Formazione & insegnamento
ISSN: 2279-7505 | Published: 2020-03-31
This landing page is part of an alternate academic indexing and SEO initiative curated by Pensa MultiMedia and the Executive Editorial Office.
Main Article Landing Page: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/4106
Full Text HTML (viewer): missing data
Full Text PDF (viewer): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/4106/3727
Full Text HTML (file): missing data
Full Text PDF (file): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/download/4106/3727
Full Text XML: missing data
Alternate URL: https://formazione-insegnamento.eu/2020-18/1 Tome I/4106-greater-humanities-for-education.html
Title: Greater Humanities for Education
Abstract: This article deals with the fragmentation of the Humanities, a proposed solution to it, and its applicability to Education Sciences. Section §1 examines some of the historical roots of both the divide between Humanities and Natural Sciences, as well as that between the Humanities and Social Sciences. The goal will be that of drafting a genealogy of the issue, and not that of providing the reader with a thorough diachronic recount. Once the need for a common direction is established, Clifford's proposal is examined and supplemented with Burawoy's epistemological partition of social sciences (Section §2). Finally, the resulting template will be applied to education in general and, more specifically, to Education Sciences, in order to see if they fit the Greater Humanities vision. In particular, the case of Italy's Scienze della Formazione post-academic movement will be tested for compliance. Its overarching research programme, as outlined by Margiotta, will elicit a closer look at the ties between Education and unitarian projects devised for the Humanities.
Keywords: Consrtuctivism; Education sciences; Epistemological divide; Greater Humanities; Italy
Title: Greater Humanities per la Formazione
Abstract: Questo articolo si occupa della frammentazione delle Scienze Umane, di una soluzione a tale divisione e dell'applicabilità di quest'ultima alle Scienze pedagogiche. La Sezione §1 esamina alcune delle radici storiche della spaccatura tra Scienze Umane e Scienze della Natura, così come quella tra Scienze Umane e Scienze Sociali. Lo scopo sarà quello di abbozzare una genealogia della questione – e non quella di fornire al lettore una dettagliata carrellata diacronica. Una volta stabilito il bisogno di una direzione comune, la proposta di Clifford è presa in esame e integrata con la suddivisione epistemologica delle scienze sociali suggerita da Burawoy (Sezione §2). Infine, il modello risultante sarà applicato alla formazione in generale e, in particolare, alle Scienze pedagogiche, allo scopo di vedere se aderiscono al progetto delle Greater Humanities [Umanesimo Metropolita]. Nello specifico, il caso italiano del movimento post-accademico delle Scienze della Formazione sarà rapportato al modello. Infatti, il programma di ricerca comprensivo delle Scienze della Formazione, così come tracciato da Margiotta, solleciterà uno sguardo più ravvicinato alle relazioni tra la Scienze pedagogiche e i progetti "unionisti" pensati per le Scienze Umane.
Keywords: Costruttivismo; Frattura epistemologica; Italia; Scienze pedagogiche; Umanesimo Metropolita
Title: Plus grande santé pour l'éducation
Abstract: Cet article traite de la fragmentation des sciences humaines, d'une solution proposée et de son applicabilité aux sciences de l'éducation.La section §1 examine certaines des racines historiques de la fracture entre les sciences humaines et les sciences naturelles, ainsi que celle entre les sciences humaines et les sciences sociales.L'objectif sera celui de la rédaction d'une généalogie du problème, et non de celle de fournir au lecteur un recomptage diachronique complet.Une fois la nécessité d'une direction commune établie, la proposition de Clifford est examinée et complétée par la partition épistémologique des sciences sociales de Burawoy (article §2).Enfin, le modèle résultant sera appliqué à l'éducation en général et, plus précisément, aux sciences de l'éducation, afin de voir s'ils correspondent à la plus grande vision des sciences humaines.En particulier, le cas du mouvement post-académique italien de Della Della Formazione sera testé pour la conformité.Son programme de recherche global, tel que décrit par Margiotta, suscitera de plus près les liens entre l'éducation et les projets unitariens conçus pour les sciences humaines. (This version of record did not originally feature translated metadata in this target language; the translation is hereby provided by Google Translation)
Keywords: Consrtuctivisme;Sciences de l'éducation;Fracture épistémologique;Plus grandes sciences humaines;Italie
Title: Greater Humanities para la Educación
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: Ciencias de la Educación; Constructivismo; División Epistemológica; Greater Humanities; Italia
Title: Greater Humanities para a Formação
Abstract: Este artigo aborda a fragmentação das Humanidades, uma solução proposta para essa divisão e sua aplicabilidade às Ciências da Educação. A Seção §1 examina algumas das raízes históricas da divisão entre as Humanidades e as Ciências Naturais, bem como a divisão entre as Humanidades e as Ciências Sociais. O objetivo será esboçar uma genealogia do problema, e não fornecer ao leitor um relato diacrônico detalhado. Uma vez estabelecida a necessidade de uma direção comum, a proposta de Clifford é examinada e complementada com a divisão epistemológica das ciências sociais proposta por Burawoy (Seção §2). Finalmente, o modelo resultante será aplicado à educação em geral e, mais especificamente, às Ciências da Educação, para verificar se elas se encaixam na visão das Greater Humanities. Em particular, o caso do movimento pós-acadêmico das Scienze della Formazione da Itália será testado para conformidade. Seu programa de pesquisa abrangente, conforme delineado por Margiotta, promoverá um olhar mais atento às relações entre a Educação e os projetos unitários destinados às Humanidades.
Keywords: Ciências da Educação; Construtivismo; Divisão Epistemológica; Greater Humanities; Itália
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 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.
de Graef, O. (2016, April). Muscular humanities. In Humanities now: Global encounters (pp. 1–11).