Interest in the relationship between education and nations has been longstanding in the study of educational traditions (Kazamias, 2009), specifically in the field of comparative education, which “goes beyond the confines of education in one nation, society or group, and…uses cross-national or cross-cultural methods and techniques” (Kazamias & Massialas, 1965, p.14). Situated in the field of comparative education, this study sets out to explore how the relationship between national identity and global identity is balanced in educational settings in Mainland China and Scotland.
The justification for conducting a comparative study of Mainland China and Scotland primarily lies in the fact that Mainland China is where I originally come from, and Scotland is where I am currently pursuing my PhD degree. By exploring national identity education and global identity education in two contexts, issues that have been ignored and assumptions that have been taken for granted can be identified (Crossley & Watson, 2003). This is likely to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar (Kluckhohn, 1944). The appropriateness of a comparative study also lies in its advantage in providing rich descriptive and exploratory data, which allows me to see varying approaches to national identity education and global identity education in different circumstances. By identifying the similarities and differences between them, a theoretical framework in which to
analyse national identity education and global identity education can be developed (Phillips, 1999). In addition, education is shaped by its wider context and cannot be fully understood without potential influences being acknowledged. By offering explanations of the similarities and differences (Kandel, 1936), a mutual understanding of the two nations under examination can be fostered (Phillips, 1999).
Comparative studies are typically conducted based on establishing the parameters for comparability (Manzon, 2014), or the “equivalence” of the chosen units of analysis (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014, p.22). An instructive comparison can be made between Mainland China and Scotland because they “have sufficient in common to make analysis of their differences meaningful” (Bray, 2004, p.248).
Since the advent of the Reform and Opening-up policy in 1978, China has experienced a transformative process in all spheres of social life. The national economy has developed rapidly and is now the world’s second largest economy, with an average of nearly 10% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth per year, which is the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history (World Bank, 2019). Alongside this highly successful economic reform, Chinese nationalism has received growing public and academic attention both within and outwith China. Research indicates that some countries have discussed the idea that the rise of Chinese nationalism poses a threat to global development, and have therefore adopted a series of restrictions against China (Shan & Guo, 2011). However, this has not significantly interfered with China’s aim of being a strong and prosperous nation in the globalised world.
In Scotland, the past few decades have witnessed the transformation of the political landscape. The opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and the Scottish National Party (SNP) becoming a mainstream political party in 2007 reflects Scottish national consciousness in a political sense. Especially since the launch of the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, interest in Scottish identity has been growing among both academics and the public (Bechhofer & McCrone, 2007; Bond, 2015; Soule et al., 2012). The discussions of the relationship between Scotland and the UK are further complicated by the
controversial Brexit progress. In the context of globalisation, Scotland is aware of the importance of global communication and participation. It tries hard to construct links with the world to reinforce its existence as a distinctive and vibrant nation (Arnott & Ozga, 2016).
Generally, tensions between the search for national consciousness and global status can be observed in both China and Scotland. Alongside the wide similarities, there are key dissimilarities between the Chinese and Scottish contexts. The primary difference is that China is an independent country, while Scotland, despite having achieved devolution and the establishment of its own parliament in 1999, is still a sub-state nation within the unitary British state. Second, China and Scotland differ in scale. China is currently the most populous country in the world, with its 2020 population estimated at 1.44 billion (United Nations, 2019), while Scotland’s population is expected to reach 5.5 million by the middle of 2020 (Population UK, 2019). Similarly, in terms of surface area, China was reported to consist of 9,526,910 square kilometres in 2018 (World Bank, 2018), while Scotland is a small country with a total area is 79,292 square kilometres (Worldatlas, n.d.). Third, substantial differences exist between China and Scotland in terms of their cultural and social environments. Although diversity exists at the sub-national level, in a cultural sense, China is a unified entity with a clear and stable centre (Ge, 2017). While as a receiver region of immigration from both overseas and the rest of the UK, Scotland is much more diverse, encompassing different cultures and values.
However, it is important to note, in making this comparison, that “comparability across cultures can only be approximate at best” (Tobin et al., 1989, p.7). Mainland China and Scotland “have sufficient in common to make analysis of their differences meaningful” (Bray, 2005, p.248). The commonalities, as noted above, include the fact that they both are facing the challenge that globalisation poses to their power systems, both are trying to reinforce individuals’ national consciousness, and both are ambitious for their influential status in the global community. Therefore, a comparative study between Mainland China and Scotland can be conducted when approached with the awareness of their discrepancies in terms of political status, scale and diversity.
Traditionally, comparative education studies have focused on nation-states as the unit of comparison (Crossley, 2009). However, this approach exhibits some misunderstandings of nation-states as complex political entities. First, it must be admitted that the idea that every nation should constitute a state was an ideal of 19th century European nationalism (Crick, 2008). The reality is that not every
nation constitutes a state, and some states comprise more than one nation. Therefore, in addition to nation-states, sub-state nations and stateless nations should be studied. Second, nation-states sometimes cannot be explored as a whole entity because differences commonly exist within them. China and the UK are good examples to showcase the complexities of nation-states. China is composed of a large mainland as well as a number of islands and autonomous regions, and the education systems in these regions have distinctive characteristics (for example, Hong Kong’s education system differs from Mainland China’s). The same is true of the education systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of which are sub-states of the UK. Therefore, to ensure clarity and avoid limitations and confusion, Mainland China and Scotland are finalised as the specific contexts within which the present study is situated.
Figure 3.1 A Framework for Comparative Education Analysis (Bray & Thomas, 1995,
To achieve multifaceted and holistic analyses of educational phenomena, I am fully aware of the importance of multi-level analysis, which is proposed by Bray and Thomas (1995) through their three-dimensional theoretical model (p.475, shown in Figure 3.1). As this study aims to explore the relationship between national identity and global identity as it is reflected in school education, the focus of analysis according to the cube model is level 5: Schools. However, the national context is also important as it can provide information on the economic, political, social and cultural environment that has shaped school practice. In addition, different stakeholders’ perspectives must be taken into consideration and compared to reveal the similarities and differences between the chosen schools.
The last point to explain is the nature of the comparison that this study attempts to conduct. According to Schriewer (2000), simple comparison is “a universal mental operation embedded in everyday social life…establishing relations between observable facts”, while complex comparison is “a social scientific method…establishing relations between relationships” (pp.9-10). The comparison that this study attempts to conduct is of the relationship between national identity education and global identity education in the two schools; therefore it is a complex comparison. However, the prerequisite is to explore national identity education and global identity education respectively in depth, otherwise a complex comparison of the relationship between the two phenomena cannot be achieved. Given the above considerations, the second and third sections of this chapter will provide background information about the Chinese and Scottish contexts respectively.