Part of the Educational Governance Research book series (EGTU, volume 11)


The purpose of this chapter is to make explicit the methodological choices at the origin of our research project. The first section comes back to its academic origins. The second describes the design of the comparison. The latter was more oriented to cases rather than variables according to Ragin’s distinction. Our overall research strategy was based on the disconfirmation of a most likely case. We chose a policy—accountability policy—which can be seen as a typical example of education policy promoted by transnational organizations to show that, even in this most likely case, governing changes at work are not unilateral but fundamentally multilevel and depend on the policy trajectory of each system, on a series of mediation processes occurring at various levels, and on the different logics of instrumentation at stake. If these aspects are empirically proven, then it can be argued that it is also true in least likely cases. The third section details the various analytical conventions to be defined throughout the research process (terminology, selection of cases, modes of collaboration within the project). The last two sections deal with the data and material collected through qualitative methods (mainly interviews, observations, and content analyses of documents) and how they were analyzed.


Case-oriented comparison Most different system design Most likely case Qualitative analysis 


  1. Bezes, P. (2009). Réinventer l’État. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dufour, C. (2012). L’institutionnalisation du management public au Québec (Collection Enseignement supérieur). Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  5. Fouilleux, È. (2000). Entre production et institutionnalisation des idées. La réforme de la Politique agricole commune. Revue française de science politique, 50(2), 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerring, J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giraud, O. (2003). Le comparatisme contemporain en science politique: entrée en dialogue des écoles et renouvellement des questions. In M. Lallement & J. Spurk (Eds.), Stratégies de la comparaison internationale (pp. 87–106). Paris: Paris Éditions du CNRS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47(4), 489–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maroy, C. (2015). Comparing accountability tools and rationales. Various ways, various effects. In H.-G. Kotthof & E. Klerides (Eds.), Governing educational spaces. Knowledge, teaching and learning in transition (pp. 35–58). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maroy, C., Pons, X., & Dupuy, C. (2017). Vernacular globalisations: Neo-statist accountability policies in France and Quebec education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 100–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maroy, C., & Voisin, A. (2014). Une typologie des politiques d’accountability en éducation: l’incidence de l’instrumentation et des théories de la régulation. Education comparée, 11, 31–58.Google Scholar
  13. Radaelli, C. (2000). Logiques de pouvoir et récits dans les politiques publiques de l’Union européenne. Revue française de Sciences politiques, 50(2), 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rocher, G. (2004). Un bilan du Rapport Parent: vers la démocratisation. Bulletin d’Histoire politique, 12(2), 117–128.Google Scholar
  16. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Eastern-Paris CreteilParisFrance
  2. 2.University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations