Comparative connections: educational history within a global context: presidential address, midwest history of education society annual meeting, October 27, 2006, Chicago, Illinois.
As we move forward into the 21st century, the global context within which we work will intensify. History is a powerful tool to help us understand where we have been and where we are going. However, I would argue that a comparative theoretical framework is also necessary in today's world.
Heraclitus's notion springs to mind, "You can never step into the same river twice." Our world seems to be changing at an ever-increasing rate--if we are to withstand the storm, we must use history to help us understand more fully what is happening around us. Historical analysis allows us to concur that it is indeed a different river; and yet, many aspects of the riverbed and riverbanks certainly look familiar. It is this contextual knowledge that will help us make wise choices. History can point out the safest points to cross the river and illuminate where the sharpest rocks might be hiding under the surface.
In addition to an historical understanding, a comparative lens is also crucial for getting across to the other side. As we forge ahead with others in order to understand a particular situation, comparativists will ask the non-trivial questions, "Are we both standing in the same river?" And, "Can you gain a clearer view of the river from your vantage point?" According to Epstein (1994, 918), "'Comparative education' refers to a field of study that applies historical, philosophical, and social science theories and methods to international problems in education. Comparativists ... are primarily scholars interested in explaining why educational systems and processes vary and how education relates to wider social factors and forces." One could argue that in some ways all historical research has some comparative elements. History inherently looks at a situation from the fundamentally different point of view of the "future," what some have called the "undiscovered country." However, historical comparative methodology specifically examines an issue from dual or multiple perspectives in order to gain a fuller appreciation of the commonalities and differences among peoples confronted with a similar situation. For example, Nancy Green (1999, 1189) explains, "A comparative study of the historiography of immigration can show rather strikingly how historians and other social scientists conceptualize their own nations while imagining others ... the American history of immigration rarely contemplates the different Australian, Canadian, or French experiences." The field of comparative education has not evolved in isolation from other foundational fields. In fact, initially comparative education and educational history were intertwined, as evidenced in their heritage of common prominent leaders and a common journal. The reinvigoration of this interdisciplinary work is critical for both fields today.
In this address, I present an examination of the early collaborative years in the United States so that it may serve as a foundation for further study and cooperative development. I studied the content of both the History of Education Quarterly (HEQ) and the Comparative Education Review (CER) from their inceptions until 2005. These two publications were chosen based on the fact that for half a century they have served as the benchmark for research in their respective fields within the United States. It is important to note that I have included the HEQ's predecessor journal, the History of Education Journal, published from 1949 to 1958, in this research. When I am referring to both publications together in this paper, I will refer to them as the HEJ/Q.
COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL JOURNALS OF EDUCATION
When I began this research I naively believed that the fields of Comparative Education and History of Education had operated and developed relatively separately from one another. This is not the case. The History of Education Journal (HEJ), which was published by the History of Education section of the National Society of College Teachers of Education, was edited by Claude Eggertsen of the University of Michigan, who went on to be one of the early leaders within the Comparative Education Society. In its mission statement printed on the inside back cover of every issue it states that: "It provides an avenue for the publication of the views and research reports of those interested in the teaching of the historical and comparative foundations of education." In fact, the full title of the journal read, "History of Education Journal: A Quarterly devoted to the Historical and Comparative Study of Education." In addition to having an editor and associate editors, there were international "correspondents" from Australia (W.F. Connell, University of Sydney), Canada (Charles Phillips, University of Toronto), and England (Sir Fred Clark, University of London (deceased 1952) and A.V. Judges, King's College).
There were thirty-three historical, comparative articles published in volumes 1-10 of the HEJ. Of these, two were not historical but purely comparative in nature. In addition, three articles were published on comparative research methods. The first article published in Vol. 1, no. 1, was by Donald Tewksbury of Teacher's College, "International Education as a Foundations Discipline."
William Brickman of New York University, the first President of the Comparative Education Society, published frequently in the HEJ. In his article, "Research in Comparative Teacher Education," (Summer, 1953) he forwarded many reasons for his findings that few doctoral dissertations were in progress in the area of comparative education. He called for institutions of teacher education to consider the feasibility of introducing or reintroducing courses in comparative education. In the HEJ 1953 Fall issue, H.H. Benjamin reported that the University of Michigan held a conference on comparative education from 29-30 September. The following year, New York University held its first annual conference on comparative education. The conference was described at length by Brickman (1954) in the HEJ, at which time he voiced hope that, with proper support, the idea of an annual conference on comparative education might be developed further.
The Comparative and International Education Society, then called the Comparative Education Society, evolved from these annual conferences on comparative education organized by Brickman at New York University from 1954 to 1959. The Comparative Education Society was formed in 1956 at the close of the third New York University Conference, with Brickman as President, Gerald Read as Secretary-Treasurer, and George Z.F. Bereday as editor of the Comparative Education Review, a new journal that would eventually replace Brickman's annual reports. (Swing, 1987)
William Brickman (1957, 1) began the inaugural issue of the Comparative Education Review with a message as the current president of the Comparative Education Society in which he heralded the new journal as a "significant event in the development of comparative education as a field of study and research in the United States."
In 1961, the History of Education Quarterly was launched. The journal's first editor, Ryland Crary of the University of Pittsburgh (1961, 1) recognized in the first issue that the authors would be "devoid of perspective if we failed to note the relationship of this quarterly to its predecessor, the History of Education Journal ... Though we have marked this off as a new publication, we acknowledge and seek to maintain the real continuity of professional endeavor which exists among the members and in this field of scholarly activity." Interestingly, there is no mention of the decision to drop the comparative education mission aspect of the journal. Rather, it is simply stated that this new journal aimed to become a vehicle for the best in scholarly output and communication within the field of History of Education and to serve the History of Education Society.
One might assume that with the advent and development of separate journals for the two fields the number of comparative works in HEQ would decrease, as would the number of historical works in the CER. This segregation would seem to be amplified by the increased use of social science methods within the comparative education field over the 1960s. In 1974, Robert Koehl speaks to this point in the CER, "There is hardly any novelty in the idea of historical comparison in education, however, there seems to be considerably more in the training of advanced practitioners of the art. This is undoubtedly due to the underdevelopment of comparative history in spite of lip service to the cause of comparison in the historical profession. It is also due to the preoccupation within the comparative education cluster of related disciplines (sociology of education, politics of education, economics of education, anthropology of education) to effect a kind of merger of the social sciences around the quantification of educational behavior."(6) He suggested several possible avenues for the development of the field of comparative history of education, including: comparative history of pedagogy, comparative history of institutions, comparative history of educational culture, and quantitative historical comparisons.
By 1978, John Rury, a future president of the History of Education Society, states in the CER, "Although historical scholarship has long been an important aspect of comparative studies of education, historians have ceased to be the most respected or influential members of the comparative education community. The 1960s witnessed the rise of 'hard' social science approaches to the study of educational problems.... Methodologically, historical scholarship was replaced by survey technology and the analysis of standardized statistical evidence.. As a result, there has been little common ground for the discussion of issues as important as education and national development, the style and content of pedagogy in changing social contexts, and the social differentiation of educational institutions, each of which requires a unique combination of historical and social science research strategies." (342-43)
Though there is surely a sense in both fields that the opportunities for interaction between comparative education and history of education have diminished, there was not clear evidence of this decrease given. One must look to the two premiere journals in these fields in the United States to find if, in fact, a decrease in comparative history has occurred and to determine the characteristics of any shifts or trends.
During the first three years of the Comparative Education Review there was a decline in the numbers of historical articles from the numbers seen in the HEJ. However, a large increase followed, to the extent that as compared to the eighteen historical, comparative articles published in the HEJ from 1954-58, the CER published twenty-six historical articles from 1960-64 and thirty-six from 1965-69. It was not until after 1970 that we see a steep decline in the numbers of historical articles in the CER, and this was likely what Rury was referring to in 1978. The early 1980s saw the least number of historical articles published in the CER to that date; in fact, there were no historical articles at all in volume 27 (1983). Subsequently, there was an increase, so that the number of historical articles published by 1990-94 mirrored the numbers seen in 1970-74. However, in the latest time period studied, 2000-2004, we see the least number of historical articles-only three. No historical articles were published in 2000 or 2001. A new editor took over in 2004 and there have been no historical articles in either the 2004 nor the 2005 volume. This is worrisome considering the need for historical perspective is great in the complex, post-9-11 world.
The History of Education Quarterly saw a rather steady increase in the number of articles published on countries other than the United States after the dissolution of the HEJ. Unlike the CER, for the HEQ, the 1980s brought the most articles (sixty) published on countries other than the U.S., after which there was a steady decline. The numbers have held steady for the last ten years, at approximately half of what they were in the 1980s. Even though the number of comparative articles in the HEQ has decreased, it still published far more comparative articles than the CER published historical works. Three comparative articles were published in 2005, continuing the trend of around three articles per year.
If one combines the numbers of historical, comparative articles in both journals over the years, it is interesting to note that instead of a decrease there is an initial increase in the numbers of articles published after the dissolution of the HEJ. Also worth noting is the fact that the trends in publication rates of comparative, historical articles for the two journals do not run parallel but actually at times oppose one another, thus making the combined decrease more gradual.
In a response to the question of whether there has been a real decline in comparative, historical research since the 1960s, according to this data the answer is yes, but certainly not a precipitous decline. There were ten to thirteen more articles published in the 1960s than in the subsequent three decades, with the 1990s seeing the lowest combined total of comparative, historical articles. During the first five years of the new century only twenty articles were published. This is the lowest it has ever been, just when one might argue we need this perspective the most. If this trend continues, the 2000s will show a very significant decrease in total articles published.
Note: The current co-editors, Ginsburg & Post, are not included here because only two years of their editorship is included in the data. For the years 2004-2005, no historical articles have been published.
To ascertain the reasons behind the rising and falling trends of comparative, historical publication in the journals, one can begin by considering preferences of the editors. In the CER, Harold Noah published the most historical research articles, an average of seven per volume. His editorship was followed by that of Kazamias, who averaged half that amount of historical articles per volume. Whereas Noah was not a practitioner nor vocal supporter of historical research, Kazamias did advocate for historical research within comparative education and published several comparative, historical articles in both journals, including the only oral history interview published in the CER. Knowing the research interests of these two individuals, one can be sure, that the research agendas of the editors did not affect the numbers of historical articles published. The fewest historical articles published in the CER occurred under the editorship of Hawkins, who averaged only one historical article per issue. The HEQ published the most comparative articles in the 1980s, during the editorships of Mattingly and McClellan. It is not obvious that there was anything in these two individuals' research agendas that would have resulted in this trend. Neither of them published comparative, historical research in either of the two journals. Apart from the 1980s, the numbers of comparative articles published in the HEQ has been steady under all other publishers.
Another avenue by which to better understand the nature of comparative, historical research being published in the two journals is to examine the authors. An accounting of institutional affiliation reveals that there are a few universities that are associated with a greater productivity in comparative, historical work. One institution, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, stands above the rest with a total of seventeen authors between the two journals. Of this number, ten were published in the 1970s. The University of Toronto-OISE comes in second with ten authors between the two journals. Interestingly, the majority of these, six, were also published in the 1970s (all in the HEQ). The University of Chicago was also represented by ten authors, all in the CER. Eight of these ten articles were published between 1960 and 1971. This may suggest that the University of Chicago was a center for comparative, historical work in the 1960s and the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Toronto-OISE were centers in the 1970s.
After the 1970s, there is a decline in the concentration of authors from any one institution. From 2000 to 2004 in the HEQ, for example, there were seventeen historical, comparative articles authored by faculty at seventeen different universities. Ten of these affiliations are outside the United States (three in Australia and three in the Netherlands). In addition to the University of Toronto, there have been strong centers of historical, comparative work outside the U.S. from the beginning of the field of comparative education. Researchers from these centers may be finding publication opportunities in the CER and HEQ more frequently than previously was the case. This is difficult to discern given the limitations of the investigation in this paper, but presents an interesting avenue for future research.
In examining the identities of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Toronto-OISE authors in the 1970s, one finds that, in the CER, two of the Wisconsin articles were written by Andreas Kazamias, Educational Policy Studies, while three were written by graduate students Gail Paradise Kelly, Patti Peterson, and Karl Schwartz who were working contemporaneously with Kazamias. Two of the Wisconsin articles in the HEQ were also written by graduate students: Nancy Adams, in Comparative Education, and Philip Lee Utley, recent Ph.D. graduate in History.
The two other Wisconsin authors in the HEQ were faculty members: Dennis Adams, Education, and Sterling Fishman, Educational Policy Studies and History. Three of the authors from University of Toronto-OISE were also graduate students. The two other OISE articles were written by faculty members: Michael Katz, History and Philosophy of Education, and David Levine, Education.
Within the HEJ, New York University was the most represented, with four authors. Given NYU's prominence in the development of the HEJ, this is not surprising. In addition, there were two authors from each of the following institutions: Boston College and Michigan State University.
Kings College University of London, University of Sydney and University of Toronto were important to the inclusion of comparative research in the HEJ, beyond producing articles, through their representation on the editorial board.
Another aspect of author identity was country of origin. In the HEJ, the great majority of articles (seventy-seven percent) were written by researchers working in the United States. In both the CER and the HEQ, there was a majority, though slimmer, of articles written by scholars working in the United States. Thus, the majority of comparative, historical research published in these journals was written by authors affiliated with U.S. institutions. The CER had a greater number of non-U.S. affiliated authors than the HEQ, and significantly more than the HEJ. The 1990s saw the most authors from outside the U.S. published between the two journals. In the 1990s, the numbers of U.S. and non-U.S. affiliated authors were equal in the HEQ; and as of now, in the 2000s, authors working in the U.S. are outnumbered for the first time.
Over the course of years, a number of comparativists were published in the HEJ/Q, including Nicholas Hans, Andreas Kazamias, Edward Beauchamp, and Roland Paulston. Prominent comparativists who published historical research in the CER include: Nicholas Hans, William Brickman, Philip Foster, Robert Lawson, Andreas Kazamias, Mathew Zachariah, Gail Paradise Kelly, Roland Paulston, Robert Arnove, Philip Altbach, Carlos Ornelas, David Post, Mark Bray, Joseph Farrell and Martin Carnoy. As one can see, some individuals have published in both journals.
Prominent historians of education, such as John Rury, have published in the CER. However, Rury is the only Past President of the History of Education Society (HES) to have published in the CER. There seems to be less of a crossover of historians of education publishing in the CER than comparativists publishing in the HEJ/Q. One can find, however, historians of education publishing comparative histories in the HEQ; for example, Alison Prentice, Michael Katz, past president of HES, Ben Eklof and Max Okenfuss.
TOPICS COVERED BY HISTORICAL, COMPARATIVE ARTICLES
The most prevalent topics covered by comparative, historical research in the CER are nearly identical to those in the HEJ/Q. These were: (Post) Colonialism, Reform, Descriptive History of a Nation-State/Region/People, and Political Influences on Education. There were parallels among many of the topics addressed less frequently in the journals. The HEJ/Q included historical, comparative articles on five unique topics: Philosophy of Education, Historiography of Education, Literacy, History of Teaching, and Education during War. The topics unique to the CER were Comparative Education Field and Democratization.
This high degree of correspondence on topical focus allows an understanding of the overall parameters of comparative, historical educational research as it is represented in these two premier journals. The topic of reform was extremely popular in the CER from 1965-69, whereas it fell off over the next five years and was replaced by the topic of (Post) Colonialism from 1970-74. (Post) Colonialism gained prominence in the HEQ later, reaching six articles published between 1980-84. The topic of Descriptive History of a Nation-State/Region/People was present to varying levels over time in both journals; however, the HEJ/Q (forty-eight) published many more descriptive historical articles than did the CER (twenty-six). In fact, Descriptive History was the most addressed topic in the HEJ/Q. In the CER, that position was held by two topics, (Post) Colonialism and Reform.
It is interesting that one of the most common topics of historical research in the CER was the history and development of the field of comparative education. According the contents of the HEJ/Q, the history of education field is not as interested in tracking the history of itself.
The CER and the HEJ/Q are both similar to and different from one another when it comes to what regions of the world are most prevalently featured. Both focus mostly on Europe, though the number of articles on European topics in the HEJ/Q (124) is more than twice that of the CER (fifty-one). European topics made up sixty-one percent of all comparative HEJ/Q articles and only thirty-one percent of historical articles in the CER. The regions focused on second- and third-most frequently in the CER were East Asia (thirty-one), and Africa (thirty). While Africa was the third-most frequently addressed region in the HEJ/Q, the second place slot for the HEJ/Q went to Canada, with twenty-eight articles, and tying for third was Mexico/Central/South America and the Caribbean (eleven).
Considering 175 articles focused on Europe, a breakdown for each individual country was conducted. For both the HEJ/Q and the CER, England, France, Germany, and Russia/USSR were the countries most addressed by the research. However, articles in the HEJ/Q were much more concentrated, as eighty percent of its European articles were focused on these countries. In fact, twenty-eight percent of all historical, comparative articles in the HEJ/Q focused on England alone. In the CER, only fifty-seven percent of the European articles focused on England, France, Germany and Russia/USSR, with twenty-two percent on England alone.
One of the most surprising findings in my research was the common past shared by the history of education and the comparative education fields embodied in the History of Education Journal. The decade of the 1950s is one that deserves additional, in-depth study in order to explore the factors that led to the development of the joint journal and the events that precipitated the divergence of the fields and the subsequent establishment of independent journals.
Despite a common history, interesting differences do exist between the journals over time regarding their publication of comparative, historical research. Four primary areas of exploration have been delineated in this paper: publication rates, author affiliation, topics covered, and the world regions addressed. Each of these areas deserves further examination to develop a deeper understanding of its roots.
The publication rate of comparative, historical research articles has been consistently modest in both journals, even during the decade of the HEJ when there was a journal dedicated to the propagation of both historical and comparative educational research. As the receptiveness to comparative history waned in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the CER, comparative historians possibly turned to the HEQ for publication, which may have contributed to the ballooning of comparative publications in the early 1980s in that journal. Though the 2000s have not come to an end, there seems to be a noticeable downward trend in publication, the reasons for which must be explored. Individuals conducting historical, comparative educational research may be publishing in other journals outside the scope of this work. Whether the researchers are moving or sharply decreasing is an important area of future research.
More than the sheer numbers, however, is the importance of certain individuals over time who have served to bring the fields of History of Education and Comparative Education closer together. After the initial firm connection between the fields embodied in Eggertson, Brinkman, and Hans, there has ceased to be sufficient numbers of comparative historians who are prominent leaders in the field to reinforce the ties that bind the fields together, perhaps a factor in why the amount of historical comparative research has decreased.
In reviewing the historical, comparative publications in the HEJ/Q and CER, I am struck by the vast territory of research yet to be explored. The topics of research in the two journals paint a fairly consistent picture of the field-one distinction being a more frequent occurrence of traditional, descriptive history in the HEJ/Q; whereas, growth and development in the Social Sciences, beginning in the 1960s, exerted a greater influence on the CER. I find myself echoing Koehl's (1974) call for greater development of the potential of the field of historical comparative education in areas such as: comparative history of pedagogy, comparative history of institutions, comparative history of educational culture, and comparative history of politics of education. I would also call on comparative instructors to integrate this research methodology into their canons, if not as a primary research method, then as a supplementary method of extreme importance for the success of quantitative and qualitative studies.
What are the salient issues for us today? First, using comparative methodologies in historical research will allow us to better understand our subjects. Comparison affords the researcher the ability to comprehend the multiple contexts within which history plays out, while stepping outside ones own perspective to explore another teaches us much about ourselves. Second, a cross-cultural / transcultural view is crucial when exploring issues such as democratization movements in schools, the impact of globalization on schools, academic freedom and teachers' freedom of speech in times of war and social crisis, the movement toward privatization of public schools, the treatment of issues of violence and terrorism in schools, issues of racial and class equity, and immigrant children's rights, just to name a few. Third, the historical, comparative work that has been published in the CER and HEQ focuses primarily on Western, European countries (approximately twenty-five percent on England alone); whereas, the global context today demands a broader comparison among nations and peoples that are increasingly interwoven into our everyday globalized lives.
I would call for three things as we forge ahead into this unknown river of the future together. Comparativists-Look to history. Historians-Look to comparative methodologies. And to all-work together in an interdisciplinary way, recapturing the dual identity of the past. Who will carry the torch into the next generation of scholars, where is the next center for comparative history of education? How can the members of the Midwest History of Education Society reach out into the global society?
As the river of history flows past us, we can easily be caught up in the current. Before we are swept away by the rush of contemporary issues, let us look to history as a guide and comparative methodology as a safety rope that connects us, one to another, with a shared understanding.
I would like to thank Professor Emeritus, F. Michael Perko, Loyola University-Chicago, for first introducing me to the Midwest History of Education Society over a decade ago, and for his academic mentorship through the years.
Benjamin, H. H. 1953. Regional Activities in the History of Education. History of Education Journal. 5: 34.
Brickman, William. 1953. Research in Comparative Teacher Education. History of Education Journal. 4: 142-3.
--. 1954. New York University's First Annual Conference on Comparative Education. History of Education Journal. 5: 101-102.
--. 1957. A New Journal in Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review 1: 1. Comparative Education Review. 1957-2005.
Crary, Ryland. 1961. Perspectives. History of Education Quarterly. 1(1): 1.
Epstein, Erwin. 1994. Comparative Education. P. 918 in The International Encyclopedia of Education, ed. T. Husen and T. N. Postlethwaite. New York: Elsevier Science.
Green, Nancy. 1999. Le Melting-Pot: Made in America, Produced in France. The Journal of American History. 86: 1188-1208.
History of Education Journal. 1949-1958.
History of Education Quarterly. 1961-2005.
Koehl, Robert. 1974. Toward a Comparative History of Education. Comparative Education Review. 18: 7-8.
Rury, John. 1978. Elements of a 'New' Comparative History of Education. Comparative Education Review. 22: 342-343.
Swing, Elizabeth Sherman. 1987. In Memoriam: William W. Brickman, 1913-1986. Comparative Education Review. 31: 1-6.
Katherine M. Schuster, Education Program, Division 4, Oakton Community College, 1600 E. Golf Rd., Des Plaines, IL 60016, (T) 847-376-7118, (F) 847-635-1798, Email: email@example.com.
Table 1.1. Number of Affiliations of Authors per Institution in the CER and HEQ CER 1958-2005 HEQ 1961-2005 10 7 University of Chicago University of Toronto--OISE 10 6 University of Wisconsin Madison University Of Wisconsin Madison 4 5 New York University Indiana University--Bloomington Florida State University York University Penn State University 4 3 University of Melbourne George Peabody College for Teachers Yale University Indiana University--Bloomington 3 Kings College, University of London University of Groningen Stanford University (Netherlands) Teachers College--Columbia University of Western Ontario University of Calgary University of Illinois--Urbana Champaign University of Pennsylvania University of Reading, England University of Toronto--OISE Table 1.2. Most Prevalent Institutional Affiliations of Authors per Institution in the CER and HEQ CER HEQ 1960s 1960s University of Chicago--5 No affiliation with more than two George Peabody College for authors Teachers--3 1970s 1970s University of Wisconsin--6 University of Toronto--OISE--6 University of Chicago--4 University of Wisconsin--4 Yale University--3 1980s 1980s No affiliation with more Indiana University--Bloomington--3 than two authors 1990s 1990s Florida State University--4 No affiliation with more than two Penn State University--4 authors University of Toronto--OISE--3 2000s 2000s No affiliation with more than No affiliation with more than two authors two authors Table 1.3. U.S. vs. International Institutional Affiliation of Authors in the HEJ, CER, and HEQ (1949) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Total % 1950s HEJ U.S.- 23 77% Int'l- 7 23% CER U.S.- 24 31 9 27 3 53% Int'l- 26 12 13 29 2 47% HEQ U.S.- 10 26 39 16 9 58% Int'l- 8 16 21 16 12 42% Figure 1.1. Articles Focusing on Countries other than the United States or on the Field of Comparative Education in the History of Education Journal, 1949-1958 Year of Publication 1949 4 1950 6 1951 1 1952 2 1953 3 1954 6 1955 2 1956 1 1957 5 1958 4 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.2. Articles Utilizing Historical Methods in the Comparative Education Review and Articles Utilizing Comparative Methods in the History of Education Quarterly, 1957-2004 Years of Publication Historical Articles in Comparative Articles in CER HEQ 1957-59 5 1960-64 26 12 1965-69 36 19 1970-74 24 25 1975-79 16 17 1980-84 9 36 1985-89 14 24 1900-94 25 19 1995-99 21 15 2000-04 3 17 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.3. Comparative Historical Articles in the Comparative Education Review and the History of Education Quarterly, 1961-2004 Years of Publication 1961-64 38 1965-69 55 1970-74 49 1975-79 33 1980-84 45 1985-89 38 1990-94 44 1995-99 36 2000-04 20 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.4. Average Historical Articles Published under the Editorships of the Comparative Education Review Comparative Connections: Educational History Within a Global Context 9 CER Editors Bereday 4.7 Noah 7 Kazamias 3.6 altbach 2.5 Epstein 4.8 Hawkins 1 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.5. Average Comparative Articles Published under the Editorships of the History of Education Quarterly HEQ Editors Eggertsen 3.1 Crary 3.4 Perkinson 3.5 Mattingly 5.6 McClellan 5.5 Reese 3.4 Altenbaugh 3.5 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.6 Five Most Prevalent Topics Covered by Historical Research in CER Over Time (Post) Reform Descriptive Comparative Political Colonialism History Education Influences Field 1957-59 2 1 0 0 0 1960-64 2 1 6 2 0 1965-69 4 12 4 3 0 1970-74 11 2 5 1 1 1975-79 4 2 1 3 1 1980-84 1 1 3 1 1 1985-89 1 5 3 1990-94 5 4 4 4 2 1995-99 1 3 1 2 4 2000-05 1 1 1 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.7. Five most Prevalent Topics Covered by Comparative Research in HEJ/Q Over Time (Post) Reform Descriptive Educational Political Colonialism History Attainment/ Influence Access 1951-54 1 5 1 1955-58 1 1 6 1 1961-64 1 2 1965-69 2 2 3 1 3 1970-74 3 2 9 2 3 1975-79 2 1 5 2 2 1980-84 6 4 8 2 2 1985-89 3 5 3 3 1990-94 1 1 2 1 1 1995-99 2 4 2 1 2000-05 3 1 4 1 3 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.8 Regions Addressed by Comparative, Historical Research in the CER and HEJ/Q 1951-2004 CER HEJ/Q Africa 30 11 Australia/New Zealand 3 7 Canada 3 28 East Asia 31 9 Europe 51 124 Mexico/Central/South America/Caribbean 14 11 Middle East 10 4 Philippines/Pacific Islands 4 3 South-east Asia 18 5 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure 1.9 European Countries Addressed by Comparative, Historical Research in the CER and HEJ/Q 1951-2004 CER HEJ/Q Austria 2 Belgium 2 1 Czechoslavakia 1 Denmark 1 1 England/Wales 11 35 France 7 23 Germany 5 27 Greece 3 Ireland 3 1 Italy 2 4 Netherlands 1 6 Norway 2 Portugal 2 Russia/USSR 6 14 Scotland 1 4 Spain 3 3 Sweden 4 Switzerland 1 1 Yugoslavia 1 Note: Table made from bar graph.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||CHAPTER 1|
|Author:||Schuster, Katherine M.|
|Publication:||American Educational History Journal|
|Article Type:||Critical essay|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Editor's introduction.|
|Next Article:||The reading circle movement in Texas.|