Greater Humanities para la Educación
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XVIII-01-20_13Palabras clave:
Greater Humanities, Ciencias de la Educación, División Epistemológica, Constructivismo, ItaliaResumen
Este artículo trata sobre la fragmentación de las Humanidades, una solución propuesta para dicha división y su aplicabilidad a las Ciencias de la Educación. La Sección §1 examina algunas de las raíces históricas de la división entre las Humanidades y las Ciencias Naturales, así como la división entre las Humanidades y las Ciencias Sociales. El objetivo será esbozar una genealogía del problema, y no proporcionar al lector un relato diacrónico exhaustivo. Una vez establecida la necesidad de una dirección común, se examina y complementa la propuesta de Clifford con la partición epistemológica de las ciencias sociales de Burawoy (Sección §2). Finalmente, el modelo resultante se aplicará a la educación en general y, más específicamente, a las Ciencias de la Educación, para ver si se ajustan a la visión de las Greater Humanities. En particular, se probará el caso del movimiento postacadémico de las Scienze della Formazione de Italia para ver su conformidad. Su programa de investigación general, según lo delineado por Margiotta, provocará una mirada más cercana a los vínculos entre la Educación y los proyectos unitarios diseñados para las Humanidades.
Citas
Abbott, A. (2005). Process and temporality in sociology: The idea of outcome in U.S. sociology. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 393–426). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Bereiter, C. (2010). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2901_1
Borutti, S. (1999). Filosofia delle scienze umane: Le categorie dell’antropologia e della sociologia. Milano (IT): Bruno Mondadori.
Brossat, A., & Mariani, A. (1997). Realtà e rappresentazione: per un’archeologia filosofica delle scienze umane. In Attraversare foucault: La soggettività, il potere, l’educazione (pp. 73–89). Unicopli.
Burawoy, M. (2005). Conclusion: Provincializing the social sciences. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 508– 525). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Clifford, J. (2013a). The Greater Humanities. Occasion: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 5, 1–5. Retrieved from http://arcade.stanford.edu/occasion/greater-humanities
Clifford, J. (2013b). James Clifford: Tradition and transformation at UC Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz (CA, USA). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0r64t762
Collier, A. (2005). Philosophy and critical realism: Critical realism. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 327– 345). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
de Graef, O. (2016, April). Muscular humanities. In Humanities now: Global encounters (pp. 1–11).
De Lissovoy, N. (2015). Education and emancipation in the neoliberal era. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137375315
Eley, G. (2005). Being undisciplined: On your Marx: From cultural history to the history of society. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 496–507). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Elliott, A. (2005). Psychoanalysis as critique: Psychoanalysis and the theory of the subject. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 427–450). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Emmett, R. B. (2010). Specializing in interdisciplinarity: The Committee on Social Thought as the University of Chicago’s antidote to compartmentalization in the social sciences. History of Political Economy, 42, 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2009-079
Foucault, M. (1971). Nietzsche, la généalogie, l’histoire. In Hommage à jean hyppolite (pp. 145–172). PUF.
Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité 1: La volonté de savoir. Paris (FR): Gallimard.
Fujarra Beraldo, R. M., Ligorio, M. B., & Barbato, S. (2018). Intersubjectivity in primary and secondary education: a review study. Research Papers in Education, 33(2), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1302497
Galilei, G. (1623). Il saggiatore. Roma (IT): Giacomo Mascardi.
Garin, E. (1983). Il ritorno dei filosofi antichi. Napoli (IT): Bibliopolis.
Gennari, M. (2006). Le fonti del pensiero formativo: il fondamento filologico e filosofico della Bildung. In U. Margiotta (Ed.), Pensare la formazione: Strutture esplicative, trame concettuali, modelli di organizzazione (pp. 74–105). Bruno Mondadori.
Henry, J. (2008). The fragmentation of renaissance occultism and the decline of magic. History of Science, 46, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530804600101
Hoffman, P. (2015). Why Did Europe Conquer the World? Princeton (USA) and Oxford (UK): Princeton University Press.
Kuper, A., & Marks, J. (2011). Anthropologists Unite! Nature, 470, 166–168. https://doi.org/10.1038/470166a
Kutac, J., Osipov, R., & Childress, A. (2015). Innovation through tradition: Rediscovering the ’humanist’ in the medical humanities. Journal of Medical Humanities, 37, 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-015-9364-2
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers volume I (J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123
Marcelli, A. M. (2019). Conflating contrasting needs: Introducing a model for designing teacher research in sub-optimal educational contexts. Formazione & Insegnamento, 17(3), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XVII-03-19_04
Margiotta, U. (2006). Perché una teoria della formazione? Un programma di ricerca. In U. Margiotta (Ed.), Pensare la formazione: Strutture esplicative, trame concettuali, modelli di organizzazione (pp. 184–246). Milano (IT): Bruno Mondadori.
Margiotta, U. (2007). Insegnare nella società della conoscenza. Lecce (IT): Pensa MultiMedia.
Minello, R., & Margiotta, U. (2011). Poiein: La pedagogia e le scienze della formazione. Lecce (IT): Pensa MultiMedia.
Mirowski, P. (2005). Economics-philosophy of science: How positivism made a pact with the postwar social sciences in the United States. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 142–172). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education:. Boulder (CO, USA): Westview Press.
Perrot, M., & Mariani, A. (1997). La scatola degli attrezzi: paradigmi storici e metodo foucaultiano. In Attraversare Foucault: La soggettività, il potere, l’educazione (pp. 191–210). Unicopli.
Rasmussen, D. M. (1984). Explorations of the Lebenswelt: Reflections on Schutz and Habermas. Human Studies, 7(2), 127–132. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008907
Riedel, M. (1989). Comprendere o spiegare? Napoli (IT): Guida Editori. (Italian Edition)
Riegler, A. (2005). Editorial. The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved from http://constructivist.info/1/1/001
Smith, K., Gamlem, S. M., Sandal, A. K., & Engels, K. S. (2016). Educating for the future: A conceptual framework of responsive pedagogy. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1227021
Somers, M. R. (2005). Sociology and economics: Beware trojan horses bearing social capital: How privatization turned Solidarity into a bowling team. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 233–276). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Stark, R. J. (2009). Rhetoric, science & magic in seventeenth-century England. Washington (DC, USA): The Catholic University of America Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2005a). Introduction: Positivism and its others in the social sciences. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 1–56). Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2005b). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others. Durham and London (UK): Duke University Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.). New York (USA), Boston (USA), Dordrecht (NL), London (UK), Moscow (RUS): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wallerstein, I. (1989). The French Revolution as a world-historical event. Social Research, 56(1), 33–52.
Washburn, S. L. (1978). Human behavior and the behavior of other animals. American Psychologist, 33(5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.5.405
Zald, M. N. (1991). Sociology as a discipline: Quasi-science and quasi-humanities. The American Sociologist, 22, 165–187.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Categorías
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2020 Andrea Mattia Marcelli
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Formazione & insegnamento se distribuye bajo la licencia Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0).
Para más detalles, por favor refiérase a nuestra Política de Repositorio y Archivo, así como a nuestros Términos de Derechos de Autor y Licencia.
