This track aims at analyzing the formal and informal processes of socialization, education and training. Researchers focus on both school and extra-curricular norms (e.g. parental and family norms, educational or psychological expertise, and professional norms), by studying their prescribers (e.g. educational policies, teachers, and trainers) as well as their appropriation by social actors (e.g. resistance, transformation, incorporation). In addition, they examine the articulation among these different normative models (i.e. relating to education, training and socialization). Aside of public policy analysis, some researchers employ enunciative/interactional approaches in discourse analysis.
School and extra-curricular norms: the pedagogic action is considered as a methodical instrument characterized by repetition, continuity and duration that seek to instill ways of thinking and acting. Though pedagogic action constitutes the most institutionalized form of schooling pedagogy, its analysis should not be reduced to this single dimension. The goal is then to extend the focal lens to didactic action in which organizations engage in, to convey certain ways of thinking and acting to individuals (e.g. firms, professional groups, media, churches, associations, political parties, trade unions). Pedagogical power (i.e. the one leading people to act in one way or another) is a contested issue between competing forces in democratic societies. One of the best paths to explore the forms of social control in our societies is then to analyze the strategies (i.e. more or less sophisticated and conscious), adopted by these different “forces” in the struggle to appropriate the pedagogical power.
Norms prescribers: the purpose is particularly to analyze the groups and individuals (e.g. dissenters, reformers, innovators), who question the prescribers of these prevailing norms either within the considered educational machineries (e.g. school system), or on its margins, or even outside them. Special attention is paid on how they contribute to legitimize their action, mobilize resources and rely on “translators” or intermediaries who are capable of introducing new ways of transmitting knowledge and teaching.
Appropriation and reception conditions: the pedagogical work undertaken by “outsiders” or “insiders” cannot automatically exert the effects expected by its creators/promoters without meeting resistance or re-translations. The pedagogical work can be retranslated in categories making sense either to intermediary groups in charge of the dissemination of their recommendations, or to fieldwork actors supposedly in charge of their implementation. There is a twofold challenge. The first one is to demonstrate that the analysis of this pedagogical work and of its reception conditions cannot be dissociated. The second one is to show that, even in dissymmetrical relations, fieldwork actors do co-construct the definition and the usage of these norms.