How would you taxonomize the proper and best methods for a field of study called “Philosophy of Education”?

Before you answer that question, consider another (even shorter) question: “What is the meaning of life?” (don’t think Hitchhiker’s Guide here) Are the best questions really this easy to ask? Here’s another: “What is most important in life?” But wait, these questions may be shorter and use simpler terms, but they are actually much harder and complex to answer. In fact, they are so extremely general, and non-specific, as to be nearly useless, other than as Philosophy of Educationbasic invitations to unorganized random chatter.

If questions are to be useful, they need to be specific, otherwise they are probably best considered high level goals, or general aims, rather than well constructed questions. At the very least, they need clarification. Now we have arrived at one of the uniting principles of all sub domains of philosophy. That is, for those who propose to ‘do’ philosophy, there is a need for a high degree of resolution and precision in identifying and distinguishing concepts, relations, and the other constructors of meaning.

Even when the question is enticingly simple (and they often do begin as such), the ability to even attempt an answer may demand clarifications and divisions of the question, possibly deconstruction, etymological analysis or other close examination. Let me therefore assist those who might consider engaging the question I began with, by clarifying in some small degree the meaning of the question.

What I am asking essentially is that the answerer unlearn everything that may have already displaced their conceptual openness regarding the philosophy of education, and instead start again as if innocent of prior knowledge. For instance, those familiar with this field of study likely know that several researchers have indicated that the predominant paradigms within the history of educational philosophy include: (1) functionalist theory, (2) conflict theory, and (3) interpretivist (DiGiulio, 2001, Feinberg,& Soltis, 2004, and McLaren, & Giarelli, 1995).

In general, these 3 views can be summarized as follows: The functionalist theory views each individual in terms of contribution to the whole, the individual’s function and purpose within the system and how that evolves over time. The conflict theory assumes an existing tension in society based on competing interests of the individuals involved and often includes economic ideas descendant from Marxism. The interpretivist point of view emphasizes a scientific approach which examines the context of social behavior and the implications of rules and meanings in a specific group.

When I first began to realize how prevalent these frameworks or paradigms are in the philosophy of education, I was intrigued. I asked myself, did someone come to ask questions designed for the toolset they already have? Were they putting out theoretical fires, or taking the long view? Was it all time and chance, or were these 3 camps a product of western dominance of post-industrial educational policy development, and indirectly mere reflections of the changes in their societies? In other words, to what degree was the economic dominance of each ideology, a product of supply dynamics (prevalence at time X, place Y, for scientist type Z), or a matter under demand control (urgency of educating baby-boomers, emergency of knowledge worker occupations, etc.).

We sometimes like to believe that self-directed passionate curiosity drove most theory development, rather than merely picking the lowest hanging fruit in the nearest general vicinity where an academician is standing. But that’s mere displaced longing for something to believe in firmly, as less perceptually and individually constructed, and more a product of tiny ant scientists circling and characterizing great structures of truth in the sand. In his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Thomas Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:

• what is to be observed and scrutinized
• the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
• how these questions are to be structured
• how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

By now you hopefully are seeing an underlying theme to my question, which is that the question itself, determines a lot. Formulating the question with ever so slightly a different set of terms, can have dramatic influence on the answers proposed. In fact, the taxonomy of how philosophers of education might be grouped together, might possibly depend very heavily on the selection of those questions deemed most important to the field.

For instance, history’s philosophical questions tend to look like this: “What is the proper unit for the study of the human past; the individual, the polis, the civilization, the culture, or the nation state?” and “Are there broad patterns and progress? Are there cycles? Is human history random and devoid of any meaning?” If the birth and development of philosophy of education had been more influenced by historians than by sociologist (imagine a snowball effect, beginning with one great, ground breaking scientist), how might the major questions sound? Surely we would all agree that the future is often predicted by the past, and to best plan the future we should understand the past, and how it relates to the present?

Each of the fields typically associated with the ‘humanities’ has its own set of major and minor theories, tool sets for analysis and investigation, and frameworks which divide the practitioners within it. One way of answering the question I began this with, might be to take a look at some of the major humanities, and ask new, different questions, than those which are being answered (or attempted at answering) by our 3 traditional branches of philosophy of education. Some potential options are listed below:

POLITICAL SCIENCE:

Political science is methodologically diverse. Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, interpretivism, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science has several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national politics, international relations, and comparative politics.

COMMUNICATIONS:

In the United States, the National Communication Association (NCA) recognizes 9 distinct but often overlapping sub-disciplines within the broader communication discipline: Communication & Technology, Critical-Cultural, Health, Intercultural-International, Interpersonal-Small Group, Mass Communication, Organizational, Political, and Rhetorical.

ANTHROPOLOGY:

Anthropology has many subfields, including: Biological anthropology, Cultural anthropology, Linguistic anthropology, Social anthropology, Archaeology. Some of the Methods and frameworks include: Applied anthropology, Ethnography, Prehistory, Participant observation, Qualitative methods, Cultural relativism, and Holism.

PSYCHOLOGY:

Modern researchers are interested in a many phenomena, but attribution, social cognition, and the self-concept are perhaps the greatest areas of growth in recent years. Social psychologists have also maintained their applied interests with contributions in health and environmental psychology, as well as the psychology of the legal system.

HISTORY

Historians debate the nature of history and the lessons history teaches. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyze the sequence of events, and it often attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events. Philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history. Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history.

References

DiGiulio, Robert C. (2001). Educate, Medicate, or Litigate? What Teachers, Parents, and Administrators Must Do about Student Behavior. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. (2004). School and society. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaren, Peter, & Giarelli, James M. (1995) Critical theory and educational research. SUNY Press

Wikipedia  (duh!)