Aim, objectives and focus of the communication

Through their institutionalization, sociologies of education built a criticism towards inequality of opportunities and expressed concerns about the democratization of schooling and the support of the comprehensive school (Normand, 2013). Since, the discipline joined the other sciences of government (political sciences, law, economics, and psychology) which give advices to policy-makers between expertise and the framing of tools like tests or international surveys (Grek, 2009, Normand, 2012). Most often, theoretical and methodological works are conducted in a national space with not permeable frontiers because of linguistic, cultural and institutional differences. At a time of European building, these analytical categories seem however unadjusted to make a relevant account of the transformations of the Educative State, of the emergence of a post-comprehensive school, of the new relationships between the civil society and education (Ozga & Lingard, 2007, Lawn, Grek, 2012). The research on policy borrowing and knowledge transfer shows the importance in different countries of the interpenetration of knowledge, programs, tools in the academic world as in political decision-making (Gita Steiner & Waldow, 2012).  How to get out of this methodological nationalism blind to the effects of globalization and how to build a relevant but also critical theory of current evolutions  in each country (Robertson, Dale, 2008)?  Beyond a new approach of comparative education, our assumption is that sociology of education has to renew its criticism.

The objective is to contribute to the reflections related to the development of a European sociology of education in the continuity of works led by the network 28.  The theoretical framework is in line with research on policy borrowing and knowledge transfer and it takes over the conceptualization proposed by Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello to analyze the new spirit of capitalism and the renew of criticism in sociology  (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2007). The communication is also inspired by the ideas of Ulrich Beck on the methodological nationalism and the necessity to adopt cosmopolitanism as a basis to reformulate the project of social sciences (Beck, 2002, 2007).

Beck U., 2002, “The cosmopolitan society and its enemies” Theory, Culture and Society, 19 (1-2), 17-44. Beck U., 2007, « Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world » in British Journal of Sociology, vol. 58, n° 4, pp. 679-705. Boltanski, L., Chiapello (Ève), The Role of criticism in the dynamics of capitalism in: Max Miller (Ed), Worlds of Capitalism: Institutions, Economics, Performance and Governance in the Era of Globalisation, Routledge, London, 2005. Boltanski L., Chiapello E., 2007, The New Spirit of Capitalism, London, Elliott Verso Books GIta Steiner K., Waldow F.2012, Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education, London, Routledge, World Year Book of Education. Grek S., 2009, ‘Governing by numbers: the PISA effect in Europe” Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37. Lawn M., Grek S. 2012 Europeanizing Education. Governing a new policy space, Oxford,Symposium books Normand R., 2013 “Governing population: the emergence of a political arithmetic of inequalities in education. A comparison between the United Kingdom and France”. In Lawn M., (coord.) The Rise of Data, Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Symposium Books. Normand R., 2013 La sociologie de l’éducation : une science de gouvernement ? Education & Sociétés, n° 30 Normand R., 2012 « French Educators’ Uncertainties and Doubts against Changes influenced by Globalization” in Terri Seddon, Jenny Ozga and John Levin, Globalization and professions, Routledge World Yearbook of Education. Ozga J., Lingard B., 2007, Globalisation, education policy and politics, in B. Lingard and J. Ozga (ed.) The Routledge Falmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics, London, Routledge Falmer Press, 65-82. Robertson S., Dale R., 2008, Researching education in a globalizing era: beyond methodological nationalism, methodological statism, methodological educationism and spatial fetishism” in Resnik J. (ed.) The Production of Educational Knowledge in the Global Era, Rotterdam, Sense Publications, pp. 19-32.