This article is based on a qualitative research study that examines policy texts and curriculum related to National Folklore in the secondary education systems of Turkey and Flanders, either explicitly or implicitly. The aim is to comparatively evaluate the Turkish and Flanders systems, identify the strengths and weaknesses of both experiences, and bring forth insights for policymakers to influence and enhance the functions and visibility of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) in schools. The analysis in Turkey primarily draws from national-level documents and decisions. Key research materials include the curriculum for Folk Culture courses and some policy documents (decisions taken for the Turkish National Education Council, Turkish National Culture Council, National Education Quality Framework, and Turkish Education Vision). On the other hand, the situation in Flanders will focus mainly on regional ICH policy, the Flanders Heritage Law, and texts developed in the context of the Flanders Curriculum Reform over the last five years. The article takes the ratification of the Convention by both countries in 2006 as its starting point. Three levels of discussion are presented in the article. Firstly, the general policies of Flanders and Turkey are briefly summarized, with a particular focus on how elements related to ICH are interpreted in formal education. Secondly, the potential outcomes of these policy choices are examined. Finally, the discussion framework is narrowed further to focus on curriculum choices.

Flanders has organically developed its policy in the field of ICH from the bottom up. The Cultural Heritage Law of 2008 officially endorsed the concept of ICH in Flanders’ policy and paved the way for grounding future policies. The Flanders Community has emphasized the significant role of incorporating ICH into the educational curriculum. In Turkey, however, no policy document was created after the ratification of the Convention in 2006. Nevertheless, two ad hoc working groups on ICH and education were formed for the Turkish National Commission between 2018 and 2022, focusing on mapping ICH in primary, secondary, and higher education curricula. In general, while Flanders’ policy develops organically from the bottom up, a centralized structure prevails in Turkey, with the curriculum, textbooks, and course content being implemented similarly nationwide. It is challenging for ICH in Turkish education to align with local content and context, indicating that ICH is not recognized as a significant component in Turkey’s education policies.

Evaluation of the Article Using Neuman’s Methodological Approaches In this article, Neuman’s methodological approaches will be evaluated. The research method employed in the article is a comparative research method. Comparative research is a type of research that examines similarities and differences between different groups, events, situations, or phenomena. Such research is often conducted to understand relationships between variables, identify similarities or differences, examine cause-and-effect relationships, and generally gain a better understanding of a subject. Robert K. Yin defines “Comparative Study” as “a type of research that involves comparing two or more situations to understand the similarities and differences between these situations.” This definition emphasizes the fundamental purpose of comparative research: understanding similarities and differences. In this context, Lawrence Neuman’s definition of comparative research, as given in his research design book, can be taken as an example. Neuman defines comparative research as “a type of research that evaluates the similarities and differences between different situations, groups, or conditions.” This definition highlights the focus of the research: evaluating similarities and differences. Comparative research typically aims to achieve an in-depth understanding by combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Researchers in such studies often analyze the data they obtain using analytical techniques such as case analysis, comparative content analysis, and other methods. The main research methods used in the article: Document Analysis and Literature Review: The first stage of the article focuses on document analysis and literature review to evaluate the education systems of two different countries. The author thoroughly examines policy documents, curricula, strategic plans, and relevant literature to extract information from the fundamental documents of both systems. This analysis is conducted based on the official documents of both education systems, and the policy and curriculum objectives in these documents are identified. Comparative Analysis: In the second stage of the article, the education systems of Flanders and Turkey are subjected to a comparative analysis. This analysis is conducted by focusing on specific topics, such as centralization and autonomy, curriculum choices, teacher agency, policy practices, and teaching methods. This comparative analysis reveals the unique approaches of the two systems and their interactions. Critical Evaluation in the Context of Policy and Practice: In the third stage of the article, the author critically evaluates policy choices and practices in both education systems. This evaluation deeply discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and internal contradictions of both systems, shedding light on how policy decisions impact educational practices. Teacher Agency and Capacity Building: In the fourth stage of the article, the role of teachers and teacher agency is emphasized. The text critically evaluates how teachers, schools, and educational networks in Flanders and Turkey embrace and implement ICH-related policy practices. It also analyzes how teachers convey intangible cultural heritage in education, present it to students, and the challenges they face in this process. Additionally, the autonomy of teachers and educational networks within this policy framework is assessed. ICH Integration and Framework Recommendations: In the fifth stage of the article, deficiencies related to the integration of ICH into education are highlighted, and future policy recommendations are presented. These recommendations include measures such as a more prominent place for ICH in curricula, increasing teacher capacity, and creating a heritage education policy that encourages interdisciplinary connections. Conceptualization of the Research Object: The conceptualization of the research object is a crucial step that forms the basis of a research study, determining the meaning of the examined subject. In this article, the researched object is conceptualized as the impact of the UNESCO Convention on the preservation of intangible cultural heritage on Turkey and Flanders’ education policies. The article aims to understand how these countries evaluate and shape their policy preferences in this context. The main comparative research methods used in the article:

1. Policy and Curriculum Analysis: This method aims to compare the policies for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage and educational curricula between Flanders and Turkey. The text examines how policy preferences and curriculum choices related to the Convention are interpreted by analyzing expressions in these documents to assess how much emphasis is placed on intangible cultural heritage in education and how this heritage is represented.
2. Education Systems Analysis: In this method, the education systems of Flanders and Turkey are thoroughly examined. It particularly focuses on the extent to which intangible cultural heritage is included in the education systems of both countries and how this heritage is integrated. Similarities and differences between different education levels, curriculum structures, student assessment methods, and educational institutions are highlighted. This analysis is conducted to understand the impact of the Convention on the education systems of both countries.
3. Analysis of the Role of Teachers and Autonomy: In this method, the text examines how teachers, schools, and educational networks in Flanders and Turkey adopt and implement policy practices related to the Convention. The emphasis is on highlighting the role of a specific teacher autonomy, which is crucial for understanding how the Convention is effectively implemented. The analysis includes how teachers convey intangible cultural heritage in education, make presentations to students, and the challenges they face. Additionally, the autonomy of teachers and educational networks within this policy framework is assessed. These methods provide a comprehensive approach to understanding and comparing the representation of intangible cultural heritage in the education systems of Flanders and Turkey. Each analysis aims to evaluate in-depth the impact of the Convention on the education environments of these countries. This research text extensively compares the representation of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) in the education systems of Flanders (Belgium) and Turkey. In particular, analyses based on policy preferences, education systems, and teacher autonomy shed light on the integration of ICH into education in both countries.

Evaluation of Comparative Research Methods The article employs two specific types of comparative research methods: Comparative Case Study Research and Cultural Context Research. Comparative Case Study Research is used to compare specific societies or cultural units without making extensive generalizations. In this context, the comparison between a developed European country (Flanders) and Turkey is conducted without making broad generalizations. Cultural Context Research, on the other hand, focuses on theoretical types representing a few societies or cultures and aims to make generalizations to similar societies. The analysis in the article attempts to generalize the findings to some extent by comparing the education policies of Flanders and Turkey in the context of ICH.

The research methods used in the article align with Neuman’s framework for comparative research. The systematic application of document analysis, literature review, comparative analysis, and critical evaluation provides a thorough understanding of how ICH is represented in the education systems of Flanders and Turkey. The article contributes to the broader field of comparative research by examining the impact of cultural context on education policies and practices, addressing the potential bias of Western cultural perspectives, and offering valuable insights for policymakers in diverse cultural settings.

Cultural assumptions, thinking styles, approaches to time, and values related to human life are unique to each culture. These factors influence thinking and social relationships. However, social researchers often tend to be influenced by their own cultures and have a tendency to believe that Western culture is universally valid. A comparative approach encourages researchers to ask questions that challenge their cultural traditions and evaluate different perspectives. This facilitates a deeper understanding of beliefs, values, and relationships. Having a multicultural perspective allows social researchers to gain more awareness of the challenges they face and biases towards the West, which can contribute to producing more advanced social research. The “Reverse Focus” section notes criticisms from researchers outside the U.S. and some within the U.S. who argue that U.S. social sciences are overly self-centered. This criticism has intensified with the dominance of American theories and research methods after World War II. It suggests that most researchers only see problems from their own cultural values and beliefs and refer only to research conducted in the U.S., ignoring the rest of the world. The “Reverse” focus claims that many research groups in the U.S. have a distorted understanding of global social relationships. This situation leads to two main problems. Firstly, while U.S. research groups produce the majority of empirical social science research worldwide, the “reverse” focus distorts this understanding, presenting a false perspective on global relationships. Secondly, many researchers adopting a positivist approach believe they discover universal laws of human behavior. However, when they conduct research based on the views of only one culture, the results are not universal but valid only within national frameworks. The limited ability of U.S. researchers to generalize beyond the national context and the need to take measures to deal with ethnocentrism are emphasized. This involves moving beyond the idea that certain topics, methods, or theories may only be valid for a few nations while others could be truly universal for all humanity. The importance of having both national and universal social sciences is highlighted, emphasizing the need to regularly refer to international methods and ideas in these fields.

The strength of the text lies in its focus on policy and curriculum analyses. The policies of Flanders and Turkey are examined by focusing on their connection to ICH, particularly highlighting the relationship between education and intangible cultural heritage. This provides a foundation for understanding the policy preferences of both countries regarding the place of cultural heritage in education. The analysis of education systems, the role of teachers, and autonomy, especially in Flanders and Turkey, provides detailed insights into how teachers and schools adopt and implement policies related to ICH.

As seen in the article, there is a continuous emphasis on the differences between the two countries, with a particular emphasis on the concept of equivalence. The achievement of equivalence has resulted in obtaining reliable research. Neuman defines this concept in his book as follows: “Without equivalence, a researcher cannot use the same concepts or measures for different cultures or historical periods, making comparison difficult if not impossible. Similar issues arise in terms of measurement validity in quantitative research.” He further explains this with the following example: “Let’s consider the English word ‘friend,’ the German word ‘Freund,’ and the Spanish word ‘amigo.’ Technically, they are all translated as identical. However, ‘Freund’ in German refers to a few close, personal relationships; ‘friend’ in English is less intense and refers to broader acquaintances; ‘amigo’ in Spanish, on the other hand, indicates a wide range of people, some of whom may have just met that day. Therefore, the question ‘how many friends do you have?’ is asking different things in all three languages.”

The article examines a specific concept within a specific time frame in both countries, focusing on the formal education systems in Flanders and Turkey at the primary and secondary levels through the lens of the Convention. Therefore, this qualitative study is based on the analysis of policy documents and curricula related to ICH in Flemish and Turkish in an explicit or implicit manner.

The article also provides a significant perspective on how teachers and education networks effectively implement ICH. The analysis of the role and autonomy of teachers delves into how teachers and schools in Flanders and Turkey embrace and implement policies related to ICH in detail.

However, for a more comprehensive understanding, the text could benefit from additional concrete examples and data. Exploring the potential impacts of differences in policies and practices in both countries and considering specific applications in a broader context could provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding. Enhancing the article with more concrete examples and data could enrich the knowledge and understanding of the role of cultural heritage in education. In this way, the importance of having a more extensive strategy and policies for the effective representation of cultural heritage in education can be emphasized.

Referances

Neuman, L., Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,Pandora,2011

ARAL,A.,Doorsselaere,J.,Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage And Formal Education: Comparison of Policies Between Türkiye And Flanders (Belgium),Milli Folklor ve Amme Dergisi, Cilt 18, 2023