Talk:Sociology of education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociology of education, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Creation of Article
I have begun creating this article by putting forward the three perspectives I have studied in regards to education. It would be good for anyone who knows other sociological perspectives on education to add to this article!
As you can see the article finishes with Bourdieu. I was going to put some of the criticisms of Bourdieu's perspective here but because I have studied him indepth and have come up with answers for most of the criticisms of his work, even though I would put all the criticism my responses would probably unbalance the article.
I don't know where the list of educational sociologists in Hong Kong came from, it was the only info on the stub when I began, but I've left it there anyway for now. JenLouise 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi JenLouise! Do you have any idea to discuss the work of Pierre Bourdieu as well as those of James S. Coleman in educational sociology?--147.8.124.70 08:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)KW
- I've done a bit of work on Bourdieu at uni, and so touched a tiny bit on Coleman. What are you trying to discuss? JenLouise 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Bourdieu's works are only one theoretical perspective to apporoach educational sociology, even the concepts of cultural capital and social capital. If WE are making a page of "sociology of education", we need to find somebody who is famililar with Coleman's work to discuss under your sub-heading of cultural capital.Do you agree, JenLouise?--147.8.122.192 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)KW
- Absolutely, that's why I started this talk page with: It would be good for anyone who knows other sociological perspectives on education to add to this article! . JenLouise 07:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change of headings
Conflict theory does not belong under the heading of Marxism-NeoMarxism. Conflict theory is simply the theory that society is made up of different groups struggling to maximise their position and benefits. Marxism relates everything to the Mode of Production and the tension between the base and superstrucutre. Therefore Marxism might seem to be a very particular strand of conflict theory although most people would argue against this. Also, Bourdieu cannot be classed under the heading of Interactionism/Weberian Perspective. So I have removed both these headings. Please feel free to discuss. JenLouise 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnote style references
To show what it looks like and how to do it, I've introduced an example of footnote style referencing. Many wikipedia articles use this reference style, and it may be suitable for this article too. For a more complete example, see educational psychology. Let's discuss whether to use this referencing style here. Nesbit 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] rewrite of conflict theory section
Some major changes have been made to this section that are completley out of line. Valid viewpoints that are specifically referenced back to authors and works have been deleted with no explanation, critiques have been added into the middle of a section explicitly stating itself a one theoretical perspective, and sentences have been added or modified without any references, completely changing the meaning of paragraphs. This has been done in such a way as to purport that the modifications are referenced to the original references when in most cases they completely contradict what the reference says. The article has been set up to present each theoretical perspective's work on the sociology of education. If someone wishes to add a REFERENCED critique of these perspetices then please do so, it would only help to improve the article. But please do so at the end of the particular perspective.
As such I have:
- removed (unreferenced) critiques of material that don't belong in body of the section
- removed any additions that aren't part of each particular theory and are unreferenced
- undid any alterations to sentences that contradicted what the reference for that sentence says
- readded any sentences that were deleted.
If you feel that the article needs substantial work, please discuss here first. JenLouise 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
