Scholarlink

In the last chapter, I spotlight factor analysisFactor analysis, cluster analysisCluster analysis, logistic regressionLogistic regression, multilevel modellingMultilevel modelling, and cross-lagged panel modelCross-lagged panel model, all of which align with Bourdieu’s relational thinking. I conclude the book with a reflexive invitation to put quantitative methodology back on the map of Bourdieusian sociology of education, moving towards a methodological pluralismMethodological pluralism/polytheism. Writing this book, I venture into “a fieldField of opinion” and bring to light competing discourses, which would otherwise remain hidden in a fieldField of doxaDoxa where the persistent prevalence of doing Bourdieu just qualitatively is taken as a given and usual practice. In so doing, I experiment a methodological heterodoxyMethodological heterodoxy of quantifying Bourdieu in educational research in order to enrich the methodological toolkits of Bourdieusian sociology of education. Such methodological heterodoxyMethodological heterodoxy draws the line between the fieldField of opinion and the fieldField of doxaDoxa, that is, between what is explicitly questioned and what is beyond question and acting in accord with social convention.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Quantifying Bourdieu: Dimension Reduction, Differentiation, Time, and a Reflexive Invitation

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Guanglun Michael Mu

摘要

In the last chapter, I spotlight factor analysisFactor analysis, cluster analysisCluster analysis, logistic regressionLogistic regression, multilevel modellingMultilevel modelling, and cross-lagged panel modelCross-lagged panel model, all of which align with Bourdieu’s relational thinking. I conclude the book with a reflexive invitation to put quantitative methodology back on the map of Bourdieusian sociology of education, moving towards a methodological pluralismMethodological pluralism/polytheism. Writing this book, I venture into “a fieldField of opinion” and bring to light competing discourses, which would otherwise remain hidden in a fieldField of doxaDoxa where the persistent prevalence of doing Bourdieu just qualitatively is taken as a given and usual practice. In so doing, I experiment a methodological heterodoxyMethodological heterodoxy of quantifying Bourdieu in educational research in order to enrich the methodological toolkits of Bourdieusian sociology of education. Such methodological heterodoxyMethodological heterodoxy draws the line between the fieldField of opinion and the fieldField of doxaDoxa, that is, between what is explicitly questioned and what is beyond question and acting in accord with social convention.