Custom Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Article-Review-Of--Quot-Research-On-Glo 👈

1. 300243 Theory and Research in Sociology of Education
by
Prof. Dr. Clara Sabbagh
SS 15
An Evaluation
of
“Research on Globalization and Education”
Ekin Yildiran, 2645753
MA Sociology – International Track
Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University
September, 2015

2. 1
1. Introduction
This term paper aims to analyse the review article “Research on Globalization and Education”
by Spring (2008) and to organize the lecture notes during the student presentation about the
same article on July 6, 2015. Spring highlights ‘globalization and education’ as a field of
study of which the literature is divided into four overlapping major theoretical perspectives
(world culture, world systems, post-colonial, culturalist), and it involves the intertwined set of
global processes affecting education, such as worldwide discourses (human capital, economic
development, and multiculturalism), intergovernmental organizations, information and
communication technology, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations
(ibid). In the following section, definitions and relevant discussions regarding globalization of
education are given. Then, the major theoretical perspectives which are discussed in relation
to the sociological paradigms, and the global educational discourses, institutions and
organizations are introduced. Following these sections, certain additional concepts which are
mostly used as criticisms against globalization and educational globalization are scrutinized.
Finally, a conclusion is drawn by building on the arguments stated all through the paper
(especially from 3rd
and 5th
sections), which is followed by the bibliography at the very end.
All through the paper APA citation rules are applied.
2. Schooling, Society and Globalization
Even though education is a relatively young institution when compared to religion or
economy, it is now central to the society and people’s lives. The mandatory school attendance
is longer than ever before, and most of the modern nations rely on education to rationalize and
justify social order. Indeed, the power of schooling to change lives and to predict the future
socioeconomic status, social mobility and exclusion is rising. In addition to shaping life
chances and life courses, education also shapes the organization of society in terms of playing

3. 2
an important role in nation-building and citizenship, connecting people to labour markets,
providing solutions to social problems such as violence, racism, drug use, etc. Hence, at the
most basic level, that is how schools relate to society, and why people now use the term
‘schooled society’ (Davies & Guppy, 2010).
Economy in the European Commission’s document of 1998, the phenomenon of globalization
is described by the advent of the information society, of scientific and technical civilization,
and especially the globalization of the (as cited in Spring, ibid, p.331). Burbules and Torres
also emphasize the link between the economic restructuring and the trend toward
globalization, since this restructuring creates a new international division of labour and
economic integration of national economies, internationalization of trade reflected in the
increased capacity to connect markets, and ever-increasing financial technological and
cultural gap between nation-states (2000). All these elements of globalization have direct and
indirect impacts on education at differing levels such as formal and informal or local and
national levels, etc. Schools, schooling and education do have an effect on society, and vice
versa, but these relationships are even more important and complicated in the era of
globalization, and therefore the field of globalization and education, that is the study of the
effect of globalization on educational processes, has developed its own academic and
interdisciplinary language especially in works of Appadurai and Castells (Spring, ibid).
In his widely cited paper "Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy",
Appadurai refuses the centre-periphery models of globalization, and instead he suggests that it
should be understood as a complex, overlapping and disjunctive order. He states, “[t]he
complexity of the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjunctures
between economy, culture and politics which we have barely begun to theorize.” (1990,
p.296), and adds “[...] people, machinery, money, images and ideas now follow increasingly
non-isomorphic paths: of course, at all periods in human history, there have been some

4. 3
disjunctures between the flows of these things, but the sheer speed, scale and volume of each
of these flows is now so great that the disjunctures have become central to the politics of
global culture.” (p. 301). Later, Appadurai (1996) introduces five dimensions of global flows
explaining the the disjunctures in the global cultural economy: ethnoscapes, financescapes,
technoscapes, mediascapes and ideoscapes. All of these dimensions are used to understand
global educational processes, and vice versa. Powell and Steel, for example, examine the
relevance of “scapes”, flowing across the cultural boundaries, to understand higher education
in the age of globalization (2011). Additionally, the concept of global flows (by Appadurai) is
translated into “networks”, meaning that these various flows move through networks capable
of unlimited expansion (Castells, 2000). The final remark on the description of ‘globalization
and education study’ is the discussion of global societies vs. nations. Spring argues global
educational processes are analysed in contrast to autonomous nation-states, which enables the
researchers to talk about global societies. Burbules and Torres also mention ‘community’
beyond nation (ibid, p. 22). In these formulations of ‘globalization and education’, the nation-
state does not disappear, but becomes a subset or subject of global societies.
3. Four Major Theoretical Perspectives of Educational Globalization
Spring categorizes the theories on globalization and education into four overlapping
theoretical perspectives which are namely world culture, world systems, post-colonial and
culturalist perspectives (ibid, p. 334). As also discussed during the presentation on July 6,
2015, I try to show the relations of these perspectives in the literature with certain sociological
paradigms.
3.a. World Culture Perspective: Scholars of this perspective posit that there exists a world
culture containing Western (and/or European) ideals of mass schooling, which serves as a
model for (non-Western) national school systems. They claim that all cultures are slowly

5. 4
integrating into a global single culture, and they show the development of common
educational structures and standard curriculum model as evidence to their claim. Moreover,
they advocate the political agenda of improving the current dominant human capital model of
schooling. In world cultural theories, the expansion of Western ideals of educability of all
people, right to education, role of education in maintaining economic and democratic rights is
also emphasized, and they believe this school model is globalized because it is the best
(Spring, ibid; Teichler, 2004).
World cultural theorists are mostly criticized on two accounts. First, even though they actually
do not say this one global single model is very rigid and applied in the same manner all over
the world, and there is only a trend or an increase toward such change; the national school
systems still vary vastly from one another. That means the school systems are still much less
homogenous than the world cultural theorist have claimed. Second, they ignore the human
agency in non-Western nations. By saying that school cultures converge because what the
decision-makers in these nations view as the modern school system is simply adopted, they
overlook the power dimension in this picture and the resistance to that power at collective
level and in everyday experience (Anderson-Levitt, 2000).
Within world culture perspective, the theories might most likely fall under structural-
functionalist paradigm. This paradigm looks at the society from the macro level and it is not
interested in individuals and everyday relations. It uses the analogy of human body to explain
the society, in which each institution has a specific function. Human capital theory also exists
within this paradigm, which sees education as a rational investment to pay off in the future
(see Hurn, 1993). Theorists of world culture say the global trend of converging school
systems happens simply because it serves a function for the nation-states and for the globe. As
stated, they tend to overlook everyday action, and apply human capital theory. Nonetheless,
Anderson-Levitt (ibid, p. 4) asserts that world culture theorists differ from functionalists on

6. 5
the point when they claim what matters is that the local actors perceive the global model of
schooling as the best way. Unlike functionalists who would tend to think that schools serve
the society’s interests, it does not necessarily have to be the best for the nation-state.
3.b. World Systems Perspective: This approach sees the world as integrated, like in world
culture perspective, but with two major unequal zones. The centre zone (the ‘rich’ nations
such as the United States, the European Union and Japan) dominates the states in periphery
zone by inculcating their values and ideals of Western schooling. This inequality in terms of
power is missing in the previous perspective. In contrast to world cultural theories, world
systems theories mainly suggest that the core countries try to legitimize their power by using
aid agencies in order to teach capitalist nodes of thought and analyses, and their power to push
a global educational agenda is promoted through economic pressures. (Spring, ibid;
Anderson-Levitt, ibid).
In conflict paradigm, society is seen as a divided system in terms of power dimension, and in
this system, education serves the powerful, having a significant effect in the power relation
between the powerful and the powerless. Theories of this paradigm focus on the inequality, as
it is so in world systems theories when they elaborate the two unequal zones of the globe. In
relation to power and inequality, conflict paradigm’s argument that there is control of the
powerful over masses for their willingness to commit to schools (to global model of schools
in the case of this text) and therefore to labour force (see Hurn, ibid) can be found in world
systems perspective in promoting capitalist nodes of thinking. Certain global educational
processes might be irrational for the nation-states in periphery, but since they are powerless
(mostly economically); they have to comply with these processes and the reproduction of
capitalist power relations.

7. 6
3.c. Post-colonial Perspective: There exists a similarity of this perspective with the previous
two because in all of them the trend toward the global integration of school systems is the
basic argument. However, as Spring (ibid) names it, post-colonial analysis sees this trend as
an extension of the domination of world by European imperialism and Christian missionaries,
which is now carried out through intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations
and trade agreements. Post-colonialist powers promote market economies, human capital
education, neoliberal school reforms designed to serve interests of the rich and powerful, and
they see education as an economic investment. In sharp contrast to world culture theories that
global schooling is fine and educational change should focus on its promotion, post-colonial
theories find it exploitive of the majority of people and harmful to the planet. They suggest
progressive forms of schooling to empower the masses.
The arguments of seeing society as divided, focusing on power relations and inequalities
between the dominated and the dominant and pointing the hegemony of global elites, which
supports that world systems perspective mostly matches conflict paradigm, can also be
applicable for post-colonial perspective.
3.d. Culturalist Perspective: The last interpretation of globalization and education also takes
power dimension into consideration, but in this perspective cultural variations and the
borrowing and lending of educational ideas from multiple models within a global context are
highlighted. Moreover, theories in this perspective reject the world cultural theories that
national elites select the best model of schooling from a world culture of schooling and that
educational models are simply imposed on local cultures. Instead, these theories suggest that
local actors choose from multiple models, and adapt them to their circumstances sometimes
against the will of the elites (Spring, ibid). Among culturalists, as Spring writes, a general
political agenda is “[…] recognition of multiple knowledges, alternative cultural frameworks

8. 7
for schooling, and the importance of studying the interaction between the local and the
global.” (ibid, p. 337).
Culturalist views on educational globalization might fall under social action paradigm.
Looking at social interactions in everyday life at micro level within the context of global
education and seeing individuals as active agents of social change, unlike structural paradigm
in which the individuals are passive (see Giddens, 1997), it can be argued that social action
paradigm and culturalist perspectives have a lot in common.
4. Major Discourses, Institutions and Organizations
The first one of major global educational discourses stated in the text is the knowledge
economy and technology. The knowledge economy is described as generation of new wealth
by knowledge rather than ownership of capital, and the shift of power from owners and
managers to knowledge workers. The discourse around it penetrates the educational planning
globally, and is usually coined with the application of technology in the sense that technology
has made it easier for students (potential knowledge workers) to access the world’s
knowledges (Drucker, 1993; Stromquist, 2002; Spring, ibid). The next discourse is lifelong
education that comes as a human capital requirement of the knowledge economy and
significantly relates to labour markets. In this discourse, primary and secondary education is
now the preparation of students for ‘how to become a lifelong learner’ by teaching skills
needed to learn other subjects, which affects the primary and secondary curricula directly
(Commission of the European Communities, 2000; Spring, ibid). The next global educational
discourse is global migration, brain circulation and multiculturalism. Even though the
migration is mostly from poorer and “less-developed” nations to wealthier and “developed”
ones, the focus of educational globalization discussion regarding migration shifted from brain
drain to brain circulation which is the mobility of skilled and professional workers between

9. 8
wealthy nations or their return to their home countries. Migration also raises concerns of
multicultural education in host nations due to the conflict of maintaining social cohesion with
increased global migration (Report of the Global Commission on International Migration,
2005; Spring, ibid). The last discourse is neoliberalism, but this concept is elaborated in the
next section of this paper (5. Additional Concepts – Criticisms of Educational Globalization).
Also mentioned in the text, there are certain major institutions and organizations affecting the
globalization of education. One of them is the World Bank, since it provides educational loans
to developing nations and support privatization of schooling. One other is the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), since they operate important education
programs and support global standardization of education through the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Additionally, education is among the services
covered by World Trade Organization/ General Agreement on Trade in Services
(WTA/GATS). ETS, for example, develops, administers and scores more than 50 million tests
annually in more than 180 countries, at more than 9,000 locations worldwide.1
Finally, there
are intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations operating globally on education-
related issues of human rights, environmentalism and women’s education. (Spring, ibid).
5. Additional Concepts – Criticisms of Educational Globalization
In this section, certain additional concepts, such as neoliberalism, marketization, privatization,
accountability, and turbo-capitalism are discussed in a way that the concepts are not
elaborated as separate topics, but only their relevance to educational globalization is shown.
These concepts are chosen because they are mostly used in the literature to criticize the
educational globalization.
1
See https://www.ets.org/about/

10. 9
Implementation of neoliberal policies in nation states has been going hand in hand with the
global economic restructuring (Burbules & Torres, ibid, p. 5), and an important change it
brings is the withdrawal of the state from its responsibility to provide the society with social
justice regarding education. This justice; however, is being replaced by a blind faith in the
market which takes competition as the driving force. Increased calls for school privatization
are examples for such faith at macro level. Moreover, this social justice is hoped to be
provided by the economic growth which might potentially generate a spill over to help the
poor, and by the private charity which might pick up what state leaves out in educational
policies. In addition to the marketization, the neoliberal state is characterized by the cutbacks
in social spending including the spending in education. This leads to the fact that corporations
are becoming so powerful that they have started to create their own educational programs, and
all these results in that the wealth and power are retained by the privileged nations (Spring,
1998; Burbules & Torres, ibid; R. Rhoads & Torres, 2006; Spring, ibid). Apple (2000) points
out the danger of greater reliance on the free market and less state intervention in education
causing more appeal given to the individual self-interest than to the collective rights.
Regarding neoliberalism and educational globalization, Shore explains that in many
contemporary capitalist societies, processes of neoliberalism and of New Public Management
result in the ‘audit culture’ that derives its legitimacy from its claims to provide transparency
and accountability, and he asks:
How are these technologies of audit refashioning the working environment
and what effects do they have on behaviour (and subjectivity) of academics?
What does the analysis of the rise of managerialism tell us about wider
historical processes of power and change in our society? And why are
academics seemingly so complicit in, and unable to challenge, these audit
processes? (2008, p. 279)

11. 10
The misplaced faith in audit and accounting is destroying the universities, since they bear only
superficial and largely misleading resemblances to commercial companies. Once the
processes of neoliberalism are introduced in educational organizations, the effects are
irreversible, and one of these effects is the loss of room for creativity and initiative (Shore,
ibid).
Teichler (2004) is also interested in the manifestation of certain capitalist processes in
globalization of higher education. He states the debate on this topic suddenly focuses on the
issues of managerialism, resource acquisition, marketization, competition and management,
suggesting that the major "global forces" relevant to higher education are only those of
"turbo-capitalism" (cf. Currie & Newson, 1998). He asks, “Is this a social construct spreading
in higher education because of the increase in managerialism that tends to limit its view on
managerial and operational issues?” (Teichler, ibid, p. 23)
6. Conclusion
As seen in all theoretical perspectives and in additional arguments, there indeed is a global
trend on educational processes as in that schooling all over the globe has become more similar
in terms of ideal, basic structures and content and that there is an increase in global
educational institutions (Anderson-Levitt, ibid; Spring, ibid). However, it can be argued that
this paper slightly takes a stand against world culture theories, since they underestimate the
power dimension of education and globalization. In her edited book, Anderson-Levitt shows
that “[…] teachers and other local actors sometimes resist and always transform the official
models they are handed.” (ibid, p.4). The effect and scope of such resistance and
transformation, in my opinion, still remain as an empirical research question, as well as the
question that how the actors including students, parents, school teachers, school and

12. 11
university administrations, academicians, etc. within specific sites resist, reshape and recreate
the global forces.
Even though the 5th
section of this paper also seems to focus on the empirical or possible
negative effects of globalization on education, I want to invite the reader not to take an easy
judgement on this issue. Although Shore gives voice to his suspicion towards audit culture, he
makes sure that he does not try to make a case against auditing or transparency per se by
saying that “[…] audits, when used properly, can be very effective instruments for preventing
fraud, mismanagement and waste of public money.” (ibid, p.291).
When all the arguments are considered, it can be concluded that labelling processes within
educational globalization as ‘all evil’ (also as ‘all well’) might lead to a mistake. Such
processes should be scrutinized as special cases within their specific context (region, district,
school, or classroom at a time) and in relation to the global as well as national forces at play.

13. 12
7. Bibliography
• Anderson-Levitt, K. M. (2000). A World Culture of Schooling?. In K. M. Anderson-
Levitt (Ed.), Local Meanings, Global Schooling: Anthropology and World Culture
Theory (pp. 1-26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy.
Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 7 (2), 295-310.
• Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large Cultural Dimensions of Globalization,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Apple, M. W. (2000). Between Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism: Education and
Conservatism in a Global Context. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.),
Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives (pp. 57-77). New York and
London: Routledge.
• Burbules, N. C. & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and Education: An
Introduction. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and Education:
Critical Perspectives (pp. 1-26). New York and London: Routlegde.
• Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Commission staff working paper.
A memorandum on lifelong learning. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
• Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.) (1998). Universities and Globalization: Critical
Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (2010). The Schooled Society. New York: Oxford University
Press.

14. 13
• Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. London: Butterworth/Heinemann.
• Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology (3rd
ed.)(pp. 67-89). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Chapter 4: "Social interaction and everyday life."
• https://www.ets.org/about/
• Hurn, C. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling: An introduction to the
sociology of education. (pp. 46-76) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chapter 2: "Theories of
schooling and society: The functional and conflict paradigms.".
• Powell, J. L. & Steel, R. (2011). Revisiting Appadurai: Globalizing Scapes in a Global
World – the Pervasiveness of Economic and Cultural Power. International Journal of
Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, Vol. 1, 74-80.
• Report of the Global Commission on International Migration. (2005). Migration in an
interconnected world: New directions for action. Geneva; Switzerland: Global
Commission on International Migration.
• Rhoads, R. & Torres, C. (Eds.). (2006). The university, state and market: the political
economy of globalization in the Americas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Shore, C. (2008). Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance. Universities and the Politics
of Accountability. Anthropological Theory, Vol. 8, 278-298.
• Spring, J. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Spring, J. (2008). Research on Globalization and Education. Review of Educational
Research, 78(2), 330-363.

15. 14
• Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: the connectivity of economic
power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Teichler, U. (2004). The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher
Education. Higher Education, Vol. 48, (1), 5-26.