The proposal is important. There is a need for the kind of discussion that these authors are offering and their planning and organization suggest a well thought out approach. It is a growing policy area, more and more evident, and it impinges on many aspects of educational practice, even when it is not named directly in them [viz the field of assessment may or may not recognize the global aspects of their work, or may be unable to provide a reasonable theorization of the global field they are in]. This book offers a very good chance to introduce the subject across a wide range of educational and educational research work.
Its market in the US and the UK will depend on the reputation of the authors, and so I think sales are assured there, and I imagine so in Australia and perhaps the Pacific Rim], sales outside those areas will depend on whether the book is aimed at a more complex version of globalization than they seem to suggest [see below].
The rise of courses using ‘globalization ‘and ‘education’ as their main categorization
is on the rise, at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and across the field of the social sciences. However there is a problem of the scarcity of solid books [as opposed the documents and working papers] to support them.
This is an opportunity for a readable text, using solid cases, informed by social science thinking.
Because of the nature of the subject, there is a good chance that the book would go into reprint, and should be revised within a few years. They are going to provide a form of analysis, and examples, which will make the book sustainable, realistically in its proposed form, for about 5-10 years.
Both authors have good track records in this area and the publisher is being offered recognized expertise in this proposal.
One of the problems with both the analyses and cases to be used is to do with the
perspective of the text. Globalization is often seen as Americanization [sometimes elided with anglo-saxon] phenomenon across the world yet the US [and possibly the UK, as the state most heavily permeated by foreign capital in Europe] appears to be only half aware of globalizing effects across the wider world. Much as I would like to read about Trinidad and Tobago, if this book is to be a serious contribution, the reader needs to know about China [as well as India – an improvement on what is generally available and very important], latin America and most of all [for reason of sales], Germany, Spain and France. Europe [the Community] has to be in the book, as it is an example of transnational governance and is significantly different to World Bank etc [also, I was surprised to find use of England as opposed to UK – was this just thoughtlessness or is an interesting case being made here?]
At the centre of the book is still a fairly normative view, based on Americanization, and counter cases have to be studied here – all the book will do [without care] is explain how the globalizing effect is without choice, dominant, pervasive and homogenizing. If it ignores certain kinds of cases, then that is exactly what it will show. For every Singapore, it needs to review oppositional and resistant cases. This has been the problem of books produced from an English perspective [based on NZ, Aus, the US and the UK]; in effect this is a single policy arena, and a book which reflects should describe itself as doing just that.
Yes, [I recommend publishing the book] very much so, but on revision and not before. It could be an excellent as opposed to a good but limited book.
Overall, I have confidence in the authors, their expertise, capabilities and their interests, otherwise I would have said that not enough work is evident here about the americanizing world'seen from outside. instead, I suggest they should a further opportunity to extend their thinking and redraft. the general organization of the book may look the same but the outlook and reach of the book will be extended, and its value increased. (Martin Lawn, University of Birmingham, UK)
Response to Reviewer’s Report on Globalizing Educational Policy (Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard)
Overall, we agree with the general position taken by the reviewer on globalization. Our agreement here means we think the reviewer has mis-read the perspective we will take in the book. For example, the book will explicitly not be written from a ‘globalization equals Americanisation’ perspective. This is only one effect of globalization and is one which is resisted politically in a number of ways. We agree that in the current globalizing world what we see is American hegemony, given the period of the post Cold War and the as yet rise to superpowerdom of China. So American hegemony is important and American interests are often rearticulated through the policy stances of international organizations such as the OECD, World Bank and so on. However, we as see the concept of globalization as working both as an ideology in a normative sense, as well as in a social scientific analytical fashion. Bourdieu on this very point has described globalization as a performative concept, working to elide meanings other than those of neo-liberal politics and economics and in effect seeking to create that of which it speaks. Yet, Bourdieu also argues that the concept can be used in a social science analytical fashion as well, and in relation to politics of opposition to such a reading and politics. Politically, of course, there has been the rise of anti-globalization social movements and politics. These have been nicely encapsulated in Held and McGrew’s book, Globalization/Anti-Globalization. The authors of the proposal are aware of these politics and debates and will work to deconstruct the performative, meaning eliding use of globalization. So, to reiterate, we agree with the stance on globalization taken by the reviewer, rather than sitting in opposition to it. All of our writings on globalization in education have worked with these discursive and analytical politics and a much broader definition of globalization than equating it simple with Americanization or American hegemony. We also see the tensions in effects to do with policy convergence and divergence in education across nations. We will not be arguing a simple policy convergence argument, nor a powerless state in the face of globalization (which in our view tends to be the position taken by Joel Spring, whose work is referred to by the reviewer). (See, for example, Rizvi and Lingard (2000) ‘Globalization and Education: Complexities and Contingencies’, Educational Theory, 50 (4), pp.419-426 and Lingard and Rizvi (1998) Globalization and the Fear of Homogenisation in Education’, Change: Transformations in Education, 1 (1), pp.62-71.)
We agree with the argument about the differential effects of globalization on different nations, which are placed differently in a global geo-politics and economically. Some are subject to structural adjustment policies demanded by international lending agencies such as the World Bank, while others, particularly the nations of the global north, are free from such pressures. In considering these differential impacts of globalization, what Appadurai has called ‘vernacular globalization’, we will draw on an extensive range of examples. We will include China and India in our examples, and also analyse the effects of globalization in some nations based on Islam. Furthermore, our own research has given emphasis to the rise of a global educational policy community in education (eg Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard and Henry (1997), Educational Policy and the Politics of Change and Henry, Lingard, Rizvi and Taylor (2001) The OECD, Globalization and Education Policy), that is, organizations and individuals whose work and ideas have real effects within the educational polices of nation states. Thus in addition to considering the differential effects of globalization upon educational policy and policy processes within education, we will also pay attention to an emergent global educational policy community, globalized policy discourses in education and the work of international agencies.
We believe we can write the excellent book on globalizing educational policy the reviewer refers to and stress our general agreement with the points raised by the reviewer.
"Overall, this compendium is an excellent read and offers a lot of conceptual tools to make sense of globalizing education policy. I would highly recommend it to faculty and graduate students in the fields of educational policy, sociology of education, comparative and international education, higher education, and curriculum studies. The book has inspired me to see the complexity and transformative possibilities in analyzing and responding to education policy dilemmas in a globalized context."—Comparative Education Review
'This book is one that resonates with the recent work of other scholars who have also called for new approaches to understanding and promoting educational change. Rizvi and Lingard’s work is both instructive and provocative bringing key issues to light, challenging assumptions, and pointing out that as the social, political, and economic contexts of education shift, so to must theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of educational policies.' - Minori Nagahara, Journal of Educational Change
'Theoretically, the book is grounded in some of the rich theories of culture and society developed over the past few decades amid the ‘‘linguistic turn’’ that has challenged simple ‘‘rationalist’’ ideas of influence and power. Key theorists include Michel Foucault and Nikolas Rose with their concept of ‘‘governmentality,’’ Pierre Bourdieu and his vision of social ‘‘fields,’’ Arjun Appadurai with his nuanced interpretation of neo-colonialism, and David Held with his broad-ranging discussions of globalization. Given Rizvi and Lingard’s interest in nuanced intersections between culture, language, and material contexts, their chosen theoretical frameworks seem quite relevant.' - Aaron Schutz, Journal of Educational Change
