Comparative education has been based on notions of nationalism and national identity since the term was first used in 1817. More recently, these epistemological perspectives have been challenged by ideas about, for instance, regionalism and globalisation. What, then, is the role of comparative education in the 21st century? Epstein has recently argued that ‘comparative education is the application of the intellectual tools of history and the social sciences to understanding international issues of education’. His starting point is not geographical boundaries but shared questions. Our paper takes up this challenge. Our research interests, originating in the UK, Spain and Peru, relate to cross-national dialogue about curriculum and didactics. Insofar as notions of the ‘learning society’ are projected by international organisations, the search for a common international language has become a paramount issue for educationists.Our investigations start, however, from the recognition that much international discussion is shallow, reductionist and, ultimately, ethnocentric. In English-language contexts, for instance, pedagogy is often limited to school-based activities (thus rejecting the notion of parents as pedagogues), the notion of didactics is dismissed (on the basis of assumptions prevalent in the eighteenth century) and, not least, the word Bildung is ignored completely. And similar problems arise when Lehrplan is translated as ‘curriculum’ or didactics as ‘method’ (see for example, pedagogy: some heterogeneous thinking, special issue of Pedagogy, Culture & Society, vol. 17(1), 2009).

Following Epstein, our research has three elements: (1) etymological and historical investigations of classic texts in education; (2) investigation of current theories relating to recurrent ideas such as learning (e.g. cultural-historical theory); and (3) dialogue across linguistic boundaries (often through initiatives funded by the European Union). Using this theory and evidence, our paper reports our struggle to establish a cross-national language, a fusion of international analytic tools?

Conclusion: translation in comparative analysis is complex because globalisation has led to simplification rather than clarification. Expected outcome: Further discussion of the questions raised in the abstract, together with further interlational flows of information.