Neoliberalism and neocolonialism in the mix: Evidence of glocalization in the globalization–localization dynamics of early childhood practices in Hong Kong

Abstract

Since the 1990s, Hong Kong has been promoting globally-endorsed, Western-derived early childhood ideologies and approaches, such as the Project Approach (*Chen et al., 2017). This orientation appears to be influenced by policies and practices linked to global neoliberalism and neocolonialism. To shed light on the state of knowledge concerning the implementability of the imported “foreign” practices by Hong Kong kindergarten teachers (teaching children ages 3–6), I conducted a research synthesis analyzing the 10 empirical articles that met the inclusion criteria. The analysis was guided by the two existing theoretical frameworks: (1) Tian Shi (timing/temporal), Di Li (context/spatial), Ren He (human capital) (Chen and Li, 2023) and (2) the foreground-middle ground-background (Chen, 2022) as well as the newly proposed globalization–localization interaction dynamics model. A content analysis revealed three salient findings. First, due to the lack of Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He, Hong Kong kindergarten teachers’ implementation of the imported early childhood approaches with fidelity has been largely unsuccessful. Second, the evidence corroborates the foreground-middle ground-background theory, suggesting that a hybrid approach (combining both the local and global practices) represents the “best” implementable one. Third, the manner in which the teachers implemented the imported practices seemingly reflects a glocalization-dominant pattern. This pattern constitutes one of the four quadrants within my proposed globalization–localization interaction dynamics model. The four quadrants represent the specific degree of interactive dominance: (1) grobalization-dominant (high in globalization and low in localization); (2) glocalization-dominant (high in both localization and globalization); (3) non-committal (low in both globalization and localization); and (4) localization-dominant (low in globalization and high in localization).

Keywords

Early childhood practices globalization glocalization grobalization Hong Kong hybridization hybrid model localization neocolonialism neoliberalism

Introduction

The early years are recognized as critical for setting the foundation for children’s learning and development from the perspective of neuroscience (e.g., National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2007; Schore, 2005; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000), and for building human capital from the perspective of the economic rationality (e.g., OECD, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2015; The World Bank, 2022). Accordingly, investing in early childhood education¹ locally is becoming increasingly a global phenomenon. In fact, the World Bank Group Education Strategy 2020 advocated three pillars of investment in early childhood education: “Invest early. Invest smartly. Invest for all” through education reform at both the local and global levels aimed at building human capital for economic growth and prosperity (The World Bank, 2011: 4). By implication of this human capital discourse, achieving and maintaining a competitive edge in the global economy would require nations to invest in high-quality early childhood education locally. The question is, which early childhood practices are considered the “best” in promoting high-quality educational experiences for young children? It seems that the contemporary “best” standards observed are based on the globalized early childhood practices favoring those from the Western economic powerhouses, especially the United States (Chen and Li, 2023; Li and Chen, 2023). This phenomenon seemingly reflects the influences of global neoliberalism and neocolonialism, which tend to be manifested as key sociopolitical and economic frameworks linked to the local education reform on the global scale as discussed later in this article.

To understand the ways in which local education policy and practice may be shaped by the neoliberal and neocolonial influences, I examined Hong Kong as a case example. Over the last two decades, various empirical studies (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2006; *Cheung, 2017; *Li, 2012; Chen and Li, 2023) have investigated the implementation process and outcomes of Western-derived early childhood practices (characterized generally as constructivist-oriented, child-centered, play-based) among Hong Kong kindergarten teachers of young children (ages 3–6). However, a systematic synthesis of these studies in Hong Kong has not yet been conducted to render a clearer appraisal of the state of knowledge concerning the implementability phenomenon there. To address this lacuna in the literature, I conducted such a synthesis by analyzing pertinent research studies based initially on two conceptually related theoretical frameworks: (1) Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He (Chen and Li, 2023), and (2) the foreground-middle ground-background (Chen, 2022).

I chose these two theoretical frameworks to guide this research synthesis for three main reasons. First, they could help decipher the contentions, tensions, and potential solutions that arise between the forces of globalization and localization in the context of neoliberalism and neocolonialism, which are seemingly influencing the early childhood policies and practices in Hong Kong. Second, the two theoretical frameworks are culturally appropriate because the premise of their construction was inspired by Chinese philosophical and cultural significance. Applying these frameworks, the current research analysis and interpretations can be guided and grounded in a cultural lens that reflects the distinctive Chinese origin and characteristics rooted in Hong Kong. Third, despite being developed separately, these two frameworks complement each other in providing valuable cultural insights into the target phenomenon. Furthermore, by applying not just one but two theoretical frameworks as the initial basis for my research synthesis can serve as theory triangulation, a method that was recommended by Denzin (2017). Through this synthesis, I sought to offer a conceptual and empirical topography of the implementability of the imported early childhood practices by kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong to guide future policy improvement and associated practical implementation there. In addition to the aforementioned theoretical frameworks, I also analyzed the research studies for evidence of the interaction possibilities between globalization and localization, especially in the context of Hong Kong amidst the influences of global neoliberalism and neocolonialism (as discussed later in this article).

Why Hong Kong?

Hong Kong offers a unique case for analyzing the interplay between the global and local forces that are influencing its early childhood policies and practices. Notably, Hong Kong's political and cultural connections to both the Western and Eastern worlds, along with the socio-economic effects of global neoliberalism, make it a compelling case for the examination of and reflection on its early childhood policies and practices. Specifically, Hong Kong has been shaped and re-shaped by its unique political history and cultural identity. Politically, Hong Kong experienced physical colonialism when it was under British rule for more than 150 years. Since reverting to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong has become officially known as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China under the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems.” Culturally, despite being exposed to Western culture as a former British colony, Hong Kong has also managed to preserve its indigenous traditional Chinese culture, such as child obedience and reverence for authority (*Chen et al., 2017).

Furthermore, during the recent decades, Hong Kong has emerged as a prosperous economic powerhouse, while adopting purportedly globalized neoliberal policies and practices (Lightfoot-Rueda, 2018). In the process, Hong Kong has also become a financial and cultural epicenter where the East meets the West. The distinctive political, cultural, and economic experiences of Hong Kong provide a unique context for exploring how its early childhood education system operates in the face of the intricate interplay between the global and local forces, particularly in relation to the Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He and the foreground-middle ground-background theoretical frameworks.

The Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He (天时, 地利, 人和) Theoretical Framework

Chen and Li (2023) adopted the Chinese philosophy of Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He into a new tripartite theoretical framework to analyze the implementability of the imported globally-endorsed early childhood approaches in a local context. This framework comprises three distinct yet intertwining dimensions as illustrated by the triangle (see Figure 1): (1) Tian Shi, (2) Di Li, and (3) Ren He. Chen and Li (2023: 294) explicated this essential trio from the Chinese philosophical perspective as follows:

Tian Shi refers literally to heavenly timing (meaning the right time or favorable timing), Di Li earthly auspice (meaning the right place or favorable contextual circumstances), and Ren He the right people or favorable human conditions (e.g., human harmony, human capital).

According to Chen and Li (2023: 294), Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He can be collectively interpreted simply as “the right people at the right time in the right place doing the right thing.” In this case, “all three conditions (i.e., propitious timing, favorable context, and adequate human capital) must be present and aligned to bring about success in any endeavor” (Chen and Li, 2023: 294). Mengzi (Master Meng, c. 372-289 B.C.), one of the most admired Chinese philosophers, further framed Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He comparatively as “Tian Shi Bu Ru Di Li, Di Li Bu Ru Ren He” (“天时不如地利, 地利不如人和”), a philosophical perspective that may be interpreted as “good weather conditions (timing) are not as crucial as geographic advantages (context), and geographic advantages are not as crucial as favorable human conditions (human harmony/capital)” (Chen and Li, 2023: 294). This wisdom suggests that while all three elements (Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He) work as a collectivity, Ren He is the most critical of all in determining an endeavor’s success.

The foreground-middle ground-background framework

Chen (2022) applied the visual analogy of a “landscape painting” as comprising three interconnected yet distinct elements (the foreground, the background, and the middle ground) as a “new curriculum landscape framework” to analyze the feasibility of adopting Western early childhood curriculum and pedagogical methods for implementation in the local culture (see Figure 2). According to this foreground-middle ground-background tripartite theoretical perspective, the foreground represents the Western ideologies and practices that are set as the focal point in education reforms in other societies, such as China, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The background signifies the cultural and contextual realities of a particular society adopting the imported approaches. The middle ground represents “the harmonization of the foreground and the background” (Chen, 2022: 329). Due to cultural and contextual incompatibilities, the foreground and the background are likely to become dissonant, thereby creating a space of discordance especially in terms of the policy-practice gap and the belief-practice gap (Chen, 2022). Chen (2022) proposed that it is possible to harmonize the dissonance by identifying a middle ground (see Figure 2). The hybrid model (fusing aspects of the imported and local practices) represents such a middle ground, especially in light of the forces of globalization and localization (Chen, 2022).

Globalization, glocalization, grobalization, and localization

In this modern era, while the rapid advancement in technology and trade has helped connect many parts of the world, this connectivity has also created complex dilemmas within the global-local space. Of particular relevance are four interrelated yet distinct concepts: globalization, glocalization, grobalization, and localization. These concepts are interconnected because they are vivified and made so ever more meaningful only in juxtaposition with one another. Yet, each concept also represents a unique interpretation of the influence of global-local dynamics on the current developments in many sectors worldwide, including education. As they represent different worldviews, these concepts have also become thorny subjects of debate and discourse on both the local and global spheres.

Globalization

To date, perhaps one of the most widely discussed concepts globally is globalization itself, which has been defined variously within and across different sectors, especially in economics. The term, globalization, became popularized around the 1990s when various definitions of this term began to emerge. For example, in their review of the definitions of globalization, Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann (2006) found that most of which were proffered in the 1990s and were economics-based in such a way that 67 of the 114 definitions “make some reference to the economic dimension either through market expansion or the selling of goods and services. Many of these definitions do, however, include other dimensions: quite often they involve political and social aspects as well” (p. 6). On the basis of this review, Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann proposed their own definition as follows: “Globalization is a process that encompasses the causes, course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities” (p. 5). Similarly, globalization is viewed as emphasizing the interconnectedness and interinfluences occurring at the global level (Roudometof, 2005) or the dispersion of certain tangibles and intangibles across the globe (Li and Chen, 2023). Although it can be galvanized by the economic rationality, globalization can also encompass the spread of cultural ideologies. Thus, in a broader sense, globalization is defined here as the process of linking regions around the world through the transnational “flows” of sharing and exchanging tangibles (e.g., currency, goods) and intangibles (e.g., cultural values, ideas). This inquiry focuses specifically on the influences of the intangible Western-derived early childhood ideologies and practices in Hong Kong.

Neoliberal globalization

Globalization is recognized as being manifested in various forms and among which, neoliberal globalization is considered a dominant form intertwined with the ideology of neoliberalism (Hill and Kumar, 2009). According to Sniegocki (2008), “[n]eoliberal globalization is a term used to describe the worldwide spread of an economic model emphasizing ‘free markets’ and ‘free trade’” (p. 322). Inherent in this model are neoliberal policies advocating “[d]ecreased governmental regulation, privatization of government-owned enterprises, reduced government spending, and the lowering of barriers to international trade and investment” (Sniegocki, 2008: p. 322). Decades ago, American economist and Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman (1962) already asserted that by enabling markets to operate freely with minimal government control, the potential for maximal economic efficiency and prosperity could be optimized. The increased global spread of neoliberalism has become particularly salient since the 20^th century. Notably, what was purportedly a temporary solution to the economic crisis in the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1970s to the early 1980s, neoliberalism has ascended into dominance in economic policymaking (Kotz, 2002). The globalization of neoliberalism has prompted education reforms in many parts of the globe. Hong Kong is a case in point. However, the complex process of neoliberalism is imbued with an apparent paradox in the early childhood sector in Hong Kong (as discussed later in this article).

Grobalization and glocalization

Building on and emanating from the idea of globalization are two contrasting concepts: grobalization and glocalization. Grobalization, a term coined by Sociologist George Ritzer (2007: 15), is defined as “the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas.” Ritzer (2003: 194) further asserted that he developed the concept of grobalization as a counterpart/complement to the idea of glocalization. Comparatively, unlike glocalization that is associated with heterogenization, grobalization appears to promote homogenization in that its central interest of specific entities “is in seeing their power, influence, and (in some cases) profits grow (hence the term ‘grobalization’) throughout the world” (Ritzer, 2003:194).

Glocalization, a portmanteau of the two terms, “globalization” and “localization,” is believed to have been coined by Sociologist Roland Robertson (1992). It refers generally to the organic amalgam or the co-existence of the two interdependent processes (i.e., globalization (implying universality/homogeneity) and localization (advocating particularity/heterogeneity), both of which have helped shape the meaning and the extent of significance attached to the influences of both the global and local forces. Some scholars (e.g., Chen, 2022; Chen and Li, 2023; Featherstone, 1995; Li and Chen, 2023; Ritzer, 2003; Ritzer and Ryan, 2002; Roudometof, 2015) have interpreted glocalization as the amalgam of the global and local cultural influences to arrive at a place of heterogeneity, diversity, and hybridity, while resisting and even rejecting Western-driven forces that promote global homogenization or homogeneity. Furthermore, as glocalization involves adaptation, alteration, and accommodation to fit the unique needs and conditions of both the global and the local, it may be characterized as the globalization of localism or the localization of globalism. From this perspective, the glocalization process does not supersede localization, but instead it affords the local the opportunity to fashion their own unique realities and identities within the global-local space (Chen, 2022; Chen and Li, 2023; Ritzer and Ryan, 2002).

Ritzer (2003: 194) observed that the distinction between grobalization and glocalization lies in that between nothing and something, respectively: “grobalization tends to be associated with the proliferation of nothing, while glocalization tends to be tied more to something and therefore stands opposed, at least partially (and along with the local itself), to the spread of nothing.” Ritzer (2003: 195) defined “nothing” as “a social form that is generally centrally conceived, controlled, and comparatively devoid of distinctive substantive content,” and “something” as “a social form that is generally indigenously conceived, controlled, and comparatively rich in distinctive substantive content.” Based on its definition, nothing may be seen as proliferating through the subprocesses of grobalization, such as “Americanization,” “McDonaldization,” (Ritzer 1995, 1998, 2000), and Disneyfication” or “Disneyization” (Klugman, 1995; Zukin, 1996). These subprocesses generally involve the replication of commercialized things or widespread ideologies that resemble a particularly recognizable brand or culture. In turn, such subprocesses tend to result in globalizing nothingness because of their tendencies to reduce something far more complex socially, culturally, and contextually to a kind of superficial and artificial pastiche with little unique substance. Thus, grobalization represents essentially a homogenizing force that drives the local to embrace certain globalized norms and practices, all of which may supersede those of local cultures and even erode local cultural structures altogether in the process (Kraidy, 2001). Despite the apparent grobalization force at play, localization might still not be easily eroded if there was a negotiated place within the globalization space that allowed it to continue to thrive.

Localization

Localization, a concept seemingly without a specific origin, has made globalization prominent through their juxtaposition. This concept may be referred to as the development of an innovation (e.g., product, service, method) within the local culture or the adaptation of an innovation from another culture or the global culture to meet the needs and interests of this local culture. Although globalization continues to apace, it is important to recognize that globalization exists only vis-à-vis localization, in such a way that as global practices occur in specific geographic localities, they inevitably invoke some feature of localism. Roudometof (2019: 803) suggests that the nexus between globalization and localization can be viewed from two perspectives: the first being the “local-global oppositional relationship,” and the second being the “local-global symbiotic or complementary relationship, typically expressed through the notion of glocalization.” These relationship perspectives suggest that globalization and localization are not independent but rather coexist, and each gains greater significance only when placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the other.

The Interaction Between Globalization and Localization: Domains of Possibilities

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, it is not without complications. It has yielded inevitable collisions, especially when localization faces strong opposition from globalization. In the realm of early childhood education, when the educational ideologies and practices of the local culture clash with those of the global culture, it can result in a “tug of war,” as seen in Chinese societies (Chen-Hafteck and Xu, 2008; Chen, 2022). In turn, the cultural clash phenomenon has become a significant point of analysis, contemplation, and debate within the educational discourse (e.g., Chen, 2022; Chen and Li, 2023; *Chen et al., 2017). In the process, glocalization has emerged as a harmonious solution to reconcile conflicts between globalization and localization in both theory and practice, as evidenced by the examples of societies, such as China and Singapore (Chen, 2022; Yang and Li, 2022), Hong Kong (*Chen et al., 2017), and Hong Kong and Singapore (Bautista et al., 2021). Despite being presented as a dichotomy, binary, or antithesis, globalization and localization can be viewed as two poles on the same continuum, where glocalization represents the middle ground between them (Chen, 2022). Based on this conceptualization, it can be hypothesized that as globalization and localization interact, their relative levels of influence may fall into one of the four domains of possibilities, as discerned by the quadrants in the globalization–localization interaction dynamics model that I propose here (see Figure 3).

Quadrant #1 depicts a society that is high in globalization and low in localization, potentially leading to grobalization dominance. In such a case, global practices tend to take precedence over local ones. This phenomenon may be seen in the proliferation of neoliberalism and neocolonialism from the economic powerhouse of the United States to emerging economies as discussed earlier. However, grobalization may not be desirable due to its potential risk for promoting nothingness or superficiality as in the case of Americanized, McDonaldized, or Disneyized practices (Klugman, 1995; Ritzer 1995, 1998, 2000; Zukin, 1996), which may lack depth or substance.

Diagonally opposite Quadrant #1 is Quadrant #4, which represents the scenario where a society is low in globalization and high in localization, potentially resulting in localization dominance. In this case, indigenous practices tend to reign supreme. This pattern may be observed in developing countries that have limited exposure to, and are not easily influenced by, global or globalized ideologies and practices.

Quadrant #2 illustrates that when a society experiences high levels of both globalization and localization, a glocalization-dominant pattern is likely to emerge. This pattern is characterized by a mélange of the unique features of the globalized and localized practices, potentially giving rise to glocalization or a middle ground (Chen, 2022). Furthermore, it appears to align with the propagation of “something” (Ritzer, 2003) as discussed earlier.

Quadrant #3 depicts a scenario where a society exhibits low levels of both globalization and localization, suggesting a lack of commitment towards advancing either local or global practices. However, it seems unlikely for such an outcome to occur since localization is fundamental to the construction of an indigenous society and culture. Thus, the degree of localization is generally high unless it is superseded by globalization, as seen in the case of grobalization. Currently, there seems no evidence to support the possibility of a non-committal response towards the interaction between globalization and localization.

The Globalization–Localization Dynamics in the Early Childhood Landscape in Hong Kong

Hong Kong, like many other developed and developing regions around the world, has been adopting the Western ideologies, practices, and approaches in order to maintain its competitive edge economically and educationally (Chen, 2022; Li and Chen, 2023). This trend involves valorizing the constructivist-oriented, child-centered, and play-based approaches in early childhood practices, such as the HighScope Curriculum, the Project Approach, and developmentally appropriate practice from the United States, as ideal standards to imitate, replicate, and even emulate (Chen and Li, 2023; *Chen et al., 2017). Hong Kong’s adherence to this trend was evident in its first edition of the “Guide to the Pre-primary Curriculum²” released in 1996 (The Curriculum Development Institute, 1996), which was subsequently revised in 2006 (The Curriculum Development Council, 2006), and most recently in the “Kindergarten Education Curriculum Guide” issued in 2017 (The Curriculum Development Council, 2017). To put policy into practice, teachers in Hong Kong kindergartens (serving children ages 3–6) have been making a pragmatic shift from a predominantly academic-oriented curriculum and a traditionally teacher-directed thematic Chinese pedagogy to the more progressive, contemporary child-centered approaches (*Chen et al., 2017). However, this shift has not been smooth sailing because the introduction of these globally-endorsed innovative approaches into the early childhood arena in Hong Kong appears to have disrupted the cultural equilibrium. These innovative practices, which prioritize the individualist-oriented Western cultural values and conceptions of early learning and development (e.g., independence, critical thinking) do not seem to be compatible with the collectivist-oriented, Confucianism-rooted Chinese cultural values (e.g., discipline, conformity, obedience, interdependence, social harmony) (*Chen et al., 2017). Consequently, the implementation of these Western-derived approaches in the Hong Kong context has been met with challenges due to the inherent cultural friction between the local and global forces. To navigate this cultural tension, teachers in Hong Kong resorted to adopting a hybrid pedagogy as a realistically doable solution (*Chen et al., 2017).

The paradox of neoliberalism in early childhood education in Hong Kong

During the 20^th century, Hong Kong’s economic growth and prosperity was touted by Milton Friedman and his wife Rose Friedman (1980) as the archetype of neoliberalism for other societies to follow in their neoliberal reforms. To date, Hong Kong continues to be viewed by many as a “free-market paradise” (Peck, 2021). Yet, the Hong Kong version of neoliberalism is played out in the early childhood sector in complex and paradoxical manners. Friedman and Friedman’s original concept of neoliberalism in education entailed minimizing government intervention to deregulate and decentralize education towards a free market that fosters “freedom to choose” and promotes economic efficiency in the process. Paradoxically, in Hong Kong, as in other East Asian regions such as Taiwan and Korea, its public investment in education through the deployment of voucher policies has ended up incurring even more government regulation in the purportedly privatized early childhood education sector (Lee, 2018).

To invest in high-quality early childhood education premised on affordability, accessibility, and accountability, Hong Kong has implemented a universal free kindergarten education system for all eligible children between the ages of three and six to attend typically half-day programs at non-for-profit-making kindergartens through the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme in 2007 (Education and Manpower Bureau 2006). A decade later, the scheme was replaced by the new Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme in 2017 (Education Bureau 2016). In Hong Kong, although all kindergartens are operated privately, paradoxically, the voucher system has actually legitimized the government’s involvement by means, such as dispersing curriculum frameworks and guidelines to follow, and implementing quality inspection and assurance mechanisms (Lee, 2018; Wong and Rao, 2022). Notably, the Hong Kong government has control over many aspects of the structural operation of kindergartens (e.g., adult-child ratios, quality of the physical condition of the classroom) through the granting of licensure required for kindergartens to operate (Wong and Rao, 2022).

In addition to improving the structural quality, the voucher system in Hong Kong seeks to enhance the process quality by ways, such as elevating the professional qualifications of kindergarten teachers and principals according to certain performance standards. These standards seemingly echo the developmental appropriateness perspective and certain core values of early childhood education, including child-centeredness and play-based learning (Rao and Li, 2009; Wong and Rao, 2022). Thus, the kindergartens in Hong Kong are subject to competition pressures through various improvement mechanisms, including enhancing their curricula and pedagogies based on the performance standards to provide accountability of quality early childhood education to appeal to families and the government.

Neoliberalism and neocolonialism in early childhood education in Hong Kong

Neoliberalism is often viewed as a sound socio-political and economic model, which has been actively propagated to developing and emerging countries through international financial organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund based in the United States and Europe (Beeson and Islam 2005). The global proliferation of neoliberalism appears to subsequently fashion neocolonialism defined as the exertion of economic, political, and other influences by advanced economies to dominate or influence weaker emerging economies, a process that seemingly gives rise to economic and political hegemonies (Gupta, 2018). For instance, neocolonialism is seemingly manifested in a singular set of global standards originated in economic powerhouses of the West, especially the United States, for the rest of the world to follow with little regard for cultural considerations (Li and Chen, 2023).

In wielding their leading power to spread global neoliberalism as part of the hegemonic mode of discourse (Harvey, 2007), international financial organizations may be considered institutions of neocolonialism that seemingly expands their neocolonial impact on the world. For example, borrowers seeking economic and social reforms must comply with and conform to global neoliberal standards set by their financial loaners/donors, which can result in involuntary neocolonialism (Adriany, 2018). In turn, neoliberalism may permeate early childhood practices in certain parts of Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indonesia, Vietnam) that rely on financial support from the World Bank (Adriany, 2018). It appears that Hong Kong, albeit in its own ways, has already been implementing neoliberal policies and practices, while adopting widespread globalized standards of quality in its early childhood sector (Lai, 2018).

Globalization plays a key role in setting educational standards, such as determining what is considered effective and developmentally appropriate in early childhood education (Li and Chen, 2023). For instance, Gupta (2018) observed a community preschool in Singapore that was organized to resemble a progressive early childhood setting in the United States. In the case of Hong Kong, for the past nearly three decades, education authorities there have been avidly subscribing to globally-promoted early childhood ideologies and approaches (The Curriculum Development Council, 2017; The Curriculum Development Institute, 1996; The Curriculum Development Council, 2006). In doing so, the Hong Kong government might have consciously or unconsciously subjected itself to neocolonialism of these early childhood practices through its educational policies. Early childhood scholars (e.g., Lee, 2018; Li and Chen, 2023; Lightfoot-Rueda, 2018; Wong and Rao, 2022) have raised concerns about the neoliberal and neocolonial globalization of practices in Hong Kong, particularly with regard to the imposition of “foreign” practices on the local teachers who may not be able to deliver the globalized quality of education as expected by the government. This phenomenon may leave one to ponder whether the global dominance in the educational discourse is actually beneficial or detrimental to local teaching practices and how teachers may respond to this discourse. To explore this issue, I analyzed Hong Kong as a case study to illustrate the complexities of this dilemma.

The goal of this study

Although empirical studies have examined the implementability of the imported early childhood ideologies and practices among kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong, there has not been a systematic synthesis of this body of research to render a more holistic understanding of this phenomenon to better guide policy decisions, research endeavors, and teaching practices. To address this research gap, I conducted such a synthesis on how Hong Kong kindergarten teachers implement the imported early childhood ideologies and practices in the context of both the global and local forces to gain insights and make generalizations about this phenomenon in situ. A research synthesis may be defined as an effort “to integrate empirical research for the purpose of creating generalizations” often involving attempts to “pay attention to relevant theories, critically analyze the research they cover, try to resolve conflicts in the literature, and attempt to identify central issues for future research” (Cooper and Hedges, 2009: p. 6). Given this definition, a research synthesis was deemed an appropriate methodology for accomplishing the goal of this inquiry. Specifically, I investigated the following two research questions:

(1) What do the empirical studies included in this systematic research synthesis reveal about how and why kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong implemented the imported Western-derived early childhood educational ideologies and practices the way they did?

(2) Which domain of possibilities might this research synthesis reveal about the interaction dynamics between globalization and localization in early childhood practices in Hong Kong?

Data Collection

To address the aforementioned research questions, I embarked on a multi-step systematic process of data collection. First, I developed eight inclusion and exclusion criteria as search parameters to guide the article selection process (see Table 1). First and foremost, considering that the core of this research synthesis involved only original empirical studies containing primary data, all other types of work were excluded. Second, aligning with the target population of interest, only those research studies involving kindergarten teachers (teaching children ages 3–6) in Hong Kong were included. Third, for the purpose of this synthesis, only research studies examining the implementability of the imported early childhood approaches were included. Fourth, the primary source of data (or at least one of them in the case of multiple methods of data collection) must have been natural observations of the teachers’ teaching practices in the classroom to capture their implementation process and outcomes. In this connection, non-observational investigations were excluded, and thus, this synthesis comprised essentially all qualitative empirical studies. Fifth, only research articles published in refereed journals were included as a standard indicator of quality control because these articles were presumably reviewed and approved by anonymous peer scholars with expertise on the research topic. Sixth, to provide consistency in analyzing research studies in one common language, only those published in English were included. Seventh, as the research studies constituted the unit of analysis, their full texts must have been locatable for me to fully read and evaluate them. Finally, the years of article publication were set from 1996 (when the pre-primary education reform in Hong Kong first called for the adoption of Western-derived ideologies and practices) to July 2022 (when this synthesis was conducted).

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection.

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
1. Type of article	Original empirical studies using primary data	Non-empirical studies (e.g., literature review, practice-based, description-based, theoretical)
2. Research participants	Teachers in a kindergarten (serving children ages 3–6) in Hong Kong	Teachers teaching other grade levels/age groups
3. Research focus	Teachers’ implementation of the imported early childhood ideologies, curriculum, pedagogy, or practices	Research does not focus on the teachers’ implementation of the imported early childhood ideologies, curriculum, pedagogy, or practices
4. Research method	Natural observations as the sole or one of the sources of data collection	Solely non-natural observational studies (e.g., survey-based studies, interview-based studies)
5. Publication outlet	Research articles in refereed journals	Research articles not in refereed journals (e.g., books, book chapters); unpublished work (e.g., theses/dissertations, reports, documents)
6. Language of article	English	Non-English
7. Article availability	A full text of the published article must have been locatable	Article not found (e.g., only abstract was available)
8. Year of publication	1996–2022	Prior to 1996

To search for relevant research articles as data for this synthesis, I relied on three online databases (Academic Search Premier, ERIC, and APA PsycINFO). These databases were employed because they were considered prominent databases in the fields of education and psychology. Two searches that yielded the same results were conducted in July 2022. The first search involved specific terms separated by the Booleans, “AND” and “OR”, as such: curriculum AND pedagogy AND kindergarten AND preschool OR pre-school AND Hong Kong. This search generated 142 articles. To ensure search fidelity, the same procedure as the first search was replicated in a second search, yielding the exact result.

As summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram for included studies in the research synthesis (see Figure 4), culling through the titles and abstracts of the 142 articles led to the exclusion of 112 of them and the retention of the remaining 30 articles. However, after excluding the five duplicates across the three databases, only 25 articles were deemed eligible for further examination. My careful readings of the full electronic texts of the 25 articles led to 15 of them being excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria set and reasons given (see Figure 4). This data screening process ultimately resulted in an inclusion of only 10 research articles in this synthesis (see Figure 4). Although the publication years were set from 1996 to July 2022, the 10 empirical articles included in this research synthesis were actually published between 2004 and 2021, representing nearly two decades of research in the area of interest.

Data analysis

For the purpose of this research synthesis, I conducted a content analysis of all included empirical studies. Content analysis is generally defined as a systematic method for making replicable and logical interpretations and conclusions based on the analysis of textual data grouped into content categories using a systematic coding scheme (Krippendorff, 2018; Weber, 1990). Given its successful application in previous studies (e.g., Chen, 2023), content analysis was deemed appropriate for accomplishing the current research goals. In this content analysis, an a priori coding approach was utilized to extract and categorize the data according to an explicitly pre-established coding scheme. Chen (2023, p. 7) interpreted Stemler’s (2001) idea of an a priori coding as a method used “when categories are developed based on theory prior to the analysis.” In this investigation, the a priori coding method was appropriate for the content analysis because it involved a systematic coding and analytic procedure revolving around two pertinent theoretical frameworks: Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He (Chen and Li, 2023) and the foreground-middle ground-background (Chen, 2022). Accordingly, I created six a priori categories: (1) Tian Shi, (2) Di Li, (3) Ren He, (4) the foreground, (5) the background, and (6) the middle-ground. The final results of the content analysis are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, I also tested these results vis-à-vis my newly developed theoretical framework that I termed the globalization–localization interaction dynamics model to offer additional clarity on the interplay between glocalization and localization.

Table 2.

Content analysis of the research studies (n = 10, spanning nearly two decades (2004–2021) on the implementability of the imported early childhood practices in Hong Kong) in alphabetical order by the authors’ last names.

Author (year) and title of article	The imported early childhood ideologies/practices	Research Method(s)	Tian Shi (timing)	Di Li (context)	Ren He (human capital)	The foreground	The background	The middle ground
Chan (2016) “The discrepancy between teachers’ beliefs and practices: A study of kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong”*	Western ideologies (e.g., constructivism, child-centeredness, developmentally appropriate practice, learning through play)	Three Hong Kong kindergartens; questionnaire about teaching beliefs completed by 35 teachers; individual interviews with five teachers and three principals; focus group comments by five early childhood education specialists on videotaped observations of classroom practices of the five teachers interviewed.	Western ideologies promoted by Hong Kong’s Guide to the Pre-Primary Curriculum; and endorsed by teachers.	The lack of professional education and development; parental pressure and demands on academic learning outcomes rather than processes; emphasis on the link in academic learning between the pre-primary to primary education.	Teachers lacked professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions in their implementation; instead, “drill-and-practice” and the Chinese traditional practice of the didactic approach were evident.	Western ideologies (e.g., constructivism, child-centeredness, developmentally appropriate practice, learning through play)	“Drill-and-practice teaching”; the Chinese traditional or didactic approach	Not specified
Chen et al. (2017) “Implementing the Project Approach: A case study of hybrid pedagogy in a Hong Kong kindergarten”*	The Project Approach from the United States	One typical Hong Kong kindergarten; videotaped observations of the teachers’ implementation of the Project Approach in four classrooms, audiotaped interviews with eight teachers and the school principal, and document analysis.	The Project Approach promoted by education authorities and the pre-primary curriculum in Hong Kong; endorsed by the kindergarten; implemented by the teachers.	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities due to factors, such as curriculum demands, parental expectation, and cultural beliefs about teaching and student learning.	A lack of the necessary strong professional knowledge, skills, and beliefs in the implementation of the Project Approach	The child-centered Project Approach from the United States	Teacher-directed thematic approach	Hybrid pedagogy of the Project Approach (child-centered and teacher-directed)
Cheng (2006) “The translation of Western teaching approaches in the Hong Kong early childhood* c urriculum: A promise for effective teaching?”	The Project Approach and the HighScope Curriculum from the United States	Three kindergarten teachers (two implementing the Project Approach and one the HighScope Curriculum); limited and vague information about methods of data collection: “The audiotapes of these meetings, together with the videotapes and the lesson plans of the participants, form the data of this study” (230–231).	Promoted by pre-primary education reform and implemented by teachers	Contextual constraints (e.g., parental expectation of academic learning, traditional didactic method of fact drilling) not supportive of child-centered learning.	A lack professional competence; implementation was “superficial and mechanical”	Western teaching practices (the Project Approach and the HighScope Curriculum from the United States)	Chinese traditional thematic approach to teaching	Not specified
Cheng (2010) “Exploring the tactfulness of implementing play in the classroom: A Hong Kong experience”*	Learning through play/play-based pedagogy	One kindergarten teacher’s implementation. Research methods not clear: Interviews and videotaped observations “Semi-structured interviews with the assistant teacher and the school headmistress, the lesson plans, Beatrice’s reflective journals and the researcher’s field notes” (p. 73)	Promoted by the pre-primary education reform in Hong Kong	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: Chinese cultural teacher-directed pedagogy; formal didactic classroom environment	The teacher’s ability to encourage the engagement of natural playful experiences in children while scaffolding their learning in the process.	A didactic/teacher-directed preschool classroom in Hong Kong	Formal, didactic/teacher-directed	A hybrid of both play and learning in strategic ways
Cheung (2016) “The challenge of developing creativity in a Chinese context: The effectiveness of adapting Western creative pedagogy to inform creative practice”*	Western creative pedagogy	Three teachers in different preschools in Hong Kong; semi-structured teacher interviews [unclear whether they were audio-/video-recorded], videotaped classroom observations, and reflective notes from teachers.	Promoted in the pre-primary curriculum and implemented by teachers.	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities between Western pedagogy and traditional Chinese pedagogy	Teachers’ unfamiliarity with creative pedagogy from the West	Western creative pedagogy	Traditional Chinese pedagogy	Changed teacher perceptions and pedagogical practice of creative pedagogy as beneficial to children’s creative learning; teachers adapted Western creative pedagogy to the Chinese context to develop their own culturally appropriate, creative pedagogical methods.
*Cheung (2017) “Teacher-directed* versus child-centred: The challenge of promoting creativity in Chinese preschool classrooms”	Western concept and pedagogy of creativity	Three teachers in different preschools in Hong Kong; audio-taped interviews and video-taped classroom observations	Promoted in the pre-primary curriculum guide and implemented by teachers	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: Chinese culture is collectivist-oriented, valuing conformity, interdependence, and social harmony that may not be conducive for independent, creative behaviors to flourish	Yes for one teacher who employed a child-centered approach; no for one teacher who remained teacher-directed; somewhat for one teacher who implemented a combination of teacher-directed and child-centered approaches.	Western child-centered approaches to promoting creativity in children	Chinese traditional teacher-directed approaches	A hybrid of teacher-directed and child-centered approaches, a balance that considers cultural and contextual appropriateness.
*Fung and Cheng (2012) “Consensus or dissensus? Stakeholders’ views on the role of play in learning”*	Western ideologies of child-centered play-based learning	Classroom observations of teachers’ teaching and interviews with 24 teachers, 20 principals, and 98 parents about their views on learning in 20 sampled early childhood settings, serving children (ages 3–6) across Hong Kong. Certain details of the data collection were not clear (e.g., how many classroom observations were conducted, for how long).	Promoted in pre-primary curriculum guide	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: cultural emphasis on academic achievement; contextual constraints as perceived by teachers included time limitation to cover the required content, inadequate classroom space, and parental pressure on academic learning.	Principals believed that teachers lacked professional competence to implement an effective play-based pedagogical practice, whereas contextual constraints (e.g., time limitation, parental academic pressure) thwarted the teachers’ ability to implement the play-based curriculum.	Western ideologies of child-centered play-based learning	Academic-driven Chinese traditional instruction	Not specified
Li (2004) “The culture of teaching in the midst of Western influence: The case of Hong Kong kindergartens”*	Western child-centered pedagogical approaches	Classroom observations of nine kindergarten teachers; semi-structured post-observation interviews about the teachers’ perceptions of the teaching and learning process; documents of the teachers’ daily lesson plans and timetables.	Advocated by the pre-primary education reform	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: cultural valuation of academic achievement; traditional teacher-directed approaches to teaching; parental expectations of academic learning; demanding curriculum and professional challenges.	Teachers struggled to overcome professional challenges, including conflicting cultural expectations and values, the idealized version of quality early childhood education advocated; and local contextual constraints.	Western child-centered pedagogy	Teacher-directed pedagogy	Teacher development and change; changed views and attitudes; support from the work environment.
Li (2012) “The negotiated project-based learning: Understanding the views and practice of kindergarten teachers about the implementation of project learning in Hong Kong”*	Project-based learning from the United States	Participants included 129 principals and teachers from 51 kindergartens who completed the survey; video recordings of classroom practice of teachers; field notes; semi-structured post-observation interviews.	Promoted by education authorities in Hong Kong	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: culturally-specific practices, values, and features of the contextual realities of the education system and the teaching practice among Hong Kong kindergarten teachers; teachers may not feel the need to implement project-based learning.	Implementation reflected the teachers’ competence in implementing a more traditional approach (e.g., teacher-initiated rather than child-initiated project learning).	Project-based learning from the United States	Teacher-directed approach	Teachers should be actively involved in the development of any pedagogical and curriculum innovations; teacher development is needed; psychological resources (e.g., time to process new ideas, space to experiment with and adapt them to their teaching condition).
Wu (2021) “A co-constructed picture of learning in play by teachers and parents* ”	Play-based learning; child-centered pedagogy from the West	14 teachers and six parents participated in this study; six teachers were interviewed; either other teachers and six parents participated in focus group discussion of video-recorded interview clips about learning in play.	Learning through play has been promoted in Hong Kong by education authorities and in curriculum guidelines, but it is incompatible with Chinese cultural values of learning over play.	Cultural and contextual incompatibilities: Chinese cultural perceptions of play and learning as two distinct elements, emphasizing learning over play.	Play is not implemented as child-initiated, but rather as teacher-directed, reflecting the teachers’ professional competence.	Child-centered, play-based learning from the west	Chinese cultural emphasis on academic learning	Not evident

Results

Applying the two existing theoretical frameworks (Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He and the foreground-middle ground-background), the analysis of the 10 research studies reveals some important but perhaps not surprising findings of how and why kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong implemented the imported early childhood practices the way they did. Additionally, this phenomenon provides evidence for the glocalization domain of possibilities within my proposed theoretical framework of the globalization–localization interaction dynamics model.

Tian Shi (timing) matters

As summarized in Table 2, all of the research studies (*Chan, 2016; *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2006, 2010, *Cheung, 2016, 2017; *Fung and Cheng, 2012; *Li, 2004, 2012; *Wu, 2021) foregrounded the promotion of the imported early childhood ideologies, curricula, and pedagogical approaches by the education authorities in Hong Kong as the impetus for kindergarten teachers there to attempt to implement these practices. From this perspective, it would seem that Tian Shi was “right” for implementing the imported early childhood approaches. However, when considering Di Li not being conducive and Ren He not adequate, Tian Shi was not yet “ripe” for this endeavor.

Di Li (context) matters

The synthesis of the research studies presented in Table 2 reveals that Hong Kong was not yet conducive for implementing the imported early childhood practices with fidelity due to the lack of Di Li, especially in terms of cultural and contextual compatibilities (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2006, 2010; *Cheung, 2016; *Fung and Cheng, 2012; *Li, 2004, 2012; *Wu, 2021). With respect to the cultural context, the innovative Western-derived early childhood approaches (e.g., constructivist, child-centered, play-based) seemingly clashed with the traditional Chinese curriculum and pedagogy (e.g., teacher-directed, didactic, whole-class-oriented, thematic-based) that remained dominant in early childhood classrooms in Hong Kong (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Li, 2004, 2012). Furthermore, there is also the incompatibility in the educational context related to especially structural factors (e.g., heavy academic-oriented curriculum demands, time limitation to cover the required content, inadequate classroom space) (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Li, 2004, 2012). These factors seemingly thwarted the kindergarten teachers’ ability to actualize the imported early childhood practices in their classrooms. As the education system in Hong Kong prioritized academic learning outcomes by stressing the vertical alignment and continuity of the curriculum between the pre-primary and the primary education, it made the direct implementation of the imported early childhood practices rather formidable, if not insurmountable (*Chen et al., 2017). All of the afore-described challenges point to the reality that the cultural and contextual conditions operative in Hong Kong were not conducive for the pollination of the foreign early childhood ideologies and practices to survive and thrive there.

Ren He (human capital) matters

This research synthesis shows that Ren He among kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong was inadequate, especially due to the lack of substantial teacher education and professional development to build the teacher capacity needed to implement the imported early childhood practices (e.g., *Chan, 2016; *Chen et al., 2017; *Li, 2004. *Wu, 2021). Specifically, although the teachers were at the forefront of translating top-down policy (advocating the globally-endorsed, Western-derived early childhood ideologies and approaches) into practice, they were generally not well trained with the professional competence to do so successfully (e.g., *Chan, 2016; *Cheng, 2006). Except for the one teacher, in *Cheung's (2017) case studies of three teachers, who was able to adopt a child-centered approach successfully to foster creativity in children, all the other teachers in the other nine research studies appeared to generally lack the necessary professional knowledge, skills, dispositions, and experience to implement the imported early childhood ideologies and practices with fidelity.

The foreground, the background, and the middle ground

The 10 research studies collectively reveal that Western early childhood ideologies and approaches were seemingly anchored as the foreground in the pre-primary education reform in Hong Kong. This foreground was situated against the background of the traditional Chinese curriculum and pedagogy. While four of the studies (*Chan, 2016; *Cheng, 2006; *Fung and Cheng, 2012; *Wu, 2021) did not appear to offer solutions to the cultural and contextual dissonance between the foreground and the background, the other six did specify a middle ground for connecting the dissonant space between these two grounds. This middle ground involved the adaptation rather than the direct importation of early childhood practices. Notably, the actions of adaptation included the hybridization of both the globally-promoted and locally-ingrained approaches (*Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2010; *Cheung, 2016, 2017), the collaboration involving teachers in the decision making of the implementation process (*Li, 2012), and the promotion of teacher support and development (*Li, 2004, 2012).

The interaction dynamics between globalization and localization

The findings of this research synthesis highlight the complex interplay between the globalization and localization forces at work. Notably, the hybrid practices implemented by Hong Kong kindergarten teachers in six of the 10 studies (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2010; *Cheung, 2016, 2017, *Li, 2004, 2012) seemingly offered evidence for a glocalization-dominant pattern (i.e., an amalgam of high globalization and high localization), which placed this phenomenon in the second quadrant of the globalization–localization interaction dynamics model (see Figure 3). Additionally, the confluence of globalization and localization appeared to have reflected these teachers’ negotiated ideologies and practices as they navigated the conflicting cultural terrains between the global and the local by experimenting with their own innovation of a new pedagogical approach as expressed potentially in a hybrid or glocalized form.

Discussion

Galvanized by both the child development discourse and the human capital rationality, Hong Kong (an economic powerhouse influenced by neoliberal policies and practices) has made a concerted investment especially at the kindergarten level of early childhood education. Specifically, since 2007, Hong Kong has invested in offering a free 3-year, typically half-day kindergarten education for all eligible children (ages 3–6) through its voucher system (Education Bureau 2016; Education and Manpower Bureau 2006). However, neoliberalism as practiced in the early childhood sector in Hong Kong appears to be an illusion. On the one hand, as part of neoliberal policies, the privatization of kindergartens would mean minimal government interference; on the other hand, the dispersion of education vouchers ended up incurring even more regulation and intervention by the Hong Kong government (Lee, 2018). Notably, one aspect of the government involvement is the propagation of globally-promoted early childhood ideologies and approaches as a standard of quality in its pre-primary education reform as expressed in its curriculum documents (The Curriculum Development Council, 2006; The Curriculum Development Council, 2017; The Curriculum Development Institute, 1996). Yet, the translation of this top-down education policy into practice by kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong has been largely unfruitful as revealed by the studies examined in this research synthesis. This phenomenon tells a more complex story coalesced around three sets of important insights.

The first set of findings seemingly presents a problem: It was revealed that the lack of Tian Shi (timing/temporal) Di Li (context/spatial), and Ren He (human capital) rendered the implementation of the imported early childhood practices with fidelity largely futile by most of the Hong Kong kindergarten teachers in the included research studies (e.g., *Chan, 2016; *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2006, 2010; *Fung and Cheng, 2012; *Li, 2004, 2012; *Wu, 2021). Specifically, the cultural and contextual conditions in Hong Kong were found to be devoid of Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He, making them not propitious for the teachers to successfully shift from the traditional to the innovative early childhood practices. This finding suggests that the implementation of the imported approaches was not paved with a straightforward path, but instead it was compounded by incompatible conditions along the way. The corollary is that the three stars of Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He would need to collectively align with the cultural and contextual realities of Hong Kong to render it a conducive environment for the imported early childhood practices to flourish (Chen and Li, 2023).

The second set of findings seemingly presents a solution to the aforementioned problem: Due to their limited professional competence (Ren He) and contextual constraints (Di Li) for practicing globally-promoted approaches, the Hong Kong kindergarten teachers in most of the studies analyzed resorted to adopting a hybrid of the local and global practices. This action may be seen as an amendable and viable solution to the dialectical tension between the tantalizing idealism of the global and the pragmatic realism of the local (e.g., *Chan, 2016; *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2006). This finding lends corroboration to the hybrid model (see Figure 5) that was made evident in Chen and Li's (2023) secondary analysis of the two cases involving the implementation of the imported approaches (i.e., the Project Approach and the HighScope Curriculum, respectively) in Hong Kong. Chen and Li found that due to the cultural incompatibilities between the indigenous Chinese culture and the Western culture, Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He were not favorable for the teachers to effectively implement the imported early childhood approaches; however, a hybrid model of practices from the two cultures emerged as a harmonious solution (see Figure 5). By implication, at this moment in time (Tian Shi) vis-à-vis the current cultural and educational context (Di Li) and the current professional competence of teachers (Ren He), a hybrid model appears to thrive as the “best” practice for Hong Kong kindergarten teachers to implement (Chen and Li, 2023; *Chen et al., 2017). Furthermore, the finding of hybrid practices also supports the foreground-middle ground-background theoretical framework. Specifically, the findings of six of the 10 research studies suggest a hybrid model at work (*Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2010; *Cheung, 2016, 2017, *Li, 2004, 2012), a solution that is reminiscent of what Chen (2022) described as the “middle ground.”

Finally, the third set of findings reveals insights into the interplay between globalization and localization. Specifically, although the globally-promoted early childhood practices have been embraced by Hong Kong for nearly three decades (The Curriculum Development Council, 2017; The Curriculum Development Institute, 1996; The Curriculum Development Council, 2006), the manner in which the teachers implemented these practices generally defied the dominance of grobalization (involving high globalization and low localization as represented by the first quadrant of my proposed globalization–localization interaction dynamics model). Instead, most of the teachers tended to engage in a glocalization-dominant pattern (involving both high globalization and high localization) (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017; *Cheng, 2010; *Cheung, 2016, 2017, *Li, 2004, 2012). This finding corroborates that of previous studies, such as those examining China and Singapore (e.g., Yang et al., 2021; Yang and Li, 2022), and Hong Kong and Singapore (Bautista et al., 2021). It also lends credence to the notion of glocalization as the “happy medium” (*Chen et al., 2017) or the “middle ground” (Chen, 2022) in the continuum between the local and the global or as the fulcrum that balances between the demands of both localization and globalization. Furthermore, I conjecture that the concept of glocalization as evident in this research synthesis may imply re-localization, a process through which a society may reposition its practical orientation toward adapting rather than adopting globally-endorsed practices to befit its local needs, interests, aspirations, and priorities against the backdrop of neoliberalism and neocolonialism. By implication, the idea of glocalization or hybridization, as an operative and potentially sustainable solution to the problem of implementing the imported globally-promoted practices in Hong Kong, could serve as a blueprint for other societies confronted with similar predicaments to create their own unique culturally and contextually harmonious early childhood education landscape.

The three sets of findings serve as collective evidence supporting not only the two existing theoretical frameworks (Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He, Chen and Li, 2023; foreground-middle ground-background, Chen, 2022) but also my newly proposed one here (the globalization–localization interaction dynamics model). These three theories converge to make a strong case for the flexible adaptation rather than the stringent adoption of any progressive, contemporary early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. That is because teachers adopting rather than adapting their implementation of the imported practices will likely fall prey to the unsettling “tug of war” between the forces of globalization and localization (Chen, 2022). Whereas, teachers adapting rather than adopting will likely vector toward a hybrid route by melding globally-promoted and locally-ingrained approaches, such as involving the duality of child-centeredness and teacher-directedness in practice, as is the case of some Hong Kong teachers found in this research synthesis (e.g., *Chen et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the three analytic theories are interlocked at the practice of hybridity, a critical space that represents a negotiated yet operable rapprochement in the dissonance between tradition and innovation. This particular space resembles what Bhabha (1994) referred to as the hybrid “third space.” In this research synthesis, the third space seemingly resonates with the educational discourse surrounding the interpretations of the role of the teacher, teaching, as well as child development and learning as involving the dedicate balance between tradition (local) and innovation (global) in educational philosophy, pedagogy, practice, and curriculum (Gupta, 2006, 2015, 2016, 2018).

Conclusion

Globalization brings about both positive and negative impacts on various sectors, including education. Notably, on the one hand, through its connectivity, globalization becomes an instrument or process by which innovative ideologies and practices are transmitted from one region to another that can broaden our horizons; on the other hand, the global transmission of ideas is often dominated by Western powers, thereby potentially leading to the spread of neocolonialism and posing threats to local practices. For instance, the promotion of Western-derived early childhood practices seemingly presents not only a mighty force but also a tantalizing dilemma for the local culture that does not exact the values of Western culture (Chen and Li, 2023). Thus, although the dynamic forces of globalization and localization are at play in shaping curriculum and pedagogical practices, Western ideologies and practices have emerged as a dominant force in the global landscape of early childhood education. For example, this dominant force has spurred societies to jump on the bandwagon of adopting globally-promoted standards of practice to the extent of even losing sight of their own local cultural and contextual realities (Li and Chen, 2023). Some, especially developing economies in Asia, adopt these standards as part of neoliberalism advocated by their international financial donors (Adriany, 2018). Such an effort may subject them to neocolonialism of globalized educational practices.

Because educational practices are culturally and contextually bound (Chen, 2022; Chen and Li, 2023; *Chen et al., 2017), however well-meaning, the direct importation of globally-endorsed methods without attuning to locally-embedded complexities would render only a facile replicate devoid of unique cultural and contextual content. Thus, I caution that the staunch fervor of education authorities to promote Western-originated ideologies and approaches uncritically as the “best” may end up reinforcing cultural and educational hegemonies. Such an action may be considered an intellectual “myopia” that lacks foresight and insight into the potential frictions and tensions that it may create for policy implementers, namely the teachers. Thus, education authorities and teachers should not subscribe to grobalization and its associated “nothingness” as evident in the superficiality of Americanized, McDonaldized, or Disneyized practices (Klugman, 1995; Ritzer 1995, 1998, 2000; Zukin, 1996). Instead, they should engage in glocalization which could be interpreted as representing “something” (Ritzer, 2003). That something in early childhood education may well be the needed authenticity involving adjusting global practices to befit local cultural and contextual conditions, whereby the relevant unique and rich features of the local culture are integrated properly and prosper productively. The promotion of something in early childhood education suggests a need to advance the theoretical and practical perspective of glocalization in the context of global trends.

The findings of this research synthesis have important implications for local societies operating in today’s global environment and for those who are trying to balance global innovation and local tradition to build an actionable knowledge base to inform policies that befit the local context. After all, policy often dictates the what (curriculum) and the how (pedagogical practices) of education for teachers to follow. In this connection, efforts to engage in policy improvement by education authorities might like to consider Chen’s (2022) four recommendations for action: (1) inviting and hearing the “voice” of the teachers and incorporating their feedback in education policy, a process that can potentially minimize “the policy-practice gap”; (2) providing professional resources to invest in human capital in teaching, a process that can potentially minimize the “theory/belief-practice gap”; (3) recognizing that the “best” practice is not a universal, homogenized one, but is one that is culturally and contextually appropriate for a particular locality; and (4) supporting the “middle ground” approach by delineating clearly what it should look like and how to operate or facilitate it.

Implications for teacher education and professional development

According to the three-pronged theoretical framework of Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He, these three individual dimensions must be operated in tandem in an interactive, harmonious, and integral unity to bring about a favorable outcome. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the Chinese philosopher Mengzi’s analytic worldview of Tian Shi Bu Ru Di Li, Di Li Bu Ru Ren He reminds us that of all three essentials, Ren He (propitious human capital) trumps both Tian Shi (good timing) and Di Li (favorable context) (Chen & Li, 2023). From this perspective, the most critical task is to anchor greater attention on human capital in teaching through teacher education for preservice teachers and professional development for in-service teachers. As such, it is imperative that the optimal human conditions are secured and the strong human capital cultivated to help make the timing and context “right” for teachers to enact their practices effectively.

In the case of Hong Kong, teacher education at the preservice level and professional development at the in-service level play a critical role in the kindergarten teachers’ acquisition of necessary professional expertise to better understand and implement an imported ideology, curriculum, and pedagogy. Thus, the onus sits on education authorities to provide a strong support system that encourages teacher education and professional development to facilitate curriculum change as well as the teachers’ competence in making such change in their practice (Yeung, 2009).

Limitations of this research synthesis and directions for future research

This research synthesis has methodological limitations. I note two here. The first one concerns the inclusion of only refereed research articles and the exclusion of all other types (e.g., book chapters, books, dissertations, reports, documents) in order to maintain consistency in quality control. Thus, it is unclear whether these excluded works might offer new or additional insights. The second limitation is related to the inclusion of only those research articles published in the English language. Given that this investigation focused on Hong Kong where the Chinese language was prominent, there might have been studies published in Chinese that could shed additional light on the topic. These methodological limitations alike are important to consider when interpreting the scope and findings of this research synthesis.

In this endeavor, I analyzed the implementability of the imported early childhood ideologies and practices exclusively in the Hong Kong context. To expand our current knowledge, future research might analyze the implementability phenomenon in other societies by applying the same two theoretical frameworks (Tian Shi, Di Li, Ren He and the foreground-middle ground-background) as well as my newly formulated globalization–localization interaction dynamics model comprising the four quadrants that depict the possible nexuses between globalization and localization. These three theoretical frameworks may also individually and collectively help fashion conceptual and practical directions for guiding future orientations potentially toward glocalization, hybridization, and the middle ground as deemed appropriate by the local context. Furthermore, if empirical studies also confirmed the prevalent practice of glocalization in other societies, this phenomenon could become the new dominant global trend.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jennifer J Chen

Notes

Jennifer J Chen, Ed.D., earned her doctorate in human development and psychology from Harvard University. She is currently full professor of early childhood and family studies at Kean University in New Jersey, USA. Prof. Chen has contributed to the fields of early childhood education and psychology more than 80 authored/co-authored scholarly publications, including three books and many research articles. Most recently, she coauthored with Prof. Philip Hui Li the book, The Glocalization of Early Childhood Curriculum: Global Childhoods, Local Curricula, published by Routledge in February 2023.

References

Denotes that the study was included in this research synthesis.

Adriany

(2018) Neoliberalism and practices of early childhood education in Asia. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 3–10. doi: 10.1177/1478210317739500.

Al-Rodhan

Stoudmann

(2006) Definitions of globalization: A comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Program on the Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security 1–21.

Bautista

Bull

, et al. (2021) “That’s just impossible in my kindergarten.” Advocating for ‘glocal’ early childhood curriculum frameworks. Policy Futures in Education 19(2): 155–174. doi: 10.1177/1478210320956500.

Beeson

Islam

(2005) Neo-liberalism and East Asia: Resisting the Washington consensus. Journal of Development Studies 41(2): 197–219. doi: 10.1080/0022038042000309214.

Bhabha

(1994) The Location of Culture . LondonNew York: Palgrave-Macmillan: Routledge.Gupta A (2006) Early Childhood Education, Postcolonial Theory, Teaching Practices and Policies in India: Balancing Vygotsky and the Veda (1st Edition).

*Chan

(2016) The discrepancy between teachers’ beliefs and practices: A study of kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong. Teacher Development 20(3): 417–433. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2016.1161658.

Chen

J J

(2022) Between the foreground and the background lies the middle ground: Painting a harmonious early childhood curriculum landscape. ECNU Review of Education 5(2): 328–337. doi: 10.1177/20965311221092035.

Chen

(2023) Leadership at play in preschool children: A systematic synthesis of nearly nine decades of research. Early Education and Development 34(1): 1–26. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1988036.

10.

*Cheng

DP-W

(2010) Exploring the tactfulness of implementing play in the classroom: A Hong Kong experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 38(1): 69–82. doi: 10.1080/13598660903474163.

11.

Chen-Hafteck

(2008) Pulling the river: the interactions of local and global influences in Chinese early childhood music education. Arts Education Policy Review 109(3): 9–16. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.3.9-16.

12.

Chen

(2023) Tian Shi (timing) Di Li (context) Ren He (human capital): A new theoretical framework for analyzing the implementability of imported early childhood practices and making a case for a hybrid model. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 37(2): 292–309. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2022.2107588.

13.

*Chen

Wang

(2017) Implementing the project approach: A case study of hybrid pedagogy in a Hong Kong kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 31(3): 324–341. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1309479.

14.

*Cheng

DP-W

(2006) The translation of Western teaching approaches in the Hong Kong early childhood curriculum: A promise for effective teaching? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7(3): 228–237. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2006.7.3.228.

15.

*Cheung

RHP

(2016) The challenge of developing creativity in a Chinese context: The effectiveness of adapting Western creative pedagogy to inform creative practice. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 24(1): 141–160. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2015.1087419.

16.

*Cheung

RHP

(2017) Teacher-directed versus child-centred: the challenge of promoting creativity in Chinese preschool classrooms. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 25(1): 73–86. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2016.1217253.

17.

Cooper

Hedges

(2009) Research synthesis as a scientific process. In: Cooper

Hedges

Valentine

(eds). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 3–16.

18.

Denzin

(2017) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge, New York, NY.

19.

Education and Manpower Bureau (2006) legislative council panel on education paper for discussion: new initiatives in pre-primary education. (LC Paper No. CB(2)277/06- 07(01)). Available at: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/preprimary-kindergarten/preprimaryvoucher/ed1113cb2-277-1-e.pdf

20.

Education Bureau (2016) Free quality kindergarten education. (Education Bureau Circular No. 7/2016). Available at: http://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBC/EDBC16007E.pdf.

21.

Featherstone

(1995) Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism, and Identity. London, UK: Sage.

22.

Friedman

(1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Friedman

(1980) Free to Choose. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

24.

*Fung

CKH

Cheng

DPW

(2012) Consensus or dissensus? Stakeholders’ views on the role of play in learning. Early Years 32(1): 17–33. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2011.599794.

25.

Gupta

(2006) Early Childhood Education, Postcolonial Theory, Teaching Practices and Policies in India: Balancing Vygotsky and the Veda. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

26.

Gupta

(2015) Using postcolonial theory to critically re-frame the child development narrative. In: David

Goouch

Powell

(eds). Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care. Abingdon: Routledge.

27.

Gupta

(2016) Policy trends in teacher professionalization and professionalism in India. In: Li

Fox

Grieshaber

(eds). Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Early Childhood Education in the Asia–Pacific Region. Singapore: Springer, 221–239.

28.

Gupta

(2018) How neoliberal globalization is shaping early childhood education policies in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 11–28. doi: 10.1177/1478210317715796.

29.

Harvey

(2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610(1): 21–44. doi: 10.1177/0002716206296780.

30.

Hill

Kumar

(2009) Neoliberalism and its impacts. In: Hill

Kumar

(eds), Global Neoliberalism and Education and its Consequences. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 32–49.

31.

Klugman

(1995) Under the influence. In: Waldrep

(ed). Inside the Mouse: Work and Play at Disney World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 98–109.

32.

Kotz

(2002) Globalization and neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism 14(2): 64–79. doi: 10.1080/089356902101242189.

33.

Kraidy

(2001) From imperialism to glocalization: a theoretical framework for the information age. In: Ebo

(ed), Cyberimperialism? Global Relations in the New Electronic Frontier. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 27–42.

34.

Krippendorff

(2018) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

35.

Lai

(2018) Neoliberalism and early childhood education in Hong Kong. In: Grieshaber

Goodnow

Bridges

(eds), International Handbook of Early Childhood Education. Springer, pp. 373–388.

36.

Lee

(2018) (Re)Landscaping early childhood education in East Asia: A neoliberal economic and political imaginary. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 53–65. doi: 10.1177/1478210317736434.

37.

*Li

(2004) The culture of teaching in the midst of western influence: The case of Hong Kong kindergartens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5(3): 330–348. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2004.5.3.6.

38.

*Li

Y-L

(2012) The negotiated project-based learning: Understanding the views and practice of kindergarten teachers about the implementation of project learning in Hong Kong. Education 3–13 40(5): 473–486. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2010.544662.

39.

Chen

(2023) The Glocalization of Early Childhood Curriculum: Global Childhoods, Local Curricula. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Lightfoot-Rueda

(2018) Education for a competitive Asia: Questioning the discourse of human capital. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 43–52. doi: 10.1177/1478210317736208.

41.

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2007) The science of early childhood development: closing the gap between what we know and what we do. https://harvardcenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Science_Early_Childhood_Development.pdf

42.

OECD (2001) Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.

43.

OECD (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.

44.

OECD (2011) Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.

45.

OECD (2015) Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.

46.

Peck

(2021) Milton’s paradise: situating Hong Kong in neoliberal lore. Journal of Law and Political Economy 1(2): 189–211. DOI: 10.5070/LP61251592.

47.

Rao

(2009) Quality matters: early childhood education policy in hong kong.Early Child Development and Care 179(3): 233–245. doi: 10.1080/03004430601078644.

48.

Ritzer

(1995) Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

49.

Ritzer

(1998) The McDonaldization Thesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

50.

Ritzer

(2000) The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

51.

Ritzer

(2003) Rethinking globalization: glocalization/grobalization and something/nothing. Sociological Theory 21(3): 193–209. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108635

52.

Ritzer

(2007) The Globalization of Nothing 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

53.

Ritzer

Ryan

(2002) The globalization of nothing. Social Thought and Research 25(1/2): 51–81.

54.

Robertson

(1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Cultures. London: Sage Publications.

55.

Roudometof

(2005) Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism and glocalization. Current Sociology 53(1): 113–135. doi: 10.1177/0011392105048291.

56.

Roudometof

(2015) The glocal and global studies. Globalizations 12(5): 774–787. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2015.1016293.

57.

Roudometof

(2019) Recovering the local: from glocalization to localization. Current Sociology 67(6): 801–817. doi: 10.1177/0011392118812933.

58.

Schore

(2005) Back to basics: attachment, affect regulation, and the developing right brain: Linking developmental neuroscience to pediatrics. Pediatrics in Review 26(6): 204–217.

59.

Shonkoff

Phillips

(eds), (2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

60.

Sniegocki

(2008) Neoliberal globalization: Critiques and alternatives. Theological Studies 69(2): 321–339. doi: 10.1177/004056390806900205.

61.

Stemler

(2001) An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 7(Article): 17. doi: 10.7275/z6fm-2e34.

62.

The Curriculum Development Council (2006) Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Available at: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/preprimary/pre-primaryguide-net_en.pdf

63.

The Curriculum Development Council (2017) Kindergarten education curriculum guide: joyful learning through play balanced development all the way. Available at: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/preprimary/ENG_KGECG_2017.pdf

64.

The Curriculum Development Institute (1996) Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Available at: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/preprimary/kg_guide_eng.pdf

65.

The World Bank (2011) Learning for All. Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development. World Bank Group Education Strategy 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank.

66.

The World Bank (2022) Early years: the foundation for human capital. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/earlyyears

67.

Weber

(1990) Basic Content Analysis. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412983488.

68.

Wong

JMS

Rao

(2022) Pursuing quality in early childhood education with a government- regulated voucher: views of parents and service providers in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy 37(1): 39–68. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2020.1764628.

69.

*Wu

(2021) A co-constructed picture of learning in play by teachers and parents. Journal of Early Childhood Research 19(1): 84–97. doi: 10.1177/1476718X20971316.

70.

Yang

(2022) Curriculum hybridization and cultural glocalization: A scoping review of international research on early childhood curriculum in China and Singapore. ECNU Review of Education 5(2): 299–327. doi: 10.1177/20965311221092036.

71.

Yang

Ang

(2021) Early childhood curriculum policies and practices in Singapore: the case of glocalisation. Policy Futures in Education 19(2): 131–138. doi: 10.1177/1478210320987689.

72.

Yeung

SYS

(2009) Is student-centered pedagogy impossible in Hong Kong? The case of inquiry in classrooms. Asia Pacific Education Review 10(3): 377–386. doi: 10.1007/s12564-009-9028-x.

73.

Zukin

(1996) The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell, US: Wiley.