社会学实践:印度公立与私立大学比较研究

Q3 Social Sciences Contemporary Education Dialogue Pub Date : 2019-07-31 DOI:10.1177/0973184919848900
N. Jaiswal
{"title":"社会学实践:印度公立与私立大学比较研究","authors":"N. Jaiswal","doi":"10.1177/0973184919848900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The broad question that interests this article is how does one read and compare the negotiations public and private universities are making with the neo-liberal paradigm of knowledge production with reference to their social science curricula. Michael Apple’s (1993, Teachers College Records, 95(2), 222–241; 2001, Currículo Sem Fronteiras, 1(1), i–xxvi) argument that curriculum is not a ‘neutral assemblage of knowledge’ but a crafted vision of ‘legitimate knowledge’ produced by hegemonic powers within society forms the theoretical foundation for this article. To understand the changes within a university’s academic practice, this article analyses and compares the undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula of two public universities (Delhi University and Ambedkar University), an international university (South Asian University) and one private university (Shiv Nadar University), as well as engages with its practitioners to assess the everyday within these universities. The undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula across public and private universities indicate certain convergences in their academic approaches. The universities in question encouraged foreign university collaborations, reframed the course structure to strengthen the university-industry linkages and increased the employability of the students. Interdisciplinary and contemporary papers are offered through new modes of pedagogy. The mode of assessment also focus on writing research papers/dissertations and frequent visits to the field to develop an application-based approach to learning. The neoliberal paradigm of knowledge production affected the convergence of academic practices of public and private universities despite difference in governance structure. This convergence problematises the meaning of ‘public’ in a liberalised, privatised and globalised society.","PeriodicalId":37486,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Education Dialogue","volume":"16 1","pages":"229 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0973184919848900","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice of Sociology: Comparative Study of Public and Private Universities in India\",\"authors\":\"N. Jaiswal\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0973184919848900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The broad question that interests this article is how does one read and compare the negotiations public and private universities are making with the neo-liberal paradigm of knowledge production with reference to their social science curricula. Michael Apple’s (1993, Teachers College Records, 95(2), 222–241; 2001, Currículo Sem Fronteiras, 1(1), i–xxvi) argument that curriculum is not a ‘neutral assemblage of knowledge’ but a crafted vision of ‘legitimate knowledge’ produced by hegemonic powers within society forms the theoretical foundation for this article. To understand the changes within a university’s academic practice, this article analyses and compares the undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula of two public universities (Delhi University and Ambedkar University), an international university (South Asian University) and one private university (Shiv Nadar University), as well as engages with its practitioners to assess the everyday within these universities. The undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula across public and private universities indicate certain convergences in their academic approaches. The universities in question encouraged foreign university collaborations, reframed the course structure to strengthen the university-industry linkages and increased the employability of the students. Interdisciplinary and contemporary papers are offered through new modes of pedagogy. The mode of assessment also focus on writing research papers/dissertations and frequent visits to the field to develop an application-based approach to learning. The neoliberal paradigm of knowledge production affected the convergence of academic practices of public and private universities despite difference in governance structure. This convergence problematises the meaning of ‘public’ in a liberalised, privatised and globalised society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Education Dialogue\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"229 - 249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0973184919848900\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Education Dialogue\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0973184919848900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Education Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0973184919848900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文感兴趣的一个广泛问题是,人们如何阅读和比较公立和私立大学与新自由主义知识生产范式之间的谈判,并参考它们的社会科学课程。Michael Apple’s (1993, Teachers College Records, 95(2), 222-241;2001, Currículo Sem Fronteiras, 1(1), i-xxvi)认为课程不是“知识的中性组合”,而是由社会霸权产生的“合法知识”的精心制作的愿景,这一观点构成了本文的理论基础。为了了解大学学术实践的变化,本文分析和比较了两所公立大学(德里大学和安贝德卡尔大学)、一所国际大学(南亚大学)和一所私立大学(希夫纳达尔大学)的本科和研究生社会学课程,并与其实践者接触,以评估这些大学的日常生活。公立和私立大学的社会学本科和研究生课程在学术方法上表现出一定的趋同。有关大学鼓励与外国大学合作,重新设计课程结构,以加强大学与产业的联系,并提高学生的就业能力。跨学科和当代论文通过新的教学模式提供。评估模式还侧重于撰写研究论文/学位论文,并经常访问该领域,以开发基于应用的学习方法。新自由主义的知识生产范式影响了公立大学和私立大学在治理结构上的差异,但学术实践的趋同。这种趋同使“公共”在一个自由化、私有化和全球化的社会中的意义出现了问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Practice of Sociology: Comparative Study of Public and Private Universities in India
The broad question that interests this article is how does one read and compare the negotiations public and private universities are making with the neo-liberal paradigm of knowledge production with reference to their social science curricula. Michael Apple’s (1993, Teachers College Records, 95(2), 222–241; 2001, Currículo Sem Fronteiras, 1(1), i–xxvi) argument that curriculum is not a ‘neutral assemblage of knowledge’ but a crafted vision of ‘legitimate knowledge’ produced by hegemonic powers within society forms the theoretical foundation for this article. To understand the changes within a university’s academic practice, this article analyses and compares the undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula of two public universities (Delhi University and Ambedkar University), an international university (South Asian University) and one private university (Shiv Nadar University), as well as engages with its practitioners to assess the everyday within these universities. The undergraduate and postgraduate sociology curricula across public and private universities indicate certain convergences in their academic approaches. The universities in question encouraged foreign university collaborations, reframed the course structure to strengthen the university-industry linkages and increased the employability of the students. Interdisciplinary and contemporary papers are offered through new modes of pedagogy. The mode of assessment also focus on writing research papers/dissertations and frequent visits to the field to develop an application-based approach to learning. The neoliberal paradigm of knowledge production affected the convergence of academic practices of public and private universities despite difference in governance structure. This convergence problematises the meaning of ‘public’ in a liberalised, privatised and globalised society.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Education Dialogue
Contemporary Education Dialogue Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Contemporary Education Dialogue serves as an independent open forum for researchers and practitioners to sustain a critical engagement with issues in education by engendering a reflective space that nurtures the discipline and promotes inter-disciplinary perspectives. The peer-reviewed journal allows for a refinement of theoretical and practical basis for improving the quality of education, furthering the opportunity to directly create reflective classroom practices. It invites contributions by academicians, policy-makers and practitioners on various topics related to education, particularly elementary education. Discussions and responses to published articles are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Understanding Graphical Literacy Using School Students’ Comprehension Strategies Social Science Teacher? Anyone 
Can Become’: Examining 
Professional Subject Identity of Social Science Teachers in India Feminist Pedagogy in Women’s Studies Classrooms: Some Critical Reflections Language as a Tool for Inclusive and Equitable School Education: A Critical Review of NEP 2020 New Education Policy and Higher Education Reforms in India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1