Abstract
This special issue brings together current work in education research that engages with a pragmatic, yet critical theoretical tradition sprung from the French context during the 1980s. Based on a particular understanding of existence, perception, reality and the dynamics of social life, this theoretical tradition has continuously been developed over the past four decades in a variety of fields, such as law, economic studies, political sciences, education research and sociology. Despite its rich history, this approach has until recently only garnered limited attention from English-speaking research communities. Consequently, our aim is to introduce the approach to the European Education Research Journal readership and demonstrate the tradition’s richness and range of use for education research. By showing the many ways in which this perspective can be utilised in education research, we hope to inspire more scholars who publish in English-speaking contexts to engage with us and explore what insights this ‘novel’ perspective can bring to our research field. In this editorial, we briefly explain the perspective’s base assumptions and key features, discuss the potential relevance of this approach for education research, and introduce the articles of the special issue. First, however, we want to address the issue of naming.
Keywords
Introduction
This special issue brings together current work in education research that engages with a pragmatic, yet critical theoretical tradition sprung from the French context during the 1980s (cf. Boltanski and Thevenot, 1999, 2006; Derouet, 1992). Based on a particular understanding of existence, perception, reality and the dynamics of social life, this theoretical tradition has continuously been developed over the past four decades in a variety of fields, such as law, economic studies, political sciences, education research and sociology. Despite its rich history, this approach has until recently only garnered limited attention from English-speaking research communities. Consequently, our aim when putting together this special issue is to introduce the approach to the European Education Research Journal readership and demonstrate the tradition’s richness and range of use for education research. By showing the many ways in which this perspective can be utilised in education research, we hope to inspire more scholars who publish in English-speaking contexts to engage with us and explore what insights this ‘novel’ perspective can bring to our research field. In this editorial, we briefly explain the perspective’s base assumptions and key features, discuss the potential relevance of this approach for education research, and introduce the articles of the special issue. First, however, we want to address the issue of naming.
On nomenclature and fluid terminology
Interestingly, there is a lack of consistency in terminology within the general theoretical approach showcased in this special issue. The approach itself, for example, has been referred to as the sociology of critique (Boltanski et al., 2014), convention theory (Thévenot, 2020), the sociology of conventions (Leemann and Imdorf, 2019), pragmatic sociology (Blokker, 2011) and the economics of convention (Diaz-Bone, 2018). Similarly, key concepts are referenced through inconsistent nomenclature, to the extent that one author can use different terms in various publications when referring to the same concept. As a pertinent example, in their seminal publication On Justification, Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) present the concept of multiple, parallel value systems or moral regimes, naming these economies of worth, but refer to them as orders of worth in a later publication based on the same study (Boltanski and Thévenot, 1999). In a dialogue with Axel Honneth, Boltanski refers to them as regimes of justification (Boltanski et al., 2014: 570), while Boltanski and Chiapello (1999), when adding a seventh convention, call this a city (French: cité). In the German-speaking sphere, this concept has been promoted under the terminology of conventions of quality (Diaz-Bone, 2018), and as polity (German: politisches Gemeinwesen) or conventions (Leeman and Imdorf, 2019). This diversity of nomenclature stems, in part, from translations and cross-language academic conversations, but should also be attributed to the simultaneous use and development of the approach across multiple fields of research by a variety of researchers and research groups.
The inconsistent terminology may pose difficulties for those interested in the approach, disorienting newcomers and impeding connection or dialogue between proponents of this tradition. At the same time, we would argue that it also reflects the tradition’s spirit. The fluidity of terminology challenges the (often implicit) normative conception of ‘theory’ as a complete system of neatly packaged explanations by mirroring the plurality and messiness of lived realities and the world. Naming concepts through multiple terms also allows scholars to more accurately convey their focus. Terms such as city, polity and order, for instance, convey that we are speaking of a ‘shared common sense’ (Diaz-Bone, 2018: 147–148), while the term convention draws attention to the constructed, fragile nature of such shared polities.
Key features and ontological underpinnings
As this approach has been used and developed for close to four decades, we will not attempt an in-depth introduction. For English-speaking researchers interested in a more exhaustive exposition of the theoretical tradition, there are several excellent anthologies available (e.g. Diaz-Bone and de Larquier, 2024; Turner and Susen, 2014) and several seminal works have been translated into English (e.g. Boltanski, 2011; Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999; Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006). Here, we provide a general overview of the approach’s key features and ontological roots.
The basic assumptions that frame this approach include a distinction between physical world and social realities; the convictions that (ordinary) actors are competent and in possession of critical capacity; and an approach to institutions as stabilising yet not stable. Further, the tradition assumes a plurality of value conventions; and a range of regimes or forms of rationality that actors engage with and through. Ontologically, the approach has been influenced by both pragmatism and structuralism. In line with American pragmatists such as Dewey and James, it takes the position that reality is constantly being constructed, which is reflected in the prominent role that the tradition assigns to tests. Values, knowledge and just about any arrangement are ‘permanently tested in social practices’ (Diaz-Bone, 2011: 52). At the same time, the perspective also draws inspiration from French structuralism and thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida and Bourdieu. While not assigning structures such as hierarchical systems, fields and different forms of capital the same weight as Bourdieu would, this perspective does agree that such institutions frame and influence actors’ behaviour and agency. Recognising the power of institutions is of course not novel in education research. What sets this approach apart from other structuralist traditions, is the insistency that institutions, while stabilising, are not stable, but rather fragile and incomplete (Diaz-Bone and Favereau, 2019: 9). Since societal discourses and recognised value regimes change over time and differ between contexts and situations, institutions must constantly reframe their truth claims and anchor them to conventions of worth that are sufficiently recognised, in order to maintain legitimacy. As an example, Boltanski and Chiapello (1999) show how capitalism as an institution has assimilated values that stem from the criticism it has faced over time.
Methodologically, this tradition takes a situational approach – that is, where situations become the unit of analysis – and veers towards the empirical, often involving detailed, context-specific studies of how abstract principles come to play out in practice. Value(s), for example, are not seen as intrinsic to objects, persons or phenomena, but rather as constructed and attributed by actors through situated acts of co-ordination in a particular context. Consequently, research interested in questions of value(s) and valuation, will explore how these are enacted in situ – for example, which values actors mobilise, how and to what purpose; how institutions work to stabilise reality by promoting certain valuations over others; or how tensions play out between value systems and across situations.
Looking at the traditions’ development over time, Imdorf and Leemann (2023) note three general areas of interest that have captured education researchers’ attention. Firstly, scholars have concentrated on matters of justice, justification and critique. Such research tends to focus on how disputes are raised, managed and settled, especially by appeals to what is fair, reasonable and ‘normal’ (Boltanski, 2012). This includes a focus on how policy and curriculum choices are justified by making appeals to the common good and to what ‘really matters’ to maintain legitimacy, and how actors navigate educational situations by calling on certain values while rejecting others. When actors call on moral judgements to justify their actions or find ways to coordinate, they are invoking conventions of worth as guiding principles. In this way, conventions can be mobilised for various purposes – to confirm what is, to justify the status quo, to criticise and to work out compromises.
A second area of interest centres the axiology of education, that is, how values and conventions of worth inform social reality in educational contexts. Education, for instance, might be understood as an ‘inspirational’ space concerned with the fostering of self-expression and learning for its own sake; or as a ‘market’ space where good workers learn to innovate and become sellable to employers. Indeed, in modern societies, we often see a compromise between multiple seemingly incompatible valuations of education and school (cf. Skarpenes and Hidle, 2024). Which conventions of worth inform the conceptualisation of education in turn shapes institutions and affects how actors such as learners become classified and how power is distributed among stakeholders. Such research therefore also pays attention to the dynamics of institutions, which are conceptualised as the material entities and immaterial dispositives that work to stabilise reality by making truth claims and promoting certain values or agendas. How well reality ‘hangs together’ depends in part on the robustness of the institutions that promote it (Boltanski, 2011). There are a wide range of institutions in educational contexts which work to shape conceptualisations, practices and values – from persons and physical objects such as teachers, students, curricula and timetables; to immaterial constructs such as standards, procedures, rules and statistical classifications (Leemann and Imdorf, 2019). By stabilising reality, institutions promote certain truths and values, thus extending their grasp. This is why some proponents of this perspective speak of investments in form (Dodier, 2010; Leeman and Imdorf, 2019; Thévenot, 2024), emphasising institutions’ potential to pre-arrange actors’ available realm of action in a given situation. This renders actors’ agentic capacity contingent on institutions and on the actors’ ability to destabilise them.
Finally, Imdorf and Leemann (2023) note a more recently emerging focus in research on regimes of engagement, which emphasises that social processes and interactions are not exclusively based on a rationale of justice (Thévenot, 2015). Other regimes of engagement include love, violence and equanimity (Boltanski, 2012; Thévenot, 2007).
Moving beyond these established areas of interest, we also believe that this approach is extremely timely when considering current planetary emergencies and related social crises. Sustainability research – both critical and conservative – points to humans’ complicity in shaping and bringing about the latest planetary epochal shift from Holocene to Anthropocene. Current research on resource depletion, climate change and biodiversity clearly shows that modernity as a paradigm has failed to consider the finite nature of the physical world (Rappleye and Komatsu, 2020). Earth system science further concludes that planets have the capacity ‘to re-enfold or reorganize their constituent elements’ to such a degree that they can transform entirely (Clark and Szerszynski, 2021: 93). Put simply, stability is not a grounding characteristic of the physical world, at least not long term. So, what does this mean for our understanding of human actors, agency and social reality? Considering the interplay between human agency and the Earth system, and how our planet is currently changing, it is highly relevant for education research to favour theoretical approaches that acknowledge and take seriously persons’ agency while staying critical, and that fit with contemporary understandings of the physical world and its properties (Clark and Szerszynski, 2021; Hamilton, 2017; Rappleye and Komatsu, 2020). We think that the pragmatic tradition presented in this special issue can be one such social theoretical perspective, for example, due to its approach to institutions as stabilising but not stable; the recognition of ‘ordinary’ actors’ reflexive-critical capacity; and the distinction yet connectedness between physical world and a plurality of (potential) realities.
We hope that the special issue inspires more researchers to draw on this approach when exploring educational contexts and questions. What new insights might we gain through such a lens when studying for example, classroom interactions, learning assessment and performance evaluation; policy work, educational reforms and the tensions that arise between various value regimes; student and teacher agency in shaping educational reality and their academic identities; educational leadership and its role in mediating between stakeholders; or when conceptualising education for the Anthropocene and beyond modernity?
The papers of this special issue
This special issue seeks to introduce French pragmatic sociology and the economics of convention in education research while staying true to the messy plurality of conceptualisations and theoretical repertoires of this tradition. The issue does so by presenting empirical studies from all over Europe, from multiple stages and species of education (compulsory and beyond, formal and informal, selective and comprehensive), and using a wide range of methodological approaches (ethnographic, textual, longitudinal).
Interrogating reality: Conventions and institutions
Several of the articles included in this special issue focus on institutions and provide empirical examples of how policy, management tools, societal discourses and political debates are shaping reality in education systems and learning contexts across Europe.
Alke, Uhl and Baker draw on historical job advertisements to show how various intermediaries such as educational providers, associations and adult education centres have contributed to the professionalisation of adult educators in Germany by shaping job profiles. This illustrates how a variety of institutions have contributed to the construction of reality in this educational context. In this interplay, institutions serve a variety of roles – from conceptualisation and enforcement of classification to intermediary functions such as matchmaking and dissemination of values. As the German adult educator profession stabilised, this has had varied consequences. Since the job did not come to have specific qualification requirements, employers were able to recruit from a larger pool of professionals. At the same time, this openness and the low level of regulation has also led to precarious working conditions for adult educators as a profession.
Turnbull, Wilson and Agoston provide a different example of institutional dynamics by discussing what roles universities are ascribed in political debates. Drawing on case examples of higher education policy and rhetoric from Hungary, the UK, Brazil and Australia, the authors illustrate that universities are not neutral spaces of learning but rather institutions deeply embedded in societal power dynamics. Policies, for example, shape how universities are governed and promote certain values (such as competition and efficiency, or autonomy and free thinking) as worthy of pursuit. Similarly, political rhetoric that criticises universities for being elitist or challenges their purpose and organisation, serves to stabilise reality through explicit and implicit truth claims. Viewed through this lens, universities emerge as contested institutions that must navigate the tensions of maintain autonomy while also sufficiently complying with market demands, policy prescriptions and societal expectations.
Juusola and Nokkola explore how institutions navigate and adapt to unexpected situations such as transnational crises. Via the example of student mobility and international collaborations, the authors analyse how Finnish higher education responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The findings show how these two reality-destabilising events forced the educational institutions to reassess their strategies, underlying principles and daily operations to maintain legitimacy and continue their operations when faced with mobility restrictions and geopolitical tension. By destabilising established assumptions about the world and the realness of what-is, the global pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine reveal the fragility of reality.
Continuing the theme of institutions in education, Molpeceres, Marínez-Morales, Bernad and Marhuenda-Fluxiá draw on the sociology of conventions to analyse how institutions operating on the margins of education make sense of their actions. Focusing on a liminal educational context – of non-profit organisations’ vocational education offer for unskilled, vulnerable youth demographics – the authors demonstrate how institutions rooted in alternative value conventions must balance their critique of the system with making compromises and pragmatic choices that recognise the practical realities of delivering education and training. This shows how radical institutions can play a transformative role in shaping education, but also risk losing their moral footing when engaging in contexts shaped by dominant values.
Holmqvist draws on the example of tendering-based procurement practices in Swedish adult education to illustrate how management tools can profoundly influence values and priorities in education. This contribution shows how a tool used to privatise and organise educational provisioning also redefines the education it manages by promoting certain features and values over others, and redistributing power and agency among the actors involved.
Collectively, these five contributions demonstrate the diversity of institutions that populate educational contexts and situations, and how these operate and relate to each other.
The critical-reflexive capacity of (ordinary) actors
The last four contributions to the special issue focus instead on how human actors such as students and teachers coordinate, interact, think, develop and learn in educational contexts.
Ye and Nylander explore participants’ justifications for enrolling in higher vocational education. Via the lens of conventions of worth, the authors demonstrate that the decision to enrol in HVE is not necessarily about economic benefits or career advancement. Participants’ choice to enrol can instead be tied to issues such as dealing with uncertainty and planning for potential future prospects. Crucially, this contribution highlights the particularities of educational contexts compared to other social situations. As education is a prospective endeavour, where all actions and interaction are in essence anticipatory and forward-looking, the authors argue that the conventions of worth taxonomy developed in this tradition must be amended when researching education. Consequently, they propose the addition of a prospective convention of worth that focuses expectancy and promise.
Drawing on ethnographic data of classroom interactions between teachers and learners in Swedish folk high schools, Fürst, Millenberg and Nylander show how teachers use exercises, assignments, presentations and exhibitions to destabilise students’ prior understanding of what art is and shape their artistic engagement. Applying a pragmatic lens to ethnographic data of classroom interactions allows the authors to unpack how pedagogical actions such as teaching design, and teacher-student interactions contribute to stabilising particular values and truths as real.
Focusing on students’ critique of group-work and their justifications for resisting such modes of assessment, Telling illustrates how such resistance can be read as an expression of students’ critical-reflexive capacity. Questioning the fairness, fit and effectiveness of group-work assessment emerges as a way for students to claim agency rather than accepting the institutions’ claims on reality. This casts students as competent actors, who are aware of the norms, beliefs and values held by the educational institutions they attend; who recognise the discrepancies between what-is and what-should-be according to their own convictions; and who justify, critique and compromise in order to move either themselves, the institutions, or both, closer together.
While most of the contributions to this special issue focus on educational contexts that involve adult students or young adults, Haugseth and Smeplass explore the formation of children’s moral repertoires. By analysing letters to a Norwegian newspaper, the authors unpack young actors’ critical-reflexive capacity and moral repertoire. In their letters to the newspaper, children engage reflexively with societal, collective issues such as civil rights and environmental sustainability by expressing appreciation or voicing critique based in moral conventions and notions of the common good already established in the public discourses of their cultural settings. Challenging traditional views of children as merely being socialised into existing moral frameworks, the authors demonstrate that children are active agents capable of engaging with and influencing social reality. Moral development and learning thus emerge as dynamic, intertwined processes of articulation and negotiation that encompass both personal experiences and attention to broader cultural contexts.
Collectively, these contributions illustrate how so-called ‘ordinary’ actors in education are embroiled in moral debates about what is and what should be and contribute to shaping reality.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
