Some Sociologies of Education: A History of Problems and Places, and Segments and Gazes

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ball

This paper focuses on some of the significant ‘moments’ and ‘problems’ and ‘characters’ and places which mark out a history of the sociology of education. It further explores some of the historical conjunctions of knowledge and practice to which the sociology of education contributed in its uneasy relations with schools and teachers and education policy. Three sets of tools and sorts of analysis, drawn from the work of Bernstein, Foucault and Bourdieu, are deployed to explore some of the turmoil and conflict which has characterised the sociology of education at different points in its history focusing on three of these. They are, the 1930s/1960s (Political Arithmetic), the 1970s (the New Sociology of Education) and the 1980s ‘flight to policy studies’ and particularly one aspect of this which produced the notion of ‘school effectiveness’. The paper suggests some of the ways in which the sociology of education has played its part in the government and the detailed management of the population, through the changing construction of an unrelenting gaze (focused initially on families) and the concomitant development of a body of expert professional knowledge (teacher education) and, latterly, the management of the institutions of management (schools) and of the professionals themselves (teachers).

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 544-560
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Lin

Purpose: Through combing the 40 years’ history of the development of Chinese educational policy research, this article attempts to sort out the efforts and lessons learned by researchers in the field of education policy in China. Design/Approach/Methods: As one of the earliest scholars engaged in the study of Chinese education policy, based on the academic publications, symposia, and thematic research, the author has found efforts in four directions in the field: proposals for policy-oriented research and research-oriented policy, disciplinization-based endeavors, empirical research on theory-guided educational policy, and guidance on major educational policy research topics and a think tank for educational policy decisions. Findings: This article argues that there is now a correspondence among the ideas, themes, forms, and frameworks of the educational reform promulgated by the government in recent years that have appeared in educational policy research, but there is no clear demarcation of what makes an educational policy researcher; no stable academic community has been formed that might strive together toward the foundation of a disciplinary paradigm, the rational organization of academic ideas, and the establishment and handing over of a theoretical framework to a succeeding generation. Originality/Value: This article takes a step back to claim that a paradigm for Chinese educational policy research is still nascent in the arduous process of formulation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-185
Author(s):  
Craig Campbell ◽  
Lyndsay Connors

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to illuminate the history of national education policy through an interview with one of its significant makers and critics, Lyndsay Connors, a former Australian Schools Commissioner. Design/methodology/approach The paper occurs as an interview. The text is based on a revised conversation held as an event of the Australian and New Zealand History of Education Conference held at the University of Canberra, on 26 September 2017. Findings Australian educational policy is peculiarly complex, and apparently “irrational”. This appears especially so in relation to the government, tax-raised, funding of government and non-government schools. A combination of the peculiarities of Australian federalism in relation to education, political expediency, popular exhaustion with the “state aid” debate, the power of entrenched interest groups and the distancing of democratic decision making from the decision-making process in relation to education all play a part. Originality/value The originality of this contribution to a research journal lies in its combination of autobiography with historical policy analysis.


Author(s):  
Arunabh Ghosh

In 1949, at the end of a long period of wars, one of the biggest challenges facing leaders of the new People's Republic of China was how much they did not know. The government of one of the world's largest nations was committed to fundamentally reengineering its society and economy via socialist planning while having almost no reliable statistical data about their own country. This book is the history of efforts to resolve this “crisis in counting.” The book explores the choices made by political leaders, statisticians, academics, statistical workers, and even literary figures in attempts to know the nation through numbers. It shows that early reliance on Soviet-inspired methods of exhaustive enumeration became increasingly untenable in China by the mid-1950s. Unprecedented and unexpected exchanges with Indian statisticians followed, as the Chinese sought to learn about the then-exciting new technology of random sampling. These developments were overtaken by the tumult of the Great Leap Forward (1958–1961), when probabilistic and exhaustive methods were rejected and statistics was refashioned into an ethnographic enterprise. By acknowledging Soviet and Indian influences, the book not only revises existing models of Cold War science but also globalizes wider developments in the history of statistics and data. Anchored in debates about statistics and its relationship to state building, the book offers fresh perspectives on China's transition to socialism.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Ilyoskhon Burhanov ◽  

The article begins with writing about the scientists who conducted a study on the history of the Kokand Khanate. The article writes the taxation of the Kokand Khan and raising taxes, people protest against the government of Kokand, as a result it had a significant impact on political life


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document