Comparative and international education: policy transfer, context sensitivity and professional development

This paper examines the intellectual and professional contribution of comparative and international studies to the field of education. It explores the nature of the challenges that are currently being faced, and assesses its potential for the advancement of future teaching, research and professional development. Attention is paid to the place of comparative and international education (CIE)-past and present-in teacher education, in postgraduate studies, and in the realms of policy and practice, theory and research. Consideration is first given to the nature and history of CIE, to its initial contributions to the field of education in the UK, and to its chief mechanisms and sites of production. Influential methodological and theoretical developments are examined, followed by an exploration of emergent questions, controversies and dilemmas that could benefit from sustained comparative analysis in the future. Conclusions consider implications for the place of CIE in the future of educational studies as a whole; for relations between and beyond the 'disciplines of education'; and for the development of sustainable research capacity in this field.

A framework for assessing continuing professional development activities for satisfying pharmacy revalidation requirements

The United Kingdom’s pharmacy regulator contemplated using continuing professional development (CPD) in pharmacy revalidation in 2009, simultaneously asking pharmacy professionals to demonstrate the value of their CPD by showing its relevance and impact. The idea of linking new CPD requirements with revalidation was yet to be explored. Our aim was to develop and validate a framework to guide pharmacy professionals to select CPD activities that are relevant to their work and to produce a score sheet that would make it possible to quantify the impact and relevance of CPD. METHODS: We adapted an existing risk matrix, producing a CPD framework consisting of relevance and impact matrices. Concepts underpinning the framework were refined through feedback from five pharmacist teacher-practitioners. We then asked seven pharmacists to rate the relevance of the framework’s individual elements on a 4-point scale to determine content validity. We explored views about the framework through focus groups with six and interviews with 17 participants who had used it formally in a study. RESULTS: The framework’s content validity index was 0.91. Feedback about the framework related to three themes of penetrability of the framework, usefulness to completion of CPD, and advancement of CPD records for the purpose of revalidation. DISCUSSION: The framework can help professionals better select CPD activities prospectively, and makes assessment of CPD more objective by allowing quantification, which could be helpful for revalidation. We believe the framework could potentially help other health professionals with better management of their CPD irrespective of their field of practice.