Exploding the Cube - Revisioning “Context” in the Field of Comparative Education

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni

Exploding the Cube examines how “context” is handled in comparative education scholarship and argues that current approaches often treat context as a mere “matter of fact.” It critiques the cube framework associated with Bray and Thomas and reconsiders recurring uses of Sadler’s garden metaphor, proposing instead that context should be understood as a “matter of concern.” Drawing on Latour’s concepts, it links big C context to historical discourses and how these shape what can be thought and done, including the ethical stakes of using context in research.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time11 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Critiquing existing treatments of context

Rethinking context as concern

Big C context and historical discourses

Little c contexts and named elements

Context, power/knowledge, and comparative governance

Universalization vs. impossibility of comparison

Context problems

Sadler’s transfer and educational borrowing

Exploding the Cube: Revisioning “Context” in the Field of Comparative Education Noah W. Sobe Loyola University Chicago Jamie A. Kowalczyk Loyola University Chicago This article problematizes some of the ways that the issue of “context” has been treated in comparative education scholarship. We critique the cube approach recommended by Bray and Thomas (1995) as well as the common recirculations of Sadler’s (1900) garden metaphor. Borrowing a set of analytic concepts from Bruno Latour (2004), we suggest that too often in the field of comparative education the issue of context is treated as a “matter of fact” when instead context should be revisioned as a “matter of concern” and one of the central research concerns in our field. We propose the concept of‘big C’Context to link‘little c’ contexts to power/knowledge concerns and the historical discourses that govern what it is possible to think and do. Despite notable recent efforts to focus research attention on the importance of taking “context”into account (Cowen, 2006; Crossley, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2009), the field of comparative education still remains hobbled by unsophisticated and inadequately theorized notions of context. This article explores the ways that establishing the context of an education policy, practice, institution, or system is caught up in the mobilization of norms, power relations, regulative principles, technologies, and strategies. Ascriptions of context can operate as externally imposed categories that enclose, disable, and deny access to resources, opportunities, agency, and subject positions. In like measure, inscriptions of context can sometimes be enabling, increase access to resources and opportunities, and generally privilege particular cultural groups or particular social settings (Sobe & Kowalczyk, 2012) . The ethical, social, cultural and political significance of context thus demands that researchers pay careful attention to ways they use the concept of context in their research. In this piece, we problematize some of the ways that the issue of context has been treated in comparative education scholarship. In particular, we critique the “cube” approach recommended by Bray and Thomas (1995) as well as the feckless and regrettably common recirculations of Sadler’s (1900) garden metaphor. Rather than thinking of “contextualization” or“establishing the context” as activity that takes place at the front-end as part of a preliminary“setting the stage” for a research project, we propose—returning to the word’s etymological meaning of “inter-weaving”—that the problem of context be something that demands the researcher’s attention across the entirety of a research endeavor. Borrowing a set of analytic concepts from Bruno Latour (2004), we suggest that too often in the field of comparative education the issue of context is treated as a “matter of fact” when instead context should be revisioned as a “matter of concern” and one of the central research topics in our field. As part of revisioning context as a matter of concern we discuss big‘C’Context as a set of historical Discourses (Gee, 1990) that interweave actors and objects and govern what it is possible to think and do. By little ‘c’context we refer to the set of named elements that are seen as comprising a given setting. Individual instances of context become intelligible because of Context with a “big C”—which is always much more than environment. © 2014 Current Issues in Comparative Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Current Issues in Comparative Education 16(1): 6-12. Noah W. Sobe Jamie A. Kowalczyk As noted above, honing in on the issue of Context is warranted because of the significance that Context plays in power/knowledge relations. Inasmuch as we can think of the field of comparative and international education as a mode of governance (Nóvoa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003) it is also extremely important to think about the way that, in educat

FAQs

What is the main critique the article makes about how “context” is treated in comparative education?

The article argues that scholarship often treats context as a “matter of fact,” and it remains supported by unsophisticated, undertheorized ideas.

Which existing approaches does the article specifically critique?

It critiques the cube approach recommended by Bray and Thomas (1995) and also the common recirculations of Sadler’s (1900) garden metaphor.

How does the article propose rethinking context?

It proposes revisioning context as a “matter of concern,” using the idea of big C context linked to historical discourses, and treating the problem of context as requiring attention throughout research rather than only at the start.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni