No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We have noted with interest the steadily increasing number of attempts to define the province of comparative education through prescriptions of methods of research and aims. Remarking on the interrelations among psychology, philosophy and statecraft, Grace has proposed that research in comparative education be directed at examining the educational consequences of several broad schools of thought, l) Samonte, advocating an interdisciplinary approach, cautions us against "expertism" when borrowing methods from other fields but enjoins us to promote an "enlightened" interdisciplinary training program for graduate students and to encourage scholars from other fields to participate in professional conferences on comparative education. 2)Recently, Hilker has proposed a three-step process of "comparison" in education: description, explication, and juxtaposition (which, of course, includes finding a standard of comparison, s) Bereday has expanded Hilker's process to include a fourth step -comparison proper. 4) Both Bereday and Kneller have indicated the direction which comparative education will have to take in order to continue progressing as a scholarly discipline. 5) While we agree that they are quite correct in their plea for an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach -one which would be grounded in scientific, philosophical, and educational theory, and would select methodology according to the scope, limit, and focus of the inquiry -we also feel that there have been too many parochial pleas on the part of some comparative educators for a particular methodology. It is true that the natural and social sciences sometimes find that a particular methodology suits a particular kind of recurring inquiry, but we doubt that any discipline could sustain progress with a single 1

No abstract