نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

هدف اصلی این پژوهش، بررسی نظریه بوردیو در باب میدان آموزش و تفاوت آن با سایر رویکردهای رایج جامعه­شناسی آموزش‌وپرورش می­باشد. برای دستیابی به این هدف، از روش پژوهش اسنادی بهره گرفته شد و از این طریق آثار نظری و تجربی بوردیو و سایر نظریه­پردازان و پژوهشگران مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. یافته­های به دست آمده حاکی از آن است که بوردیو نگاهی دو بُعدی به میدان آموزش دارد که دربرگیرنده رویکردهای تضاد و کارکردگرایی است. این بدان معناست که بوردیو میدان آموزش را میدانی می­داند که هم در راستای حفظ تعادل و نظم جامعه فعالیت می­کند و هم در راستای بازتولید وضعیت موجود و حفظ منافع طبقه مسلط. همچنین، بوردیو در رویکرد دو بُعدی خود به میدان آموزش به تناسب با هر کدام از این ابعاد، بر ابزارهای مختلفی تأکید دارد. به‌طوری‌که در نگاه کارکردگرایانه به میدان آموزش بر ابزار سرمایه فرهنگی و در نگاه تضادگرایانه به این میدان، بر ابزار عادت­واره تأکید دارد. بدین معناکه از دیدگاه بوردیو میدان آموزش هم با ساختار و هم با عاملیت در ارتباط است. بنابراین، رویکرد بوردیو به میدان آموزش «رویکرد دو بُعدی مضاعف» است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Bourdieu’s View over Educational Field, Beyond Confliction and Functionalism Approaches

نویسنده [English]

  • fardin mohammadi

ferdowsi university

چکیده [English]

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the theory of Bourdieu on the field of education and its differences with other common approaches to the sociology of education. So here are the main questions that this study tries to explain them: on which sociology of education approaches Bourdieu’s approach is based; on what principles is built and how much critical the concepts of capital and habitus. In order to achieve these goals, the documentary analysis as a methodology was used and where by Bourdieu's theoretical and experimental works and other theorists and researchers were examined. Results indicate that Bourdieu’s view into the field of education is a two-dimensional view, which includes conflicts of approach and functionalism. This means that Bourdieu knows the field of education that works both in maintaining the balance and order of society and to reproduce the status quo and preserve the interests of the dominant class. Another result of the research is that Bourdieu emphasizes on various instruments in his two-dimensional approach to the field of education, in proportion to each of these dimensions, so, in a functionalistic view toward educational field he focuses on culture and on the contrary he emphasizes on habitus in a confliction view of the field; that means from Bourdieu point of view, the field of education is in a direct relation with structure and agency. Therefore, Bourdieu's approach to the field of education is a double two-dimensional approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Pierre Bourdieu
  • functionalist approach
  • conflictualist approach
  • Habitus
  • Cultural capital

Aviard, Helen (2011). How do we do a Systematic review? Translated by pouria sarami Foroshan 7 & Fardin Alipour, Tehran: Jamehshenasan. (In Persian)

Azkia, Mostafa (1998). Sociology of Development. Tehran: Keihan. (In Persian

)

Beck, Eric (2016). Repopulating Development: an Agent-Based Approach to studing

development inteventions. World Development, 80, 19-32.

Bonnewitz, Partice (2011). Premeres Lecons sur la Sociology de Pierre Bourdieu. Translated

by Jahangir Jahangiri & Hassan Poorsafir, Tehran: Agah. (In Persian)

Botero, Wendy; Crossley, Nick (2011). Worlds, Fields and network: Becker, Bourdieu, and Sructures of social relations. Cultural Sociology, 5 (1), 99-119.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and social conditions of the prograss of reason. Sociology of science, 14 (6), 19-47.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The forms of capital, in j.G.richardson, handbook of theory and research for sociology of education. Greenwood Press,new York

Bourdieu, Pierre (1995). Outline of theory of practice. Translated by Richard Nice, Combridge: Combridge University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1996). Sociology of Literature. Translated by Yosef Abazary. Arghanoon. 9-10, 76-112. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2002). Sporting actions and social actions. Translated by: Mohammad Reza Farzad. Arghanoon. 20, 1-10. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2007). Science of science & reflivity. Translated by yahya emami, Tehran: Country scienctefic invastigatins center. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2011). Raisons pratiques: Sur la theorie de l`action.. Translated by Morteza Mardiha.Tehran: Naghshonegar. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2012). Distiction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by Hassan chavoshian, Tehran: Sales. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2012). The Social structuers of economy. Translated by Hassan chavoshian, Tehran: Social Security Institute. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2014). Lecon sur lecon. Translated by Nasser fakohi, Tehran: nay. (In Persian)

Bourdieu, Pierre (2015). Socilogy in questions. Translated by Piroz eizady, Tehran: Nasle aftab. (In Persian)

Chauvire, Christian & Fontaine, Olivier (2006). Le Vocabulaire de Bourdieu. Translated by Morteza Kotobi, Tehran; Nay. (In Persian)

Cocchia, Annalisa (2014). Smart and digital city: a systematic literature springer review, springer international publishing Switzerland.

Grenfell, Michael (2009). Applying Bourdieu’s field theory: the case of social capital and education. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 3 (1), 17- 34.

Grenfell, Michael (2010). Bourdieu, Pierre: key concepts. Translated by Mehdi labiby. Tehran: Afkar. (In Persian)

Heise, Tatiana; Tudor, Andrew (2007). Constructing art: bourdiues field model in a comparartive context. Cultural Sociology, 1 (2), 165- 187.

Herd, Nick (2013). Bourdieu and the fields of art in austalia: on the functioning of the worlds. Journal of Sociology, 49 (2-3), 373-384.

Jalaiypour, Hamid Reza; Mohammadi, Jamal (2009). The last theories of sociology. Tehran: Nay. (In Persian)

Jenkins, Richard (2007). Pierre Bourdieu. Translated by Hasan Chavoshian, Tehran: Nay. (In Persian)

Kitchen, P.J; Howe, David (2013). How can the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu assist sport management research? Sport management review, 16, 123- 134.

Kloot, Bruce (2009). Explaning the value of Bourdieus framework in the context of institutional change. Studies in higher education, 34 (4), 469- 481.

Kloot, Bruce (2015). A historical analysis of academic development using the theoretical lens of Pierre bourdieu. British journal of sociology of education, 36 (6), 958- 976.

Lash, Scott (2004). Sociology of Postmodernism. Translated by Shapour Behian, Tehran: Ghoghnous. (In Persian)

Lessard, Chanale; Contandriopoulos, Andre-pierre; Beaulian, Dominiq (2010). The role (or note) of economic evaluation at the micro level: can Bourdieus theory provide away forward for clinical decision –making? Socila Science & Mediciene, 70, 1984-1956.

Levien, Michael (2015). Social Capital as obstacle to Devevlopment Brokering land, norms, and trust in rural India. World Devevlopment, 74: 77-92.

Littell, J. H. Corcoran, J, Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, John Levi (2003). What is field theory? American journal of sociology, 109 (1), 1-49.

Mayer, P. (2009). Guidelines for writing a Review Article. Zurich Basel Plant Science Center. 2- 10.

Mohammadpour, Ahmad (2010). Method for Method, on structure of knowledge in humanitites. Tehran: Jameshenasan. ((In Persian)

Pang, Bonnie; Soong, Hannah (2016). Teachers experiences in teaching Chinese Australian student in helth and physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 84-93.

Savage, Mike, & Siva, Elizabeth. B. (2013). Field Analysis in cultural sociology. Cultural Sociology, 7 (2), 111- 126.

Sieweke, Jost (2014). Pierre bourdiue and organization studies- a citation context analysis and discussion of contributious. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30, 532-543.

So, Alvin (2009). Social Change and Development. Translated by Mahmoud Habibi, Tehran: Strategic Studies Institute. (In Persian)

Zanjani Zaddeh, Homa (2004). Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's Sociology. Journal of Social sciences, 2 (1), 23- 40.