The Politics and Economics of Comparison
The Politics and Economics of Comparison
复制标题
比较的政治学和经济学
DOI：
10.1086/653047
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Gita Steiner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gita Steiner
在这次主席讲话中，我请大家思考比较方法是如何随着时间的推移而变化的，并探讨为什么它越来越多地被用作制定政策议程的工具。有两个角度通知这个邀请。我建议我们首先调查比较方法是如何在我们自己的领域发展成为一种政策工具的，然后，向外看，其他人是如何在政策研究中使用它的。这一努力的核心在于理解全球互联时代的政策变化。将比较作为一种方法进行反思并不是一件微不足道的事情。许多研究比较和国际教育的学者，尤其是美国以外的学者，想知道为什么我们继续称自己为“比较主义者”。从本刊上发表的大量单一国家研究来看，比较似乎并不是我们这个领域的首选调查方法。其他人甚至更进一步，问我们为什么不把“国际”也去掉，因为我们中很少有人处理两个或两个以上国家的个人或机构之间的实际交流。一旦我们去掉这两个术语，我们就仅仅是教育研究者，对理解美国以外的教育有着浓厚的兴趣。这样的描述真的没有抓住要点吗？毕竟，很多人都知道，我们在国外进行教育研究，撰写别国的教育体系，并向政府和组织提供建议。承认我们就像隔壁的教育研究人员或政策分析师一样，只是有一个明显的例外，即我们系统地采用跨国视角，或者像斯蒂芬·卡尼（Stephen Carney）所说的那样，在我们的工作中应用“全球化视角”，这有什么错呢？更重要的是对比较作为一种政策工具的反思。我在这篇演讲中认为，我们这个领域的学者成功地从对政策借贷的规范性关注转向了一种更具分析性的方法。前者以萨德勒的百年问题为代表，“我们能从国外的经济体制的研究中学到多少实用价值？
In this presidential address, I invite you to reflect on how the method of comparison has changed over time and to explore why it is increasingly used as a tool for setting policy agendas. There are two angles that inform this invitation. I suggest that we first investigate how the method of comparison has developed as a policy tool in our own field and then, looking outward, how it is used by others in policy studies. At the heart of this endeavor lies a genuine interest in understanding policy change in an era of global interconnectedness. Reflecting on comparison as a method is not a trivial endeavor. Many scholars in comparative and international education, especially those outside the United States, wonder why we continue to call ourselves “comparativists.” Judging from the large number of single-country studies published in this journal, comparison does not seem to be the preferred method of inquiry in our field. Others go even further by asking why we do not get rid of “international” as well, given that so few of us deal with actual exchanges between individuals or institutions of two or more nations. Once we remove these two terms, we are simply education researchers with a keen interest in understanding education beyond our own borders. Would such a description really miss the point? After all, we are known to many as the ones who conduct educational research outside our own country, write about other peoples’ educational systems, and give advice to governments and organizations other than our own. What would be wrong with acknowledging that we are just like the educational researcher or policy analyst next door with a notable exception that we systematically adopt a transnational perspective or, as Stephen Carney puts it, apply a “globalization optique” in our work? Even less trivial is a reflection on comparison as a policy tool. I argue in this address that scholars in our field successfully shifted from a normative preoccupation with policy borrowing and lending to a more analytical approach. The former is typified by Sadler’s centennial question, “How far can we learn anything of practical value from the study of foreign systems of