Prof. Dr. Barbara M. Kehm
教授博士芭芭拉M. 凯姆
Leibniz Center for Science and Society, University of Hannover, Germany
汉诺威大学莱布尼茨科学与社会中心，德国
Comparative Higher Education: Theory and Methods
比较高等教育：理论与方法
Presentation at Beihang University, November 2024, Session 1
在北京航空航天大学的演讲，11月20日2月4日，第一次会议
Introduction: Why Comparative Higher Education Research?
引言：为什么要进行比较高等教育研究？
In recent years, the interest in comparative studies, including comparative studies in the field of higher education, has grown substantially. Learning from experiences in other countries is regarded to be productive, universal elements are regarded as crucial and growing international cooperation contributes to changes in national systems (Teichler 1996: 462). Debates about comparative methodology in higher education research have been going on since the mid-1980s (for example, see Altbach 1988; Dierkes et al. 1987; Goedegebuure, van Vught 1994: Meek et al. 1996; Teichler 1996). However, in a recent article Kosmuetzky (2016) argued that comparative analyses have been much more advanced and reflected in the field of education than in the field of higher education and that comparative studies in higher education often lack theoretical and methodological rigour. So what is the reason for that? Kosmuetzky argues that “while comparative education has developed into a distinct branch of education research and is widely seen as an interdisciplinary subfield of education, no such subfield exists within higher education research” (Kosmuetzky 2016: 201). In his seminal article on potentials and limits of comparative higher education research Teichler (1996: 448f.) states that comparative research in higher education “does not differ in its logic from research undertaken within a country“ and that “it pursues the typical logic of comparison which is universal for research striving to identify common elements and differences as well as to test hypotheses on causal relations”. But “what makes comparative studies special and specifically complicated is the analytical logic and intellectual operation at their core” (Kosmuetzky 2016: 203)? According to Kosmuetzky (ibid.) comparative studies are based on two simultaneous intellectual operations: the identification of (partial) sameness or similarity on the one hand and the determination of difference on the other. In addition and mediating these two operations we also find functional equivalences, which means two different things serving the same purpose.
近年来，对比较研究的兴趣，包括高等教育领域的比较研究，已大幅增长。学习其他国家的经验被认为是富有成效的，普遍性因素被认为是至关重要的，日益增长的国际合作有助于国家制度的变革（Teichler1996：462）。自20世纪80年代中期以来，关于高等教育研究中比较方法论的争论一直在进行（例如，参见Altbach1988;Dierkeset al. 1987;Goedegebuure，货车Vught1994; Meek et al. 1996;Teichler1996）。 然而，在最近的一篇文章中，Kosmuetzky（2016）认为，比较分析在教育领域比在高等教育领域更加先进和反映，高等教育的比较研究往往缺乏理论和方法的严谨性。那么，这是什么原因呢？Kosmuetzky认为，“虽然比较教育已经发展成为教育研究的一个独特的分支，并被广泛视为教育的一个跨学科的子领域，但在高等教育研究中并不存在这样的子领域“（Kosmuetzky2016：201）。在他的开创性文章的潜力和比较高等教育研究的限制（1996年：448 f。他指出，高等教育比较研究“在逻辑上与在一国之内进行的研究没有区别“，“它追求的是典型的比较逻辑，这种逻辑对于努力确定共同因素和差异以及检验因果关系假设的研究来说是普遍的“。但“使比较研究特别和特别复杂的是其核心的分析逻辑和智力运作“（Kosmuetzky2016：203）？根据Kosmuetzky（同上。比较研究是基于两种同时进行的智力活动：一方面确定（部分）相同或相似之处，另一方面确定差异。此外，调解这两个操作，我们还发现功能等价，这意味着两个不同的东西服务于同一目的。
Despite such complexity, comparative approaches are indispensable, as Teichler (1996: 449) has argued “if macro-societal phenomena of higher education are the topic of research”. In macro-societal studies, each society forms a single case, so in order to arrive at meaningful interpretations one or more other cases have to be looked at in order to be able “to explain why a certain phenomenon, activity, strategy or mechanism does not cause the same results in one country that it causes in another country” (ibid.).
尽管如此复杂，比较方法是必不可少的，因为Teichler（1996：449）认为，“如果高等教育的宏观社会现象是研究的主题”。在宏观社会研究中，每一个社会都是一个单一的案例，因此，为了作出有意义的解释，必须研究一个或多个其他案例，以便能够“解释为什么某种现象、活动、战略或机制在一个国家造成的结果与在另一个国家造成的结果不同”（同上）。
Although my focus today will be on international comparative higher education research, I want to emphasise that comparative higher education research does not necessarily have to be international. Comparisons can also be carried out between different regions or institutions in one country or between different groups of students or status groups of academic staff or disciplines. Finally it is also possible to compare developments over time or in different time periods. So comparison or comparative research is a wider field than just international comparison. However, there are specific challenges to international comparative research about which I want to talk today.
虽然我今天的重点是国际比较高等教育研究，但我想强调的是，比较高等教育研究不一定是国际性的。也可以在一个国家的不同地区或机构之间，或在不同的学生群体或学术人员或学科的地位群体之间进行比较。最后，还可以比较一段时间或不同时期的发展情况。因此，比较或比较研究是一个更广泛的领域，而不仅仅是国际比较。然而，国际比较研究面临着一些具体的挑战，我今天想谈谈这些挑战。
Methodological and Theoretical Issues
方法和理论问题
Despite a number of challenges (for example, costs, language barriers, limits of field knowledge and – in international collaborative teams – differences in work style), Teichler (1996, p. 431) has argued that comparative higher education research is especially fruitful for:
尽管面临许多挑战（例如，成本、语言障碍、领域知识的局限性，以及国际合作团队中工作方式的差异），但Teichler（1996年，第431页）认为，比较高等教育研究在以下方面特别富有成效：
Understanding a reality that is shaped by common international trends (e.g. internationalisation of higher education);
了解由共同的国际趋势（例如高等教育的国际化）形成的现实;
Understanding reforms and growing transnational activities (e.g. adaptation to market principles in the face of globalisation);
了解改革和日益增长的跨国活动（例如，在全球化的情况下适应市场原则）;
Understanding (partial) supra-national integration of higher education (e.g. the European Bologna reforms).
理解高等教育的（部分）超国家一体化（例如欧洲博洛尼亚改革）。
As has been emphasized by many experts, higher education as a field of study and research is too small to form a discipline. Instead, it is object-focussed (e.g. it is primarily defined by the object of its analysis and not theory driven from the outset) and has a strong link between research and practical problem-solving (e.g. for policy needs).
正如许多专家所强调的那样，高等教育作为一个学习和研究领域太小，无法形成一门学科。相反，它是以对象为重点的（例如，它主要是由其分析的对象来定义的，而不是从一开始就由理论驱动的），并且在研究和实际问题解决（例如，为政策需要）之间有很强的联系。
Teichler (1996, p. 441) has differentiated between four main fields of research in higher education studies:
Teichler（1996，第441页）区分了高等教育研究的四个主要领域：
Quantitative-structural aspects,
数量结构方面，
Knowledge and subject-related aspects,
知识和学科相关方面，
Person-related aspects (teaching and learning),
与人有关的方面（教学和学习），
Aspects of organisation, steering and governance.
组织、指导和治理方面。
I would add a fifth field today, namely digitalisation and artificial intelligence.
今天我想补充第五个领域，即数字化和人工智能。
Here are the four main methodological issues of comparative research on higher education as outlined by Teichler (1996, p. 449):
以下是Teichler（1996，第449页）概述的高等教育比较研究的四个主要方法论问题：
Comparative research on higher education has no different logic from higher education research within a country (e.g. identifying common elements and differences, test hypotheses on possible causal relationships);
高等教育比较研究的逻辑与一国之内的高等教育研究没有不同（例如，查明共同点和差异，检验关于可能的因果关系的假设）;
Comparative higher education research is indispensable for the study of macro-societal phenomena (e.g. to explain why a certain activity, strategy, or mechanism does not cause the same results in one country that it causes in another country):
比较高等教育研究对于研究宏观社会现象是必不可少的（例如，解释为什么某种活动、战略或机制在一个国家不会产生与在另一个国家相同的结果）：
Comparative higher education research is most successful if it starts from a semi-structured set of assumptions (e.g. concept-based but anticipating that the findings might destroy the concepts);
比较高等教育研究如果从一套半结构化的假设出发（例如，以概念为基础，但预计研究结果可能会破坏概念），则最成功;
The comparative approach tends to be challenged by internationalisation and the development of the ‘world systems theory’ (for example, by John W. Meyer from the Stanford School of Global Analysis) which implies that because of adaptation and imitation systems (including higher education systems) tend to become more and more similar. So we can observe a certain amount of standardisation but such supra-national integration is often accompanied by intra-national diversification (see the first issue).
比较的方法往往受到国际化和“世界体系理论”（例如，约翰W。Meyer从斯坦福大学全球分析学院）这意味着，由于适应和模仿系统（包括高等教育系统）往往变得越来越相似。因此，我们可以观察到一定程度的标准化，但这种超国家的一体化往往伴随着国家内部的多样化（见第一个问题）。
I would like to add a few more sentences to this last point. In an article which originally appeared in 2004 and was re-printed in a bood which was published in 2007 Teichler (2007, p. 70) discussed a possible conceptual framework for comparative higher education research. Please note here, that Teichler talks about a conceptual framework and not about a theory. Concepts and conceptual frameworks are the first building blocks for developing a theory. Teichler argued that we can observe certain similarities in debates about the necessity of reforms (and I assume that the same or very similar debates are going on in Chinese higher education as well). But these similarities do not necessarily lead to similar reforms because of policy differences among countries. To provide an example: In most countries all over the world internationalisation of higher education is an important issue and debate. Most governments want their higher education institutions to become more international. That is the similarity. However, there are major differences in what universities and university systems are actually doing to become more international. Some systems only want to attract foreign and full fee-paying students in order to also generate more money for their higher education institutions (for example, Australia, United Kingdom). And other systems (for example, Germany) are internationalisation their higher education institutions by emphasising exchange and even support their own students financially when they go abroad or support foreign students when they come to Germany for study. So how can we explain this connection between similarities and differences:
我想对最后一点再补充几句。在一篇最初发表于2004年并在2007年出版的一本书中重印的文章中，Teichler（2007，第70页）讨论了比较高等教育研究的可能概念框架。请注意，泰希勒谈论的是一个概念框架，而不是一个理论。概念和概念框架是发展理论的第一块基石。泰希勒认为，我们可以在关于改革必要性的辩论中观察到某些相似之处（我认为中国高等教育也在进行同样或非常相似的辩论）。但这些相似之处并不一定会导致类似的改革，因为各国的政策不同。 举个例子：在世界上大多数国家，高等教育的国际化是一个重要的问题和争论。大多数政府希望其高等教育机构变得更加国际化。这就是相似之处。然而，在大学和大学系统实际上正在做什么以变得更加国际化方面存在重大差异。一些系统只想吸引外国和全额付费的学生，以便为他们的高等教育机构创造更多的资金（例如，澳大利亚，联合王国）。而其他体系（例如德国）则通过强调交流来实现高等教育机构的国际化，甚至在本国学生出国时提供经济支持，或在外国学生来德国学习时提供支持。 那么，我们如何解释这种相似性和差异性之间的联系呢：
All countries involved in the debate will strive to keep some elements of their specific traditions (idiosyncratic paradigm);
参与辩论的所有国家都将努力保留其特定传统的某些要素（特殊范式）;
All countries involved in the debate will seek for the most advanced solution for the challenge (modernisation paradigm);
所有参与辩论的国家都将寻求最先进的挑战解决方案（现代化范式）;
Each country involved in the debate will opt for a different degree of equality and inequality, social cohesion or survival of the fittest, market competition or solidarity (political paradigm).
参与辩论的每个国家将选择不同程度的平等和不平等、社会凝聚力或适者生存、市场竞争或团结（政治范式）。
And whenever you do an international comparison it will be your task to find out these similarities and differences.
每当你做国际比较时，你的任务就是找出这些相似之处和不同之处。
Kosmuetzky (2016: 203) has argued rightly that comparative studies “do not have a single method of comparison or unique set of comparative methods” instead “what makes comparative studies special and specifically complicated is the analytical logic and intellectual operation at their core”. International comparative research therefore needs more careful planning and an additional layer of methodological reflection.
Kosmuetzky（2016：203）正确地指出，比较研究“没有单一的比较方法或独特的一套比较方法”，而是“使比较研究特别且特别复杂的是其核心的分析逻辑和智力运作”。因此，国际比较研究需要更仔细的规划和更多的方法思考。
In international comparative higher education research one of the first steps to be undertaken to establish an acceptable research logic is the justification strategy for the selection of units to be compared. In the research literature there are three widely accepted strategies for this: (a) a most-similar-cases design which compares cases that are similar in some decisive characteristics or variables; (b) a most-different-cases design which compares cases that are different in some decisive characteristics or variables and (c) a classification-of-cases design which selects cases representing a specific type of cases (Kosmuetzky 2016: 204). Sampling by chance or sampling without elaboration of the case selection is methodologically not adequate or good enough and often produces a selection bias which then impacts on the quality of the research.
在国际比较高等教育研究中，确立一种可接受的研究逻辑的首要步骤之一是选择比较单位的论证策略。在研究文献中，有三种被广泛接受的策略：（a）最相似病例设计，比较在某些决定性特征或变量方面相似的病例;（B）最不同病例设计，比较在某些决定性特征或变量方面不同的病例;（c）病例分类设计，选择代表特定类型病例的病例（Kosmuetzky2016：204）。 随机抽样或不详细说明病例选择的抽样在方法上是不够充分或不够好的，往往会产生选择偏差，从而影响研究的质量。
A second step would be the choice of method for data analysis which is divided into quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method. Typically comparisons with a high number of n are quantitative, comparisons with a low number of n are mostly qualitative and a mixed-method design combines a quantitative approach, for example a survey, with a qualitative approach, for example interviews, with representatives of selected sub-groups of the sample to achieve a richer and thicker basis for interpretation. The typical quality standards for quantitative approaches are validity, reliability and plausibility. Typical quality standards for qualitative approaches are neutrality, intersubjective comprehensibility and procedural and intercoder reliability.
第二步是数据分析方法的选择，分为定量、定性和混合方法。通常情况下，与高n数的比较是定量的，与低n数的比较主要是定性的，混合方法设计将定量方法（例如调查）与定性方法（例如访谈）结合起来，与选定的样本子群体的代表进行比较，以获得更丰富和更厚的解释基础。定量方法的典型质量标准是有效性、可靠性和可解释性。定性方法的典型质量标准是中立性，主体间可理解性和程序和编码器间可靠性。
Finally there is the size of the sample to be taken into account. In international comparisons, for example, a small sample would be constituted by two or three countries, a medium-sized sample by four to seven countries and a large sample by more than eight countries.
最后，还要考虑样本的大小。例如，在国际比较中，小样本由两三个国家组成，中等样本由四至七个国家组成，大样本由八个以上国家组成。
In principle, comparative research needs to be open to differences and similarities of systemic and organisational contexts, thus emphasising cultural and historical specificities. However, as Shahjahan and Kezar (2013) have argued, the dominance of the nation state is no longer a meaningful focus because national processes and structures interact with supra-national and transnational ones. Thus, international comparison has to develop flexible and adaptable concepts that are able to travel between systems (Kosmuetzky, Nokkala 2014: 4). Marginson and Rhoades (2002) have argued that higher education institutions and systems are locally, nationally and internationally bound at the same time and have come up with the concept of “glonacal” (global, national, local) as a key dimension for international comparative higher education research.
原则上，比较研究需要对系统和组织背景的差异和相似性持开放态度，从而强调文化和历史的特殊性。然而，正如Shahjahan和Kezar（2013）所指出的那样，民族国家的主导地位不再是一个有意义的焦点，因为国家进程和结构与超国家和跨国进程和结构相互作用。因此，国际比较必须发展出能够在不同系统之间流动的灵活和适应性强的概念（Kosmuetzky，Nokkala2014：4）。Marginson和Rhoades（2002）认为，高等教育机构和系统同时具有地方、国家和国际约束力，并提出了“全球“（全球、国家、地方）的概念，作为国际比较高等教育研究的一个关键维度。
Cooperation and Communication Issues
合作与沟通问题
But international comparative higher education research has also some very practical issues to solve. Especially when working in international teams, two main problems arise. First there is the role of individuals and research teams in constructing the knowledge (Teichler 1996), i.e. team capacities and team dynamics (including mixed levels of expertise). Problems in team capacities (e.g. various levels of expertise) and team dynamics can sometimes be due to an inadequate selection of participating countries. But secondly, it can also lead to serious communication problems. I will get back to this issue a bit later. The composition of international teams is often dependent on which national team can manage to find the funding for a particular research project so the choice is not always in the hands of the principal investigator. So the final composition of an international team might not be what was originally intended. Countries considered to be important for the comparison intended might not be represented in the team because of lack of funds, some members of the team might have limited language proficiency (typically English is the working language in such teams), or some team members might have unpleasant previous experiences of cooperating with each other which makes collaboration more difficult. All these issues have in fact happened to me in various degrees and they have shaped the research process.
但国际比较高等教育研究也存在一些非常现实的问题需要解决。特别是在国际团队中工作时，会出现两个主要问题。首先是个人和研究团队在构建知识方面的作用（Teichler1996），即团队能力和团队动力（包括专业知识的混合水平）。团队能力（例如，不同水平的专门知识）和团队活力方面的问题有时可能是由于参与国选择不当造成的。但其次，它也可能导致严重的沟通问题。我稍后会再讨论这个问题。 国际团队的组成通常取决于哪个国家团队能够设法为特定的研究项目找到资金，因此选择并不总是掌握在首席研究员手中。因此，国际团队的最终组成可能不是最初的意图。被认为对拟进行的比较很重要的国家可能由于缺乏资金而没有代表参加小组，小组中的一些成员可能语言熟练程度有限（通常英语是这类小组的工作语言），或者小组中的一些成员可能有过不愉快的合作经历，这使得合作更加困难。所有这些问题实际上都在不同程度上发生在我身上，它们塑造了研究过程。
Another issue affecting cooperation and communication is if some members of the team do not follow the common guidelines or framework for analysis closely and design their own approach. This affects their contribution to the synthesis report and can make their work useless for the joint project. To provide you with an example: Some years ago I was involved in an international comparative project formed out of eight national teams. We had agreed on carrying out a survey among academic staff in each of the countries and clearly defined which staff categories were to be involved (from senior level to mid-level to junior staff) in the survey. Unfortunately and without telling the project leader, the Romanian team administered the questionnaire to junior staff only because that group was of main interest to the Romanian team. So for the overall synthesis report which tried to answer the question how satisfied different groups of academic staff were with their jobs we had to throw out the Romanian data completely because due to only asking one specific group of academic staff there also was no comparison possible between different groups of staff.
另一个影响合作和沟通的问题是，如果团队中的一些成员没有严格遵循共同的分析准则或框架，而是设计自己的方法。这影响了他们对综合报告的贡献，并可能使他们的工作对联合项目毫无用处。给您提供一个例子：几年前，我参与了一个由八个国家队组成的国际比较项目。我们同意在每个国家的教学人员中进行一次调查，并明确规定了哪些工作人员类别（从高级到中级到初级工作人员）将参与调查。不幸的是，罗马尼亚小组在没有告诉项目负责人的情况下，只向初级工作人员发放了调查表，因为这一群体是罗马尼亚小组的主要兴趣所在。 因此，对于试图回答不同学术人员群体对工作满意度的问题的综合报告，我们不得不完全抛弃罗马尼亚的数据，因为由于只询问了一个特定的学术人员群体，也无法在不同的工作人员群体之间进行比较。
But communication problems also arise due to different national or disciplinary cultures and value systems. As the working language in international teams is English the meaning of concepts must be clarified among all teams involved. Concepts tend to be value-laden and might have different meaning not only in different countries but also in different disciplines. I was once involved in a large team of mostly German researchers trying to analyse the governance of research. The team was composed of researchers from various disciplines and our colleague from the field of law was having trouble to understand the meaning of ‘governance’ because such a concept did not exist in his field. Things become even more complicated if a master questionnaire formulated in English is being translated back into a different language in order to make it easier for the local respondents to answer the questionnaire. In this process a lot of meaning can get lost or distorted and may result in serious bias. However, even if an English language questionnaire is administered in a country in which English is a foreign language it is not always guaranteed that respondents will perfectly understand what some questions are about.
但是，由于不同的国家或学科文化和价值体系，也会出现沟通问题。由于国际团队的工作语言是英语，因此必须在所有相关团队中澄清概念的含义。概念往往承载着价值，不仅在不同的国家，而且在不同的学科中可能有不同的含义。我曾经参加过一个主要由德国研究人员组成的大型团队，试图分析研究的治理。该团队由来自不同学科的研究人员组成，我们的法律领域同事很难理解治理的含义，因为在他的领域中不存在这样的概念。 如果为了使当地答复者更容易回答问题单而将以英文编制的主问题单翻译成另一种语文，事情就变得更加复杂。在这个过程中，许多意义可能会丢失或扭曲，并可能导致严重的偏见。然而，即使在英语为外语的国家进行英语问卷调查，也不能保证受访者总是完全理解某些问题的内容。
Knowledge Issues
知识问题
Concerning knowledge issues in international comparative higher education research it is helpful to remember that higher education research is not a discipline (like law or mechanical engineering or history) but an object and problem related interdisciplinary field of study and research. That is why you will hardly find any higher education study programmes at the Bachelor level. A study specialisation in the field of higher education starts typically at the Master level. Thus, the “home” disciplines of researchers in the field of higher education vary to a considerable extent. They can reach from engineering to a broad range of humanities and social sciences. I also know one higher education researcher whose original discipline was physics, a hard natural science.
关于国际比较高等教育研究中的知识问题，记住高等教育研究不是一门学科（如法律、机械工程或历史），而是一个与对象和问题相关的跨学科学习和研究领域是有帮助的。这就是为什么你几乎找不到任何本科层次的高等教育学习课程。高等教育领域的研究专业化通常从硕士水平开始。因此，高等教育领域研究人员的“家乡“学科在很大程度上各不相同。他们可以从工程到广泛的人文和社会科学。我还认识一位高等教育研究人员，他最初的学科是物理学，一门硬自然科学。
Therefore it can happen quite easily that in international comparative higher education research some researchers might have insufficient field knowledge. This can be due for two reasons. The first reason is that somebody relatively new to the field of higher education research might not be sufficiently familiar with the current research issues of the field, the ways how these issues are formulated and addressed in form of research questions and the related vocabulary and concepts that have accumulated over the years. This is often the case not just among newcomers to the field but also among what Teichler has called “the occasional higher education researchers” (Teichler 1996:443f.). These are scholars who are rooted in their discipline, for example in economics, and occasionally tackle a research question from the field of higher education. The second reason which is more closely related to international comparative higher education research is that no single researcher has extended and in-depth knowledge of more than one or two higher education systems. Therefore it is a common strategy to form international project teams in international comparative higher education research to broaden available expertise.
因此，在国际比较高等教育研究中，很容易出现研究者领域知识不足的现象。这可能是由于两个原因。第一个原因是，一些相对较新的高等教育研究领域的人可能不太熟悉该领域目前的研究问题，这些问题是如何制定和解决的研究问题的形式和相关的词汇和概念，多年来积累。这种情况不仅在该领域的新来者中经常发生，而且在泰希勒所说的“偶尔的高等教育研究人员“中也经常发生（泰希勒1996：443 f）。. 这些学者扎根于他们的学科，例如经济学，偶尔会解决高等教育领域的研究问题。第二个原因与国际比较高等教育研究的关系更为密切，因为没有一个研究者对一个或两个以上的高等教育体系有深入的了解。因此，在国际比较高等教育研究中，组建国际项目小组以扩大现有的专业知识是一种常见的战略。
Recounting some of his own experiences collaborating in international research teams, Teichler (1996: 461) comes to the conclusion that there is no single recipe for an optimal configuration of international research teams to carry out comparative higher education research. According to him a more centralised project is better in ensuring coherent data collection, a consistent interpretation of data and better efficiency of the process. On the other hand, a more decentralised project often comes up with results that are more complex and conceptually richer than more centralised projects. International teams are valuable to have in terms of broader scope of information but are vulnerable in terms of working on schedule, joint methodology and consensus in the interpretation of findings.
叙述他自己的一些经验，在国际研究团队合作，Teichler（1996年：461）得出的结论是，没有一个单一的配方，国际研究团队进行比较高等教育研究的最佳配置。据他说，一个更集中的项目更好地确保连贯的数据收集，一致的数据解释和更好的过程效率。另一方面，一个更加分散的项目通常会带来比更加集中的项目更复杂和概念更丰富的结果。国际小组在提供更广泛的信息方面是有价值的，但在按时间表工作、采用联合方法和在解释调查结果方面达成共识方面则是脆弱的。
Conclusions
结论
I would like to start my conclusions with a more extended quote from Kosmuetzky’s 2016 article: “International comparative higher education research is a small and specialised area within the field of higher education which is embedded in a broader family of comparative, international, and transnational and global studies. (…) Its research results enable us to see intriguing differences and similarities among higher education systems throughout the world, and to reflect upon our own system through the lens of other systems. But it is also special because of its particularly complicated research design and comparative methodology … which affords more careful planning and additional methodological considerations” (Kosmuetzky 2016: 216).
我想从Kosmuetzky 2016年的文章开始我的结论：“国际比较高等教育研究是高等教育领域内的一个小而专业的领域，它嵌入了比较，国际，跨国和全球研究的更广泛的家庭。（.）其研究结果使我们能够看到世界各地高等教育制度之间有趣的差异和相似之处，并通过其他制度的透镜来反思我们自己的制度。但它也很特别，因为它特别复杂的研究设计和比较方法.这提供了更仔细的规划和额外的方法论考虑“（Kosmuetzky2016：216）。
Teichler (1996: 462) argued that comparative research on higher education is not necessarily grounded on a specific theoretical basis. Rather the majority of such projects are exploratory, often providing unexpected insights from which new concepts can be developed or which can be used as starting points for the development of new concepts. Despite the many practical problems some of which I have introduced today, comparative research can be a “gold mine for early stages of conceptual restructuring” (ibid. 463).
Teichler（1996：462）认为，高等教育的比较研究不一定要建立在特定的理论基础上。相反，大多数这类项目是探索性的，往往提供意想不到的见解，从中可以发展新的概念，或可以作为发展新概念的起点。尽管存在许多实际问题（我今天已经介绍了其中的一些问题），但比较研究可以成为“概念重组早期阶段的金矿“（同上，463）。
This does not mean to forget about precision and rigour as Kosmuetzky has shown in her article but she also agrees to base international comparative higher education research on flexible concepts that might travel better between different national and institutional settings. In other words, such concepts characterise the exploratory openness needed to produce new insights and question established notions and approaches.
这并不意味着要忘记精确性和严谨性，正如Kosmuetzky在她的文章中所展示的那样，但她也同意将国际比较高等教育研究建立在灵活的概念上，这些概念可能会在不同的国家和机构环境之间更好地传播。换句话说，这些概念具有产生新见解和质疑既定概念和方法所需的探索性开放性。
Thank you for your attention.
感谢您的关注。
Literature
文学
Altbach, P. G. (1988). Comparative Studies in Higher Education. In: Postlethwaite, T. N. (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 66-68.
Altbach，P. G.（1988年）。高等教育比较研究。在：Postlethwaite，T. N.（编）。比较教育和国家教育体系百科全书。Oxford：PergamonPress，pp. 66-68.
Dierkes, M., Weiler, H. N., Berthoin, A. (Eds.) (1987). Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience. Aldershot: Gower.
Dierkes，M.，Weiler，H. N.，Berthoin，A.（编辑）（1987年）。比较政策研究：从经验中学习。阿尔德肖特：高尔。
Goedegebuure, L., van Vught, F. (Eds.) (1994). Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education. Utrecht: Lemma.
Goedegebuure湖，货车Vught，F.（编辑）（1994年）。高等教育比较政策研究。Utrecht：Lemma.
Kehm, B.M., Shin, J.C., Jones, G.A. (2018). Conclusion: Doctoral Education and Training – A Global Convergence? In: Shin, J.C., Kehm, B.M., Jones, G.A. (Eds). Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society. Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches. Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 237-255.
Kehm，B.M.，Shin，J.C.，琼斯，G.A.（2018年）。结论：博士教育和培训-全球趋同？In：Shin，J.C.，Kehm，B.M.，琼斯，G.A.（编辑）。知识社会的博士教育。各国做法的趋同或分歧。Cham：Springer Nature，pp. 237-255
Kosmuetzky, A. (2016). The Precision and Rigor of International Comparative Studies in Higher Education. In: Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Vol. 2, pp. 199-221.
Kosmuetzky，A.（2016年）。高等教育国际比较研究的精确性和严谨性。《高等教育研究的理论与方法》，第2卷，页。199-221.
Kosmuetzky, A., Nokkala, T. (2013). Challenges and Trends in Comparative Higher Education: An Editorial. In: Higher Education, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 369-380.
Kosmuetzky，A.，Nokkala，T.（2013年）。比较高等教育的挑战和趋势：编辑。见：《高等教育》，第67卷，第4期，第100页。369-380.
Marginson, S., Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond National States, Markets, and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic. In: Higher Education, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 281-309.
Marginson，S.，Rhoades，G.（2002年）的报告。超越民族国家，市场和高等教育体系：全球机构启发式。见：《高等教育》，第43卷，第3期，第100页。281-309.
Meek, V. L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O., Rinne, R. (Eds.) (1996). The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
米克，V.L.，Goedegebuure湖，基维宁，俄亥俄州，林内河（编辑）（1996年）。嘲笑者与被嘲笑者：高等教育差异化、趋同化与多样性的比较视角。北京：清华大学出版社.
Sahjahan, R. A., Kezar, A. J. (2013). Beyond the ‘National Container’: Addressing Methodological Nationalism in Higher Education Research. In: Educational Researcher, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 20-29.
萨贾汉河一、Kezar，A. J.（2013年）。超越国家容器：解决高等教育研究中的方法论民族主义。见：《教育研究》，第42卷，第1期，第111页。20-29.
Teichler, U. (1996). Comparative Higher Education: Potentials and Limits. In: Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 431-465.
泰希勒，美国（1996年）。比较高等教育：潜力与局限。见：《高等教育》，第32卷，第4期，第32页。431-465.
Teichler, U. (2007/2004). Higher Education Reforms in Comparative Perspective: Diverse Responses to Similar Challenges. In: Teichler, U. (2007). Higher Education Systems. Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 69-84.
泰希勒，美国(2007/2004）。比较视野下的高等教育改革：对类似挑战的不同回应。In：Teichler，U.（2007年）。高等教育系统。概念框架，比较视角，实证研究结果。鹿特丹：Sense，pp. 69-84.