INTERDISCIPLINARITY OF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
From time immemorial, man has been faced with
many situations where he had to make choices. Even in the academic field of
Economics, Choices and Scale of Preference seem to be very vital concepts (that
need to be studied). For choices to be made, then comparison must be as well
made. These comparisons become necessary so as to make the best choices. These comparisons
are most times made, based on certain factors. A man and a woman may be humans
but they remain unique in their physical appearances. So when choice of clothes
is to be procured, one is specifically for male and the other for female. This is
as a result of the factor of physical comparisons of both Gender. Man in his
daily life is faced with options and choices, thus comparisons. These
comparisons as well plays major roles in policy formulation and even in the
academic world. Policies are placed side by side previous policies and even
policies across the borders of one’s own country. In the world of academics,
pedagogical systems are juxtaposed with some others in some other climes just
to get semblances and differences in facts and routines. This as a whole falls in
the abyss of comparative education. All that goes on in the learning
environment is termed education. So any action carried out within this chasm is
first education before any other thing. In schools, comparative studies, are
most times carried out in the penultimate years of social science areas
(especially) and others. For instance, In the field of political science (at
about 300level in the case of University of Benin), governmental systems are
placed side by side with the major intention to grasp the differences and
places of agreements in those systems. Can this, and many more comparative
studies, be literally subsumed under a caption “comparative education”? despite
the fact that “education” is a separate field of academic discipline (honing
its own modus vivendi). If not, then what can be termed Comparative Education?
What does it encompass? Is it a discipline or is it Multi-Disciplinary as
stated earlier? Or is it a collection of many parts to form a whole like an
Interdisciplinary approach? These and many more, this paper intends to give
answers to.
Comparative education is often used
interchangeably with international education. While these two fields certainly
overlap, it can be argued that they are two distinct areas of study. There has
been a long history of debate pertaining to the identity of comparative and
international education, often called ‘twin’ fields (Bray, 2010), but what
exactly is comparative education and how does it function? This paper aims to
explain the nature and reasons for the study of comparative education. Just
before meanings are derived, this paper wishes to walk the reader through the
arguments on the nature of Comparative education, the various combative views
and meanings of Comparative education, the supposed purposes of comparative
education, and then we the reader to define Comparative education for himself.
NATURE
OF COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
Comparative
education: A discipline or interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary
What is an academic discipline? A discipline
is a branch of learning or knowledge. Traditional disciplines such as history,
economics, sociology and psychology have their own departments and offer
degrees in the subject at colleges and universities. They have an accepted and
established way of doing research and producing knowledge, often published in
their own academic journals. Examples of disciplines are History, Politics,
Sociology, Mathematics and Psychology.
Comparative education is
closely related and may overlap with, international
education, international development education, and comparative
sociology.
While in some countries, comparative education is fully established as a
distinct field of educational research, in others it might best be regarded as
an interdisciplinary field that brings together scholars from diverse
specializations. For instance, specialists in math education, social
studies education, or various arts subjects may develop research designed to
enable meaningful comparisons between national educational systems with a focus
on their specific subject area of expertise. It follows that comparative
education research can examine schooling holistically and globally (macro-level
analysis), or may alternatively focus on the status of a particular subject
area in a specific region of the world, thereby benefiting from subject-area or
regional expertise (meso- or micro-level analysis). Each approach may have
characteristic advantages and disadvantages
Over the years, many have been concerned with
whether comparative education is a discipline, a field of study, an approach or
a method – a way of collecting data. Can comparative education really be considered
a discipline? There is no single method in comparative education nor is there
any agreement as to which method is best. In fact, Bereday wrote that
‘comparative education relies on the methods of a host of other fields, from
philosophy to psychology, from literature to statistics’ (Bereday, 1964, p. x).
Some might ask, ‘does it really matter?’ while others see that it really does.
Manzon (2011) believes that this lack of clarity concerning the nature and
identity of comparative education is problematic. She writes: ‘How can a field
of study survive, develop and perpetuate itself if its scholarly community are
unclear, much less unanimous, about their field’s identity, aims and contents?’
(Manzon, 2011, p. 2). Much of the literature in the field focuses on this exact
debate. Can students acquire degrees in comparative education like they can in
other disciplines, such as history or sociology? Comparative education was
first taught as a course or module by James E. Russell at Teachers College,
Columbia University, USA, in 1899 (Bereday, 1963). The title of the course was
Comparative Study of Educational Systems. According to a university
announcement, the course was ‘designed to present a comprehensive view of a
typical foreign school system and to aid students in making intelligent
comparisons of the practical workings of this system with other systems at home
and abroad’ (Bereday, 1963, p. 189).
Furthermore, during the academic year
1899–1900, special attention was given to the national education of Germany as
compared with characteristic features of the systems of France, England and
America. Elsewhere, the first comparative education courses were taught by
Isaac Kandel at Manchester University, England, in 1905, by Peter Sandiford in
Canada at the University of Toronto in 1913 and in the 1920s at other universities
in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Uganda (Manzon, 2011). Furthermore,
Manzon reports that in the 1930s, comparative education subjects were also
taught in the Far East: at Tokyo University in Japan; in China at Beijing
Normal University and at the University of Hong Kong. In the 1940s, similar
trends were also seen in Brazil, Cuba and Australia, and by the end of the
Second World War, comparative education had become an established academic
subfield of education departments in universities around the world (Manzon,
2011).
From its inaugural course at Teachers College
at Columbia University, comparative education has had strong links to teacher
training (Planel, 2008), with many programmes around the world including it as
an optional or elective component of their degrees. However, recent reports
suggest that comparative education in initial teacher training has declined
over the years in Western countries (O’Sullivan et al., 2008; Planel, 2008). In
the UK, at undergraduate level, comparative education can be found in general
education programmes such as the BA (Hons) Education Studies and may come under
a variety of titles such as comparative pedagogy, educational systems abroad,
education in Europe, and so forth. Very often, elements of comparative
education may be found in other courses on global citizenship and philosophy of
education or in modules with titles incorporating the terms global or
international. Most full degrees in Comparative Education are offered at
Master’s level rather than undergraduate level and the number of institutions
offering this worldwide is small in comparison to other Master’s degrees such
as those in Business Administration.
Most scholars would probably now agree that
comparative education is a subfield of Education Studies. Even Bereday (1964,
p. ix) writes: ‘Comparative education is a young subfield in the very old
discipline of pedagogy.’ The field explores such a wide range of issues, and
Phillips and Schweisfurth (2014) have argued that it is the use of the
comparative method that unites comparativists. It is used by many disciplines
(for example, Comparative Politics), so it cannot be viewed as a discipline in
itself. Colclough (2010) contends that it is largely because of the vast range
of topics within the field that comparative education is not constrained by
disciplinary boundaries. Nor is it likely or desirable to be so. In fact,
Crossley and Watson (2003) believe that a major advantage of the field is its
multidisciplinary (or inter disciplinary) approach and the variety of theoretical
frameworks used in research. What topics are covered in comparative education?
Looking through various comparative education journals, one can easily see a
variety of content. However, some topics have been popular for decades (Bray,
2003b). These include ‘issues of power and control, education for national
development, importation of educational ideas, and reform of education’ (Bray,
2003b, p. 5). Theoretical themes have also dominated the literature: postmodernism,
feminism, post-colonialism and, more recently, globalisation. It is precisely
this variety which makes comparative education a hugely exciting field and
therefore attractive to a great number of students and scholars alike.
Again, there is no agreement on their usage
and for the student this can be confusing. However, as no suitable alternatives
exist, the terms as described by Halls will underpin this paper and provide the
basis for both its structure and format.
What is the purpose of comparative education and who
compares?
Comparative studies in
education are undertaken for a variety of reasons and by a variety of people
and organisations. Some of the reasons are listed below. However, the list is
not exhaustive and there is overlap, as well as one reason possibly being the
result of another:
• to learn about our own
education system and that of others;
• to enhance our knowledge
of education in general;
• to improve educational
institutions, their content, processes and methods;
• to understand the
relationship between education and society;
• to promote international
understanding;
• to find possible solutions
to educational issues
Purpose
of comparative education
The first and foremost purpose of comparative
education is in the name – to compare education in one or more countries.
Traditionally, this has involved examining national education systems as the
focus of study. It is now widely accepted that comparative education can
include intranational comparisons or, in other words, comparing within
countries, perhaps different states, provinces or regions. Bereday (1964)
believed that comparative education was simply about understanding the similarities
and differences among educational systems. Looking at the reasons behind these
enables us to learn not only about others but ourselves as well. Nevertheless,
Bereday believed that the foremost justification for comparative education was
intellectual: ‘Knowledge for its own sake is the sole ground upon which
comparative education needs to make a stand in order to merit inclusion among
other academic fields’ (Bereday,1964, p. 5).
Having said this, he (Bereday,1964, p. 5) was
also a firm believer in the practical application of comparative education and
its contribution to teaching and the social sciences in general. There are a
number of reasons why you as a student may wish to study comparative education.
Perhaps one intends to teach abroad and therefore can benefit from the insights
gleamed from exploring other educational systems.
Comparisons enable us to view education from
alternative perspectives, potentially leading to a greater understanding of the
world, the people who live in it and the issues they may face. This can also
help prepare you for teaching in a multicultural context either at home or
abroad.
Planel (2008, p. 386) argues that comparative
education and, in particular, comparative pedagogy ‘could give teachers a
better understanding of how pupils’ learning is affected by cultural understandings’.
In an age of global migration, schools have become increasingly multicultural,
so an understanding and appreciation of this diversity is crucial in the
twenty-first-century classroom.
Lastly, the subject itself is ‘eye-opening’
and interesting, particularly if one grew up in a monocultural environment.
Benefits
of and challenges to studying comparative education
Much of the literature in the field has been
written by academics for other academics and policy-makers rather than for a
student audience: ‘Academics undertake comparisons in order to improve
understanding both of the forces which shape education systems and processes in
different settings, and of the impact of education systems and processes on
social and other development’ (Bray, 2007, p. 16). There is also intrinsic
value in knowing about education outside our own borders. For centuries,
scholars have been internationally mobile in their academic pursuits (see Kim,
2009). Many have travelled abroad out of sheer intellectual curiosity, such as
those in the early ‘travellers’ tales’.
As previously stated, many international
organisations undertake comparative studies in education. The main ones include
UNESCO, the World Bank and the OECD. The aim of many of these organisations is
to reduce educational inequalities by expanding access for all and improving
the overall quality of education for the betterment of both individuals and
society. These organisations often undertake education research and produce factual
data through the use of quantitative methods. Statistics and other information
are published on their websites, making data readily available for comparisons
between two or more countries. Policy-makers and education planners are
interested in comparative education for a number of reasons: ‘Governments are
paying increasing attention to international comparisons as they search for
effective policies that enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide
incentives for greater efficiency in schooling, and help to mobilise resources
to meet rising demands’ (OECD, 2007, p. 3). Market forces and the marketisation
of education have demanded more cost-effective and efficient ways of delivering
education provision. Governments are also under pressure to improve the quality
of education provision, particularly in response to international league tables
such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMSS (Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study).
In their quest for improvement, policy-makers
may attempt to ‘borrow’ educational models or learn important lessons from
elsewhere. Bereday (1964) believed that a major goal of comparative education
was firstly to learn from the achievements and mistakes of others and secondly
to view educational issues from a global rather than an ethnocentric
perspective. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Bereday (1964, p. 5)
also believed that ‘knowing about other nations is now not only a matter of
curiosity but of necessity’. This statement is as valid today as it was over
forty years ago. Rapid advances in technology, communication, travel and so
forth have led to the increased interconnectedness of the world. This
interconnectedness has resulted in the ‘globalisation’ of nearly all aspects of
society. While Bereday was perhaps referring to peace in the wake of two world
wars, it can be argued that knowing about other nations has now become
necessary as a result of globalization. In fact, many scholars believe that
comparative and international research in education is being ‘revitalised’ as a
result of globalisation (Crossley and Watson, 2003).
What
are the challenges of studying comparative education?
The challenges of methodology aside, perhaps,
potentially one of the greatest barriers for comparativists is that we all hold
values and beliefs about the nature and purpose of education which are
inextricably linked to our own experiences. As Bereday previously pointed out,
there is a danger of adopting an ‘ethnocentric’ approach when making comparisons.
Schultz and Lavenda (2011) define ethnocentrism as ‘The opinion that one’s own
way of life is natural or correct and, indeed, the only true way of being fully
human.’ When making comparisons, we have to be aware that we do not impose our
own values and beliefs on others, particularly if we think our own way of doing
something is ‘best’. On the other hand, one mustn’t have an inferiority complex
like some third world nations do. They import foreign systems directly,
regardless of the nation’s cultural and social set-ups. This can lead to bias
and even prejudice if we are not careful.
Another challenge stems from the data used in
comparative education and the need to critically appraise not only how it was
arrived at, but the source of it as well. We need to check our sources
carefully to make sure they are reliable, accurate and that there is no hidden
agenda. For example, newspapers may over-exaggerate international league table results
and report on them inaccurately so there is a ‘story’ to sell. Sometimes
statistics are presented by governments in such a way that they are seen in the
best possible light (Clarkson, 2009). This may be particularly true around
election time when governments try to demonstrate that improvements to
education have been made.
And, more importantly, are we comparing the
same things? When we talk about courses, for instance, do we mean modules or
programmes? Is the first grade in the USA the same thing as year 1 in the UK?
In other words, are we comparing like for like? We also need to carefully
consider the ‘thing’ we are analysing – education. Education does not mean the
same thing to everyone. As Grant (2000, p. 310) points out, ‘[i]t may have
quite different aims, operate under different conditions, and be assessed by
different criteria’. Are comparisons fair if we are not looking at the same
thing? As previously mentioned, ‘borrowing’ educational best practice from
other countries is common in comparative education. Many examples of borrowing
can be found in the UK and elsewhere. In the UK, one such example was the
abolition of the tripartite system of education, where children were segregated
by ability into grammar, secondary modern or technical schools in the 1960s,
which was replaced with a comprehensive system of schooling based on the
American high school model (Clarkson, 2009). However, the transference of ideas
from one context to another is a highly complex affair (Phillips and
Schweisfurth, 2014). Education planners cannot simply transpose one set of
ideas onto another without taking into consideration the social, cultural,
historical and even economic factors involved. Historically, there are many examples
worldwide (both successful and unsuccessful) where comparative studies in education
have played a significant role in influencing policy.
Case
Study
Case study 1:
Educational ‘borrowing’ in China, 1949—66 Throughout the centuries and at
different points in time, China, like many nations, has looked elsewhere for
answers to educational dilemmas. The search for Western knowledge can be traced
back to the sixteenth century and the Italian Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci
(Lee and Mak, 2010). Although Ricci went to China with the aim of spreading
Christianity, he also played a key role in spreading European scientific
knowledge, particularly in mathematics and astronomy. In later years, China
looked to the former Soviet Union for educational reforms. From 1949 to the
mid-1950s, the dominant slogan in China was ‘learn from the Soviet Union’, and
over 10,000 Soviet experts went to China to help set up a Soviet model of
education (Pepper, 1996, p. 158). The Soviet model was incorporated at all
levels from primary schooling through to higher education, and Soviet thinking
continued to directly influence policy until the early 1960s (see Tsang, 2000).
During this time universal primary schooling was introduced as well as efforts
to reduce illiteracy rates. As a result, over 100 million Chinese between the
ages of 14 and 45 became literate from 1949 to 1966 (Arnove, 1984).
Furthermore, the massive expansion in schooling led to increased enrolment
rates. In 1949, only about 20 per cent of young people were attending school,
but by 1980 90 per cent of schoolage children were enrolled (Arnove, 1984).
Changes in higher education ‘Soviet style’ were also made as the Chinese
government looked to reform it. Soviet academic material was translated and
used as the primary source of the curriculum. Central planning was a key
component of Soviet-style management, which led to an emphasis on uniformity,
standardisation and the adoption of the exact same course syllabus and teaching
plans in institutions across China. By mid1954, curriculum revision for over
170 academic specialisms was complete and their use enforced (Pepper, 1996). In
the ‘Great Leap Forward’, the number of higher education institutions increased
from 229 in 1957 to 1,289 in 1960, and within this same three-year period,
total enrolment also increased from 441,181 to 961,623 (Yu et al., 2012). The
increase in the number of students along with the mechanical copying of
Soviet-style education is attributed to the decrease in the quality of higher
education during this time.
Conclusion
Comparative education has successfully
emerged in the twenty-first century as an interdisciplinary field of study with
a strong scholarly base. There have been a number of individuals and
organisations throughout history (too many to name in such a short study) who
have contributed greatly to its establishment and academic advancement. The
interest in, and indeed the importance of, comparative education can be seen in
the worldwide growth of societies, organisations, academic journals, specialist
courses and even postgraduate degrees in the subject. There are many students,
academics, policy-makers and practitioners engaged with comparative education
for a variety of reasons worldwide. Whatever the purpose, the field has
contributed, and will continue to contribute, greatly to our understanding of
education – both of others and of our own.
References
Acosta, F. and
Centeno, C. (2011) ‘Re-bordering comparative education in Latin America:
Between global limits and local characteristics’, International Review of
Education, 57: 477–96.
Arnove, R. (1984) ‘A
comparison of the Chinese and Indian education systems’, Comparative Education
Review, 28 (3): 378–401.
Bereday, G. (1963)
‘James Russell’s syllabus of the first academic course in Comparative
Education’, Comparative Education Review, 7 (2): 189–96.
Bereday,
G. (1964) Comparative Method in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bignold, W. and
Gayton, L. (eds) (2009) Global Issues and Comparative Education.Exeter:
Learning Matters.
Bravo, H.F. (1994)
‘Domingo Faustino Sarmiento’, Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative
Education, 24 (3/4): 487–500.
Bray, M. (2003a)
‘Comparative education in the era of globalisation: Evolution, missions and
roles’, Policy Futures in Education, 1 (2): 209–24.
Bray, M. (ed.)
(2003b) Comparative Education: Continuing Traditions, New Challenges, and New
Paradigms. The Hague: Kluwer Academic.
Bray, M. (2007)
‘Actors and purposes in comparative education’, in M. Bray, B. Adamson and M.
Mason (eds), Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre.
Bray, M. (2010)
‘Comparative education and international education in the history of Compare:
Boundaries, overlaps and ambiguities’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 40 (6): 711–25.
Bray, M. and Qin, G.
(2001) ‘Comparative education in Greater China’, Comparative Education, 37 (4):
451–73.
Bray, M., Adamson, B.
and Mason, M. (eds) (2007) Comparative Education Research: Approaches and
Methods. Hong Kong: Springer.
Brickman, W. (2010)
‘Comparative education in the nineteenth century’, European Education, 42 (2):
46–56.
Clarkson, J. (2009)
‘What is comparative education?’, in W. Bignold and L. Gayton (eds), Global
Issues and Comparative Education. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Colclough, C. (2010)
‘Reflective pieces: Development studies and comparative education: Where do
they find common cause?’, Compare, 40 (6): 821–6.
Comparative &
International Education Society (CIES) (2018): www.cies.us Crossley, M. and Watson, K. (2003)
Comparative and International Research in
Education:
Globalisation, Context and Difference. Oxford: Routledge.
Dale, R. (2005)
‘Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education’, Comparative
Education, 41 (2): 117–49.
Epstein, E.H. (1992)
‘Editorial’, Comparative Education Review, 36 (4): 409–16.
Epstein, E.H. (2008)
‘Setting the normative boundaries: Crucial epistemological benchmarks in
comparative education’, Comparative Education, 44 (4): 373–86.
Epstein, E.H. (2017)
‘Is Marc-Antoine Jullien de Paris the “father” of comparative education?’,
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47 (3): 317–331.
Gautherin, J. (1993)
‘Marc-Antoine Jullien (“Jullien de Paris”)’, Prospects: The Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, 23 (3/4): 757–73.
Grant, N. (2000)
‘Tasks for comparative education in the new millennium’, Comparative Education,
36 (3): 309–17.
Green, A. (2003)
‘Education, globalisation and the role of comparative research’, London Review
of Education, 1 (2): 84–97.
Halls, W.D. (ed.)
(1990) Comparative Education: Contemporary Issues and Trends. London: Jessica
Kingsley/UNESCO.
Hans, N. (1949)
Comparative Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hayden, M. (2006)
Introduction to International Education. London: Sage.
Kandel, I. (1933)
Studies in Comparative Education. London: George Harrap.
Kim, T. (2009)
‘Shifting patterns of transnational academic mobility: A comparative and
historical approach’, Comparative Education, 45 (3): 387–403.
King, E. (1965) ‘The
purpose of comparative education’, Comparative Education, 1 (3): 147–59.
Lee, W.O. and Mak,
G.L.C. (2010) ‘From knowledge transfer to knowledge interaction: The
development of comparative education in China through the lens of comparative
journals’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40
(6): 761–80.
Little, A. (2010)
‘International and comparative education: What’s in a name?’, Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40 (6): 845–52.
Mallinson, V. (1981)
‘In the wake of Sir Michael Sadler’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 11 (2): 175–83.
Manzon, M. (2011)
Comparative Education: The Construction of a Field. Hong Kong: CERC/Springer.
Masemann, V. (2006)
‘Afterword’, Current Issues in Comparative Education, 8 (2). Available online
at: www.tc.edu/cice/Issues/08.02/82masemann.html
Masemann, V., Bray,
M. and Manzon, M. (eds) (2008) Common Interests, Uncommon Goals: Histories of
the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and Its Members. Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Noah, H. and
Eckstein, M. (1969) Toward a Science of Comparative Education. New York:
Macmillan.
O’Sullivan, M.,
Maarman, R. and Wolhuter, C. (2008) ‘Primary student teachers’ perceptions of
motivations for comparative education: Findings from a comparative study of an
Irish and South African comparative education course’, Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 38 (4): 401–14.
OECD (2007) Education
at a Glance 2007. Paris: OECD.
Pepper, S. (1996)
Radicalism and Education Reform in Twentieth-Century China. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, D. (2000)
‘Beyond travellers’ tales: Some nineteenth-century British commentators on
education in Germany’, Oxford Review of Education, 26 (1): 49–62.
Phillips, D. and
Schweisfurth, M. (2014) Comparative and International Education: An
Introduction to Theory, Method and Practice (2nd edn). London: Continuum.
Planel, C. (2008)
‘The rise and fall of comparative education in teacher training: Should it rise
again as comparative pedagogy?’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 38 (4): 385–99.
Rust, V., Johnstone,
B. and Allaf, C. (2009) ‘Reflections on the development of comparative
education’, in R. Cowen and A. Kazamias (eds), International Handbook of Comparative
Education. London: Springer.
Schultz, E. and
Lavenda, R. (2011) Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition
(8th edn). Available online at:
www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199760060/book/?view=usa
Tsang, M.C. (2000)
Education and National Development in China since 1949: Oscillating Policies
and Enduring Dilemmas. Available online at:
http://tc.columbia.edu/faculty/tsang/Files/7.pdf
World Council of
Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) (2018): www.wcces.com
Yu, K., Stith, A.L.,
Liu, L. and Chen, H. (2012) Tertiary Education at a Glance: China. Boston:
Sense.
Comments
Post a Comment