JER
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW
Vol. 6•No. 3•July-September 2013
© Serials Publications
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE
EDUCATION STUDIES: AN EXPLORATION OF THE
APPROACHES OF KANDEL AND HOLMES
Musa Noah & Agbaire Jomafuvwe Jennifer
Department of Educational Studies and Management Foundations,
University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
The field of Comparative Education has received a series of scholarly contributions with regard to
methods of comparative analysis. A wide range of comparative methodologies has consequently
evolved. These methodologies are essentially alike in terms of the overall goal of their exponents
vis-improving educational systems across the globe. Nevertheless, subtle and sometimes vast
differences could be observed in these approaches. This paper is an attempt to compare and contrast
the approaches to comparative studies propounded by Isaac Kandel and Brian Holmes respectively
while highlighting their merits and demerits. Both comparativists were selected basically because
their approaches represent two distinct eras in the development of comparative methodologies in
education and so are much more significantly wide apart.
Keywords: Methodological, Issues, Comparative Education, Exploration, Kandel, Holmes.
INTRODUCTION
Many writers have defined Comparative Education
in different ways depending on their perception of
the field. Nevertheless, the definition put forward
in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research (1969)
can be regarded as a working definition for the
purpose of this paper. Here, Comparative Education
is conceived as
…the careful analysis of educational systems,
issues and problems… within the context of
historical, socio-economic, political, cultural,
religious and other influential factors…(which
involves) the collection, authentication and
interpretation of data on the basis of direct
observation, documentary analysis, person-toperson contacts and reflection in as objective
a manner as is possible (Adejumobi, 1984:2).
In essence, Comparative Education amongst
other things, supplies valid educational information
which may in turn help in analyzing and possibly
solving educational problems as well as formulating
realistic ideals of education (Adejumobi, 1984).
The question of what constitutes the most
appropriate approach to carrying out comparative
studies has been a prominent and fairly
controversial one among experts. While some opt
for the use of qualitative information involving
detailed description and explanation in recommending
sol ut ions t o obser ved educat ional pr oblems, ot her s
pr efer t he employment of quant it at ive scient ific
dat a and yet some ot her s suggest a combi nat ion of
bot h st r at egi es. F ur t h er mor e, wh er eas some
met hodology exponents place much emphasis on the
impor t ance of context ual fact or s in det er mining t he
nat ur e of educat ional syst ems, ot her s eit her simply
ack nowledge t his or t ot al ly challenge t he t oo much
emphasis placed on it . Besides, t he issue of what
shoul d be t he f i n al pr oduct of a compar at i ve
met hodol ogy (pol i cy for mul at i on, for i nst ance)
somet imes var y fr om one compar ativist t o anot her .
I n t he pr ocess of leaning towar ds a par t icular
appr oach however , a good number of compar at ive
educat or s have agr eed t hat t her e i s no si ngl e
best m et h od of com par at i v e an al y si s si n ce
educat ional pr oblems ar e as numer ous as t hey ar e
differ ent and an invest igat or will mor e oft en t han
not , r equi r e t h e i nput of exper t s f r om ot h er
di scipli nes in or der t o under t ake a det ail ed and
complet e analysis.
350
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(3) 2013 © Serials Publications
Five Major Comparative Methodologies and the
Exponents:
1.
Historical Analysis by Isaac L. Kandel
2.
Area Studies or the Cross-Disciplinary
Approach by George Z. F. Bereday
3.
National Character Approach by Nicholas
Hans
4.
Social Science Method by Noah, H.J. and
Eckstein, M.A.
5.
Problem-Solving Method by Brian Holmes.
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND THE
PROBLEM-SOLVING METHOD:
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING THE
METHODOLOGIES OF KANDEL AND
HOLMES
Comparative Education like many other disciplines
has been influenced by Philosophy particularly
where methodology is concerned. The philosophical
ideas which are visibly observed in methodologies
of Compar at ive Educat ion i ncl ude inductionism
as refined by J.S. M ill and HypotheticoDeductionism which is a blend of Karl Poppper’s
Conventionalism and John Dewey’s Pragmatism
(Babatunde, 1984).
Basically , inductive reasoning involves
making general conclusions from particular
logical situations while in deductive reasoning;
specific conclusions are drawn from general
situations that are logical (Maduka, 1996). The
former leads to a causally true conclusion and
has historical orientations but the latter leads
to a necessarily true conclusion and is problemsolving or pragmatic in approach (Babatunde,
1984.). Isaac Kandel is a foremost pioneer of the
historical approach to comparative education which
clearly is of the inductionist school and Brian
Holmes can be said to be a leading figure in the
deductionist school with his problem-solving
method. The analysis of these scholars and their
methods will be done under the following subheadings;
•
•
•
Conception of Comparative Education and
Comparative Methodology
The goals/objectives of Comparative Studies
Areas of Emphasis
• Framework for Analysis.
Thereafter, the contributions and criticisms of
both methodologies will be explicated.
CONCEPTION OF COMPARATIVE
EDUCATION AND COMPARATIVE
METHODOLOGY
Isaac Kandel is a leading proponent of the
historical-functionalism school of thought in
Comparative Education Studies. The basic idea of
this school is that no educational system operates
in a vacuum. It is intertwined inextricably with
other social and political institutions and very often
can best be comprehended by examining the
historical, cultural, political, social, and economic
environments which surround it (Pollack, 1993).
Indeed, Kandel in Kazamias (2007) argued that as
far as methodology was concerned comparative
education maybe considered a continuation of the
study of the history of education into the present.
In other words, he viewed comparative studies
essentially as critical analyses of the educational
history of different educational systems with the
aim of using the knowledge of such history to
understand and improve current educational
practices. The implication is that he built his
methodology around historical issues of any nation
ranging from social, economic, political, religious
and other cultural elements which to him, form the
basis of a true and valuable analysis of the
educational system.
Kandel’s historical approach is inductive in
nature. Rather than viewing one nation’s
educational system as superior to another’s, he saw
each nation as one which has uniquely forged its
own way and whose weaknesses were a result of
contextual factors. Consequently, he specifically and
rigorously studied each nation of interest so as to
possibly arrive at general conclusions based on a
comparison of these specific countries’ educational
practice in the light of underlying causes.
Holmes on the other hand, sees in Comparative
Education, the development of a scientific method
of enquiry which will provide predictive power or
give directives on how to shape education for the
better. To him, Comparative Education is an
instrument for reform and planned development in
education which involves systematic collection and
analysis of relevant data. He invariably carved his
comparative method along the lines of the problem
approach which he believed is a scientific and
useful means of achieving educational reforms.
His methodology is therefore centred on the
identification of educational problems and the
attempt to proffer practical solutions to them.
The problem approach expounded by Holmes is
deductive. He believes that comparative education
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION STUDIES:
is a means through which general principles,
patterns or laws can eventually be identified and
then tried out in specific countries hence he
proposes the formulation of hypotheses which
should be tested before any form of comparison is
suggested. Put differently, possible solutions could
be deduced from general laws or theories of
education (similar to the laws of motion in Physics
for example) - laws which could apply anywhere at
any time - and the predicted outcome of these
solutions could be compared to the observed
situation in an educational system to find out how
viable adopting them would be.
Like Kandel, Holmes recognizes the need to
identify relevant contextual factors which affect the
educational sy stem when carrying out a
comparative study. Conversely, however, he
advocates this exercise not within a strictly
historical framework but solely in the light of a
selection of only those factors which concern the
problem of interest and which may affect the
solutions suggested(though he concedes to the
possibility of describing an entire educational
system) whereas Kandel’s thinking is that analysis
of context should embrace every aspect of a nation
that contribute s in determining the entire
educational system and should be done from a
historical perspective.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that Kandel
appears to be inclined towards analyzing education
generally (whole national educational systems)
whereas Holmes was apparently interested in
specific problems for which workable solutions could
be generated. Significantly, the only criterion for
comparability arrived at during the International
Conference for Comparative Educators in Hamburg
(1954) was that it must at least involve two
countries. This was an adoption of Kandel’s view
that comparative studies should be cross-cultural.
According to Bereday (1957), Kandel
….perfected the art of comparison, not
describing, not even classifying, but freely
shuttling from country to country, unhampered
by the bindin g shac kles of in adequ ate
language, infrequent travel and scant training
in academic disciplines (p.13).
In fact, Kandel’s works were purely between and
among countries, and his methodology was designed
for this.
Holmes argues that comparison must not
necessarily involve two nations, that is, this is not
the thrust of his own methodology although he
351
asserts that comparative analysis across countries
will help to clarify problems and suggest solutions.
While he claims that theories can arise from
successive researches, his problem approach
inv olves comparing the log ically deduced
consequences of possible solutions with the
observable events.
THE GOALS/OBJECTIVES OF
COMPARATIVE STUDIES
One of Kandel’s major aims was to describe
educational systems and their historical growth in
order to know what principles informed all national
systems and to explain the causes of the differences
among them (Babatunde, 1984). He agrees that
through comparative analysis, a researcher could
find practices elsewhere which he thinks may be
useful in his own educational system but he drew
attention to the importance of avoiding wholesale
borrowing which involved transplanting an
educational system from one country to another. In
his words,
… the educational systems and practices of one
nation cannot be transported to another nation
or to ot her people s without profo und
adaptations and modifications; such a course
runs the risks of offending local traditions,
local genius, the peculiar social, economic and
political conditions of the nation to which the
foreign system is transferred. (Kandel,
1933:15).
Even though Kandel saw the virtues in the
educational systems he studied, he was often
reluctant to advocate borrowing from them
particularly when the cultural and socio-political
gulf separating the borrower from the country to
be borrowed from is wide. Successful borrowing can
occur but if serious studies are not conducted,
borrowing is also bound to fail.
Holmes’ overriding desire on the other hand,
was to come up with a model which provided a more
consistent analy tical basis for research in
Comparative Education and which would in turn
improve education by giving policy makers a surer
ground upon which to base their activities. This is
possible through an accurate process of prediction
which he claims his method offers. In other words,
the purpose of comparative analysis using his
problem approach is not merely to present a
historical description of educational systems citing
their similarities and differences but to provide
relevant information which would necessarily solve
352
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(3) 2013 © Serials Publications
existing educational problems and which is useful
in the process of educational planning and reform.
The issue of prediction is central to Holmes’ aim
and to this end, he believes that the scientific,
problem-solving method he advocates is forwardlooking in contrast to the historical approach.
Kandel’s aim was to promote the improvement
of education in the world. Hence he claims that his
method of historical analysis should invariably end
in the identification of trends/patterns/general
principles of education. For ex ample, an
investigator having examined the educational
systems of say Ghana, Nigeria and Zimbabwe in
terms of the historical forces which informed them,
may establish their colonial experience as a pattern
that runs through them and has shaped their
educational practice. The investigator would then
be in the position to generalize; project that the
same practice is likely to obtain in African countries
with similar experience.
In the same way, Holmes plans that his method
would lead to the production of theoretical models
which will help to explain the functioning of
educational systems as well as general laws, the
usefulness of which could be tested from country to
country. A major difference here nevertheless is that
Kandel’s form of projection is noticeably on the basis
of similar past events as they will affect present
conditions but Holmes form is on the basis of
present conditions as they will affect future
solutions.
AREAS OF EMPHASIS
Kandel saw the purpose and problems of education
as similar in most countries but influenced by
differences in traditions and cultures. He was able
to see the unique strengths that grew out of a
nation’s historical background and its socio-political
and cultural underpinnings. Comparative analysis
to him therefore, should not simply be limited to a
comparison of the differences among educational
systems; since the true value of educational systems
lies in the analyses of the causes which have
produced them, comparative studies must first
encompass the analyses of these causes and then
the explanation of the reasons for the differences
observed. According to him, a comparative educator
who truly intends to understand the educational
system of various nations must not be content with
gathering important factual information about
them – he has to dig deeply to investigate the
causes that have produced major problems in
education around the world then determine which
solutions were attempted and why they were
selected. Consistently holding on to the dictum of
his former teacher, Sir Michael Sadler, Kandel
noted that,
…The comparative approach demands first an
appreciation of the intangible, impalpable,
spiritual and cultural forces which underlie
an educational system: the factors and forces
outside the school matter even more than what
goes on inside it (Kandel, 1933: xix).
As such, he emphasized the preference in using
what he called “forces” instead of reliance on such
methods as statistical comparisons since nations are
unequal in the rate of development in areas which
statistical comparison will usually highlight. He
stressed nationalism which to him implies ‘a
common language, common custom and a common
culture”( Hans explained it further to include “unity
of origin, compact territor y and political
sovereignty” – Pollack, 1993). In other words, the
comparativist carrying out research should analyze
to a considerable degree, the extent to which
elements of nationalism influenced the educational
system.
While Kandel talked about contextual ‘forces’ –
political, social, economic, religious and so on Holmes essentially talked about the same thing
referring to it as the construction of institutional
(political, social, economic, religious institutions)
and normative(norms, values, attitudes) patterns
extending it to include physical factors (climate,
terrain, available natural resources etc.). Holmes
believed that the knowledge of the sociological laws
which connect the various institutions in the society
are important. Since institutions come into
existence for a reason, their aims must be constantly
related to the changes in the society. Significantly,
Holmes also placed much emphasis on the mental
state of the people in a given society. This embraces
their internalized values and beliefs which regulate
their actions and shape their world view. This is
important to Holmes as he says it is the last and
most difficult to change so that if reforms and
policies are not in tune with it, they are likely to
meet with failure.
FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS
Kandel’s Historical Approach
1. Problem Identification = First, Kandel wants
the researcher to do a description of the problem
within historical perspective. Using Nigeria as
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION STUDIES:
a case study for example, the investigator
having identified a problem such as “the
irrelevance of school curriculum to self-reliance
in the present-day”, would go on to show that
right from the colonial era, education in the
country aimed at producing elites who should
take up white- collar jobs and thus the
curriculum was academic-oriented but with the
recent turn of events where graduate output far
outstrips available vacancies for white-collar
jobs, a critical situ ation has arisen and
graduates would need to rely on vocational skills
to earn a living – skills which are external to
the curriculum.
2. Explanation and interpretation = This stage
involves analyzing the causes of the situation
thr ough a thorough appreciation of the
underlying social, political, cultural and
otherwise forces that may have informed it. The
exemplary problem given in (1) above may for
instance be explained and interpreted thus; that
the academic-oriented curriculum hitherto
prevalent in Nigeria was a replica of the
curriculum of Nigeria’s colonial masters (the
British) - naturally, the British imparted the
idea of their superiority on the Nigerian people
who even after gaining independence came to
believe that being like their masters is the
height of achievement, without taking into
consideration the facts of their differences both
in cultural make-up and level of development.
3. Comparative Analysis = Here, the similarities
and differences between various systems and
the reasons for these are brought to bear
through comparison which becomes rich and
resourceful as it is done with a clear
understanding of the historical factors involved.
Ghana and Nigeria for example, were both
colonized by Britain and this has impacted their
school curriculum in the same way.
4. Formulation of Principle and Development of a
Philosophy of Education = Finally, Kandel
expected the researcher to draw conclusions on
the basis of the factors and conditions that have
been observed in the selected case studies. That
is, he should disengage certain principles or
tendencies and come up with some sort of
philosophy.
HOLMES’ PROBLEM-SOLVING METHOD
Holmes employs the stages of Dewey’s ‘reflective
thinking’ and forges his model along these lines.
1.
2.
3.
353
Problem Analysis and Intellectualization =
Like Kandel, Holmes began with choosing
and describing a problem. He selects a
problem under the assumption that it is
common with educ ational systems
worldwide and can be clarified and possibly
solved through cross-cultural comparison.
In contrast however, the problem is not
described with reference to historical
context at this stage.
Hypothesis or Policy Proposal Formulation
= Unlike Kandel’s, Holmes’ second step
concerns the identification of several
practicable policy alternatives likely to solve
the chosen problem. In so doing, the
researcher must also identify practices in
other countries which would serve as
reference points.
Specification of Initial Conditions or
Contexts = Quite similar to Kandel’s
‘explanation and interpretation’ step, this
step in Holmes’ approach has to do with
rigorous description of the political, social,
economic, religious and cultural contexts
within which the problem is set. Holmes
points out that only those directly related
to the problem be analyzed as the overall
aim is to determine how they would affect
any solution strategy adopted. He also
provides a framework for classifying and
analyzing these relevant contextual forces
as follows;
i. Ideological Factors/ Normative Patterns;
the people’s attitude, constitutions, value
system. For example, do they believe in
egalitarianism and equal opportunities
or not? Are they a capitalist, communist
or socialist society? To gather this
information, Holmes suggested the use
of either the Empirical Approach
(through field study and other Social
Science techniques) or the Philosophical
Approach (through the use of
philosophical techniques which should
first include identifying with works of
appropriate representative thinkers like
Hegel for Germany and Dewey for the
United states of America).
ii. Institutional Factors/Patterns; the
functioning and organization of the
society’s social, economic, political,
religious and other institutions.
354
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(3) 2013 © Serials Publications
iii.Miscellaneous
Factors /Physical
Patterns; factors that derive from the
ideological and institutional patterns as
well as others such as the climate and
terrain which are beyond man’s control.
4. Logical Projection from Adopted Hypothesis
of Possible Consequences (Prediction) =
Since the investigator is now familiar with
the context in which the problem is set, he
is able to outline the likely outcome of the
possible solutions he had proffered in his
hypothesis. This is the focus of this stage.
Acc ording to Holme (1975), the
comparativist’s interest in prediction is
when the generalization and statements
about initial conditions are regarded as
given and the intention becomes to deduce
future outcomes from these two types of
statement. It is therefore assumed that a
policy has been adopted and is to be
implemented in a particular country: the
task of the comparativist is thus to predict
the practical outcomes of implementing
policy.
5. Comparison of Logically Predicted Outcome
with Observable Event = At this final stage,
the investigator tests the formulated
hypothesis using the knowledge of the
contextual factors he has amassed. This is
done with a view to reaching a solution that
is best suitable given the context in
question.
The salient interest of Kandel’s methodology
lays in first determining facts and then analyzing
them and, the analysis is solely in the light of
antecedent causes. For Ho lmes, to whose
methodology the power to predict is central, facts
are certainly to be determined but prediction is not
done with reference to antecedent causes; it rather
involves deducing new information from stated laws
and statements about specific initial conditionsstatements which are tested when the laws and
initial conditions are problematic.
Holmes asserts that Comparative studies
should employ the inter-disciplinary approach
whereby the contributions of several professional Economists, Sociologists, Philosophers, Geographers,
Political Scientists, etc (depending on the nature of
the problem) - are sought at different stages of
problem solving. Kandel also left the field open
noting that historical analysis was paramount but
methods would depend on the problems at hand and
there may be as many methods as there are
problems. Both methods are reform oriented
although it is Holmes’ who clearly spells this out
about his own method.
MERITS OF KANDEL’S HISTORICAL
APPROACH
1. Kandel’s approach has an important implication
for Comparative Education upon which other
comparativists have built; researchers must
look not only inside the school but also outside
to determine those forces and factors that have
influenced it.
2. Another positive implication of Kandel’s work
is that educationists should regard the past as
an important area of study, something to
measure progress against, instead of calling for
continuous education and reform in a vacuum.
3. In Kandel’s work, the shortcomings of wholesale borrowing are identified and this serves as
a constant reminder to educationists who see
the main purpose of comparative education as
providing us with information of what obtains
elsewhere so that we could borrow to improve
our own.
4. Kandel’s approach encouraged thorough and
intensive research into educational systems, a
process which is necessary if comparative
analysis must be accurate. Corroborating this
point, Bereday (1957) remarks that Kandel
advocated meticulous attention to primary
documents, a sort of comparative explication de
texte, which is regrettably becoming rare at
present.
5. Kandel’s approach can be said to have paved
the way for Holmes’ approach. Again, Bereday
points out that;
…(Kandel) was the first to chop up the national
and to discuss on a more transnational basis
elements such as administration and teachertraining, thus paving the way for the problem
approach. His percepts about on-the-spot
observation of schools have not yet been
replaced even in the age of inter-disciplinary
teamwork (1957:14).
DEMERITS OF KANDEL’S HISTORICAL
APPROACH
1. The historical approach as suggested by Kandel
consists of a detailed description and analyses
of various systems. This will inadvertently lead
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION STUDIES:
to the accumulation of large amount of
unmanageable data from which no specific
deductions can be made very easily.
2. Kandel did not design his method for intranational comparisons which involves comparing
educational practices within a particular
country as he concentrated on cross-cultural
comparison. Intra-cultural comparison has
become a feature of Comparative Education.
MERITS OF HOLMES’ PROBLEMSOLVING METHOD
1. The problem-solving method provides a more
consistent analytical basis for carrying out
comparative studies making the field of
Comparative education a more disciplined and
effective one both as far as understanding the
theories of education and the solving of
educational problems are concerned.
2. Kandel may have paved the way but Holmes
expanded the problem approach raising it to the
status of a methodology. Before Holmes, Kandel’s
book titled “Comparative Education” (1933) was
more or less the bible of comparative education
and definitions of the discipline were strictly
centred on cross-cultural studies. Holmes have
expanded the field to show its other potentials
as well as to provide a distinct alternative to
methods which focus on historical analysis.
3. The second step in Holmes’ model is policy
formulation and this enables the researcher to
avoid the pitfalls of indiscriminate borrowing
on the assumption that policy proposals which
have worked elsewhere will work everywhere.
The researcher in developing countries is
therefore on his guard, not indulging in the
fallacy of wholesale importation.
4. The knowledge of the mental state of the people
which Holmes’ emphasized in his model helps
the researcher to anticipate reactions to new
policies especially if these touch aspects that the
people hold dear.
5. The approach refuses to treat laws as absolute
and universally applicable; the scientific status
of any theory lays in the replicabili ty,
falsifiability and refutability.
DEMERITS OF HOLMES’ PROBLEMSOLVING METHOD
1. The approach focuses on analysis of specific
problems and may not be suitable for general
studies of the entire educational systems.
355
2. Researchers are likely to meet with difficulty
using the method as Holmes has failed to
provide sufficient clear-cut examples of his
complete method.
CONCLUSION
Exponents of methodologies in Comparative
Education have often agreed on the essential
features of comparative studies. Differences among
their methodologies tend to arise from differing
perspectives and opinions which in turn is often a
reflection of an exponent’s background. In Kandel’s
methodology the influence of Mill’s inductive
method which involves determining general
tendencies from a number of specific situations is
discernable but in Holmes’, John Dewey’s Pragmatic
approach where everything has to be tested for
workability and practicability is exemplified. Both
scholars have however, contributed immensely to
the development of Comparative Education as it is
today. To conclude however, the remark of Foster
(1985) is upheld;
Pride of place must be given to Isaac Kandel
whose teaching and research…spanned a
period of some five decades…it would not be
improper to regard Kandel as more responsible
(in the English-speaking world at least) than
any other scholar for the emergence of
comparative education as a respectable
teaching area in universities and other tertiary
institutions concerned with educational
matters.
References
Adejumobi, S.A. (1984), Comparative Education for
Nigeria: An Introduction. Paper Presented at the
International Confer ence on Comparative
Edu cation for Nig eria organized by The
Comparative Education Study and Adaptation
Centre (CESAC), University of Lagos.
Babatunde, E. D. (1984), Methodologies in
Comparative Education : in Searc h of an
Appropriate Model for Developing Countries.
Retrieved from http://unilorin.edu.ng/journals/
education/ije/june1984.
Bereday, G.F. (1957), Some Discussion of Methods in
Comparative Education. Comparative Education
Review, 1 (1), pp. s13-15
Foster, P. (1985), Teaching and Graduate Studies. In
Hussein T. & Postlethwaite, T.N. (eds.) The
International Encyclopedia of Education, 9. New
York: Pergamon Press.
356
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 6(3) 2013 © Serials Publications
Holmes, B. (1975), Comparative Studies in Education;
An Anthology in Continuing Education. New York:
Syracaus Publications.
Kandel, I. L. (1933), Comparative Education. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Kazamias, A.M. (2007), History, Scien ce and
Comparative Education: a Study in Methodology.
International Review of Education, 8, (3-4),
pp. 383-398.
Maduka, C. (1996), Philosophy and Logic: A First
Course. Benin City: Illiad Publishers.
Pollack, E. (1993), Isaac Leon Kandel : A Pioneer in
Comparative and International Education’.
PRO SPECTS: The Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, International Bureau
of Education, 23 (3-4), pp. 775-787, Paris:
UNESCO