Purpose Utilising dialogic meta-narrative analysis, a form of inquiry based on examining the difference between voices in meaningful and relevant dialogue (Wegerif, 2006, p. 347), the purpose of this paper is to present an examination of three relevant works on theories of the global South for identifying educational patterns, themes, and biases from the worldview perspectives of the respective authors. Design/methodology/approach In comparative and international education “qualitative” research, the acceptance of differing points of view and reference have often resulted in a fragmented and fractitious affirmation of cultural relativity, whereby the pursuit of truth (Veritas) has been replaced by the pursuit and contestation of a plurality of knowledges and truths. Davies defines this as “discursive practice”, which refers to the way discourse and the production of selves produce and reconstitutes one’s social and psychological realities (Davies, 1999, p. 88). The positional and discursive worldviews relative to “other” are not only dependent on locational, contextual, and time (Zeitgeist) dimensions, but also on disciplinary methodological foundations and subjective interpretations of both experience and choice. Findings The analysis of the three scholarly works identifies issues of comparative education research from a dialogic and dialectic perspective, suggesting that relativistic notions of research are required and necessary in order to expand horizons and “break out of the box” to broaden one’s imagination. Research limitations/implications The questions raised by all three worldviews require further research: Who pays? Who benefits? Should the field contest the positional points-of-reference of comparativists? Should theory and mode of inquiry be made more clear in order to understand and discern the positional authority of the researcher and the researched? Should relevant literature addressing subject material involve greater scrutiny – if not collaboration – between scholars from different worldview perspectives? Practical implications Subjectivity, validation and significance of findings contribute to dissemination and advancement of knowledge, and if not robust or rigorous, are simply another point of view. Originality/value This is a new paradigmatic approach to problematising comparative and international research from three positional worldviews. The value in problematising the three worldviews helps to delve deeper into the issues at hand regarding the global South.

中文翻译：

---

后世界观？南北，南南和南方理论的对话性元叙事分析

目的利用对话式元叙事分析，一种探究形式，以研究有意义的对话和相关对话中的声音之间的差异为基础（Wegerif，2006，第347页），本文的目的是对三篇有关理论的相关著作进行考察。从各个作者的世界观角度确定全球教育模式，主题和偏见。设计/方法论/方法在比较和国际教育的“定性”研究中，接受不同的观点和参考常常会导致对文化相对论的支离破碎和断然的肯定，从而用真理代替了对真理的追求（Veritas）。追求和争夺多种知识和真理。戴维斯（Davies）将此定义为“话语实践”，它指的是话语和自我生产产生和重构一个人的社会和心理现实的方式（Davies，1999，第88页）。相对于“其他”的位置和话语世界观不仅取决于位置，语境和时间（时代精神）维度，而且还取决于学科的方法论基础以及对经验和选择的主观解释。调查结果对这三部学术著作的分析从对话和辩证的角度确定了比较教育研究的问题，这表明相对论的研究概念是必要和必要的，以便扩大视野并“打破常规”以扩大人们的想象力。研究的局限性/含义这三种世界观提出的问题需要进一步的研究：谁付款？谁受益？该领域是否应该对比较主义者的立场参考提出质疑？是否应该更清楚地阐明研究的理论和方式，以便理解和辨别研究者和被研究者的位置权威？有关主题内容的相关文献是否应该从不同的世界观角度进行学者之间的仔细审查（如果不是合作的话）？实际含义研究结果的主观性，验证性和重要性有助于知识的传播和发展，如果不是健全的或严格的，则仅仅是另一种观点。原创性/价值这是从三种立场世界观对比较研究和国际研究提出问题的一种新的范式方法。