Birgit Schaffar
{"title":"Svårigheter i att definiera begreppet kompetens","authors":"Birgit Schaffar","doi":"10.3384/njvet.2242-458x.1991111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses theoretically and philosophically difficulties in defining the notion of competence. ‘Competence’ is a key-concept in today’s educational discussion, where it combines both a psychological meaning of an inner disposition, and a sociological meaning as a category that organises tasks and power-relations in public and private institutions. A short historical overview shows that ‘competence’ has a complex etymology that explains these different layers of possible usages and the different ontological and epistemological assumptions that arise from them. Still, the article argues that an ambiguous notion is not a notion with an indistinct meaning. In concrete situations, ‘competence’ just has different meanings. Inspired by Wittgenstein, the article takes a philosophical view on science and methodology and argues that the strive to define ‘competence’ unequivocally can be understood in different ways. Notions have to be defined unambiguously to make empirical measurements possible. But definitions are running the risk to ignore important meaningful usages for the sake of what is empirically possible to measure and what kind of political interests there are in measuring certain aspects of a complex notions. Finally, it is argued that an ambiguous notion implies risks of undermining critical voices in the discussion about global educational policy.","PeriodicalId":410150,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458x.1991111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文从理论上和哲学上讨论了界定能力概念的困难。“能力”是当今教育讨论中的一个关键概念,它结合了内在性格的心理学意义和社会学意义,作为在公共和私人机构中组织任务和权力关系的范畴。一个简短的历史概述表明,“competence”有一个复杂的词源,可以解释这些不同层次的可能用法,以及由此产生的不同的本体论和认识论假设。然而,本文认为,一个模棱两可的概念并不是一个具有模糊含义的概念。在具体情况下,“能力”只是有不同的含义。受维特根斯坦(Wittgenstein)的启发,本文从科学和方法论的哲学角度出发,认为明确定义“能力”的努力可以有不同的理解方式。概念必须明确地定义,才能使经验测量成为可能。但是,为了衡量经验上的可能性,为了衡量复杂概念的某些方面存在什么样的政治利益,定义冒着忽视重要的有意义的用法的风险。最后,本文认为,一个模棱两可的概念意味着在关于全球教育政策的讨论中削弱批评声音的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Svårigheter i att definiera begreppet kompetens
This article discusses theoretically and philosophically difficulties in defining the notion of competence. ‘Competence’ is a key-concept in today’s educational discussion, where it combines both a psychological meaning of an inner disposition, and a sociological meaning as a category that organises tasks and power-relations in public and private institutions. A short historical overview shows that ‘competence’ has a complex etymology that explains these different layers of possible usages and the different ontological and epistemological assumptions that arise from them. Still, the article argues that an ambiguous notion is not a notion with an indistinct meaning. In concrete situations, ‘competence’ just has different meanings. Inspired by Wittgenstein, the article takes a philosophical view on science and methodology and argues that the strive to define ‘competence’ unequivocally can be understood in different ways. Notions have to be defined unambiguously to make empirical measurements possible. But definitions are running the risk to ignore important meaningful usages for the sake of what is empirically possible to measure and what kind of political interests there are in measuring certain aspects of a complex notions. Finally, it is argued that an ambiguous notion implies risks of undermining critical voices in the discussion about global educational policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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