La extrema pobreza en el Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2009 – 2013

This research project looks at the narratives of two different approaches to early years

education, set in two different countries. As such, its methodology must also take into account comparative approaches to research and their implications. Comparative studies have a long- established place in educational research and texts on effective international models of early years education regularly feature in our literature, policy and practice: witness the strong influence of Scandinavian practice on the development of Forest Schools in the United Kingdom (Knight, 2009). There are many academic publications in existence which explore international perspectives, including The International Journal of Early Years Education, which has been in existence for over twenty years. Though such comparative material may have been popular in this country for some long while, influencing practice and even national policy, their greatest benefits may not be the most obvious ones. Half a century ago, Edmund J. King (1962) asked seriously why we should bother comparing education between countries. The following section aims to find an answer to this question and look at the issues such comparisons may raise.

It is accepted that international research can provide comparative perspectives to education in different contexts (e.g. Soler & Miller, 2003), perhaps furnishing material that allows

researchers to critique and develop their own systems and share new ideas. Looking at literature on international education systems such as 'Bringing the Reggio Approach to Your Early Years Practice' (Thornton & Brunton, 2010), it could be assumed that studying other approaches primarily enables the cherry-picking of successful ideas for application at home.

69 King (1962), however, felt that international comparison could contribute more than this. He noted that humans are atrocious at forming an accurate picture of themselves and their actions and that understandings are not discrete flashes, but must be 'built-up' from experiences in different contexts (King, 1962).

Extending his arguments to educational research, King (1962) suggested that the comparison of different approaches to education may help us to better identify persistent issues in education as a whole, including our own practice, whilst extending our knowledge. His

emphasis on context cautions against cherry-picking ideas that may not be suited to transfer, a point recognised by more modern early years education researchers such as Bottle (2007). Geertz (1992) affirmed that the search for universals – 'this technique cultivates creativity in all children' - is not a practice that is productive; it is more likely to result in implausible and above all uninstructive findings. Consequently, this research project aims not to find a winning approach or transferable techniques, but to try to use comparison as a lens through which to view the effectiveness of practice in each country: to understand what is being done and perhaps glean an idea of what might be done within each system.

Beyond the appreciably small pond of educational research, there are many arguments to be made for the cultivation of international thinking. In The Republic, Plato (Plato & Jowett, 2010) makes the point that to create a state where nothing need be imported is almost impossible: this was in reference to physical goods, but the same could be said for ideas too. In

constructing the Republic, Socrates and his companions frequently make reference to other states and nations, both in the consequences of their actions, which inform the construction of the Republic, but also their presence and how it affects the Republic itself (Plato & Jowett, 2010). This is to say that nothing exists in a vacuum, everything that is created, even though it is entirely new, is always as a response to what has gone before and is necessarily aware of what is around it. Not to look to other countries whether for ideas, experience, information, signals of our success or security would therefore be not only short-sighted, but anathema to the way in which humans have always developed societies: even those states which profess to hate all others and their ways of life measure their own success against the perceived

barbarity or decadence of others.

Yet there is more to the study of other nations than the act of comparison. Michel de

Montaigne (1580) considered in his Essays that the purpose of visiting foreign lands should not be merely to glean information about the places visited, but that '...we may whet and sharpen our wits by rubbing them against those of others' (Montaigne, 1580: no page number). For

70 Montaigne (1580), real education had to go beyond the written word and to be experienced directly because within these experiences we may find more than facts and novelty: perchance a form of mental exercise to ultimately better our thinking. The potential for improvement through exposure to other lands and cultures is increasingly recognised today: the

International Studies Association (ISA) was founded in 1959; it has non-governmental

consultancy status with the United Nations and represents about 80 countries (ISA, 2013). ISA is an interdisciplinary organisation that facilitates communications amongst educators, researchers and practitioners across the globe in the belief that sharing practice and ideas can help bring about scientific, educational and cultural improvements (ISA, 2013). This approach also rejects cherry-picking: rather than one-culture ransacking another for its best bits, this model of comparison is one from which all stakeholders can benefit. In terms of this particular study, the ISA model highlights a need for findings to be shared with all of the settings involved if the true benefits of comparative study are to be realised.

International thinking is also of particular relevance today: not only is the world markedly smaller in terms of accessibility than it ever was for Plato or Montaigne, but it is vastly better connected. A student may sit in a library in England; wearing clothes made in India, typing on a computer from Korea using software developed in the U.S. Around that student are people of every nationality conceivable, the student herself has dual nationality and has lived in several different countries. The international is here around us. The children we teach in our schools are frequently international too: the fieldwork for this study carried out in both countries identified that a significant proportion of the children in the settings studied were either foreign-born or of foreign or mixed heritage. The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education (DfE, 2012a) makes it clear that as educators we need to accept children’s differing backgrounds, to value diversity and support their needs. Comparing international approaches to education can help us to achieve these ends as they can help us not only to critique and improve our own methods (as discussed in the preceding paragraphs), but also provide us with understanding of how things may be done elsewhere, and how those cultures have impacted upon the experiences of those children.

Undertaking international comparisons in educational research poses some interesting

questions for the researcher. At the most basic level, there is the issue of language and cultural barriers inhibiting interpretation (Hartas, 2010c), something that may be slightly mitigated in this case by my time spent living in the area and Spanish fluency. Yet while this last quality may make me intelligible to the general public, I must recognise that this project is intending on

71 performing fieldwork in schools where Catalan, not Spanish, is the preferred language, and while I can read and understand this tolerably well, it is with significantly less ease. Beyond this, there are cross-cultural differences in both education and education research which may cause difficulties (Robinson-Pant, 2005). This project is taking an open minded approach towards potential differences between the educational approaches, their existence or not is to be documented by this project, however the idea that differences could arise in what ‘good’ research is and what educational research is for was not something that had been considered beforehand. Robinson-Pant (2005) spent a considerable length of time living, working and researching in Nepal, her experience there, along with work with international students back here in Britain has led her to try and explore these gaps in perspective. It will be important for the implementation of this project not only to question what my contacts and participants in Spain will be expecting, but also what assumptions about research execution I may be carrying with me.

Robinson-Pant (2005) also flags up the possibility of ethical conflicts caused by cultural differences: as a researcher we may come into contact with situations which go against the grain of our own beliefs and training. She highlights a potential dilemma for a researcher who may witness a situation they feel the need to intervene in, yet this act may impact upon their work as they move from being a passive observer to becoming another actor in the situation (Robinson-Pant, 2005). Interestingly, both this situation and a conflict in understanding about what a ‘good’ research project should do occurred in the fieldwork stage of this project, which will be further discussed in the following chapter. Given the complexities of human nature and societies, and indeed the absence of a manual advising an English educational researcher on what they should look out for whilst conducting research in Catalonia, it seems impossible to entirely mitigate such scenarios. The early stages of this study did include some email discussion with the Universitat de Barcelona and the Departament de Educació around what might be expected, which appeared to be very little. This in itself highlighted quite a different attitude to my experiences of educational research so far, however, culture is only part of the story: the situations highlighted in this paragraph may also arise owing to differences in the personal beliefs and values of the observer and observed.

International comparison then is not without its pitfalls; though it could be argued any

research project is subject to these. Preparation and honesty about the potential problems can help alleviate some of the issues caused by inter-cultural differences, albeit not completely. Clarity about the aims of international comparison for this study is also important. This

72 comparison has been undertaken not to champion one approach over another in terms of fostering creativity, or to pinpoint ideas worth borrowing, but to use the comparisons as a lens through which to reflect upon the barriers and the resources for cultivating creativity that exist in each system. In answer to King’s (1962) question as to why we should bother comparing educational systems across countries, perhaps the answer is that looking out at the world provides us with the tools that we need to be able to look in at the systems in which we are placed.