The Meanings of the Term Comparative in Comparative Education
Published in World Studies in Education 3 # 1 & 2, 2002: 53-68
Val D. Rust
University of California, Los Angeles
It is a pleasure to share some comments with you at the regional meeting of the
Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). I shall address some issues related to
CIES, for I feel all too little attention is given to the meanings of the labels “comparative” and
“international” in our society. CIES was originally known as the Comparative Education Society
and in 1972 during his tenure as president Stewart Fraser was successful in adding the term
“International.” I do not plan to draw a firm distinction between the two spheres, though it might
be helpful to suggest that “comparative education” is generally regarded as the more academic or
scientific aspect of the field, while international education is related to “cooperation,
understanding, and exchange” elements of the field (Fraser and Brickman 1968). I work actively
in both spheres, in that I consider my research and theoretical work to be related to comparative
education, while my service as director of the UCLA Education Abroad Program to be related to
international education.
Today, I would like to concentrate on the term “comparative” as used in comparative
education. In some respects the term comparative studies has been unfortunate, because most
knowledge is comparative in nature. In terms of education, R. Murray Thomas (1998: 1) reminds
us that “in its most inclusive sense, comparative education refers to inspecting two or more
educational entities or events in order to discover how and why they are alike and different.”
Thomas points out that comparative education is generally defined in practice in a more restricted
sense. That is, it refers to the “study of educational likenesses and differences between regions of
the world or between two or more nations….” Stewart Fraser and William Brickman (1968: 1)
would agree with Thomas in their own definition of the field: “Comparative Education is…the
analysis of educational systems and problems in two or more national environments in terms of
socio-political, economic, cultural, ideological, and other contexts.” Such definitions are similar
to those in other social science comparative fields. Comparative Sociology, for example, has
.
1
been defined as any specifically cross-cultural or cross-societal … comparison of similarities and
differences between social phenomena… (Jary and Jary 1991: 103).
My task in this essay is to consider the term “comparative” in its more restricted sense, in
the way the term is used in various comparative fields of study. It is somewhat curious that
scholars in our field of comparative education have never attempted to sort out the various
meanings of the term “comparative.” We likely accept uncritically the notion that many fields
have their comparative subfield and make the assumption that all comparative fields have so
much in common that it is not necessary for us to dwell on the specific meanings of the term.
Some comparativists are content to quote the famous statement of Rudyard Kipling in The
English Flag: “what know they of England, who only England know!” or the statement of Johann
Wolfgang Goethe, in his Sprüche in Prosa: “He who knows nothing of foreign languages, knows
nothing about his own.”
Comparative studies in both the life sciences and the social sciences have much in
common, but there are also crucial differences in the way comparative studies are used and I
would like to elaborate on these similarities and differences. In other words, I plan to engage in a
comparative analysis of comparative studies. Such an exercise is difficult, because every field is
continually changing; however, most fields are based on traditions that have lasting
characteristics, and I wish to concentrate on the broad brush strokes of comparative portraits of
several comparative fields.
Origins of Comparative Studies
Comparative studies emerged at a crucial time in the world’s history. Europeans were
discovering the rest of the world and attempting to explain its many variations. Rational
explanations were being sought for the true nature of human institutions. A belief in natural law
required making assessments of how governments, family, and civil society were organized.
These developments contributed to the rise of comparative studies. Science was particularly
important in the development of comparative studies, and early comparative scholars uniformly
identified their field as one which relied on the use of “scientific methodology.”
1
In the more
1
Louis Henry Jordan (1905), for example, wrote a large volume entitled Comparative Religion, where he
extolled no less than twenty comparative fields, claiming that the common property of all these fields was
their “distinctive methodology.” That is, they all used the scientific method and aimed “to expound those
.
2
general scientific sense, comparative scholars tested hypotheses about causal relations between
phenomena. However, from the beginning comparative scholars also restricted their scientific
research in two ways. First, they examined similarities and differences between phenomena or
classes of phenomena. Second, whereas science was generally committed to experimentation as a
way of making classifications and testing theory, the comparative scholar relied almost entirely
on studying variations in the natural setting.
Comparative studies initially emerged in the life sciences, as subfields of anatomy,
paleontology, and embryology. These life sciences established the main form that comparative
studies would take by emphasizing hierarchical classification. To classify is to arrange items or
data into groups, and the classification scheme of comparative life sciences was based on the
assumption of a hierarchy of life forms.2 Comparative anatomy, for example, assumed that
animal life consisted of a so-called “scale of being,” or a “ladder of creation” and animal groups
occupied different rungs or steps on that ladder. The comparative anatomist compared organs and
organ systems in order to determine the variations to be found in God’s creation. With the
emergence of the theory of evolution, comparative anatomy was revolutionized in that the
various animal archetypes on this ladder of creation were seen as progressive steps in the
evolutionary process. Life forms were thought to move along a number of evolutionary lines
from the simple to the complex.
Embryologists, who studied embryos and fetuses, also engaged in comparative analysis
and with the emergence of evolutionary theories they developed the notion that ontogeny
recapitulates phylogony. That is, they claimed there was evidence that the embryo and fetus of
each animal travels through its own family tree. Paleontology focused mainly on the origins or
fundamental laws of relation.” These fields were Comparative Anatomy, Comparative Philology,
Comparative Grammar, Comparative Education, Comparative Philosophy, Comparative Psychology,
Comparative History, Comparative Geography, Comparative Antiquities, Comparative Art, Comparative
Architecture, Comparative Agriculture, Comparative Forestry, Comparative Statistics, Comparative
Ethnology, Comparative Mythology, Comparative Sociology, Comparative Hygiene, Comparative Hygiene,
Comparative Physiology, Comparative Zoology, Comparative Jurisprudence, Comparative Economics,
Comparative Colonisation, Comparative Civics, and Comparative Politics. Jordan then devotes himself to
the scientific development of the field of comparative religion.
2 The process of classification is always somewhat arbitrary, but a comparative classification scheme
usually satisfies at least two criteria: communicability and comprehensiveness. In terms of communicability,
the scheme must be of value to those who wish to communicate with each other, so the groupings and their
relations must be understood and seen as useful to scholars. In terms of comprehensiveness, the scheme
must be so designed that all elements of any system could logically be placed within some category.
.
3
life through the study of fossils with the intention of reconstructing the dead forms of life, their
basic shape and structure, their evolution, and their taxonomic relationships.
In the nineteenth century all of these fields were based on a common assumption that
there is a hierarchy of life forms, with human beings constituting the highest life form.
Comparative Studies in the Social Sciences
One can see the carry-over of comparative studies in the life sciences to major early
trends in the social sciences. We recall, that Auguste Comte (1998: 132-37), the father of
sociology, who first labeled the field comparative sociology, gave credit to physiology for much
of his thinking, and his notion of society corresponds strikingly with the “ladder of being” in
anatomical studies. That is, he believed societies evolved through a series of set stages, with
Europe at the pinnacle of this process. Social evolution consisted of three primary stages: the
theological (religious), then the metaphysical (philosophical), and finally the positive (scientific)
stage. In his theory he distinguished between “statics” and “dynamics.” His statics would be
echoed by those stressing the social order and functionalism, while his dynamics would be
emphasized by those interested in changes taking place in society and the forces that would
contribute to these changes. According to Comte, the major work of sociologists would be to
investigate societies and place them in their appropriate evolutionary stage of development.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, sociology developed into a recognized
discipline, and its founders developed a paradigm that followed Compte’s conceptual frame in
that societies were seen to progress through several stages, including the primitive stage, the
traditional stage and finally the modern stage. The final two stages represented a dichotomous
social construct, the modern world forming one ideal extreme of the construct and the traditional
forming the other. This framework echoes Herbert Spencer’s homogeneity and differentiation,
Max Weber’s traditionalism and rationalism, Emile Durkheim’s organic to mechanical
organization , and Ferdinand Tönnies’ community and society. This dichotomous framework
suggests a linear movement between two extremes. A nation is believed to modernize when it
looses its traditional characteristics and takes on modern characteristics. It is important to note
that not all of the scholars mentioned above saw the modern as an advance over the traditional.
.
4
Durkheim (1893), for example, saw the shift from an organic to a mechanical social life to be a
step backward in social organization .
A basic assumption of the comparative sociologists has been that a hierarchy of social
forms exists and the task of the comparativist is to classify the various societies and place them
in their appropriate hierarchical station.
A substantial amount of research in comparative education has been based on a similar
assumption that there is a developmental hierarchy of social and educational structures. This was
the pervasive paradigm in the social sciences at the time comparative education became a
legitimate subfield in education in the years following World War II. One reason the field of
comparative education took off was the central role accorded to education in national
development, foreign aid, and economic investment. And according to scholars such as Philip
Altbach (1991), modernization theory remains today one of the defining features of comparative
education, though in recent years it has been somewhat discredited. For example, Samuel
Huntington (1971: 294) complained that the modern ideal is set forth, “then everything which is
not modern is labeled traditional.” The greatest challenges to modernization have come from the
so-called conflict oriented social scientists. One of the more popular theories in this paradigm,
for example, has been world systems theory, which is based on the notion that the world is
controlled and ruled by capitalism, located in core nations, and ruled by those who profit from
the capitalist system. The rest of the world is located in the so-called semi-periphery or periphery
countries, which are seen to be largely exploited and victimized by the core nations. And even
more recently, the notion of globalization has become a dominant theme in international work.
Though it incorporates political and cultural globalism, it remains mainly centered on the notion
of a global capitalist system that defines our lives (Wallerstein 1991). We often forget that much
of this recent work stems conceptually from Karl Marx, who also saw societies forming a clear
hierarchy and historical movement through various stages.3 World systems and globalization
theories are conceptual constructs based as much on interpretation as on historical fact, but they
3
This conceptual frame formed the core of history study in public schools of countries under the influence of the
Soviet Union. In East Germany, for example, the history curriculum was six years in length and it was based on the
notion that mankind has progressed through a series of epochs: original society, slave society, feudal society, early
capitalism, imperialistic capitalism, and finally socialism. In each of the epochs, progressive forces were at work to
move society to another level of development, while reactionary forces were attempting to prevent its development
(Rust .
.
5
play a powerful role in the thinking of comparative educators. Even though the hierarchical
developmental paradigm outlined above continues to loom large in the field of comparative
education, alternative notions are also found.
Alternative Notions of Comparative Studies
While there appears to be a pervasive comparative studies framework in the social
sciences and comparative education, there are a number of other comparative frameworks. I shall
outline three alternatives: ahistorical system typologies, historical studies in cross cultural
perspective, and studies of influences across national borders.
Ahistorical System Typologies
One of the main variations in classification work among comparativists is the attempt to
classify social systems and structures that do not suggest evolutionary or hierarchical
arrangements. Comparative politics is particularly known for its ahistorical attempts to develop
categories representing the contemporary political world. Even though it has also given some
attention to modernization and political development, its primary comparative politics legacy, is
its interest in classifying the types of regimes that exist, finding language equivalents in different
political systems, and classifying their respective functions. We are all familiar with the
following ways of ruling: the rule of the one (monarchy), the rule of the few (aristocracy), and the
rule of the many (democracy). There is no suggestion in the scheme that one form of rule evolved
from another form, or that one is even better than another. In fact, each type has its shadow side
in that a monarchy can degenerate into a tyranny or despotism, an aristocracy can become an
oligarchy, and a democracy can become a mob or chaotic form of ruling.
Similarly, specialists in comparative law are interested in the normative content of
various legal systems. They attempt to define families of legal systems such as Roman law,
common law, or socialist law, and identify the norms and ways of thinking that take place within
these legal families.
Whereas ahistorical typologies dominate certain comparative fields, comparative
education has given little attention to national typologies. This appears to be so foundational that
a comparative field is almost unable to exist in any meaningful sense unless the objects of study
.
6
have been classified in some rigorous manner so that research is cumulative. Comparative
educators have relied on typologies drawn from other fields, but have done little to extend and
enhance the form of educational typologies. It is true that Marc Antoine Jullien, seen by many as
the father of comparative education, was one of the first modern scholars to establish a
classification design that would facilitate collecting and cataloguing data about different school
systems. This scheme has been retained until this day (Holmes 1981: 89). Some early work was
done by Pedro Rosello, and followed by scholars such as Franz Hilker (1962) and George
Bereday (1964), who assumed that before juxtaposition could take place in the comparative
process, classification would clearly be necessary. However, it has typically fallen on
international agencies and organizations to classify international education data, mainly because
groups like the International Bureau of Education, Unesco, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and the Council of Europe, which began collecting information
about education in various national settings, recognized the necessity of using a standard set of
categories. The basic focus of most schemes was on levels and types of education, and it has long
been apparent that the nomenclature and flexibility of the schemes were only approximately
appropriate to most countries.
In spite of the efforts of international organizations, little cumulative work has come from
their initial appeals for systematic classification efforts. In addition, comparative education
scholars have had little to do with most schemes, in certain respects because they have taken little
interest in contributing to the process. Of course there have been exceptions, including Brian
Holmes (1981: Ch. 5) or Philip Coombs (1968). Some of my own work has involved
classification of schooling (Rust 1977; Dalin and Rust 1998). At UCLA I and my students have
recently engaged in a survey of works published in comparative education journals in the late
1980s and 1990s. The authors, who had published in comparative education journals, rarely
indicated that classification was a part of their research agenda.
Historical Approaches in Comparative Studies
Certain humanistic comparative fields pay strong attention to the origins and history if
their subject matter. Comparative philology is a good case in point. Philologists generally feel it
is inappropriate to suggest that languages evolved in the conventional sense of the term, because
.
7
evolution generally implies the notion of progressive change or improvements, and comparative
philologists have rarely been guilty of suggesting that one language form is superior to another.
Rather, the philologist is content to trace the changes that occur in sounds, in words, in spelling,
in grammar, etc., and joins the socio-linguist in studying the contextual forces connected with
these language changes.
Franz Bopp, the founder of comparative philology, was mainly interested in the genesis of
linguistic forms at least as they pertained to Indo-European languages (Delbrück 1882). Those
comparative philologists who followed Bopp believed the historical roots of language could only
be reached through comparison (Sayce 1892). They have attempted to piece together the history
of the human species by engaging in a scientific study of the history of language. Contemporary
comparative philology, now usually called comparative linguistics, has continued to focus on the
reconstruction of earlier forms of language and the changes that have taken place in these
languages.
The study of history played a significant role as the field of comparative education was
being defined. Many early pioneers of the field were themselves historians, including Robert
Ulich, Isaac Kandel, Harold Benjamin and William W. Brickman. Those who wrote the early
textbooks, including Isaac Kandel (1933) as well as I. N. Thut and Don Adams (1964), took a
historical approach to their country studies. However, their work deviated markedly from that of
the comparative philologists. First, whereas philology has maintained a focus on language
origins, little attention is given in comparative education to the origins of any aspect of
education. Rather, history of education is usually outlined in order to provide a sense of context
and the social setting in which a particular educational problem is situated.4 Second, there has
generally been a methodological flaw in the historical accounts of comparative educators.
Because early comparative education was global in nature, the historical studies these pioneers of
the field produced were based almost exclusively based on secondary sources. In fact, Auguste
Comte (1988) argued that it was appropriate to rely on secondary sources when studying the
history of a society. However, that tradition has not led to great credibility in their historical
works.
Harold Benjamin’s Saber-Tooth Curriculum, is a wonderful story of paleolithic education, but it is nothing but a
story.
4
.
8
While historical studies play some role in contemporary comparative education, it is not
significant. In our survey work at UCLA, mentioned above, we have found only slight attention
now being given to historiography; only 10.3 percent of the authors reviewed were judged to
include history as part of their research publications (Rust and Others, 1999). I turn now to the
next category of comparison: influences across cultures.
Influences across Cultures
Some comparative fields focus mainly on influences within and across cultures.
Comparative literature is a primary example of this type orientation in that these comparative
scholars attempt to unravel interrelationships between individuals, schools of thought, or national
literatures across time and space. In terms of time, comparative literature specialists wish to chart
how German Catholic literature influenced German classicism and how classicism, in turn,
influenced romanticism; how Shakespeare changed English literature; how modern European
literature is in debt to Greek and Latin literature. In terms of space, the comparative literature
scholar wishes to trace the movement of themes and genres from place to place, how religious
themes in Switzerland migrated to the Netherlands, then to America; how Tolstoi, Emerson and
Thoreau influenced Indian writers in South Asia; how Africa incorporates European writing
styles; how the Don Juan archetype moves from culture to culture (e.g., Samuel and
Shanmugham 1980; Weisstein 1968; Weisbuch 1989; Highet 1992).
Some important work has been done in comparative education related to tracing
influences in educational change and reform. Harry Armytage, for example, has written four
books tracing the influence of America, France, Germany, and Russia on English education
(1967; 1968; 1969a; 1969b). Frederick Schneider (1943) devoted most of his period of exile in
Nazi Germany tracing the influences of German education on other countries. Some of my own
work has focused on the reciprocal influences on education between Germans and Americans
(1967;1968;1997). One of the interesting stories I usually tell in my classes is how the report of
the French scholar, Victor Cousin, on Prussian education in 1831 led to the establishment of the
American common school. In 1834 Sarah Austin translated Cousin’s report into English and
copies of this English translation fell into American hands and was a trumpet call for a general
exodus of educators and statesmen to Prussia, including Calvin E. Stowe (1910), Alexander
.
9
Dallas Bache (1839), Horace Mann (1844), and Henry Barnard (1854). Consequently, the
American common school was almost an exact copy of the Prussian Volksschule. Curiously,
these American reformers often retained the French terms used by Cousin. Consequently, the
American normal school is a replica of the German teacher training seminar, though the term we
use comes from the French (école normale).
I would conclude that though the tracing of influences can be found in comparative
education studies they do not constitute any systematic research agenda of those in the field.
Whereas comparative literature has developed a systematic framework to chart a cumulative
literature on influences, comparative education work regarding influences remains sporadic and
non-cumulative.
Discussion
With this all too superficial review, it has been possible to characterize various
comparative fields. I have noted, for example, that comparative anatomy has a hierarchical
comparative classification; comparative politics has a somewhat different orientation related to
ahistorical typologies, while comparative philology traces the comparative development of
languages, and comparative literature traces cultural influences across cultures. The question
remains, are we able to characterize our own field of comparative education in some specific
way. Certainly, developmental and ahistorical system typologies, and cultural influences have
played some role in our field; however, I am inclined to characterize our work as relying mainly
on hierarchical developmental classification.
In certain respects the many comparative approaches we see in our field is unfortunate,
because we are a relatively small field, one that is fragmented in its diverse connections with
various social science disciplines, and our work is diluted by our lack of identification with a
specific comparative orientation. I do not wish to suggest that our comparative work be as
narrowly defined as in some fields. For example, the single intention of comparative mysticism is
to study the mystical experience, in order to determine “whether all such experiences are
reducible to one pattern” (Zaehner 1957: 31). However, becoming a bit more focused in our
comparative research agenda might help us make more progress in terms of our scientific
contributions.
.
10
Even though our field is weakened by its methodological diversity, I believe we face a
more serious challenge. In the past we have relied on developmental paradigms taken from the
life and social sciences. Models such as modernization, world systems theory, and globalization,
all have a deterministic edge to them. Karl Popper (1962) has labeled such orientations as
historicism, because they rely on the predictive style and methodology of the natural sciences. All
too often we have been guilty of historicist tendencies in comparative education and our work
has suffered as a consequence. Recent trends in our field are significant, because they have been
shifting our attention away from this positivist orientation toward broader considerations of
knowledge production. The anti-positivistic trends in our field are refreshing but at the same time
they are challenging.
Apologists for the more conventional science-oriented comparative approaches claim this
new orientation, which I identify here as postmodernism, ought to be rejected, because it places
the very foundations of comparative studies in jeopardy, ostensibly obliterating any notion of
comparable categories. Defenders of science claim science allows us to establish fixed referents
and general thought systems that are necessary for comparative studies to exist.5 Postmodernsists
agree that science-oriented scholars rely on global frames of reference, but they criticize
positivist assumptions, because fixed referents lock civilization into totalitarian and logocentric
thought systems. Jean-François Lyotard (1984) and Michel Foucault (1980) associate science
with "totalitarian theories" and "terroristic universals."
Postmodern scholars describe the world as one which is decentered, constantly changing,
without the chains and conventions of modern society. Its proponents believe the stories of
pluralistic contemporary societies are being written by a number of narratives and reject
philosophical systems of thought, which propose some universal standard, as reflected in the
orientations of scholars such as Adam Smith, Freud, Hegel, Compte, and Marx. But other
scholars defending such conventional paradigms claim that postmoderns are throwing the baby
5
They argue that comparability is only possible if two criteria are satisfied. First, the categories of comparison must
transcend any particular system. Kluckhohn (1953), for example, claims "genuine comparison is only possible if
nonculture-bound units have been isolated." Second, the categories of comparison must have the same meaning
across the systems being compared. Kluckhohn refers to these as "invariant points of reference." Zelditch (1971) has
formalized the above conditions for comparison in the following way: "Let 1, 2, 3,... be units in each of which the
process takes place. Then 1 is comparable to 2, 3,... n if and only if (a) there exists a variable V common to each of
them and (b) the meaning of V is the same for all of them.”
.
11
out with the bath. Their postmodern epistemology would reject the possibility of establishing
comparable categories.
Those defending the conventional paradigm claim postmoderns are destroying the
possibility of satisfying the criteria necessary for comparison. This argument is important, and I
have elsewhere cautioned against rejecting certain metanarratives, because I have worried about
our becoming trapped into localized frameworks that have no general validity, that disallow
comparison, and deny the integration of cultures and harmonizing values (Rust 1991). Legitimate
metanarratives give access to knowledge of individuals, systems, and societies, providing forms of
analysis that express and articulate differences, that encourage critical thinking without closing off
thought and avenues for constructive action.6 My stance may be seen as faint hearted, because I
wish to remain supportive of science while challenging the narrowness of past scientific work. I
must confess I have great regard for science and its potential, and I agree with John Horgan
(1996: 5), that scientists generally want to learn about reality, and I laud them for their interest in
knowing more, in discovering truth. However, their tendency to disregard non-scientific ways of
knowing is self-defeating. Is there a way to support science while recognizing the value of other
ways of knowing?
One course of action we comparative educators might take is to reconsider our strong
commitment to hierarchical developmental classification. It clearly has favored Eurocentrism and
unequal power relations. I find the other comparative approaches discussed in this essay to be
less hegemonic than hierarchical developmental classification, and our field might stave off the
threat of anti-positivists by moving toward these more even-handed approaches.
At the same time, I feel we must reject the hegemonic claims of science. We recall, for
example, that Comte believed society traversed through various stages, from religion, to
philosophy, then to science. His mistake, from my vantage point, was to place these ways of
knowing in a hierarchical framework, which makes philosophy a second-rate means of knowing,
and religion a third-rate means of knowing. My own orientation is to place them parallel with
each other. There is a place for the spiritual, a place for the philosophical, and a place for the
scientific, and any attempt to place one exclusively over the other is inappropriate.
6
I reject the claims of science-oriented comparativists that science is necessary to establish comparable categories.
Philosophical categories are just as legitimate, though it is not appropriate here to outline that argument.
.
12
Bibliography
Almond, G., and J. Coleman. 1960. The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Altbach, P. G. 1991.Trends in Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 35
(February), 491-507.
Armytage, W. H. G. 1967. The American Influence on English Education. London: Routledge
and K. Paul.
Armytage, W. H. G. 1968. The French Influence on English Education. London: Routledge and
K. Paul.
Armytage, W. H. G. 1969a. The German Influence on English Education. London: Routledge
and K. Paul.
Armytage, W. H. G. 1969b. The Russian Influence on English Education. London: Routledge
and K. Paul.
Bache, A. D. 1839. Education in Europe. Philadelphia, Lydia Bailey.
Barnard, H. 1854. National Education in Europe. Hartford, Case Tiffany and Co., 1854, 87.
Benjamin, Harold. 1939. Saber Tooth Curriculum, pseudonym of J. Abner Peddiwell. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bereday, G. Z. F. 1964. Comparative Method in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Comte, A. 1988. Introduction to Positive Philosophy (Reprint). New York: Hacket.
Dalin, P. and V. Rust. 1998. Toward Schooling for the Twenty-first Century. London: Cassell.
Delbrück, B. 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language. Translated from the German. Leipzig:
Breitkopf and Härtel.
Durkheim, E. 1893. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
Epstein, E. H. 1983. Currents Left and Right: Ideology in Comparative Education. Comparative
Education Review, 27 (February): 3-29.
Foucault, M. 1980. Two Lectures. Pp. 80-82 in Colin Gordon (ed.). Power and Knowledge:
Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Fraser, Stewart E. and William W. Brickman (eds.). 1968. A History of International and
Comparative Education. Boston: Scott, Foresman and Co.
.
13
Hans, N. 1949. Comparative Education: A Study of Educational Factors and Traditions.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Highet, G. 1992. The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hilker, F. 1962. Vergleichende Pädagogik: Eine Einführung in ihre Geschichte, Theorie und
Praxis. Munich: Hueber.
Holmes, B. 1965. Problems in Education: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Holmes, B., and J. Louwerys. 1957. Year Book of Education. London: Evans Brothers Limited.
Holmes, B. Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Horgan, J. 1996. The End of Science. New York: Broadway Books.
Huntington, S. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jary, D. and J. Jary. 1991. Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Jordan, Louis Henry. 1905. Comparative Religion. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.
Kandel, I. L. 1933. Comparative Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kandel, I. L. 1937. National Backgrounds of Education. Twenty-Fifth Yearbook. Chicago:
National Society of College Teachers of Education, University of Chicago.
Kandel. I. L. 1955. The New Era in Education: A Comparative Study. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kluckhohn, C. 1953. Universal Categories of Culture. Pp. 507-23 in A. L. Kroeber.
Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. from the French
by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mann, H. 1844. Mr. Mann's Seventh Annual Report, Education in Europe. Common School
Journal, VI: 72
Noah, H., and M. Eckstein. 1969. Toward a Science of Comparative Education. London: Collier
Macmillan.
Paulston, R. G. 1977. Social and Educational Change: Conceptual Frameworks. Comparative
Education Review 21 (June and October): 370-95.
.
14
Paulston, R. G. 1993. Comparative Education as an Intellectual Field. Comparative Education,
23, no. 2, 101-14.
Paulston, R. G. 1999. Mapping the Postmodernity Debate in Comparative Education.
Comparative Education Review, 42.
Popper, Karl. 1962. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New
York: Basic Books.
Rust, V. 1967. German Interest in Foreign Education since World War I. Comparative
Education. Dissertation Series 13. Published PhD dissertation, School of Education,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rust, V. 1968. The Common School Issue—A Case of Cultural Borrowing. Pp. 86-97 in W.
Correll and F. Süllwold (eds.). Forschung und Erziehung. Donauwörth: Ludwig Auer.
Rust, V. 1977. Alternatives in Education: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. London:
Sage.
Rust, V. 1991. Postmodernism and Its Comparative Education Implications. Comparative
Education Review, 35 (November): 610-26.
Rust, V. 1993. The Transformation of History Instruction in East German Schools. Compare 23,
nr. 3: 205-17.
Rust, V. 1997. The German Image of American Education through the Weimar Period.
Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education 33, no. 1: 2544.
Rust, V. and Others. 1999. Research Strategies in Comparative Education. Comparative
Education Review 43:
Sayce, A. H. 1892. The Principles of Comparative Philology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner and Co.
Schneider, F. 1943. Geltung und Einflüße der deutschen Pädagogik im Ausland. München: R.
Oldenbourg.
Schneider, F. 1961. Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
Stowe, C. E. 1930. Report on Elementary Public Instruction in Europe, In Edgar Knight, Reports
on European Education. New York, McGraw Hill.
.
15
Stromquist, N P. 1995b. Romancing the State: Gender and Power in Education. Comparative
Education Review, 39 (4): 423-454.
Stromquist, N. P. 1991. Educating women: The political economy of patriarchal states.
International Studies in the Sociology of Education, 1, 111-128
Stromquist, N. P. 1995a. Gender and Education. Pp. 2407-2412 in T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite
( eds.), Internaional Encyclopedia of Education, second edition.
Thomas, R. Murray. 1998. Conducting Educational Research: A Comparative View. Westport,
CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Thut, I. N. and Don Adams. 1964. Educational Patterns in Contemporary Societies. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1991. The National and the Universal: Can There Be Such a Thing as a
World Culture? Pp. 91-106 in Anthony D. King (ed.), Culture, Globalization and the
World System. Binghamton: SUNY at Binghamton.
Weisbuch, Robert. 1989. Atlantic Double Cross: American Literature and British Influence in
the Age of Emerson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zaehner, R. C. 1957. Mysticism: Sacred and profane. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zelditch, M. 1971. Intelligible Comparisons. In I. Vallier (ed.). Comparative Methods in
Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
.
16