Book Review of "Critical Approaches to the Study of Higher Education: A Practical Introduction"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martinez-Aleman, Ana M., Prusser, Brian, and Bensimon, Estela Mara (Eds.) (2015). Critical Approaches to the Study of Higher Education: A Practical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pages: 331. Price: $34.95 USD (paper).Perhaps especially in the field of education, socially conscious critical inquiry is a fundamental facet of research. Our campuses are often a microcosm of our diverse society, and students, faculty, and researchers experience the benefits and the obstacles inherent in a stratified society. Therefore, we strive to recognize privilege and marginalization in our research. While this book presumes to present an introduction to such critical research, it tends to focus almost exclusively on the American higher education system, and issues of race and class within that system.The editors, and several contributors, are involved in work for the Association for the Study of Higher Education's (ASHE) Institutes on Equity and Critical Policy Analysis. The book positions critical research as crucial to a democratic education system, in which critical approaches can help stakeholders in higher education see beyond the normative models and frameworks that have long limited our understanding of students, institutions, organization, governance, and ... policies (p. 4). At the heart of the book is the idea that linking critical theories, models, and methodologies with a self-aware critical vision is essential to social action in higher education.In the opening chapter, Martinez-Aleman provides an overview of critical theory and its relevance to research and policy-making. Obviously, one chapter cannot provide an in-depth survey of the topic, but Martinez-Aleman provides a comprehensive list of suggested readings for deeper delving into the various theories. Her overview begins with Horkheimer's premise that the goal of critical theory is to address the problems that arise from social inequity; by adopting a consciously critical approach, researchers can decenter their perspectives to employ the marginalized critical eye, particularly in terms of race, gender, sexuality, and class. She touches on Habermas, the Frankfurt School, Saussure, and Foucault to provide the foundations for such research, and discusses the ne- cessity of conscious subjectivity in analysing, revising, and creating policies. As do other chapters, this one concludes with a sample study, in which Martinez-Aleman uses critical discourse analysis of a text from the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) to demonstrate the how and why of her proposed method of analysis.Most of the chapters follow a similar pattern: a brief history or context for the critical framework, a discussion of the typical methodologies or approaches, and one or two sample studies to illustrate the theory in application. As one might expect from the context, many of the researchers spend some time on their own practice and positioning; in the second chapter, the author uses personal narrative to explore the tension between emerging perspectives and the established bodies of scholarship, which arises in part from researchers coming from within the marginalized or underrepresented groups struggling with the disconnect between the research that surrounds them and their lived experience. The third chapter examines the dominant power structures in higher education, and how these structures are created and subsequently become deeply ingrained (p. 60) as the natural way to govern academic institutions and education, and includes analysis of public funding models in American higher education as a theory-in-practice illustration of the approach. In a similar vein, the fourth chapter explores the conflict between market-like competition rampant in higher education, particularly in the US, and human capital discourse, which positions investment in education as fundamental to public well-being.The fifth chapter is an excellent overview of the nature and purpose of critical historical inquiry, and provides a useful chronology of the development of critical historical analysis in general, and as applied to education, and is one of the only chapters to even mention queer theory, however briefly. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".