Search results1 – 4 of 4
My framework is based upon a grounded analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of a review of the existing social science and education literature regarding globalization and…
My framework is based upon a grounded analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of a review of the existing social science and education literature regarding globalization and peace from approximately 1960 to the present. My review consisted of identifying emergent themes in the literature and from these identifying conceptual categories and the relationships among them that could explain some of the ways in which globalization, peace, and educational processes are linked. I approached the literature as a “cache of documents” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), that is, as bodies of literature reflecting certain sensibilities regarding globalization and peace. My framework is based upon an analysis of how these sensibilities have influenced the reproduction of inequalities through the education sector as a socialization and policy context.
The purpose and significance of Power, Voice, and the Public Good: Schooling and Education in Global Societies aim to highlight the defining nature and impact of…
The purpose and significance of Power, Voice, and the Public Good: Schooling and Education in Global Societies aim to highlight the defining nature and impact of globalization in contemporary educational policy and praxis with particular attention to changing relations in local, state, national, and international contexts, from pre-school to postsecondary education. While globalization impacts major issues such as poverty, social justice, terrorism, citizenship, immigration, language, and human rights, the nature and appropriation of education and schooling remain at the center of these issues (Suárez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard, 2004). That is, educational systems, policies, practices, and praxis in Mexico, Thailand, India, Korea, the United States, the West Indies, and other nation states addressed in this edited volume require responding to and engaging with the new challenges, conflicts, opportunities, and costs of globalization.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between theory and history, or more specifically the role and use of theory in the field of history of education…
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between theory and history, or more specifically the role and use of theory in the field of history of education. It will explore the following questions: What is theory, and what is it for? How do historians and, in particular, historians of education construe and use theory? And how do they respond to openly theoretical work? The author poses these questions in light of ongoing discussions in the field of history of education regarding the role, relevance, and utility of theory in historical research, analysis, and narratives.
The explicit use of theory in historical research is not altogether new, tracing an intellectual genealogy since the mid-1800s when disciplinary boundaries among academic fields were not so rigidly defined, developed and regulated. The paper analyzes three books that are geographically located in North America (USA), Australia, Europe (Great Britain) and Asia (India), thereby offering a transnational view of the use of theory in history of education. It also examines how historians of education respond to explicitly theoretical work by analyzing, as a case study, a 2011 special issue in History of Education Quarterly.
First, the paper delineates theory as a multidimensional concept and practice with varying and competing meanings and interpretations. Second, it examines three book-length historical studies of education that employ theoretical frameworks drawing from cultural, feminist poststructuralist and postcolonial approaches. The author’s analysis of these manuscripts reveals that historians of education who explicitly engage with theory pursue their research in reflexive, disruptive and generative modes. Lastly, it utilizes a recent scholarly exchange as a case study of how some historians of education respond to theoretically informed work. It highlights three lenses – reading with insistence, for resistance, and beyond – to understand the responses to the author’s paper on Foucault and poststructuralism.
Setting theory to work has a fundamentally transformative role to play in our thinking, writing and teaching as scholars, educators and students and in the productive re-imagining of history of education.