One of the Slovenian faculties approached the “penetration” of the international markets with “optimism and in a systematic way,” meaning that a survey was conducted in the Balkan region in order to establish the “needs” of the region, subsequently to promote one of the programs that the Faculty offers and to attract foreign students to enroll in the program. The survey failed. The question of the failed survey was later raised again, basically with the purpose of putting “pieces” from the “ruins” of the survey together as a bricolage — a research discourse that significantly disrupts and disturbs the disciplinarity in and of sciences. In this paper we raise issues about cultural diversity, policy borrowing, and translation issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamF., and PodmenikD. (2005). Qualitative research in a changing epistemic context: The case of a small social science academic community, Forum: Qualitative Social Research6(3) http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs, accessed February 2007.
2.
AldrigeA. (2005). The market (Cambridge: Polity Press).
3.
AppleW. M. (2004a). Schooling, markets, and an audit culture, Educational Policy, 18(4), 614–621.
4.
AppleM. W. (2004b). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform, Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44.
BallS. (2004). Education for sale! The commodification of everything?, King's Annual Education Lecture 2004, University of London, Institute of Education.
7.
BeckmannA., and CooperC. (2004). “Globalization,” the new managerialism and education: Rethinking the purpose of education in Britain, The Journal for Critical Educational Policy Studies, 2(2) http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=31.
8.
BoucherG., ConwayC., and Van Der MeerE. (2003). Tiers of engagement by universities and their region's development, Regional Studies37(9), 887–897.
9.
ChubbJ.E., and MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools (Washington: The Brookings Institution).
10.
ClarkC. (2005). The structure of educational research, British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 289–308.
11.
DerridaJ. (2001). What is a relevant translation?Critical Inquiry27(2), 174–200.
GoldsmithR. E. (2004). Current and future trends in marketing and their implications for the discipline, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice12(4), 10–16.
14.
HalpinD., and TroynaB. (1995). The politics of education: Policy borrowing, Comparative Education, 31(3), 303–310.
15.
HammersleyM. (2000). The politics of social research (London: Sage Publications).
16.
Hemsley-BrownJ., and OplatkaI. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic of the literature on higher education marketing, International Journal of public sector management19(4), 316–338.
17.
HodkinsonP. (2004). Research as form of work: expertise, community and methodological objectivity, British Educational Research Journal30(1), 9–26.
18.
KincheloeJ. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research, Qualitative inquiry7(6), 679–692.
19.
KincheloeJ. L., and BerryK. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualising the bricolage (Maidenhead: Open University Press).
20.
KocbekA. (2006). Language and culture in international legal communication, Managing Global Transitions: International Research Journal4(3), 231–247.
21.
KotlerP., and ArmstrongG. (1991). Principles of marketing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
22.
KuzmanicT. A., and SedmakS. (2006). Globalization, transition and the discourse of management, Managing Global Transitions: International Research Journal4(2), 101–115.
23.
LubienskiC. (2006). School choice and privatization in education: An alternative analytical framework, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies4(1), 1–26. www.jceps.com
24.
LyotardJ-L. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
25.
MargisonS. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education, Higher Education52(1), 1–39.
26.
MillerT. (2003). Governmentality or commodification? US Higher Education, Cultural Studies, 17(6), 897–904.
27.
NovoaA., and Yariv-MashalT. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey, Comparative Education39(4), 423–438.
28.
OplatkaI. (2004). The characteristics of the school organization and the constraints on market ideology in education: an institutional view, Journal of Education Policy19(2), 143–161.
29.
PolsaP. (2007). Comparability in cross-cultural qualitative marketing research: Equivalence in personal interviews, Academy of Marketing Science Review, no. 8, http://www.amsreview.org/articles/polsa08-2007/pdf
SeppanenP. (2003). Patterns of “public-school markets” in the Finnish comprehensive school from a comparative perspective, Journal of Education Policy18(5): 513–531.
32.
SomersM. R., and BlockF. (2005). From poverty to perversity: Ideas, markets, and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate, American Sociological Review, 70(April), 260–287.
33.
Steiner KhamsiG. (2006). Economics of policy borrowing and landing: A study of late adopters, Oxford Review of Education32(5), 665–678.
TeichlerU. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education, Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26.
36.
ThomasG. (1998). The myth of rational research, British Educational Research Journal (24)2, 141–161.
37.
Wil-HartzigA. (2005). Does the use of English-language questionnaires in cross-national research obscure national differences?Cross Cultural Management5(2), 213–224.
38.
ZizekS. (2006). The parallax view.Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
