Books in this series will focus on both cutting-edge developments in theory and research and developing new forms of educational practice. Books will explore topics across the institutional and disciplinary maps of education, from physics to ballet, from pre-school to university, as well as other social fields, such as politics and law. If you have an idea for a book, whether a full-length monograph, edited collection or shorter book, contact the LCT Centre. Maton, K. While knowledge should be central to educational research, it focuses on processes of knowing and condemns studies of knowledge as essentialist.
By extending and integrating the influential approaches of Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein, LCT offers a practical means for overcoming knowledge-blindness without succumbing to essentialism or relativism. Journal of Education Sherran Clarence. Journal of Education Policy Ernst Buyl. Teaching in Higher Education Jennifer Case. Journal of Interprofessional Care Jill Thistlethwaite. Per Linguam: A journal of language learning Fiona Jackson. Journal of Education Fiona Jackson.
Chapter 1 of Knowledge and Knowers can be downloaded here. The second founding text of LCT argues that education and knowledge have never been more important to society, yet research is segmented by approach, methodology or topic. This book shows how LCT can be used to build knowledge about education and society. Comprising original papers by an international and multidisciplinary group of scholars, Knowledge-building offers the first primer in t his fast-growing approach. Reviews of Knowledge-Building :. P apers of Social Pedagogy Marcin Boryczko.
- SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION - WikiEducator.
- Books and Chapters.
- The Languages of Japan!
- Browse STARS?
- Sociology and School Knowledge: Curriculum Theory, Research and Politics (Education Paperbacks);
English Australia Journal Richard Ingold. Discourse and Society Chunxu Shi.
International Encyclopedia of Sociology of Education
Chapter 1 of Knowledge-building can be downloaded here. Future publications:. Martin, J. It should be observed that a non-hierarchical understanding accepts that hegemonic political interests frame and influence education, but this position recognizes that if the curricular policies and practices would be reduced in the service of some political ideology, it would be in conflict with principles for democratic education. Thus, political democracy requires a specific form of critical curriculum and educational leadership, including a relative independence for educational practitioners guaranteed by the political system itself.
The same holds true regarding the relation between, for example, law and politics.
In the modern, post-Kantian tradition laws are established by humans themselves. In a political democracy laws are established by an elected parliament. Simultaneously, however, laws regulate political activity. In the same sense, education is partly subordinate to political influences but simultaneously superordinate with respect to politics.
Education, then, prepares the subject for active citizenship and political democracy as well as for a working life to be developed by the individual. Importantly, in this tradition, the individual is prepared to transform the very same society or culture into which that person is educated, but how this is or should be done cannot be decided upon in advance thus avoiding the normativity problems associated with the two dominant perspectives.
Pushed to an extreme, these approaches do not prepare the individual for self-reflective decision making about the future in a democratic society.
The second question above b includes an expectation that any theory of educational relevance must explain human educational interaction. Although the individual can learn in and from all kinds of situations, all possible human interaction cannot reasonably be considered as educational or pedagogical in nature.
Challenges for Policy, Educational Leadership Research, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik
Where, then, does educational interaction start and where does it end? Is there something we have to presuppose in order for education to be possible? For what reasons or ends would education be necessary? While the first question above a point at aims and contents of education, this second question b asks about the methods of education. How do we understand pedagogical leadership in contrast to other forms of leadership? How does educational leadership relate to teaching?
Although educational leadership and teaching refer to different professions, what would the differences and similarities, given that both work with and relate to aims, contents and methods of education?
Can educational leadership at a district or national level be seen as educational interaction of some kind? In this chapter a non-affirmative position regarding pedagogical work is defended, regardless if we talk about teaching, educational leadership or curriculum work at the national level. The two previously described normative-prescriptive conceptions regarding the relation between education and societal development correspond to affirmative education.
Affirmative education theory means that a theoretical position for curriculum, education or leadership is ideologically explicit regarding what interests and aims practitioners should affirm, regarding the present situation, or then regarding aims considered important for future needs of society.
A dilemma with such an ideologically loaded position is that it runs the risk of ending up in manipulative education.click here
Thomas S. Popkewitz - Wikipedia
Affirmative teaching would be concerned with that learners really reach certain aims as given. An affirmative attitude ends up having a fundamental dilemma: to the extent that aims are given and accepted, educational leadership and teaching is expected to fulfill these resulting in a technical rationale for teaching and leadership.
In contrast, this chapter argues for the non-affirmative position. This means, for example, that existing knowledge, values or ideals are recognized but not affirmed. Non-affirmative education then means, in the pedagogical situation, to focus on the questions to which existing practices, experiences, norms or knowledge are seen as answers. By learning to understand how contemporary practices are seen as answers to given problems the learner is expected to develop a reflective relation not only to the answers provided positive knowledge in order to evaluate their relevance or accuracy, but also to develop an awareness regarding the questions behind the answers.
Sociology of Knowledge and Education
This awareness includes reflection on in whose interest certain questions are. Of equal importance is the ability to learn to formulate new answers to old questions as well as to produce totally new questions to be answered. This means that irrespective of what values or norms education confess to, education cannot be about socializing the learners into these norms and values. The norms themselves must be brought into question for educational reasons. They are to be recognized, but not affirmed in order to create a pedagogical space for the learner to step back and see how one-self relate to these.
In this respect non-affirmative education theory is clearly a critical theory. Some critical theories again are of course critical to existing hegemony. A counter-hegemonical discourse is crucial for any democracy. The question we raise is how valid such a position is as a foundation for education? In order not to fall behind a theoretical level that is already attained such a historical awareness is necessary.
We clearly understand that this such a position has developed within a given cultural, political and economic tradition. The reason to why non-affirmative pedagogy reminds of pragmatism Dewey , neo-pragmatism and deliberative democracy Habermas consist of their common roots. Both positions argue that there is an interdependent relation between education and politics.
Also deliberative democracy requires individuals capable of participation in such a democracy. However, from a non-affirmative education theory perspective, a theory of how a deliberative democracy works is something else than a theory of educational preparation for participation in such a democracy. If this distinction is not identified there is a risk of ending up in normative-socialization oriented pedagogy again, now with deliberative democracy as the directing norm. Pinar et al. As we will see this kind of theory about educational activity, i.
There is another reason to why we think it is not only valuable but also fruitful to turn to the German-Nordic tradition of general education to find a platform for coherently approaching educational leadership, curriculum and Didaktik. The reason is simply that the present day education dilemmas pointed out in the beginning of this chapter are not entirely new. The dilemmas we face today have a history, but not any history but a very specific one.
It is the history of dealing with the question not only of how to educate in and for a pluralist society, but also to deal with the question of how education can, in principle, prepare the growing generation for a future that is not known by us?