Chapter 5: Literature Review -- The Analytical Tools, Introduction

5

Literature Review -- The Analytical Tools -- Introduction

   The collation that I constructed was necessary because the documents, when brought together, permit the possibility of "theorizing." What underlines the research at this point is the necessity of "comparative," a tool utilized towards "theorizing." If comparative is not a factor, and the policy documents are conceived as provincially/territorially "discrete" in strict adherence to section 93, then the research cannot move forward. I have written in chapter one that the documents considered chronologically back-to-back create one large continuous Canadian public education policy history text, but even when this continuous text is conceived and made real, the fact of comparative is still active as a interpretive feature.

   Another point outlining of the importance of comparative as a tool here, is that the documents themselves use comparative with other systems, both systems found in Canada as well as in systems found internationally. The federal 1913 document involved review of United Kingdom and German education. The Ontario Hope Commission of 1950 reviewed public education policy in all the other provinces of Canada. British Columbia's 1988 royal commission under Barry Sullivan refers to a review of other systems. The systems are reviewed by the Sullivan's researchers but are not identified in the final report. And so on. Comparative with other systems is an integral condition in public education commission reports produced in Canada in the 20th century. Suffice it to also write that when comparative is not a factor in a Canadian public education policy document, the reason for that lack should be considered. The comparative tool has played a huge role in creating a Canadian system that integrates significantly to provide the underpinnings necessarily to support a sense of "nationalism." Canadians have the freedom to move between the provinces and territories as citizens in this country and their matriculation levels are transportable. This point drives to the argument in this dissertation, that 21st century Canadian public education policy could reflect the 'similarities' existing as a consequence of integration of the systems derived from comparative research underlying royal commissions. The overview of the Canadian federal system this research provides here is unique in that it shows that the relationship between provinces/territories and a state federal system relies heavily on comparative to support the legitimacy of the federal state as defined by culture and language and knowledge derived through education structure. By extension, the argument made by Stephen Ball that the advanced capitalist countries have very many points of similarity rather than difference in their public education policies is supported by what we see happening in the Canadian model. Canadian public education research such as that reviewed here provides an interesting overall international case study in terms of the model. Perhaps the findings may be extrapolated to the international. Stephen Ball cites a good deal of borrowing and cobbling as occurring in international public education policy making. He writes of international policies presenting as a kind of "bricolage" but Canadian policies could be much more than that. The provincial sense in Canada -- I think this is a late 20th century and turn of the century attitude -- is that the construction of provincial/territorial public education policy is independent, provincially directed without much inter-provincial/territorial interference. The 'big picture' suggests otherwise. The provinces (and post-war, the territories) are interdependent and the policy they make reflects this interdependence. I think this goes a long way to show that at this time in history there are aspects of public education policy that should be constitutionally centralized in a Canada of the 21st century.

   The sections following this 'Introduction' look at comparative as a tool both external and internal to Canada. Looking at the external models, the comparative done by Whitty and Halpin between five countries is of interest. Here the authors were focussed on identifying the similarities rather than the differences in international policy making. The conclusion drawn by Whitty and Halpin can be directly compared to the Canadian federal scenario and then drawn much deeper. The Canadian system is self-contained, a state (with the matter of Quebec somewhat in the balance and providing another aspect of interpretation), so the similarities in policy products between the English language systems would likely be more intensive. In terms of the French language system following Quebec's 1966 Parent Report a rationalization occurred between English and French language ministries, such that, in my opinion, Quebec's public education policy is not excluded on the grounds of 'difference'.  

   In the following sections I review a number of articles that have helped guide my research. The first two articles consider arguments in favour of reaching beyond ‘the details’ to understand the ‘big picture’. The first article I cover was written by Stephen Ball and is entitled “Big Policies/Small World: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy.” A second article offering an international model for this research is a study conducted by Whitty et al. In this research the similarities rather than differences between the studied systems were emphasized and additionally the authors find they must make reference to the ‘big picture’ in order to make sense of the ‘details’. The ‘big picture’ covers international shifts and trends, where the ‘details’ are the various policies made in school-based management at local and regional levels in the various countries they study. Translated to this research, the Canadian provinces compare as the producers of the ‘details’ while the research is interested in a Canadian ‘big picture’. This compares in terms of design to an international ‘big picture’. The article provides this kind of comparative as well as suggesting that the Canadian ‘big picture’ will have features that are of research interest in the international community. Much less back-pedalling needs to be done in terms of justifying a comparative between the ‘autonomous’ systems of Canada, where the study Whitty et al conduct requires lengthy comment on generalizing international conditions. The best articulation of this problem is summarized by Raffe et al.: “…home international [interpreted relative to Canada as “federal” and/or “provincial/territorial” comparisons] comparisons may provide more opportunities for theory development than the study of homogenous systems with unique boundaries.”

   Following a review of these articles, I take a look at the research of Theda Skocpol. Translated to this particular research project, Skocpol's 'historical comparative' supports validity in comparing commission reports constructed at differing times in Canadian history. A royal commission is also a kind of "event" guided by Canadian ideology as well as Canadian legal and bureaucratic practice.  In this case, the ideology refers in part to the rules of democracy, in Skocpol's study, the comparative refers to the conditions required for revolution, and practice. Comparing the 1913 Canadian policy document with a late 20th century document is a valid comparative if placed within a defined framework.