98 Part 1: Comparative Education & History of Education

Amelia Molina García & José Luis Horacio Andrade Lara

Internationalization, Globalization and Relationship

Networks as an Epistemological Framework Based on
Comparative Studies in Education

Abstract
In this paper we present some thoughts on the epistemological framework of comparative
studies in education. We present some concepts on the internationalization, globalization and
inter-relation networks, based on Jürgen Schriewer, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Norbert
Elias’s theoretical concepts. These reflections were built within the framework of the Theory
and Comparative Educational Methods seminars taught in the Master’s and Doctorate
programs of Educational Sciences at the Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo. It is
worth mentioning, that based on such seminars, several research works have been developing,
mostly post-graduate thesis.

Keywords: comparative education, global system, relational analysis, globalization

Introduction
Comparative education has evolved based on new theoretical proposals that
have been developed between the late Twentieth and early Twenty-First Centuries.
Some of the new approaches are based on Tenbruck and Bergersen and their
criticism on Durkheim, since the new globalization surge provides a framework for
the understanding of the phenomenon from the internationalization angle and for a
very different action than that of earlier centuries. While it is known that in
comparative education there is no consensus on their perspectives and positions, as
there is in social sciences, because of the opposing ways of perceiving others; there
is a constant search to continue analyzing the opposing sociocultural differences, to
the extent that, today, the world has been taken as a unit of analysis, due to the
degree of transnational or relational interdependence.
Based on the previous approaches, this presentation is divided into three parts:
a) Internationalization, b) the origins of a comparative science in education, and, c)
the Global System as a unit of analysis, where especially social relationships have
become meaningful. We end our work with a brief reflection as a way of conclusion.

World system and interrelation networks

Internationalization
In text of World System and Interrelation Networks: The Internationalization of
Education and the Role of Comparative Research (1996), Schriewer states that in
the new context of internationalization there are limitations to a State’s sovereignty,
since there are new features that have caused this situation. For example: the global
financial interconnections that impede us to act independently from the rest of the
world, the international monetary crisis, the global ecological interdependence,
global migrations and increased communications. This is interpreted as follows:

Education Provision to Every One: Comparing Perspectives from Around the World
BCES Conference Books, 2016, Volume 14, Number 1
Amelia Molina García & José Luis Horacio Andrade Lara 99

there are aspects that a state hands over to other states or to the international
community.
In Schriewer’s terms (1996), there is now an arena of global relationships of
interaction and exchange, due to its global interconnection and multidimensional
characteristics, which in evolutionary terms is a new phenomenon. It has
implications on individuals’ everyday experiences in education and training, since
educational communication has been globalized. That is mainly perceived at the
level of schools, universities (which are large scale organizations), and in their
efforts made to enforce control, which are reflected in educational policies and
planning.
The existing international interconnection in education is so strong that we
speak of a “global pedagogical public”. In the 1930s, Friedrich Schneider developed
this perspective, by means of various indicators found in the dense activity of the
educational field. In this regard, Schriewer proposes that it is the task of comparative
education to reach to the level of the supranational, universalism for the
“internationalization of awareness of the problems by educators and the formation of
the educational theory” (Schriewer, 1996, p. 18). This initially causal trend finally
arrived in the mid-1990s, mainly due to the large number of political-educational
and academic events, the creation of associations, the presentation of global reports,
and the academic production with international direction, which makes us realize the
density of the network of international cooperation in education.
In spite of the above, it is important to distinguish that the international
networking in education, which is a fact or a phenomenon that takes place in time
and history is one thing, the area of international comparative education, a field of
intellectual activity with its own methodology is another. Schriewer (1996)
underlines this paradox. He mentions that these are two different things, the precise
method of analysis for comparative education and the research field as an
intellectual field in the international arena of this discipline, where the sociocultural
and historical events and processes take place.
Origins of comparative science in education
Thus, with the intention of clarifying how the idea of a comparative science in
education came to be, Schriewer (1996) goes back to the historical context of the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and resumes Durkheim’s studies.
Durkheim was pivotal to the development of comparative education, since he
rescued the idea of comparison as a characteristic activity of human thought, but in
the field of comparative study, it is an example of the transference of a
methodological approach taken from natural sciences (biological) applied to Human
and Social Sciences.
Another precursor of the comparative analysis in education (and of Educational
Science) is Marc-Antoine Jullien (1817) who, along with Wilhelm Von Humboldt,
identified the theoretical and methodological problems of transference and
mediation of a research approach, from biology to social sciences, where they
indicated that its scope was extended far beyond the world of anatomy. Humboldt
glimpsed into the methodological debate of comparative education, the “tangle” of
methodological options that are difficult to reconcile with one another. Because of
this, it can be said that from the beginning there is no consensus on what
100 Internationalization, Globalization and Relationship Networks…

comparative education entails since it is full of contrasts and controversies. There

are two ways to analyze this, due to the opposing perspectives of perceiving one
another. That is, first there are studies of causality (with cause and effect
relationships) as in nature, and second, those studies which rescued humans’ self-
reference or historicity. The ways in which the sociocultural differences are seen can
be diametrically opposed because, some approaches were very superficial and also
their descriptions, while others were meticulously presented.
World system as a unit of analysis
Schriewer (1996) highlights that it was not until the late twentieth century, that
the world is taken as a unit of analysis in the sense that the vision of multiple
regional societies or separate nations expires. The comparison is replaced by
historical reconstructions or global analysis of transnational interdependence.
Tenbruck (1981) proposes an analysis of transnational interdependence and cross-
cultural diffusion, which, in terms of Elias, refers to the relatedness. Then, by the
end of the twentieth century and under the concept of the world as a unit of analysis,
the environments are depending on each other, and the concept of autonomous
societies separated nationally and regionally is left behind. “Global System”
contrasts and counterpoises with the identity of the town, the nation-state, national
culture, individuality, political autonomy, multiplicity of mutually independent
societies. And thus the concept of a society constructed from natural science models
(in its causal relationship) is questioned.
This idea of a global system as a network of transnational and transcultural
interdependence in environments depending on each other, strongly agrees with the
construction proposed by Elias in his Sociology of Knowledge. According to Guerra
(2012), from Elias’s perspective, knowledge is something that has been accumulated
throughout history and it is very fortunate for everyone that it has been transferred
from generation to generation. In that sense, it is not something that depends solely
on the isolated subject (homo clausus), that sees only cause and effect relationships,
but it is a product that has been appearing since the homines aperti, and understood
as a social product, a product constructed on interdependence networks and/or
human social relationships. Within this framework, knowledge is something
produced by humankind, which has been developing as a changing social process
(human generations). So, that knowledge is essential relatedness, resulting from the
civilization process.
For Elias, the process of knowledge is an approach made by a group of people
who use their own resources to attain a constantly improving knowledge, neither
true nor false but “relatively adequate” or “inadequate”. It is the relationship
between the oldest existing knowledge and the new results, achieving a
progressively better adjustment. Elias does not agree with Kant, and mentions that
relational knowledge is not innate, as it depends on the experience and wealth of
accumulated knowledge and transmitted by previous generations.
This essential relatedness of humans, focused the discussion of homo clausus vs.
homines aperti, because it is acknowledged that knowledge is not an innate
construction of an individual but rather that the individual is generated by an
intergenerational process, accumulated throughout time, in a spiral rising form. In
this regard, the contributions of Elias in the construction of the notions of
Amelia Molina García & José Luis Horacio Andrade Lara 101

internationalization, world and interrelation networks used in the epistemological

framework of comparative studies in education, represent a very important step in
the theory of knowledge, which considers humankind as subject of knowledge,
rather than isolated individuals, groups of individuals structured in imaginary
models linked to the civilizing process.
For Elias, there is a mixture of objectivity/subjectivity in the process of
knowledge construction, since there is no domain of one over the other. In any case,
what is offered in the construction of knowledge is the position of the person or
group, characterized by a commitment (subjectivity) or estrangement (objectivity).
The commitment refers to emotions and detachment, a balanced reflection of the
object, that it is relative, not absolute. In the process of civilization, linked to the
development of knowledge, from Elias’ perspective, it has been called dually-linked:
where the physiological and sociological senses are located, where the greater
weight can be in the subjective conditions (commitment-emotionalism) or where
appropriate, in the objective conditions (detachment). Therefore when there is a
greater development of knowledge and science there will be better reflective
objective conditions (modern societies) and when the development of objective
conditions decreases, the emotions and the prevalence of subjective conditions
(prejudices and fears: animistic societies) will be greater; thus less advancement of
science and knowledge in the process of civilization.
The process of civilization presupposes: a greater control of emotions or
instinctual self-control, the impulses are limited and “rational” capabilities are being
used. This is where “The progress in the world’s domain has been given in an
intergenerational manner, by the transmission and use of symbols and knowledge”
(Guerra, 2012, pp. 54-55). Thus, Elias indicates that in the civilizing process there is
an ability to show the relationships or the relatedness of things, in the sense that no
generation starts from scratch, but rather that we are all carriers of knowledge
development. In this direction and according to Guerra (2012), in order to have a
further advancement of social knowledge, scientists must overcome several
obstacles, including the following:
1) Greater independence of social sciences in relation to the natural ones,
especially with respect to their methodologies.
2) Humans require to see with more objectivity (distancing) that social life,
things and processes, take place in a relational process and not only as a product of
his own subjectivity. This involves conducting a “de-anchoring” or “unlearning”
process.
3) Social scientists must modify their heteronymous behavior or the prevalence
of tensions, passions and feelings as human beings. That is, that there is a
contradiction between their role as social scientists and their individual position and
commitment as members of a group; an essential contradiction to understand the
problem that has to be resolved.
For Elias (Guerra, 2012, pp. 57-60), social knowledge is disseminated in
interdependence networks; it is created in relation to the power structure in the
scientific institutions, among dominant groups of more “established” disciplines,
linked to the methods of natural sciences, emulated in the field of social sciences
and with more strength than other marginalized groups. Both groups seek to
improve their positions in the figurative framework in which they are, in a context
102 Internationalization, Globalization and Relationship Networks…

where a working social division is extremely uneven, since they tend to differ
specially in their ideological traditions and values.
Guerra (2012) mentions that the scientific departments or disciplines behave as
if they were sovereign States that quarrel among themselves, within the framework
of a working division which is required in the exploration of the world, taking as a
basis the expansion of the world of knowledge. He mentions that a discipline has
more power when it is more established, since it tends to accentuate its differences
in relation to other disciplines, in a competition towards power opportunities
between groups.
In short, the concept of Homines aperti that Elias handles, gives man the
possibility to open up to others (being-with-others), but not in the Heidegueraneous
sense, in regards to the essence of the being and his time, it refers to reaching
formulations of interdependence networks of people, relational nature of human
beings and in close interdependence between subject and object, referred to as
double bond.
These approaches are consistent with the idea of “World System” developed by
Schriewer, since he views a global context of relationships of interdependence at a
world level against closed national systems, which do not allow us to view the
effects of internationalism in education. Hence the need to develop the “World
System” as a process of building large-scale networks, transcontinental trade
relations.
In building the method for comparison, we must surpass the level where we can
only identify gradual similarities or differences that are viewed as basic operations
or as (visible) differences in social life. These must be combined with universal
ways of thinking, and we must perceive the “cultural otherness”. These
interpretations have a social relationship: that is, to compare relationships and not
just objects, which would be a simple comparison, unlike comparing generalities of
a universal character. Scientific comparison involves not only data but also theories
and critical corroboration, so the method involves not only identifying similarities
and ordering differences but also apprehending those differences.
According to Schriewer (1996), and based on Bergersen’s and Tennbruck’s
proposals, the emergence of the global means to see the world system as a collective
and emerging reality (still in construction and therefore incomplete), implies a
change of paradigm. The old comparison (Durkheim) is replaced by the global
analysis of transnational interdependence and re-emerges as a critical entity to
consider the relationship of the whole to the parts and of the parts to the whole, as
well as considering the global context of the interdependence relationships at a
world level, and also to consider that the idea of a world system (proposed by
Wallerstein) confirms the Dependency Theory of 1950, as an earlier form of this
new paradigm, leaving behind the Modernization Theory. We can say, then, that
there is a shift from the Dependency Theory (with its idea of the emergence of the
division of labor), to the analysis on issues about trading relationships between
industrialized developed nations and dependent countries, which is identified as a
world system, as a sui generis emerging reality.
Wallerstein’s idea (1989) revolves around the modern world system, this takes
the form of a world economy in a capitalist society, the world economy has been
expanding to encompass the entire earth, it has had expansion and contraction
Amelia Molina García & José Luis Horacio Andrade Lara 103

moments and a variable geographical location according to the economic roles of the
dominant countries and it has undergone a transformation process that is still
ongoing. In this context, analysis of the national education systems can only be fully
explained by taking into account their respective positions within a global structure
(supranational).
Having in mind the above, Schriewer (2011) recognizes that there are certain
trends about the emergence of a world educational system:
a) A uniform educational expansion (confirming education as an important
element of a transnational social system).
b) A model of scholastic education (common world management structure).
c) An institutionalized schooling in the expansion and globalization context that
entails the processes of modernization of society.
d) International communication: information transmission and supranational
publications.
e) A wide range of international organizations (UNESCO-OECD-World Bank).
f) A hierarchical system of science that pretends the universalization of a
particular vision of the world (the viewpoint of the International
Organizations).
Also, in this trend three stages of development are identified in the construction
of this world educational system, where production, distribution and legitimation
that are considered scientifically relevant are controlled by the supranational
throughout the world.
1) National characteristics which are at the same time transnational
characteristics.
2) Global trends of massive and uniform expansion (as in the case of the
universities).
3) Academic mobility and academic journeys.
Therefore, in education, comparative research has a component of various
interrelation networks which are:
 The relationship between employment policies and labor markets with social
and educational policies.
 Increased interconnection between professional or vocational education and
training systems, qualified structures of working force and work
organization.
 The interconnection between education, modernization and development.

Conclusion
In accordance with the previous statements, we face the need to coexist with
some ambivalences in the international processes, which have to be rescued in order
to transform the comparative studies in education, (where we identify the
reconciliation between history and comparison); tensions between homogenization
and differentiation; ambivalence between tradition and modernity; trends of
internationalization vs. regionalization, and ambivalence between supranational
integration and the strengthening of the Nation State.
104 Internationalization, Globalization and Relationship Networks…

Thus, the relational aspects developed by Elias, will be useful to show the new
perspective of comparative studies in education, particularly for trends in
comparative education based on the world system, with a supranational vision.

References
Guerra, E. (2012): La sociología del conocimiento de Norbert Elias. Revista Sociológica,
27(77), 35-70. http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/5/1/dt/esp/lopez.pdf (Accessed October 2015).
Schriewer, J. (1996, 2000): World System and Interrelationship Networks: The
Internationalization of Education and the Role of Comparative Inquiry. In: Th. S.
Popkewitz (Ed.) Educational Knowledge. Changing Relationships between the State,
Civil Society, and the Educational Community (pp. 305-343). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Schriewer, J. (2011 [translation into Spanish, 1996]): Sistema Mundial y redes de
interrelación: La internacionalización de la educación y el papel de la investigación
comparada. In: M. Caruso & T. Heinz-Elmar (Comp.) Internacionalización. Políticas
educativas y reflexión pedagógica en un medio global (pp. 41-105). Buenos Aires:
Granica.
Tenbruck, F. (1981): Emile Durkheim oder die Geburt der Gesellschaft aus dem Geist der
Soziologie, citado por Schriewer (1996).
Wallerstein, I. (1989/2011): El debate en torno a la economía política de El Moderno Sistema-
Mundial. Revista del CIECAS-IPN, 24(VI), 5-12.

Prof. Dr. Amelia Molina García, Academic Area of Sciences in Education, Universidad
Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, México, [email protected]

Prof. Dr. José Luis Horacio Andrade Lara, Academic Area of Sciences in Education,
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, México, [email protected]