‘Epistemological diversity’ in education: Philosophical and didactic considerations

• Authors: Kai Horsthemke

Title variants

PL

‘Epistemological Diversity’ in Education: Philosophical and Didactic Considerations

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

A recent but widespread view holds that ethnic or cultural groups have their own distinctive epistemologies, that epistemologies are also gendered, and that these have been largely ignored by the dominant social group. A corollary of this view states that educational research is pursued within a framework that represents particular assumptions about knowledge and knowledge production that reflect the interests and historical traditions of this dominant group. The call for epistemological diversity becomes problematic when it conflates epistemological pluralism and epistemological relativism. More often than not, in such arguments for different, diverse, alternative, decolonized or demasculinized epistemologies some relevant philosophical issues remain unresolved, if not unaddressed altogether. What exactly do these claims about epistemological diversity mean? Do these ways of establishing knowledge stand up to critical interrogation? Moreover, how do they relate to traditional epistemological distinctions, e.g. between knowledge and belief and between descriptive and normative inquiry, and to epistemologically essential components like warrant/justification and truth? This paper examines some of the mistakes and misconceptions involved in appeals to diverse epistemologies. The concern is not just whether or not a word (‘epistemology’) is being misused, but also (and importantly) whether or not the issues dealt with in epistemology (a complex field that has evolved over a long period of time) are being given short shrift, if not ignored altogether.

PL

Niedawno powstałe, ale już szeroko rozpowszechnione przekonanie utrzymuje, że grupy etniczne i kulturowe mają swoje własne, wyróżniające je epistemologie i że epistemologie także mają płeć, a fakt ten był dotąd przeważnie ignorowany przez dominującą grupę społeczną. Konsekwencją tego przekonania jest pogląd, że badania nad edukacją są prowadzone w ramach obejmujących pewne założenia na temat wiedzy i jej uzyskiwania, nakreślonych przez dominującą grupę i odzwierciedlających jej interesy i historyczne tradycje. Nawoływanie do epistemologicznego zróżnicowania staje się problematyczne, gdy łączy w sobie epistemologiczny pluralizm i relatywizm. Bardzo często argumentacja za innymi, zróżnicowanymi, alternatywnymi, zdekolonializowanymi czy zdemaskulinizowanymi epistemologiami nadal nie rozwiązuje, a czasem wręcz całkowicie pomija istotne kwestie filozoficzne. Co dokładnie oznaczają twierdzenia dotyczące epistemologicznego zróżnicowania? Czy te sposoby ustanawiania wiedzy są w stanie przetrwać próbę krytycznego badania? Ponadto, jaki jest ich związek z tradycyjnymi rozróżnieniami epistemologicznymi, np. między wiedzą a wiarą i między dociekaniami deskryptywnymi a normatywnymi oraz z takimi podstawowymi komponentami epistemologicznymi jak dowód/uzasadnienie i prawda? Niniejszy artykuł analizuje niektóre błędy i mylne pojęcia, które można odnaleźć w nawoływaniu do rozwijania zróżnicowanych epistemologii. Stawiane tu pytanie nie ma na celu jedynie ustalenia, czy słowo „epistemologia” jest lub nie jest poprawnie używane, ale także (co jest znacznie ważniejsze), czy zagadnienia, którymi się zajmuje ta dziedzina filozofii, nie są traktowane pobieżnie lub wręcz całkowicie pomijane.

Keywords

EN

Educational research; epistemological diversity; pluralism; relativism

PL

badania nad edukacją; zróżnicowanie epistemologiczne; pluralizm; relatywizm; badania nad edukacją; zróżnicowanie epistemologiczne; pluralizm; relatywizm

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Forum Pedagogiczne
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 261-278

Dates

published

2017-04-04

Contributors

author

Kai Horsthemke

References

• Anderson E. (2002). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. In: Wray K.B. (ed.). Knowledge & inquiry: Readings in epistemology. Ontario – New York: Broadview Press, pp. 312-351.
• Asante M.K. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity and knowledge. Trenton: Africa World Press.
• Asante M.K. (2005). African ways of knowing and cognitive faculties. In: Asante M.K., Mazama A. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Black Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Bakari, R.S. 1997. Epistemology from an Afrocentric perspective: Enhancing black students’ consciousness through an Afrocentric perspective: 1-4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/pocpwi2/20 (accessed: 19 March 2009)
• Banks J.A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. “Education Researcher”, no 22 (5), pp. 4-14.
• Barnhardt R., Kawagley A.O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. “Anthropology and Education Quarterly”, no 36 (1), pp. 8-23.
• Belenky M.F., Clinchy B.M., Goldberger N.R., Tarule J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
• Braidotti R. (1991). Patterns of dissonance: A study of women in contemporary philosophy. New York: Routledge.
• Braidotti R. (1993). Embodiment, sexual difference, and the nomadic subject. “Hypatia”, no 8 (1), pp. 1-13.
• Braidotti R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Code L. (2012). Taking subjectivity into account. In: Ruitenberg C.W., Phillips D.C. (eds.), Education, culture and epistemological diversity: Mapping a contested terrain. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 85-100.
• Code L., Phillips D.C., Ruitenberg C.W., Siegel H., Stone L. (2012). Epistemological diversity: A roundtable. In: Ruitenberg C.W., Phillips D.C. (eds.), Education, culture and epistemological diversity: Mapping a contested terrain. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 121-143.
• Dangor S. (2005). Islamisation of disciplines: Towards an indigenous educational system. “Educational Philosophy and Theory”, no 35 (4), pp. 519-531.
• De Sousa Santos B., Nunes J.A., Meneses M.P. (2007). Introduction: Opening up the canon of knowledge and recognition of difference. In: De Sousa Santos B. (ed.), Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies. London – New York: Verso, pp. xix-lxii.
• Dei G.J.S. (2002). Spiritual knowing and transformative learning. NALL (New Approaches to Lifelong Learning) Working Paper #59. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/59GeorgeDei.pdf (accessed: 3 August 2016).
• Dei G.J.S. (2004). Learning culture, spirituality and local knowledge: Implications for African schooling. “International Review of Education”, no 48 (5), pp. 335-360.
• Delgado Bernal D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. “Harvard Educational Review”, no 68 (4), pp. 555-582.
• Fricker M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Green L.J.F. (2008). “Indigenous knowledge” and “science”: Reframing the debate on knowledge diversity. “Archaeologies”, no 4 (1), pp. 144-163.
• Haack, S. (2015). Manifesto of a passionate moderate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hallen B., Sodipo J.O. (1997). Knowledge, belief, and witchcraft: Analytical experiments in African philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Harding S. (1987). Conclusion: Epistemological questions. In: Harding S. (ed.), Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 181-190.
• Harding S. (1996). Gendered ways of knowing and the ‘epistemological crisis’ of the West. In Goldberger N.R., Tarule J.M., Clinchy B.M., Belenky M.F. (eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books, pp. 431-454.
• Harding S. (2002). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In: Wray K.B. (ed.), Knowledge & inquiry: Readings in epistemology. Ontario – New York: Broadview Press, pp. 352-384.
• Hill Collins P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
• Knudtson P. (1991). A mirror to nature: Reflections on science, scientists, and society. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing.
• Lansink A. (2004). The African university: Contestations in the production of knowledge and identity. In: Seepe S. (ed.), Towards an African identity of higher education. Pretoria: Vista University and Skotaville Media, pp. 121-144.
• Levisohn J.A., Phillips D.C. (2012). Charting the reefs: A map of multicultural epistemology. In: Ruitenberg C.W., Phillips D.C. (eds.), Education, culture and epistemological diversity: Mapping a contested terrain. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 39-63.
• Lotz-Sisitka H. (2009). Epistemological access as an open question in education. “Journal of Education”, no 46, pp. 57-79.
• Luckett, K. (2001). Responding to equity and developmental imperatives: Conceptualizing a structurally and epistemically diverse undergraduate curriculum in post-apartheid South Africa. “Equity and Excellence in Education”, no 34 (3), pp. 26-35.
• Makgoba M.W. (2003). An African vision for mergers. “Beyond Matric”/”Mail & Guardian”, May 2-8, pp. 1-2.
• Nabudere D. (2003). Towards the establishment of a pan-African university: A strategic concept paper. “African Journal of Political Science”, no 8 (1), pp. 1-30.
• Nkomo M. (2000). Educational research in the African development context: Rediscovery, reconstruction and prospects. In: Higgs P., Vakalisa N.C.G., Mda T.V., Assié-Lumumba N.T. (eds.), African voices in education. Lansdowne: Juta, pp. 47-62.
• Odora Hoppers C.A. (2000). African voices in education: retrieving the past, engaging the present, and shaping the future. In: Higgs P., Vakalisa N.C.G., Mda T.V., Assié-Lumumba N.T. (eds.), African voices in education. Lansdowne: Juta, pp. 1-11.
• Odora Hoppers C.A. (2002a). Introduction. In: Odora Hoppers C.A. (ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems: Towards a philosophy of articulation. Claremont: New Africa Books, pp. vii-xiv.
• Odora Hoppers C.A. (2002b). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems: Towards a conceptual and methodological framework. In: Odora Hoppers C.A. (ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems: Towards a philosophy of articulation. Claremont: New Africa Books, pp. 2-22.
• Pallas A.M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. “Educational Researcher”, no 30 (5), pp. 6-11.
• Phillips D.C. (2012). A critical review of representative sources on multicultural epistemology. In: Ruitenberg C.W., Phillips D.C. (eds.), Education, culture and epistemological diversity: Mapping a contested terrain. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 11-38.
• Plato (1970). Meno. In: Warmington E.H., Rouse P.G. (eds.), The complete texts of the great dialogues of Plato. New York, Toronto, London: Plume.
• Plato (1978). Theaetetus. In: Hamilton E., Cairns H. (eds.), Plato – Collected dialogues. Princeton/New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Robertson E. (2013). The epistemic value of diversity. “Journal of Philosophy of Education”, no 47 (2), pp. 299-310.
• Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective (3rd edition). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute
• Scheurich J.,Young M. (1997). Colouring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased?, “Educational Researcher”, no 26 (4), pp. 4-16.
• Schumann C. (2016). Knowledge for a common world? On the place of feminist epistemology in philosophy of education. “Education Sciences”, no 6 (10), pp. 1-13. http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/6/1/10 (accessed 3 August 2016).
• Siegel H. (2012). Epistemological diversity and education research: Much ado about nothing much? In: Ruitenberg C.W., Phillips D.C. (eds.), Education, culture and epistemological diversity: Mapping a contested terrain. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 65-84.
• Wajcman J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Wiredu K. (2008). Social philosophy in postcolonial Africa: Some preliminaries concerning communalism and communitarianism. “South African Journal of Philosophy”, no 27 (4), pp. 332-339.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/fp.2017.1.18