L'emprise du champ scientifique sur le champ universitaire et ses effets

Disciplinary Practices As Social Manoeuvers: A Field Theory Alternative To Michael Burawoy’s Typology Of Knowledge

“…This ignores an important contribution of field theory in thinking disciplinary logics, namely that different definitions of disciplinary tasks can compete for legitimacy and dominance (Bourdieu 1975). Disciplinary practices can be situated more adequately when we recognize research universities as fields colonized by scientific networks (Gingras 1991;Gingras and Gemme 2006) and entertaining various relationships with other fields (Fournier 1985;Warren 2009).…”

“…This lasting rivalry between education and research generates other oppositions, such as between generalists and specialists, and ultimately refers to struggles for the legitimate definition of the professors' tasks (Gingras 1991: 50). These struggles are the mark of the colonization of the university field by the scientific field (Gingras 1991;Gingras and Gemme 2006).…”

“…Disciplines only partly form autonomous intellectual units dedicated to the production of knowledge for peers (Bourdieu 1975). Their institutionalisation within universities (Gingras 1991;Gingras and Gemme 2006) and the roles that these establishments incorporate (Kalleberg 2000) allow researchers to intervene in different fields as scientists, teachers, experts, or intellectuals. Hierarchal structures within universities, research institutions, and disciplinary associations also provide settings for professional mobility controlled by gate-keeping practices and processes of self-governance.…”

“…I argue that disciplinary practices can be understood as tasks and postures, as described by Kalleberg (2000;, but that these do not acquire their meaning in the functional "role-set" of academia. Rather, they are manoeu-vers which take shape within and between distinct spheres of action: the scientific field, the university field, and an assortment of extra-academic fields (Bourdieu 1975;Fournier 1985;Gingras and Gemme 2006;Gingras 1991;Warren 2009). The empirical section of this paper then serves to demonstrate how this framework can refine Burawoy's distinctions.…”

Penser l’histoire politique au Québec avec Pierre Bourdieu : précisions conceptuelles et défis pratiques

“…L'accusation d'élitisme lancée à ceux qui choisissent d'étudier le champ politique n'est donc pas sans valeur. Bien sûr, cette accusation ne change pas quand on décide d'étudier d'autres champs, et d'abord le champ scientifique (où la présence de pauvres, de femmes et de minorités est encore plus réduite), mais comme le champ des sciences est fondé sur le critère d'objectivité, et non pas sur celui de représentation démocra-tique, la contradiction performative y est moins sensible 21 . Faire l'histoire de la physique de 1850 à 1950 sans citer une seule femme ne soulève pas les passions, tandis que faire l'histoire des idées politiques québécoises pour la même période à travers la parole des seuls élus provinciaux (tous des hommes) semblerait réactionnaire.…”