these approaches purport to achieve and what they are unable to achieve, and how they relate to each other. Second, if we are clearer about the different kinds of educational study and the different purposes for which it is undertaken it might be clearer where these are best located and what role they might play in the initial and continuing education of practitioners. It might even lead, in England for example, to a re-examination of current views about the irrelevance of education’s core disciplines (philosophy, etc.) to the initial education of teachers, though I will not be taking any bets on it. Third, for all these reasons, it is important that education shakes off the low status that is repeatedly lamented in the course of this book. Greater conceptual clarity about the diversity of approaches that educational study involves, and what one can expect (and what one can not expect) from these, will not by itself transform the situation – but it will help. The status of education in the academy may also be helped by greater attention to how findings are written up. Although not the worst offenders among scholarly communities – as recent incursions on my part into the realm of literary theory have shown – educationalists are often their own worst enemies when it comes to coating their observations with jargon, or failing to use necessary technical language in ways which suggest the presence of at least a hint of empathy for lay readers of their works. This volume contains some excellent scholarly writing; dense, rigorous and clear in its definitions of the heavy Bernsteinian terminology which permeates its pages. It also contains a small amount of less helpful writing, some of which could have easily been sorted out by a copy editor providing assistance to writers whose first language is clearly not English, but some of which does not have this excuse. When ‘social affairs’ are said to ‘transpire’ within a ‘plenum’, and ‘practices’ are said to form ‘fields, complexes, textures’, without any explanation of the specific meanings of these terms, one cannot help thinking that the main point – that learning takes place in different ways in different contexts – is being gift-wrapped to make it sound grander than it is, and unnecessarily obscured into the bargain. But this is a minor blemish in a book which makes the reader think about fundamental issues, not just those to do with the ‘production of educational knowledge’ but also the eternal questions underpinning this production about the aims of education.

中文翻译：

---

书评：关于高等教育学术领导力的国际化视角苏风伍德玛格丽特 (编辑) 布卢姆斯伯里学术学院：伦敦，2017 年；ISBN 9781474223034

这些方法旨在实现和无法实现的目标，以及它们之间的关系。其次，如果我们更清楚不同类型的教育研究及其进行的不同目的，那么这些研究的最佳位置以及它们在从业者的初始和继续教育中可能发挥的作用可能会更清楚。例如，在英格兰，它甚至可能导致重新审视当前关于教育核心学科（哲学等）与教师初始教育无关的观点，尽管我不会对此下任何赌注。第三，由于所有这些原因，教育摆脱本书过程中反复哀叹的低地位是很重要的。关于教育研究涉及的方法多样性的概念更加清晰，从这些中可以期待（以及不能期待）的东西本身不会改变情况——但它会有所帮助。更加关注研究结果的撰写方式也可能有助于提高学院的教育状况。尽管不是学术界中最严重的冒犯者——正如我最近对文学理论领域的入侵所表明的那样——当涉及到用行话来掩盖他们的观察或未能以某种方式使用必要的技术语言时，教育家往往是他们自己最大的敌人这表明对他们作品的非专业读者至少有一丝同情。本书收录了一些优秀的学术著作；其对贯穿其页面的伯恩斯坦式沉重术语的定义密集、严谨和清晰。它还包含少量不太有用的文字，其中一些很容易被文案编辑整理出来，为母语明显不是英语的作家提供帮助，但其中一些没有这个借口。当“社会事务”在“全会”中“发生”，“实践”被称为“场域、复合体、肌理”，而没有对这些术语的具体含义作出任何解释时，人们不禁会认为主要观点——学习在不同的环境中以不同的方式发生——被包装成礼物，使其听起来比实际更宏伟，并且不必要地掩盖了交易。但这是一本让读者思考基本问题的书中的小瑕疵，不仅仅是那些与“教育知识的生产”有关的问题，而且还有支撑这种生产的关于教育目标的永恒问题。