47
was a middleman and a go-between whose life and work has significance for the social history of education in Hong Kong. A study of his book and his career may possibly even hold some broader significance for comparative and historical studies of educational development.
General methodological background
A considerable proportion of the literature produced recently in the fields of comparative education and history of education focuses on large, general, often policy-related issues.2 There is much to be said for this "macro" level orientation. Interesting overviews are provided. Readers gain, relatively painlessly, quick and convenient access to basic facts about educational systems and may be encouraged to recognize significant inter-society comparisons and trends. Writers gain fortification and, perhaps, inspiration by choosing to apply commonly accepted, if usually stipulatively defined, concepts to educational developments in various communities. "Accountability”, “ethnicity”, “legitimacy”, "dependency”, “formal”, “lifelong” and “informal" education are examples of organizing concepts which have, in recent years, triggered off illuminating discussion. However, they have tended to be used at times as fashionable shibboleths.
The position in relation to colonialism in education is a good example of this tendency. In the post-[and/or neo-]colonial world of the late twentieth century, the actual word “colonialism” has acquired considerable pejorative connotations, not only in the trend-concerned realms of politics and journalism, but also in the republic of academia. As far as colonialism in education is concerned, it is significant that the works of Carnoy1 and Altbach and Kelly4 are based entirely upon macro-studies which concentrate upon formal, official policies, as can be understood or inferred from policy statements and official statistics, or on polemics which are by no means disinterested. Even Ball's interesting critique of Carnoy's theory of colonialism as cultural imperialism uses similar methods and source materials, though the latter are broadened to include data about personal attitudes.5 Gifford and Weiskel set out to identify characteristic “colonial styles” via a comparison of case studies, selected as illustrative “cases” of gen-
47
was a middleman and a go-between whose life and work has signif- icance for the social history of education in Hong Kong. A study of his book and his career may possibly even hold some broader significance for comparative and historical studies of educational development.
General methodological background
A considerable proportion of the literature produced recently in the fields of comparative education and history of education fo- cuses on large, general, often policy-related issues.2 There is much to be said for this "macro" level orientation. Interesting overviews are provided. Readers gain, relatively painlessly, quick and conve- nient access to basic facts about educational systems and may be encouraged to recognize significant inter-society comparisons and trends. Writers gain fortification and, perhaps, inspiration by choosing to apply commonly accepted, if, usually stipu- latively defined, concepts to educational developments in various communities. "Accountability”, “ethnicity”, “legitimacy”, "dependency”, “formal”, “lifelong” and “informal" education are examples of organizing concepts which have, in recent years, triggered off illuminating discussion. However, they have tended to be used at times as fashionable shibboleths.
The position in relation to colonialism in education is a good example of this tendency. In the post-[and/or neo-]colonial world of the late twentieth century, the actual word “colonialism” has acquired considerable pejorative connotations, not only in the trend-concerned realms of politics and journalism, but also in the republic of academia. As far as colonialism in education is con- cerned, it is significant that the works of Carnoy1 and Altbach and Kelly* are based entirely upon macro-studies which concentrate upon formal, official policies, as can be understood or inferred from policy statements and official statistics, or on polemics which are by no means disinterested. Even Ball's interesting cri- tique of Carnoy's theory of colonialism as cultural imperialism uses similar methods and source materials, though the latter are broadened to include data about personal attitudes." Gifford and Weiskel set out to identify characteristic “colonial styles” via a comparison of case studies, selected as illustrative “cases” of gen-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.