Study On The Transformations And Impacts Of Positive Analysis Paradigm In Comparative Education

The transformations and transcendent progressions about methodology studies is not only a part that forms the background support for the development of basic theories in a discipline, but also a landmark for the formation and holistic development of theories in that discipline. In the history of the Comparative Education, positivism tradition and counter-positivism tradition have been in the state of conflicts and oppositions, that is, one develops upon the withdrawal of the other, thus forming the main line of the development of the discipline. At the establishment of the Comparative Education, Julian, the founder of the discipline, proposed that Comparative Education develop along the line of positive science while in the 50s and 60s in the 20^th century such important scholars in this academic scenario as Bereday, Anderson, Noah, Eckstein, Holmes all made their contributions in the interpretations, developments and revisions of the positive analysis paradigm. And in the late 70s, the criticisms from the hermeneutics, phenomenology, critical theories and post-modernity in turn offered their challenges and critics, thanks to the contributions as such the Comparative Education as a discipline and its disciplinary development has always distinguished itself with the positive analysis paradigm along the process of the historical development.Positive analysis paradigm appeared in the late 19^th and early 20^th century, the influences of positive sociology, structural-functionalism, developmental theory and modernization theories, empiricist methodology as well as experimental education in a succession put their miscellaneous impetuses into the birth of the Comparative Education. In its historical development, the Comparative Education has experienced the various developmental stages: from the early initiative promotion, to the thereafter interpretation, development and revision stages in different periods. In the early stage, Julian as the leading figure promoted the establishment of "a Comparative Education tantamount to positive", with an ideology of which, he therefore designed a diagram for comparative education, and recommended his supposition for the perfection of the disciplinary composition. His efforts without the least doubt laid a solid foundation for the confidence of positive analysis paradigm in the comparative education research; for the interpretation stage, Bereday as one of the major scholars in the field emphasized such characteristics as systematicality and logicality in the positive analysis paradigm, suggested for the first time in history the combination of comparative study with hypothesis proposal, the application of induction in the comparative education research, thus set up the concrete modus operandi for the study, or what we now refer to as the four-step comparative study, bringing into reality essential studies on positive analysis paradigm in Comparative Education; At the development stage, leading figures such as Noah and Eckstein emphasized the qualitative and scientific features of positive analysis paradigm in the comparative education research. They introduced the scientific procedure and methodology into the experiments in positive studies and suggested an apparatus of verifying hypothesis and relevant methods, which later was referred to as the hypothesis-verification method. What they did was considered as a landmark for quantitative studies using positive analysis paradigm in Comparative Education; at the revision stage, Holmes can be regarded as a major contributor in the field of Comparative Education. Unlike his predecessors, he put emphasis on the quality of practicality and anticipation that positive analysis paradigm can play in the comparative education research, and believed the initial circumstances should be the research focus. He then substituted the method of induction with that of hypothetical deduction, applying what is called the question-oriented approach in the positive research, which now is referred to as the question-centered method. His contribution actually diverted the hitherto direction of Comparative Education, launching a new round of diversifications of methodological research in Comparative Education.The holistic features of positive analysis paradigm in Comparative Education can be concluded as follows: (1) the emphasis on objectivity hypothesis; (2) the promotion and advocacy of empirical sensation; (3) persistence in the principle of value neutrality; (4) the belief of methodological monism. It is actually based on these particular features that the positive analysis paradigm rather than humanistic rationalism is better recognized and appreciated in the comparative education research, for whose advantages are obviously shown in the objectivity, applicability, verificationality and anticipationality. All of those advantages evolved along with the development of Comparative Education consequently help to have flourished the disciplinary development in return. Nevertheless the limitations inevitably exist, as they are, in the following four perspectives: first, the inclination of research preference is overwhelmed by the idea of scientism, thus hindering a rational epistemological outlook toward Comparative Education; second, the inclination of generality preference is over-addressed, thus preventing the possibility of further and thorough comparative studies between our culture and the other cultures; third, the inclination of political, societal and economic preferences as research contents are taken prior to the concerns of the development of education itself. And fourth, the worship of the approaches popular in natural sciences overrules as the mainstream methodology so that further development of the comparative education research is likely stalled. As we have realized the appropriate confrontation of these limitations would to some extent help a better acceptance and application of the positive analysis paradigm.As seen in the historical perspective, the acceptance of positive analysis paradigm used in Comparative Education has evolved from the manner of blind duplications of other disciplines to that of consciously critical decisions. The application of positive approach and the paradigm have here since played an importance role in the scientificalization of comparative education. As for the disciplinary development of the Comparative Education, the introduction of the positive approach has extended from the mono-disciplinary research formulation to that of panoramic area achieved the transformation of the disciplinary paradigm and inserted impetus into the scientific development of the discipline. Methodologically, the positive approaches used in comparative education research have imbedded with the concepts of science consciousness, which have therefore established the scientific institution and regulation, consolidated the academic norms and standards, and added more and new methods into the whole. We have now witnessed a flourished diversity of methods and approaches in comparative education research.The feasibility of positive analysis paradigm has proven to be one of the rationality in the academic research. The positive analysis paradigm has in its own right shown the particularity toward its research targets and indicated the research contents and its ultimate goal as well. Then we can conclude that the reconstruction focus of positive analysis paradigm in comparative education research will lay its emphases on construction but not rejection, revision but not refutation, integration but not domination. The following will be seen as the future tendency for the positive analysis paradigm development: to establish the epistemological outlook of decentralization and to increase the status of positive analysis paradigm in Comparative Education; to understand the limitations of the paradigm and consolidate its advantageous perspectives; to transcend beyond the conflicts of positivism and humanistic rationalism dichotomization and construct a multiplied research paradigm to help propel the development of the Comparative Education.