Theorizing Profound Change in Bourdieu's Framework: Communities of Practice as Developing Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on the theory of the field’s tension between structure and individual behavior, reproduction and change, we try to identify and follow the mechanisms behind the emergence of alternative practices. Situated learning and community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998) seems to open a path to approach this question alongside other recent works (Landley et al., 200; Mutch, 2003; Huzzard, 2004) suggesting power is a key concept to understand transformative dynamics. Dominating structures challenge the stability of communities, so do the presence of outsiders carrying their antecedents, struggling and negotiating transferable component of identity. In this regard, we seek to highlight that some communities of practice and their interactions with outer communities, in a wider perspective, can act like triggers and create new fields or subfields. They are “protofields”, social entities we describe as a community bounded by an emerging habitus. We suggest that integrating the Bourdieu’s framework to situated learning theory and community of practice provide a tool to understand the construction, evolution and institutionalization of alternative practices.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".