Faculty of Education

The discipline of Comparative Education is not well defined either in the area of its study, or in its methodology. In recent years those who have found a clearer approach to methodology in the methods of social science have brought these into Comparative Education. However, these are not new to Comparative Education. The foundations of social science lie in the positivist philosophy of post-Revolutionary France, and this philosophy had its effect on educational theory of the time, notably in the work of Jullien of Paris. Two broad traditions in educational, and related social, thought can be traced; that which begins with Jullien and is characterized by belief in science; and that which begins with Matthew Arnold, and which stresses cultural analysis. For all their differences, both have originated and been used in an effort to understand or achieve social order. The means of attaining social order have varied. The 'scientific' and 'cultural' approaches to Comparative Education need to be studied in their contexts to be understood, although both approaches have intellectual appeal and use outside this context. The historical development helps us understand the present state of the discipline. An analysis of the comparative method, as a part of the process of cognition, shows some of its possibilities and allows some criticism of the method as used in Comparative Education. Comparison is necessary in cognition, and its study increases our understanding of the manner in which comparison is used to divide perceived experience into categories. Since the categories made are dependent upon the culture of those who make them, comparative study of other cultures may make more conscious the manner in which this is done; comparative study may also show that apparently similar categories are, in different cultures or sub-cultures, not as they appear. Science is often regarded as a reliable means of obtaining objective knowledge. Closer examination shows that science cannot be seen as a method, for any of its methodologies are linked to concepts, meaning and assumptions. Further, science does not produce objective knowledge, but does produce agreed knowledge. It is necessary therefore to study the manner in which this agreement is reached, which means the study of science as a particular cultural formation. Often this is not understood by those who call upon the name of science to give legitimacy to their particular approach; one of the major uses of science is as ideology. Following the historical study of Comparative Education, the examination of some possible and actual uses of the method of comparison, and a study of the meaning of science, some attempt at, a methodology of Comparative Education is made. The work of a number of writers is examined, as are also a number of categorizations of methodology. A widely held position is that a search for functional relationships between tightly specified variables is the important characteristic of a scientific comparative method. The argument which arises from the study of comparison and of science however is that the important problems are those of the formation of categories, the means by which these categories are filled out or varied, and the nature of the relationship between the category maker, those whose education he studies, and those who read and act upon his work. Finally an analysis is made of the chief writings of the comparativists Edmund King and Harold Noah. These are taken as main representatives of the traditional cultural and scientific approaches to Comparative Education. Both writers are criticized, but King's work comes closer to the methodological position developed in this thesis.

Faculty of Education - Theses

Permanent URI for this collection

Filters

Date

Author

Subject

Type

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Statistics

Citations

Search Results