Introduction educational sciences in dynamic and hybrid institutionalization

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

The diversity of names and the choice of the plural are in themselves significant and show the hybridity of the field we examine in this introduction.

This issue has its origin in three symposia held in Lisbon in September 2002 within the framework of Network 17 History of education of the conference organized by the European Educational Research Association (EERA).

The present introduction is elaborated in the context of the work of ERHISE (Equipe of research in history of sciences of education), financed by the Swiss national science foundation (N° 1114‐057097‐99 and 12‐653000‐01). The authors would like to thank their collaborators Marco Cicchini and Valérie Lussi, as well as Frank Simon and a second, anonymous reviewer at Paedagogica Historica, for their critical reading of a prior version of this text.

We use this term with Bourdieu's theory of fields in mind, supposing, with Bernard Lahire, “Champ, hors‐champ, contrechamp”, in: Bernard Lahire (Ed.), Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu. Dettes et critiques (Paris, 2001), p. 24, a relatively autonomous microcosm in a macrocosm (the social space) with rules for games and specific stakes that form a structured system of positions, crossed by struggles for the field's capital, which is unequally distributed; although competing, each actor is interested in preserving the field as a whole; for each field there is a habitus that allows participation in the field. As concerns the scientific field, Pierre Bourdieu, Science de la science et reflexivité (Paris, 2001), pp. 128–129, defines disciplines themselves as fields: “The discipline is a relatively stable and delimited field … defined by the possession of a collective capital of specialized methods and concepts whose mastering constitutes the tacit and implicit right to enter the field. It produces a ‘historical transcendental’, the disciplinary habitus as a system of perception and appreciation (the incorporated discipline functioning like a censorship).”

See the double volume of Paedagogica Historica, Peter Drewek & Christopher Lüth (Eds.), History of educational studies (Gent, 1998), which includes articles by most of the authors who contributed to this renewal. See also other edited volumes with an international European perspective, e.g. Klaus‐Peter Horn, András Németh, Bela Pukánszky & Heinz‐Elmar Tenorth, Erziehungswissenschaft in Mitteleuropa. Aufklärerische Traditionen – deutscher Einfluß – nationale Eigenständigkeit (Budapest, 2001); Rita Hofstetter & Bernard Schneuwly (Eds.), Science(s) de l'éducation (19e–20e siècles). Entre champs professionnels et champs disciplinaires. Erziehungswissenschft(en) 19.–20. Jahrhundert. Zwischen Profession und Disziplin (Bern, 2002). Ellen Lagemann, An Exclusive Science. The Troubling History of Education Research (Chicago, 2000) describes the development in the USA. As far as we know, there is no systematic review of the literature on the history of educational sciences at an international level. For reasons of space we cannot provide such a review here, but hope to do so in a future publication.

In this issue, we limited ourselves to Europe, but also take into account a larger network of influences.

On this question, see Pierre Rosanvallon, Le sacre du citoyen (Paris, 1992); Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality (Cambridge, 1995); Etienne Balibar, “La forme nation”, in: Etienne Balibar & Immanuel Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Classe. Les identités ambiguës (Paris, 1988), pp. 117–143.

For example, André Petitat, Production de l’école – production de la société. Analyse socio‐historique de quelques moments décisifs de l’évolution scolaire en Occident (Genève, 1982); Marie‐Madeleine Compère, L’histoire de l'éducation en Europe (Berne, 1995); António Nóvoa, Histoire & Comparaison (Lisbonne, 1998); Andy Green, Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France, and the USA (New York, 1990); Margaret S. Archer, Social Origins of the Educational System (London, 1979); Bronislaw Baczko, Une éducation pour la démocratie (Paris, 1982); Catherine Kintzler, La république en questions (Paris, 1984); Rita Hofstetter, Les lumières de la démocratie. Histoire de l’école primaire publique à Genève au XIXe siècle (Berne, 1998).

Roger Smith, The Human Sciences (New York, 1997); Theodore Porter & Dorothy Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 7: The Modern Social Sciences (New York, 2003). Claude Blanckaert, Loïc Blondiaux, Laurent Loty, Marc Renneville & Nathalie Richard (Eds.), L’histoire des sciences de l’homme. Trajectoire, enjeux et questions vives (Paris, 1999); Dominique Ottavi, De Darwin à Piaget. Pour une histoire de la psychologie de l’enfant (Paris, 2001); Walter Lepenies, Die drei Kulturen: Soziologie zwischen Literatur und Wissenschaft (Hamburg, 1988); Philippe Gottraux, Pierre‐André Schorderet & Bernard Voutat, La science politique suisse à l’épreuve de son histoire. Genèse, émergence et institutionnalisation d’une discipline scientifique (Lausanne, 2000); Peter Wagner, Björn Wittrock & Richard Whitley (Eds.), Discourses on Society. The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines (Dordrecht, 1991); Diana Le Dinh (Ed.), L’avènement des sciences sociales comme disciplines académiques, XIXe–XXe siècles (Les Annuelles N° 8, Lausanne, 1997).

See specifically Diana Le Dinh, “Sciences sociales et logiques de gestion”, in: Diana Le Dinh (Ed.), L’avènement des sciences sociales comme disciplines académiques, XIXe–XXe siècles (Les Annuelles N° 8, Lausanne, 1997), pp. 73–88; Peter Wagner & Björn Wittrock, “States, institutions and discourses: a comparative perspective on the structuration of the social sciences”, in: Wagner et al., Discourses on Society, pp. 331–358.

Le Dinh, “Sciences sociales et logiques de gestion”, p. 8.

Ibid., p.11.

Claude Blanckaert, “L’histoire générale des sciences de l’homme. Principes et périodisation”, in: Blanckaert et al., L’histoire des sciences de l’homme, p. 46.

Concerning pedagogical knowledge, this internationalization movement is shown by Jürgen Schriewer, Jürgen Henze, Jürgen Wichmann, Peter Knost, Jörn Tauber & Susanne Baruche in “Konstruktion von Internationalität: Referenzhorizonte pädagogischen Wissens im Wandel gesellschaftlicher Systeme (Spanien, Sowjetunion/Russland, China)”, in: Hartmut Kaelble und Jürgen Schriewer (Eds.), Gesellschaften im Vergleich (Bern 1999), pp. 151–258; Peter Drewek, “Die bilaterale Rezeption von Bildung und Erziehung am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunders in deutsch‐amerikanischen Vergleich”, in: Marcelo Caruso & Heinz‐Elmar Tenorth, Internationalisierung – Internationalisation. Semantik und Bildunssystem in vergleichender Perspektive (Bern, 2002), pp. 185–211; António Nóvoa, Luís Miguel Carvalho, António Carlos Orreia, Ana Isabel Madeira & Jorge Ramos do Ó, “Flows of educational knowledge. The space–time of Portuguese‐speaking countries”, in: Caruso & Tenorth, Internationalisierung, pp. 211–249.

See Aldrich, Benetka, Carvalho and Fernandes, Hofstetter and Schneuwly in this issue.

The position of secondary teachers differs in this respect as they base their status on the notion of expertise and a definition of their profession based on non‐professional criteria; see Peter Drewek, “Defensive Dsiziplinbildung: die Akademisierung der deutschen Pädagogik am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts im Kontexte der Dynamik des deutschen Bildungssystems”, in: Hofstetter & Schneuwly, Sciences de l'éducation, pp. 113–140; Lucien Criblez, Lehrerbildungsreform, Bildungspolitik und Erziehungswissenschaft. Entwicklungen in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz (Zürich, 2002); Rita Hofstetter, Bernard Schneuwly, Valérie Lussi & Marco Cicchini “Formation des enseignants secondaires: logiques disciplinaires ou professionnelles? Le cas de Genève (fin de 19e – première moitié du 20e siècle)”, Revue suisse d’histoire, 54 (2004), pp. 275–305.

Although not the main theme of their articles, this fact is demonstrated by Klaus Ingenkamp, “Das Institut des Leipziger Lehrervereins 1906–1933 und seine Bedeutung für die Empirische Pädagogik”, Empirische Pädagogik, 1 (1987), pp. 60–70; John Nisbet, “Early textbooks in educational research: the birth of a discipline” European Educational Research Journal, I/1, pp. 37–44 [available at: http://www.triangle.co.uk/eerj]; Gerhard Benetka, Psychologie in Wien. Sozial‐ und Theoriegeschichte des Wiener psychologischen Instituts 1922–1938 (Wien, 1995).

Marc Depaepe, Zum Wohl des Kindes? Pädologie, pädagogische Psychologie und experimentelle Pädagogik in Europa und den USA, 1890–1940 (Weinheim, 1993); Monika Schubeius, Und das psychologische Laboratorium muss der Ausgangspunkt pädagogischer Arbeit werden! Zur Institutionalisierungsgeschichte der Psychologie von 1890–1933 (Bern, 1990); Peter Dudek, Jugend als Objekt der Wissenschaften. Geschichte der Jugendforschung in Deutschland und Oesterreich (Opladen, 1989); Anne‐Marie Stross, Pädagogik und Medizin. Ihre Beziehungen in “Gesundheitserziehung” und wissenschaftlicher Pädagogik (1779–1933) (Weinheim, 2000).

Jürgen Oelkers, Reformpädagogik. Eine kritische Dogmengeschichte (Weinheim, 1992); Daniel Hameline, Jürgen Helmchen & Jürgen Oelkers (Eds.), L’éducation nouvelle et les enjeux de son histoire: actes du Colloque International des Archives Institut J.‐J. Rousseau (Berne, 1995); Hermann Röhrs & Volker Lehnhart, Die Reformpädagogik auf den Kontinenten: ein Handbuch (Bern, 1994); David Labaree, “Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: a genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching”, Harvard Educational Review, 62 (1992), pp. 123–154; António Nóvoa, Le temps des professeurs: analyse socio‐historique de la profession enseignante au Portugal (XVIIIe–XXe siècle) (Lisbonne, 1987).

Jürgen Schriewer & Heinz‐Elmar Tenorth, “Preface”, in: Drewek & Lüth, History of Educational Studies, p. XIV.

Lahire, “Champ, hors‐champ, contrechamp”, pp. 48ss.

See the interesting ethnological descriptions in Tobias Becher, Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines (Buckingham, 1989).

See among others Rolf Stichweh, Wissenschaft, Universität, Profession: soziologische Analysen (Frankfurt am Main, 1994); Jürgen Schriewer, “Etudes pluridisciplinaires et réflexions philosophico‐herméneutiques: la structuration du discours pédagogique en France et en Allemagne”, in: Drewek & Lüth, History of Educational Studies, pp. 57–84; but also the systematic review of literature by Michel Dubois, Introduction à la sociologie des sciences (Paris,1999) and La nouvelle sociologie des sciences (Paris, 2001).

They simultaneously play a decisive role in making visible the communication networks and are important source material for historians; see in particular Edwin Keiner, Erziehungswissenschaft 1947–1990. Eine empirische und vergleichende Untersuchung zur kommunikativen Praxis einer Disiziplin (Weinheim, 1999); Edwin Keiner & Jürgen Schriewer, “Erneuerung aus dem Geist der eigenen Tradition? Über Kontinuität und Wandel nationaler Denkstile in der Erziehungswissenschaft”, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 22 (2000), pp. 27–51; Peter Drewek, “Frequenzen und Formen internationaler Rezeption in pädagogischen Zeitschriften im deutsch‐amerikanischen Vergleich 1871–1933. Teilergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung”, in: Christophe Charle, Jürgen Schriewer & Peter Wagner (Eds.), Transnational Intellectual Networks and the Cultural Logics of Nations (Providence, RI/Oxford, forthcoming); for congresses and institutes, see the contributions to this issue.

Pierre Favre, Naissances de la science politique en France, 1870–1914 (Paris, 1989), p. 9.

This means notably the belief that these other disciplinary fields would not also be confronted with a certain hybridity, particularly during their period of emergence. Without doubt, the nature and form of this hybridity vary between disciplines and are a function of their heteronomy. To this one must add that this hybridity is not only characteristic of the discipline's period of emergence, but can also accompany its development and facilitate knowledge renewal. Many studies on the history and sociology of the sciences show that even the disciplines considered the most autonomous show certain forms of pluridiscipinarity; see Joseph Ben‐David & Randall Collins, “Social factors in the origins of a new science: the case of psychology”, American Sociological Review, 31 (1966), pp. 451–465), who try to understand the dynamic of cognitive innovations in science and demonstrate that the frontier zones (between roles, institutions, disciplines, etc.) are particularly favorable to knowledge renewal.

Let us mention, in particular, those who influenced the writing of this introduction and who have also influenced other authors in this issue: Dubois, La nouvelle sociologie des sciences; Yves Gingras, “Les formes spécifiques de l’internationalité du champ scientifique”, Les Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, pp. 141–142, pp. 31–45; Anne Rasmussen, “Jalons pour une histoire des congrès internationaux au XIXe siècle: Régulation scientifique et propagande intellectuelle”, Relations internationales, 62 (1990), pp. 115–133.

Authors listed without year of publication refer to contributions in this issue.

Anne Rasmussen, “Les Congrès internationaux liés aux Expositions universelles (1867–1900)”, Mil neuf cent, 7 (1989), pp. 23–44.

Claude Tapia, Colloques et Sociétés. La régulation sociale (Lille, 1981).

Gingras, “Les formes spécifiques”.

Rasmussen, “Les Congrès internationaux”, p. 23.

Ibid.

Before this date Fuchs indicates numerous, isolated events on diverse educational themes (education of deaf‐mutes, pedology, family hygiene and health) organized outside clearly established frameworks.

“During the period between the wars, on the European level, the New education has been able to overcome as much the national antagonisms as the ideological and religious differences, as testifies the international fellowship and its congresses held between 1921 and 1938. … After the Second World War, this way of being together cannot be reconstructed any more. On the international level, the Fellowship and its congresses are finished. The ‘reunion’ of August 1946 in Paris where a European congress is organized by the GFEN groups together a thousand persons on such an eminently current theme as ‘The reform of teaching and its relationship to New education’ appears to be a failure. [Note: The following international congress to be held in Brussels in 1948 is postponed sine die.]” Antoine Savoye, “L’Education nouvelle en France, de son irrésistible ascension à son impossible pérennisation”, in: Dominique Ottavi, Annick Ohayion & Antoine Savoye (Eds.), L’Education nouvelle, histoire, présence et devenir (Berne, 2004), p. 254.

The series of congresses entitled Congressos pedagógicos was too short lived to be institutionalized.

See, for example, the psychoanalytic and pedagogic work of Pastor Oskar Pfister (1870–1956) of Zürich and that of his colleague Hans Zulliger (1893–1965) from Berne.

Let us mention the early attempt of Piaget – quite unusual at this time – to transform this type of questioning into a research program. See Jean Piaget, Le jugement moral chez l’enfant (Neuchâtel, 1932).

With the obvious exception of the congresses in the Commonwealth organized along British lines.

Horn et al., Erziehungswissenschaft in Mitteleuropa.

A curious pattern is noteworthy: the IMEC annual conference is routinely held in academic cities of political importance (London, The Hague, Geneva, Rome, Paris, Krakow) whereas NEFC conferences are held in holiday locations or places where nature is still intact (Calais, Montreux, Locarno, Heidelberg, Elsinore, Nice, Cheltenham, Ann Arbor). Can these choices be interpreted as the result of a more academic and political orientation within the former and of a preference by the latter (following their ideology) for a saner life in an intact environment?

See Pierre Bovet's somewhat bitter comment in his text Vingt ans de vie. L’Institut J.‐J. Rousseau de 1912 à 1932 (Neuchâtel, 1932).

David Tyack & Larry Cuban, Tinkering toward Utopia. A Century of Public School Reform (Cambridge, 1995).

Depaepe, Zum Wohl des Kindes, pp. 49–123.

In addition to Depaepe, see also the interesting studies on these institutes in Karlheinz Ingenkamp, Geschichte der Pädagogischen Diagnostik (Weinheim, 1990), vol. 1, ch. 8; Id., “Das Institut des Leipziger Lehrervereins”; Heinz‐Elmar Tenorth, “Das Zentralinstitut für Erziehung und Unterricht. Ausseruniversitäre Erziehungswissenschaft zwischen Politik, Pädagogik und Forschung”, in: Gert Geissler & Ulrich Wiegmann (Eds.), Aussseruniversitäre Erziehungswissenschaft in Deutschland. Versuch einer historischen Bestandesaufnahme (Frankfurt a.M., 1996), pp. 113–136; Dudek, Jugend als Objekt der Wissenschaften, and Paul Probst, Die Ursprünge des psychologischen Instituts in Hamburg. Betrachtungen der Jahre 1911–1916 (Hamburg, 1988).

Arthur Gille, André Dehan & Georges Meuris, 1928–1978: le cinquantenaire du laboratoire de pédagogie expérimentale de l’Université de Louvain (Louvain‐la‐Neuve, 1979); Joseph Nuttin, L’Institut de psychologie et de pédagogie de l’Université de Louvain, avec un aperçu historique sur l’Ecole de pédagogie 1923–1944 (Leuven, 1954).

F.K. Kaufmann, Pedologische Instituten in Nederland (Groningen, 1982).

Felix Fradkin, “Such were the Times”, in: Felix Fradkin (Ed.), A Search in Pedagogics. School, Pedagogics, Pedology (Moscow, 1990), pp. 7–18.

H.B. Chapman, Organized Research in Education (Columbus,1927), p. 2; citation in Depaepe, Zum Wohl des Kindes, p. 57; for more information, cf. Robert Travers, How Research has changed American Schools. A History from 1840 to the Present (Michigan, 1983) and Langeman, An Elusive Science.

Annual report of the Institute of Education of London 1933–1934, referred to in Aldrich, note 44.

See Valérie Lussi, Christian Muller & Valérie Kiciman, “Pédagogie et psychologie: les frontières mouvantes du développement des sciences de l'éducation à Genève (1912–1948)”, in: Hofstetter & Schneuwly, Science(s) de l'éducation, pp. 383–421.

Richard Aldrich, The Institute of Education. 1902–2002. A Centenary History (London, 2002), pp. 125s; see also Jeffrey Griffiths, The First Fifty Years. 1946–1996 (London, 2003).

This is another case in which teacher unions provided substantial financial support, here in 1942 in order to develop this bureau and the NFER.

One notes, however – as the analysis of the Genevan publications shows – that as regards journals, linguistic and cultural frontiers are still relatively impermeable; on the other hand, there are many book translations.

If this hybridity is the most evident sign of the emergence of a field and catalyzes innovation, what does it mean when it becomes a long‐lasting component of a field? To what degree do the conditions of field emergence influence its future? How do the first actors perceive all of this and how do these forces first manifest themselves – in congresses and institutes, for instance – and condition its future?

António Nóvoa, “La raison et la responsabilité: une science du ‘gouvernement des âmes’ (1880–1920)”, in: Hofstetter & Schneuwly, Science(s) de l'éducation, pp. 243–263.