This paper analyses the epistemological starting points of research done in comparative education. The aim is, first, to give insight for further development of the field and, second, to give tools for building consistent epistemological base for research. The main question in this analysis is how different comparative theories understand change. Another question is what would be new in comparative education. In this vein, the paper contributes to the on-going debate about what is the role of comparative education research given the critical concerns raised by scholars and the challenges posed by the increasing importance of European and international policy indicators.

The theoretical framework is based on the ideas of Van de Ven and Poole (1995) and their further development by Capano (2009). These researchers have formed an analytical grid for understanding the epistemological starting points of organizational and policy change, which are key aspects also in comparative education. Combining these ideas it is possible to form five ideal types describing the epistemic choices made in research:

• Life cycle models expect a linear event progression according to a prefigured sequence.
• Evolution ideal type embeds an idea of competitive survival, and recurrent and cumulative change based on natural selection.
• Dialectic approach shares the key metaphor of conflict and progression through synthesis between opposing values or events.
• Teleology ideal type understands change in terms of co-operation towards a mutually agreed target with discontinuous phases of goal setting, implementation and adaptation.
• Chaos and complexity theories again see the co-evolution of different parts in the system and the contingent and uncertain event progression.

The life cycle idea has been used in some theories. Phillips (2004) analyses the cyclical phases in policy borrowing. However, the approach refers also to Hegelian synthesis used in the dialectic ideal type (Phillips & Ochs 2004, 781). The neoistitutional world systems theory shares some ideas from the evolutionary perspective in terms of isomorphism, but at the same time borrowing from other ideal types, like the dialectic when emphasizing conflict (Meyer et al. 1997; Jacobi 2009; Arnove 2009). Teleological models are used at least in different “modes of governance” (Nóvoa & Yariv-Mashal 2003), their manifestations being in more in policy oriented tools. The critical comparative research using this ideal type has pointed out the absence of discussion regarding the meaning of PISA research, for example, and how the governing is done through shaping knowledge in complex networks of actors (Ozga 2012; Carvalho 2012). In this sense it comes close to the complex ideal type. Starting points with the chaos and complexity theories are shared also in the research drawing on Luhmannian idea of differentiated systems and their autopoiesis (see Schriewer & Martinez 2004).

Arnove, R. F. (2009). World-systems analysis and comparative education in the age of globalization. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.) International Handbook of Comparative Education. Springer, 101–119. Capano, G. (2009). Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11 (1), 7–31. Carvalho, L. M. (2012). The Fabrications and Travels of a Knowledge-Policy Instrument. European Educational Research Journal, 11 (2), 172–188. Jakobi, A. (2009). International organizations and world society: studying global policy development in public policy. TranState working papers, No. 81. University of Bremen. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World Society and the Nation State. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1), 144-181. Nóvoa, A. & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003) Comparative Research in Education: a mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39 (4), 423–438. Ozga, J. (2012). Introduction. Assessing PISA. European Educational Research Journal, 11 (2), 166–171. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (6), 773–784. Phillips, D. (2004). Toward a Theory of Policy Attraction in Education. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.) The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending. New York & London: Teachers College, Columbia University, 54–67. Schriewer, J. & Martinez, C. (2004). Constructions of Internationality in Education. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.) The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending. New York & London: Teachers College, Columbia University, 29–53. Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 510–540).