Changing Educational Contexts, Issues and Identities

40 Years of Comparative Education

Michael Crossley, Patricia Broadfoot, Michele Schweisfurth, Michael Crossley, Patricia Broadfoot, Michele Schweisfurth

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781134124633
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Documenting major intellectual and paradigmatic changes in the field of comparative education in the light of the history and development of the journal Comparative Education, this book compiles a selection of articles from forty years of the journal's distinguished history. It illustrates how changing times have been reflected in the nature and quality of published comparative research.

Contributors explore the impact of key issues such as marketisation, accountability and globalisation upon policy and practice world-wide. They explore how new challenges faced by the social sciences have seen shifts in the contexts, issues and priorities attended to by comparatives and how different approaches to comparative education have influenced the intellectual and professional identities and positioning of those involved.

Bridging theoretically oriented scholarship with empirically grounded research relating to issues of policy and practice and with chapters addressing questions of relevance throughout the world, this book is an invaluable resource of ideas and stimuli for further thinking and research.

1 Editorial

A.D.C. Peterson

Source: Comparative Education, 1(1), October, 1964.

THE FIRST TREATISE on Comparative Education ever written demanded that it should become a ‘positive science’, and from that day to this there have been students of comparative education who sought to establish a ‘positive’ and ‘scientific’ methodology for the study of their subject. But a ‘science’ demands not only a methodology but a body of observed and recorded fact to which this methodology may be applied.

One of the features of increasing specialisation, in both the physical and the social sciences, has been that scientists have tended to carve out for themselves limited areas of investigation in which those ‘facts’ only are selected for study which respond best to the methods developed. It is thus an interaction between the development of the methodology and the selection or conceptualisation of the ‘facts’ which gradually establishes a separate discipline, until ultimately Professorial Chairs are established and nobody is capable of understanding the work done who has not passed through the discipline of the methodology, learnt the private language involved, and limited his interest in the facts to those which comprise the agreed field. Thus the astro-physicist cannot really talk any better to the micro-biologist than he can to the art historian, although both are on the ‘scientific’ side of Snow’s dividing line between the two cultures.

Academics, not unnaturally, try to hasten on the development of their specialist field of interest until it establishes itself as a ‘discipline in its own right’ of this type. As soon as they have done so, however, there is a need for what the French call vulgarisation: the humble but necessary process of interpreting in intelligible terms for those who need to use them the findings of the academics in their specialised fields.

To some extent, we hope this journal will be a journal of vulgarisation. Certainly it is intended for the general student of education rather than for the small but growing band of ‘comparativists’ who are trying to establish a new discipline in its own right. We shall therefore try to include articles which interpret for the general student of education the findings of specialists in different fields whose work has an immediate bearing on educational problems. But we hope to be more than just a journal of vulgarisation, however useful that should be to the educational profession as a whole.

Comparative education seems to us to be not yet established as an esoteric ‘discipline’ of the kind described above. Historically it may be on its way to becoming so, but within our own generation it seems better described as a method, perhaps the most fruitful method, in the sociological investigation of education. We have not yet delimited a field of observed and recorded fact which is the special field of the ‘comparativist’ as opposed to the general ‘educationist’ (nor, in fact, do I personally believe that we ever could or should do so); nor have we perfected a methodology which would justify our claiming that comparative education had achieved the status of a positive science.

Most nineteenth century studies which could be classified in the field of comparative education seem to belong to the natural history of comparative education rather than to its science. As Aristotle described and classified constitutions so observers like Victor Cousin, Horace Mann and Matthew Arnold observed, described and perhaps began to classify educational systems. It is true that in this century there has been a greater concentration on the problem of methodology and a prolonged attempt to establish and refine the particular and specific techniques which would establish comparative education as a positive discipline in its own right; but, as in all the social sciences, the concepts and the variables involved in such an attempt are so manifold and so shifting that the attempt has proved extraordinarily difficult. In such circumstances there is often a dangerous tendency to generalise and formalise experiences which are in their living multiplicity beyond the range of any single methodology. Because we cannot yet devise positive scientific techniques which will enable us to measure and to analyse the whole, we concentrate too much on those elements which are amenable to the techniques which we have developed. There is value in the attempt to refine techniques, but it is a mistake to suppose that we are seriously nearer to understanding the purpose of human life when we have devised a calculus for measuring human happiness in ‘Euphor Units’. This is surely the fallacy which Max Hammerton has described as ‘Physicalism’. The risks involved in a premature attempt to treat comparative education as a positive science, in this case in the field of educational planning, are well illustrated in Dr Balogh’s article in this issue.

George F. Kneller, also, (International Review of Education, Vol. IX, No. 4) warns against the attempt to set up ‘comparative education’ as a discipline living off its own resources and ‘the comparative method’ as a methodology in its own right, when as yet we have no agreed methodology for the study of education as a whole. He quotes as the paramount concern of comparative education in the United States of America the very problems of developing countries which Dr Balogh in this issue shows to be so intractable to the generalised models both of the economist and the theorist of comparative education.

The fact is, surely, that we have not yet developed, and may never be able to develop, techniques of analysis sufficiently sophisticated for rigorously abstract application to problems which contain so many social and philosophical variables. In such circumstances those who are interested in comparative education may do one of two things: they may become so interested in the theoretical problem that they devote their whole energies to the improvement of the techniques of analysis, or they may accept the imperfections of our method and attempt no more than an old-fashioned empirical approach, designed to illuminate educational problems by cross-cultural reference, but making no claim either to scientific rigour or to the establishment of a general theory. There is a case for both types of activity but both have their dangers. The dangers inherent in the first approach are that a supposedly scientific methodology will be applied, before it is sufficiently sophisticated for the purpose, to problems whose complication and uniqueness simply will not fit into the artificial categories and supposed ‘laws’ of the general theory (and this usually means wrenching the problem to fit the theory), or that the theorists will devote themselves, like mediaeval schoolmen, to endless refinements of definition and analysis which enable them to say what they have to say with a high degree of specificity, but prevent them from saying anything of any interest to the practising teacher, educational administrator or politician.

The dangers inherent in the second approach are either a perpetuation of the natural history stage, mere observation without any attempt at analysis, or a level of generalisation so high that it takes off, with such historiographers as Spengler, Sorokin and Toynbee into a stratosphere of hypothesis beyond the range of criticism.

With a field of interest in this semi-developed stage we believe that there is still a place for original work in comparative education which accepts the limitations of our present methodology and is concerned not primarily with the improvement of that methodology but with the application of the existing techniques of comparison, including as Dr Balogh emphasises, such quantification as is reasonable, to current educational problems. It is this type of original work in comparative education, designed for the general reader rather than for the expert comparativist that we shall hope to publish in addition to our vulgarisations. From time to time we hope to acquaint our readers with the progress which is being made in establishing a methodology, but our main concern will be with the application of the methodology we have. We hope to serve the cause and attract the interest not only of comparative education and comparativists, but of education as a whole and its administrators or practitioners.

The continuing need for this kind of practical approach is surely clear at a time when governments are at last beginning to realise the true importance of education in the social and economic structure. As the demand for social planning increases and the techniques of sociological enquiry improve it becomes both more urgent and more practicable to consider the educational problems of different types of society as a whole. It may not be possible to establish general theories or even individual principles which have a universal validity, but it is clearly possible for educators in one country to make valid inferences from experience in a number of others. It is as a contribution to this field of practical discussion that we have founded Comparative Education.

2 The purpose of Comparative Education

Edmund J. King

Source: Comparative Education, 1(3), June, 1965.

HAS COMPARATIVE EDUCATION ANY REAL USE? If it has, where and how can we use it?

These two questions are basic to any serious discussion of our discipline; yet many workers and writers in our field continue to ignore them in practice. To improve the quality of research and teaching in Comparative Education, they try to determine in advance what data may be relevant, what methods may most tellingly reveal them, and how to set their findings forth. Important though these aids to scientific treatment may be, they miss the whole point if we specialists fail to decide realistically what we are setting out to do. Provided we are fairly clear about that, appropriate methods and relevant data may show themselves as we proceed.

To decide where and how we can use Comparative Education, we must first take stock of our present position. We are facing the last third of the twentieth century. That is the most important thing to consider. Whatever Comparative Education has been in the past, it is now called upon to play a variety of roles in a series of new situations. Indeed, education as a whole has had its prospects quite altered during the postwar period. We now have to deal with a public instrument used for the maximum instruction and entire education of whole populations, and one which is deliberately used for the long-term planning of social, economic and national relationships. The very materials studied by Comparative Education are thus transformed already; and the dynamic of future continuing change is already built into the situation in which we study those materials. Therefore to study and use Comparative Education in pre-war terms (or yesterday’s terms) is an anachronism.

In order to give greater precision to our activities in Comparative Education we may as well begin by making another distinction. We may distinguish between the academic and the scientific study of our subject. In some languages this distinction is not easy (and perhaps the separation of the two ideas should not always be made in those languages where they can be distinguished, for both elements are often interdependent); but at this critical turning for Comparative Education we should try to make clear whether we are devoting ourselves to a mainly academic study in libraries and classrooms, or to one which is closely related to the other social sciences. These are applied sciences.

If we do not pay proper attention to this latter aspect of Comparative Education as a social science, other people will. They may not then call their work Comparative Education, but will nevertheless work over our proper concerns without benefit of our insights. Alternatively, they may claim that their activities are ‘genuine’ comparative studies – not only as elements of statecraft but as proper academic disciplines in universities. It is then only one step to saying that Comparative Education not merely does not belong to the constructive social sciences, but does not even belong to the genuine academic disciplines using the data and methods of contemporary social study. That condemnation is already taking place.

This is a particularly unfortunate mistake, and all the more unjust because from the very beginning of systematic Comparative Education our motivation has been to be useful. Our pioneers tried to bring relevant information to help the establishment or reconstruction of school systems in the nineteenth century. More recently, our great scholars have diagnosed trends and factors influencing the development of school practices and extracurricular education, so as to lead to better decisions in the future. Now, in the 1960s, the implicit purpose of all our work is to be useful in the improvement of school systems – and therefore in the transformation of human society.

That transformation is taking place whether we have a hand in it or not; and it is taking place on an international scale where an international study like ours is peculiarly relevant. Therefore, Comparative Education is unrealistic in its own study of contemporary trends in world education if it does not take account of this totally changed situation – even as an academic study. And it is still more guilty of the ‘treason of the clerks’ if it does not relate its interest scientifically to the practical and experimental field, where it can increasingly share in the direction of experiments and the formulation of policy.

If we talk like this, some people in Comparative Education will reply, “Of course” – and then get on with those hobbies within Comparative Education which have so little to do with the main drift of our times. Others will protest that this programme is ‘too much’, and burrow like moles in some remote field. Archivists and academic hobbyists are all very well. They have a reputable ancestry, and the minutiæ of their scholarship may be savoured by the antiquarians of the future. In the meantime the future is being made. The big question now is whether Comparative Education people are to have a practical hand in it – or to be ignored as irrelevant.

There are weighty reasons for thinking that the practical irrelevance of much contemporary work in Comparative Education is taken for granted by a majority of politicians, economists, sociologists and planners generally. Even the academic planners setting up new universities or research departments leave most of us out of account in their growing departments of ‘Comparative Studies’ or ‘Area Studies’. How many of them really consider our work on a par with that of economists, sociologists, and the like? We have a body of knowledge; we have our tools of enquiry; we have a conspectus of the world and its problems focused on education, which is mankind’s most remarkable activity. Some of us, in our personal capacities, are actually brought into planning. But what about Comparative Education itself, and all its parts? In public esteem, if the truth is told, we are not of the stature of Jullien, Cousin, Mann, Matthew Arnold or Sadler. We are ‘just one more course’ in teachers’ colleges. This is no comment by myself, but the judgement of many contemporaries.

Even in teachers’ courses we do not always do too well. True, Comparative Education is often the most popular choice in programmes where a choice is allowed. That may tell us about the dullness of the other subjects, or simply remind us that curiosity about other people and their problems is already widespread in a time of growing interdependence. But how many of those teachers who pass through our courses really show much effect of them afterwards? How many of our alumni (apart from Africans and Asians) really remain interested in our deep concerns, when once they have obtained the degree which has ensured their own promotion? What sort of jobs are open to Comparative Education specialists anyway, as jobs lie open for psychologists and their kin? At a simpler level, how many teachers continue in their daily life to feel that Comparative Education has been a reorientation, either professional or personal?

Any answers we attempt to give honestly are discouraging. Our humiliation is worse when we realise that the world is calling out for other scholars, such as economists. John Vaizey has reckoned that British universities produce about 25 per cent of those economists for whom jobs could be found. It has also been said that the simplest sociologists “become generals overnight”, so keenly are they sought to advise on the transformation of societies, industries, commerce, and ordinary human relationships. Our academic image is not glamorous; and in the world of practical affairs we tend to be overlooked. Allowing for fashion, can we feel satisfied with our own performance?

Part of the trouble is that we do not always distinguish clearly enough between our various roles – as teachers, as researchers, and sometimes as men of practical affairs engaged in planning or reforming. Even in teaching, we ought to distinguish between the needs and methods of various levels of instruction.* There is no need to labour these points here, except to illustrate them in relation to our success or failure in giving Comparative Education a real future. But it is important to insist that the distinction must be made. There are no ‘omnibus’ techniques for Comparative Education.

Let us first examine our teaching. What are we teaching? How are we presenting it? The real and widespread interest in comparative studies has just been mentioned; but we must not presume upon it too far. Student interest is not the same as basic knowledge sufficient to promote the further enquiries that are necessary. Students who come to us at first may be seriously lacking in the necessary facts; moreover they may have no real awareness of the concepts or analyses of other social studies such as sociology, economics, politics, or social philosophy. It is therefore possible for university teachers to talk real sense to them and still be misunderstood. The criticisms made of Education professors at their best sometimes reflect only the students’ unreadiness, especially where (as in England) undergraduate courses are highly specialised. Students coming belatedly to what is after all a new world of activity and thought cannot always see profundity, having eyes only for the surface. And of course profundity does not always exist in all professors or lecturers.

In any case, suppose the students maintain their interest; it is painfully obvious to anyone who has taught Comparative Education in the universities of several countries that not many students begin with a deep enough knowledge of society generally, or of any educational system in particular. Examinations show time and again that they do not always acquire much of this necessary knowledge before they begin to platitudinise in totally unrealistic terms. Nor do they read enough later. Their comments may be unrelated to the facts, or deal with falsely identified ‘problems’. As some Comparative Education courses actually begin with problems, that is not surprising. What looks like the same problem may have a totally different significance in two or more contexts (like traffic congestion in Old Dacca and New York); thus it is not the same problem at all. Moreover, the actualities of any context, in all their multiplicity and interdependence, make all the difference to any local study of any widely recurring problem or proposal. Why will some school reform proposals work in Turkey, but not work in Spain in what look like similar circumstances? The answers to questions like this are the very meat of Comparative Education, and the bane of the theorist.

Any teacher or leader of research in Comparative Education must therefore at all costs make sure that beginners are thoroughly well grounded – with the facts, with supporting disciplines at least distributed throughout the group of learners or workers, and with a sense of the dynamic of contexts. It should obviously go without saying that no dynamic can be static; but this inescapable axiom has been gravely overlooked in some recent writing, and therefore it must be stated. Let us spell it out, before any more damage is done.

Comparative Education is a comparative study of o...