The paper presents an analytical criticism of Isaac Kandel's methodology. Isaac Kandel, who compared the educational systems of England, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, and the United States in "Comparative Education," 1933, is credited with laying the foundations of the scientific study of comparative education. The paper criticizes three aspects of Kandel's methodology--his almost exclusively macrocosmic point of view, his nationalistic analysis of the relationship between society and education, and his lack of objectivity. Because Kandel overemphasized the macrocosmic point of view, he stressed the image of educational systems as expressions of the common culture of each nation. This preference for generalization presents a false image of nationally unified educational systems, fails to take dissenting minorities into account, and results in simplified statements about national character. Because historical analysis is an important tool for scholars of comparative education, it should be as useful as possible. Kandel's methodology would be more useful if it were more scientific. The conclusion is that Kandel's methodology will be improved by: (1) creating a balance between macro- and micro-historical analysis; (2) taking into account the possible need for a plurality of educational systems and policies; and (3) making comparative education research more scientific and neutral. (Author/DB)