This study examines how belief systems and morality are represented in the national curricula and social studies textbooks of Japan and South Korea through textual analysis and teacher interviews. Both countries emphasize the cultural significance of non-Abrahamic traditions shaped by their distinct historical trajectories. In Japan, Indigenous wisdom traditions are linked to governance and historical continuity, whereas in South Korea, they are incorporated into dominant belief systems to promote democratic values and citizenship. The findings show that imported religions and ideologies are reinterpreted within national contexts, with some traditions diminishing, whereas others remain visible. Notably, South Korea's curricular marginalization of traditions such as shamanism and Christianity contrasts with their strong societal influence, revealing a significant gap between curricula and contemporary realities. By examining morality through the dual lenses of individual rights and collective interests, this study highlights how belief systems shape cultural identity, moral frameworks, and citizenship.
Scholars have documented the role of policy networks in education. However, we know little about policy networks in sociopolitical contexts dominated by the state and its bureaucracy. Focusing on Norway and Sweden, we analyze education policy networks by constructing author co-citation networks from recent reform-related official documents. The findings underscore the paramount influence of the state in both countries' networks, alongside the notable presence of the OECD. Furthermore, our analysis highlights the capacity of individual authors to attain central positions within these networks. Despite important similarities, the analysis reveals meaningful differences in network structure-Norway's network is more hierarchical and diverse, whereas Sweden's is denser and more centralized-rooted in differing traditions of institutional coordination and expert engagement. In other words, the countries vary in how they organize expertise and integrate research communities into the policymaking process.
