THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Online ISSN : 2187-5278
Print ISSN : 0387-3161
ISSN-L : 0387-3161
Volume 75 , Issue 3
Showing 1-20 articles out of 20 articles from the selected issue
Paper
  • Takato SHIRAISHI
    2008 Volume 75 Issue 3 Pages 263-275
    Published: September 30, 2008
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    This study aims to clarify the process by which Research Associations (Kenkyu-Kumiai) were established between 1894 and 1896, along with their historical significance. In the field of education in Japan in the 1890s, research on the theory and art of education based not on education in a foreign country but on Japanese folk customs and cultures was required. The Educational Society of Japan from 1892 to 1893 made efforts toward not this problem but the political campaign concerning the expense of education. However, because the political campaign was banned by the Ministry of Education in October 1893, the Educational Society of Japan decided to conduct research on the theory and art of education. Thereafter, Higher Normal School teachers and members of the education planning committee (Kyouiku-Danwa-Kai) who had been aiming at establishing an organization for the research on the theory and art of education took control of the reform. The Higher Normal School teachers played an important role in the establishment of Research Associations. To improve the method of education by the in-service teachers, Jigoro Kanou, the principal of the Higher Normal School, came up with the plan to engage a prominent researcher and an educator. The Higher Normal School teachers enacted the Research Associations regulations along Kanou's plan, and presented the official explanation. Six Research Associations had been established from 1894 to 1896. Half the numbers of researchers of the Research Associations were Higher Normal School teachers. At that time, the Higher Normal School teachers were researching didactics for the single-class school. Their research mainly adopted the editorial format from foreign countries, and focused on the practices of their schools. However, domestic research was disregarded in their research. The Research Association concerning didactics of the single-class school researched the development of teaching materials and didactics appropriate for Japan, and presented the study results to domestic researchers. A Higher Normal School teacher who was a member of the Research Association also participated in one such research. The establishment of Research Associations promoted domestic research exchange with the in-service teachers and didactics research suitable for Japan and for the Higher Normal School teachers, who had focused only on foreign research in their schools.
    Download PDF (1681K)
  • Tsutomu KAWAI
    2008 Volume 75 Issue 3 Pages 276-288
    Published: September 30, 2008
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    In this paper, I have attempted to consider the pronatalists' campaign concerning education in the Third Republic of France, especially focusing on the "National Alliance for Growth of the French Population." Preceding studies have neglected consideration of this group's educational activities including the relation between this group and public educational administration. In this paper, I have considered how this group came to utilize education as one means for raising the birthrate. The "National Alliance for Growth of the French Population" was established in 1896 by Jacques Bertillon (1851-1922) who was a statistician. His article "The problem of the depopulation" (1897) showed that there was anxiety regarding depopulation in the background of the group's establishment, For Bertillon, in the first place, depopulation would be a cause for losing the military superiority of France in Europe. In the second place, depopulation would be a cause for a labor shortage and an increase in immigration. Furthermore, depopulation would cause an end of France's management of her colonies. The purpose of this group was to spread pronatalist propaganda by means of holding various meetings, publication of printed matter, and appeals to the center and the local assemblies. This group assumed families of the upper and middle classes as the main targets of the movement. This group was authorized as an "association reconnue d'utilite publique" in 1913 and continues to operate now. After the death of Bertillon in 1922, Fernand Boverat (1885-1962) and Paul Haury (1885-1963) became leaders of the group. Boverat insisted on the necessity of the "improvement of the moral order." He proposed educational reform in the direction where understanding of "familial virtue" was valued. Haury, who was a teacher of lycee, valued the religion, printed matter, and, especially, schools in order to spread pronatalism. And the latter discussed "pronatalist and familial education" in his writing So that France may live (1927) which was a book of advice to teachers. He stated that "pronatalist and familial education" could be founded in history, geography, and sociology. F. Vial, the director of the Secondary Education Bureau in the Ministry of Public Education, agreed with Haury, and wrote the preface to Haury's writing So that France may live. Pronatalists such as Bertillon, Boverat, and Haury had the idea of, "power in numbers", and this idea was shared also by the Ministry of Public Education. Thus, the pronatalist movement in the Third Republic of France, especially after World War I, was related to education while receiving the support of the Ministry of Public Education. In today's Japan, the government emphasizes "consciousness reform" about the family formation. This policy of the government has influences not only on government public information and the laws concerned but also on the content of school education such as moral education, social studies, and home economics education. However, as a historical study, this paper points out that the ideology of school education included a vector aimed toward making large families.
    Download PDF (1635K)
Research Note
  • Tomoko YAMAZAKI
    2008 Volume 75 Issue 3 Pages 289-298
    Published: September 30, 2008
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    The purpose of this study is to analyse state-university relationships and the idea of 'university autonomy' in the United Kingdom through the policy-making process of the University Grants Committee (UGC) founded in 1919. Several researchers have claimed that the idea of 'university autonomy' prescribed government policy and thus the UGC came under the jurisdiction of the Treasury, which was not in charge of education, not under the Board of education, but rather in charge of education and might force their own views on universities (Berdahl 1959; Shinn 1986). Although there was a noteworthy counterargument put forth by Ashby and Anderson (1974) which indicated the most significant factor in the process of the establishment of the UGC was not the idea of 'university autonomy' but an administrative issue, little research has paid attention to this study. In this paper, a hypothesis that the idea of 'university autonomy' did not prescribe the decision that the UGC came under the jurisdiction of the Treasury is examined, using historical materials in the National Archives. In the United Kingdom, it was in 1889 that full-scale support of a university by the government began. The committee on university grants was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury. In 1911, the jurisdiction of the advisory committee transferred from the Treasury to the Board of Education. However, only the jurisdiction of an advisory committee for university grants was transferred; authority for the vote itself and the grants authority on Wales would be left in the Treasury. In 1919, the advisory committee was transferred again from the Board of Education to the Treasury. The foundation of the UGC under the Treasury was born as a result of struggle of the Treasury and the Board of Education. The Board expected unification of the votes of the Treasury and the Board; therefore, the President of the Board H.A.L. Fisher sounded out complete transfer of grants to the Board. A six-month discussion was held between the Treasury and the Board; as a result, the Treasury would have all authority over the university. It is a commonly accepted theory that the reason why the UGC was made under the Treasury is that the importance of 'university autonomy' was fully recognised. However, there was an administrative issue in the background of the choice of supervision ministries and government offices for the UGC. In other words, as the Committee was to be one for the whole of the United Kingdom, it had to be appointed by one authority with jurisdiction extending to the three Kingdoms. Letters from T.L. Heath (Treasury) and Selby-Bigge (Board of Education) are convincing evidence which support this explanation. In conclusion, through examination of the above hypothesis, it can be said that the commonly accepted theory that the UGC which is under the jurisdiction of the Treasury is the origin of "university autonomy" is not convincing. The general idea of 'university autonomy' did not always have ideal importance in the prehistory of the UGC. 'University autonomy' in the U.K. might be prescribed by other factors, such as a Royal Charter.
    Download PDF (1260K)
Book Review
Book Review
feedback
Top