Innovations in Education: a Subsystem of Education

As explained in the last section of this chapter, education systems represent a field that unveils features from its social structure. They also show the relations between the individuals that determine the rules of the system, and those who execute it. In the field of education, innovations introduce new values, new practices, new institutions and new social relations. They emerge to solve new problems, to meet unattended needs, or to influence the redistribution of power in the local context.

By pursuing the change in the distribution of power, innovations introduce a subsystem with its own rules which nevertheless remains a part of the education system.

Foucault and Gramsci recognized the introduction of new structures in a system of education and knowledge by recognizing new ideas, new concepts, new theories and new methodologies. However, they identified such new structures from different perspectives. On the one hand, Foucault (2002) saw it as a threat when the new structures (of innovation) do not always completely replace old structures.

He meant that new structures of innovation can represent a risk to reproduce old practices through a new structure. In his study archaeology of knowledge, Foucault (2002)¹⁴ explained that new structures with new laws can maintain and repeat old structures, or even reproduce them through the new ones. Therefore, in a field where innovations are introduced, innovation should beware of not reproducing the diseases from the older field. On the other hand, Gramsci (1957) saw innovations as the introduction of a smaller structure embraced within a system. He recognized the emergence of new structures as a process of less control and less methods of discipline. He meant that non-traditional methods or new methods in education foster ‘creative schools’, and such schools contribute to build knowledge through research and experimentation:

14See more in Foucault (2002: 191): “To say that one discursive formation is substituted for another is not to say that a whole world of absolutely new objects, enunciations, concepts, and theoretical choices emerges fully armed and organized in a text that will place world one and for all; it is to say that a general transformation of relations has occurred, but that does not necessarily alter all the elements; it is to say that statements are governed by new rules of formation; it is not to say that all objects or concepts, all enunciation or all theoretical choices disappear. On the contrary, one can, on the basis of these new rules, describe and analyse phenomena and continuity, return and repletion (…) One of this elements-or several of them- may remain identical (preserve the same division, the same characteristics, the same structures), yet to belong to different systems of dispersion, and be governed by distinct law of formation

33

“From almost pure dogmatic teaching, in which memory plays a large part, one moves on to the creative phase of independent work; from school with its imposed and authoritatively controlled study discipline one moves on to a phase of study or professional work where intellectual self-discipline and moral independence are theoretically unlimited (…) the creative school does not mean a school of ‘inventors and discoverers’; it means a stage and method of research and knowledge, not a predetermined programme with the obligation of originality and innovation at all costs” (Gramsci, 1957: 131)

Innovation has been also defined as new structures intended to replace the old system (Archer, 1979). Despite most innovations having an initial plan to replace the old system, they usually don´t generate immediate changes, instead they create subsystems that modify local systems and can gradually change the whole system.

Archer (1979) explained innovations in education as alternatives for change, she saw that innovations imply de-structuration from current structures and how the

“attempts to change are affected by the degree of monopoly of education skills and resources”.

Other studies recognized an identity among an innovative community (Pakulski, 2005) that shares values, recognition and identities prior to collaboration. They formed communities or groups that change the dynamic of the context: “The main symptom of communal bonds is a shared identity backed by a popular label of recognition. Such identity- and easy self-identification- forms the foundation for solidarity action" (in Wright, 2005 pp.168). Other scholars like Hämäläinen and Heiskala (2007) identified the emergence of innovations as reactions to patterns of social and power reproduction.

By observing systems and fields of power, Foucault (1980:142) found there is no action that can be outside a field of power, which means that alternative actions also emerge within the field of power due to the fact that create and sustain an alternative system outside the system:

“power is ‘always already there’, that one is never ‘outside’ it, that there are no ‘margins’ for those who break with the system to gamble in. But this does not entail the necessity of accepting an inescapable form of domination or an absolute privilege on the side of the law. To say that one can never be

34

‘outside’ power does not mean that one is trapped and condemned to defeat no matter what” (Foucault, 1980:141-142).

We can consider innovations as actions that emerge with certain resistance to mechanisms of control and which boost new local capabilities that may stimulate innovation (Rouse, 1993)¹⁵. Therefore, innovation can foster “change in the distribution of local power” as Hämäläinen, Heiskala (2007), Moulaert et al. (2005) and Vera (2010) recognized. Their approach shows that after introducing new laws, new rules, new methods etc., communities and groups lead innovation through the interactions between specific actors in a specific environment. Some of these actors introduce new values which are shared with their community or group (Arocena, 2003). Thus, these groups create subsystems that initiate local changes in the mechanisms of the exertion of power, with the goal of participating in the construction of the rules of their system.

In order to understand the field of education as a system, and to understand the innovations as a subsystem, both are represented in the following Figure 1. The field of education is represented by the major circle, which embodies the structure of education institutions and rules. Innovations are represented by the smaller shaded circles, inserted into the education field. They constitute a system in itself, which means they have their own rules and institutions that create subsystems. The subsystems of innovation change the dynamic of their context, but not the structure as a whole because they still are part of the major system.

15 See more in Rouse (1993: 154): “Where there is (possible) resistance, new and more powerful techniques will be sought, more precise and careful measurement will be provided, and theoretical models will be refined to eliminate or bypass possible sources of inaccuracy or unrealistic assumption.

These various refinements are themselves new knowledge and often in turn provide further new directions or problems for research. Hence, around the specific points where knowledge is resisted, there emerged a whole cluster of new local capabilities and their extension into new contexts”.

35 Figure 1 Education System and Subsystems of Innovation

But what is the relationship between an innovation system and the field of education? Blättel-Mink (2009:187) explored Bourdieu’s approach of the field and recognized a potential area for research where actors and institutions of innovations have to be carefully analysed and incorporated: in an innovation system. Despite she suggested that innovation systems can be mainly approached through an analysis of the economic field. Other studies suggest that an innovation system can be approached through the different dimensions of an ecosystem, such as civil society, the economy, academia and politics, as well as to building relationships with the actors of innovation and the specific field to which the innovation belongs. For example, innovation studies in this research are mostly related to education and social processes. This is understood with an approach of the field of education, in Bourdieu’s sense, but also related to the different dimension that shaped innovation systems: institutions and actors.

Conclusion

Education systems are a construction of a field of power and social structure. The field of power reveals privileges for those with more capital and disadvantages for those with less capital in the field. Teachers may act as reproducers of power and of class differentiation through educational policies that maintain given structures of the ruling class. Relations of power can be observed through mechanisms of discipline and autonomy, they represent the level of control and restriction of a field to the actors and institutions. Bourdieu, Foucault and Gramsci’s approaches relate to

36

each other by their understanding of the system of education through a major system. On the one hand, Bourdieu is engaged to a greater extent with the understanding of the social field and the relations between the social system and institutions. On the other hand, Foucault and Gramsci focused on the mechanisms that transmit power in specific institutions and actors; and both recognized the potential of these actors to foster collective power. Gramsci analysed this collective power, recognizing the inherent power of subaltern groups, and their potential to change their environment. Although the field of education and structures of the field of power suggested by Bourdieu is recognized, it is here argued that innovations in education create subsystems in an education field. That rather than replacing the system (or the field), innovations add new institutions, practices and rules through the subsystem, and can foster a re-distribution of power relations on a local level.

37

2. The Innovation System in Education: Research on