U.S. Comparative and International Graduate Programs: An Overview of Programmatic Size, Relevance, Philosophy, and Methodology

Abstract

Previous work has concentrated on the epistemological foundation of comparative and international education (CIE) graduate programs. This study focuses on programmatic size, philosophy, methodology, and pedagogy. It begins by reviewing previous studies. It then provides a theoretical framework and describes the size, relevance, content, and methodological approaches of U.S.-based graduate programs. This study finds that (a) CIE graduate programs find relevance in today's knowledge economy by addressing the themes of globalization and development; (b) while education policy is a key component of CIE programmatic content, there does not appear to be a general consensus as to what a CIE program should teach; and (c) CIE pedagogy includes four broad categories: the humanities and social science disciplines, regional emphases, cross-cutting fields and theoretical lenses, and professional specializations. Although there appears to be no single formula or unified path, each program must sift through the various methodologies and theoretical tendencies of the field to charter a course that is attractive to students, profitable to its institution, and beneficial to society.

Acknowledgments

I thank Dr. Stephen Heyneman for his support and encouragement on this project and the faculty and staff at the US Comparative and International Education Graduate programs that participated in the survey.

Notes

The institutions surveyed were Florida State University, University of Pittsburg, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, University of Virginia, University of Massachusetts, Michigan State University, University of Chicago, University of Hawaii, University of California at Los Angeles, and Stanford University.

The journals were The Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, and the International Journal of Educational Development.

Attributable to the global economic turndown and decreased levels of federal and state funding.

Although every effort was utilized to make this list comprehensive, the author acknowledges that there may be institutions that are not included in this sample.

Response rate of 61%, with 22 of 36 institutions responding (see Table 2). Please note that although the University of South Carolina was included in the survey, it was not included in the website analysis.

Even in this case, the author was not a single person but rather the “Office of the Registrar.”

Note, however, that some elective course offerings do contain the word “globalization.”

Each category was created by coding for the specific word label (i.e., education leadership). Every institution in the sample was represented by at least one of the categories.

Ten of the institutions sampled used the word interdisciplinary and six institutions used the word multidisciplinary.