机构如何通过“潜力”框架塑造高等教育机会

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J. Rainford
{"title":"机构如何通过“潜力”框架塑造高等教育机会","authors":"J. Rainford","doi":"10.1177/17577438211040021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Access to higher education is a global concern due to its dual role in transforming individual lives and value for global economic systems. However, pre-entry interventions to improve access often make comparatively little impact on who attends certain types of universities. Drawing upon a study that examined policy and practice relating to access to higher education conducted in 2016–2017 in England, this article furthers a theoretical discussion relating to the role institutional norms play in maintaining this status quo and why inequities endure especially in elite universities. In doing so, it highlights how institutional doxa can illuminate how taken-for-granted ideals shape policy and practice. This article theorises that institutional doxa shapes notions of who is seen as having ‘potential’, examines why doxic positions in relation to ‘potential’ endure and are rarely impacted by practices. This theorisation offers an important contribution to research on access to higher education as by foregrounding the central role played by these assumptions within marketised higher education systems this enables them to be challenged and deconstructed in order to effect meaningful progress on issues of access to higher education.","PeriodicalId":37109,"journal":{"name":"Power and Education","volume":"13 1","pages":"171 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How institutional doxa shapes access to higher education through framings of ‘potential’\",\"authors\":\"J. Rainford\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17577438211040021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Access to higher education is a global concern due to its dual role in transforming individual lives and value for global economic systems. However, pre-entry interventions to improve access often make comparatively little impact on who attends certain types of universities. Drawing upon a study that examined policy and practice relating to access to higher education conducted in 2016–2017 in England, this article furthers a theoretical discussion relating to the role institutional norms play in maintaining this status quo and why inequities endure especially in elite universities. In doing so, it highlights how institutional doxa can illuminate how taken-for-granted ideals shape policy and practice. This article theorises that institutional doxa shapes notions of who is seen as having ‘potential’, examines why doxic positions in relation to ‘potential’ endure and are rarely impacted by practices. This theorisation offers an important contribution to research on access to higher education as by foregrounding the central role played by these assumptions within marketised higher education systems this enables them to be challenged and deconstructed in order to effect meaningful progress on issues of access to higher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Power and Education\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"171 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Power and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438211040021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Power and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438211040021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

由于高等教育在改变个人生活和全球经济体系价值方面的双重作用,它成为全球关注的问题。然而,提高入学率的入学前干预措施通常对谁上某些类型的大学影响相对较小。根据2016年至2017年在英国进行的一项研究,该研究考察了与接受高等教育相关的政策和实践,本文进一步对制度规范在维持这一现状中所起的作用以及为什么不平等现象尤其在精英大学中存在进行了理论讨论。在这样做的过程中,它强调了制度doxa如何阐明被视为理所当然的理想如何塑造政策和实践。这篇文章认为,制度多沙塑造了谁被视为具有“潜力”的概念,并探讨了为什么与“潜力”相关的多沙立场经久不衰,很少受到实践的影响。这一理论为高等教育机会的研究做出了重要贡献,因为它突出了这些假设在市场化高等教育系统中所发挥的核心作用,使它们能够受到挑战和解构,从而在高等教育机会问题上取得有意义的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How institutional doxa shapes access to higher education through framings of ‘potential’
Access to higher education is a global concern due to its dual role in transforming individual lives and value for global economic systems. However, pre-entry interventions to improve access often make comparatively little impact on who attends certain types of universities. Drawing upon a study that examined policy and practice relating to access to higher education conducted in 2016–2017 in England, this article furthers a theoretical discussion relating to the role institutional norms play in maintaining this status quo and why inequities endure especially in elite universities. In doing so, it highlights how institutional doxa can illuminate how taken-for-granted ideals shape policy and practice. This article theorises that institutional doxa shapes notions of who is seen as having ‘potential’, examines why doxic positions in relation to ‘potential’ endure and are rarely impacted by practices. This theorisation offers an important contribution to research on access to higher education as by foregrounding the central role played by these assumptions within marketised higher education systems this enables them to be challenged and deconstructed in order to effect meaningful progress on issues of access to higher education.
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
Power and Education
Power and Education Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
44
×
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