Segunda Búsqueda de Replicaciones

As presented earlier in the chapter, the domestication framework emphasizes the process of national policymaking when global models appeal to national context. The domestication of global policy models also constantly generates new global ideas and transform older ones (Syvänterä & Qadir 2015). The domestic field battle described above means that the context in which the debate of policy reform is discussed has field-specific rules that define who can participate in the game in the field and how it is ‘played’ (see Bourdieu 1991). The concept of a ‘field’ is central to this study. Interaction is a key force for the field setting persisting. The interaction occurs in two ways: inside a field, when actors are interplaying with different habitus and their social positions; and between fields as these fields are hierarchical entities and most of fields are subordinate to a larger field of power and class relations. In this research, the higher education of Kyrgyzstan has been analyzed as an independent field which has his own rules, logic, discourses and operational model. A field of the higher education of Kyrgyzstan is not a permanent state and it was formed by history and various initiatives and actors. The domestic field battle was analyzed from the perspective of Bourdieu’s relational concept of society. The work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu becomes increasingly associated with the sociology of culture, but he was also committed to the analysis of education throughout his career. His conceptualizations have mainly been used to study school education, but there have been empirical studies to employ his conceptual framework to address higher education analysis. These studies (Maton 2005) have shown the usefulness of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework for empirical analysis of policy debates in higher education.

The concept of the field is central to Bourdieu’s relational approach to society. In Bourdieu’s conceptualization, society is constructed from a range of fields where individuals are combating each other to manage and rule the field. The field consists of a set of objectives, historical relations between positions anchored by certain forms of power or capital (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, 16; Kosunen 2016). Essential in the concept of the field is to see actors as socially active players in the field. This active agency level can be achieved when an actor has all the features needed to succeed and influence within the field. (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1995, 136–137). To reach the field, certain requirements must be met and cer-tain rules have to be followed. The field can be accessed only if actors accept the required rules in the field and is able to demonstrate the adoption of the rules. New entrants try to change the rules of the field so that their own position on the field

would improve, but the effort is to make the change so that the entire field does not collapse (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1995, 127). The field is a place of constantly changing forces and a struggle to change the field.

Maton argued (2005) that considering higher education through Bourdieu’s central concepts of ‘field’ and ‘autonomy’ helps us to understand a period of rapid transition under the impact of marketization and new managerialism. With Bourdieu’s theoretical tools internationalization of higher education in Kyrgyzstan has been discussed via the concept of ‘social space of higher education in Kyrgyzstan’. There are multiple fields in a social space, such as the field of labor and the field of politics, which then have subcategories such as the fields of language, gender, corruption and culture (see Kosunen 2016, 72). These fields are relative-ly autonomous but simultaneously structurally homologous with other fields (Bourdieu 1993, 6).

In the domestication approach, the field battle is central. In this study I combine understanding the domestic field battle with Bourdieu’s notion of the field. In the context of national policymaking, the concept of the field has a specific position. Introduction of the new policy model is typically debated in a national ‘political field’ (Bourdieu 1991). This means that actors involved in the debate or ‘field battle’ (Alasuutari & Qadir 2014) have a sense that they are entering the political game. The status of power relations between actors determines the structure of the field. People work in different fields, trying to strengthen the capital that is consid- ered valuable in that field. When actors enter the political field, they typically present particular stakeholders or interest groups interests but in way that their stance is framed such that it is seen as being the best for the nation and its citizens (Syvänterä 2016). In the context of national policymaking, decisions made in the field are justified in terms of national interests. In the political field, actors take positions on whether they consider the policy idea debated to be beneficial or harmful to the interest group they are presenting.

Figure 1. The domestic field of travelling reforms (based on Alasuutari & Qadir 2014).

Syvänterä and Alasuutari (2014, 178) argue that when transnational models are enacted in national policymaking, the local power games and interest-based rationales of local actors should not be dismissed. They write:

“…we argue, an outcome of a political field battle in which domestic actors articulate a transnational idea or model with prevailing conceptions concerning the common good and the national interest. The participants’

success in a political field battle depends on their ability to present their stakeholder interests as the national interest.” (Syvänterä & Alasuutari 2014, 178).

This means that whether a global model or reform is enacted or not, “the entire political process, along with end results, is seen in a context of wider domestic political drama” (Syvänterä 2016, 45). As a consequence of the field battle, the global education model or policy ideas might be rejected or incorporated into the national education system in a form that is different from the original model or idea. Even if the domestication process does not lead to anything more than a rejection, new ideas and concepts influence the national debate and clarify the national education policy view and principles. The fields are influenced by other subfields and part of the larger national political field when political decision- making occurs. Alasuutari (2015, 177) wrote:

“Hence individuals who want to influence decision-making need to align with other actors’ views and sentiments, influence others with their own moves, or affect the beliefs about what the ‘general public’ thinks”.