Pub Date : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.1177/14778785231178363
Z. Barber
Some of the most vexing issues in ethics revolve around tradeoffs between fundamental values such as individual rights and the greater good, privacy and security, freedom and equality. In contemporary politics, there is perhaps no better example of such a tradeoff than the one underlying the current conflicts that have roiled college campuses: the tradeoff between the value of freedom of expression on the one hand, and the values of inclusion, belonging, and social harmony on the other. Universities ought to host fierce debate and foster unfettered intellectual exploration. Yet in an increasingly diverse and polarizing society, we also want universities to be as inclusive and welcoming as possible – we want all members of the campus community to flourish. Since speech itself can powerfully exclude, we seem at a loss when it comes to reconciling these competing values. What is so compelling about Sigal Ben-Porath’s new book Cancel Wars is her meticulous, and largely successful, attempt to smooth out the apparent tension between them. She demonstrates that free speech and inclusion may not be so conflictual as we might have thought. Her project is rooted in the particularly democratic role she envisions for universities in the wider context of society. She announces on the first page that ‘colleges are laboratories in which democracy is learned, practiced, and enhanced’ (p. 1). Colleges and universities play this role in two key ways. First, they produce and disseminate the shared knowledge foundational for building policy and navigating governance in a complex world. Politics needs a commonly understood reality to operate successfully. Second, universities ‘seed democratic habits and practices’ by fostering the interactions necessary for building trust and mutual understanding across diverse individuals (p. 1). These dual functions are vital in our polarized times, Ben-Porath observes in chapter 1. We seem no longer to know what or whom to trust, but universities are well-positioned to help. In chapter 2, Ben-Porath considers, and ultimately rejects, three commonly proposed avenues for establishing a shared epistemic foundation for democracy. We cannot rely on (1) a clear delineation of fact from opinion, on (2) well-defined groups of experts and technocrats, nor on (3) public faith in institutional reliability. Rather, Ben-Porath 1178363 TRE0010.1177/14778785231178363Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2023
伦理学中一些最令人烦恼的问题围绕着个人权利和更大利益、隐私和安全、自由和平等等基本价值观之间的权衡。在当代政治中，也许没有比当前困扰大学校园的冲突更能说明这种权衡的例子了：一方面是言论自由的价值观，另一方面是包容、归属和社会和谐的价值观。大学应该举办激烈的辩论，培养自由的智力探索。然而，在一个日益多样化和两极分化的社会中，我们也希望大学尽可能包容和受欢迎——我们希望校园社区的所有成员都能蓬勃发展。由于言论本身可以有力地排除这种情况，当涉及到调和这些相互竞争的价值观时，我们似乎不知所措。西格尔·本·波拉斯（Sigal Ben Porath）的新书《取消战争》（Cancel Wars）之所以引人注目，是因为她细致而成功地试图缓和他们之间明显的紧张关系。她表明，言论自由和包容性可能并不像我们想象的那样矛盾。她的项目植根于她设想的大学在更广泛的社会背景下发挥的特别民主的作用。她在第一页上宣布，“大学是学习、实践和加强民主的实验室”（第1页）。高校在两个关键方面发挥着这种作用。首先，他们产生并传播共同的知识，这些知识是在复杂世界中制定政策和驾驭治理的基础。政治需要一个公认的现实才能成功运作。其次，大学通过培养不同个人之间建立信任和相互理解所需的互动，“培养民主习惯和实践”（第1页）。本·波拉斯在第一章中指出，在我们两极分化的时代，这些双重功能至关重要。我们似乎不再知道该信任什么或谁，但大学已经做好了提供帮助的准备。在第二章中，Ben Porath考虑并最终拒绝了为民主建立共同认识基础的三种常见途径。我们不能依赖（1）从意见中清楚地划分事实，不能依赖（2）明确的专家和技术官僚小组，也不能依赖（3）公众对制度可靠性的信心。相反，Ben Porath 1178363 TRE0010.1177/14778785231178363教育理论与研究书评2023
{"title":"Book reviews: Sigal R Ben-Porath, Cancel Wars: How Universities Can Foster Free Speech, Promote Inclusion, and Renew Democracy","authors":"Z. Barber","doi":"10.1177/14778785231178363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231178363","url":null,"abstract":"Some of the most vexing issues in ethics revolve around tradeoffs between fundamental values such as individual rights and the greater good, privacy and security, freedom and equality. In contemporary politics, there is perhaps no better example of such a tradeoff than the one underlying the current conflicts that have roiled college campuses: the tradeoff between the value of freedom of expression on the one hand, and the values of inclusion, belonging, and social harmony on the other. Universities ought to host fierce debate and foster unfettered intellectual exploration. Yet in an increasingly diverse and polarizing society, we also want universities to be as inclusive and welcoming as possible – we want all members of the campus community to flourish. Since speech itself can powerfully exclude, we seem at a loss when it comes to reconciling these competing values. What is so compelling about Sigal Ben-Porath’s new book Cancel Wars is her meticulous, and largely successful, attempt to smooth out the apparent tension between them. She demonstrates that free speech and inclusion may not be so conflictual as we might have thought. Her project is rooted in the particularly democratic role she envisions for universities in the wider context of society. She announces on the first page that ‘colleges are laboratories in which democracy is learned, practiced, and enhanced’ (p. 1). Colleges and universities play this role in two key ways. First, they produce and disseminate the shared knowledge foundational for building policy and navigating governance in a complex world. Politics needs a commonly understood reality to operate successfully. Second, universities ‘seed democratic habits and practices’ by fostering the interactions necessary for building trust and mutual understanding across diverse individuals (p. 1). These dual functions are vital in our polarized times, Ben-Porath observes in chapter 1. We seem no longer to know what or whom to trust, but universities are well-positioned to help. In chapter 2, Ben-Porath considers, and ultimately rejects, three commonly proposed avenues for establishing a shared epistemic foundation for democracy. We cannot rely on (1) a clear delineation of fact from opinion, on (2) well-defined groups of experts and technocrats, nor on (3) public faith in institutional reliability. Rather, Ben-Porath 1178363 TRE0010.1177/14778785231178363Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2023","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46347263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.1177/14778785231178243
Cristina Miragaya-Casillas, Raimundo Aguayo-Estremera, A. Ruiz-Villaverde
Considerable academic debate exists as to whether students with a background in economics exhibit distinct behavioural patterns that set them apart from students in other academic disciplines. Primarily, the debate concerns whether students who fit the stereotype of the economist choose to study economics (the self-selection hypothesis) or whether economics students develop these behavioural patterns in the course of their university studies (the indoctrination hypothesis). We conducted a systematic literature review that examines both hypotheses. According to the literature reviewed, the majority of researchers find the self-selection hypothesis to be the best supported. However, findings remain inconclusive due to several methodological limitations. In spite of that, this study should facilitate a deeper understanding of what causes behavioural changes in economics students and what exactly these behavioural differences are, among other relevant hypotheses.
{"title":"Self-selection or indoctrination in the study of (standard) economics: A systematic literature review","authors":"Cristina Miragaya-Casillas, Raimundo Aguayo-Estremera, A. Ruiz-Villaverde","doi":"10.1177/14778785231178243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231178243","url":null,"abstract":"Considerable academic debate exists as to whether students with a background in economics exhibit distinct behavioural patterns that set them apart from students in other academic disciplines. Primarily, the debate concerns whether students who fit the stereotype of the economist choose to study economics (the self-selection hypothesis) or whether economics students develop these behavioural patterns in the course of their university studies (the indoctrination hypothesis). We conducted a systematic literature review that examines both hypotheses. According to the literature reviewed, the majority of researchers find the self-selection hypothesis to be the best supported. However, findings remain inconclusive due to several methodological limitations. In spite of that, this study should facilitate a deeper understanding of what causes behavioural changes in economics students and what exactly these behavioural differences are, among other relevant hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46884169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231160062
Lauren Bialystok
Martin’s argument for the right to higher education is an exercise in ideal theory, which specifically distances itself from the familiar failings of compulsory education. I argue that even using sufficientarian criteria for admission to higher education would perpetuate non-ideal patterns of inequality and that reasonable forms of selectivity would still limit access to autonomy-promoting higher education. Martin’s case should prompt us to think about arbitrary divisions between compulsory and post-compulsory education in an autonomy-oriented system.
{"title":"Commentary on The Right to Higher Education","authors":"Lauren Bialystok","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160062","url":null,"abstract":"Martin’s argument for the right to higher education is an exercise in ideal theory, which specifically distances itself from the familiar failings of compulsory education. I argue that even using sufficientarian criteria for admission to higher education would perpetuate non-ideal patterns of inequality and that reasonable forms of selectivity would still limit access to autonomy-promoting higher education. Martin’s case should prompt us to think about arbitrary divisions between compulsory and post-compulsory education in an autonomy-oriented system.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45426912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231162088
Winston C. Thompson
Building on the careful racial analyses of Charles W. Mills, this article uses the example case of Black ethnics to illustrate the general plausibility of ethnic identity as a useful political analytic category, suggesting that the absence of ethnic identity in racial analyses mutes important aspects of the lived experiences of racialized persons as individuals and in aggregation. The article establishes the possibility of ethnicity as an identity modifier, providing additional specificity to racial identity narratives. Building on these positions, the article turns to educational contexts to explore the ways in which ethnicity (as introduced in the preceding sections) stands to offer additional specificity to justice-oriented analyses of educational policy and practice.
{"title":"More than race? Mills, ethnicity, and education","authors":"Winston C. Thompson","doi":"10.1177/14778785231162088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231162088","url":null,"abstract":"Building on the careful racial analyses of Charles W. Mills, this article uses the example case of Black ethnics to illustrate the general plausibility of ethnic identity as a useful political analytic category, suggesting that the absence of ethnic identity in racial analyses mutes important aspects of the lived experiences of racialized persons as individuals and in aggregation. The article establishes the possibility of ethnicity as an identity modifier, providing additional specificity to racial identity narratives. Building on these positions, the article turns to educational contexts to explore the ways in which ethnicity (as introduced in the preceding sections) stands to offer additional specificity to justice-oriented analyses of educational policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49342237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231162106
A. Nikolaidis
While white ignorance is primarily produced and reproduced through social-structural processes, philosophy of education scholarship has focused on agent-centered educational solutions. This article argues that agent-centered solutions are ineffective and that education for disrupting white ignorance must be structure-centered. Specifically, the article contends that (1) social-structural processes often render being in a state of white ignorance reasonable and that (2) assigning white ignorant agents individual responsibility for overcoming their ignorance is often unreasonable. Consequently, epistemic virtue-based approaches to education are insufficient and inappropriate. Instead, the author proposes prioritizing political forms of education. This includes educating students on how to participate in political action and using political action to educate the public.
{"title":"Structural white ignorance and education for racial justice","authors":"A. Nikolaidis","doi":"10.1177/14778785231162106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231162106","url":null,"abstract":"While white ignorance is primarily produced and reproduced through social-structural processes, philosophy of education scholarship has focused on agent-centered educational solutions. This article argues that agent-centered solutions are ineffective and that education for disrupting white ignorance must be structure-centered. Specifically, the article contends that (1) social-structural processes often render being in a state of white ignorance reasonable and that (2) assigning white ignorant agents individual responsibility for overcoming their ignorance is often unreasonable. Consequently, epistemic virtue-based approaches to education are insufficient and inappropriate. Instead, the author proposes prioritizing political forms of education. This includes educating students on how to participate in political action and using political action to educate the public.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43551215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231160096
Andrew Pulvermacher
In this paper version of the response I offered to Christopher Marin as part of the symposium on The Right to Higher Education at the 2022 North American Association for Philosophy & Education Conference, I present some practical challenges of post-secondary reforms in the context of Martin’s theory of the right to higher education. Specifically, I address Martin’s three jointly necessary distributive conditions – non-exclusion, adequate options and full public funding – as necessary conditions and significant constraints on meaningful reform toward his ideal of higher education within individual institutions in light of resource constraints in the nonideal, real world. I argue that we ought to aim toward fully realizing adults’ right to higher education yet to do so requires restructuring and reprioritizing post-secondary education on systemic scale.
{"title":"More house on an ever-shakier foundation: An administrator’s perspective on institutional reforms in the context of Christopher Martin’s ideal Right to Higher Education","authors":"Andrew Pulvermacher","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160096","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper version of the response I offered to Christopher Marin as part of the symposium on The Right to Higher Education at the 2022 North American Association for Philosophy & Education Conference, I present some practical challenges of post-secondary reforms in the context of Martin’s theory of the right to higher education. Specifically, I address Martin’s three jointly necessary distributive conditions – non-exclusion, adequate options and full public funding – as necessary conditions and significant constraints on meaningful reform toward his ideal of higher education within individual institutions in light of resource constraints in the nonideal, real world. I argue that we ought to aim toward fully realizing adults’ right to higher education yet to do so requires restructuring and reprioritizing post-secondary education on systemic scale.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42375507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231160094
David O’Brien
In The Right to Higher Education, Christopher Martin develops a powerful, autonomy-based argument that there is a moral right to access to higher education. I raise three concerns about whether this argument succeeds. The first is a concern about the conception of autonomy at the heart of Martin’s argument; the second is a concern about possible overgeneralizations of the argument; and the third is a concern about whether Martin’s view is consonant with judgments about fairness.
{"title":"Fairness, autonomy, and a right to higher education","authors":"David O’Brien","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160094","url":null,"abstract":"In The Right to Higher Education, Christopher Martin develops a powerful, autonomy-based argument that there is a moral right to access to higher education. I raise three concerns about whether this argument succeeds. The first is a concern about the conception of autonomy at the heart of Martin’s argument; the second is a concern about possible overgeneralizations of the argument; and the third is a concern about whether Martin’s view is consonant with judgments about fairness.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41840848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231162779
Zara Bain
Recent philosophical secondary literature on white ignorance – a concept most famously developed by the late philosopher Charles W. Mills – suggests that white ignorance is, one way or another, a non-structural phenomenon. I analyse two such readings, the agential view and the cognitivist view. I argue that they misinterpret Mills’ work by (among other things) committing a kind of structural erasure, and one which implies that Mills’ account cannot capture, for example, cases where white ignorance (and white racial domination) involves historical erasure, especially when perpetrated by sociopolitical institutions. This is particularly salient in cases such as the recent movement against anti-racist education, now widely conflated with critical race theory, in the United States and United Kingdom, which I offer as a brief case study.
{"title":"Mills’s account of white ignorance: Structural or non-structural?","authors":"Zara Bain","doi":"10.1177/14778785231162779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231162779","url":null,"abstract":"Recent philosophical secondary literature on white ignorance – a concept most famously developed by the late philosopher Charles W. Mills – suggests that white ignorance is, one way or another, a non-structural phenomenon. I analyse two such readings, the agential view and the cognitivist view. I argue that they misinterpret Mills’ work by (among other things) committing a kind of structural erasure, and one which implies that Mills’ account cannot capture, for example, cases where white ignorance (and white racial domination) involves historical erasure, especially when perpetrated by sociopolitical institutions. This is particularly salient in cases such as the recent movement against anti-racist education, now widely conflated with critical race theory, in the United States and United Kingdom, which I offer as a brief case study.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44880491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231160066
Philip Cook
For Martin, the right to free higher education may be claimed only by those ready and willing pursue autonomy supporting higher education. The unready and unwilling, among whom may be counted carers, disabled, and devout, are excluded. This is unjust. I argue that this injustice follows from a tension between three elements of Martin’s argument: (1) a universal right to autonomy supporting higher education; (2) qualifications on entitlements to access this right in order to preserve the value of higher educational goods; (3) luck egalitarian motivations in Martin’s distributive ethics. I consider options for avoiding such injustices and their implications for Martin’s argument.
{"title":"Pity the unready and the unwilling: Choice, chance, and injustice in Martin’s ‘The Right to Higher Education’","authors":"Philip Cook","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160066","url":null,"abstract":"For Martin, the right to free higher education may be claimed only by those ready and willing pursue autonomy supporting higher education. The unready and unwilling, among whom may be counted carers, disabled, and devout, are excluded. This is unjust. I argue that this injustice follows from a tension between three elements of Martin’s argument: (1) a universal right to autonomy supporting higher education; (2) qualifications on entitlements to access this right in order to preserve the value of higher educational goods; (3) luck egalitarian motivations in Martin’s distributive ethics. I consider options for avoiding such injustices and their implications for Martin’s argument.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45060268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785231161943
Christopher Martin
In The Right to Higher Education: A Political Theory, I argue that post-compulsory education should be an individual right in a liberal democratic society. Here, I respond to a series of criticisms of the right’s justification. I address objections relating to: the autonomy-based justification of the right and liberal neutrality, the right’s scope and limits, the fairness of full public funding for higher education, constraints on the right’s equality-promoting aims, and the meaning of the term ‘higher education’ under the right.
{"title":"The right to higher education: A political theory","authors":"Christopher Martin","doi":"10.1177/14778785231161943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231161943","url":null,"abstract":"In The Right to Higher Education: A Political Theory, I argue that post-compulsory education should be an individual right in a liberal democratic society. Here, I respond to a series of criticisms of the right’s justification. I address objections relating to: the autonomy-based justification of the right and liberal neutrality, the right’s scope and limits, the fairness of full public funding for higher education, constraints on the right’s equality-promoting aims, and the meaning of the term ‘higher education’ under the right.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46511805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：