Barbara Schulte
Against the background of my specialization in Comparative and International Education (Dr. phil. in Comparative Education in 2007, Humboldt University of Berlin), I have been working on the diffusion and adoption of educational concepts, ideologies, technologies, models, and reforms across societies, with particular focus on how various actors navigate processes of cultural translation, appropriation, and hybridization, as well as on the multiple tensions and contradictions that arise from these processes.
I have been specifically interested in questions such as: how are families, schools, universities, and academic fields affected by processes of globalization and indigenization? How do different groups within a society – elite, middle class, marginalized groups – deal with these challenges and changes? In which ways, and for which reasons, do processes of educational borrowing and lending take place between different countries? How does the different positioning in the hierarchies of the world system give rise to different challenges and pressures for educational actors at the national and regional levels? My regional research focus is on East Asia and specifically China, and about once a year I conduct fieldwork in China.
My research areas at the moment include:
* Education as national and global instrument of governance – including: deregulation, privatization, and marketization of education; PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) as policy tool
* Education in developing contexts – in particular, South-South cooperation and China’s engagement in Africa
* Education, innovation and new technologies – including the use of ICT4E (information and communication technologies for education) in impoverished/disadvantaged areas
* Education, migration and ethnic minorities, with regional focus on Southwest China
I have been specifically interested in questions such as: how are families, schools, universities, and academic fields affected by processes of globalization and indigenization? How do different groups within a society – elite, middle class, marginalized groups – deal with these challenges and changes? In which ways, and for which reasons, do processes of educational borrowing and lending take place between different countries? How does the different positioning in the hierarchies of the world system give rise to different challenges and pressures for educational actors at the national and regional levels? My regional research focus is on East Asia and specifically China, and about once a year I conduct fieldwork in China.
My research areas at the moment include:
* Education as national and global instrument of governance – including: deregulation, privatization, and marketization of education; PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) as policy tool
* Education in developing contexts – in particular, South-South cooperation and China’s engagement in Africa
* Education, innovation and new technologies – including the use of ICT4E (information and communication technologies for education) in impoverished/disadvantaged areas
* Education, migration and ethnic minorities, with regional focus on Southwest China
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Barbara Schulte
In order to showcase the politics of use, the article uses the case of education for creativity as it is designed for and practiced at Chinese schools. The case reveals how education for creativity is compromised by requirements emanating from larger political programs when implemented in Chinese classrooms. The article challenges the view that educational policy necessarily moves through a trickle-down process, from higher to medium to lower-level actors. In cases of strong ideological alignment between street-level actors and central state actors, educational policy may in fact sidestep and hence neutralize important institutional actors.
In order to showcase the politics of use, the article uses the case of education for creativity as it is designed for and practiced at Chinese schools. The case reveals how education for creativity is compromised by requirements emanating from larger political programs when implemented in Chinese classrooms. The article challenges the view that educational policy necessarily moves through a trickle-down process, from higher to medium to lower-level actors. In cases of strong ideological alignment between street-level actors and central state actors, educational policy may in fact sidestep and hence neutralize important institutional actors.