Comparative considerations

“Educational problems have to be examined in the light of culturally determined needs, objectives, and conditions (Raivola, 1986: 261)”. No social phenomenon can be isolated and studied without comparing it to other social phenomena (Øyen, 1990). This study was intended to investigate teacher-pupil relationships in a Chinese secondary school and therefore how the relationships affect students’ disciplinary and emotional behaviour. In order to give a holistic picture of Chinese schooling, teacher-pupil relationships in a Chinese school and the emotional development of pupils there, an English school, in which Circle Time was employed to develop pupils’ personal and interpersonal skills, was taken as a comparative case in this study. This design brought the opportunity for the researcher to understand how Circle Time operates in an English school, and to become proficient in manipulating Circle Time in a Chinese school. Bearing comparative thinking in mind, the researcher was prepared to encounter unexpected issues in a different cultural setting. Circle time was taken as a starting agent, a conjoined element to make a link between the two cultures. However, it was not the researcher’s intention to investigate the difference between the two countries in doing Circle Time. The research was seeking Chinese participants’ attitudes and perspectives when first facing a western pedagogical method. Comparisons reflected on and highlighted the differences, and also brought opportunities to western audiences to understand Chinese culture, to test how the same pedagogical method operated in different cultural settings.

Comparative research, generalized by Øyen (1990), has synonymous concepts such as cross-country, cross-national, cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-systemic, cross- institutional; and is usually based on the units of countries. But Øyen (1990) argues that

using countries as units in comparative research is not the most ‘fruitful’ approach. He indicates that national boundaries are different from ethnic, cultural and social boundaries. However, the world in fact is divided according to these administrative units. It is convenient to adapt information from these administrative units. Comparative study is the best way to learn from different cultures. The variety of geography, history, economy and culture shapes the non-equivalence of concepts and characteristics, and makes for complexity in interpreting comparative study; however, this also makes comparative study important in understanding different cultures and settings by finding links, patterns and relationships and reducing variance.

Robinson-Pant (2005) suggests that for international students working with two or more languages within their field, research can be an advantage in some respects. Firstly, they are constantly comparing and refining concepts between different languages and cultures, analyzing data in terms of what it means within that particular discourse. Secondly, international students using two languages in research may develop greater sensitivity both about their own identity as ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ researcher, and the strategies they adopted in their research. The researcher equipped with 8 years working experience in Chinese schools and 6 years studying and researching experience in the UK, has the advantages of language, perspective, experience and both insider and outsider thinking. However, it is still wise to discuss the potential issues of the researcher’s role. The researcher has to understand the cultures and the systems better in different cultural institutions, and also needs to be aware of their own role and knowledge in the research setting, to reduce bias. As Raivola (1986) argues, within international comparison, the researcher needs to be aware of the danger that one’s assumptions, system of values, and prejudices, could lead to a cultural bias in the gathering and interpretation of data. By the

same token, it can be difficult without comparison to learn to recognise and appreciate the special characteristics of one’s own culture, simply because one is accustomed to react automatically to them.

Moghaddam et al. (2003) think that the very nature of culture is social, shared, continually changing, collaboratively constructed, and collaboratively sustained. They presume that culture is a normative system, which influences what the people do as to what it is proper or desirable to do. As a consequence, growing up in a society, as individuals appropriate cultures, they not only behave in ways demanded by local norms, but they come to have culturally distinctive subjective and private experiences. Chinese students have been influenced by the culture of the society in which they grew up; they might understand and react differently toward Circle Time compared with their peers in the UK. It is worth investigating Circle Time taking place in a very different society. Circle time is considered to be a practical method in developing pupil’s emotional wellbeing and raising pupil’s self-esteem. The golden rule in doing Circle Time is the equality between teachers and pupils; in achieving this equality, Chinese teachers should show more respect to pupils than previously, which would change both a Chinese teachers’ and students’ way of thinking and acting within their cultural educational setting.

Moghaddam et al. (ibid.) suggest that researchers should give full and serious consideration to the difference between the culture of the researchers and that of the participants in the research project. Therefore, they indicate that mixed methodologies could help a researcher to cope better with the opportunities and limitations imposed by the recognition of the role of culture in the realm of human thought and action.

The researcher also needs to consider the personal cultural background, values and experience which will influence the research. In the next section, I will discuss and reflect upon my consideration of the role of the researcher.

There are differences between Chinese X school and UK W school, however, ‘it is reasonable to suggest that the national culture in which all schools in a country are embedded, and which all teachers and pupils in that country share, is as powerful a determinant of its character as are the unique institutional dynamics and circumstances which make one school different from another; and therefore, that any one school says a great deal about the national system of education of which it is a part (R. Alexander, 1996).’

In W school, I participated in and observed their Circle Time sessions; in X school, I designed and conducted Circle Time sessions. Rich data was collected from questionnaires, interviews, observation and documents during field work; I will focus on the Chinese school to interpret the findings.