‘Choice’ Discourse in BC Child Care: Distancing Policy from Research

Abstract

Abstract. The gap between child care research and policy is growing in BC. While policy changes are what one would expect from the right-of-centre Liberal government, the gap runs contrary to its expressed commitment to the design of early childhood development policy on the basis of ‘science.’ The BC child care domain thus provides a rich context in which to examine how ideology mediates the consumption of research in the political arena. This article argues that the government's ‘choice’ discourse facilitates the articulation of neoliberal principles in a rhetorically neutral way while casting doubt on scholarship that illuminates gender and class inequalities.Résumé. L'écart entre les recherches au sujet de soins d'enfant et la politique s'élargit en Colombie-Britannique. Pendant qu'on prévoit ces changements d'un gouvernement libéral droit-du-centre, l'écart dément son engagement de concevoir la politique de development de la petite enfance d'après la “science”. Ainsi la domaine de soins d'enfant en Colombie-Britannique fournit un contexte riche pour examiner comment l'idéologie s'interpose dans la consommation de recherches dans l'arène politique. Cet article soutient que la soi-disant dialogue de “choix” du gouvernement facilite l'articulation des principes néolibéraux d'une manière neutraliste pendant qu'on soulève du doute à l'érudition qui illumine des inégalités de genre et de classe sociale.

Lone motherhood, welfare reform and active citizen subjectivity

“…Welfare reform was also accompanied by cuts to associated employment supports like childcare services and education. For example, operating grants to childcare providers, parent subsidies, and wage supports to childcare workers were cut (Kershaw, 2004), although parent subsidies for childcare were later restored. Similarly, students in accredited post-secondary programmes that are eligible for BC Student Financial Assistance (loans) were no longer eligible for income assistance.…”

Institutional processes and the production of gender inequalities: The case of Australian child support research and administration

“…Data in evidence-based policy are legitimate when they are rigorous, objective, not 'values, intuition and practical know-how' (Neylan, 2005: 25) and quantitative data are widely understood as the expression of these ideals (Neylan, 2008). Feminists have critiqued this approach, arguing that evidence is used in response to existing and masculine policy framings, so that the interests of women cannot effectively be presented and supported (Kershaw, 2004;Phillips, 1996). Our findings are consistent with this assertion and reveal the codification of women's experiences through surveys and administration, but our findings also extend these ideas.…”

Bureaucratic champions and unified childcare sectors: neo-liberalism and inclusive liberalism in Atlantic Canadian childcare systems

“…Finally, certain explanations of the evolution of ECEC policies in Canada are simply not well supported by this case study of Atlantic Canada. In other studies, factors pushing towards more generous ECEC policies include high fertility rates and women's labor market participation (Henderson and White 2004;O'Neill 2006), the strength of feminist groups (Timpson 2001;Langford 2001;Martin 2001;Mahon 1999;Jenson 2002Jenson , 2009a, and the election of left-of-center governing parties or strong unions in the childcare sector (White 1997;Collier 2001;Kershaw 2004). However, none of these factors were found to be influential within the initial and focused coding of the interview sample.…”

“…Most of the research on childcare in Canada has concentrated on the ECEC policies of the federal government (Cleveland et al 2001(Cleveland et al , 2008White 2001;Mahon and Phillips 2002;Jenson et al 2003;Friendly 2000aFriendly , 2000bFriendly and Prentice 2009;McKeen 2009) or comparing Canadian federal government childcare policies to those of other developed countries (Mahon 1999;White 2002aWhite , 2004White , 2012OECD 2004;UNICEF 2008;Turgeon 2010). There has been several interesting case studies that have concentrated on ECEC policies and advocacy within a single province (Lero and Kyle 1991;Hayden 1997;Andrew 1997;Prentice 2000bPrentice , 2004Kershaw 2004Kershaw , 2005Martin 2001;Langford 2001Langford , 2011Tyyska 2001;Friendly 2005;Albanese 2006;Vosko 2006;Jenson 2002Jenson , 2009aMuttart Foundation 2010), two provinces (White 1997;Collier 2001), or Canadian municipalities (Mahon 2005(Mahon , 2007(Mahon , 2009bPrentice 2007;Corter and Pelletier 2010). Though these above studies have concentrated on jurisdictions outsi...…”