The mismeasure of monkeys: education policy research and the evolution of social capital

This conceptual history traces the rise of ‘social capital’ from the theories of James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu to its eventual adoption in fields such as primatology and evolutionary psychology. It argues that the earliest theories of social capital were formulated in response to a growing perception that education was an economic investment. It argues, moreover, that peculiarities in the earliest theories of social capital, as well as a confluence of historical factors, led to an explosion of social capital research during the 1990s and 2000s. Though researchers have attributed social capital’s meteoric rise to the expansion of neoliberal discourse, my account suggests that the factors behind the concept’s growth were more complex and manifold. Social capital has never been a singular idea with clear ties to a single theory or ideology. It is all the more troubling, then, that many researchers have discussed this nebulous concept as if it were a self-explanatory and universal empirical principle that can be used to generate ‘further knowledge.’ Recommendations for mitigating this problem are made by discussing how researchers should (and should not) use terms such as social capital, neoliberalism, and analytic concepts in general.     

Neoliberalism and the future for a socio-educative physical education

Background: This paper represents the Discussant's response to the variety of papers presented to the AIESEP-ICSEMIS symposium entitled: School Physical Education Curricula for Future Generations: Global Patterns? Global Lessons? Glasgow, Glasgow 19–24 July 2012.

Purpose: With reference to the symposium papers, this paper identifies some of the key features of neoliberalism and reflects on the very many challenges they present to Physical Education (PE) in schools and Initial Teacher Education in many countries across the globe.

Findings: The paper highlights the overbearing attention given in government policies in many countries to sport and performance-based curriculum and the reductive distortions it effects in teachers' and pupils' thinking and their pedagogical transactions.

Conclusions: Overgeneralised observations with regard to the practices described in the papers of this edition are unhelpful, while crystal ball gazing, questionable, even in our turbulent, socio-economic circumstances and proffering ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ to them across the globe, might be regarded as particular anathemas. Notwithstanding, this paper suggests that together the perspectives represented in this journal invite serious discussion as to the potential future, and future potential, of PE wherever it occurs. The final analyses call for the protection and celebration of Education in PE and pursuit of culturally sensitive socio-educative principles, eschewing neoliberalism's reductive ideals.