The history of developing research methods in social disciplines dates back to the times of Xenophon and Herodotus. Later, the hard work of researching educational systems and developing the corresponding systems for this was continued by Suleiman, Marco Polo, and even Peter the Great. After the Enlightenment era, research methodology in education has seen great progress, and nowadays, the specialists who are busy in the area of educational research are equipped with a quite impressive abundance of different research methods. Still, the efforts made by the great thinkers of ancient times in the area of educational research also deserve our attention. One of the reasons why it is so is the fact that those honorable people applied scientific methods in their research just as the biggest part of researchers do today. However, there was a significant gap in their research strategies because the tools that they used for their research could be hardly evaluated as scientific. In the following paper, the examples of research studies of the past will be addressed with the aim of identifying the problems that existed with the use of scientific tools during the earlier periods of history.
The archetypal examples of research studies held in the field of social disciplines identify that the scientific method was common among the great thinkers of the past. For example, in his work “The Persian Wars”, Herodotus utilizes this method many times which is evident through the whole course of the argument as the author often makes references to the outstanding men of his times, and analyzes their way of thinking and acting (Herodotus 1964). However, the tools applied by Herodotus are far away from modern scientific research tools as there is not even a hint on some sort of calculations, surveys, etc. Similar conclusions can be made regarding Tsun-Chien’s report of his activity in the development of education in the United States at the end of the XIX century (Tsun-Chien 1881). In this report, written in a poetic form, we see that the author uses scientific research methods, but fails to support the value of his findings by means of numbers or any other scientific pieces of evidence (Noah and Eckstein 1969). Sadler’s (1902) paper is a testimony of the same practice. Also, the progress in the use of scientific tools is not seen in Sen’s work as compared to Sadler (Sen 2005). In contrast, advancement in the development of scientific tools in educational research is seen in Laishley’s (1886) paper. In it, the writer suggests his findings regarding the situation in American education at the end of the XIX century and does so in the form of charts with specific data. However, the concepts of interpretation of these charts’ contents are still rather primitive.
In conclusion, the evaluation of research methodologies in the education of the past suggests the conclusion that even though scientific methods were applied before, there was a serious omission in the tools that were used for that kind of research.
References
Herodotus, 1964, The Persian Wars, McGraw Hill, London.
Laishley, R1886, “Comparative Educational Charts, and notes on Education in the United States”, in Fraser, S & Brickman, W 1968, A History of International and Comparative Education, Scott Foresman, Illinois, pp. 381-396.
Noah, H & Eckstein, M 1969, Towards a Science of Comparative Education, Macmillan, New York.
Sadler, M 1902, “Impressions of American Education”, in Fraser, S & Brickman, W 1968, A History of International and Comparative Education, Scott Foresman, Illinois, pp. 474-480.
Sen, A 2005, The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian Culture, History and Identity. Penguin, London.
Tsun-Chien, H 1881, “The Closure of the Educational Mission in America”, in Fraser, S & Brickman, W 1968, A History of International and Comparative Education, Scott Foresman, Illinois, pp. 378-380.