Soviet Education and Comparative Research-A German View

Author(s): Friedrich Kuebart

Source: Comparative Education , 1989, Vol. 25, No. 3, Special Number (12): Cross-National
Attraction in Education (1989), pp. 283-292
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3099202

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Comparative Education

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Comparative Education Volume 25 No. 3 1989 283

Soviet Education and Comp

Research-a German view
FRIEDRICH KUEBART

The forces of reform that have been unleashed in the Soviet Union over the last few years
and have since been making themselves felt elsewhere in Eastern Europe have been observed
with a mixture of fascination and hopeful anticipation by the world at large. Glasnost and
perestroika have become everyday expressions in the political vocabulary of Western
languages. The 'new political thinking' which is to assist in surmounting the crisis in the
economic and political system does not even draw the line at tackling ideological dogma and
political and historical taboos hitherto regarded as inviolable. Many of the old ideological
patterns of thought no longer provide a reliable basis for a fundamental reform of society.
New modes of thinking and orientation guide-lines are being sought as a result of the freer
and less inhibited opportunities for taking stock of affairs in the world outside.
Such interest is particularly directed towards the Western capitalist world, with regard
not only to its lead in the field of technological development but also to the underlying
conditions of the economic and socio-political system. This interest in finding strategic
patterns and practical examples which can be applied to the reconstruction of the Soviet
economy and to stimulating the necessary processes of social change is focussed mainly on
Japan and the USA, though developments in Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany
(FRG) or England are being carefully studied to see if certain solutions can be transferred to
the Soviet situation.
For their part educational decision-makers and experts are equally interested in what is
happening elsewhere, as can be seen in Professor Nikandrov's paper. Research on foreign
education systems excites greater interest, and comparative education, up until now a fringe
subject in the Soviet Union, has been upgraded as a provider of information on educational
innovation and insights into the functioning of education systems abroad. As already
indicated by Nikandrov, this has affected the aims and tasks, the theoretical approaches of
Soviet comparative education as well as its patterns of judging foreign experience-an area
to which we shall be returning later to study the way Soviet comparative education
interprets pedagogical problems and developments in educational policies in the FRG.
In the West, the Soviet education system and the processes of change affecting it in the
wake of perestroika are likewise a source of increasing interest. The perspectives opened up
by closer economic co-operation, for example, have made the issue of the efficiency of the
Soviet education system, of school and vocational training and higher education, more acute
than ever, resulting in a growing demand for reliable information on this sector. At the same
time, closer co-operation in the educational sphere also requires a sound informational basis.
As more contacts take place at a 'lower' level, including those between individual schools,
interest in Soviet educational institutions and ideas is certainly growing, at least within the

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 F. Kuebart

FRG. For educational research concerning Soviet education this means a new and extend
range of tasks.
In West Germany comparative research on the Soviet education system and dev
ments in pedagogy has been going on for over 30 years and includes work which, i
main, has aimed at an "implicit" rather than an explicit comparison (Froese, 1983),
approach has been based on a similar constellation of problems in the FRG or prob
which have been discussed within the context of comparative education as an acad
discipline. These studies have dealt partly with more general themes, partly with
specialised problems, amounting to a large body of knowledge on the Soviet syste
education, although sufficient light has still not been shed on certain fields and aspects. F
systematic account of the achievements and the 'white spots' of this research it would
tempting to pursue the catalogue of question words on which Nikandrov has based his p
to expand the answers and to add further questions (e.g. where-the organisational
institutional framework; how-methodological considerations and theoretical approaches;
whither-conditions, trends and goals for future development). Obviously this would ext
far beyond the limits of this present paper. Research into Soviet education has, howeve
been accompanied by recurrent reflections on the 'state of the art' or by accounts
prevailing situation which have attempted to provide an overview of achievement
problems as well as of research organisation and its deficits (e.g. Mitter, 1980; Anw
1986b; Kuebart, 1987). The following remarks will, therefore, confine themselv
throwing light, from a somewhat subjective angle, upon certain aspects which both app
be relevant and which are linked to Nikandrov's exposition. Some preliminary remarks
touch on basic conditions for research into Soviet education. Starting with Nikand
question word "what", which was concerned with the object of research, reference will
made to some of the main topics discussed in the last few years. Further points of inte
are, of course, those problems connected with the recent reforms of Soviet educa
inspired by perestroika. In conclusion, attention will be paid to the changing ro
comparative education in the Soviet Union as seen from a Western point of view, and t
question of the starting points for a future dialogue and closer contacts will be examin

II

Patrick Alston's analysis of the American interest in Russian and Japanese education in the
light of the 1909 Darlington Report-the first significant historical overview of Russian
education undertaken in a Western language (commissioned by the Board of Education
under Michael Sadler)-concludes with the general question "What makes outsiders'
interests in a particular foreign system wax and wane?". Alston's reply is that "on the
surface the rhythm appears to be connected to threat dynamics, military or commercial"
(Alston, 1987, p. 79). This finding certainly applies to the 'sputnik shock', which, in
America, resulted in both an intensive programme of support for educational reform and a
research boom into Soviet education. In other places the perception of threat has likewise
been a mainspring for educational 'Russia watching'. On a more general level it can be said
that the rivalry between the two political and ideological blocks, together with the varying
phases of tension and ditente between the superpowers, have also affected the political and
academic interest in Soviet education. In addition, there has been the ideological dimension,
Western criticism of the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism in its Stalinist version with its
influence on educational theory and practice, which, for Germany, was particularly evident
in the 1950s during the early years of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).
The fact that in West Germany comparative education specialising in the Soviet Union

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Soviet Education and Comparative Research 285

has been able to develop and hold its ground relatively continuously indicates that it has not
been remorselessly linked to the whims of the general political situation. One source of this
stability is the fact that comparative education is attached to university Chairs. Its origins go
back to the initiative of individual academics in the 1950s, who, endowed with the necessary
knowledge of language and culture and in some cases motivated by their own biographical
ties, directed their scholarly interest towards Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in
particular. To start with, the focus was more on historical issues than on contemporary
developments and problems (Anweiler, 1986b). Characteristic of this was the 'discovery' of
Makarenko, the great educator from the Ukraine, whose work aroused considerable interest
among German educationists, encouraging debate on his concept of collective education and
study of the theoretical foundations of Soviet education.
These beginnings of research into Soviet education and pedagogy make us realise that it
is not merely academic interest and decision-makers' demands for information that have to
be taken into account when considering cross-national attractions in comparative education
research. The individual researcher's attitudes and experience must likewise be taken into
consideration even though his work reflects the necessary methodological detachment and
objectivity. In the case of the Soviet Union, specialists have been attracted by Russian
culture or an interest in other peoples of the Soviet Union as well as by historical and
political interest in its revolutionary 'experiment' or even an active opposition to Soviet
ideology and the communist regime.
It was in the 1960s and 1970s that research into Soviet education in West Germany
gained a more broadly based methodological foundation and enjoyed an organisational
expansion, profiting particularly at the same time from the general boom in the higher
education sector. As the demand for information and advice on the international scene grew
in the context of educational reforms, additional state funding for educational research on
Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, was made available. Although this was
concentrated on individual research projects, it did promote the emergence of stable research
teams at certain universities (Berlin, Bochum, Marburg) and the establishment of research
groups outside the universities, such as the German Institute for International Educational
Research in Frankfurt. These developments were, however, brought to a halt by the general
financial cuts in higher education, and in the 1980s research was faced with the loss of a
number of jobs while planned developments were put on ice. Very recently a general growth
in exchange and contacts, along with the wave of immigrants from Eastern Europe, has
aroused greater interest in the expertise of educational research on Eastern Europe among
both various administrative bodies and the general public in the FRG. Thus there is reason
to expect that the future will see a renewed encouragement of these studies.
One of the political facts that has had a very special influence on the stimulation of
research into Soviet education has been the division of Germany into two separate states,
each aligned to opposing superpower camps. As the GDR belongs, economically and
politically, to the Soviet sphere of influence with its ideological claim to setting the example
for social development within its domain, the question has become acute for GDR research
as to what extent educational developments in the GDR are of an indigenous nature or are
modelled on Soviet patterns. Convincing explanations of certain phenomena in the GDR
must, therefore, take into account the relevant conditions in the Soviet Union. Until the
most recent wave of diversification made itself felt within the Eastern bloc, this applied in a
similar way to other Communist states in Eastern Europe. This is why, in the FRG,
educational research on the Soviet Union has developed in close proximity, from both an
academic and an institutional point of view, to research dealing with education both in the
GDR and Eastern Europe, although there are distinct differences in the objectives and scope

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 F. Kuebart

of research (cf. Mitter, 1980; this approach is reflected in a number of recent publicatio
most particularly in the Festschrift for Oskar Anweiler, see Dilger et al., 1986). The exten
which the Soviet Union reduces its claim to political leadership and the politics of
various Communist parties meet with change is bound to be matched by a further wani
the influence of educational models from the Soviet Union, with national interests repl
ideologically based common features. These developments triggered off or encourag
Soviet perestroika will, however, not provide sufficient cause for the close links betwee
GDR and East European studies to be severed, as the region will presumably continue to
faced with common problems and potential crises, in both the economic and the cu
sectors, for many years to come. Future reforms and modernisation strategies with the
national variations should increasingly become the object of comparative studies.
Research into education in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries is, in th
FRG, rooted in comparative education as an academic discipline and is perhaps more clos
related to the discussion of its own educational problems and pedagogy, whereas in
countries such as England or the USA this research seems to be more a compone
political or social area studies or even of foreign language studies. Educational research o
the Soviet Union must, of course, also take account of the results of such multidisciplin
area studies whilst itself attempting to contribute to these studies. Thus, this resea
situated at the intersection of different approaches to educational phenomena; one appr
is more related to educational problems and developments 'at home', seeking solutions an
trying to identify similar trends elsewhere; the other type of approach is more concern
with identifying and analysing structures and problems of education in the histo
political and economic context of a given country in a multidisciplinary setting. By its
nature this kind of research must be carried out continuously, as an aspect of fundame
research which should not be made dependent on the ups and downs of political m
which oscillate between public alarm and general complacency.
Thus it does not seem a matter of chance that the beginnings of a systematic interest
contemporary developments in the Soviet system of education should have coincided wi
the school reform under Khrushchev. On the one hand, interest emerged from the ques
of the capacity and openings for the reform of the Soviet system in the wa
destalinisation and the 'thaw' ensuing from the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of
Soviet Union (CPSU). On the other hand, interest was placed in the context o
discussion on the first reform plans for West Germany's own school system, w
encompassed structural problems along with the question of forging closer links betwee
school and the world of work, academically oriented general education, and vocati
training, an area in which the Soviet Union had just adopted the extreme solution of alm
completely vocationalising the general secondary school.
At the time of the debate on the reform of the German school system during the 19
and 1970s a number of fairly large research projects in particular were concerned
investigating the problems of the structure and curricula of secondary schooling
various angles and points of view, and the Soviet Union, along with other societies in Ea
and West, was made the object of special case studies. These investigations aimed
producing theoretical explanations of the conditions and processes influencing school re
in modern industrialised countries as well as at assisting political decision-making.
results, which referred to development trends common to industrial countries beyond
confines of political systems and blocs, were emphatically attacked and refuted by Marx
comparative education, particularly in the GDR. At the same time, however, these studi
improved the methodological tools of comparative education in West Germany, enhancin
its status as an academic discipline.

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Soviet Education and Comparative Research 287

Amongst these studies was the project of the Max-Planck-Institute for Educational
Research in Berlin on "School reform in the process of social development-an intercultural
comparison", which focussed on differentiation within secondary schooling in seven coun-
tries in Eastern and Western Europe (Glowka, 1970). Another investigation was carried out
at the University of Marburg on the influence of scientific-technical progress on the
provision of vocational skills in general secondary schools, which encompassed five Western
countries alongside the Soviet Union (Zinker, 1975). A working group at the German
Institute for International Educational Research in Frankfurt produced a study on school
leaving examinations and entrance requirements for higher education focussing on various
Communist countries (Mitter, 1976), which was followed up by a study on higher education
(Novikov, 1981).
Alongside these milestones of more than a decade of comparative research, the topics
and individual specialisms of research have become more diverse, particularly in the 1980s,
reflecting the processes of development and problem constellations in the Soviet Union itself
and other parts of Eastern Europe. Problem analyses of certain sectors of the educational
system, and questions of socialisation or present-day developments in educational policy-
making, have been at the centre of attention (for more details see Kuebart, 1987). The
structuring of the main topics of interest, and the identification and evaluation of new
reform developments and processes of change in the region as a whole, were the focal points
of debate at the regular international conferences organised by the Comparative Education
Research Unit of Bochum University in liaison with the German Society for Russian and
East European Studies. These conferences gave scholars working in this field the opportu-
nity to discuss their special research findings in a broader context and to test their relevance
(Anweiler & Kuebart, 1984; Anweiler, 1986a).
The combination of sustained research and thematic diversity has provided detailed
information on the Soviet system, including a considerable historical depth of focus. What is
most urgently needed is a monograph in German integrating the findings of individual
research to form a coherent and comprehensive overview of the system as a whole. Such a
survey is not even available in Russian, but in view of the ongoing reform processes in
Soviet education it would not be able to avoid the danger of rapid obsolescence-for some
time to come anyway.

III

A new and exciting topic for research on educational problems in the USSR has emer
with the educational reforms of the past five years; this has been all the more striking s
perestroika started to exert a growing influence in the sphere of education, sparking off
new wave of 'reforms of the reform'. The fierceness of the discussion about reform, and
radical way many of the ideologically based concepts underpinning the Soviet school syste
are being challenged, stem from the recognition of a deep crisis in education which, thanks
glasnost, has now come to be publicly acknowledged and openly discussed. From the start,
these reforms have been closely observed and their underlying causes analysed by
searchers in the FRG and other Western countries. Up until now, however, attention
been focussed on describing the reform processes as such, along with their sometimes breat
taking turning points, and the new pedagogical ideas and concepts that fuel public debate
the aims and contents of the reforms. This has been particularly the case since the begin
of perestroika, and an in-depth analysis of the reforms comprising an historical a
comparative approach has scarcely begun to be tackled yet (see, e.g., Dunstan, 1987, for th
earlier stages of the reform). For the present, it is essential to keep abreast with current

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 F. Kuebart

reform processes and the emergence of new conditions governing educational policy-m
and implementation structures.
One of the reasons explaining the lively response the 1984 reform evoked am
Western researchers was that this was the first area where the Soviet Union's socio-
political system, so long characterised by 'stagnation', appeared to be breaking with t
past. This reform was an attempt to solve the accumulated problems of school and
society-among others, a widening gap between the economy's manpower requiremen
and young people's career and life orientations-with traditional bureaucratic means
Though the objective of achieving systematic vocational training for all young peo
deserved international attention, Western research was quick to point out some of t
weaknesses and contradictions of the methods adopted, particularly with regard to t
return to the policy of vocationalising secondary education. Indeed, many aspects of
reform proved to be short-lived. But for the internationally discussed problem of
vocationalising education, the Soviet Union's experience with the combination of gene
and vocational education continues to be of interest.
It is, in particular, Gorbachev's economic reforms aimed at accelerating economic
growth by restructuring the economic system and modernising production technology that
have presented a new challenge to education. In other socialist countries, too, the pressures
of modernisation, with which the economy is faced as a result of rapid technological change,
have led to the question of how the school system should react to these developments, and
have been followed by reforms of general and vocational education. A recently completed
research project from the University of Bochum has investigated these relations, analysing
the above problems for the Soviet Union (Kuebart, 1989) as well as for the GDR, Poland
and Czechoslovakia.
The more radical idea of a basic reform of the school from the 'grass roots' level and
from 'inside', in the context of those reforms of the political and social system that have
gained the upper hand in the ever widening scope of perestroika, has already been mentioned
by Nikandrov. Such terms as humanisation, democratisation and diversification or individu-
alisation of schooling indicate the main objectives and strategies, which are indeed closely
connected to international pedagogical concepts and which can lay claim to international
interest in their own right (cf., for example, Glowka, 1988; Suddaby, 1989).
At the centre of these ideas is the 'Pedagogy of Co-operation' movement, which stems
from experiments in alternative practices of schooling. This new term encompasses various
innovative approaches which have met with a lively response from many teachers and which
are regarded as alternatives to the official authoritarian 'command' pedagogy embodied in
much of the work of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. The arguments about the new
term, its justification and contents, as described by Nikandrov, in fact conceal a struggle
surrounding fundamental conceptions of the new, reformed school: for instance, whether the
reform should be confined to a number of necessary modifications and a partial modernis-
ation of the traditional uniform model of schooling, or whether the more radical notions of
pluralistic, child-centred and democratic schooling should prevail. So far as it is represented
by the USSR State Committee for Public Education, official school policy appears to share
many of the essential ideas of the reform movement. These arguments about the concept of
school reform come to mind when, judging them from a sweeping historical and comparative
perspective, Nikandrov obviously attempts to play down the significance of the 'Pedagogy of
Co-operation' by claiming that its line of reasoning is dij&-vu and lacking in originality.
The manifold aspects of the reform which can be summarised by the term 'democratisa-
tion' comprise, on the one hand, the decentralisation of decision-making at the higher levels
of educational politics and administration and, on the other, the reduction of bureaucratic

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Soviet Education and Comparative Research 289

interference and control at the level of the individual educational institution. The enhanced
autonomy of the self-governing school represents the reformers' ideal. The removal of
barriers between school and society, the relinquishment of bureaucratically imposed uni-
formity, and the encouragement of schools to develop their own educational profiles and to
find their own solutions to their problems, are also ideas of immediate interest to the debate
on education policies in the FRG. For West Germany, the election of the headteacher by the
school's council, which is to be introduced in the Soviet Union, would be an almost
revolutionary change, as would the considerable powers envisaged for the participation of all
the groups involved (teachers, parents, pupils, local 'society') in schools' decision-making.
Indeed, this touches on a number of issues which are relevant and worth discussing from an
international point of view as well. On the one hand, they range from the professional
autonomy of the teachers to the problem of the relationship between state control and the
co-ordination required to guarantee an even provision of education with standards suffi-
ciently high and comparable throughout the country; on the other hand, they encompass
local influence and self-government with broad democratic participation of all involved,
which would open the door for a creative pluralism. A comparative analysis would aim less
at 'borrowing' various measures and solutions-which are also part of a specific political
culture-than at contributing to our knowledge of the complex mechanism 'school', and at
expanding our range of ideas for improving it.
In the Soviet Union, the problem of the diversity of structures and contents also
touches on the issue of the politically explosive situation of the multinational state, and in
particular on the issue of schooling for non-Russian ethnic groups. No longer is this merely a
question of the use of the ethnic mother tongue in the classroom or the role of Russian as the
union-wide lingua franca. It is the role of the school in creating and sustaining national
identity that has reached the forefront of discussion. This means that the old question of the
specific national characteristics of the school system has once again become acute, though in
a new context. Western research has for some time been paying increased attention to the
problem of multiculturalism in the Soviet Union (e.g. Mitter, 1987), but the national
diversification of Soviet schooling will now require new approaches to research and
researchers with new qualifications, which will need to include an intimate knowledge of the
languages and culture of individual 'nationalities'.
Very recently German research has come to face a very specific aspect of this
nationality problem, i.e. the educational situation of the Soviet German ethnic minority (cf.
Hilkes, 1988). Almost paradoxically, the rise in the number of German emigrants arriving
from the USSR and other East European countries has gone hand in hand with the growth in
interest in the type of education they have received in their countries of origin and a demand
for more information on it, so that attempts to integrate them into West German society can
take account of their socialisation and special qualifications.

IV

As a final point, I would like to return very briefly to the changing role of comparative
education in the Soviet Union and its attitude to Western education and comparative
education studies. These changes might well be summarised by the phrase 'from confronta-
tion to dialogue'. As Nikandrov's paper points out, the term 'comparative education' was, for
a long time, unable to find its own niche in the structure of the educational sciences in the
Soviet Union. Attempts to establish a special field of research under this name were largely
unsuccessful. 'Studies on the educational experiences of other countries' were strictly
divided according to the division of the world into antagonistic social systems. Accounts of

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
290 F. Kuebart

socialist 'brother' countries focussed on the transmission of mere facts and exper
without any evaluation, claiming similarity of educational developments based on comm
principles. Countries of the Third World could at least expect a sympathetic account of
problems, particularly those countries which are politically oriented towards the so
camp. As far as the capitalist or 'imperialist' nations of the West were concerned,
studies generally had three main objectives: firstly, to criticise 'bourgeois' educat
policies and pedagogy; secondly, to expose Western research on the socialist countries,
called 'pedagogic Sovietology', as an intentional misrepresentation and falsification
goals and realities of socialist education, aimed at ideologically undermining socialism; a
thirdly, to propagate Soviet achievements and experiences as progressive models.
This dichotomous view of the world, based on the concept of class struggle, obstru
any unprejudiced insight into the real educational processes and structures, including t
contradictions or unsolved problems. In his investigation of the way educational proble
the FRG are presented in Soviet publications, Glowka (1986, p. 427) came to the conclus
that the Soviet educational press reports fairly regularly on developments and experien
abroad; however, research and reporting is fragmentary and ideologically distorting in
presentation of information, as well as being uninterested in differentiated analysis.
Interestingly, Glowka's criticism was neither silently ignored nor accused of being
anti-communist falsification, as might have been expected. On the contrary, a special r
of this article in the journal Sovetskaya pedagogika (1987, 9, pp. 138-139) showe
understanding of Glowka's findings and summarised them for the readers. Whilst refu
the criticism of Soviet publications, the author considered the reasons and motives for
German interest in Soviet education, paying no regard to the usual 'enemy' image, but
them in the light of the German post-war situation, including the cold war, the division
two states and the debate on Germany's Nazi past. Like Glowka, the author considered t
time had come for commencing a dialogue, picking up the threads of what Germa
Russian pedagogues have traditionally had in common.
This suggestion of a dialogue coincided with the revival of interest in compar
education as an academic field of study and the re-evaluation of Western research on S
education. A report on 'Secondary Education in the World Today', commissioned b
International Bureau of Education and compiled by two leading Soviet authors in the ar
comparative education (Malkova & Vulfson, 1988), revealed a relaxed and mainly obj
interpretation of the material used, in line with the statement made elsewhere that "S
social sciences are now gradually abandoning the paradigm of regarding foreign experie
primarily as an object of fundamental criticism" (Malkova et al., 1989, p. 41).
In a programmatic article, Vulfson (1988) had already pointed out that perestr
required a change of course in the way international educational phenomena and trends
assessed and evaluated, whilst, in his reasoning, still adhering to some positions of the
dogma. At the same time he advocated a more open and differentiated approach to Wes
'pedagogical Sovietology', indicating that although rivalry between the political sy
continued to exist, neither side could lay claim to the whole truth. Despite its being ba
differing political and ideological stances, the interest of foreign researchers in the So
Union should be viewed as a welcome critical perspective from outside. Likewise, it is n
recognised that Western research into Soviet affairs has the important job of contributin
the composition of the Soviet Union's image abroad and that to refute this image out o
may prove counter-productive for the Soviet Union (Chelyshev, 1989).
This correction of the former 'enemy' image of Western research, together with t
change in mutual perceptions, has opened the gates for new practical opportuniti
expanding the dialogue. Thus in May 1989, it was, for instance, possible for the

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Soviet Education and Comparative Research 291

international symposium on Makarenko to be held at Marburg in West Germany with

numerous experts from the Soviet Union and other East European states attending. This
provided an opportunity for a frank and critical discussion on what used to be a subject
surrounded by taboos, opening up new research perspectives on Makarenko's life and work.
Contacts and meetings among scholars and educational experts from both countries are on
the increase, with teacher and pupil exchanges starting up as well. New opportunities for
academic co-operation are emerging, which will alter the work of comparative scholars and
present new approaches for research. In many cases scholars will not share the same goals,
nor will the social conditions from which research interests stem coincide-on one side,
greater scepticism as to the direct practical application of the results of comparative
research; on the other, the search for practical experiences and procedures that could be
transferred as solutions to their own urgent problems of development-but the function of
comparative research and of those engaged in it acting as "intermediaries" (Anweiler, 1989,
p. 93), will not vary fundamentally. This presents a permanent task for "humanist
education-watching" (Alston, 1987) and is not just a matter for impulsive and possibly
short-lived 'attractions' in the cross-national sphere.

REFERENCES

ALSTON, PATRICK L. (1987) The Darlington Report, the Russo-Japanese War and the rise of American i
Russian and Japanese education, in: J. TOMIAK (Ed.) Thomas Darlington's Report on Education
(London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London), pp. 69-80.
ANWEILER, OSKAR (Ed.) (1986a) Staatliche Steuerung und Eigendynamik im Bildungs- und Erziehu
osteuropdischer Staaten und der DDR (Berlin, Berlin Verlag).
ANWEILER, OSKAR (1986b) Research concerning the educational system and pedagogy in the Soviet Un
observations and inferences, in: J. J. TOMIAK (Ed.) Western Perspectives on Soviet Education in th
(London, Macmillan), pp. 19-29.
ANWBILBR, OSKAR (1989) Die internationale Dimension der Pddagogik, in: H. ROHRS & H. SCHEU
Richtungsstreit in der Erziehungswissenschaft und pddagogische Verstdndigung (Frankfurt, Lang), pp.
ANWBLER, OSKAR & KUEBART, FRIEDRICH (Eds) (1984) Bildungssysteme in Osteuropa-Reform o
(Berlin, Berlin Verlag).
CHELYSHEV, E. (1989) My-glazami drugikh, Kommunist, 5, pp. 116-122 (We as seen by others).
DILGER, BERNHARD, KUEBART, FRIEDRICH & SCHAFER, HANS-PETER (Eds) (1986) Vergleichende Bildungsfo
DDR, Osteuropa und interkulturelle Perspektiven. Festschrift fir Oskar Anweiler zum 60. Geburtsti
Berlin Verlag).
DUNSTAN, JOHN (Ed.) (1987) Soviet Education under Scrutiny (Glasgow, Jordanhill College Publication
GLOWKA, DETLEF (1970) Schulreform und Gesellschaft in der Sowjetunion 1958-1968. Die Differenzier
allgemeinbildenden Schule als Problem der sowjetischen Bildungspolitik (Stuttgart, Klett).
GLOWKA, DETLEF (1986) Die westdeutsche Pddagogik in der Sicht sowjetischer Autoren, in: B. DrIGER e
Vergleichende Bildungsforschung: DDR, Osteuropa und interkulturelle Perspektiven (Berlin, Berlin V
410-427.

GLOWKA, DETLEF (1988) Die Reform des Bildungswesens in der Sowjetunion als Lehrstfick fUir die pidagogisc
Fachwelt, Zeitschrift fir Pddagogik, 34, pp. 481-500.
FROESE, LEONHARD (1983) Ausgewdlhlte Studien zur Vergleichenden Erziehungswissenschaft. Perspektiven un
Probleme (Mfinchen, Minerva Publikation).
HILKnS, PETER (1988) Unterricht in der Muttersprache bei den Deutschen in der Sowjetunion, Osteuropa, 38,
931-949.
KUBBART, FRIEDRICH (1987) Aktuelle Schwerpunkte und Tendenzen auf dem Gebiet der erziehungswissenschaft-
lichen UdSSR-Forschung, Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft-Informationen, Berichte, Studien, 18, pp.
170-186.

KUBBART, FRIEDRICH (1989) Union der sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, in: W. HORNER et al. (Eds) Technisch-
Ikonomischer Wandel und Reformen in der Berufs- und Allgemeinbildung sozialistischer Staaten (Bonn
Bundesministerium fufr Bildung und Wissenschaft).
MALKOVA, Z.A. & VULFSON, B.L. (1988) International Yearbook of Education, Vol. XXXIX-1987: secondary
education in the world today (Paris, Unesco).

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
292 F. Kuebart

MALKOVA, Z.A., NIKANDROV, N.D., GERSHUNSKn, B.S. & SHUBINSKn, V.S. (1989) Pedagogicheskaya na
novom etape, Sovetskaya pedagogika, 1, pp. 40-46 (Pedagogical science at a new stage of development).
MrrrmR, WOLFGANG (1976) Secondary School Graduation: university entrance qualifications in Socialist cou
(New York, Pergamon).
MrTrBR, WOLFGANG (1980) Erziehungswissenschaftliche Osteuropaforschung, Osteuropa, 30, pp. 799-812.
MrrTER, WOLFGANG (1987) MultikulturalitAt und Zweisprachigkeit im sowjetischen Bildungswesen,
MJTTR Schule zwischen Reform und Krise. Zu Theorie und Praxis der vergleichenden Bildungsforschung (K6
B6hlau), pp. 319-355.
NovIxov, LEONID (1981) Hochschulen in der Sowjetunion. Eine Untersuchung zum Verhdltnis von Bildungs
Beschdftigungssystem (Weinheim, Beltz).
SUDDABY, AvRIL (1989) An evaluation of the contribution of the teacher-innovators to Soviet educational r
Comparative Education, 25, pp. 245-256.
VULFSON, B.L. (1988) Metodologicheskie problemy sravnitel'noi pedagogiki, Sovetskaya pedagogika, 8
130-136 (Methodological problems of comparative education).
ZANKER, UwE (1975) Qualifikationsanforderungen und Sekundarschulreform in der UdSSR (Ravensburg, Ma

This content downloaded from

112.135.5.166 on Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:14:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms