Being critical: the practical logic of Bourdieu's metanoia

Abstract

This article addresses the notion of ‘being critical’ in the application of the theoretical approach of Pierre Bourdieu to educational policy research. It stems from a concern to avoid a kind of ‘critical ghetto’, where educational research is reinterpreted in Bourdieusian terms, or metaphorised in his conceptual language, without realising the practical implications and consequences of viewing educational phenomena from such a perspective. Issues of research theory and practice are discussed, as well as the meaning of ‘being critical’. A series of case examples are offered where a Bourdieusian approach uncovered hidden generating structures in a range of educational settings: the education field of power; teacher education; language in education; and social capital policy. Rather than prioritise the political and emancipatory aspects of such critical analyses, the article, whilst acknowledging the necessity of these, draws attention to the practical, policy implications arising from the studies. The underlying argument is that ‘bad’ research, constructed without recognition of the full practical dynamic of educational phenomena, gives rise to ‘bad’ policy; in other words, partial and fragmented policy or policy with unexpected outcomes undermining its effectiveness. The article concludes that a Bourdieusian perspective consequently has direct relevance to educational leaders and managers and that ‘being critical’ has a real practical relevance. As such, this area of policy research has a central role to play within contemporary educational discourse.

Keywords:

• being critical
• Bourdieu
• educational policy
• field of power
• language in education
• social capital
• teacher education

Notes

1. In my referencing, it is my habit to offer the dates of both the English and French publications, respectively, wherever possible. This in order to aid the English-only reader with the relevant texts whilst signalling the dates of the original publications in order to encourage a ‘socio-genetic’ reading of Bourdieu's work.

2. From this point, I shall adopt my personal convention of putting Bourdieu's key concepts in italics. I do this as a mental reminder that each of these comes with a complex and sophisticated theory of practice and should not be simply taken and substantiated as analytic metaphors.

3. It is worth emphasising that there is nothing particularly wrong with the values and aspirations embedded in these latter words; or that aiming for success and achievement in education in education is a bad thing. My point is rather that policy implemented in this way is often just bad policy. It is therefore unsurprising if outcomes are somehow disappointing.

4. It is salutary to read the titles of many books emanating from teacher education in the 1970s and 1980s, many of which contain words such as ‘ideology’, ‘power’, ‘resistance’, ‘cultural transformation’, ‘social selection’ etc. In another article, I have analysed the ‘generations’ of educational researchers during the second half of the twentieth century in the same way that Bourdieu dealt with artistic generations. It is possible to track the displacement of psychology and psychometric, experimental approaches to educational research by the so-called foundational disciplines – sociology, history, philosophy and psychology – in the 1960s. A qualitative paradigm which gave us action research, case studies and classroom ethnographies was then in the ascendant for much of the rest of the twentieth century, complemented by post-structural and post-modernist approaches during that time. In Bourdieusian terms, this evolution amounted to a generational shift with the emergence of new avant-gardes – with their own doxa and interests. The critical approach to education, exemplified in such works and Knowledge and control (Young, 1971) (to which Bourdieu contributed) and the so-called ‘new’ sociology of education, was somewhat eclipsed by broader naturalistic methods. Nevertheless, it is arguable that the critical tone of the form – with its language of deschooling and cultural resistance – partly led to the whole-scale attack on educational research in the late 1990s in the UK at least. The approach of this attack was familiar: first, the underpinning of the current situation in terms of populace notions – in this case of impact and relevance; second, the imposition of a new orthodoxy; third, the establishments of systems of regulation and accountability to ensure compliance. A new vocabulary appeared: evidence-based practice; user-engagement; randomised control trials. With a national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) periodically undertaken, it is relatively easy to define what is now considered ‘legitimate’ in the same way that pedagogic reformed was actualised in schools and universities. The RAE ensures that there is a direct conversion between academic cultural capital and economic capital and its results fix funding for years ahead.