THE HISTORICAL APPROACH TO COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Comparative Education as an academic discipline is just on the borderline between humanities and sciences and thus

resembles philosophy which is the foundation of both. On its social and statistical side, Comparative Education has to apply

the methods of sociology and mathematical statistics, in its psychological application the methods of science, and in its

historical background the methods of historical research. The first question to be answered is whether the historical

approach has to use methods different from the scientific approach. The differences between analysis and synthesis,

between induction and deduction, or between the assumption of dogmatic axioms and working hypotheses, do not mark the

frontiers of history and science. Both groups of Wissenschaflen use all these methods in equal measure and both may

attain the same degree of certainty, which is liable to correction with the progress of research. In this respect history is no

less 'scientific' than chemistry or biology. It is only in English usage that 'science' has a limited sense and excludes history$$

the German Wissenschafl covers both. What, then, is the difference? In general terms, it can be stated that the historical

approach tends to ascertain individual facts, whereas the scientific approach tends to discover universal laws governing

these facts. No sooner does history attempt to define the laws of human evolution than it becomes sociology$$ as soon as

science describes individual discoveries it becomes the history of science. Neither history nor science can avoid this

overlapping and any individual work of research unavoidably encroaches on the fields of the other. Pure historical

description of individual facts is as devoid of meaning as pure scientific research without any reference to space and time

and the individual scientist. Nevertheless, the logical difference between the two approaches remains valid, although in

practice it is seldom followed in all its rigidity. In its development, history always had some universal assumption that

'interpreted' individual facts. Either it was the divine revelation of the Bible, the Koran, or other sacred books which gave the

religious$-$philosophical foundation to the historical narrative$$ or it was philosophy, whether in its idealistic form as in

Hegelianism, or materialistic form as in Marxism$$ or it was the biological hypothesis of evolution and human progress which

supplied the 'meaning' to the skeleton of history. In this interpretation, history unavoidably has to use teleological ideas and

employ final causes side by side with physical, scientific causes. Certainly, the sciences, in their interpretation, also use

both teleology and causation, but history tends to interpret human behaviour by assuming conscious purposes, whilst

science tends to limit its interpretation to the principles of causation. Comparative education, as a border study at once

static and dynamic, has to use both principles. $($By Nicholas Hans, London, $20$

Question $1(25$ Marks$)$

Critically discuss why comparative education is worth studying, its purpose, and its benefits.

Number Question Guidelines Marks Allocation

$1$ Question $1$ Students are expected to

discuss why comparative

education is worth studying,

its purpose, and its benefits.

The answer should include

The Scope of Comparative

Education$$ The Purpose of

Comparative Education$$ and

Reasons for studying

Comparative Education.