​Philosophy of Education: New Critical Conversations

The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain is sponsoring a seminar series in which philosophers of education with a variety of intellectual styles engage in sustained conversation with each other. 

 

Here is the original rationale for the series:-

Philosophy of Education has moved far beyond the style and content characteristic of Anglophone academics in the 1960s. The contemporary scene features key academic journals carrying papers written in traditional analytic style, in a whole variety of continental traditions and with a diversity of post-modern flavours. There are ‘conflicting conceptions of good scholarship, since some look to philosophy departments or the natural sciences for their norms, while others look to English departments and literary theory ‘ (Bredo, 2002). Griffiths (2012) feels that ‘there is little agreement about what should count as philosophy of education’ (p. 404).

To some working in the field, this situation shows the health and richness of the discipline. Others have expressed dissatisfaction. Recent contributors to the relevant debates include White (2004), worrying about the decline of liberal approaches and Standish (2007) and White (2010) arguing over rival conceptions of Philosophy of Education. Phillips (2009) observed that the paradigm wars  within the subject continue, that approaches have become more ‘diffuse’ and that some analytic philosophers find other styles ‘incomprehensible’. There has been a fair amount of angst-ridden debate about whether philosophy of education can be both philosophically reputable and achieve practical relevance (Burbules 2002a). There are certainly those who vigorously assert that there is no need for the subject to be ‘relevant’, even if we assume we understand what that much abused term might mean in this connection.

Over the decades, attempts have been made to foster conversations within the discipline, with the aim of improving the health of the subject and combating the destructive impact of paradigm divides (e.g. Kohli 1995). Yet some commentators have noted that the distance between different approaches to the subject has widened in recent years. I believe  that the time is ripe for some carefully structured dialogue within the subject that seeks to address these issues.
Much  contemporary writing in philosophy of education is opaque to our empirical researcher colleagues, and, indeed to some fellow philosophers. Of course, philosophers of education are accustomed to hearing this, though in the past such a point has been explicitly linked to the criticisms of ‘continental’ approaches by ‘analytic’ philosophers – as, for instance discussed by Phillips(1983). Arguably, criticisms of ‘analytic’ approaches could be made on similar grounds, and in any case I want at least to try to steer clear of these contentious paradigm labels. Many colleagues rightly reject the crude stereotyping involved, and the artificial polarisation of contrasting perspectives.

We do need the support of fellow academics outside philosophy (see e.g. Burbules, 2002(b) ). Some would contest any claim that we have a duty to ensure that our work is ‘accessible’ to such people, on the grounds that this demanding requirement is not imposed on other specialist academic subjects. Siegel (2002) contends that philosophy of education can have its own integrity, and that, though conversations with others may be fruitful,  it is entitled to follow its own scholarly agenda. At the same time, it is also conceded by many philosophers of education that, whether we like it or think it fair, the very survival of our subject may well depend on real engagement with others.

Accordingly, I propose conversations between key players in philosophy of education by means of an invitation- only seminar series. These will be held at four  venues in the UK. Most of those attending would be philosophers of education, but invitations would also be extended to sympathetic empirical researchers and to representatives from philosophy departments.
The most important aim of these conversations is mutual education, where this in turn might result in some transformation.
This would involve key players in our subject seeking to strengthen their understanding of at least some of the key philosophical paradigms with which they are currently not particularly familiar. I have in mind something along the lines of Charles Taylor’s ‘language of perspicuous contrast’ (Taylor 1985), where one culture, seeking to understand another, develops a shared language in which helpful and constructive comparisons can be made between the two. This in turn helps each party to be open to the possibility of modifying their stance. A crucial part of the Taylor process is that we cannot bypass the terms and concepts in which others conduct their thinking, but that neither side is restricted to grasping such thinking. The way is paved for challenge and possibly for a measure of transformation. ‘Dialogue’ of the right kind is the laboratory for philosophical advance, and this is what is hoped for here.

It is proposed that all those contributing to the series address the issue of accessibility. An assumption behind this project is that contemporary philosophy of education has a real problem with this. ‘Accessibility’ can mean many different things, depending on audience, purpose and other factors. Yet much in the way of conference presentations and publications seems to be designed to be comprehensible mainly to others of a similar persuasion or philosophical paradigm. There often seems little effort on the part of authors to make their work accessible to a wider audience, even of fellow philosophers.
One colleague who offered thoughtful comments on a draft version of this proposal referred to Heidegger , who said that language is the house of being, and that there are many rooms. Similarly, the building comprising philosophy of education houses many rooms, and  there could be unity in diversity. This seems an admirable vision. Yet it surely is the case that some practitioners have no intention of looking out of their own rooms, do not wish to help others to look in and see what is there, and even doubt the existence of other rooms altogether. On the face of it, this is not a healthy state of affairs. Even so, the aim of the seminar series is not in any way to seek a spurious ‘unity’ in a subject that surely embraces a legitimate diversity.
The project must not degenerate into yet another navel-gazing exercise. The ultimate aim should be to influence the direction of the subject, and its relationship with sister education disciplines over the next few years. It is important to note that no kind of prescription is either intended or actually possible as a result of the proposed conversations. What should emerge is what is thought and decided together by the seminar participants. Obviously,  the immediate  result of these seminars is unlikely to be dramatic, but I hope that it might seed other initiatives that would also influence philosophy of education itself, together with its relationships with a range of other disciplines and with practitioners.

Format

Each seminar would focus on a specific topic of current interest in educational debates and research – such as parenting, home-schooling, fair educational opportunity, the role of Higher Education, emotional intelligence and happiness.  These are only examples, and none of these might feature. We would consult carefully on a choice of topics to avoid the danger of ‘favouring’ any one paradigm. Ultimately it would not be philosophical insight into the topics concerned that would be the objective, but the development of understanding of different approaches and perspectives in relation to the chosen topics. A subject focus would give participants a starting point.
Two protagonists would lead each seminar, preparing opening statements about the topic concerned, together with their reactions to the statements offered by their  partners (the opening statements would have been circulated in advance.) Those heading up the conversations would be chosen largely on the basis of their broad adherence to a paradigm or, at least, their willingness to defend/explore it for the sake of the current exercise. Care would be taken not to over-simplify and polarise the categories concerned. After the opening statements, conversations would follow. The seminar chair would pay particular attention to fostering in-depth exchanges and careful listening. We would like to facilitate the recording of all the exchanges in each seminar, with a view to these being transcribed and shared widely after the event. Depending on the degree of success, we would seek to publish at least some of the materials. These would include the opening statements, and a narrative of the conversations, together with critical evaluations.

It is expected that most participants will come from the UK, but invitations would be issued to philosophers from other countries who have contributed previously to debates about the character of philosophy of education. It is hoped that each seminar would be attended by at least one academic from an Education Department whose research was not informed by philosophy, and that at least some of the seminars would be attended by academics from university departments of Philosophy with a track record of involvement in philosophy of education. Incidentally, as many of us already know, some empirical researchers actually carry out significant and valuable philosophy of education in the course of their investigations, even though they would often not recognize that this is the case.

References

Bredo, E. (2002) How can philosophy of education be both viable and good? Educational Theory  52.3
Burbules, N. (2002a) The dilemma of philosophy of education:“relevance” or critique? Part One Educational Theory  52.3
Burbules, N. (2002b) The dilemma of philosophy of education:“relevance” or critique? Part two Educational Theory  52.3
Griffiths, M. (2012) Is it Possible to Live a Philosophical, Educational Life in Education, Nowadays? Journal of Philosophy of Education 46,  3
Kohli, W., (ed.), 1995, Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, New York: Routledge.
Phillips, D. (1983): Philosophy of Education: In Extremis?, Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association 14:1, 1-30
Phillips, D.C., (2009) "Philosophy of Education", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/education-philosophy/>.
Siegel, H. (2002) Philosophy of education and the Deweyan legacy Educational Theory  52 .3
Standish, P. (2007) Rival Conceptions of the Philosophy of Education, Ethics and Education, 2.2, pp. 159–171.

Taylor, C. (1985)  Understanding and Ethnocentricity Philosophical Papers: Volume 2, Philosophy and the Human Sciences Cambridge Cambridge University Press

White, J. (2010) Elusive Rivalry? Conceptions of the Philosophy of Education, Ethics and Education,
5.2, pp. 135–145.