History Of Education Research Paper

1. The Rise Of The Modern Educational System

Although education has occurred, and continues to do so, in manifold forms and at all times—in families, through catechizing, at the workplace, in youth clubs and/organizations, or in borstals—education in modern times has by and large become institutionalized in the form of large-scale public systems of education. These constitute the modern type of educational organization par excellence (Thomas et al. 1987). Processes of the formation and eventual consolidation of ‘the modern educational system,’ while starting towards the end of the eighteenth century, came to completion only towards the turn from the nineteenth to the twentieth century (Muller et al. 1987). Moreover, educational system formation was only possible as a component of more encompassing processes of social transformation, and of concomitant processes of state and nation-building, which lead to the specifically modern pattern of societal organization explained as ‘functional differentiation’ by recent social theory (Luhmann 1982). Drawing on related concepts, one may characterize educational system formation by key features such as inclusion, nationalization, the system’s internal articulation as well as systemic self-reflection.

Inclusion refers to one of the central aspects of modern social structures, namely the access of a population as a whole to all of the functionally specific subsystems constituted at the level of society. More precisely, inclusion means the universalization, not of so-called ‘service roles’ such as those of a politician, a physician, or a teacher, but of the corresponding ‘service-receiving roles’ specific to each of society’s subsystems, namely the roles of the electorate, of patients, or of pupils, respectively. Thus, the educational correlate to the inclusion process at the level of society at large was, in terms common to present-day debates on education and development, the ‘universalization of primary education.’ This process started in the Protestant countries of Central and Northern Europe as early as the seventeenth century; was largely achieved, in most of Western Europe, by the end of the nineteenth century; and came to an end, in some countries of Southern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, only in the middle of the twentieth century. And yet, it still constitutes an unmet challenge in large parts of the Southern Hemisphere. At the level of national legislation, important steps towards universalizing primary education often went hand in hand with measures undertaken to assure greater inclusion also in the political and legal systems. As illustrated by the historical experience, not only of England and Italy, but in varying forms also of France and Prussia or to some extent Russia, such measures consisted in, e.g., the extension of the franchise or, more generally, steps designed to turn hitherto dependent subjects into national citizens. At the local level, however, national school laws were gradually implemented as an answer to the radically altered communication requirements that were attendant on social structures increasingly characterized by new patterns of differentiation, and ensuing processes of rationalization, mobilization, and industrialization. In this sense, the process of inclusion in the emerging educational system corresponded to the gearing of that system to its actual function, for this function consists precisely in laying the foundations of the capability for universal communication across all subsystems of society. In sociohistorical terms, thus, it was essentially the achievement of universal mass schooling that marked the decisive transition towards the constitution of institutionalized education as a modern ‘system.’

Nationalization refers to another process that came to fruition from the eighteenth century onwards. To the extent that the traditional union of schools and Church(es) gave way to the differentiation between education and religion, which were more and more conceived of as distinct spheres of social action and meaning, it was the increasingly rationalized and secularized nation-state that was thought to serve as the natural support and guardian of the education of its citizens. This view was underscored by the fact that the eventual achievement and continuous running of an inclusive educational system presupposed organizational resources and required an administrative infrastructure which no corporate social actor other than the state was deemed able to provide. Alternatively, the state and state-supported agencies were ready to use compulsory mass schooling also for pushing through the realization of more general state-related goals, such as social mobilization and equalization, national integration, and collective identity-building, or political socialization and indoctrination. Thus, whether in Europe, in the Americas, or in Asia, the realization of an all-inclusive educational system by way of universalizing compulsory mass schooling went hand in hand with the increasing intervention of central state-agencies and the building of comprehensive administrative frameworks. Education Ministries were established for securing the financial resources and building up the administrative infrastructure necessary in order not only to guarantee generalized supply, but also to successfully run standardized networks of institutionalized schooling. Just like the realization of compulsory mass schooling, this process took more than a century to come to completion. It was a long way, indeed, from late-eighteenth-century programs of establishing a coherent state-run scheme of educational institutions modeled on Catholic Church organization (in the pioneering Italian principalities of Parma and Piedmont and, subsequently, in Imperial France) to the all-encompassing organization of institutionalized schooling as a ‘public legal organism’ (as this accomplishment was acclaimed in late-nineteenth century social analysis).

The emergent system’s internal articulation was the inevitable complement to inclusion. Since education systems in Europe were not created in a vacuum, their system formation processes started from quite an array of existing institutions which were stemming, on their part, from premodern establishments such as medieval Cathedral schools and Renaissance universities, church-run colleges and academies for the sons and daughters of the nobility, endowed grammar schools and Gymnasien established by enlightened princely rulers, as well as municipal petty schools and the nineteenth-century forms of drawing schools, science schools, higher-grade, technical and vocational schools. It was, then, a significant feature of the differentiation process that, during the initial stage of inclusion and due to such origins, the emergent educational systems were rather decentralized, uncoordinated, and open in their organization. The more the continuing process of inclusion advanced, however, the more acute the need for internal specification and rational articulation became apparent. Specification, on the one hand, implied the removal of ambiguities and unregulated competition between institutions that were to become clearly defined alternative tracks or types of schooling. The systems’ articulation, on the other hand, raised the issue of connecting hitherto uncoordinated institutional components with the aim of constructing a rational ‘sequence,’ or ‘ladder,’ of successive levels of education. The outcomes of such processes of defining educational systems’ institutional structures can then be conceived of as ways of coping with divergent expectations and requirements: with inclusion (by organizing universal access to primary schooling for an entire age-group) and selection (by consecutively channeling pupils into different tracks and levels), or with qualifying for universal communication across all fields of society and inculcating differential ‘habitus’ as appropriate to particular groups, trades, and areas of activity. As a consequence, the issue of defining an educational system’s career sequence has always been closely associated with a nation’s public policy in general, and with its social and economic policy in particular. This applied especially to the construction of sequence between the ‘lower’ or vernacular schools (e.g., the so-called ‘English’ or ‘German’ schools) and the ‘learned’ or Latin-based establishments, or between, to take up a graphic phrasing coined by Prost (1968), l’ecole du peuple and l’ecole des notables. Thus, from the late nineteenth century ‘systematization’ of the major Western European education systems; over the definition, during the first half of the twentieth century, of examination-based transition procedures from the primary to the secondary level of education; up to the successive introduction, from the 1960s onwards, of comprehensive types of schooling in many, but not all, countries throughout the world, contrasting models and programs for educational sequencing have been at the very core of educational policy debate. At the same time, these models and programs have fostered again and again the production of both educational reflection—particularly reformative reflection—and educational research.

2. History Of Education In Connection With Systemic Self-Reflection

It is a significant feature of modernity that in subsystems of society that have crystallized in connection with the far-reaching transformation processes explained in terms of ‘functional differentiation,’ systemspecific self-descriptions intensify to such an extent that they take the form of explicitly stated reflection theories. This common pattern of self-referential theories of a societal subsystem developed within that system holds true also for educational theorizing pursued within the emergent educational system (Luhmann 1982). The tremendous increase, from the late eighteenth century onwards, in the production of educational ideologies, educational theories, and educational knowledge more generally has to be seen in connection with the growing acceptance of programs and policies fueling the establishment of state-run ‘national systems of education.’ In particular, the conceptual model of systemic self-reflection intrinsic to the major subsystems of society makes intelligible the institutionalization of educational theory as a field of academic study in close temporal and ideological connection with the passing of the decisive laws on compulsory schooling in most of the Western European nations. The historically unprecedented scale of universal mass education, its inclusive character, and, especially in the Catholic countries of Southern Europe, its secularized organization not only presupposed an administrative infrastructure of a previously unknown magnitude, but also required the intensification of reflection in new and more sophisticated forms. Moreover, the transition to universal mass education also entailed the need for public legitimization of the new system, not least in the form of throwing into relief distinctive national traditions of education and schooling. Salient examples include the foundation of the Musee Pedagogique in France (1879) and of its counterpart in Spain (1882) which were meant to serve as depositories of their respective nation’s educational memoirs; the virtual invention of national educational tradition in monumental works such as Gabriel Compayre’s Histoire critique des doctrines de l’education en France (1879) and Ferdinand Buisson’s Dictionnaire de pedagogie (1887–88); or the launching of the Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica meant to collect ‘the materials, scattered over archives and libraries, that are relevant to the history of German education and schooling’ (1886–1938).

In addition, the necessities of systematic teacher training, and attendant considerations of social utility and responsibility, impinged heavily on the emergent forms of the historical interpretation of educational traditions. These necessities and considerations favored a genre of educational history that remained subordinated to the categories and problematiques of systematic—i.e., philosophico-reflective—theorizing, a genre in other words which gave preference to narratives of the great educators and philosophers of the past, and to interpretations of their respective doctrines realized in terms of normative hermeneutics. Interestingly enough, this genre has been common to most European countries. It can be traced from early British works over, for instance, Dutch and Scandinavian examples as well as the impressive range of, in particular, German and Italian histories of educational thought up to recent specimens in quite a number of countries (Heinemann 1979–85). This genre as well as a good many of the studies commonly assigned to the history of education have aimed at producing—and in fact continue to produce—not primarily historical research in the manner of historians, but, instead, justification and legitimization, the construction of enlightened norm consensuses and the reinterpretation and reactualization, with respect to issues of present-day educational reform, of the normative and theoretical substance contained in historical texts, models, or institutions. In other words, this tradition of an ‘educational’ history of education—of Geschichte der Padagogik or histoire de la pedagogie—has not aimed at a detached historicization of lines of educational thought or of past experiences, but at certain forms of theoretical and normative ‘traditionalization.’

Thus, seen from the vantagepoint of sociohistorical analysis, the history of education closely associated, in terms of institutional and disciplinary affiliation, with educational theory has from its origins shared the ambiguities proper to the latter field. Just as educational studies in general, history of education has oscillated between rigorous research and systemic self-reflection. Accordingly, the field has given room to a considerable variety of constructions of reality, the varying presuppositions of which ensue from their being related to distinct system logics and problem perspectives: to either issues of objective method and explanation as debated from the vantage point of social science research, or to issues of meliorism and reform immanent in the dynamics of modern education, and to attendant needs for interpretation, orientation, and professional knowledge. The respective proportions, however, in which these component modes of reasoning have given shape to historical studies on education arise from an intricate interplay of institutional conditions, intellectual traditions, and disciplinary models (Schriewer et al. 1993). Thus, recent analyses of the state of the art have—on the grounds of reviews of substantive interests, research topics, and methodological approaches that are given preference to as well as of the field’s disciplinary status, specialized journals, and associations—contrasted two major models. These are, on the one hand, the German model, which is well represented also in countries such as Switzerland, Austria, and Hungary as well as in Italy and Scandinavia, and, on the other hand, the institutional-cum-epistemological model prevalent in France and the United Kingdom, respectively (Compere 1995). In the former model, due to a long-standing tradition of educational-cum-philosophical theorizing as well as to the institutional and intellectual integration of the history of education into education as a discipline firmly established in academia, the system-reflection style of educational history described above has by and large prevailed up to the 1970s, and still has a strong impact up to the present. By contrast, the tradition of education conceived as a philosophico-hermeneutic field of theorizing gave way to educational studies based on the social and human sciences both in France, from the 1930s onwards, and in the United Kingdom, in the aftermath of World War II. Consequently, these developments also facilitated the alignment of historical studies on education with history and sociology proper, and the intellectual opening of such studies to wider sociological and anthropological frames of reference. Thus, in France and the United Kingdom, just as in the United States, history of education has turned into an academic discipline in its own right which is fairly independent of educational studies in general, based on its own specialized journals, and elaborated by scholars who are (also) trained as historians. This histoire ‘historienne’ de l’education has in turn encouraged initiatives leading to the emergence of a social history-related Historische Bildungsforschung also in countries traditionally influenced by the German model.

3. History Of Education As A Field Of Social Science Study

Fueled by debates on a ‘new history of education’ which arose in the United States at the beginning of the 1960s, conceptual models and methodological approaches heavily influenced by modern social history, intellectual history, and the social sciences more generally have since then considerably altered the field. The publication, in 1960, of Philippe Aries’ L’enfant et la Vie Familiale sous l’Ancien Regime and Bernard Bailyn’s Education and the Forming of American Society can be seen as a turning point. A stimulating and intellectually demanding period was about to begin. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the ‘new history of education’ brought a critical perspective into a discipline that had been dominated by parochialism and myths of progress. Ever since its repertoire has come to include the longue duree, a focus on structures and mentalities, a special attention to serial and quantitative methods, and the ambition of ‘total history.’ These changes, moreover, are reflected in corresponding shifts from narrative history to problem-centered history, from descriptive to explanatory approaches, and from conceptions of unilinear evolution to a vision of historical processes that emphasizes their often conflict-laden, asynchronous nature. While accomplishing such shifts, scholars like Michael Katz and David Tyack, Antoine Prost and Dominique Julia, and Lawrence Stone and Harold Silver have been deeply influenced by social history perspectives. They have turned the legitimizing narratives of the past upside down, providing new arguments about the emergence and development of educational systems, the role of schooling in social reproduction, the educational strategies of various social classes, and the action taken by the nation-state in establishing mass schooling. They accordingly shifted the attention from the evolution of educational ideas to the relationships between education and society.

While in the early 1980s a sense of accomplishment was shared by a majority of the researchers involved in rewriting the history of education, only a few years later, the resources of the ‘new’ history of education seemed to be exhausted. The accumulation of data, the considerable increase in well-conducted studies based on extended series of archival sources, and the growing specialization of historical inquiry nevertheless left the impression that educational historians had fallen short of addressing actually meaningful issues. In addition, efforts meant to raise new questions, related for instance to minority and gender issues, did not lead to an epistemological breakthrough, but rather to an even wider fragmentation of the field. Innovative solutions were to be found, then, in the adoption of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches that focus not only on the organization of practices and discourses over time, but also on the elucidation of how these practices and discourses have constructed and reconstructed the individual lives of people and, thereby, social reality. In this sense, educational historians are facing the same challenges and dilemmas like social scientists more generally. To the extent that the difficulties of coping with the plurality of meanings henceforth present in the analysis of social phenomena became apparent, the ‘new’ complexity of historical work has nourished old suspicion as far as theory is concerned (Lagemann 2000). The transition from ‘History’ to ‘histories’ implies a reconfiguration of the field that invites educational historians to reconceptualize their work and to adopt a more comprehensive approach, shifting from a social history of culture to a cultural history of society (Chartier 1998). Still, there is no consensus regarding the changes that are occurring in historical studies in education (Cohen and Depaepe 1996). Nevertheless, drawing on an often used conceptual division between educational actors, school practices, educational ideas, and educational systems, it is possible to identify major tendencies that have come to shape historical research in education (Novoa 1998).

3.1 The History Of Educational Actors And The Rediscovery Of Experience

For a long time, historians have described the history of educational institutions rather than that of educational processes or interactions. Consequently, the history of educational actors has been one of the most neglected areas of research. The rediscovery of the concept of ‘experience’ opened new possibilities, well-illustrated by numerous texts on autobiographies, teachers’ professional careers, or students’ life stories. One of the reasons why feminist theories have been so powerful in educational history is that they help to reveal histories silenced by traditional narratives. From these points of view, modernity dispossessed the actors of the educational process from their subjectivity through the imposition of a structural logic and a populational reasoning. People were classified as categories (the teachers, the learners, the children at risk, etc.) and managed as populations. However, after a long tradition of conceptualizing the world in terms of structure and representation, time had come to see the world as ‘experience.’ This implied a new ‘epistemology of the subject’ which, by dissolving the ‘natural’ divisions between public and private, dis-course and practice, or between text and context, prepared the way for a shift toward a self-conscious study of pupils and teachers, and for bringing the individual actor in education back into the historical portrayal. Moreover, new conceptions of the subject and of experience allow attention to be paid not only to living experience, but also to the way people elaborate it. Finally, the concept of ‘experience’ has to be seen not only at an individual level, but also in its collective dimension, which is characterized by a redefinition of identities and belongings through the participation of people in different communities of meaning.

3.2 The History Of School Practices And A New Concept Of Culture

The history of school practices is another field that has traditionally been neglected by educational historians. Explanations of this ‘black box’ phenomenon are directly related to the concept of ‘culture.’ Schools have always been regarded as places of culture: at first, in an idealistic vision of putatively universal values and knowledge to be transmitted to the young generations; afterwards, in a critical perspective of ideological inculcation and social reproduction. In both cases, educational historians failed to look at the internal production of a distinctive school culture that is not independent of social struggles and conflicts, but cannot be explained as being merely determined by the external world either. More recent conceptualizations, in contrast, have defined school culture as both an ensemble of norms (which organize the branches of knowledge and behaviors that must be brought into schooling) and an ensemble of practices (which allow the transmission of such knowledge and the integration of such behaviors). Moreover, it is possible to identify tendencies of historical research that successfully try to refocus historical inquiry onto the internal functioning of the school by providing thoroughgoing analyses of organizational structures, curriculum issues, school subjects, and day-to-day realities. Thus, one of the most interesting lines of work tries to understand the permanence of a ‘grammar of schooling’ that resists changes and reforms. Another line of research focuses on the history of the curriculum, viewed as the outcome of a complex interplay of competing values and traditions. Several authors are voicing the need for deconstructing a ‘natural-history’ conception of the curriculum, and therefore seek to problematize the curriculum as text and historicize its evolution over time. A third strand of recent research worth mentioning is concerned with the history of school subjects. Historians are asking salient questions regarding the formation of school subjects, the institutionalization of school knowledge, and the ways in which it helps to organize our understanding of the world. Finally, one should not fail to point out a research trend concerned with the ‘silence’ observed within the traditional history of education about meaning and culture of classrooms, or the everyday education practice (Grosvenor et al. 1999, Ruiz Berrio 2000).

3.3 From The History Of Educational Ideas To A Sociohistory Of Knowledge

In contrast to traditional histories of educational ideas, the ‘new’ cultural history of education is interested in the production, diffusion, and reception of educational discourses throughout time and space. In other words, it is interested in ‘a historical imagination in the study of schooling that focuses on knowledge as a field of cultural practice and cultural production’ (Popkewitz et al. 2001). Therefore, the research interest has shifted to the discursive practices that regulate schooling, especially in situations of conflict or rupture. In this sense, several authors are calling for a historiography, not of the general terms, but of the conceptual structures that determine educational discourses, and for analyses, not of prominent ideas, but of fields of historically defined discursive problematiques. Such an approach is also important for analyses of the roles played by educational experts in providing ‘legitimate’ or ‘scientific’ interpretations of school realities. It helps to understand the original institutionalization of educational studies, not as a narrative of intellectual progress, but as a form of ‘governmentality.’ The question is not how to identify different ideas, but how to apprehend the rise of expert systems of knowledge (Drewek et al. 1998). The same holds true for the analysis of the complex transformation procedures that change academic subjects (integrated into their distinctive conceptual spaces) into school subjects (integrated into the arena of schooling), or for the study of the production and diffusion of textbooks that are not simply ‘delivery systems’ of factual information, but the results of cultural constructions imposing particular ways of seeing and interpreting the world. In this sense, knowledge has increasingly come to be taken as a text that redefines subjectivity and identities, that elaborates rules and behaviors, and that configures meanings and beliefs.

3.4 Comparative-Historical Research On Education

The publication of Fritz Ringer’s Education and Society in Modern Europe (1979) heralded a virtual breakthrough of yet another paradigmatic approach to the field, namely the comparative-historical research on education. Although some forms of cross-national analysis or international account had not completely been missing in previous periods, the programmatic views expressed by Ringer laid claim to new and ambitious objectives: ‘There is simply no other means of arriving at explanations, and not just descriptions, of change in education than the comparative approach.’ Substantive research inspired by such views has remarkably increased from the 1970s onwards. It covers, for instance, quasi-experimental investigations of the relationships between education and economic growth; large-scale theory-based analyses of the varying processes of educational system formation; as well as cross-national analyses of the emergence and varying discipline formation patterns of education as an academic field of study in the context of European university systems and the emerging social sciences more generally. Comparative historical research has also shed new light on the role that nation-specific social meanings, widely accepted interpretative schemes, or ‘symbolic structures’ deeply rooted in a particular civilization have played in shaping distinctive academic cultures and educational institutions (Archer 1979, Muller et al. 1987, Schriewer et al. 1993).

Not always, however, have attempts at providing convincing explanation through the combination of historical research and cross-national, or cross-civilizational, analysis been successful. Consequently, much debate has been devoted to issues of explanation. While traditionally, and to some extent up to the present, mainstream models of explanation have followed lines of reasoning as defined in the orthodox philosophy of science, far-reaching shifts in both problem-awareness and conceptual models have taken place in the wake of recent theory developments (Schriewer 2000). Among these are, for instance, world-system models and analyses which, by drawing on Braudelian concepts, not only reintroduced a macrohistorical perspective into comparative research, but also tended to replace the latter by analyses of global diffusion processes and of the working of an emerging ‘world polity’ (Thomas et al. 1987). New forms of reconciling history and comparison are also suggested, however, by insights from historical sociology as well as by interdisciplinary developments discussed under headings such as ‘self-organization,’ ‘morphogenesis,’ or ‘evolutionary complex systems research’ (Gulbenkian Commission 1996). Thus, comparative-historical research on education informed by concepts and models of this kind seems to be particularly suited, not only to radically historicizing educational phenomena, but also to linking historical analysis up with insight relevant to social theory.

Bibliography:

1. Archer M S 1979 Social Origins of Educational Systems. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
2. Aries P L’Education et la Vie Familiale sous l’Ancien Regime. Plon, Paris
3. Bailyn B 1960 Education and the Forming of American Society—Needs and Opportunities for Study. Vintage Books, New York
4. Buisson F (ed.) 1887–88 Dictionnaire de Pedagogie et D’Instruction Primaire. 2 parts in 5 Vols. Hachette, Paris
5. Chartier R 1998 Au Bord de la Falaise: L’histoire Entre Certitudes et Inquietude. Albin Michel, Paris
6. Cohen S, Depaepe M (eds.) 1996 History of Education in the Postmodern Era (Paedagogica Historica Vol. 32 no. 2). C.S.H.P., Ghent, Belgium
7. Compayre G 1879 Histoire Critique des Doctrines de L’Education en France depuis le Seizieme Siecle. Hachette, Paris [Reprint edition 1970. Slatkine, Geneva]
8. Compere M M 1995 L’Histoire de l’Education en Europe. Peter Lang, Bern, Switzerland
9. Drewek P, Luth C, Aldrich R, Scholtz H, Schriewer J, Tenorth H E (eds.) 1998 History of Educational Studies. Geschichte der Erziehungswissenschaft. Histoire des Sciences de l’education (Paedagogica Historica, Supplementary Series, Vol. III). C.S.H.P., Ghent, Belgium
10. Grosvenor I, Lawn M, Rousmaniere K (eds.) 1999 Silences and Images. The Social History of the Classroom. Peter Lang, New York
11. Gulbenkian Commission 1996 Open the Social Sciences. Report on the Gulbenkian Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
12. Heinemann M (ed.) 1979–85 Die historische Padagogik in Europa und den USA. 2 Vols. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, Germany
13. Lagemann E C 2000 An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
14. Luhmann N 1982 The Differentiation of Society. Translated by S. Holmes and C. Larmore. Columbia University Press, New York
15. Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica. Schulordnungen, Schulbucher und padagogische Miscellaneen aus den Landen deutscher
16. Zunge, 62 Vols. 1886–1938. Launched by Kehrbach K, edited by Gesellschaft fur deutsche Erziehungsund Schulgeschichte. Weidmann, Berlin
17. Muller D K, Ringer F K, Simon B (eds.) 1987 The Rise of the Modern Educational System. Structural Change and Social
18. Reproduction 1870–1920. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris
19. Novoa A 1998 Histoire et Comparaison. Essais sur l’Education. Educa, Lisbon, Portugal
20. Popkewitz T, Franklin B, Pereyra M (eds.) 2001 Cultural History and Education: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling. Routledge, New York
21. Prost A 1968 Histoire de l’Enseignement en France 1800–1967. Armand Colin, Paris
22. Ringer F K 1979 Education and Society in Modern Europe. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN
23. Ruiz Berrio J (ed.) 2000 La Cultura Escolar de Europa. Tendencias Historicas Emergentes. Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid, Spain
24. Schriewer J (ed.) 2000 Discourse Formation in Comparative Education. Peter Lang, New York
25. Schriewer J, Keiner E, Charle C (eds.) 1993 Sozialer Raum und Akademische Kulturen A la recherche de l’espace uni ersitaire europeen. Peter Lang, New York
26. Thomas G M, Meyer J W, Ramirez F O 1987 Institutional Structure. Constituting State, Society, and the Individual. Sage, Newbury Park, CA