How to improve the quality of comparative and international education research: the case against standards and SIGs

Abstract

Research on comparative and international education is largely funded through national and international research agencies and disseminated through various international journals and conferences. Many of these agencies set clear standards for grant-seekers, such as allegiance to certain topical or methodological standards. These standards and regulations are politically and educationally significant; they govern what questions get asked, who asks them, and the permissible methods for answering them. Education researchers in many countries have come under attack for their choice of research problems and methods. The main policy response has been for government and professional agencies to articulate and enforce more rigorous standards for research quality. The absence of agreement on appropriate standards has limited the effectiveness of this approach. More importantly, consensus on these matters may actually cause more harm than good. This paper presents a markedly different approach to increasing the quality of education research, one which is of special interest to those whose work involves national and international funding bodies. Rather than focus on standards, this paper argues policy-makers, journal editors, and conference organizers should leverage the market-like behaviors of those engaged in education research by influencing the incentives which drive them. Drawing on the political philosophy of Elizabeth Anderson and James Bohman and the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu, I argue that governments should focus less on standards and protocols and more on reforming the processes by which research capital is distributed.