Bereday‘s approach provides a useful model for organising and structuring the data from the field. His method is valuable on a number of counts, not least because it is an intellectual exercise with very practical applications. For Bereday (1964), the prime purpose of the comparative approach is to understand ourselves better in the light of the experience of others.
Comparative educational studies are often divided into two categories: area
studies and comparative studies. Bereday makes the following distinction between the
two. He argues the former to be merely descriptive, whereas the latter does something with the data. The former, area studies, are necessary in order to have a more thorough understanding of the education systems and contexts under study. In order to achieve this, one needs to record one‘s impressions, both instinctive and visual, and collect sufficient amounts of data so as to have a ‗rounded‘ picture of the context within which one is researching. As far as this research is concerned, area studies are represented partly through contemporary documentary study, but also from the researcher‘s prior
living and researching experience in both countries under study 2. Meanwhile comparative studies imply juxtaposition of the data collected. The primary aim in conducting this juxtaposition is to see if comparisons are actually feasible.
The notion of area studies, or context studies, may be further divided into categories of description and interpretation. The former involves an in-depth reading and understanding of the documentary evidence collected, for example, items such as minutes of the meetings, government reports, other official reports, for example, government policies, inspection reports, and other such auxiliary information. Gathering such data involved visits to teacher training institutes, schools, TDA and DCTE, and time spent within the general environment, all of which have to be organized and worked out in advance. Bereday recommends that such information be described in many different ways, both in narrative form and visually in the form of diagrams, tables, and models.
Interpretation, by contrast, consists of ‗subjecting the pedagogical data to scrutiny in terms of other social sciences‘ (1964: 19). In other words, one should view the data through the lens of other relevant disciplines. This is attempted here by isolating a number of different aspects and dimensions by which to view the data collected, such as historical, political, economic and social. This interdisciplinary approach, Bereday argues, broadens the scope of comparative education and does not give the false impression that education somehow operates in a vacuum. In other words, the data collected will be scrutinised, among other things, for their social relevance. This is important for interpreting the data, as well as for describing them.
The first stage of comparison is therefore to match the data from different sources (cases, sites, locations, and countries) to prepare for the process of comparing. However, this in itself is not a real comparative approach until one can determine a
‗unifying concept‘. From this one may, however, devise a working hypothesis or a ‗defining statement‘ in relation to which the data will be compared.
Following this stage, once the data have been grouped under suitable themes or categories, Bereday suggests compiling a matrix in which to view this information. The columns and rows therein are set up side by side so as to view the same data can be viewed in relation to other locations. Bereday favours the textual listing of material when comparing countries, thereby highlighting the ‗dynamic‘ details of change and enabling reforms to be better identified. Once this is achieved, and the terms are firmly established, one may proceed to the process of simultaneous comparison.
Simultaneous comparison is also divided into two hierarchical categories: balanced and illustrative. The first of these refers to comparing in relation to the different dimensions, and second refers to points of investigation for adequacy of preparation of beginning teachers, i.e. the same or equivalent information displayed in terms of international, national, regional and local levels.
In practice, the researcher followed an adaptation of Bereday‘s model which extends in its execution over chapters 4 and 5. In detailed preparation for these analyses, the information gathered was summarised at each of the scales of analysis into synopsis- like statements, or paragraphs. This tends to be a time-consuming and difficult task, especially when aspects of one system do not correlate with an equivalent in another country. At this stage, appendices may be attached to explain distinctions between or within the systems of education. Bereday warns against the danger of forcing equivalences when none exists. At this point, one must take the decision to move towards an illustrative comparison, which Bereday refers to as an ‗inferior‘ model (p.65). The reason for this is that illustrative models cannot arrive at generalisation. However, the illustrative model will be useful, as some aspects of the education system in Pakistan are not directly comparable with the system of England, and vice versa.
Nonetheless, one is not attempting to generalise in this instance, but rather to illuminate, and hence the ‗inferior‘ model proves useful at this stage.
Within the balanced comparative method, Bereday makes a further two-stage distinction. The first is called the problem approach, which leads on to the total
analysis approach. The problem approach is intended for beginner researchers in
comparative methodology. This involves the selection of the theme, and the examination of its recurrence and variance in different educational settings. Bereday uses the example of the relationship between church and state to illustrate one such issue which varies in different locations. He uses a bi-polar approach to illustrate this relationship at extreme points. Other cases are filled in along the spectrum of differentiation. This approach is one way of formulating a typology of educational reforms.
The second stage deals with the formulation of a typology which may become a particularly distinctive and original contribution of the research. This leads to an understanding of the ‗complex interrelationship between school and society in an international perspective‘ (Alexiadou, 1994: 10, cited in Griffin, 2001). The total analysis phase builds on the initial stage, the problem-approach. This is utilised in chapters 4 and 5 of this research.
Bereday‘s approach provides a complex and sophisticated model for this total analysis approach as described above, but can be summarised as:
Description: including the systematic collection of data from each system under examination;
Interpretation: The analysis of such data in terms of the social sciences;
Juxtaposition: A simultaneous review of the information in order to determine the framework within which to compare them; and
Comparison: The selection of the problem, followed by the ‗total relevance‘ of education in the different countries.
Figure 3: Bereday’s model of comparative education.
Source: Bereday, G. (1994): „Comparative Method in Education‟, New York: Holt, Rinehert and Winston INC. p. 28
Although Bereday‘s method is a good working model, the researcher agrees with Griffin (2001) that there is gap between stages 3 and 4 of his comparative methodology. Certainly, there is no clear direction as to, for example, how the data ought to be analysed, or how hypotheses ought to be formulated, which examine and cross examine one‘s own subjective proposition. For this reason, and for the purpose of ensuring validity and reliability, the researcher has also employed the ‗Constant Comparative Methodology‘ (this Constant comparative method is explained in detail…. as a part of data analysis procedure).
In the case of this research, the constant comparative approach was loosely applied, as it was used in conjunction with Bereday‘s method and not independently. So, while the constant comparative method aided both the analysis of the responses from the stakeholders as well as the documentary evidences, Bereday‘s method aided in the presentation of the data. The conceptual framework served as a template for the ‗juxtaposition‘ part of Bereday‘s method in the final analysis. It is hoped that this combined approach will also aid the development of theory.