Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Understanding Higher Education
Authors: Ягодзинский, Сергей Николаевич
Хомерики, Елена Андреевна
Стригуль, Марина
Лясота, Людмила
Романенко, Юрий
Keywords: higher Education
higher education system studies
internationalization of higher education
economism and commercialization
Issue Date: 2019
Publisher: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing
Citation: Understanding Higher Education / Khomeriki O., Yahodzinskyi S., Stryhul M., Romanenko Yu., Liasota L. – Riga: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2019. – 342 p.
Abstract: The educational boom in European countries in the 1960s–1970s has caused the restoration of active research in the sphere of education sociology. Papers of the western sociologists P. Bourdieu, P. Coombs, M. Trow are dedicated to the development of this direction. Formation and predominance of the sociocultural approach as a methodological foundation of education sociology constitute their characteristic feature. Modern development of foreign education sociology is described in papers by M. Archer, J. Beaulieu, R. Boudon, J. Coleman, N. Luhmann, J. Meyer, J. Passeron. The authors mentioned consider the education system within the context of its socio-typological, morphogenetic, functional-systemic specific features, as an instrument of establishing distinctions (discernings), communication, gabitualization. All the processes mentioned are inherent in the system of education of both institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms. Institutionalization of the education system is accompanied by its establishment as a completely autonomous system able to develop following on from the limited interference of other social subsystems with its operation. ‘Paradigm’ sociologist club introduced another classification of approaches to education development. The first approach is based on education, goal-setting as a normative ideal of an educated human in society. This factor is especially significant since education is not only present in all spheres of human life activity, but it is also always integrated into a corresponding historical epoch. The second approach suggests that the basis of education development contains the culture types defined by the American anthropologist M. Mead. Relying upon the culturological role of education, followers of this approach think that the development of a civilization is a change of priority culturological types and corresponding changes of education as a cultural translator. M. Mead singles out three types of culture: – a postfigurative type with a dominating culture of traditions, customs, everyday practice. An education subject is represented by natural social environment. The human learns in the process of everyday labor activity; – a figurative type with a culture of traditions yielding to the culture of rational knowledge, norms, values, laws. Education obtains a mass character and becomes isolated from the source of knowledge. The main task is to create a knowing human; – prefigurative culture – a postindustrial one. Knowledge production technologies become leading. This culture type is being only predicted for now. The normative idea constitutes a human generating knowledge and being able to take his/her bearings in the information flows independently. The third approach – institutional – views education as a social institution. A normative, state-determined character of education is dominating; it produces a goal-oriented influence on youth aiming at their adaptation to the need of society and state.
ISSN: 978-613-9-45087-9
Appears in Collections:Наукові публікації студентів кафедри соціології та політології

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Understanding Education (Ukraine, Kyiv).pdf724.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Admin Tools