ABSTRACT

There is one particular tradition in work in comparative education that seems to be increasingly under-represented. The early exponents who can be described as comparativists (though rarely primarily as social scientists) wrote from perspectives rooted in history and philosophy. It was natural for them to approach the topics they were investigating from a starting point of historical analysis and understanding, what Kazamias has termed the ‘historical-philosophical-cultural and liberal humanist motif in comparative education’ (2009, 37) and what Watson called ‘historical and cultural analysis’ in the context of his arguing for a rediscovery of the roots of the subject (1998, 28). The fiftieth anniversary of Comparative Education provides an opportunity to reflect afresh on the under-representation of a ‘historical dimension’ in comparative inquiry and at the same time on some of the problems identifiable in the many papers submitted to the journal each year. And so there is a dual purpose in what follows: to argue for more consideration to be given to historical inquiry generally and to the inclusion of a historical dimension in comparative studies generally; and to identify some aspects of writing in comparative education that cause papers to be rejected.