I’m thinking of it mostly from a first principles level with triangulation after generalizing and operationalizing this concept of credentialism to well-studied phenomenon ... but doing it as a mental exercise rather than a serious discussion for an academic paper. Had I desire to do the latter, I’d actually check the literature to see if people are writing about credentialism as described above and using that specific term for it vs other terms, and I’d look at what disciplines the writers are coming from which, in turn, would shape the theory they use to describe the phenomenon — an economist vs an education+curriculum scientist will come at it differently.
The first thing that strikes me straight away in how you describe credentialism is the underlying assumption that the “credentialist” (the actor engaging in credentialism) is making: that they already know all of what there is to know on the topic at hand and **are unwilling to take in new information** that contradicts their beliefs. This is a very well studied topic in cognitive science, philosophy, and in the science of education, particularly adult learning (formal and informal learning settings: college, workplace, life in general). The second thing that strikes me is how the “credentialist” is posturing within a hierarchy and signaling an authority claim. Philosophy, cog sci, and anthropology all have something to say on this.
Starting with philosophy: epistemology and belief revision lay the ground work for highly theoretical models of how beliefs are structured and how we know what we know. Rhetoric categorizes and classifies specific modes of argumentation styles for convincing others. All three of these topics in philosophy provide well known lingo for describing the ways in which people employ credentialism such that the phenomenon itself can be cleanly described (although there are other routes one could take to do this).
From cognitive science: any intro grad text on how people structure knowledge and reason will give a plethora of references. Theories of scaffolding, cognitive frames, etc., is where to start. Unlike the philosophical route (which is important for snagging lingo and for connecting to a long tradition), the cog sci stuff is backed with empirical data from actual studies.
From education: mostly it piggy-backs off of cognitive science but applies it to matters of learning, which includes restructuring of beliefs. That said, Peter Jarvis’s theory of Disjuncture comes to mind as something that speaks directly to **why** credentialists are so dismissive. (Google it ... I am far from home so I can’t grab the book from my shelf but he’s written a few books that go into depth on his model of disjuncture).
From anthropology ... but also from sociology and critical theory: pretty much anything that looks at and/or theorizes social hierarchies, in-group/out-group classifications, social signaling of status, challenges to social status, and (critical theory) ways in which established groups maintain their position in the establishment. Actually, James Paul Gee’s identity theory work might be useful too, particularly when credentialism is used as a strategy to defend one’s professional identity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-12-07 04:04 am (UTC)The first thing that strikes me straight away in how you describe credentialism is the underlying assumption that the “credentialist” (the actor engaging in credentialism) is making: that they already know all of what there is to know on the topic at hand and **are unwilling to take in new information** that contradicts their beliefs. This is a very well studied topic in cognitive science, philosophy, and in the science of education, particularly adult learning (formal and informal learning settings: college, workplace, life in general). The second thing that strikes me is how the “credentialist” is posturing within a hierarchy and signaling an authority claim. Philosophy, cog sci, and anthropology all have something to say on this.
Starting with philosophy: epistemology and belief revision lay the ground work for highly theoretical models of how beliefs are structured and how we know what we know. Rhetoric categorizes and classifies specific modes of argumentation styles for convincing others. All three of these topics in philosophy provide well known lingo for describing the ways in which people employ credentialism such that the phenomenon itself can be cleanly described (although there are other routes one could take to do this).
From cognitive science: any intro grad text on how people structure knowledge and reason will give a plethora of references. Theories of scaffolding, cognitive frames, etc., is where to start. Unlike the philosophical route (which is important for snagging lingo and for connecting to a long tradition), the cog sci stuff is backed with empirical data from actual studies.
From education: mostly it piggy-backs off of cognitive science but applies it to matters of learning, which includes restructuring of beliefs. That said, Peter Jarvis’s theory of Disjuncture comes to mind as something that speaks directly to **why** credentialists are so dismissive. (Google it ... I am far from home so I can’t grab the book from my shelf but he’s written a few books that go into depth on his model of disjuncture).
From anthropology ... but also from sociology and critical theory: pretty much anything that looks at and/or theorizes social hierarchies, in-group/out-group classifications, social signaling of status, challenges to social status, and (critical theory) ways in which established groups maintain their position in the establishment. Actually, James Paul Gee’s identity theory work might be useful too, particularly when credentialism is used as a strategy to defend one’s professional identity.