A Study On The Paradigm Of Comparative Education

Paradigm lies in the core of theory. As the "pattern of viewing issues" in the scientific commonwealth, is the summation of a series of hypotheses, theories, norms and methods constituting the common beliefs that are commonly accepted by the members of the commonwealth. Thus scientific study is a kind of activity supported by these common beliefs. Paradigm shift is a revolutionary process during which the philosophical viewpoints, theoretical system, research norms and methodology change holistically, among which the pattern of thinking changes first, so to speak, the philosophical viewpoints change. The reason lies in the fact that the essence of paradigm is a kind of fundamental question-asking, that is, a new way of asking the world questions. To choose a way of asking questions equals to choosing a criterion to distinguish true proposition from the false, and choosing a way of answering questions. The way of philosophical thinking differs from that of the thinking in general sense in that it is not the specific methods and techniques of the thinking operation but the core of the world view that intrinsically contains basic values and attitudes, which fundamentally regulates people's cognitive orientation and attitudes towards practice. The development of discipline and the shift of discipline paradigm are closely related.The paradigms of comparative education have undergone a couple of changes since its birth in 1917, from the domination of historical paradigm since 1960s, the sudden prosperity of empiricism in 1960s and 1970s, and the tripartite confrontation of multi-paradigms, to the trend of complexity in its development in 1990s. With the transform of the study on comparative education, some relatively mature paradigms such as historicalism, empiricism and cultural relativism appear. Many factors leads to the paradigm shift of comparative education, but based on the analysis of academic theory, it is directly related to the development of the mainstreams of philosophy, sociology and pedagogy at the different era respectively.Under the context of globalization at the present, comparative education is confronted with a dilemma both internally and externally. On the one hand, there comes the impact from multifactor culture and post-modernism on comparative education; on the other hand, it is e identity crisis induced by comparative education itself, which is reflected by the problem of discipline cohesion, the clash between scientism and humanism, and the parochialism of the existent paradigm. The paradigm of comparative education, as the supreme methodology, is inevitably to be reproached. Considering the internal drawbacks, namely the drawbacks of the ontology hypothesis, of the epistemology and of the methodology, a self-inspection is undoubtedly an outlet helping comparative education out of this dilemma.Faced with this realistic dilemma, on the one hand, new research paradigms are constantly discovered, leading to the prosperity being representative of the development and change of paradigm and methodology since 1990s, among which, the sudden rise of the paradigm of quality study based on interpretation becomes an important methodology in the field of comparative education study. In the end of 1980s and earlyl990s, there appears a trend to base the study of comparative education on post-modernism and post-constructivism. In addition , some ever-famous methodologies in the field of comparative education such as the theory of world system, theory of manpower capital and so on become vigorous again after a period of silence. On the other hand, many comparative educators are actively searching for the systematic construction of the methodology for comparative education, among whom, Holmes from London University and Schriewer are the representatives. The former, based on Dewey's reflective thinking and Popper's critical dualism, takes education as an experimental science, a fundamental science that serves education reform and the making of education plan, and thus advances the question-oriented methodology on comparative education. The latter analyzes the methodology of comparative education by adopting Luhmann's theory of social system, which breaks through the traditional way that methodology can only be studied within the disciplines, thus attempt to probe the roles that comparison plays in the development of social science from the wider viewpoint of historical culture. The direct result from the change of comparative education brings about the spread of research domain in comparative education, and reveals some different features. To be specific, this change emphasizes the dialectic unity between international vision and national stance, the paradigm is shifting from single centre to the equal importance of multi-factors, and the discourse study is also shifting from the transplantation of foreign theory to the construction of the native education theory.The present framework of comparative education study is becoming increasingly complex, to probe the seemingly true explanation that the uncertain social reality made, searching for a new study paradigm is a possible way out from the viewpoint of a "historical system". The so-called historical system refers to a social integrity that possesses spatial boundary and develops historically. Like all other systems, it's open or partially closed. In other words, these systems have their own running laws (in that they are systematic in themselves), and they demonstrate the developing features and controversy (because they are historical). To be specific, the epistemology of historical system concerns the following two aspects: firstly, it takes uncertainty as an extremely important variable; secondly, focusing on the complexity within the system. The reason why the epistemology of historical system is internally contained in the comparative education study is determined by the complexity of the domain of its objects as well as the characteristics of this discipline itself, namely, that of cross-culture study.The epistemology of historical system reminds us that the perspective and Methodology of knowing the world ought to transcend the bondage of Newton's thinking to realize the fundamental change, that is, to switch to multiplicity, multi-factors and complexity. It should be realized that we are living in a world of pluralism. As a matter of fact, complexity means "pluralism" and "integration", excluding single separation, restoration, sequence, certainty, and necessity. It lays emphasis on unity and integrity between parts and whole, sequence and disorder, certainty and uncertainty, necessity and accident. Principle of complexity is based on the necessary separation and analysis, yet it also seeks to establish a connection between the separated parts. Studies on complexity reveal that the existence of human being and the development of society is a complex evolving process during which many factors are interweaved such as sequence and disorder, permanent disintegration and reorganization, harmonious "noise", entropy and minus-entropy. The real world is a "possible domain" consisting of a number of possible state and relations of possible transformation, it is a group of possibility. This shows that any scientific theory ought to be a kind of "possible" interpretation to complex phenomenon. In essence, it's "pluralism" and "integration".The paradigm of comparative education study takes on a new prospect under the care of epistemology. From the viewpoint of the commonwealth of comparative education science, this paradigm should include the following concepts: firstly, the orientation of pluralism and integration; secondly, the combination of economy and restoration; thirdly, the unity of linearity and non-linearity; fourthly, the balanced association between the subjects, objects and the results; and lastly, the shaping of self-organization to education. As far as the paradigm of comparative education is concerned, it stresses the unity of multiplicity, that is, the unity between philosophical and scientific methods, the mutual compensation between the methods of quality and quantity.