A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Comparative national education systems in the global era - Introduction

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Blitz

International comparisons in higher education analyze how global communications increase student mobility, staff travel, and institutional collaboration, shaping Australian university attention to education systems beyond the national frame. The text explains that comparative judgments depend on the theories and methods used, and they send different policy messages when based on measures such as test scores. It contrasts quantitative, US-influenced traditions and Western templates with qualitative approaches that foreground national distinctiveness amid globalisation’s effects.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction: international comparison in education

Making comparisons: sameness and difference

Global templates and methodological strands

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Comparing national education systems in the global era SIMON MARGINSON Monash Centre for Research in International Education MARCELA MOLLIS University of Buenos Aires, Argentina Introduction: international comparison in education As global communications thicken, a growing number of students cross borders for part of their education, university staff travel more and international collaborations multiply, Australians in higher education are increasingly aware of education systems other than their own, especially the ubiquitous American universities. Likewise, governments are increasingly mindful of international competitors and cases when they frame policies; and the calculations of vice-chancellors now routinely incorporate global markets and systems of quality assurance, and the strategies of this or that international university comparator. While the national dimension still matters, no longer are judgements and decisions referenced only to the national context. Global relationships, global comparisons and global benchmarks have all become important. Higher education in Australia – as in all countries - is now framed simultaneously by the local, the national and the global. But more than one global standard is possible, drawing on the many different cultural traditions. Further, in a global context more than one kind of engagement with other and complex national contexts is possible: shallow or deep. In making international comparative judgements, the basis of comparison, including the theories and methods (whether hidden or explicit) which inform comparison, are determining of what we see. Such comparative judgements create varying policy messages, depending on how the judgements are reached. For example if the measure of comparative school achievement is test scores, national systems will tend to focus on improving their test scores. To do this they might need to install American-style standardised tests, and a curriculum to match. This also illustrates the point that when national systems focus on performance as measured in the common comparison, a homogenising logic is installed. Overtime all systems tend to become the same. In the 1990s, this kind of homogenising logic entered university evaluation and quality assurance around the world (Mollis and Marginson 2000) . This article is about how international comparisons in education are made and might be made; and the varying implications of different comparative methods for national policy and university identity. It is also about the dramatic effects of globalisation on the methods used in international comparison in education, and the new potentials that globalisation creates. Though it has older roots, ‘comparative education’ has been significant in education policy studies for at least four decades. As with other social sciences, comparative education has been affected by a continuing, fragmented but compelling relationship with the world of government and political-economic power. The dominant strand of comparative education is largely quantitative, and emerged in the USA in the 1960s, at the same time as the positivist brand of structural functionalism in sociology which influenced it (Hesse, 1980; Morrow and Torres, 1995) . Orthodox American comparative researchers accepted positivist notions of linear development, social regularity and equilibrium, and the instrumental role of education in national development as framed in universal theorisations of the relationship between education, economy and society, such as human capital theory (Marginson, 1997, 92-118) . At the same time comparative education became linked to American foreign policy and the often congruent work of global agencies such as UNESCO and the World Bank. Much of the research in the field since has consisted of large-scale cross-country data collection financed by governments and global agencies. The global temp

FAQs

Why do international comparisons matter more in higher education now?

Global communications and cross-border education have intensified, and policy decisions increasingly consider global competitors and quality-assurance systems. Comparisons and benchmarks now shape how higher education is framed alongside local, national, and global contexts.

How do comparative methods influence educational policy messages?

The basis of comparison determines what is seen and what policymakers prioritize. When achievement is measured by test scores, systems tend to focus on raising those scores, which can drive homogenising logics such as installing American-style standardized tests.

What is the relationship between sameness and difference in educational comparison?

Comparison involves both difference and sameness, which are philosophical opposites but can be complementary in practice. For example, league tables encourage convergence through a common template while also creating hierarchy and producing institutional differences.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Blitz