15 de Diciembre de 2018
Portal Educativo de las Américas
  Idioma:
 Imprima esta Página  Envie esta Página por Correo  Califique esta Página  Agregar a mis Contenidos  Página Principal 
¿Nuevo Usuario? - ¿Olvidó su Clave? - Usuario Registrado:     

Búsqueda



Colección:
La Educación
Número: (114) I
Año: 1993

NOTES

1. D. Kellner, “The Postmodern Turn: Positions, Problems, and Prospects,” Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Syntheses, G. Ritzer, Ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990) 281-282.
2. F. Marton, “Phenomenography: Exploring Different Conceptions of Reality,” Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education, D. M. Fetterman, Ed. (New York: Praeger, 1988) 196.
3. We may note that theory, or theorein in Greek, originally meant to see—that is, the imposition of a vision of divisions.
4. For a summary of Bourdieu’s dialectical combination of subjectivist and structuralist perspectives to construct an interactive field of power relations, see his “Social and Symbolic Power,” Sociological Theory 7 (1989): 14-25. Bourdieu’s mapping rationale argues that the social and intellectual worlds may be uttered and constructed in different ways according to different principles of vision and division, that failing to construct the space of positions leaves you no chance of seeing the point from which you see what you see. Nelson Goodman’s distinction between “rendering”—i.e., not just what a draftsman does but all the ways of making and presenting worlds—and “rightness,” either ethical or moral, may also be useful. See his stimulating little book, Ways of Worldmaking (Cambridge: Hackett, 1978).
5. R. Barthes, “From Work to Text,” Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Poststructural Criticism, J. Hariri, Ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979) 48-63. Barthes argues that textual understanding is related to social and political understanding. Where positivist science has traditionally viewed language as a transparent instrument or tool devoid of ideational or practical content, literary theory sees language as opaque and seeks to penetrate this opacity in order to recover the commitments and practices contained in language. Barthes’ choice is to see this reading as mythic. Others have seen readings as “violent” (Foucault), “political” (Jameson), “rhetorical” (Gadamer); or “ludic” (Baudrillard). Orientations to textual exegesis are covered in M. Shapiro, “Literary Production as a Politicizing Practice,” Language and Politics, M. Shapiro, Ed. (New York: New York University Press, 1984) 215-254. For a discussion of multi-dimensional mapping of works using author cocitation analysis, see K. W. McCain, “Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41.6 (1990): 433-444 and A. E. Bayer, et al., “Mapping Intellectual Structure of a Scientific Subfield Through Author Cocitations,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41.4 (1990): 444-452. This technique does not enter into the ideas in the text. Rather, it generates association patterns of authors and works in the form of a useful if somewhat superficial bibliometric network analysis.
6. Illustrative texts of the 1950s and 1960s are: D. Adams and J. Farrell, “Societal Differentiation and Educational Differentiation,” Comparative Education 5 (1959): 249-262; C. Anderson, “The Methodology of Comparative Education,” International Review of Education 7 (1961): 1-23; G. Bereday, Comparative Method in Education (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1964); T. Husén, Ed., International Study of Achievement in Education: A Comparison of Twelve Countries (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1967); H. Noah and M. Eckstein, Toward a Science of Comparative Education (New York: Macmillan, 1969); and T. Schultz, “Education and Economic Growth,” Social Forces Influencing American Education, N. Henry, Ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 46-88.
Texts from the 1970s and 1980s are: C. Anderson, “Comparative Education over a Quarter of a Century: Maturity and Challenges,” Comparative Education Review 21 (1977): 405-416; P. Bourdieu and J. Passeron, Reproduction: In Culture, Education, Society (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977); S. Bowles and H. Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America (New York: Basic Books, 1976); M. Carnoy, “Marxism and Education,” The Left Academy: Marxism on American Campuses, B. Ollman and E. Vernoff, Eds. (New York: Praeger, 1984) 79-98; R. Clignet, “The Double Natural History of Educational Interactions: Implications for Educational Reforms,” Comparative Education Review 25 (1981): 330-352; E. Epstein, “Currents Left and Right: Ideology in Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 27 (1983): 3-29; R. Heyman, “Comparative Education from an Ethnomethodological Perspective,” Comparative Education 15 (1979): 241-249; T. Husén, “Research Paradigms in Education,” Interchange 19 (1988): 2-13; J. Karabel and A. Halsey, Eds., Power and Ideology in Education (London: Oxford University Press, 1977); G. Kelly and A. Nihlen, “Schooling and the Reproduction of Patriarchy,” Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education, M. Apple, Ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982) 162-180; and R. Paulston, “Social and Educational Change: Conceptual Frameworks,” Comparative Education Review 21 (1977): 370-395.
Texts from the 1990s are: P. Altbach, “Trends in Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 35 (1991): 491-507; R. Cowen, “The National and International Impact of Comparative Education Infrastructures,” Comparative Education: Contemporary Issues and Trends, E. Halls, Ed. (Paris: UNESCO, 1990); P. Lather, Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy within the Post-modern (London: Routledge, 1991); V. Masmann, “Ways of Knowing: Implications for Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 34 (1990): 465-473; R. Paulston, “Comparative and International Education: Paradigms and Theories,” International Encyclopedia of Education (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993); R. Paulston and M. Tidwell, “Latin American Education—Comparative,” AERA Encyclopedia of Education (New York: McMillan, 1992); V. Rust, “Postmodernism and Its Comparative Education Implications,” Comparative Education Review 35 (1991): 610-626; N. Stromquist, “Gender Inequality in Education: Accounting for Women’s Subordination,” British Journal of Sociology of Education 11 (1990): 137-154; and H. von Recum, “Erziehung in der post-moderne” (Education in the postmodern period), Die politesche Meinung 237 (1990): 76-93.
7. C. Anderson 1961, 1-23.
8. C. Anderson 1977, 413. The first major pluralist attack on Anderson’s attempts to enclose the field in functionalist logic and scientistic methods was made by R. Lawson in his 1975 presidential address, “Free-Form Comparative Education,” 19 (1975): 345-353. Lawson opposed “the application of a political religion to social science,” the denial of legitimate opposition and the enclosure of all scholarly activity within an orthodoxy of narrow political and paradigmatic parameters (345-346). For a recent nostalgic defense of Anderson’s world view by his student E. Epstein, see his “Editorial,” Comparative Education Review 36.4 (1977): 409-416.
9. S. Klees, “The Economics of Education: Is That All There Is?” Comparative Education Review 35 (1991): 721-734.
10. The emergence of a global comparative education field is well documented in R. Arnove, P. Altbach, and G. Kelly, Eds., Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative Perspectives (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992). Passim.
11. P. Altbach 504-506. For a continuation of this movement, see Paulston, “Ways of Seeing,” 177-202.
12. See, for example, the 1990 debate in “Colloquy on Comparative Theory,” Comparative Education Review 34.3 (1991): 369-404.
13. See Rust 614-616.
14. Husén, Research Paradigms 10-12.
15. R. Paulston, Comparative and International Education 254-255.
16. R. Barthes 61.
17. See C. Cherryholms, Power and Criticism: Post-structural Investigations in Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988); von Recum 12-16; and Rust 622-624.
18. See R. Paulston, “Mapping the Theoretical Landscape in Educational Policy Studies,” Creating School Policy, P. Cookson and B. Schneider, Eds. (New York: Garland Publishers, 1993).
19. Marton (1988) argues that the initial finding of categories is a form of discovery that does not have to be replicable. Once found, however, intersubjective agreement among other researchers will be required if types are to be widely used.
Illustrative texts used to construct Figure 2 are J. Boli and J. Meyer, “Explaining the Origins and Expansion of Mass Schooling,” Comparative Education Review 29 (1985): 145-170; P. Coombs, The World Crisis in Education (London: Oxford University Press, 1985); T. Schultz, “Investing in People: Schooling in Low Income Countries,” Economics of Education Review 8 (1989): 219-240; D. Adams, “Expanding the Educational Planning Discourse,” Comparative Education Review 32 (1988): 400-415; D. Plank, “The Politics of Basic Educational Reform in Brazil,” Comparative Education Review 34 (1990): 538-560; D. Rondinelli, J. Middleton, and A. Vespoor, Planning Educational Reforms in Developing Countries (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990); J. Coleman, “Micro-foundations and Macro-social Behavior,” The Micro-macro Link, J. Alexander, B. Geisen, R. Munch and N. Smelser, Eds. (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1987) 153-173; D. Turner, “Problem Solving in Comparative Education,” Compare 17 (1987): 110-121; M. Archer, Social Origins of Educational Systems (London: Sage, 1984); P. Bourdieu and J. Passeron 1977; R. Paulston, “Education as Anti-structure: Nonformal Education in Social and Ethnic Movements,” Compare 10 (1980): 55-66; H. Weiler, “Why Reforms Fail: The Politics of Education in France and the Federal Republic of Germany,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 21 (1989): 291-305; P. Altbach, “Twisted Roots: The Western Impact on Asian Higher Education,” Higher Education 18 (1989): 9-29; R. Arnove, “Comparative Education and World System Analysis,” Comparative Education Review 24 (1980): 48-62; Althusser 1990; Bowles and Gintis 1976; P. Schrag, “Education and Historical Materialism,” Interchange 7 (1986): 42-52; Carnoy 1984; M. Carnoy and J. Samoff, Education and Social Transition in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); J. Habermas 1987; H. Weiler, “Legalization, Expertise and Participation: Strategies of Compensatory Legitimation in Educational Policy,” Comparative Education Review 27 (1983): 259-277; A. Welsh, “Knowledge and Legitimation,” Comparative Education Review 35 (1991): 508-531; B. Avalos, Enseñando a los hijos de los pobres: Un estudio ethnográfico en América Latina (Teaching the Children of the Poor: An Ethnographic Study in Latin America) (Ottawa: International Education Research Center, 1986); D. Foley, “Rethinking School Ethnographies of Colonial Settings: A Performance Perspective of Reproduction and Resistance,” Comparative Education Review 35 (1991): 532-551; L. Weis, Working Class Without Work: High School Students in a De-industrializing Economy (London: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1990); Kelly and Nihlen 1982; Lather 1991; Stromquist 1989 and 1990; Cherryholms 1988; Rust 1991; von Recum 1990; Holmes 1988; Husén 1988; R. Paulston and S. Rippberger, “Ideological Pluralism in Nicaraguan University Reform,” Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context, M. Ginsburg, Ed. (New York: Garland, 1991) 179-200; G. Gibson and J. Ogbu, Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Emigrant and Involuntary Minorities (New York: Garland, 1991); G. Spindler and L. Spindler, Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1987); Clignet 1981; Heyman 1979; Paulston 1992.
20. See Anderson, “Methodology of Comparative Education,” 20-21; Paulston, Social and Educational Change 372-373; Epstein 5-6; and Adams 409.
21. For a discussion of maps as socially embedded discourse see B. Harley’s highly original essay, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power,” The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design, and Use of Past Environments, D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels, Eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 123-138. Some two decades ago, P. Berger argued for a fundamental recomposition of the “mode of narration” arising from the need to take into account the simultaneity and extension of events and possibilities to make sense of what we see using spatial fields of insight. See P. Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin Books, 1972).
22. For related attempts using figural space to map cognitive constructs, see for example, C. Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind (New York: Macmillan, 1982) with 60 maps that combine text and visuo-spatial imagery; and M. Lynch, “Pictures of Nothing? Visual Construals in Social Theory,” Sociological Theory 9 (1991): 1-21, where the author draws upon ethnomethodological and social constructivist studies of representation in the natural sciences. He finds that labels, geometric boundaries, vectors and symmetries (as found in Figures 3 and 4) may be used as “rhetorical mathematics” to convey an impression of rationality. While such “theory pictures” may show little beyond what a text says in its writing, they are valuable in their ability to simulate a hermeneutic passage from written ideas to an independent representational or mathematical space. Here maps can provide an independent “work space” that reflexively informs a reading and makes possible the representation of intellectual fields as theoretical landscapes. See also S. Star, “The Sociology of the Invisible,” Social Organization and Social Process, D. Maines, Ed. (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991) 265-283, for useful methodological “rules of thumb” to study invisible things: 1) The rule of continuity: phenomena are continuous, i.e., in Dewey’s words, “experience is a seamless web.” There is no such thing as dualism. Objectives, from this point of view, are created not by reacting to something, but by overleaving “stratified networks originating from radically different points,” and power is understood as “the imposition of a position in such stratified networks” (277); 2) The rule of no omniscience: nobody is exempt from having a viewpoint and everybody has several. Every viewpoint is, accordingly, part of some picture, but not the whole picture. Only in the articulation of viewpoints can we understand anything about truth. Truth is a fundamentally interactional, social phenomenon; 3) The rule of analytical hygiene: Concepts are verbs, not nouns; 4) The rule of soverneignty: Every standpoint has a cost; and 5) The rule of invisibility: Successful claims to pure invisible phenomena require the assertion of power and the subverting of “the fundamental pluralism of human interaction” (279). Star’s rules help us track and map invisible work and understand the mechanisms of power tied to the deletion of certain kinds of practical and intellectual work. They also provide a powerful rationale for mapping the work of all players and communities in a field.
23. Additional advantages of two-dimensional inscriptions, or visual displays, are given in a chapter by B. LaTour, “Drawing Things Together,” Representation in Scientific Practice, M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, Eds. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990) 19-68. LaTour notes that “paperwork”—i.e., maps—are mobile, immutable, and flat. Their scale can be modified at will without any change in their internal proportions. They are phenomena that can be dominated with the eyes and held by hands no matter when or where they come from. They can be reproduced and spread at little cost, and since maps/inscriptions are flat, mobile, reproducible, still, and of varying scales, they can be redrawn and recombined. Here LaTour claims that “most of what we impute to connections in the mind may be explained by this reshuffling of inscriptions that all have the same ‘optical consistency.’ The same is true of what we call ‘metaphor’” (45). With maps one can superimpose several visual displays with different origins and scales. Most of what we call “pattern” and “structure” are consequences of these superimpositions. And as in this study, maps can be made part of a written text. Here the map is not simply an “illustration” but combines earlier texts with optical consistency and semiotic homogeneity. In this way, “the text and the spectacle of the world end up having the same character” (46). Realms of reality that may seem far apart are only inches apart, once flattened out on the same surface. See also H. B. Harley, “Deconstructing the Map,” Cartographica 26 (1989): 1-20; and S. S. Hall, Mapping the Next Millennium: The Discovery of the New Geographies (New York: Random House, 1992).
24. See Paulston and Rippberger 193-194.
25. P. Bourdieu, In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990) 27. For a postmarxist critique and refutation of Bourdieu’s reflexive practitioner’s argument, see E. W. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (New York: Verso, 1989). See especially the section “Materiality and Illusion in Conceptualization of Space,” 120-131. Soja calls for “a new ‘cognitive mapping’ . . . a new way of seeing through the gratuitous veils of both reactionary postmodernism and late modern historicism to encourage the creation of a politicized spatial consciousness and a radical spatial practice. The most important postmodern geographies are thus still to be produced” (73).
26. I view the emergence of new ideas and new theories as a process that takes place locally in competing language communities. Differences between communities are between the facts and the metaphors each employs. The application of old beliefs to new situations may be seen as an attempt to identify similarities and differences, making the acquisition of new theory an inherently metaphorical process. Thus the task for analysis shifts to the new ways, such as conceptual mapping, in which representations of differences may be presented. See M. Arib and M. Hesse, The Construction of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) and C. Geertz, Local Knowledge (New York: Basic Books, 1983).