Comparative scholarship on educational systems appears to have a two-sided approach (Spring 2008). Some researchers are regarded as emphasising global isomorphism in education  (LeTendre, Baker et al. 2001, Sorensen 2022) whilst others are identified as looking primarily at local variances and contrast (Alexander 2001, Helgetun 2022). These categorizations obscure the fact that researchers’ focus is affected by different methodological approaches to analysing education systems, and at times have a deeper epistemic root centred on whether knowledge is local or general. Meanwhile, according to Sorensen (2022) theories on globalization are often poorly defined, or the term is used as a form of “catch-all” to explain changes in education. This state of affairs often leads to artificially reifying layers (micro, meso and macro) of analysis while policy makers operate on, or respond to stakeholders across multiple layers at the same time (Putnam 1988, Helgetun 2023).  In terms of arguments about the importance of the state vs. global governance, this can result in theories that state ”context matters” without further elaboration as to how when and why local contexts matter in education. Therefore, it is important to construct precise definitions of the concepts, and device concrete mechanisms of how globalization impacts education policy simultaneously on multiple levels. 

In this essay, we argue it is important to look both at global and local trends when analysing education systems. As such, we present a theoretical approach to bridging the increasing gap between analyses focused on the globalization of educational trends and those focused on local variances. Our theorization work draws on a range of sources from the (in education) common tools of neo-institutionalism (world culture), comparative education, vernacular globalization, and policy borrowing. These traditional approaches are then contrasted to common analytical lenses in comparative political science derived from two-level game theory. Lastly, we draw on the importance of “langage” to give word to how educational concepts differ across contexts with deep significance for (comparative) research. The need for such a theoretical approach is illustrated througha range of  studies on leadership in education. 

Epistemically we construct our theoretical framework through the use of clear explanatory mechanisms to create some order out of chaos, with a post-positivist lens rooted in scientific realism (Sayer 2010) and process tracing  Checkel 2006, Bennett and Checkel 2015). These mechanisms are then put into a framework that contains their triggers, associated concepts, and principal drivers. As such, this reflective essay uses existing theory to inspire our theory construction, whilst we (re)interpret the literature to fit with our epistemic approach.

To elaborate our argument and provide clear instantiations of theory, we choose to focus on the term leadership as an illustratration of how concepts or terms central to questions of educational change, reform or improvement are invoked in different ways depending on the context.  We are especially interested in how this concept is aligned with the construction of the teacher’s role in policy aimed at assessing, improving or promoting teaching and learning across educational systems. Past research has established that there are commonalities to the teacher across contexts (Barber and Mourshed 2007), but also that there are distinct features of the teaching professions in given localities (Dumay and Burn 2023) that suggest greater or lesser leadership opportunities and activities. Moreover, leadership is the component of education and the teacher as a professional that is closest to questions of system and policy (particularly policy implementation). As such, we find leadership in education to be an ideal topic to illustrate the importance of crossing global developments and isomorphism with distinct local articulations and cultural traits. 

This methodological and theoretical essay does not include primary empirical data. Instead it is constructed inductively through a series of literature reviews conducted in the past on education policy analysis (Sørensen and Dumay 2021, Sørensen 2022), which is supplemented through the use of already published empirical data to illustrate and justify our methodological and theoretical reflections. To guide our work we identified some key theoretical clusters we regrouped for the purpose of this essay. We then attributed mechanisms to these clusters by applying our own epistemology to the theorization/conclusions presented in these works. This is inductive theoretical work.

We conclude that there is a need for a framework that enables different theoretical strands and methodological approaches to talk together in order to better understand the complexities of education systems. To do so we propose a framework consistent of a series of mechanisms (e.g., De-coupling, organic isomorphism, dissonance, coercion) that interrelate and correspond to overarching concepts (e.g., harmonization, convergence, professional autonomy) while they have their own triggers (e.g., overcoming uncertainty, two-level games, field contestation and actor survival), supports/amplifiers (e.g., local language, national policies), cancelling mechanisms, and principal drivers (actors – e.g., teachers’ unions, the OECD, national governments).

Alexander, Robin J.. 2001. Culture & Pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. USA: Malden: Blackwell publishing. Barber, Michael & Mourshed, Mona. 2007. How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company. Bennett, Andrew & Checkel, Jeffrey T.. 2015. Process tracing: from metaphor to analytical tool. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press. Checkel, Jeffrey T.. 2006. Tracing Causal Mechanisms. International Studies Review 8: 362-370. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2006.00598_2.x. Dumay, Xavier & Burn, Katharine. 2023. The status of the teaching profession: Interactions between historical and new forms of segmentation. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Helgetun, Jo B.. 2022. The importance of context: Teacher education policy in England and France compared. In: Menter, Ian, ed. The Palgrave Handbook of Teacher Education Research. Palgrave-Macmilan, Helgetun, Jo B.. 2023. The global and the local: Idea flows, contexts, and the influencing of education policy in the 21st century. In: Tierney, Rob Rizvi, Fazal Ercikan, Kadriye, eds. International Encyclopedia of Education.. Elsevir, LeTendre, Gerarld K., Baker, David P., Akiba, Motoko, Goesling, Brian & Wiseman, Alexander W.. 2001. Teachers’ Work: Institutional Isomorphism and Cultural Variation in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Educational Researcher 30: 3-15. Putnam, Robert D.. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42: 427-460. Spring, J. (2008). Globalization of Education. New York, Routledge. Sayer, Andrew. 2010. Method in Social Science: a realist approach. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge. Sørensen, Tore B. & Dumay, Xavier. 2021. The teaching professions and globalization: A scoping review of the Anglophone literature. Comparative Education Review 65: Sorensen, Tore Bernt. 2022. Chapter 73-1 Globalization, Teachers, and Teacher Education: Theories, Themes, and Methodologies. The Palgrave Handbook of Teacher Education Research. pp. 1-29.