{"title":"Setting theory to work in history of education","authors":"R. Coloma","doi":"10.1108/HER-05-2017-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe 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.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe 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.\n\n\nFindings\nFirst, 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.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nSetting 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.\n","PeriodicalId":43049,"journal":{"name":"History of Education Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/HER-05-2017-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
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.
Findings
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.
Originality/value
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.
本文的目的是分析理论与历史的关系,或者更具体地说,理论在教育史领域的作用和应用。它将探讨以下问题:什么是理论?理论的目的是什么?历史学家,特别是教育历史学家是如何解释和运用理论的?他们如何回应公开的理论工作?作者提出这些问题,是根据教育史领域正在进行的关于理论在历史研究、分析和叙述中的作用、相关性和效用的讨论。设计/方法/方法在历史研究中明确使用理论并不完全是新的,追溯自19世纪中期以来的知识谱系,当时学术领域之间的学科界限还没有如此严格地定义、发展和规范。本文分析了地理位置分别位于北美(美国)、澳大利亚、欧洲(英国)和亚洲(印度)的三本书,从而提供了理论在教育史中应用的跨国视角。它还通过分析2011年《教育史季刊》(History of education Quarterly)的一期特刊,作为案例研究,考察了教育历史学家如何回应明确的理论工作。首先,本文将理论描述为具有不同和竞争意义和解释的多维概念和实践。其次,它考察了三本书长度的教育历史研究,这些研究采用了来自文化、女权主义、后结构主义和后殖民方法的理论框架。作者对这些手稿的分析表明,明确从事理论研究的教育历史学家以反思性、破坏性和生成模式进行研究。最后,它利用最近的学术交流作为一些教育历史学家如何回应理论告知工作的案例研究。它强调了三个视角——坚持阅读、抵抗阅读和超越阅读——来理解对作者关于福柯和后结构主义的论文的回应。作为学者、教育工作者和学生,让理论发挥作用对我们的思考、写作和教学,以及对教育史的富有成效的重新想象,都具有根本性的变革作用。