7/24/2019 3216593

1/6

A Critique of Recent Models for the Improvement of Education in Developing Countries

Author(s): John H. ChilcottSource: Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 241-245Published by: Blackwell Publishingon behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3216593.

Accessed: 07/08/2011 14:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 support@jstor.org.

Blackwell PublishingandAmerican Anthropological Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAnthropology & Education Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3216593?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3216593?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

7/24/2019 3216593

2/6

A

Critique

of Recent

Models for

the

Improvement

of

Education

in Developing Countries

JOHN

H.

CHILCOTT

University

of

Arizona

Several

models

that have been

designed

in the last

two decades

for

improving

formal

and

nonformal

education

n

developing

countries

are described nd

cri-

tiqued.

The

critique

employs

a

variation

of

Wallace's

culture

change

model

as

applied

by

Hutchens

in

assessing

the education

of

women

in

Cuba.

A

model

for evaluatingeducationalprograms or development s proposed.MODEL,

EDUCATION,

DEVELOPMENT,

EVALUATION

For some

time,

it has been

my

intention to

reexamine the literature

on

education

in

developing

countries.

Consequently,

when

the

oppor-

tunity

arose to

present

a

paper

in line with

the

theme,

Applied

An-

thropology:

Its

International

Dimensions,

it

provided

an ideal moti-

vation

to

pursue

this interest.' This

article

will, therefore,

briefly

re-

view

some of

the

education

models that

have

repeatedly appeared

in

the

anthropology

and education

literature and

will

compare

them

with

a

recently developed

model

proposed

by

Hutchens

(1984)

in

his

study

of

the education of Cuban women.

It

will

also

suggest

some

alterations

in

the

Hutchens model

that would

make it more

appropriate

to small-

scale educational

programs

in

development.

Three

models

that have been used to

explain

education

in

devel-

oping

nations

in the

literature of

anthropology

and education are the

Wax

model,

drawn from his

essay,

Great

Tradition,

Little

Tradition,

and

Formal

Education

(1971),

the Wallace

model,

elaborated

in

Schools

in

Revolutionary

and Conservative Societies

(1979),

and

the

La Belle model, described in his article, Liberation, Development,

and

Rural

Nonformal Education

(1984).

More

recently,

Hutchens

de-

veloped

a

model

(1984)

derived from Kuhn's model

of

scientific revo-

lutions

and

Wallace's culture

change

model

(1972).

The first two are

explanatory

models,

while

the

latter two

are

process

models.

Wax's

explanation

of

the

relationship

between formal

education

in

Western

society

and informal

education

in

tribal

society

has been use-

ful

in

understanding

the

problems

that

arise when

introducing

formal

educational

programs

in

developing

countries that

possess

large seg-

ments

of

tribal

societies.

Wallace's

explanation

of

the relative

empha-

sis on the intellectual, technic, and moral domains of formal education

in

reactionary,

conservative,

and

revolutionary

societies

has been use-

ful

in

understanding

why many

development

programs

that

empha-

size

the

technic,

while

overlooking

the

moral and

intellectual

compo-

nents of

education,

have

been

unsuccessful. These

explanatory

241

7/24/2019 3216593

3/6

Anthropology

Education

Quarterly

models

may provide

good

heuristic

devices,

but

they

are of

little value

in

developing

and

evaluating

educational

programs.

La Belle's model focuses on out-of-school programs associated in

developing

countries with

programs

in

agriculture,

community

de-

velopment,

literacy,

and health.

Using

liberation-dependence theory,

this

model

examines social

structure,

technology,

motivation,

and

in-

formation and

their

interrelationship

in

the

generation

of

education

programs

in

so-called

underdeveloped

countries. As

such,

the La

Belle

model is a

process

model rather

than an

explanatory

model and

as

such

is

of

greater

value in

program

development.

You

may

recall that

Kuhn's thesis

(1970)

was that

on occasion

a

crisis

occurs

in

the

scientific

community

that

creates

a

revolutionary

new

paradigm

that is discontinuous with the old

paradigm,

still answers

previously

unanswerable

questions,

and

yet satisfactorily

answers

the

old

ones.

In his

essay, Pradigmatic

Processes

in

Culture

Change,

Wallace

(1972)

recast

Kuhn's

paradigm

to include

the

following

salient

features:

1.

Innovation

(of

a

new

paradigm)

entails conflict

with

an

older

one

that it must

replace;

solves

a limited

problem

but

does

so in

such

a

way

that

opens up

a new line of

development

and has

symbolic

and

charismatic

qualities

often associated with

a

culture

hero.

2. ParadigmaticCore Development is the continuous elaboration of

ideas

that

constitute

the

paradigm.

Individuals

make contribu-

tions to the

paradigm by

resolving

internal

ambiguities

and con-

tradictions and

by demonstrating

its

utility

in

solving

newly

dis-

covered

problems.

Paradigmatic

core

development

is

notoriously

difficult

to

censor,

suppress,

or

destroy by

economic,

religious,

or

political pressures.

3.

Exploitation

s

the

recognition

and

embracing

of the

paradigm,

at

some

stage

in

its

evolution,

by

an

economic,

military,

religious,

or

political

organization

other than the

paradigmatic

community,

which sees in its

application

an

opportunity

for the

protection

or

advancement

of its

own

interests.

4.

Functional

Consequences

re the

new

specific

problems

that the ex-

ploitation

of

the core

development process

creates

for the

society,

and the

way

in

which

the

society

responds,

at first

by expedients,

and

eventually by

culture

change.

5.

Rationalization

s the

ethical,

philosophical,

religious,

and

political

justifications

that the

community

members offer

for their

partic-

ipation

in

the core

development process,

such

as it

will lead

to

a

better world.

Wallace's

adaptation

of the

Kuhn

paradigmatic

scheme

is

capable

of

dealing

with efforts

to

implement

innovations

over

a

long

period

of

time.

Both

exploitation

and functional

consequences

occur

concur-

rently

with

paradigmatic

core

development;

rationalization

occurs

across

all the

model

categories.

242

Volume

18,

1987

7/24/2019 3216593

4/6

Education n

Developing

Countries

Hutchens elaborated

the

Kuhn-Wallace model

into a

parallel pairs

model.

This

elaboration

provided

a

relational

model

rather than

a

lin-

ear model and added a comparative dimension. This type of model is

useful since it is

possible

to

expand

the number

of

categories

on

one

axis

and

therefore

increase the clarification

of

variables

found on

the

other

axis. For

example,

using

a functionalist

perspective,

he

placed

the

following

categories along

the horizontal

axis:

focus,

reinforce-

ment, administration,

refinement,

and

ideology.

Focus

functions

to maintain

a

clear

perception

of

precisely

what

is

to

be

accomplished

by

the

innovation,

and this

prevents

the

change

from

becoming

diffuse

and/or unattainable.

For

an innovation to take

root

requires

both

reinforcement

and refinement. Administration

(exploita-

tion)

is often

accomplished

through legislation.

Refinement

is accom-

plished

through

functional

consequences

that

provide adaptations

in

the

program

when the

program

is not

accomplishing

a

task.

It

involves

the

elaboration of the innovation

by paradigmatic

core

development.

The rationalization

(ideology)

for

the innovation

requires

continual

support

for

a curriculum that is

systematically

oriented

toward

cor-

rect

thinking.

Using

this

model,

the

ethnographer/evaluator

can

gather

data

from

a

number

of

public

arenas,

such as the

political

arena,

schooling,

en-

tertainment,

or

workplace,

to

place

in

the

model's

framework. Hutch-

ens

also

examined educational means such

as

the

media,

social

rela-

tions,

formal

curriculum,

legislation,

and mass

organizations

for data

to

place

in

the model.

To

illustrate how this model is

utilized,

let us take a

literacy program

and run it

through

the

model,

using

as

our

public

arena the

political

scene in a

developing

nation. It can be

assumed

that the

government

or

the

governmental agency

would use

the

mass

media as a

means of

introducing

the

program

to the

general public.

By

examining

the

con-

tent

of the

message

in

the

mass

media,

one

can

determine the

aim or

focus of the literacy program, the name of a powerful person or per-

Educational

Functions

Moral

Categories

Focus

Reinforcement

dministration

Refinement

Ideology

Innovation

Mass

Media

Paradigmatic

Mass

Core

Organizations

Development

Exploitation

Legislation

Functional Social

Consequences

Relations

Rationalization Formal

Curriculum

Figure

1

Hutchens's Education

Model.

Chilcott

243

7/24/2019 3216593

5/6

Anthropology

Education

Quarterly

sons

who are

playing

an

advocacy

role,

the

symbolic

nature of the

pro-

gram,

and

the issues

that have

arisen as a conflict with

the former

cul-

tural practice-in this case, the oral tradition.

By

examining

the activities of

those mass

organizations

that

may

be

encouraging

or

participating

in

the

development

of the

literacy pro-

gram

(i.e.,

a

teacher's

union,

political

party,

or church

organization),

one can determine

the manner in

which

the

program

is

being

refined

and/or reinforced

as the

program

is used.

By

examining

the

legislation

that is

passed

to

administer

and

legal-

ize

the

program,

one can determine the

source of

power

for

the

pro-

gram.

Why

make

people

literate? Is

it

so

they

can read

army

regula-

tions and

thus become

good

soldiers? Or to read the

propaganda

of

a

new

political

order?

(Socialist

revolutions are often

accompanied by

literacy

programs

so

that the

people

can read

newspapers

and

pam-

phlets,

and thus learn the

philosophy

of

a

new cultural

hero.)

By

examining

the social

dynamics

of the

program

over time one can

determine how the outcomes

of

the

program

are

affecting

the contin-

uation

of

the

program

and how the

program

and its ideals

are

altered

to

accommodate

unanticipated

effects on

the

program.

One

can

also

determine in what

social

dynamics

the

program

is not refined and as

a

consequence

subject

to failure.

Finally, by examining the content of the program in the formal cur-

riculum

one can determine

the rationalization for the

program.

Who

teaches?

What is the content

of

the

written

materials?

What

do

the

teachers

say

about the materials?

How does the teacher motivate

the

student to

become

literate? Is

literacy

desirable to free oneself

from

ig-

norance,

or is

it a means of

gaining

control over

those who are not

literate?

One

can

readily

see

that

the

evaluation

process

in

the Hutchens

model can be continuous

rather

than after the fact

and,

as

such,

rescue

an

educational

program

that

may

be

failing

because of lack

of under-

standing

of cultural

processes

that are

occurring

in

conjunction

with

the

program.

When

the Hutchens model

is

compared

with traditional

culture

change theory

as

applied

to

education,2

it

appears

to include

most of

the variables considered

in a

structural-functional

approach

to

change.

Although

it

does not

label

the three

processes

of culture

change

(in-

novation,

dissemination,

and

acceptance),

they

are

included

in the

model.

The model also

addresses

other

factors,

such

as the

prestige

of

the

advocate,

the

dependence

on

authority,

and

legitimization.

The Hutchens model is utopic in that it focuses on the act of accep-

tance.

It

does

not

appear

to

provide

any

way

to

analyze

the climate

for

change,

whether the

advocate is

aware

of the

values,

content,

and

or-

ganization

of

the

target

population,

the

expectation

for

change

within

the

target population,

and

the scale

of the

change.

These factors

need

to be included

in order

to

develop

more of

a

pragmatic

model. It

might

244

Volume

18,

1987

7/24/2019 3216593

6/6

Educationn

Developing

Countries

be

argued,

however,

that

most education

programs

are

utopic

in

na-

ture and

therefore

not amenable to a

pragmatic

model. For

purposes

of training change agents in education, however, it would seem that

the

pragmatic

model would be

imperative.

It

would

appear

from

a

review

of

the literature

in

anthropology

and

education that

most models

for

education

in

developing

nations

are

explanatory

models

rather

than

process

models

and,

as

such,

have

lit-

tle

value in

developing,

maintaining,

and

evaluating

educational

pro-

grams

for

development.

The Hutchens model

critiqued

in

this

article

does

demonstrate

promise

for

analyzing

educational

programs

at

the

macroscopic

level.

At

the

community

or

microscopic

level, however,

more

traditional culture

change

variables need

to

be

researched

in

or-

der to scale the educational innovation to the

appropriate

target pop-

ulation.

Notes

1.

This

article

was

originally

a

paper

presented

at the

Congreso

International

de

la

Sociedad

de

AntropologiaAplicada,

12-18

April

1987,

n

Oaxaca,

Mexico.

2.

See,

for

example,

Gallaher

1979).

References Cited

Gallaher,

Art

1979

Directed

Change

in

Formal

Organizations:

The School

System.

In

Anthropology

and

Educational

Administration.

Ray

Barhardt,

John

H.

Chilcott,

and

Harry

F.

Wolcott,

eds.

Pp.

289-304. Tucson:

Impresora

Sa-

huaro.

Hutchens,

Rex

R.

1984

Women in

Cuba:

Educationand Directed

Culture

Change. Unpub-

lished

Ph.D.

dissertation,

University

of Arizona.

Kuhn,

Thomas S.

1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second edition.

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press.

La

Belle,

Thomas

J.

1984

Liberation,

Development,

and

Rural

Nonformal

Education.

Anthro-

pology

&

Education

Quarterly

15(1):80-93.

Wallace,

Anthony

F.

C.

1972

Paradigmatic

Processes

in

Culture

Change.

American

Anthropolo-

gist

74(3):467-478.

1979

Schools in

Revolutionary

and

Conservative

Societies. In

Anthropol-

ogy

and

Educational

Administration.

Ray

Barhardt,

John

H.

Chilcott,

and

Harry

F.

Wolcott,

eds.

Pp.

237-266.

Tucson:

Impresora

Sahuaro.

Wax,

Murray

L.,

and Rosalie H. Wax

1971

Great

Tradition,

Little

Tradition,

and

Formal

Education.

In

Anthro-

pological

Perspectives

on

Education.

Murray

L.

Wax,

Stanley

Diamond,

and

Fred

O.

Gearing,

eds.

Pp.

3-18.

New

York:

Basic

Books.

Chilcott

245