Some Old and New Approaches to Methodology in Comparative Education

Abstract

The argument of this paper concerns itself with three things. First, it examines critically some traditional classic approaches education; second, it dwells on some nascent approaches; and third, it offers views of this writer on subject. Without aiming at exhaustiveness or any definitive formulation, it focuses on question of methodology, describes previous and current efforts in this sphere, comments on their adequacy or inadequacy, and suggests ways for improvement. In some primordial sense education may be considered as an ancient phenomenon. Plato makes numerous sporadic comparisons between Athenian and Spartan educational ideas and practices, and Thucydides frequently compares Athenian civilization and paideia with those of other city-states. It was not until nineteenth century, however, that attempts were made at a more systematic approach education, although, as Brickman points out, several studies had appeared earlier.2 Yet, however valuable work of such nineteenth-century pioneers as MarcAntoine Jullien and Michael Sadler may have been, from methodological standpoint it was not until appearance of I. L. Kandel's monumental Comparative Education in 1933 that foundations of a truly scientific study of education were laid. Kandel's study charted a new course, and his views on proper conduct of studies have, in main, remained basis of theoretical framework of all subsequent research in discipline. It is appropriate, therefore, start with a careful analysis of Kandel's approach which may be described as most representative in traditional-classic category. In his most recent opinion on subject Kandel stated that the methodology of compa a ve education is determined by purpose hat study is fulfill. Since purpose is not merely learn about, but also to search for an educat onal system, comparative education may be considered a continuation of study of history of education into present.3 Looking at his actual writings, and specifically at his pioneer 1933 study and 1955 sequel, one observes that Kandel's methodology is governed by at least three major purposes.4 The first purpose may be called repertorial-descriptive. The reader is ccordingly furnished with certain facts or, use his own words, information about school systems of various nations. In classifying these facts, Kandel employs for most part common-sense categories such as organization and administration of education, elementary and secondary education, and preparation of teachers, elementary and secondary. Kandel, quite rightly, regards mere reporting of facts as inadequate and limited, but as an essential first step in process of study. All educators have followed this basic principle of Kandel's method. The second, and, in his opinion, identifying feature of education, may be called historical-functional. Though necessary, it is not sufficient report on mere facts. The educator, according Kandel, must look into the causes which have produced certain problems, and must appreciate Sadler's intangible, spiritual and cultural forces which underlie an educational system. In introduction 1933 volume he writes: