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
Azkia, M. (1998). Sociology of Development. Tehran: Keihan. (In Persian)
Beck, E. (2016). Repopulating Development: an Agent-Based Approach to studing development inteventions. World Development, 80, 19-32.
Bonnewitz, P. (2011). Premeres Lecons sur la Sociology de Pierre Bourdieu. (J. Jahangiri & H. Poorsafir, Trans.). Tehran: Agah. (In Persian)
Botero, W., & Crossley, N. (2011). Worlds, Fields and network: Becker, Bourdieu, and Structures of social relations. Cultural Sociology, 5 (1), 99-119.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and social conditions of the prograss of reason. Sociology of science, 14 (6), 19-47.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital, in J. G. Richardson. Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education. Greenwood Press, New York
Bourdieu, P. (1995). Outline of theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). Sociology of Literature. (Y. Abazary, Trans.). Arghanoon. 9-10, 76-112. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Sporting actions and social actions. (M. R. Farzad, Trans.). Arghanoon. 20, 1-10. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Science of science & reflivity. (Y. Emami, Trans.). Tehran: Country scientific invastigatins center. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2011). Raisons pratiques: Sur la theorie de l`action. (M. Mardiha, Trans.). Tehran: Naghshonegar. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2012). Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. (H. Chavoshian, Trans.). Tehran: Sales. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2012). The Social structures of economy. (H. Chavoshian, Trans.).Tehran: Social Security Institute. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2014). Lecon sur lecon. (N. Fakohi, Trans.). Tehran: nay. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2015). Sociology in questions. (P. Eizady, Trans.). Tehran: Nasle aftab. (In Persian)
Bourdieu, P. (2018). Homo Academicus. (H. Chavoshian, Trans.). Tehran: Parseh. (In Persian)
Chauvire, C., & Fontaine, O. (2006). Le Vocabulaire de Bourdieu. (M. Kotobi, Trans.). Tehran; Nay. (In Persian)
Grenfell, M. (2009). Applying Bourdieu’s field theory: the case of social capital and education. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 3 (1), 17- 34.
Grenfell, M. (2010). Bourdieu, Pierre: key concepts. (M. labiby, Trans.). Tehran: Afkar. (In Persian)
Heise, T., & Tudor, A. (2007). Constructing art: Bourdieu’s field model in a comparative context. Cultural Sociology, 1 (2), 165- 187.
Herd, N. (2013). Bourdieu and the fields of art in Australia: on the functioning of the worlds. Journal of Sociology, 49 (2-3), 373-384.
Jalaiypour, H. R., &; Mohammadi, J. (2009). The last theories of sociology. Tehran: Nay. (In Persian)
Jenkins, R. (2007). Pierre Bourdieu. (H. Chavoshian, Trans.). Tehran: Nay. (In Persian)
Kitchen, P.J., & Howe, D. (2013). How can the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu assist sport management research? Sport management review, 16, 123- 134.
Kloot, B. (2009). Emplaning the value of Bourdieu’s framework in the context of institutional change. Studies in higher education, 34 (4), 469- 481.
Kloot, B. (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, S. (2004). Sociology of Postmodernism. (SH. Behian, Trans.). Tehran: Ghoghnous. (In Persian)
Lessard, C., Contandriopoulos, A. P. & Beaulian, D. (2010). The role (or note) of economic evaluation at the micro level: can Bourdieu’s theory provide away forward for clinical decision –making? Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1984-1956.
Levien, M. (2015). Social Capital as obstacle to Development Brokering land, norms, and trust in rural India. World Development, 74: 77-92.
Martin, J. L. (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, A. (2010). Method for Method, on structure of knowledge in humanities. Tehran: Jameshenasan. (In Persian)
Pang, B. & Soong, H. (2016). Teachers experiences in teaching Chinese Australian student in health and physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 84-93.
Savage, M. & Siva, E. B. (2013). Field Analysis in cultural sociology. Cultural Sociology, 7 (2), 111- 126.
Sieweke, J. (2014). Pierre Bourdieu and organization studies- a citation context analysis and discussion of contributions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30, 532-543.
So, A. (2009). Social Change and Development. (M. Habibi, Trans.). Tehran: Strategic Studies Institute. (In Persian)
Wacquant, L. (2003). Methodology of Bourdieu, in Rob Stones, Key sociological thinkers. Tehran: Markaz. (In Persian)
Zanjanizaddeh, H. (2004). Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's Sociology. Journal of Social sciences, 2 (1), 23- 40. (In Persian)