Professionalism vs. Ideologization in the Hungarian Candidate Dissertations in Educational Science in the 1970s

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Attila Czabaji Horváth, Zsófia Albrecht, Andrea Daru, D. Szente
{"title":"Professionalism vs. Ideologization in the Hungarian Candidate Dissertations in Educational Science in the 1970s","authors":"Attila Czabaji Horváth, Zsófia Albrecht, Andrea Daru, D. Szente","doi":"10.15240/tul/006/2023-1-010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After World War II, the Soviet model was introduced in the countries of the Eastern Bloc, including Hungary, not only in the political, economic, and social spheres, but also in the field of science, and within it, in the system of qualification. The system introduced – which remained in place until 1993 – was aimed at creating a new intellectual class, so candidates had to meet political as well as professional requirements. In a pilot study on the process of knowledge construction in the next generation of scientists, we analyzed reviewers’ opinions on doctoral dissertations in the 1970s. The theoretical framework was provided by Stichweh and Becker’s notion of discipline and Bourdieu’s field theory on the functioning of scientific disciplines. Qualitative content analysis was used to process 20 reviews. Although the candidates had to meet both professional and political criteria, the referees put more emphasis on professionalism. The analyzed reviewers’ opinions of the show, that those within the scientific field already had more flexibility than those wishing to enter it, but that this meant only relative research freedom.","PeriodicalId":34354,"journal":{"name":"Historia Scholastica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historia Scholastica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/006/2023-1-010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

After World War II, the Soviet model was introduced in the countries of the Eastern Bloc, including Hungary, not only in the political, economic, and social spheres, but also in the field of science, and within it, in the system of qualification. The system introduced – which remained in place until 1993 – was aimed at creating a new intellectual class, so candidates had to meet political as well as professional requirements. In a pilot study on the process of knowledge construction in the next generation of scientists, we analyzed reviewers’ opinions on doctoral dissertations in the 1970s. The theoretical framework was provided by Stichweh and Becker’s notion of discipline and Bourdieu’s field theory on the functioning of scientific disciplines. Qualitative content analysis was used to process 20 reviews. Although the candidates had to meet both professional and political criteria, the referees put more emphasis on professionalism. The analyzed reviewers’ opinions of the show, that those within the scientific field already had more flexibility than those wishing to enter it, but that this meant only relative research freedom.
20世纪70年代匈牙利教育科学候选人学位论文中的专业主义与意识形态化
第二次世界大战后,苏联模式被引入包括匈牙利在内的东方集团国家,不仅在政治、经济和社会领域,而且在科学领域,以及在科学领域内,在资格体系中。引入的制度一直持续到1993年,旨在创建一个新的知识阶层,因此候选人必须满足政治和专业要求。在一项关于下一代科学家知识建构过程的试点研究中,我们分析了20世纪70年代审稿人对博士学位论文的看法。Stichweh和Becker的学科概念以及Bourdieu关于科学学科功能的场论提供了理论框架。定性内容分析用于处理20篇评论。尽管候选人必须同时满足职业和政治标准,但裁判更强调职业精神。分析了评审员对该节目的看法,认为科学领域的人已经比希望进入该领域的人有了更大的灵活性,但这意味着只有相对的研究自由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信