The Early Influence of Teachers College on International and Comparative Education

Teachers College, Columbia University was one of the most active universities in encouraging both international and comparative education.  In fact, the first course on comparative education was offered at Teachers College during the 1898-1899 school year, even though course work in the field did not fully flourish until the 1920s and 1930s.  The International Institute of Teachers College, established in 1923, set out to implement “(1) training of foreign students, (2) surveys and research of educational systems, and (3) training of educational missionaries.”[1]  Paul Monroe and William Russell were instrumental in its establishment and brought together some of the premiere educators in the field, most notably Isaac Kandel.  The Institute also began issuing The Educational Yearbook in 1924, with Kandel as the editor, which continued to be published until 1944.  In addition, Paul Monroe, the director, also co-edited the International Yearbook of Education in 1933 with Nicholas Hans.  While relatively short lived (the Institute lost funding in 1938), the Institute served as a hub for comparative and international education during a very exciting time in both of their histories.

---

[1] LiPing Bu, “International Activism and Comparative Education: Pioneering Efforts of the International Institute of Teachers College, Columbia University,” Comparative Education Review 41, no. 4 (November 1997): 417.

Brief Notes on the Intertwined History of Comparative and International Education in the Early Years

Those of you who enjoy reading about the history of international education may appreciate this IHEC Blog post that I pulled from my research notes. To be sure, a much longer manuscript could be written (and some have been written) on the development of the comparative education and international education fields during this time period.

Even though an all-telling history of international education has not been established[1], many comparativists will agree that international education and travels to distant countries was the foundation on which comparative education was based.[2] William Brickman even notes in his writing the importance of early travels abroad to the foundation of the Comparative Education Society later called the Comparative and International Education Society.[3]

The 1920s and 1930s and the years after World War II brought about increased interest in going abroad and documentation on international exchange. These two decades also proved to be a significant time in itself for educators to explore educational systems in other countries. According to Jurgen Schriewer and Carlos Martinez, these decades were some of the most active times in terms of education for such countries as Spain, Russia/USSR, and China. They show through citations in major academic and scientific journals that this was the time period over the last 100 years that represented the most international exchange of ideas. They write, “The 1920s and early 1930s stand out as the period in history when all three countries clearly opened up their own reform reflections and displayed an enormous interest in international models, modern reference societies, and theory discussions from abroad.”[4]

Not only did the idea and interest in travels abroad, the development of professional organizations, the creation of publications, and simply ripe timing surround the development of the comparative education and international education fields, but special reports and research by either government or private agencies also helped to create interest and awareness about systems abroad. In addition, the fields were solidified with the first organized academic program, as well as the development and emergence of other related areas of study.

[1] William Hoffa has done an excellent job of documenting the history of study abroad in the United States.
[2] Erwin H. Epstein, “Comparative and International Education: Overview and Historical Development,” in International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd Ed., ed. Torsten Husen and T. Neville Postlethwaite, 918-923 (Oxford, England; New York: Pergamon; New York: Elsevier Science, 1994): 918-919.
David N. Wilson, "Comparative and International Education: Fraternal or Siamese twins? A preliminary genealogy of our twin fields," Comparative Education Review 38, no. 4 (November 1994): 451.
[3] William Brickman, “Genesis and Early Development of the Comparative and International Education Society” Comparative Education Review 10, no. 1 (February 1966): 9-19.
[4] Jurgen Schriewer and Carlos Martinez, “Constructions of Internationality in Education” in The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending, ed. Gita Steiner-Khamsi, 29-53 (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004): 45.

Photo credit: Lin Pernille Photography

Research Notes: A Brief History of Comparative Education through the 1960s

When examining the literature in comparative education over the past 100 years it is clear that there has been an “identity crisis” regarding its boundaries and much of the confusion stems from the blurred boundaries of the field. Until the late twentieth century, few authors worked to clarify the distinctions between the two fields of comparative education and international education, and in fact, many authors carelessly used “comparative education” and “international education” either inter-changeably or simultaneously without distinction.

There is certainly an overlap in the histories of comparative education and international education, though comparativists seem to have a stronger sense of who their founding fathers are, what the key pieces of literature in its history are, and when important shifts have taken place.

Unlike international education, the founding fathers of comparative education are much more easily identifiable by those in the respective field. It is rare to find an article examining the early stages of comparative education or even current comparative theory without finding mention of Marc Antoine Jullien, Michael Sadler, and Issac Kandel. These authors provided the foundation of comparative education and serve as a reference point for emerging comparativists. Jullien was an early figure encouraging cross-national data collection, Sadler stressed the importance of looking at society as a whole when considering educational systems, and finally Kandel helped to clarify some of the goals of comparative education. In the mid to late twentieth century, as the field of comparative education strived for rigorous methodology, several authors such as Harold J. Noah and Max A. Eckstein, William W. Brickman, George Z. F. Bereday, C. Arnold Anderson, Erwin H. Epstein, and Irving Epstein helped to challenge and clarify comparative theory.

In 1954, The School of Education at New York University began a conference that would, at their third meeting two years later in 1956, establish the Comparative Education Society. Early activities of this organization included working to define the field of comparative education as an academic venture, creating study tours abroad, and publishing the Comparative Education Review, which now appears quarterly. Even then, the overlaps in the domains of comparative education and international education were illustrated by the Comparative Education Society changing its name to The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) in 1968, the name by which the organization is known today. The 1960s saw the formation of the Comparative Education Society in Europe, which prompted the publishing of Comparative Education beginning in 1964. Several other countries, such as Canada, Japan, and Korea followed suit and created comparative education societies.[1]

The World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES), a non-governmental organization under UNESCO, formed in the late 1960s and holding its first world council in 1970 with representatives from five comparative education societies including the United States, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Canada. The WCCES aims to promote the study of comparative and international education throughout the world and enhance the academic status of this field and to bring comparative education to bear on the major educational problems of the day by fostering cooperative action by specialists from different parts of the world.[2] The organization typically meets every three years in a new country for each Congress.

I hope to be able to pull together a brief history of Comparative Education from the 1960’s to date in the near future.

Previous IHEC Blog on "System Transfer in Comparative Education" is available here.

[1] William Brickman, “Genesis and Early Development of the Comparative and International Education Society” Comparative Education Review 10, no. 1 (February 1966): 9-19.
[2] World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) description of its two specific goals (2006), http://www.hku.hk/cerc/wcces/.

System Transfer in Comparative Education

IHEC Blog readers who come from a comparative education background (the field of study for my doctoral program) will know what I'm referring to in this post. IHEC Blog readers who are not familiar with comparative education will hopefully find this short post on system transfer to be of interest. [1]

System transfer in comparative education has to do with the transition or change of a country’s educational system during and/or after colonization. System transfer in education also occurs as a result of regime change such as in the case of the rise and fall of Communism. To be more specific, system transfer is a process of changing an educational system to conform with and to teach new principles of the ruling power or ideology. New curriculum or teaching methods and processes are introduced to an educational system to mirror the education system of the ruling power. There is also a goal of educating the people to new ways of thinking and allegiance to new ideologies and form of government. In this case, for example, textbooks and course requirements are revised and developed as a means of conveying this new information. System transfer can be accomplished by an overhaul of an educational structure such as occurred in India when the British took control. India is modeled after the British system of education and changes to the curriculum included the instruction of new religious and political philosophies.

Most of the changes tend to be slow and it appears that significant system transfer typically occurs in the immediate years following major political change. The introduction of new policies (political, religious, economic, cultural) during colonization or change as a result of revolution or dictatorship bring new and significant changes to educational systems. It should be noted that many nations that undergo a significant transfer of their educational system rarely can demonstrate success in all newly implemented programs or policies. Often times, policy change is implemented very rapidly which is one reason some programs are failures.

Examples of system transfer can be found in the educational systems of India, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Perhaps one of the best examples of system transfer where one party is the “donor” and the other party is the “recipient” is in the case of India. The British ruled India for well over two centuries and instilled many educational and government policy changes during this occupation. The Englishman Thomas Macaulay was charged with setting educational policy in India. The British also changed the structure of the Indian educational and examination systems which are still visible today. Since gaining independence from the British, India has been working through decolonization, which is a process of changing the curriculum from the occupiers imposed belief systems, but many remnants of the British educational system still remain.

In Cuba, General Wood of the United States was instrumental in the early educational changes after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Wood wanted to revolutionize Cuban society from its Spanish ties and saw education as the tool to accomplish his mission of Americanizing the citizens. Wood introduced English into the curriculum and translated textbooks used in the United States. Wood also coordinated a program with Harvard to send Cuban teachers to Cambridge each summer for training.

Similar to the circumstances of Cuba, the United States took possession of Puerto Rico from Spain after the Spanish-American War of 1898. The United States acted quickly to improve education in Puerto Rico by imposing its educational system and democratic values on the island. According to Erwin Epstein, in addition to introducing a coeducational system and incorporating English as a favored medium of instruction, the United States sought to infuse a sense of American patriotism by requiring students to salute the flag of the United States, sing patriotic songs and incorporate teachings on the United States into the curriculum. The Puerto Rican educational system of today was created between the start of American control (after the Spanish-American War) until it achieved it’s Commonwealth status. The Puerto Rican educational system is now a mix of both U.S. and Latin American influences.

[1] This post was taken from class notes and draft writings I prepared for my classes in comparative and international education at Loyola University Chicago.

DePaul Faculty to Discuss New Book on Successful Adult Learning in Developing World

IHEC Blog readers who are in the Chicagoland area and who are available at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2009 may want to head down to the DePaul University Club (DePaul Center, 1 E. Jackson Blvd., Chicago) to listen to DePaul professors discuss their new book Handbook of Blended Shore Education (Springer, 2009). Here is a link to the press release on the talk as well as a link to the Springer website where you can learn more about and purchase the book.

Proceeds from the sale of the book will be donated to the Orphanage Ban Thanhathai in Ratchaburi, Thailand.

Postmodern Discourse

This is the seventh and final post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at postmodern discourse.

Rust, V.D. 1991. “Postmodernism and its Comparative Education Implications,” Comparative Education Review 35, no. 2: 610-626.

Postmodern discourse is another “fringe epistemology” on Epstein’s epistemological spectrum. During his presidential address to the Comparative and International Education Society, Rust argued that “postmodernism should be a central concept in our comparative education discourse.”[1] Rust confesses that his “own orientation is a tempered acceptance of the notion of an era shift. Of course, the world is so pluralistic that a variety of conditions and orientations will always exist simultaneously; however, the pervasive ideology of modernism and modernity has been ruptured and is undergoing radical reconstruction.”[2] There are two passages by Rust that stand out in his argument for a postmodern discourse theoretical position. First, he states that “the postmodern world is decentered, constantly changing, without the chains and conventions of modern society. Its proponents believe the story of pluralistic contemporary society is being written by a number of narratives and reject philosophical systems of thought that provide some universal standard.” [3] In relation to Vandra Masemann’s call “for the legitimacy of varied ways of knowing”, Rust argues that “postmodernists would support that claim and reject any claim that one way of knowing is the only legitimate way. Rather, they would say our task is to determine which approach to knowing is appropriate to specific interests and needs rather than argue some universal application and validity, which ends up totalizing and confining in its ultimate effect.”[4] Rust’s extreme relativistic/ideographic approach to comparative education in his work finds a home in postmodern discourse with other comparative education scholars such as Rolland Paulston, Martin Liebman, Peter Ninnes and Gregory Burnett.

In conclusion to these series of posts, comparative education scholars approach their scholarship from a wide variety of epistemological viewpoints. This, in my opinion, is necessary in all academic scholarship and something that is very important in all fields of academia. An interesting question that surfaces from time to time in the field is the impact that comparative education research has on policy. An interesting perspective to this question was put forward by Keith Watson when he wrote that “the widely held criticisms that comparative education is too fragmented and irrelevant for policy makers is harder to refute…there are many reasons for this: personality clashes, arguments over terminology, too much emphasis on methodology and not enough on substance.”[5] My posts do not attempt to answer the question of comparative education’s impact on educational policy. I present Watson’s position only to provide an interesting perspective on the different epistemological positions that comparativists bring to the table.

[1] Rust, V.D. “Postmodernism and its Comparative Education Implications,” (Comparative Education Review 35, no. 2, 1991), 610.
[2] Ibid, 611-612.
[3] Ibid, 616.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Keith Watson, “Comparative Educational Research: The Need for Reconceptualisation and Fresh Insights,” Compare 29, no. 3, (1999): 237.

Relativism

This is the sixth post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at relativism.

Fromm, E. and M. Maccoby. 1970. Social Character in a Mexican Village: A Sociopsychoanalytic Study. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Erich Fromm and Michael Maccoby’s sociopsychoanalytic study is an excellent example of a relativistic epistemological approach to comparative education. Fromm and Maccoby acknowledge that in publishing their research they “count on having the attention of those who are not dogmatically sealed off from at least being interested in a new venture: the application of psychoanalytic categories to the study of social groups.”[1] Methodologically, Fromm and Maccoby, in their effort to “discover the nuclear character of each villager and to find the relationship between character and specific need”, administered open-ended questions which required psychoanalytic interpretation.[2] Fromm and Maccoby describe the formation of the social character as “mediated by the influence of the “total culture”: the methods of raising children, of education in terms of schooling, literature, art, religion, customs; in short, the whole cultural fabric guarantees its stability.”[3] Throughout the piece, Fromm and Maccoby provide explanations for their theoretical approach.

Masemann, V.L. 1982. “Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 26, no. 1: 1-15.[4]

In Vandra Masemann’s review of the use of critical ethnography in the study of comparative education places her work under relativism on the epistemological spectrum. While discussing anthropological approaches to comparative education, Masemann states that it “becomes a very interesting point to ponder the extent to which the anthropologist can acquire an inside understanding of the subjective reality of the informant, even if he/she is adept at ‘personally replicating appropriate language and behavior in another culture.’ Such problems in research lead directly to a discussion of the more subjective philosophical and symbolic interactionist approaches.” From ethnography, as Masemann states, “the main emphases are on participant-observation of the small scale as a method, with an attempt to understand the culture and symbolic life of the actors involved.”[5] Masemann argues that the implications for the use of critical ethnography in comparative education “are profound” and that “the process of educational entropy which consists of the evermore effective spread of certain old and new forms of ‘rationality’ could be a most challenging new field of research in comparative education.”[6]

[1] Fromm, E. and M. Maccoby. Social Character in a Mexican Village: A Sociopsychoanalytic Study. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), 8.
[2] Ibid, 24.
[3] Ibid, 24.
[4] Masemann, V.L. “Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative Education,” (Comparative Education Review 26, no. 1, 1982), 5.
[5] Ibid, 13.
[6] Ibid, 14-15.

National Character Analysis

This is the fifth post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at national character analysis.

Bereday, G.Z.F. 1964. Sir Michael Sadler’s “Study of Foreign Systems of Education.
Comparative Education Review 7, no. 3: 307-314.

Sir Michael Sadler’s How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value from the Study of Foreign Systems of Education? clearly falls within the national character analysis epistemological framework of comparative education. Sadler emphasized the importance of experiencing and observing life outside of the school or classroom when studying foreign systems of education. This emphasis is found in several of his statements such as “if we propose to study foreign systems of education, we must not keep our eyes on the brick and mortar institutions, nor on the teachers and pupils only, but we must also go outside into the streets and into the homes of the people, and try to find out what is the intangible, impalpable, spiritual force which, in the case of any successful system of Education, is in reality upholding the school system and accounting for its practical efficiency”[1] and “in studying foreign systems of Education we should not forget that the things outside the schools matter even more than the things inside the schools, and govern and interpret the things inside…A national system of Education is a living thing, the outcome of forgotten struggles and difficulties, and ‘of battles long ago.’ It has in it some of the secret workings of national life. It reflects, while it seeks to remedy, the failings of the national character.”[2]

Renner, R.R. 1988. “Developing Homeplace Values in Children: European Origins and
American Implications. American Journal of Education 96, no. 4: 519-532.

I place the work of Richard Renner under national character analysis on the epistemological spectrum. Renner’s ideographic approach is found throughout the article and in particular when he states that “educational rhetoric places a high value on the tradition of local control; local knowledge, however, is relatively unimportant.”[3] Renner argues that “nonvaluing of homeplace knowledge, that bit of life the child knows best, is widely believed to foster an attitude of rootlessness, valuelessness, and alienation.”[4] Further, the underlying concept of homeplace lore, “is the premise that all who share a common homeplace or community are unavoidably linked to a valued destiny.”[5] Finally, Renner states that “the larger world can be mastered only by beginning with one’s particular surroundings; only thus can develop the self-assurance so necessary for a solid foundation later in life. Too often is it forgotten that only through homeplace mastery can one attain sufficient awareness of self to profit from further exploration of strange or foreign ways.”[6] While I placed Renner’s work under national character analysis I leave the possibility open that he may be a better fit under relativism on the epistemological spectrum.

[1] Bereday, G.Z.F. Sir Michael Sadler’s “Study of Foreign Systems of Education. (Comparative Education Review 7, no. 3, 1964): 309.
[2] Ibid, 310.
[3]Renner, R.R. “Developing Homeplace Values in Children: European Origins and American Implications. (American Journal of Education 96, no. 4, 1988) 519.
[4] Ibid, 520.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 30.

Historical Functionalism

This is the fourth post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at historical functionalism.

Kandel, I.L. 1956. Problems of Comparative Education. International Review of Education 2, no. 1: 1-15.

A review and discussion of Issac Kandel’s Problems of Comparative Education provides an opportunity to illustrate the historical functionalism theoretical approach in comparative education. Kandel provides advice to the student of comparative education throughout the piece and states that “it is by analysis that he can acquire a clearer understanding of the problems of education. An educational system not only has its roots embedded in a traditional cultural pattern which is constantly being modified by influences that are at one time spiritual, at another political, and at still another socio-economic, but it also reflects the hopes of a nation for the future.”[1] Further examples of both ideographic and nomothetic thought are found in the following statements by Kandel, “it is questionable whether the subject can be successfully studied without a firsthand observation of several school systems and this often requires not only the means to travel but knowledge of foreign languages. Observation and visitation are essential, for one is likely to be misled by the information found in educational literature if there is no opportunity to check it”[2] and “another set of difficulties await the student of comparative education because of the complete absence of standardized terminology and statistical reports.”[3] Kandel allows for both nomothetic and ideographic approaches to comparative education as a means of answering questions.

Thurber, C.H. ca. 1900. The Principles of School Organization: A Comparative Study Chiefly Based on the Systems of the United States, England, Germany and France. PhD diss, Clark University.

In Thurber’s work we see the first historical functionalism epistemological framework in comparative education. In his dissertation, Thurber writes that “education, as a system, is a development, a product of the evolution of society, and that if the form we have seems not quite to fit our highest conceptions, the way to better is not by bartering what we have for what some one else has, not by building a lean-to against our present structure. Further study might well be given to the basal problem for each country: how has the existing condition-system or lack of it- been developed out of the co-operations and antagonisms of universal principles and national peculiarities?”[4] This statement above is perhaps the first statement of historical functionalism in comparative education.

[1] Kandel, I.L. Problems of Comparative Education. (International Review of Education 2, no. 1, 1956), 5.
[2] Ibid, 6.
[3] Ibid, 10.
[4] Thurber, C.H. The Principles of School Organization: A Comparative Study Chiefly Based on the Systems of the United States, England, Germany and France. ( PhD diss. Clark University, ca. 1900), 6.

Cross-National Analysis

This is the third post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at cross-national analysis.

Archer, M. S. 1979. Social Origins of Educational Systems. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Margaret Scotford Archer is placed under cross-national analysis of the epistemological spectrum for several reasons. Archer argues in defense of Macro-Sociology as a means to explain large-scale, complex social phenomena on education and in the case of Archer’s specific study, how sociology can add to the understanding of how educational systems develop and how they change.[1] Several statements made by Archer stand out as placing her under a cross-national analysis theoretical approach. Archer argues that “individual’s interpretations of their situations are important in macro-sociology; its advocates simply insist that there are things about these (disagreeable and rewarding) situations which encourage certain interpretations of them.”[2] Further, Archer argues that “in complex societies the number of cross-cutting inter-dependencies between parts is so high, any change induced in one element will have repercussions for others.”[3] The most compelling statement from Archer is that “macro-sociologists do not deny that the actions of individuals are the causal origin of complex phenomena…they simply maintain that because at present we are unable to know what this causal chain is, we must acknowledge this non-deducibility and thus consider individual actions to be necessary but not sufficient conditions.”[4] Archer’s nomothetic approach to comparative education place her in the company of other comparative scholars such as Torsten Husen, Adam Curle and Philip Foster.

Christenson, M., and E. Crenshaw. 1999. “Democracy’s Handmaiden: The Influence of Mass Education on Political and Economic Change,” in Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in Democratization: Part I: Transitional States and States of Transition, ed. N.F. McGinn and E.H. Epstein, 81-116. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

It is immediately evident in Christenson and Crenshaw’s article that they are employing a cross-national analysis theoretical framework to their research. They highlight in the abstract of their article that they “use cross-national samples and multivariate statistical techniques to test this hypothesis with respect to three dimensions of modernization.”[5] Christenson and Crenshaw describe the purpose of their research by using cross-national samples from 55 to 100 countries. In doing so, they hope “to demonstrate empirically that mass education plays a unique, integral role in macrosocial change, exerting direct influences on the antecedents of democracy, economic development and social stratification/inequality, thereby indirectly affecting democracy, as well as exercising a direct effect on democracy itself.”[6] Christenson and Crenshaw’s nomothetic approach to comparative education is quite evident throughout their article.

[1] Archer, M. S. Social Origins of Educational Systems. (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1979), 1.
[2] Archer, M. S. Social Origins of Educational Systems. (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1979), 28.
[3] Ibid, 29.
[4] Ibid, 36.
[5] Christenson, M., and E. Crenshaw. “Democracy’s Handmaiden: The Influence of Mass Education on Political and Economic Change,” in Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in Democratization: Part I: Transitional States and States of Transition, ed. N.F. McGinn and E.H. Epstein, (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 81.
[6] Ibid, 83-84.

Positivism

This is the second post where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at positivism.

Noah, H.J. 1973. “Defining Comparative Education: Conceptions,” in Relevant Methods in Comparative Education: Report of a Meeting of International Experts, ed. R. Edwards, B. Holmes and J. Van de Graaff, 109-117. Hamburg: Unesco Institute for Education.

Very early on in his remarks at the meeting of international experts to whom he was presenting, Harold Noah stated that “the conceptual and practical problems of conducting theory-oriented comparative research are not only not immediately and obviously tractable, but are also being widely aired.”[1] Noah provides a brief overview of how the social sciences were changing at the time and that the “transformation in our thought lies in the attempt inherent in the social sciences to explain and predict, rather than merely to identify and describe.”[2] Noah’s positivistic approach to comparative education is evident as he summarizes his discussion with “the crux of all this is the necessity at some point in the analysis to stop further within-country analysis and to change the level of analysis to incorporate among-country variables. For this is the essential condition for a study to be classified as “comparative”: data are collected at more than one level and analysis also proceeds at more than one level.”[3] Noah’s comments set the stage for later critiques in the ideographic approach to comparative education.

Farrell, J.P. 1979. “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience of Science and the Problem of Comparability,” Comparative Education Review 23, no. 1: 3-16.

Joseph Farrell’s presidential address to the Comparative and International Education Society put forth a positivistic epistemological approach to comparative education. In his work, Farrell states “a basic assumption of my argument is that there is no such thing as comparative methodology. There are comparative data, to which a variety of analytical tools may be applied, the whole enterprise is being constrained by the requirements of the scientific method.”[4] Farrell points out that science is systematic, empirical and comparative and writes that “the object of science is not simply to determine that relationships exist, but to determine the range over which they exist. It is simply not possible to conceive of a generalizing science which is not inherently comparative.”[5] Farrell ends his presidential address by stating “when working with concepts, data comparability is not the apparent problem that it is when working with observables. One uses for the concepts whatever empirical indicators are relevant for each country of time period.”[6] There are just a few of the many statements made by Farrell that place him on the nomothetic side of the spectrum.

[1] Noah, H.J. “Defining Comparative Education: Conceptions,” in Relevant Methods in Comparative Education: Report of a Meeting of International Experts, ed. R. Edwards, B. Holmes and J. Van de Graaff, (Hamburg: Unesco Institute for Education, 1973), 110.
[2] Ibid, 112.
[3] Ibid, 114.
[4] Farrell, J.P. “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The Salience o Science and the Problem of Comparability,” (Comparative Education Review 23, no. 1, 1979), 4.
[5] Ibid, 5-6.
[6] Ibid, 6.

Holocultural Testing

This is the first of several posts where I will briefly review the works of comparative education scholars and place them along an epistemological spectrum. For this post, I’m looking at holocultural testing.

Herzog, J.D. 1962. Deliberate Instruction and household Structure: A Cross-Cultural Study,” in Scientific Investigation in Comparative Education, ed. M.A. Eckstein and H.J. Noah, 251-292. London: Collier Macmillian.

In what Erwin Epstein considers a “fringe epistemology” on the spectrum used in this essay, John Herzog approach falls within the holocultural testing approach to comparative education. Holocultural testing, while surprisingly influenced by anthropology, is very nomothetic in its approach to comparative education. Herzog employs a unique cross-cultural method in analyzing the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF). In the discussion of the basic theoretical orientation implemented in his research, Herzog regards the institutions of a culture “first as ‘maintenance systems,’ through which the culture makes its ecological adjustments; and second as ‘cultural solutions’ to the psychological problems which the maintenance arrangements produce. The maintenance systems of a society also affect its techniques of child training, and thus the processes of socialization which its children experience.”[1] Herzog describes the interplay of maintenance systems and socialization practices and mentions that “maintenance systems influence the nature of the projective institutions which a society may have; but the psychological outcome of a society’s child-training also strongly influence the nature of these institutions.”[2] While Herzog’s work is on the fringe of the nomothetic approach to comparative education there are others such as Erwin Epstein and David Zern, among others, who have also produced works under this theoretical approach.

[1] Page 260.
[2] Page 261.

Comparative Education Epistemological Spectrum

Epistemological debates on the production of knowledge have existed for centuries. In 1817, Marc-Antoine Julien’s Esquisse et vues préliminaires d’un ouvrage sur l’éducation comparée[1] was published and the field of comparative education was established. In his seminal work, Julien writes, “researches on comparative education must furnish new means of perfecting the science of education.”[2] Comparativists heed this challenge proposed by Julien and, as the field of comparative education has developed and grown, scholars across the globe approach the study of education from a variety of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. Comparative education scholars range in their theoretical or epistemological approaches, from extreme positivism to extreme relativism, to understanding international issues of education. Additionally, comparativists actively engage, critique and challenge one another, in both the scholarly literature of the field and during academic conferences and related events/venues, on their epistemological and methodological positions.

Throughout the next several weeks I will review and rank the academic work of twelve authors or group of authors along a comparative education epistemological spectrum. The spectrum I will be working from for this analysis was produced by Erwin H. Epstein.[3] Justification for author(s) placement along the spectrum will be provided primarily in the form of direct citation or quotation from the text of the author’s work that is being reviewed. The various epistemological approaches on the spectrum that I will review, from extreme positivist to extreme relativist, include: holocultural testing; positivism; cross-national analysis; historical functionalism; national character analysis; relativism; and, postmodern discourse.

[1] Plan and Preliminary Views for a Work on Comparative Education is the English translation of Julien’s original work in French.
[2] Julien, M.A. 1817. Esquisse et Vues Préliminaires d’un Ouvrage Sur l’éducation Comparée, in ELPS 457 Comparative Theory spring 2006 course packet, Loyola University Chicago, ed. E.H. Epstein, 30-49. Chicago: Loyola University Chicago.
[3] Epstein’s comparative education epistemological spectrum was distributed to registered students in his ELPS 457 Comparative Theory course in spring 2006.