In an era when English dominates international and transnational dialogues, the concept of 'education' is framed predominantly through an Anglophone lens. Global education policy and research frameworks thus dominated by the English language may cause potential misinterpretations when the term 'education' is translated across languages, which harbours the risk of conceptual dissonance. Such concerns are amplified in discourses led by major international bodies such as the OECD, UNESCO and the EU. This raises questions about the inclusiveness and applicability of education policy and research, particularly in the light of the EU's commitment to multilingualism as enshrined in its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This paper critiques the prevailing "linguistic hegemony" (Reagan 2018) in educational discourse and argues that an English-centric approach in policy and research publications may dilute diverse educational philosophies, especially amidst Europe's rich linguistic tapestry. Sensitivity to multiple meanings and local epistemologies is important, especially when dealing with social issues that are often local and contextual. Drawing on critiques of global governance (Tikly 2017; Parreiro de Amaral 2011) and comparative education theory (Keiner & Schriewer 2000; Ermenc 2015; Cowen & Kim 2023; Tröhler 2023), this study aims to analyse the impact of English language dominance in shaping international education narratives and argues for multilingual sensitivity.

The research examines the treatment of the contextual nuances of education and English-centric narratives in international reports from the OECD, UNESCO and the EU. It furthermore evaluates the use of language and the extent of sensitivity to contextual specificity of these documents, as they not only describe but also propose future educational visions and policies. Three key questions guide this examination:

• How do these policy reports conceptualise 'education', especially with regards to future goals and educational content?
• To what extent do they address issues of translation and contextual specificity?
• How do they accommodate multilingual and multiplex interpretations of 'education'?

Using the methodologies of Bray et al. (2014) and Phillips (2006), this study explores the conceptualisation of 'education' and its recognition of local epistemologies. It examines the usage of the English term 'education' within these documents for implicit or explicit assumptions, with the goal of revealing cases of undue uniformity in the understanding of conceptualizations of  ‘education’.

The present study aims to demonstrate that a productive way to advance discourse within the dominant English-centric model is the 'import' of ideas and conceptual frameworks from non-English educational-theories, such as e.g. the German "Erziehungstheorie" (theory of education). Contrasting English publications with their German translations will showcase that exploring non-Anglophone theoretical perspectives, such as the German concepts of 'Erziehung' and 'Bildung', provide a more nuanced understanding of 'education' beyond the confines of the Anglophone discourse. This approach could uncover underlying normative, ethical, and intergenerational aspects of education that are often overlooked in Anglophone discussions, thus broadening the theoretical landscape of educational research and policy.

Following existing studies of hidden assumptions within policy documents (Forster 2014; Vaccari & Gardinier 2019), the analysis seeks to highlight the drawbacks of overlooking linguistic diversity in educational discourses and argues for the inclusion of local epistemologies to enrich policy and research. Finally, drawing on Geertz's (1983) concept of 'local knowledge' and Merton's (1949) 'middle range theories', I argue that a multilingual and culturally sensitive approach to educational policy and research could make a significant contribution to the field by embracing the theoretical richness offered by Europe's linguistic and cultural diversity.

This analysis follows a tradition in comparative education that critically examines the use of language in influential global education reports (Bray et al. 2014; Phillips 2006; Brehm 2023). As a first step, the study analyses English-language publications: PISA 2022 Report (OECD), UNESCO's Global Education Monitoring Report (2023), and the European Union's Education and Training Monitor (2023). As a second source of material, the corresponding websites on which these publications are hosted will be considered in order to assess how issues of translation are handled online. The documents were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (a) the documents are relatively new, (b) they are published by authoritative bodies (OECD, UNESCO, EU) that tend to have a major impact on shaping educational discourse and policy-making, and (c) the publishing institutions make explicit efforts to deal with multiple languages and translations, as can be seen from their website landscape. The analytical framework (coding scheme) for the comparative study incorporates concepts from critical discourse analysis, theories of linguistic hegemony and comparative educational methodologies. The comparison of the documents follows an exploratory (e.g. inductive) interest and describes two main dimensions: Firstly, the documents’ (1) use of language with a particular focus on the conceptualisation of education, and secondly (2) the documents’ sensitivity to multilingualism, i.e. how they deal with local or national contexts and translation issues. The interpretation and discussion of the findings will focus on several points of criticism, such as their implicit assumptions and potential exclusion of non-English perspectives. One aim will be to integrate the findings with theoretical insights, particularly from comparative studies of Anglophone and German conceptions of education, to discuss the possible implications for educational policy and collaborative international research.

In examining international education policy documents, this study presents findings in three key areas, shedding light on the nuances and implications of education as a concept in policy-making. Firstly, the research confirms previous studies, highlighting that these documents primarily view 'education' as an economic element, often institutionalized. However, an issue arises in translations. Notable documents like the PISA and UNESCO reports are translated into various languages, but critical terms, such as 'education', are inadequately rendered (e.g., 'Bildung' in German). This literal translation approach overlooks the local and national-specific epistemologies, failing to encompass “local knowledge” as described by Geertz. Secondly, contrasting Anglophone and German education theories reveals a frequent conflation of 'education' with 'schooling'. This narrow focus misses out on broader social aspects such as intergenerational transmission and non-formal education. Additionally, the German tradition makes a clear distinction between 'Erziehung' (education) and 'Bildung' (formation). This study underlines the importance of these distinctions, often lost in translation. The final area advocates for a paradigm shift towards localized, collaborative epistemologies and research methodologies. This approach aims to respect and integrate diverse perspectives, challenging the prevailing global narrative of education as depicted in the analysed reports and policies. As an outlook, the paper proposes exploring collaborative areas among prevalent European languages (German, French, Italian, English, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Ukrainian) and extends this consideration to a global context with languages like Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, and Arabic. This approach underscores the need for a multilingual perspective in education policy, especially when dealing with local and contextual social issues.

Bray, Mark, Adamson, Bob, & Mason, Mark (Ed.) (2014). Comparative education research: approaches and methods (2nd ed ). New York: Springer. Brehm, Will (2023). Comparative education as a political project. Comparative Education, 59(3), 362–378. Cowen, Robert, & Kim, Terri (2023). Comparative education and intercultural education: relations and revisions. Comparative Education, 59(3), 379–397. Ermenc, Klara Skubic (2015). The Role of Comparative Pedagogy in Comparative Educational Research. In Alexander W. Wiseman & Nikolay Popov (Ed.), International Perspectives on Education and Society (Vol. 26, S. 37–56). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Forster, Edgar (2014). Kritik der Evidenz. Das Beispiel evidence-informed policy research der OECD. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(6), 890–907. Geertz, Clifford (1983). Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Horlacher, Rebekka (2016). The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung: A comparative cultural history (Routledge cultural studies in knowledge, curriculum, and education) (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge. Keiner, Edwin/Schriewer, Jürgen (2000). Erneuerung aus dem Geist der eigenen Tradition? Über Kontinuität und Wandel nationaler Denkstile in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 22(1), 27–50. Merton, Robert King (1949). On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. In Robert King Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (S. 448–459). New York, NY: Free Press. Parreira do Amaral, Marcelo (2011). Educational Governance und Regimetheorie: Die Emergenz eines Internationalen Bildungsregimes. In Sigrid Karin Amos, Wolfgang Meseth & Matthias Proske (Ed.), Öffentliche Erziehung revisited: Erziehung, Politik und Gesellschaft im Diskurs (1. ed, S. 195–222). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Phillips, David (2006). Comparative Education: Method. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(4), 304–319. Singh, Michael, & Huang, Xiaowen (2013). Bourdieu’s lessons for internationalising Anglophone education: declassifying Sino-Anglo divisions over critical theorising. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(2), 203–223. Tikly, Leon (2017). The Future of Education for All as a Global Regime of Educational Governance. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 22–57. Tröhler, Daniel (2023). Education, Curriculum and Nation-Building: Contributions of Comparative Education to the Understanding of Nations and Nationalism (1. Auflage). London: Routledge. Vaccari, Victoria, & Gardinier, Meg P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(1).