Department of Education Research Prof. Dr. Solvejg Jobst

1. Hierarchy of cultures and educational research Conference Educational Change in the Global Context Social Justice and Choice in Education Praha 30.08. - 03.08. 2010 University of Zürich Department of Sociology Prof. Dr. Jan Skrobanek Department of Education Research Prof. Dr. Solvejg Jobst

2. Content Hierarchy of cultures and educational research 1. Theoreticalassumptions: • The Production of Scientific Knowledge 2. Empirical Studie: • Immigration and Inequality – Field-Specific Constructions 3. Conclusion: • Contextualisation of the Types of Discourse and Concluding Observations

3. 1. Theoreticalassumptions: The Production of Scientific Knowledge Pierre Bourdieu/Loïc Waquant (Reflexive Anthropology):  structural relation between researcher and object of research internal struggles in the scientific field Karl Mannheim (1928): Jedes Denken ist „eingebettet und getragen von Macht und Geltungstrieb bestimmter Gruppen, die ihre Weltanschauung zur öffentlichen Weltauslegung machen wollen“.

4. Structural Imbalance between Researcher and Object of Research economic capital + researcher (institutionally secured) symbolic capital = cultural, economic or social capital with general recognition (e.g. Euro, university qualification, the elaborate use of the “Standard” language) cultural symbolic capital - cultural symbolic capital + immigrants who suffer inequality economic capital -

5. Structural Imbalance between Researcher and Object of Research assumptions: The production of scientific knowledge ... .... is embedded in a objective imbalanced relation between the researcher and the research object .... is taking part in constructing a hierarchy of cultures – ascribing the characteristics “symbolic” or “non-symbolic” capital .

6. Internal struggles in the scientific field ....not a homogeneous process but conflicts of power exist internal to the field: Who is authorised to speak the truth about the social world? assumption: .... the power relations and power conflicts within the field lead to different approaches of ascribing the characteristics “symbolic” and “non-symbolic”.

7. Main Questions of the Empirical Study based on Bourdieu/Wacquant : • How does the research on immigration and inequality deal with the relation between “symbolic” and “non-symbolic” cultural capital ? • (reproduction of the hierarchy of cultures) • types of discourse • dimensions of the construction

8. 2. Empirical Studie: Immigration and Inequality – Field-Specific Constructions Method • Data: 4 A+/A ranked journals in Germany (Vienna University of Economics and Business) Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (KZfSS)/ Zeitschrift für Soziologie (ZfS)/Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft (ZfE)/Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (ZfP) •  Time span: 2000 – 2007 •  Search frame: headlines: “migration or immigrants”; “ethicisation or ethnic; migration and inequality”;”immigrants and inequality”; “ethicisation and inequality; ethnic and inequality” •  Ntotal = 19; Sociology. = 11, Educational Science = 8 •  Level of analysis of the texts: a) Issue addressed, b) Theoretical assumptions, c) Method/Results d) Conclusion

9. Types of discourse

10. Types of discourse

11. Types of discourse

12. Types of discourse

13. Types of relation Keep Order Change Order Accept Order

14. Distribution of types of discourse

15. Distribution oftypesofdiscourse • Typ A (system-centric) • Typ B (relativistic) • Typ C (patchwork)

16. 3. Conclusion: Hierarchies of cultures and educational research tendency to reproduce the relations of domination and subordination between different forms of cultural capital. • * reproduction of the hierarchy of cultures • *Problematic! • legitimation of the existing power relations • integration as assimilation • correspondence to one–sided policy strategies •  counter-tendency: value of capital is open to more than one interpretation

17. Thankyouforyourattentionandfeelfreetocontactus!