amorphous and porous, hard to pin down” than place (Gulson and Symes 2007, 2). There are a number of problems with this widely accepted account of place and space from premodern to modern and globalized times. For example, this dominant metanarrative assumes that place and space were conjoined in premodern times. However, much research has since demonstrated that this was not the case and that the premodern world was very much characterized by interconnections, links and flows between local communities and those beyond. Eric R. Wolf (1982) in his book Europe and the People without History asserts that everywhere in precontact (with the European) world, “populations existed in interconnections” and “if there were any isolated societies these were but temporary phenomena” (71). A number of the articles in Claire Smith and Graeme K. Ward’s (2000) edited collection Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World attest to the contact and connections 196 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING that many indigenous groups of people had with outside “others” in premodern times. This challenges not only notions of “precontact” pristine societies being unsullied by outside (i.e., Western) influences, but that place was untouched by space—the outside world. Furthermore, the binary makes assumptions about place that are simply untrue. Place for many is not where fixity, stability, and security are always found. There is nothing inherently stable and secure about place itself. There are some places—prisons, a home where there is domestic abuse, or a refugee camp—that are characterized by tremendous fear, insecurity, and instability. The same can be said of schools. Residential schools in Canada up until the mid-twentieth century were certainly not places of security and comfort for the tens of thousands of First Nations children who were forced to attend them (Miller 1997). Despite these limitations, many globalization theorists continue to draw upon this binary logic to describe contemporary changing space-place relations. Place continues to be implicitly conceptualized as the local (or the subnational or national), the real, and the stable; and space as the global, something more abstract, futuristic, and beyond us (Harvey 1989; Held and McGrew 1999; Waters 2001). While globalization may have provided the conditions for the stretching out or even the annihilation of place, this thinking begins with the assumption that space and place are ontologically different and historically separated. Place as local and space as global constitute “master categories” that have dominated much of the research on the impact of globalization on local communities and places. As Antonio Escobar (2001, 155–56) explains, “the global is associated with space, capital, history and agency while the local, conversely, is linked to place, labor, and tradition—as well as with women, minorities, the poor and, one might add, local cultures.” Therefore, much globalization research has focused on how hegemonic globalizing processes have affected national educational policies, or how the national has mediated the global. In either case, the emphasis is on the global and the national (or the local) with the latter conceptualized implicitly as a “place” influenced by outside forces. We see this in the work of world culture theorists in our field who posit that the institutions of the nationstate (e.g., education) are shaped at an international level by dominant Western norms and values. World culture theorists maintain a sense of “global inevitability” about these alleged homogenizing processes, which they analyze across a great number of countries and based on categories set at a high level of generality (e.g., Meyer et al. 1992; Baker and LeTendre 2005). Others have focused on the negative impact of economic (neoliberal) globalization on local places. In such a way, places are assumed to have been untouched and pure prior to contact with the outside. David Harvey, for example, suggests that places are threatened by global flows of capital and Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 197 LARSEN AND BEECH people (among other things). The tension between mobile capital and fixed places generates a competition between places to attract this capital and can also be the source of crisis: “Old places . . . have to be devalued, destroyed, and redeveloped while new places are created. The cathedral city becomes a heritage center, the mining community becomes a ghost town, the old industrial center is deindustralised, speculative boom towns or gentrified neighbourhoods arise on the frontier of capitalist development or out of the ashes of deindustralised communities” (Harvey 1996, 296). Thus, Harvey emphasizes how local places are influenced in negative ways by globalization. Similarly, there are educational researchers (especially those from a neoMarxist, critical tradition) who have also critiqued neoliberal globalizing processes, highlighting the damaging consequences of globalization, particularly in its economic forms, on educational practices and processes in the global South (e.g., Carnoy and Torres 1994; Altbach 2004), higher education (Giroux 2002; Torres and Schugurensky 2002), and compulsory schooling (e.g., Apple 2010; Litz 2011). Both world culture theorists and their critics emphasize the nation-state as the main spatial basis of comparison, and even though such authors may not explicitly acknowledge this, they appear to conceptualize global processes as being “out there” influencing local places that receive, modify, or resist these influences. This type of reasoning is an example of oversimple binary views of the relation between space and place and the global and the local. Furthermore, what unites many globalization theorists, including world culture researchers and critics of globalization, is a conception of place as a fixed, stable object of study influenced by globalizing forces. Theorists associated with the “spatial turn” challenged these very ideas, as do we, and it is to this topic that we now turn. The Spatial Turn Michel Foucault (1980) and Henri Lefebvre (1976, 1991) inspired the epistemological and ontological rethinking of the relations between space and time. They rejected the privileging of time over space and suggested that the organization of space was central to the structure and function of globalized capitalism. Space, according to Lefebvre, needs to be understood not only as a concrete, material object, but also as an ideological, socially constructed, and subjective one. Since then, increasing numbers of scholars in the social sciences and humanities have shifted their attention to space as an interpretive framework for understanding social phenomena. Space has entered into a variety of fields of study including economics; anthropology and archaeology; sociology and psychology; political science and, specifically, international relations; history, including art history; and literary, film, cultural, and religious studies. This shift has been characterized as the “spatial turn” (Soja 1989; Warf and Arias 2009). What unites scholars within these 198 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING fields is a keen sense that space matters and that spatial thinking is now essential to the production of knowledge in the social sciences. Contemporary culture, as Frederic Jameson (1984, 89) writes, is “increasingly dominated by space and spatial logic.” The spatial turn includes a rethinking of the concepts time, space, and place, and the relationship between them. While there are numerous social theorists engaged in new spatial thinking, we draw primarily upon the work of Manuel Castells (2000a, 2000b, 2011), Henri Lefebvre (1976, 1991), Doreen Massey (1993, 2005, 2009), and Edward Soja (1989, 1996). Here we review some of the key ideas associated with the spatial turn, an orientation that rejects the binaries between place (the local) and space (the global) as outlined above, and emphasize the need for more complex theorizations of space, especially in discussions about the impact of globalization. We start here by describing what is known as a relational notion of space and then comment on the productive functions of space. We will later discuss how these ideas have been and can further be used in research in comparative and international education. Relational Notion of Space A relational notion of space implies understanding that space not only exists in substantial, concrete, and separate forms, but as sets of relations between individuals and groups. Foucault (1986), in his discussion of heterotopias, suggests that heterogeneous and relational spaces characterize the modern world. He writes that space in the modern era takes the form of relations, which he describes as series, trees, or grids, among sites such as the church, theater, museum, fairground, and prison. These are, as Lefebvre (1991) explains, lived spaces, simultaneously concrete and abstract. The metaphor of the network society (Castells 2000a, 2000b) is based on an interpretation of space as a set of relations that transcend the territorial location of the nodes that constitute a given network. The net as a spatial metaphor questions simplistic views of the shrinking of the world that assume that all locations are increasingly interconnected. At the same time that networks connect and draw people and institutions together, others are pushed farther apart (Murdoch, quoted in Warf 2009). Thus, through a relational notion of space, it is possible to perceive the complexity involved in the processes of time-space compression and understand that even though distance may not be directly related to geographical location, it is still an important concept in researching social and educational phenomena across space. In other words, the ways in which individuals and groups are placed within the compression of time-space are complicated and varied (Massey 2005). A relational conception of space also contributes to a better understanding of global and local relations. This spatial perspective implies accepting Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 199 LARSEN AND BEECH that the global is implicated in the local, and the local in the global. There are, as Massey (2009) reminds us, hardly any places that in some way are not party to the making of the global. The global is not just some space, out there, without material basis. It is produced in local settings. Whatever was previously considered “out there” in space, beyond us is someone else’s situated and real place. For example, as Thomas Popkewitz (2000) has shown in his analysis of “indigenous foreigners” (4), the work of global heroes such as John Dewey, Paulo Freire, or Lev Vygotsky, and global discourses such as the notion of professionalization “appear to have no apparent ‘origin’, but are not global or universal. They emerge from particular national or local interest but become part of the authorized discourses of world systems of reason about social and educational reform” (13). As these discourses are taken up in global networks, they are abstracted from the historical experiences in the local context of which they were constructed, and they become floating signifiers that are then relocalized and resignified as they enter specific places and different contexts of power relations (Beech 2009). A similar argument can be made with respect to how local places “respond” to globalizing forces. There is a tendency to see local places as victims or heroic resistors of external global forces. However, “geographies of resistance” (Pile and Keith 1997) are both global and local. For example, Castells (2011) shows that the “improperly labeled ‘anti-globalization movement’ Al Qaeda, and environmental movements might be locally rooted but they also depend on global networks to ‘resist’ allegedly global forces” (27). Thus, relations of domination and resistance are deployed in contexts that are simultaneously local and global. Global forces are being created in sites such as cities and towns in complex, dynamic, and sometimes incoherent relations (Sassen 2007). Productive Functions of Space Critical spatial theorists also note the need to view both place and space as always in the process of becoming. In his 1991 book The Production of Space, Lefebvre argued that space is socially produced through three interrelated processes of spatialization. These dimensions are spatial practices, representations of space, and spaces of representation. Spatial practice (the material or perceived space) is space as it is interpreted or perceived and referred to as commonsense, and through which we can identify flows and movements in our everyday lives. Representations of space (conceptualized or conceived space) refers to more abstract notions of space as used in the media, maps, town planning, and so on, which operate in ways to represent and make sense of space. And finally, spaces of representation (or lived space) refers to the ways that space is lived, felt, and experienced. This is, as Lefebvre (1991, 39) writes, “space as directly lived through associated images and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users.’” 200 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING Drawing upon the work of Lefebvre, this view of space has been taken up by the urban geographer Soja (1989, 1996), who stresses the performative aspect of places that are produced by (and at the same time produce) social activity. Places are performed as individuals inhabit them, but we do not perform our everyday practices in a vacuum. “We are surrounded by the material form of places and their contingent meanings. There is nothing natural or immutable about them—they are social products, but they do provide the context for our practices” (Creswell 2004, 38). This idea sees place as open and not essentialized, as performed and defined by practices as much as it structures and produce practices. What does this spatial orientation mean for scholarship in comparative and international education? New Spatial Thinking and Comparative and International Education Research We have noted that space has been a central concern of the field of comparative and international education for many decades. Comparative researchers have studied education across different scales, with most, although not all, of the focus being on the nation-state. Beyond this particular emphasis on space, there have been others in our field who have taken up space not simply as an object of concern, but as a conceptual tool for analysis.5 We focus on the work of two individuals, Rolland Paulston and Stephen Carney, to demonstrate the potential of spatial theorizing in our field. We mention only two here, recognizing that there are others we have neglected to include in this, our partial mapping of new spatial thinking in comparative and international education. We begin with the work of Paulston, a geographer by training, who understood the opportunities that spatiality provided for comparative and international education and took these up in his work on social cartography. Twenty years ago, Paulston (with Liebman) invited readers of Comparative Education Review to engage in social cartography, suggesting that “critical cartography as boundary work offer[ed] comparativeeducation possibilities for examining educational problems ‘in light of culturally determined needs, objectives and conditions’” (Raivola 1985, quoted in Paulston and Liebman 1994, 223). Paulston drew upon the work of critical geographers such as Soja to advance his argument (one that we continue to advance) that spatial theorizing provides the field of comparative and international education with new possibilities for our research. In the introduction to his edited book Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change, Paulston wrote that our “spatial imagination” provides us with the ability to resist disciplinary enclosures, cross borders, and enter into critical dialogue with other imaginations (2000, xix). Paulston is best known for his macro mapping of paradigms and theories 5 See, e.g., Popkewitz (2000); Robertson (2007); Singh et al. (2007); Sobe and Fischer (2009). Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 201 LARSEN AND BEECH in comparative and international education texts that he treated as a coherent intellectual field. Paulston advocated for the use of critical cartography to map the space of comparative and international education research. His maps are intended as open spaces to social dialogue, and he called upon comparativists to question his maps and subject them to validation through the same kind of rigorous, analytic research that he engaged in himself. As a result, a few within the field have taken up Paulston’s call to become social cartographers, mapping educational discourses in diverse ways (e.g., Erkilla 2001; Ahmed 2003; Weidman and Jacob 2011). Yet, over the past 20 years, since Paulston’s first publication on social cartography, our field has been slow to engage more vigorously with the spatial turn and other approaches that one might broadly define as postpositivist, reflecting our field’s continuing commitment to its modern mission (e.g., Epstein and Carroll 2005, 2011). Carney’s (2009) work is a more contemporary example of the use of space as a methodological and theoretical tool. He starts by suggesting that “educational phenomena in one country must . . . be understood in ongoing relation to other such cases” (63) and in this way he addresses directly the need to look more carefully into connections between educational sites. Borrowing from Arjun Appadurai (1996), Carney notes that globalization is characterized by flows that entail contradiction and inconsistencies, since global flows can liberate and empower and, at the same time, bring up new forms of domination. Methodologically, he suggests that our usual static (sometimes binary) frameworks are not effective to analyze objects that are in motion. From this perspective, even the nation-state is seen as being in motion, always becoming and transforming: “The greatest of these apparently stable objects is the nation-state, which is today frequently characterized by floating populations, transnational politics within national borders, and mobile configurations of technology and expertise” (Appadurai, cited in Carney 2009, 64). In order to address this challenge, Carney uses the concept of “policyscape” in an attempt to move “beyond the reliance on nation, educational system, and school” (67), deploying this concept to connect different reform initiatives at different levels of the educational systems in three different countries (Denmark, Nepal, and China). In this way, he problematizes the construction of local as a static preexisting site and, instead, suggests a more relational view of the local (or place) as a set of social and spatial relations in which global, international, and national forces are combined with individual identities in complex and dynamic ways. Thus, Carney’s article addresses the need to analyze connections between sites and to avoid static binary definitions of global/local and space/place. The examples that we have drawn on above demonstrate that there has been some interest within our field in engaging in spatial theorizing. We wonder, however, why more comparativists have not responded to the spatial 202 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING turn in their research? We turn to two recent volumes that review various ways that space has been taken up in educational research and then devote most of our attention to one area of particular concern to comparative and international education researchers: mobilities and movements of educational policies, practices, and people. Drawing on the examples of educational research engaging in spatial theory from Tara Fenwick, Richard Edwards and Peter Sawchuk’s (2011) chapter “Spatial Theory in Educational Research” and Kalervo Gulson and Colin Syme’s (2007) edited book Spatial Theories of Education: Policy and Geography Matters, we can map out three general topics that could stimulate the interest of comparativists to foreground space as a tool and framework for educational analysis. These include research on learning spaces and pedagogy, identities in educational spaces, and educational policy research. One of the most significant applications of spatial theory in educational research has been in relation to learning spaces, the curriculum, and critical pedagogy (Gulson and Symes 2007; Fenwick et al. 2011). Some of this research has included seeing the inside (classroom, school) and outside (home, community) spaces of education as relational sets of practices and mobilities, and the study of institutions as spaces of flux and flows rather than bounded and clearly demarked spaces. A more expansive notion of curriculum and pedagogy as assemblages of the human and nonhuman in their enactments is emphasized in this research (e.g., Mannion 2003, Paechter 2004). Jan Nespor’s (1994) “Knowledge in Motion” study of teaching, learning, and curriculum in undergraduate studies in physics and management described the ways that students are organized in space and time and the implications of this for subjectivity and knowledge construction. And literary researchers such as Kevin Leander and Margaret Sheehy (2004) have demonstrated how literacy practices are produced through space-time configurations. Another topic of interest to educational researchers engaged in the spatial turn has been the construction of identities in educational spaces. Michael Singh, Fazal Rizvi, and Mona Shrestha’s work on international students and cosmopolitan identities stands out here. In their work, they pay particular attention to how students’ perceptions, conceptions, and experiences of the spaces they negotiated contributed to the production of their cosmopolitan sense of belonging (Singh et al. 2007). They, like others, draw on Lefebvre’s work on the production of space to show how the international students in their study continually negotiated their spatial practices, representational spaces, and spaces of representations. Spatial theory has also been taken up by researchers drawing upon the notion of diaspora stance to inform their understandings of the production of identities of diasporic groups. Rather than focusing on the physical presence of a population in one geographical place, the idea of a diaspora stance draws our attention to the ways that members of a diaspora group maintain Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 203 LARSEN AND BEECH networks and allegiances across transnational, cultural, and racial and ethnic borders; how political, cultural, and linguistic identities and practices are produced in relation to real or imagined homelands; and how barriers of discrimination and exclusion are addressed (Clifford 1994; Brubaker 2005). Rosalie Rolón-Dow’s (2010) study of the perspectives of second-generation Puerto Rican mothers, as they discuss their experiences educating their children, demonstrates how diaspora stances (identities) are produced by the women as they foster Puerto Rican cultural practices and identities with their children and as they negotiate the schooling experiences of their children. She shows how diasporization and racialization processes extend across generations and geography to affect the education of Puerto Rican children. The last example we turn to is educational policy research. This perhaps is the most obvious area to engage with spatial theorizing given the spatial dimension of globalization. Susan Robertson stands out for her focus on critical socio-spatial theorizing in her analyses of globalization and educational policies. In her 2011 chapter “Spatializing the Sociology of Education,” she uses the idea of scale to analyze decentralization and marketization policies, arguing that “scale enables us to trace movements in multiple directions, as new nodes of power and rule are constructed or invigorated, struggled over and legitimated” (Robertson 2011, 24). In her research about publicprivate partnerships in the EU, she demonstrates how the production of space is a highly political process and the outcome of particular projects and struggles. Robertson (2007) argues that the process of creating a European education space is one of territorialization at the European scale. The ideas of territorialization, deterritorialization, and reterritorialization point us toward the significance of concepts such as mobilities and movements in framing our theoretical understandings of spatial relations. It is to this topic that we now turn in our last section as pointing a way forward for future comparativists to foreground the spatial in their research. Mobilities, Movement, Networks, and Flows: Social Network Analysis What unites many of the researchers noted above who are engaging with the spatial turn in meaningful and complex ways is an interest in concepts of mobilities, movement, networks, flow, and flux. Carney (2009) and Singh et al. (2007) do this, as they turn to the work of Appadurai (1996) and his notion of scapes. And the spatial theorizing about curriculum and pedagogy that we reviewed above, along with the notion of diaspora as a stance or project relate to Castells’s (2000a, 2000b) ideas of networks and space of flows. This focus on networks and mobilities shifts our thinking away from the notion of space as a container, to conceptualizing the movements, flows, and networks that are constituted across territorial entities. This focus distinguishes research that addresses space as an object of study (e.g., the space of the classroom) to space as a theoretical tool for 204 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING analysis. Mobilities theorizing (e.g., Urry 2007) has focused on space as material orderings and disordering, as enactments and performances. As Fenwick et al. (2011) explain: “A focus on mobilities points us towards a tracing of the movements, relations and networks of objects, information and images, and the ways in which flux is regulated, made possible and constrained. Rather than starting analysis from a space out of which objects move, this approach aims to map mobilities, the ways in which spaces are moored, bounded and stabilized for the moment, and the specific (im)mobilities associated with such moorings” (11–12). We propose here the use of a methodological approach, social network analysis (SNA), that focuses on mobilities and movement to demonstrate how spaces are enacted in relation to one another. SNA is a methodological development in the social sciences that draws upon the notion of networks. SNA views social relationships in terms of network theory, comprising nodes (representing individual actors within the network) and ties (which represent relationships between the individuals, such as friendship, kinship, and organizational position; Pinheiro 2011). In SNA, the focus is on both the identification of the actors in the networks and how they are related to one another. Hence, we are conceptualizing SNA as an analytic method for studying educational phenomena that enables the breaking down of the binary between space and place. SNA is an approach that is situated within the shifts in the social sciences that we outlined above in terms of rethinking relations between space and place by focusing on flows and mobilities. In other words, as Stephen J. Ball (2012, 5) asserts, the focus has shifted to the “spatializing of social relations, on travel and other forms of movement and other transnational interactions and forms of sociality.” The study of networks, connections, and flows is not new in comparative and international education. Authors such as Gita Steiner-Khamsi and Hubert Quist (2000) and Julia Resnik (2008) have included in their analysis of educational transfer a description of the actors involved in the specific cases that they researched and the ways in which they relate to each other. Indeed, the call to engage with SNA in comparative and international education has been previously made by Steiner-Khamsi (2004), who notes that “research on educational transfer lags behind network analysis” and that even though the importance of networks for disseminating educational reform has been highlighted, “we have not provided concrete empirical evidence” (214). One exception to the lack of empirical use of SNA to analyze educational transfer is the work of Eugenia Roldán and Thomas Schupp (2005, 2006), in which they use this methodological approach, in combination with other approaches, to study the dissemination of the monitorial system of education (also known as the Lancasterian system of education) in early nineteenthcentury Hispanic America. Roldán and Schupp note that the concept of “social networks” has been widely used in the social sciences as a metaphor. Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 205 LARSEN AND BEECH Instead, they argue for an analytical use of the concept of networks: “By focusing on the dynamics of processes of flow and circulation of people, ideas, objects, merchandise and capital across regions and continents, social network analysis may help to further illuminate the very communication processes that constitute that knowledge transmission: the channels through which information, people, and objects flow, and the ways in which such channels shape—or construct—whatever is being conveyed” (2005, 58). Thus, through the use of SNA it is possible to place the communicative process in the center of inquiry, as the main unit of analysis. Such a relational approach can contribute to the development of more sophisticated interpretations of processes of circulation of educational discourse by looking at how certain factors such as the role of individuals, historical appeals and needs are articulated in complex networks that connect global spaces with local places, and vice versa (Roldán and Schupp 2005). In this way, Roldan and Shupp (2005) analyze the role of individuals and associations in terms of “connectivity and position” (65), and they emphasize the impressive role that James Thompson had as the most connected node of the network through which the monitorial system was introduced in different American countries. They use the concept of “preferential attachment” (77) to (partly) explain why Thompson was such an attractive node. This concept refers to the rule that the more connected a node is, the more nodes it attracts, and in this way its centrality grows more rapidly than that of other nodes. Also, the earlier a node enters the network, it tends to develop more connections, and Thompson was one of the early adopters of the method. This historical analysis evokes the possibility of applying SNA to explore the role of current policy entrepreneurs in promoting particular educational values and visions globally. For example, SNA could be used to map the role of Sir Michael Barber, who is considered a leading world authority on education systems and education reform, in terms of his connectivity and position within global educational-business networks. According to the Pearson Inc. website, following his position as a professor at the Institute of Education, University of London, Barber served the UK government as head of the prime minister’s delivery unit (from 2001 to 2005) and as chief adviser to the secretary of state for education on school standards (from 1997 to 2001). He moved on to become partner and head of the global education practice at McKinsey and is now the chief education advisor to Pearson PLC Publishing. Barber has advised governments around the world, has worked for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Bank, IMF, and the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom. As Pearson’s chief education advisor, he chairs the Pearson Affordable Learning Fund, has published Oceans of Innovation about the rise of Pacific Asia and the implications for global leadership and education, and launched The Learn206 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING ing Curve, an initiative to review, research, and interview innovators worldwide about how best to achieve better learning outcomes (see http://www The spread of education policy ideas through individuals such as Sir Michael Barber are explored by Ball (2007, 2012) in his research about the policy activities of edu-business, transnational advocacy networks, and policy entrepreneurs. Ball focuses on the mobility of policies, rather than the simple transfer of educational policies, and suggests that they move through, and are adapted by, networks of social relations involving diverse participants. Ball draws on SNA but considers the method he deploys as “network ethnography” involving “a mapping of the form and content of policy relations in a particular field” (2012, 5). Ball’s argument is that policy networks constitute new forms of governance and bring into the policy process new sources of authority. The links between international institutions such as the World Bank, OECD, policy entrepreneurs, and for-profit global educational corporations that have been explored by Ball are a potentially interesting educational network that could be further analyzed by comparative education researchers using SNA. Moreover, mapping and understanding connections and networks in global educational space is also important for the study of transfer in education because networks are not just media to transmit knowledge, but they also contribute to the shaping of that knowledge, in this way drawing our attention to the productive capacity of space. It is in the process of circulation that ideas are constructed, changed, and shaped. Thus, we should avoid a simplistic and static view of transfer as if ideas are produced in one place and then received in another place. Centering our attention in the communicative process can help us grasp the relational dimension of processes of knowledge construction across sites or places (Zimmermann 2009; Roldán 2011) and help us understand place-space relations in more sophisticated and complex ways. What then does this mean for the comparative study of education in globalized times? SNA could be used to map the networks that constitute educational spaces, and an even more thorough understanding of existing global educational networks such as private-public partnerships, as noted above, or the spread and influence of international standardized assessments. If we take a relational notion of space as a starting point, the best way to model and graphically represent spatial information is not a map of territories, but rather the cartography of connections between individuals and institutions. In many ways this, then, reminds us of Paulston’s social cartography project with its emphasis on mapping connections, networks, and relationships. The territorial location of these nodes might be an important aspect to consider, since it might affect the ways in which they relate to each other, but clearly not the only one. In that sense, SNA seems to be a very Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 207 LARSEN AND BEECH promising methodological tool to understand empirically and theoretically educational spaces, the relations between them, and their productive capacities. These related notions of flows, networks, connections, and the circulation of discourses, policies, and practices, which have been taken up by spatial theorists, can serve as units of analysis for comparative and international education research to enhance our understanding of local/global interconnectedness. They provide a means to confront limitations outlined earlier in the article about static, binary conceptualizations of place and space. In many respects, the study of connections and circulation has always been at the center of comparative and international education. Educational systems around the globe have been developed through the circulation of discourses, institutions, and practices that have led to strong similarities and convergences in educational systems in different parts of the world (Meyer et al. 1992; Baker and LeTendre 2005). These flows and their consequences have been analyzed in comparative and international education through studies of policy borrowing. However, although there are a few exceptions, most of these studies are based on geopolitical and territorial definitions of space and on static interpretations of transfer, missing the point that it is in the process of circulation that knowledge is constructed. However, for all its appeal, SNA as an analytic device is not a panacea, and, as much as it has the strengths mentioned above, it poses some challenges and has some weaknesses.6 One weakness is that the use of this methodological tool is the difficulty in mapping or representing empirically structured relationships of power (Ball 2012). Moreover, the drawing of boundaries of the networks that are being analyzed is difficult, since “processes of diffusion do not stop at any clear border” (Roldan and Shupp 2006, 414). A related methodological challenge concerns the problem arising from the instability and short-term existence of some networks and network relations. Ball (2012) asks, “How do we capture changes in participation, capabilities and asymmetries over time?” and concludes that this is both an “analytical and representational problem” (8). Despite these limitations, we contend that SNA (or some variant of SNA such as policy network analysis), with its focus on flows and mobilities and the connections between individuals and groups across disparate regions, is an alternative to binary thinking about space and place. We suggest, then, that there is value for comparative and international education researchers to engage more specifically with the mapping of the global field of education, in both its contemporary and historical manifestations. How do individuals connected across regional boundaries, such as diasporic communities, ne6 We acknowledge the point made by one of our reviewers that although SNA may appear to be a way out of the space/place dichotomy metanarrative, it does not appear to be a way out of a modernist centering on the human(istic) subject. 208 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING gotiate their educational identities? Who are the actors and institutions that participate in global networks—both official and unofficial? How are they connected? What are the relationships between global and local networks? How can we view the local or even the national as open, fluid systems that include the global within them? And most importantly, how can we understand the ways in which educational processes are constructed in the movement between people, products, and ideas. We need to look more carefully at the connections and circulations, at the in-betweenness through which the global and the local (and the educational) are constructed and relate to each other, and at the productive capacity of such thinking. Conclusion Spatiality, we have argued above, can provide comparative and international education research with a tool for the critical analysis of educational patterns, processes, and phenomena. In this article, we described how space has been central to the comparative study of educational patterns and processes, despite what might seem to be an earlier focus on time in our field. We reviewed how the spatial frameworks that have been deployed in much comparative and international education research have mirrored the dominant metanarrative about space and place that has been taken up in the broader social sciences. This dominant paradigm was then critically challenged, after which we presented some current ideas associated with the spatial turn, drawing upon research in critical geography and other disciplines outside of education. These ideas, we argued, provide us with some fresh thinking about how we might further deepen our understanding of the spatial in comparative research. Specifically, we pointed to research on pedagogy and learning spaces, identities, and education policy before turning our attention to social network analysis as providing a way to address the space/ place puzzle, by focusing on networks, flows, and connections. Earlier in the article we referred to the emphasis on time in much comparative and international education research. Where does time now fit into spatial theorizing? It appears that the spatial turn has been a drive away from metanarratives of historicism, with its evolutionary and developmental approaches to time. However, we are not suggesting that time simply be replaced by an emphasis on space. Rather, we further challenge the binary between space and time, remembering as Massey (1993, 155) writes, that “space is not static (i.e. time-less), nor time spaceless, spatiality and temporality are different from each other but neither can be conceptualized as the absence of the other.” In addition to viewing space and place in relational productive terms, we also need to think in terms of space-time as being inseparable from and relational to one other. Furthermore, it would appear that we are making an argument, as Brock (2013) does in the recent special issue on educational space in Comparative Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 209 LARSEN AND BEECH Education, that geography ought to join the list of social sciences (e.g., history and sociology) that inform comparative studies of education. In some ways this is true. However, the spatial theorizing that we have reviewed in this article has been taken up not only by cultural geographers but also across a wide range of other disciplines including political science, literary studies, and philosophy. Indeed, the discourse of geography has become much broader than the discipline itself (Gregory 1994), and as Lefebvre (1991) reminds us, space is too important to be left to the geographers. Places and spaces are constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations that are socially produced and reproduced. Thus, if we accept that the landscape of social and political relations is changing, then comparative and international education needs to change to engage in a serious analysis of concepts of space and place, grasping them in their complexity and relationality. We hope that in presenting these arguments we are contributing to the construction of “another” space or set of spatial possibilities in comparative and international education—one that is alternative, relational, and produced out of the ongoing discussions and debates within the field. References Ahmed, Z. N. 2003. “Mapping Rural Women’s Perspectives on Nonformal Education Experiences.” In Comparative Education Reader, ed. E. R. Beauchamp. New York: Routledge Falmer. Altbach, P. 2004. “Globalisation and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World.” Tertiary Education and Management 10 (1): 3–25. Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Apple, M. 2010. Globalization, Social Justice, and Education. New York: Routledge. Arnove, R., and C. A. Torres, eds. 2012. Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baker, D. P., and G. K. LeTendre. 2005. National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. London: Oxford University Press. Ball, S. J. 2007. Education plc: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. 2012. Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. London: Routledge. Beech, J. 2009. “Policy Spaces, Mobile Discourses, and the Definition of Educated Identities.” Comparative Education 45 (August): 347–65. Beech, J. 2011. Global Panaceas, Local Realities: International Agencies and the Future of Education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Bray, M., and R. M. Thomas. 1995. “Levels of Comparison in Educational Systems: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses.” Harvard Educational Review 65 (Fall): 472–91. 210 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING Brock, C. 2013. “The Geography of Education and Comparative Education.” Comparative Education 49 (3): 275–89. Brubaker, R. 2005. “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28:1–19. Carney, S. 2009. “Negotiating Policy in an Age of Globalization: Exploring Educational ‘Policyscapes’ in Denmark, Nepal, and China.” Comparative Education Review 53 (February): 63–88. Carnoy, M., and C. A. Torres. 1994. “Educational Change and Structural Adjustment: A Case Study of Costa Rica.” In Austerity, Adjustment and Human Resources, ed. J. Samoff. London: Cassell. Castells, M. 2000a. “Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society.” British Journal of Sociology 51 ( January–March): 5–24. Castells, M. 2000b. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. 2011. “A Network Theory of Power.” International Journal of Communication 5:773–87. Clifford, J. 1994. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology 9:302–38. Cowen, R. 2009. “Editorial Introduction: The National, the International and the Global.” In International Handbook of Comparative Education, ed. R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias. Dordrecht: Springer. Cresswell, T. 2004 Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Dale, R., and S. Robertson. 2009. “Beyond Methodological ‘Isms’ in Comparative Education in an Era of Globalisation.” In International Handbook of Comparative Education, ed. R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias. Dordrecht: Springer. Dirlik, A. 2001. “Place-Based Imagination: Globalism and the Politics of Place.” In Places And Politics in an Age of Globalization, ed. R. Prazniak and A. Dirlik. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Donn, G., and Y. A. Manthri, eds. 2013. Education in the Broader Middle East: Borrowing a Baroque Arsenal. Oxford: Symposium. Erkilla, K. 2001. Mapping the Entrepreneurial Education Debates in the United States, the United Kingdom and Finland. New York: Garland. Epstein, E. H., and K. T. Carroll. 2005. “Abusing Ancestors: Historical Functionalism and the Postmodern Deviation in Comparative Education.” Comparative Education Review 48 (1): 62–88. Epstein, E. H., and K. T. Carroll. 2011. “Erasing Ancestry: A Critique of Critiques of the ‘Postmodern Deviation in Comparative Education.’” In Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice, ed. J. Jacobs and J. Weideman. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Escobar, A. 2001. “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization.” Political Geography 20:139–74. Fenwick, T., R. Edwards, and P. Sawchuk. 2011. Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Sociomaterial. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. 1980. “Questions of Geography.” In Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. 1986. “Des Espace Autres (Of Other Spaces).” Diacritics 16 (1): 22–27. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell. Giroux, H. 2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review 72 (4): 425–64. Comparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 211 LARSEN AND BEECH Gregory, D. 1994. “Social Theory and Human Geography.” In Human Geography, ed. D. Gregory, R. Martin, and G. Smith. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Green, A. 1993. Education and State Formation: The Rise of Educational Systems in England, France, and the United States. New York: St. Martin’s. Gulson, K. N., and C. Symes. 2007. “Knowing One’s Place: Educational Theory, Policy and the Spatial Turn.” In Spatial Theories of Education: Policy and Geography Matters, ed. K. N. Gulson and C. Symes. New York: Routledge. Gvirtz, S., and J. Beech. 2008. Going to School in Latin America. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hans, N. 1949. Comparative Education: A Study of Educational Factors and Traditions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hans, N. 1959. “The Historical Approach to Comparative Education.” International Review of Education 5 (3): 299–309. Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Held, D., and A. McGrew. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jameson, F. 1984. “Postmodernism—or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.” New Left Review 1 (46): 53–92. Kandel, I. 1933. Comparative Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Kazamias, A. 1966. Education and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey. London: Allen & Unwin. Leander, K. M., and M. Sheehy, eds. 2004. Spatializing Literacy Research and Practice. New York: Peter Lang. Lefebvre, H. 1976. “Reflections on the Politics of Space.” Antipodes 8:30–37. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Litz, D. 2011. “Globalization and the Changing Face of Educational Leadership: Current Trends and Emerging Dilemmas.” International Education Studies 4 (3): 47–61. Mannion, G. 2003. “Learning, Participation and Identification through School Grounds Development.” In Space, Curriculum and Learning, ed. R. Edwards and R. Usher. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Massey, D. 1993. “Politics and Space/Time.” In Place and the Politics of Identity. ed. M. Keith and S. Pile. London: Routledge. Massey, D. 2005. For Space. Los Angeles: Sage. Massey, D. 2009. “The Possibilities of a Politics of Place beyond Place? A Conversation with Doreen Massey.” Scottish Geographical Journal 125 (December): 401–20. McGinn, N. 1997. “The Impact of Globalization on National Educational Systems.” Prospects 27 (1): 41–54. Meyer, J. W., D. Kamens, and A. Benavot. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the 20th Century. Washington, DC: Falmer. Miller, J. R. 1997. Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Nespor, J. 1994. Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time, and Signs in Educational Process. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 212 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SPATIAL THEORIZING O’Dowd, M. 2011. Teaching and Researching Comparative and International Education in the Nordic Countries. Rotterdam: Sense. Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies. New York: Simon & Schuster. Paechter, C. 2004. “Metaphors of Space in Educational Theory and Practice.” Pedagogy, Culture and Society 12 (3): 449–64. Paulston, R., ed. 2000. Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change. New York: Garland. Paulston, R., and M. Liebman. 1994. “An Invitation to Postmodern Social Cartography.” Comparative Education Review 38 (2): 215–32. Pile, S., and M. Keith, eds. 1997. Geographies of Resistance. New York: Routledge. Pinheiro, C. 2011. Social Network Analysis in Telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Popkewitz, T. S. 2000. “Globalization/Regionalization, Knowledge, and the Educational Practices.” In Educational Knowledge: Changing Relationships between the State, Civil Society, and the Educational Community, ed. T. S. Popkewitz. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Raivola, R. 1985. “What Is Comparison? Methodological and Philosophical Considerations.” Comparative Education Review 29:262–74. Resnik, J. 2008. “Introducing a Neo-Weberian Perspective in the Study of Globalisation and Education: Structural Reforms of the Education Systems in France and Israel after the Second World War.” Oxford Review of Education 34 (4): 385– 402. Robertson, S. 2007. “Public-Private Partnership, Digital Firms, and the Production of a Neoliberal Education Space at the European Scale.” In Spatial Theories of Education: Policy and Geography Matters, ed. K. N. Gulson and C. Symes. New York: Routledge. Robertson, S. 2011. “‘Spatializing’ the Sociology of Education: Stand-Points, EntryPoints, Vantage-Points.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Sociology of Education, ed. M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, and L. A. Gandin. London: Routledge. Roldán, V. E. 2011. “Internacionalización Pedagógica y Comunicación en Perspectiva Histórica: La Introducción del Método de Enseñanza Mutua en Hispanoamérica Independiente.” In Internacionalización: Polı́ticas Educativas y Reflexión Pedagógica en un Medio Global, ed. M. Caruso and H. E. Tenorth. Buenos Aires: Granica. Roldán, V. E., and T. Schupp. 2005. “Bridges over the Atlantic: A Network Analysis of the Introduction of the Monitorial System of Education in Early-Independent Spanish America.” Comparativ—Leipziger Beiträge zur Universalgeschichte und vergleichenden Gesellschaftsforschung 15:58–93. Roldán V. E., and T. Schupp. 2006. “Network Analysis in Comparative Social Sciences.” Comparative Education 42 (August): 405–29. Rolón-Dow, R. 2010. “Taking a Diasporic Stance: Puerto Rican Mothers Educating Children in a Racially Integrated Neighborhood.” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education 4 (4): 268–84. Sassen, S. 2007. A Sociology of Globalization. New York: Norton. Schneider, F. 1961. “The Immanent Evolution of Education: A Neglected Aspect of Comparative Education.” Comparative Education Review 4:136–39. Singh, M., F. Rizvi, and M. Shrestha. 2007. “Student Mobility and the Spatial ProComparative Education Review This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 213 LARSEN AND BEECH duction of Cosmopolitan Identities.” In Spatial Theories of Education, ed. K. Gulson and C. Symes. London: Routledge. Smith, C., and G. Ward. 2000. Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Sobe, N. W., and M. G. Fischer. 2009. “Mobility, Migration and Minorities in Education.” In International Handbook of Comparative Education, ed. R. Cowen and A. Kazamias. Dordrecht: Springer. Soja, E. W. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso. Soja, E. W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Lost Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell. Soja, E. W. 2009. “Taking Space Personally.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. B. Warf and S. Arias. London: Routledge. Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2004. “Conclusion: Blazing a Trail for Policy Theory and Practice.” In The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending, ed. G. SteinerKhamsi. New York: Teachers College Press. Steiner-Khamsi, G., and H. Quist. 2000. “The Politics of Educational Borrowing: Reopening the Case of Achimota in British Ghana.” Comparative Education Review 44 (August): 272–99. Sweeting, A. 2007. “Comparing Times.” In Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods, ed. M. Bray, B. Adamson, and M. Mason. Hong Kong: CERC. Thanh Khoi, L. 2001. Education et civilisations: Genèse du monde contemporain. Paris: Éditions UNESCO / Bruno Leprince Editeur / Horizons du Monde. Torres, C. A., and D. Schugurensky. 2002. “The Political Economy of Higher Education in the Era of Neoliberal Globalization: Latin America in Comparative Perspective.” Higher Education 43:429–55. Tuan, Y.-F. 1974. “American Space, Chinese Place.” Harper’s Magazine, July 8. Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity. Warf, B. 2009. “From Surfaces to Networks.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. B. Warf and S. Arias. London: Routledge. Warf, B., and S. Arias. 2009. “Introduction.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. B. Warf and S. Arias. London: Routledge. Waters, M. 2001. Globalization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Weidman, J. C., and W. J. Jacob, eds. 2011. Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice; a Festschrift in Honor of Rolland G. Paulston. Rotterdam: Sense. Wolf, E. 1982 Europe and a People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zimmermann, E. 2009. “Global Intellectual Elites.” In The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, ed. A. Iriye and P. I. Saunier. London: Palgrave/Macmillan. 214 May 2014 This content downloaded from on Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:19:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
bs_bs_banner Transversing the Vertical Case Study: A Methodological Approach to Studies of Educational Policy as Practice LESLEY BARTLETT University of Wisconsin, Madison FRANCES VAVRUS University of Minnesota How can scholars trace the global production and circulation of educational policies? The vertical case study incorporates three elements: “vertical” attention across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, or scales; a “horizontal” comparison of how policies unfold in distinct locations; and a “transversal,” processual analysis of the creative appropriation of educational policies across time. The second half of the article draws upon an ethnographic study of learner-centered pedagogy in Tanzania to exemplify the vertical case study approach. [educational policy, actor-network theory, Tanzania, learner-centered pedagogy, multisited ethnography] How do extra-local forces shape educational policy and practice, and how can these be studied? How can scholars trace the global circulation and production of educational policies and their impact on practice? In this article, our principal aim is to explain and illustrate a promising methodological approach for researching educational policy that attends simultaneously to its global, national, and local dimensions. We contend that new approaches to policy studies in education are necessitated by changes in the historical, political, and spatial relations of actors and actants in policy networks. Although theoretical advances have been made by scholars who conceptualize policy as social practice, methodological clarity as to how one might explore the complex assemblages of power that come to bear on policy formation and appropriation across multiple sites and scales has heretofore been limited. We offer the vertical case study as an approach that maintains the centrality of ethnography—specifically multisited ethnography—in the study of educational policy while expanding its scope to the non-local level by tracing a transversal process or set of relations that spans local, national, and global scales. We call this approach a “vertical case study” due to our initial conceptualization of it, and the term has gained traction in our allied field of comparative education (Vavrus and Bartlett 2009, 2013). However, it is essential to clarify from the outset that this approach incorporates vertical, horizontal, and transversal elements. First, the vertical axis insists on simultaneous attention to and across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, or scales, which constitute the verticality of comparison (see also Bray and Thomas 1995). Second, the horizontal axis compares how similar policies unfold in distinct locations that are socially produced (Massey 2005) and “simultaneously and complexly connected” (Tsing 2005:6). Third, the approach emphasizes the importance of transversal comparison, which historically situates the processes or relations under consideration and traces the creative appropriation of educational policies and practices across time and space. The transversal element reminds us to study across and through levels to explore how globalizing processes intersect and interconnect people and policies that come into focus at different scales. Consistent with George Marcus’s multisited ethnography (1995, 1998, 2011) and Feldman’s “nonlocal ethnography” (2011), we promote qualitative, field-based educational policy research that expands its reach across place and scale. Our perspective does Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 2, pp. 131–147, ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492. © 2014 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI:10.1111/aeq.12055 131 132 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 not relinquish the critical importance of ethnographic fieldwork and the study of “historical contingency” in the “moments of rupture, conflict, and discord [that] result in power inequalities concealed through different political technologies” (Feldman 2011:39). Rather, the vertical case study approach expands the locations of research while showing how actors are related through specific historical contingencies that connect disparate social sites and social actors. In this article, we first describe the conceptual framework that informs our methodological approach, which draws upon sociocultural studies of policy, actor-network theory, multisited ethnography, and the notion of a global policyscape (Carney 2009). We consider how educational policy studies could be supplemented and strengthened by even greater attention to the ways that policy is appropriated and practiced as it “flows” transnationally and travels transversally. Here we marry the exploration of transnational “visions, values, and ideology” that lie at the core of the concept of policyscapes (Carney 2009:79) with the ethnographic study of policy in specific contexts. In the second section, we explain our research methods and follow this discussion with an illustration of the vertical case study approach using research in which we are currently engaged that examines what Stephen (2012:1) calls the “cross-national policy space” of learner-centered pedagogy (LCP). We conclude by briefly describing future avenues for vertical case studies of educational policy and practice. Conceptual Framework Sociocultural Studies of Education Policy In its approach to the study of global education policy, the vertical case study draws from sociocultural studies of “policy as practice” (Shore and Wright 1997; Levinson and Sutton 2001). While some approaches to policy studies adopt an instrumentalist stance to investigate “what works,” a sociocultural approach understands policy as a deeply political process of cultural production engaged in and shaped by social actors in disparate locations who exert incongruent amounts of influence. These actors differ in their authority to “(1) define what is problematic in education; (2) shape interpretations and means of how problems should be resolved; and (3) determine to what vision of the future change efforts should be directed” (Hamann and Rosen 2011:462). These three points highlight how sociocultural approaches to education policy attend to the political contestations that shape the policy cycle. A sociocultural approach, then, requires attention to both policy formation and implementation or appropriation. Policy formation results in “a set of statements about how things should or must be done, with corresponding inducements or punishments . . . Policy thus (a) defines reality, (b) orders behavior, and (sometimes) (c) allocates resources accordingly” (Levinson, Sutton, and Winstead 2009:770). Policy implementation occurs through appropriation, during which social actors interpret and selectively implement policies, thereby adapting ideas and discourses developed in a different place and potentially at a different historical moment in accordance with their own interests as well as symbolic, material, and institutional constraints. Notably, given the broader notion of policy processes and policy actors represented in the sociocultural approach to educational policy studies, key actors may be spread across time and space. This recognition calls for a transversal, multisited methodological approach, and actor-network theory is central to our conceptualization of it. Actor-Network Theory The emphasis on policy flows and enactments within sociocultural approaches to policy can be further enhanced by concepts derived from actor-network theory (ANT). Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 133 Networks are “assemblages” of dynamic actors and resources that can “move educational practices across space and time” (Nespor 2004:369; on global assemblages, see also Ong and Collier 2004). As developed by Bruno Latour (2005) and others, ANT considers how, within networks, people and objects get invited, excluded, and enrolled; how linkages are established (or fail to “take”), shift, and dissolve; and how social acts curtail or facilitate future actions (Fenwick 2010). As noted by Jill Koyama (2011) in her study of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy, “The strength of the theory lies in its insistence on following the ongoing processes ‘made up of uncertain, fragile, controversial, and ever-shifting ties’ (Latour 2005:28) rather than attempting to fit the actors and their activities into bounded categories, geographical sites, or groups of analysis” (2011:705). Importantly, and quite controversially, ANT emphasizes the role played by nonhuman actors and, in effect, dissolves binaries by focusing on interactions among actors within a network rather than on their location (local, national, global) within it. From this perspective, people, objects, and texts can become vested and act. As Koyama explains, “ANT focuses not on what an object means, but rather on what it does, with human investment” (2011:705). ANT traces how human and nonhuman actors become “enrolled” in and are then “accountable” to networks, and how both are “produced by particular interactions with one another” (Fenwick and Edwards 2010:8). For example, Koyama (2010) shows how for-profit companies, principals, teachers, and city officials become enrolled in a network, appropriate the NCLB policy, and then work to produce test scores that themselves become nonhuman actors. The test scores then move from one place to another—from a school to the district, state, and national levels—and “act” by constraining future action and holding students, teachers, and administrators accountable to them. The vertical case study approach engages sociocultural studies of policy, which are grounded in practice theory, and ANT, with its commitment to tracing spatially noncontiguous assemblages of actors. It aims to produce what Stephen Ball (2012) calls a “network ethnography” of educational policy, wherein the network is both a conceptual and a methodological tool that helps to develop historically specific, spatially aware analyses of social relations. In this way, one avoids the dilemma suggested by Susan Robertson of equating the global “to the macro, and structural,” making it “a social force that the local (or micro) must face” (2012:8). Further, the vertical case study approach recognizes that the “global” is always a “local.” The approach takes heed of an insight developed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos and colleagues (2007) that globalizing, universalist accounts of social truths, such as global policies, are merely one version (or one “globalized localism”) that has acquired hegemonic status through the authority of specific knowledge systems, regimes of power, or funding agencies (Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). In addition, the approach acknowledges that global institutions, like the World Bank, are nonetheless local spaces constructed through the shifting cultural production of human (and nonhuman) actors through social practices (see, e.g., Li 2007; Goldman 2006; Anderson-Levitt 2012). The VCS approach recognizes that social practices, such as an international nongovernmental organization (NGO) developing indicators of teacher quality, are a particular kind of mundane, local-level action that aspires to become what Anna Tsing (2000) calls a “scale-making project,” shaping others’ actions as it moves from an NGO office in New York City to ministries of education and schools in Afghanistan, Guatemala, and Zambia. Therefore, the distinction made in the vertical case study between micro-, meso-, and macro-levels is not a reproduction of dichotomies but rather a metaphorical reminder to conduct research across concatenations of sites, including international and bilateral development organizations, national and regional ministries of education, and community-based classrooms. 134 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 Multisited Ethnography and the Spatial Turn The emphasis within both sociocultural studies of policy and ANT on process and negotiation requires qualitative methodologies such as those developed by multisited ethnographers. While techniques for engaging multiple field sites have existed for quite some time and were used intensively by urban anthropologists in the 1960s and those working transnationally in the 1990s, multisited ethnography has been most coherently codified in the work of George Marcus (1995, 1998). As explained by Falzon: The essence of multi-sited research is to follow people, connections, associations, and relationships across space (because they are substantially continuous but spatially non-contiguous) . . . Research design proceeds by a series of juxtapositions in which the global is collapsed into and made an integral part of parallel, related local situations, rather than something monolithic or external to them. In terms of method, multi-sited ethnography involves a spatially dispersed field through which the ethnographer moves. (2009:1–2). Multisited ethnography was spurred by recognition of not only the flow of people, goods, and ideas across space but also the interconnectedness across dispersed locations and the necessity of examining what Marcus calls “distributed knowledge systems” and “active knowledge making” among those in our studies (2011:23–25; Coleman and von Hellermann 2011). One recent example illustrates well how multisited ethnography responds to a shifting understanding of the “unit of study” not by abandoning but rather by expanding fieldwork. As James Ferguson (2012) explains in response to violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich delta region: An adequate anthropological account of this would need to explore local politics, national consciousness, land tenure, histories of ethnic formations, relations between different levels of state bureaucracy, and many other Nigerian realities. But to make sense of these “local” facts—to bring them into intelligibility—it would also have to explore a range of other questions. What about the East European mafias that illegally buy oil from local strongmen? What about the traffic in arms? How are local struggles for autonomy related to the networks of NGOs and advocacy organizations based in London and elsewhere, which provide both resources and conceptual frames that link local grievances with wider claims? How are the “social responsibility” policies of big Western oil companies feeding local enmities by dispensing resources to both state governments and ill-defined “communities”? [2012:199] This reflection exemplifies the need for attention to the vertical, horizontal, and transversal elements of the object of study. In the field of education, a parallel study might engage in a horizontal exploration of local policies that foment ethnic violence in different locations, a vertical examination of national educational bureaucracies, and a transversal investigation of educational advocacy networks that reshape local social relations and practices as much as they do national and global relations of power. More precisely, this shift in qualitative research results from a reconceptualization of space as socially produced through ongoing interactions (Massey 2005; de Certeau 1984). This “spatial turn” requires a rethinking of the global/local antinomy, moving away from the tendency to look at how global forms are locally manifested toward a recognition that seemingly universalizing systems (and, we would add, policies) are produced through “the sticky materiality of practical encounters” (Tsing 2005:3). At the same time, this shift also triggers “the decomposition of ethnographic location,” particularly at a time when the idea of the “culture” or “social group” as a unit of study has been heavily critiqued (Feldman 2011:377). As such, multisited methods are necessitated by the way that globalization and transnationalism “destabiliz[e] the embeddedness of social relations in particular communities and places” (Falzon 2009:2). These methods urge ethnographers to develop a translocal methodology that rejects the selection of clearly bounded research Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 135 sites (Rabinow and Marcus 2008). This rethinking of space and of the local/global has prompted a proliferation of concepts, each with methodological implications. Here we focus on one in particular—scapes—and its employment in studies of educational policy. Policyscapes The concept of a “policyscape” has emerged among scholars exploring global education policies and practices. Carney, for instance, draws on anthropologist Arjun Appadurai’s notions of ideoscapes and mediascapes, whereby chains of images operate to intensify or contest state power (1990, 1996), in explaining how ideas about educational policy similarly link up to one another as they travel from one country to another. Carney defines a policyscape as an “educational ideoscape . . . that might capture some essential elements of globalization as a phenomenon (object and process) and provide a tool with which to explore the spread of policy ideas and pedagogical practice across different national school systems” (2009:68). He argues that global flows of policies have “dislodged [the state] from its national context and sucked into the disjunctive forces and imaginative regimes of different global ‘scapes’, developmental agencies, and their vested interests” while continuing to “mediate the terms on which new regimes and technologies can be received” (2012:4). The perspective of policyscapes allows researchers to “retain the state as an important object for analysis without being beholden to it” (2012:4). In Carney’s study of how educational policies play out in Denmark, Nepal, and China, for instance, he demonstrates how a policyscape binds these putatively dissimilar countries together as they reform their education systems in ways that evidence strikingly similar “visions, values, and ideology” (2009:79). The embrace of learner-centered pedagogy by disparate countries represents one significant policyscape. Work in this vein shows how the state remains a powerful force, as it continues to influence policy. Research by Gita Steiner-Khamsi and Ines Stolpe (2006) on educational policy transfer in Mongolia shows how transnational or global policies are negotiated by states and reconfigure state power. Robertson argues that work in comparative and international education must consider the “shifting geometry of state power,” including how state power is “concentrated, dispersed, managed, and reorganized.” She warns that the concept of policyscape tends to “privilege, and thus fetishise, flows, motion, instabilities and uncertainty, without attending to the new ways in which processes of fixity, reterritorialisation, rebordering, and reordering, are at work” (2012:11). The value of the vertical case study is that it specifically promotes attention to state-level actors while tracing how their actions may be circumscribed or motivated by historical factors as well as actions and pressures emanating from other actors, such as grassroots political activists or donors with a particular agenda. Furthermore, the concept of policyscapes reconceptualizes “the nature of ‘locality’ ” (Carney 2009:65). This point deserves more discussion because it has tremendous methodological implications. Carney writes: This active battle between global forces and the state, on one hand, and individuals and their educational identities, on the other, creates a multitude of possibilities for the creation of locality within the global policyscape. Like identity, locality is constituted by a “wider set of social and spatial relations” (Gupta and Ferguson 1997:7). Rather than a static and preexisting thing, locality is the embodiment of practices that then makes possible certain identity displays and responses. [2009:82–83] Consistent with this argument, we aver that the vertical case study, with its insistence on research horizontally, vertically, and transversally, across space and time, provides one 136 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 potentially powerful route to address processes of cultural production in socially produced, imbricated localities. Vertical Case Studies of Global Educational Policy as Practice: Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Tanzania In this second section of our article, we illustrate and exemplify the value of a vertical, horizontal, and transversal analysis by discussing a collaborative study involving researchers from Mwenge University College of Education (MWUCE) and our own U.S. institutions that examined how Tanzanian secondary school teachers understood and implemented learner-centered pedagogy (LCP). LCP is an approach to teaching based on the assumption that people learn best when they are engaged with relevant tasks (Paris and Combs 2006); drawing on a theory of knowledge known as constructivism, LCP suggests that learners are actively constructing knowledge rather than memorizing or learning existing knowledge. First we offer an overview of the research upon which this section draws. Then we demonstrate what a vertical case study approach contributes to the study of global educational policies such as LCP. Research Methods This article draws on a larger research project conducted in collaboration with graduate students from our own institutions and faculty members at Mwenge University College of Education in Tanzania. The research was guided by two key questions: (1) How do teachers educated in teacher-centered pedagogy understand, interpret, and implement learner-centered approaches to teaching? (2) What are the material and ideological constraints teachers identify as obstacles to pedagogical change? To conduct this work, as we describe below, we explicitly engaged a case study that incorporated vertical, horizontal, and transversal elements (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Multi-Sited Vertical Case Study Bartlett and Vavrus 137 Transversing the Vertical Case Study To address the vertical and transversal elements, we used several techniques. First, we engaged critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine successive national education policies from independence in 1961 to the present. Specifically, we traced how the concepts of “the learner” and “the teacher” have changed over time, from a socialist vision of practical, hands-on learning as expressed in the 1967 Education for Self Reliance policy to “learnercentered pedagogy” and its constructivist view of knowledge production in the classroom. We paid particular attention to how educational policies in these different eras articulated the purposes of national examinations and the rationale for the use of English or Swahili as the medium of instruction in schools because testing and language policies have a tremendous impact on teacher education and teachers’ likelihood of employing LCP (Vavrus and Bartlett 2013). In addition, we analyzed national education plans that responded to the Education for All conference in Jomtien, two World Bank-funded educational initiatives in Tanzania known as the Primary and Secondary Education Development Programmes, and the 2005 revision of national secondary school curricula. Beginning in 2001, these documents increasingly reference learner-centered pedagogy. Finally, we analyzed the 2010 Certificate of Secondary Education Examination, or CSEE, taken by students at the end of their O-level studies in Form 4 of secondary school to determine if they are allowed to continue to A-level studies (and thus, eventually, on to higher education) (Bartlett and Vavrus 2013). A critical discourse analysis of these documents allowed us to expose contradictions at the national level regarding curriculum, professional development, and assessment. Alongside our vertical and transversal analysis of educational policy shifts, we embarked on a horizontal comparison of how Tanzanian teachers understand and employ LCP. In this larger project, our 15-member research team engaged in a multisited study in six private secondary schools in two northern regions of the country (see Table 1). These schools were chosen for three reasons. First, they differed in their attachment to significant transnational institutions, including the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and an American NGO. We wanted to understand how these institutions might influence the material, social, and cultural conditions at each school in ways that would constrain teachers’ understandings and use of learner-centered pedagogy. Second, the schools differed in size, location, and relative prestige, which we believed might indicate important differences in the material conditions of the school. Third, these schools were located close to MWUCE, where the Tanzanian members of the research team worked; one goal of the larger project was to build lasting relationships between these secondary schools and the university, and proximity to MWUCE was, therefore, an important criterion. Table 1. Secondary Schools in the Research Project Pseudonym of secondary school Region Type of school Approximate number of students Approximate number of full-time teachers National ranking based on 2010 Form 4 exam Dunia Mwanga Arusha Arusha 260 600 17 25 Top 3% Top 4% Tanzania Prep Kilimanjaro Girls’ St. Anne’s Arusha Kilimanjaro 210 800 16 35 NA Top 1% 420 17 Top 1% Uhuru Kilimanjaro Catholic co-ed O-level Lutheran co-ed O-level and A-level Lutheran co-ed O-level Catholic single-sex O-level and A-level Catholic single-sex O-level and A-level Catholic co-ed O-level and A-level 615 21 Top 30% Kilimanjaro 138 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 Twenty-three of the approximately thirty-five teachers from these schools agreed to participate in the study. From our research team, we assigned two to three researchers to work at each school for a period of five weeks. We partnered one Tanzanian and one U.S. researcher at each school site for several reasons: we wanted to take advantage of the linguistic and cultural knowledge of the Tanzanian researchers as well as the outsider status of the U.S. researchers, which might allow that fieldworker to notice things others would take for granted; and we wanted the partners to compare explicitly their methodological styles and learn from one another. The school-based component of the project utilized three primary research methods. First, we conducted structured focus group discussions with the teachers from each of the schools who had agreed to be part of the study. These discussions, which lasted between one and 1.5 hours, inquired into the organization of the school, the daily routines of teachers and students, and teachers’ initial understandings of LCP. The second method used in the research project was observation, and the two to three members of the research team assigned to each school observed the three to six teachers therein on multiple occasions during their classes. They used a detailed, highly structured observation guide that the team developed during the second week of the research workshop and revised after piloting in several schools; it sought to capture evidence of learnercentered pedagogical practices. The goal for the research teams was to observe each teacher on at least four occasions, for a period lasting 40–-80 minutes, during the five weeks after the workshop. The third research method, structured interviewing, occurred on two occasions at the teachers’ schools. One interview took take place immediately after a classroom observation, and the structured interview questions used with each teacher who participated focused on the specific pedagogical practices observed during the lesson and how they aligned, or did not align, with the teachers’ understanding of LCP. The second interview was much more comprehensive, often lasting 1.5 hours, and it asked about the teachers’ pre-service and in-service experiences, philosophy of teaching, responsibilities at the school, and views on LCP. In addition to interviews with the teachers, one team member interviewed each of the school heads about his/her philosophy of education, professional background, challenges at the school, and views on LCP. The data were analyzed in a guided, collaborative fashion with the larger research team. First, we met with the lead research assistant to review the data, determine the best way to organize them, and identify major themes that we could use as a framework for categorizing the data. We then created an Excel database, and we coded the data into eight relevant themes to form smaller, more manageable chunks of data. For example, one theme focused on material conditions at the school; a second one looked a classroom discourse. These thematic chunks were then sent to partners, who collaboratively analyzed the data and wrote chapters in the volume that resulted from this larger project. The vertical case study approach is inspired by and fully compatible with multisited ethnography. For example, affiliated researchers attended carefully to the interactive production and negotiation of meaning in relation to political, social, and economic conditions. Nonetheless, this specific project and other studies that have used the approach may be more properly described as qualitative case studies (see, e.g., Vavrus and Bartlett 2009). For example, though affiliated researchers logged approximately 100 hours of fieldwork at the schools, the core fieldwork was completed in only five weeks, with follow-up over the subsequent months, and thus the study does not exhibit the long-term engagement that is characteristic of ethnography. While affiliated researchers considered themselves as the “instruments of research” and their experiential, embodied knowledge as central to their learning, they nevertheless did not experience the level and extent of immersion that is the hallmark of ethnography. We therefore chose to call the approach a vertical case study in Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 139 order to indicate that it could be used by those more interested in case study techniques as well as those who do ethnographic research. The vertical case study approach also builds on the critical case study method, with critical here signifying both representative of the general problem and pertaining to the tradition of critical theory. Like critical case studies, the vertical case approach privileges empirical inquiry, detailed contextual analysis, ecological validity, and a processual orientation (Yin 2008; Stake 1995). However, the vertical case diverges from more general approaches to case studies in several key ways. First, while many case study approaches emphasize the need to erect boundaries around the case and the field site, the vertical case interrupts such strict boundaries by examining assemblages across time and space. Second, the vertical case approach incorporates an explicitly comparative perspective, urging attention across locations (the horizontal axis) and micro-, meso-, and macro-levels (the vertical axis) in ways that move beyond the traditional multiple case study. A systematic and comprehensive analysis of this entire project has been offered elsewhere (Vavrus and Bartlett 2013). Here, instead, we seek to use elements from the larger study to exemplify the value of the vertical case study approach to studying learnercentered pedagogy in Tanzania. We begin with the least obvious facet of the approach: transversal comparisons that seek to trace shifting assemblages across time. Learner-Centered Pedagogy as Globalized Localism: Transversal Comparisons The larger study seeks to document how teachers understood and implemented learner-centered pedagogy, an approach to teaching and learning being promoted by international development organizations and incorporated into national policy documents, curricula, and examinations to differing levels. Our study examines, transversally, the ways in which LCP, a specific approach to teaching and learning popularized in the temporal and cultural context of the United States and the U.K. in the 1970s (Cuban 1993; Ravitch 1983), has been taken up, simplified, and spread globally. In so doing, learner-centered pedagogy globalized very particular understandings of teaching and learning that rely upon culturally specific notions of individualism, competition, cooperation, and authority and presume certain material conditions in schools and classrooms. As such, LCP becomes a “globalized localism” that has globalized particular understandings of teaching and learning that arose in specific cultural contexts and assume certain material conditions for teachers while obscuring its cultural, historical, and material specificity as it is taken up by policymakers, teacher educators, and teachers in distinct contexts (de Souza Santos et al. 2007; see also Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). Tanzania provides a compelling case for the exploration of how global educational visions are enacted in policy. An analysis regarding Tanzania’s history as a socialist state that nevertheless sought to embrace the nonaligned “Third World” movement throughout the Cold War and its more recent turn toward neoliberalism suggest different historical contingencies that bear on the appropriation of educational policy today. Document analysis and interviews with key informants in our study make it possible to track the sedimentation of this globalized pedagogical discourse in national policies and curricula in Tanzania as it settles somewhat uneasily on top of the nationalist socialist discourse of education for self-reliance. In 1967, Tanzania launched its landmark education policy, Education for Self-Reliance, which guided the new nation during its first two decades after independence and called for the Africanization of the curriculum and for the development of critical consciousness about the ongoing marginalization of Africa in the global capitalist system (Nyerere 1967). This sentiment was shared by other postcolonial states following a socialist path to development, which one might characterize as a policyscape 140 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 because it was transnational and embodied a common social, political, and economic ideology manifested in education policy. Our review of Tanzanian education policies from 1995 to 2010 shows that these policies display relative stability through a “common set of linguistic codes” (Carney 2012:10). Whereas the 1995 Education and Training Policy still contained traces of Nyerere’s socialist goal of primary schooling teaching children to “respect and enrich our common cultural background . . . national unity, identity, ethic, and pride” and to prepare them “for the world of work” (1995:5), any vestigial notion of children working for the good of the collective disappears by 2000–2001, when new national primary, secondary, and teacher education policies were implemented. These policies begin with explicit references to the 1990 Education for All conference in Jomtien, the 1995 World Social Summit in Copenhagen, and the 2000 Millennium Development Summit as global initiatives shaping Tanzania’s policy priorities because policymakers wished to signal their membership in the global development and education community. The Basic Education Master Plan of 2001 borrows heavily from UNICEF’s discourse of the “child-friendly school” and explains that primary schooling in Tanzania now advocates for “the rights of the child; and elimination of child labour practices” (as compared to preparing children for work) (23). This plan also makes the first reference in the country’s policy history to LCP, which is linked to child-friendly schooling and intended to “improve teacher/learner interaction by adopting learner centred methods and by eliminating corporal punishment” (2001:23; emphasis added). The momentum for learner-centered pedagogy in Tanzania has increased alongside international pressure to expand secondary schooling in Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, the Secondary Education in Africa (SEIA) initiative, which was developed by the World Bank’s Africa Region in 2002, makes a strong economic argument for investing in this sector if African youth are to compete in a “technology driven global economy” (“At the Crossroads,” 2007:13). This economy purportedly demands students who, during secondary school, “acquire analytic and problem solving skills and most important have the motivation and the competence for further learning and skill acquisition [and] active participation in rapidly changing increasingly democratic societies” (2007:17). In Tanzania, which has had, for decades, one of the lowest secondary school enrollment rates on the continent, a new discourse of secondary education expansion for the knowledge economy began to arise in the early 2000s. It was enacted in policy with the Secondary Education Development Programme (SEDP), which ran from 2004 to 2009, and continues in SEDP II, which is intended to last from 2010 to 2015. Such convergence in policy talk is perhaps to be expected. The value of qualitative approaches for the study of educational policy derives from their ability to move beyond the professed aims of policy to examine how policies are made and contested at various levels by a more diverse range of policy actors. Transversal tracings of social actors can also demonstrate the impact of diverse historical localities on teachers’ understandings of LCP. For example, in our study, the teachers’ understandings of and familiarity with LCP differed considerably according to their experiences in teacher education programs. Two of the teachers in the research project had attended an established and highly respected urban teachers college in Kenya; they had experiential knowledge of LCP. One reported: [In my pre-service program,] we had a good teacher, and I found that instead of going and making lecture . . . I learned that I need to have a lesson plan and a scheme of work. I found that my students are understanding better than before through using demonstrations and techniques I was taught. In contrast, the teachers who had trained in more rural parts of Tanzania generally reported that they did not experience learner-centered approaches when training to become teachers. For example, one teacher explained: Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 141 [The instructors at college and university] use lecture, lecture method. I did not see any teacher who was using [participatory methods]. Though they could bring to us those participatory methods, no one stood and say, “OK. Let’s do this one.” No. They talked about it but were not applying. The differences between the professional development received by prospective teachers educated in Kenya and Tanzania manifest the divergent historical contingencies of these two nations and their distinct degrees of enmeshment in the capitalist economy. Vertical Assemblages A careful analysis of vertical assemblages is also important to the type of analysis we propose. Assemblages are temporary, shifting alliances or networks of people, objects, and ideas; researchers examine how assemblages are amassed, organized, challenged, and defended. An actor-network approach to policy seeks to trace “the specific materializing processes through which policymaking actually works to animate educational knowledge, identities, and practices” (Fenwick and Edwards 2011:710). Here, we emphasize the importance of examining policy formation and appropriation across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. The value of tracing vertical assemblages in our study may be illustrated by contrasting the impact of national curriculum developers and assessment developers on teachers’ decisions. While the national curriculum was heavily influenced by donor support and donor pressure, the more independent national assessment unit was not similarly enrolled in the LCP network. Reflecting on his experiences in the 1990s, one Tanzanian scholar, Alois Mbunda, wrote that “[n]early all curriculum integration projects based at the Ministry of Education and Culture or TIE [Tanzania Institute of Education, which develops curricula and teaching materials] are run by donor funds, without which they will stop . . . The donor pressure on what should be included in the content is tremendous” (Brock-Utne 2000:128). Such influence, in part, explains the appearance of LCP in Tanzanian curricula. Around this time, donors, and especially the World Bank, also emphasized the importance of rigorous, standardized testing to measure educational quality and hold teachers accountable, leading to a significant contradiction when assessment specialists within the National Examination Council of Tanzania continued to devise high-stakes exams that captured rote memorization more than critical thinking. Because the tests have serious consequences for students, for teachers who may receive “motivation” money if their students perform well, and for schools (especially private schools) whose existence may depend on the high scores that attract new families and their tuition fees, the tests paradoxically encourage methods that emphasize the memorization of factual information rather than learner-centered pedagogical approaches. This tendency is compounded by the breadth of the exams, which cover four years of information for seven or more subjects, making the acquisition of both core knowledge and higher-order thinking skills a great challenge. Teachers are key actors in educational policy appropriation: they interpret, negotiate, and re-vision assessment, curricular, pedagogical, and language policies in the classroom (see, e.g., Menken and García 2010). The Tanzanian teachers in this study made it clear that they struggle with implementing a competency-based curriculum when the high-stakes, national exams continue to emphasize the recall of facts. The importance of teachers as policy actors is also made evident in the data our team collected on language use in the secondary school classrooms of six schools. The official Tanzanian language in education policy requires that medium of instruction shift from Swahili to English in the move from primary to secondary schooling—a policy enforced by the national assessment policy, which offers exams only in English. However, the language 142 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 policy interferes with the implementation of learner-centered pedagogy because the latter demands greater English oral fluency in the language than many students—and some teachers—possess. It thus limits the extent of verbal interactions in the classroom, almost necessitating a teacher-centered approach (Mtesigwa 2009). Faced with such constraints, teachers must decide when and how to enforce the national language policy. They do so based in part on the school head’s stated or perceived tolerance for using Swahili. Teachers in one focus group reported that students caught speaking Swahili at their school would be punished. A member of the research team noted that at one school a young woman was sitting, isolated, in a burlap shirt printed with the words “I am dumb. I spoke in Swahili.” Nonetheless, classroom observations revealed that teachers frequently, and strategically, used Swahili in the classroom in order to manage behavior or routines, translate difficult concepts, and check for understanding (see Webb and Mkongo 2013). Several teachers commented on the contradictory pressures created for them by the language, curricular, and assessment policies. As these examples show, it is not sufficient to examine how LCP is promoted by international development organizations and produced and incorporated at the national level; one must also consider how various actors, including school heads and teachers, appropriate it. The notion of vertical assemblages encourages such an approach. The Value of Horizontal Comparisons Horizontal comparisons across the six high schools in two adjacent regions in Tanzania demonstrate the significant impact of transnational institutions and social movements on the material conditions of local schools and on the organizational dynamics within them. For instance, teachers at the school funded by an American non-profit organization enjoyed extensive professional development in learner-centered pedagogy, a life skills program for students, a sizable library with materials for developing inquiry-based projects, and relative material wealth as reflected in the availability of books, handouts, paper, photocopiers, and Internet access. These factors influenced the shape and tenor of the appropriation of LCP at that school, as observed by the research team and reported by its teachers. In contrast, the Catholic and Anglican schools, affiliated with powerful and quite hierarchical transnational institutions, presented a markedly different context within which to develop the more egalitarian relations between teachers and students that are implicit in LCP. For example, one teacher at a Catholic school complained that there were constraints on teachers organizing debates among students on topics of concern and interest to students, such as prostitution or HIV/AIDS. She gave the following account describing when she took her female students to debate male pupils at a rural seminary. And they said, “These boys are priests, we cannot discuss such.” And that was the end of that topic. And I wanted somebody to tell me: Those are boys, they are priests, yes, but who are they going to minister to? People who are prostitutes and . . . these are ills that are affecting the society . . . We have to train them to talk about these things openly. They’re going to be leaders, and they’ll have to talk about prostitution at one time or another one, and AIDS and what, you can’t avoid it. And the people just said, “Mmm-hmm” (negative sound), and nobody really wanted to commit. In religiously affiliated schools, teachers’ appropriations of the educational policies promoted by international institutions and embedded in national curricula were heavily influenced by religious notions of propriety, including gender norms. More broadly, the horizontal comparison across these six high schools demonstrates how different material and ideological contexts affect the appropriation of learnercentered pedagogy within one country. According to the Tanzanian teachers who partici- Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 143 pated in the study, LCP is simply more difficult to implement in schools with overcrowded classrooms, few books to share among many students, limited poster board for making teaching aids, and even notebook paper to enhance group or pair work. For instance, at Dunia Secondary School, teachers explained in a focus group discussion that the shortage of textbooks required them to spend class time drawing diagrams and figures on the board for students to copy. Maybe I will comment on the same idea he’s given about resources. We have an idea of improvising, but it is something that has not been implemented fully. Resources are very few, but I just want to give you an example. Maybe you have a topic, for example in biology. In the teaching process as a teacher, the students have a textbook and the students see the pictures in the textbook, but you only have five textbooks for a class of 70 students. It becomes difficult because you have to draw the picture so that the students can see the lesson. Similarly, teachers at St. Anne’s elaborated on the difficulties in taking students on fieldtrips and getting materials. One teacher in a focus group asserted, “Fieldtrips are not possible. If students want to go out, they pay for themselves, they hire the vehicle, and they pay. So if you want a fieldtrip, they tell you we don’t have money.” Another complained about restrictions on library use and difficulties in using online sources due to limited Internet access at this rural school. Access of materials is a challenge. We lack varied materials or resources; we only have a book or two to prepare lessons. We supplement with student books. We look in library but lack books. We need Internet access or other books. The [school] library only allows teachers to borrow six books, for all classes you teach. Teachers may keep the book one to two weeks, unless it is a course book and then can keep a month and renew. There is no Internet access in the nearest shopping center; Internet access is only in Moshi and it’s quite far. There are PCs but they have Windows 95 or 98, outdated software. In the case of private, church-affiliated schools like Dunia and St. Anne’s, school heads relied almost exclusively on student tuition to cover expenses and often increased the number of students to generate revenue even though the purchasing of teaching and learning materials might not keep pace. The headmaster at St. Anne’s, for instance, explained: “We also have a problem with shortage of resources such as books, teaching and learning resources, and the like. With the increasing number of students, we find that what we have is not enough.” When asked about the ratio of books to students, the headmaster replied, “I am not sure, but I can estimate 1:30 . . . We are struggling to bring some more books in our library.” This stretching of resources has implications for the pedagogical methods that teachers are likely to use when textbooks are limited and class sizes are large. Teachers frequently used the term “spoon feeding” to describe the primary method of instruction because of these constraints. As the horizontal comparison revealed, the shortages of resources, more severe in some schools than in others, made “spoon feeding” more likely and learnercentered teaching more of a challenge (Vavrus and Bartlett 2013). Moreover, because LCP relies extensively on dialogue, and because Tanzanian education policy mandates the use of English at the secondary level, LCP is difficult to implement in schools or classrooms where students and teachers have a limited command of English. At the school funded by the U.S. organization, for instance, there were a number of foreign staff members who only spoke English, not Kiswahili, and a steady stream of U.S. volunteers to work with the students to enhance their language skills. This institutional context also seemed to foster the use of more learner-centered methods in the classroom than in the other schools. Because the national exams are entirely in English (with the exception of the Kiswahili language test), the differences in language use across 144 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 these school sites are potentially quite significant and indicate how national policies, influenced by international organizations, are differentially appropriated in practice. Conclusions and Future Directions These examples from our larger collaborative research project illustrate the vertical, horizontal, and transversal axes of comparison that constitute the vertical case study approach. We believe it offers much to contemporary efforts in educational studies to reconceptualize “the nature of locality” in the face of globalization. The vertical case study adapts multisited ethnographic methods to trace the appropriation of policy and the cultural production of policyscapes across space and time by diverse actors in distinct assemblages. The vertical, horizontal, and transversal axes of our approach offer conceptual and methodological tools to explore global educational ideoscapes and local educational practices. It also brings to the study of policy in practice an explicitly comparative lens. The vertical case study provides an important analytical approach to the study of global educational policy because it incorporates a transverse analysis of how actors, including nonhuman actors, operating at different levels or scales, become enrolled in and accountable to networks that span space and time. Actors creatively appropriate elements of policy, shaped by their own motives and interests as well as their institutional constraints and social commitments. Their acts of appropriation may well become nonhuman actors, like curricula, tests, or test scores, that are removed from the location of production and transported across place and scale to affect practices elsewhere. Such an approach can be fruitfully engaged to examine how policyscapes, such as the push for quality education with its attendant regimes of student and teacher assessment, are differentially appropriated over time and space. Such an approach may well require methodological shifts in our field. Lone researchers could fruitfully engage in the sort of multisited ethnography we have detailed here. However, as Marcus (2011) warns, participant–researcher and researcher–researcher relationships in such ethnographies of “distributed knowledge systems” may need to be considerably reconfigured, implying a new set of norms surrounding ethnographic knowledge production that bring together a broader range of actors and scales in a single study. There is noteworthy potential in the joint planning and conduct of comparative ethnography, in which a team of researchers would examine how a specific policyscape, for example a teacher assessment policy, is appropriated in distinct locations. This appealing avenue of research unleashes significant (but, as we have learned, not unproblematic) opportunities for collaboration with scholars living and working in distinct material and ideological conditions (see Vavrus and Bartlett 2013). Such partnerships may help to diversify knowledge production and ways of knowing in the field. Lesley Bartlett is Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (bartlett@ Frances Vavrus is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Minnesota ( Note Acknowledgments. This study was generously funded by grants from AfricAid, Planet Wheeler, the TAG Foundation, the University of Minnesota, and Teachers College, Columbia University. As Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 145 described in the article, the data presented here hail from a larger study that involved a team of talented researchers; we gratefully acknowledge their fieldwork. References Anderson-Levitt, Kathryn 2012 Complicating the Concept of Culture. Comparative Education 48(4):441–454. Appadurai, Arjun 1990 Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Public Culture 2(2):1–24. 1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. At the Crossroads: Choices for Secondary Education in sub-Saharan Africa 2007 SEIA Synthesis Report: Executive Summary. Unpublished report. Ball, Stephen 2012 Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. New York: Routledge. Bartlett, Lesley, and Frances Vavrus 2013 Testing and Teaching: The Tanzanian National Exams and Their Influence on Pedagogy. In Teaching in Tension. Frances Vavrus and Lesley Bartlett, eds. Pp. 93–114. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Bray, Mark, and R. Murray Thomas 1995 Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses. Harvard Educational Review 65(3):472–490. Brock-Utne, Birgit 2000 Whose Education for All? The Recolonization of the African Mind. New York: Falmer Press. Carney, Stephen 2009 Negotiating Policy in an Age of Globalization: Exploring Educational “Policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review 53(1):63–88. 2012 Imagining Globalization: Educational Policyscapes. In World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending. Gita Steiner-Khamsi and Florian Waldow, eds. Pp. 339–353. New York: Routledge. Coleman, Simon, and Pauline von Hellermann 2011 Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods. New York: Routledge. Cuban, Larry 1993 How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890–1990. 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press. de Certeau, Michel 1984 The Practice of Everyday Life. Steven Rendall, trans. Berkeley: University of California Press. de Sousa Santos, Boaventura, João A. Nunes, and Maria P. Meneses 2007 Introduction. In Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, ed. Pp. xix–lxii. London: Verso. Falzon, Mark-Anthony 2009 Introduction. In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. Pp. 1–24. Surrey: Ashgate. Feldman, Gregory 2011 If Ethnography Is More than Participant-Observation, then Relations Are More than Connections: The Case for Nonlocal Ethnography in a World of Apparatuses. Anthropological Theory 11(4):375–395. Fenwick, Tara 2010 (Un)doing Standards in Education with Actor-Network Theory. Journal of Education Policy 25(2):117–130. Fenwick, Tara, and Richard Edwards 2011 Actor-Network Theory in Education. New York: Routledge. Ferguson, James 2012 Novelty and Method: Reflections on Global Fieldwork. In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods. Simon Coleman and Pauline von Hellermann, eds. Pp. 194–208. New York: Routledge. Goldman, Michael 2006 Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalizations. New Haven: Yale University Press. 146 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014 Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson 1997 Culture, Power, Place: Ethnography at the End of an Era. In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, eds. Pp. 1–32. Durham: Duke University Press. Hamann, Ted, and Lisa Rosen 2011 What Makes the Anthropology of Educational Policy Implementation “Anthropological”? In A Companion to the Anthropology of Education. Bradley Levinson and Mica Pollock, eds. Pp. 461–477. New York: Wiley Blackwell. Koyama, Jill 2010 Making Failure Pay: For-Profit Tutoring, High-Stakes Testing, and Public Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2011 Generating, Comparing, Manipulating, Categorizing, Reporting, and Sometimes Fabricating Data to Comply with No Child Left Behind Mandates. Journal of Education Policy 26(5):701– 720. Latour, Bruno 2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levinson, Bradley A.U., and Margaret Sutton 2001 Introduction: Policy as/in Practice: A Sociocultural Approach to the Study of Educational Policy. In Policy as Practice: Toward a Comparative Sociocultural Analysis of Educational Policy. Margaret Sutton and Bradley Levinson, eds. Pp. 1–24. Westport: Ablex. Levinson, Bradley A. U., Margaret Sutton, and Teresa Winstead 2009 Education Policy as a Practice of Power: Theoretical Tools, Ethnographic Methods, Democratic Options. Educational Policy 23:767–795. Li, Tania Murray 2007 The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham: Duke University Press. Marcus, George 1995 Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:95–117. 1998 Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2011 Multi-Sited Ethnography: Five or Six Things I Know about It Now. In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods. Simon Coleman and Pauline von Hellermann, eds. Pp. 16–34. New York: Routledge. Massey, Doreen 2005 For Space. London: Sage. Menken, Kate, and Ofelia García 2010 Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. New York: Routledge. Mtesigwa, Peter 2009 Perspectives, Challenges and Prospects of African Languages in Education: A Case Study of Kiswahili in Tanzania. In The Languages of Africa and the Diaspora. Jo Anne Kleifgen and George Bond, eds. Pp. 64–79. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nespor, Jan 2004 Educational Scale-Making. Pedagogy, Culture, and Society 12(3):309–326. Nyerere, Julius 1967 Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press. Ong, Aihwa, and Stephen Collier 2004 Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Paris, Cynthia, and Barbara Combs 2006 Lived Meanings: What Teachers Mean when They Say They Are Learner-Centered. Teachings and Teaching: Theory and Practice 12(5):571–592. Rabinow, Paul, and George Marcus, with James Faubion and Tobias Ree 2008 Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary. Durham: Duke University Press. Ravitch, Diane 1983 The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Robertson, Susan 2012 Researching Global Education Policy: Angles In/On/Out. . . In Global Education Policy and International Development: New Agendas, Issues and Practices. Antoni Verger, Mario Novelli, and Hulya Kosar Altinyelken, eds. Pp. 33–52. New York: Continuum Publishers. Bartlett and Vavrus Transversing the Vertical Case Study 147 Shore, Cris and Susan Wright 1997 Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. London/New York: Routledge. Stake, Robert 1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Steiner-Khamsi, Gita and Ines Stolpe 2006 Educational Import: Local Encounters with Global Forces in Mongolia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tsing, Anna 2000 The Global Situation. Cultural Anthropology 15(3):327–360. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt 2005 Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connections. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vavrus, Frances, and Lesley Bartlett 2009 Critical Approaches to Comparative Education: Vertical Case Studies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2012 Comparative Pedagogies and Epistemological Diversity: Social and Material Contexts of Teaching in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review 56(4):634–658. 2013 Teaching in Tension: International Pedagogies, National Policies, and Teachers’ Practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Webb, Tamara, and Sarah Mkongo 2013 Classroom Discourse. In Teaching in Tension. Frances Vavrus and Lesley Bartlett, eds. Pp. 149–168. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Yin, Robert 2008 Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Tutor Answer

School: UIUC


Running Head: Discussion Reader’s Response

Discussion Reader’s Response

Name of student

Name of professor

Name of course

Name of institution


Discussion Reader’s Response


Larsen, Beech (2014), spatial theorizing in comparative and international education
research. Comparative Education Review 58, (2) 191-214.

Larsen & Beech (2014), the main idea is to analyze the quality of education offered globally in
comparison with the transactional flow of knowledge. These two authors reveal the state and the
art of intellectual sophistication. On the other side, the authors try to show us we can open new
paths and perspectives for quality education. I think the authors choose this topic quality in
education as they make sure that it appears as an abstract for the book. Also, I think the authors
prefer this topic because of the world’s complexity in understanding the political process that
happens in the educ...

flag Report DMCA

awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors