Question 2
  • This depends where we start from

  • I started from:

    • an empirical setting (SMP 11-16 textbook series)

    • general theoretical resources including Saussure's analytic distinction within the sign between signifier and signified realised in text as expression and content.

      • eg: the word, 'tree' (written or spoken) may be thought of as a signifier for our concept of a tree as the signified

      • I argued that any specialised practice must consist of more or less strongly institutionalised texts and that these could be usefully thought of in terms of expression (strongly or weakly institutionalised) and content (strongly or weakly institutionalised). This gave rise to my domains structure

      • The analytic categories of this structure are (I claim) relatively easy to operationalise via elaborated description (see question 1) and even by providing simple coding principles

    • Alternatively, we might start from an already existing theory, such as Kelly's personal construct theory

      • Kelly argues that individuals think in terms of polarisations and this has methodological implications.

        • For example, in trying to access a teacher's constructs relating to their students, we might ask the teacher to construct triads in interview. We might:

          • show them a list of one of their classes

          • ask them to select two individuals who differ in one respect

          • ask them to pick a third that is similar to one, but different from the other

          • ask them to describe in what way two of them are the same as each other, but differ from the other

    • Alternatively, we might start from Pierre Bourdieu's analytic categoris of capital:

        • economic capital

        • cultural capital (competence in performing in particular cultural settings)

        • social capital (networks of social relations)

        • symbolic capital (fame, prestige, etc)

        • eg we might think of a university education as being, firstly, an exchange of economic capital for cultural capital (the knowledge etc gained), an exchange for this cultural capital for symbolic capital (the degree awarded on the basis of success in examinations), and an exchange of this symbolic capital for economic capital (in terms of being able to get a good job).

        • we might also consider the social capital gained via the connections made whilst studying at university; these connections may well be exploitable later on

      • Suppose we are interested in Higher Education in business education, we might now try to develop indicators for features of the practices of Higher Education institutions that emphasise these forms of capital

        • eg: where an institution emphasises cultural capital, we might expect to see emphasis placed on the transmission and acquisition of competence in the management curriculum, the use of reliable indicators in assessment practices and so forth AND a relative de-emphasising of social capital (the formation of potentially productive (in terms of economic capital) connections).

        • where an institution emphasises social capital, we might expect to see emphasis placed on the maximising of chances for the formation of potentially productive connections AND a relative de-emphasising of cultural capital

        • NB we would not necessarily expect all aspects of the practices of any given institution to be codifiable in the same way.

Bannister, D. and F. Fransella (1971). Inquiring Man. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. J. Richardson. New York, Greenwood Press.

de Saussure, F, (1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill