Initial thoughts on
developing a research programme into the question:
Can we enhance our
contributions to social evolution through learning research-based practices of
inclusionality in creating, testing and pedagogising our living educational
theories?
(8th January
2005 – from conversations between Alan Rayner and Jack Whitehead)
Assumptions
This
proposal is based on the following assumptions concerning inclusionality,
living educational theories, learning, pedagogy and social evolution. These
assumptions are open to question in the developing research programme.
The
research programme is developing on the assumption that contributions to social
evolution can be enhanced by learning the research-based practices of
inclusionality in creating, testing, pedagogising and communicating living
educational theories.
By
inclusionality we are meaning a relationally dynamic awareness of space and
boundaries as connective, reflexive and co-creative. We are researching as
complex selves by which we mean that we are developing, through the research
programme, a fully contextualised understanding of self-identity that is formed
with the reciprocal coupling of distinct but not discrete inner and outer
spatial domains through intermediary self-boundaries.
By
living educational theories we mean the explanations that individuals produce
for educational influences in their own learning as they ask, research and
answer questions of the kind, ÔHow am I improving my well-being?Õ ÔHow can I
enhance my contribution to the learning of others?Õ How can we enhance our
well-being?Õ How can we enhance our educational influence in social evolution
through the education of our social formations?Õ
Epistemological
significance of inclusionality in the research programme
The
research programme emerged out of a dissatisfaction with existing understandings
of the knowledge-base of the theories and methodologies that defined the
disciplines of biology and education[i]
during the 1970s. Intuitions that something was mistaken in the application of
a particular logic to forming these disciplines clarified into an awareness of
the need for philosophical shifts from rationalistic to dialectical to
inclusional logic in the reconstitution of these disciplines. We see this as a
shift in logic that is in many ways both small and subtle. It involves a simple
inversion from content-first assertion to context-first reception, and thereby
from fixed boundaries that make entities discrete to
relationally dynamic boundaries that make identities distinct. The
epistemological implications of this inversion are being explored in the
expression, clarification, and communication of the living standards of judgement in relationally dynamic
boundaries as these emerge in pedagogical contexts[ii].
The
methodology of the research programme
The methodology of the research programme
is that of a flow-form network[iii] that is focused on the pedagogisation
of living educational theories. In flow-form networks, communications do not
take the form of discrete relationships, transactions or exchanges between
nodes. Rather, communication is a flow that may be directed,
diverted, accelerated, impeded or allowed to escape. The structure of a flow-form network is created by the flow
itself, which is reciprocally coupled with a flow of contextual space that
recedes and re-forms itself as material substance flows outwards. So, the study of a flow-form network,
involves both the flows within, and the dynamic flows of the space around it.
The flow-form
methodology involves the construction of visual narratives from pedagogical
contexts that explain educational influences in learning. In these visual narratives embodied
ontological values, that are being expressed in the educational relationships,
are clarified and communicated. In the act of such communications the embodied
values are transformed into living standards of judgement that flow in the
relationally dynamic boundaries of co-created consciousnesses. The
epistemological significance of this transformation is that living standards of
judgement can be used to evaluate the validity of the knowledge being produced
in the accounts of the educational influence in learning.
The methodology includes
PopperÕs insight that objectivity is grounded in intersubjective agreement. In
this flow-form methodology an individualÕs account of the educational
influences in their own learning is subject to the mutual rational control of
critical conversations about the validity of the account and liberated from
inappropriate constraints by the creativity and imagined possibilities in
aesthetically engaged and appreciative responses[iv].
Questions asked in these Ôvalidation conversationsÕ draw on the four criteria
distinguished by Habermas[v]
in his analysis of communication and the evolution of society; Is the
communication comprehensible? Are the assertions justified? Is the normative
background made explicit? Is the account authentic?
Using
a flow-form methodology in researching the question:
Can
we enhance our contributions to social evolution through learning
research-based practices of inclusionality in creating, testing and
pedagogising living educational theories?
The participants in the
research programme are engaged in self-studies of their own higher education as
they enquire into their own learning in a range of professional contexts. These
include health, education, psychology, biology, commerce, industry, economics,
politics, creative arts, information and communication technologies and the
judiciary. They are pedagogising
their living educational theories within their research-based professional
practices and studying their influence in the education of their social
formations.
[i] In 1983, Paul Hirst, one of the
proponents of the ÔdisciplinesÕ approach to educational theory acknowledged the
mistake that grounded this dissastifaction when he said that much understanding
of educational theory will be developed:
"É in the
context of immediate practical experience and will be co-terminous with
everyday understanding. In particular, many of its operational principles, both
explicit and implicit, will be of their nature generalisations from practical
experience and have as their justification the results of individual activities
and practices.
In many
characterisations of educational theory, my own included, principles justified
in this way have until recently been regarded as at best pragmatic maxims
having a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in any
rationally developed theory would be replaced by principles with more
fundamental, theoretical justification. That now seems to me to be a mistake.
Rationally defensible practical principles, I suggest, must of their nature
stand up to such practical tests and without that are necessarily
inadequate." (Hirst, 1983, p. 18)
Hirst, P. (Ed.)
(1983) Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London;RKP
[ii] Pedagogy is a sustained process
whereby somebody(s) acquires new forms or develops existing forms of conduct,
knowledge, practice and criteria from somebody(s) or something deemed to be an
appropriate provider and evaluator - appropriate either from the point of view
of the acquirer or by some other body(s) or both (Bernstein, 2000, p.78).
When I talk
about pedagogy, I am referring to pedagogic relations that shape pedagogic
communications and their relevant contexts. Three basic forms of pedagogic
relation may be distinguished, explicit, implicit and tacit. Explicit and
implicit refer to a progressive in time pedagogic relation where there is a
purposeful intention to initiative, modify, develop or change knowledge, conduct
or practice by someone or something which already possesses, or has access to,
the necessary resources and the means of evaluating the acquisition. The
acquirer may or may not define the relation as legitimate, or accept as
otherwise, what is to be acquired. Explicit or implicit refers to the
visibility of the transmitter's intention as to what is to be acquired from the
point of view of the acquirer. In the case of explicit pedagogy the intention
is highly visible, whereas in the case of implicit pedagogy the intention from
the point of view of the acquirer is invisible. The tacit is a pegadogic relation where initiation,
modification, development of change of knowledge, conduct or practice occurs,
where neither of the members may be aware of it. Here the meanings are
non-linguistic, condensed and context dependent; a pure restricted code relay. An example would be modelling,
perhaps the basic pedagogic mode; primary in the sense of time and primary in
the sense of durability. The primary modelling where both transmitter and
acquirer are unaware of a pedagogic relation must be distinguished from
secondary modelling which is a deliberate and purpose relation only for the
acquirer. (Bernstein,
2000, p.200)
Bernstein, B.
(2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique.
Lanham, Boulder, NewYork, Oxford; Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[iii] See Teeson (2005) Chapter 7 of Draft
Ph.D, University of Bath
[iv] DÕArcy, P. (1998) The Whole StoryÉ.. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved
7 January 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net/pat.shtml
[v] Habermas, J. (1976) Communication and the evolution of society.