No abstract

This article is about the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and its actors. It analyses the development and role of PISA as a 'cultural product' from the perspective of Bourdieu's field theory. The authors attempt to answer the following questions: Of which field is PISA the product? In which field and by whom is PISA used and 'consumed'? The authors argue that the development of PISA is part of a broader transformation of equilibria within the field of (education) knowledge -i.e. a move away from its autonomous pole towards its heteronomous pole. Such a move transforms the very form and shape of the field of knowledge: it has expanded and attracts a growing number of internal and external actors around its heteronomous pole. This (cor)responds to a transformation of the equilibrium within the general field of power, where the intellectual bourgeoisie (artists, professors, academics, writers) is increasingly subordinated to -indeed, sometimes working for -economic and political interests. The authors further argue that the incorporation of PISA at the level of education policy fields also transforms their form and shape in two main ways. Within policy fields, the diffusion and reception of PISA reinforces a heteronomous understanding of education which is defined mostly in terms of its contribution to external interests. The diffusion of PISA also extends and, in a sense, dissolves the very boundaries of (national) education policy fields. Specifically, the authors underline that such an internationalisation of the education policy fields progresses mainly at their heteronomous poles and through a heteronomous definition of education.This article deals with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and analyses the role and development of PISA by using a specific theoretical framework -that of Pierre Bourdieu's field theory (especially as developed in Bourdieu, 1989Bourdieu, , 1992. Analysing PISA with the aid of field theory helps us characterise and understand the different types of actors contributing to its development, and the specific situations and tensions they are faced with. It helps us make sense of their trajectories and understand their positions vis-à-vis other actors.The uses of the concepts of cultural capital and habitus developed by Pierre Bourdieu have been much discussed in education research (see, for example, Atkinson, 2011), but, strangely, the literature has long remained silent on his theory of fields, although it lies at the heart of his work (Hilgers & Mangez, forthcoming). There have been a few attempts to use Bourdieu's concept of the field to study changes in the education sector. Grenfell and James (2004) offer an interesting perspective on how to use Bourdieu's concept of the field to study education research. They argue that it is possible to understand different research methodologies by studying the structure of their interrelations and the history of this structure. They further argue that the field of (education) research can be more or less...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract