Case selection

After outlining the case and describing the comparative case study approach, this section explains how the cases and sub-cases were selected. To do so, both similarities and differences that make comparison meaningful are considered. According to Manzon (2007, p. 88), it is essential “to identify the extent and the reasons for commonalities and differences between the units of comparison, examining the causes at work and the relationships between those causes”.

Access and feasibility also shape case selection (Stake, 2006). To analyse comparative cases, Stake (2006) proposed looking for “correspondence”, which reveals “some of the

‘interactivity’ of the case – that is, some ways in which the activity of the case interacts with its contexts” (p. 28).

At the outset, it should be mentioned that, as part of EDiTE, this research project considered the cases of teacher education systems in Austria and in Hungary, as well as the subcases of UIBK and ELTE as relevant on the grounds of access and feasibility. Being an early stage researcher with EDiTE, I was contracted to work for three years at UIBK and was also required to undertake a secondment period of one academic semester in a partner university of the EDiTE network, which I chose to be ELTE. Having the resources available to conduct research in both of these countries and institutions was an important reason for focusing my research on the specific cases. In addition, my own language competences played an important role in selecting to study Austria and Greece, because I can speak German and Greek. The case of Greece was also partially selected for reasons of access and feasibility, since I conducted my undergraduate studies in primary school teacher education at AUTH and already had contacts with several key policy and teacher education experts working at the university.

Nevertheless, using the notions of positive and negative case selection (Flick, 2009), my case selection was not merely random, but was also information-oriented. Information about the cases was collected according to the three case selection criteria proposed by Stake

47 (2006, p. 26), which are (a) is the case relevant to the topic of study?, (b) do the cases provide diversity across contexts? and (c) do the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts?

With regard to relevance, all three countries in this study are members of the EU and are thus receptive to influences of Europeanisation in the field of teacher policy and teacher education. Greece joined the EU in 1981, few years after a period of dictatorship, and aiming to sustain its newly established democracy with the support of Europe’s democratic and financial institutions (Ioakimidis, 2000). Austria joined in 1995, as one of the rich industrial states that would contribute significantly to the EU budget and benefit from the European Economic Area and the enlargement of the EU towards the east (Szabo & Reber, 2008).

Hungary joined with the 2004 enlargement that focused on the accession of post-socialist countries, after actively pursuing integration in the EU, including a constitutional amendment allowing accession (Batory, 2010). From the perspective of core vs. periphery, the three countries also share in common that they represent peripheral states, rather than core EU countries, which means that their ability to influence political decisions at EU level is weaker compared to Germany, France, the UK and Italy. This is particularly relevant for Greece and Hungary, as countries lying to the South and East of the EU respectively, which are financially dependent on the core. Given their relative economic weakness, the impact of the EU seems to be more prominent and distinctive in peripheral states than for those of the EU core (Featherstone, 1998).

Narrowing down the relevance of the three countries to the study of teacher education systems, Austria, Greece and Hungary are all members of the European Higher Education Area and have actively initiated teacher education reforms since the year 2000. Specifically, Austria amended the higher education law in 2005 to upgrade the role of teacher training colleges, and launched the reform “Teacher Education New” in 2009 to promote a competence based teacher education programme that aims to improve the professionalisation and attractiveness of the teaching profession (BMBWF, 2018a). Greece has struggled to reform teacher education, mainly in terms of introducing a pedagogical component in the initial preparation of secondary school teachers, by establishing the “Certificate for Pedagogical and Teaching Competence”

first with Law 2525 in 1997, which was never actually implemented, and was thus reintroduced with Law 3848 in 2010. Hungary reformed teacher education in 2006, introducing the Bologna system in higher education, which was later on revoked with the 2012 amendment of the higher education law, and also established a new career model for teachers with Government Decree 326/2013. These reforms represent the institutional platforms shaping teacher education in the respective countries and thus receive particular attention in the analysis of the case studies.

The three countries are also suitable examples when it comes to Stake’s (2006) second criterion, namely diversity across contexts. Each country represents a different European paradigm in terms of cultural and administrative traditions, and is part of different regional groups within the EU. Adopting the clustering of administrative traditions in Europe suggested by Gunter et al. (2016, pp. 15-16), it could be argued that Austria is a representative example of “social-democratic” traditions with a strong state-welfare orientation and a strong sense of centrality and continuity of the state. Greece is closer to the “Napoleonic” state tradition in which the state is viewed as the central integrating force within society and a clear separation between the public and the private spheres is assumed. Hungary represents the group of post-communist countries which share a common heritage of the post-communist period, although the mode of transition to capitalist democracy varies significantly among them, with Hungary being a representative case of a “paced transition” (ibid., p. 16).

Geographically, it could be argued that Austria is representative of Central-West Europe, Greece of South-East Europe, and Hungary of Central-East Europe. Considering the

48 regional level, Austria belongs to the Alpine and German-speaking group of countries, Greece is part of the EU Mediterranean group, and Hungary participates in the Visegrád Four group.

Such clustering can be a meaningful analytical strategy to understand the specificities in each country’s national traditions which are seen as “living systems of thought and practice”

(Ongaro, as cited in Guter et al., 2016, p. 16). In this sense, clustering does not imply “some kind of unchanging bedrock” (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011, p. 48), but rather hints towards some common traits concerning public administration.

Diversity across contexts is also relevant when considering the different political cultures of the three countries which largely influence education (Louis & van Velzen, 2012).

All three countries have experienced different political transitions, but we could generally argue that specific political traditions have left deep traces in the education systems. For example, liberal and socialist traditions are deeply rooted in Austria with governments established as the result of grand coalitions between the socialist (SPÖ) and conservative parties (ÖVP). After the fall of the dictatorship in 1974, Greece also had a long history of governments that were either liberal or socialist, but the economic crisis in 2008 resulted in a highly contested political scenery with alterations in power between socialist, conservative and radical leftist political parties. Liberal and socialist traditions were also evident in Hungary after the fall of communism in 1989, while since 2010 right-wing populist and neoconservative traditions have been strongly promoted under the political party FIDESZ.

The third criterion suggested by Stake (2006), regarding opportunities to study complexity and context, is evident across the three countries. This is because the study of Europeanisation in a fragmented academic field such as teacher education (Hudson & Zgaga, 2017) is inherently complex and involves a multitude of actors and institutions which are particular to each country. Considering, for example, the consecutive-concurrent divide of initial teacher education (ITE), Hungary offers the opportunity to study how the country moved from a consecutive to a concurrent model from the moment of implementing the Bologna structure, until the moment this was revoked. Austria provides an example of a concurrent model also after implementing Bologna for secondary school teachers with the “Teacher Education New” reform, while Greece is an interesting case not least because teacher education for secondary school teachers has not yet fully found its distinct place within the HEIs of the country.

Similarly, the sub-cases of HEIs in the three countries adhere to Stake’s measures of relevance, diversity and opportunities to study complexity and context. UIBK, AUTH and ELTE have relevant teacher education faculties or departments responsible for the pedagogical and professional training of prospective teachers. AUTH and ELTE are the largest teacher education providers in their respective countries, while UIBK leads the Western Cluster implementing the “Teacher Education New” reform in the western region of Austria, and receives a substantial number of students from the province of South Tyrol in Italy.

In terms of diversity and opportunities to study complexity and context, teacher education takes place in different institutional settings in each country. At UIBK teacher education takes place within the Faculty of Teacher Education, responsible for organising the professional, pedagogical and subject methodology training of student teachers. At AUTH, teacher education for secondary school teachers has no distinct institutional structure, but rather takes place within the subject faculties which award prospective teachers a pedagogical certificate. At ELTE, the Faculty of Education and Psychology is mainly responsible for the pedagogical and professional training of student teachers, while the overall responsibility for organising teacher education belongs to a teacher education centre of the university which is governed by staff adhering to the subject faculties.

49