Comparative Education Bulletin - Faculty of Education - The ...

which derive from them, enrich our understanding and analysis of the
nature of disciplines and fields. I now link this literature with some
socio-historical theories of the dynamics of change in the academic
disciplines.
Socio-historical Explanations of Disciplinary Change
Klein (1990) sees the nature of disciplinary change as a result of
either differentiation or integration. Through differentiation or fission,
existing disciplines split into subdivisions that may become disciplines 8 ;
and through integration or fusion, various disciplines may collaborate
with each other, as with the ‘interdisciplines’. There is no single
pattern of disciplinary interactions, since disciplines are responsive to
so many historical, sociological and epistemological variables. In this
article, I focus on the factors that foster interdisciplinarity because of
their relevance to understanding the emergence and development of
comparative education as an interdisciplinary field.
Among the epistemological factors, Klein (1990) posits a
comprehensive reason for interdisciplinarity in the evolution of
knowledge, where new research areas that have emerged fit poorly
within the conventional structure of their disciplines. She also cites
the influence of synthetic theories (e.g. Marxism, structuralism and
general systems theory) and of linguistic models in viewing social
reality as discursively constructed and historically contextualized.
These theories and paradigms have replaced the positivist models
borrowed from the natural sciences and paved the way for a shift
from knowledge fragmentation towards knowledge reintegration
and interdisciplinarity. There are also historical and practical factors
that catalysed interdisciplinarity in the mid-20th century. Geopolitical
factors such as the demands of a post-World War II world (especially in
some countries like the United States) for applied research promoted
the growth of interdisciplinary work in the sciences in the form of
mission-oriented projects funded by governments. Klein notes the
prominent influence of these projects on interdisciplinarity: “There
was, first of all, considerable financial incentive for universities, in
the form of government and foundation grants. There was also the
“inexorable logic that the real problems of society do not come in disciplineshaped
blocks” (1990, p.35) [emphasis added]. An OECD-commissioned
8 Ruscio ( 985) offers some reasons for the specialization in science and in the
academic profession: “There are epistemological reasons: the sheer volume of
knowledge and its rapid expansion compel a scientist to carve out his own niche of
expertise. There are also sociological reasons: Academics achieve status within the
profession by advancing knowledge, a dynamic that requires precise contributions.
Institutions of higher education themselves compete for status, reinforcing the individual’s
motivation” (cited in Becher & Trowler, p.66). Becher & Trowler add that the
second feature (the sociological) is a consequence of the first: there is little relative
constancy and stability in the disciplines themselves: all is in a state of constant flux.
15