Abstracts
Abstract
This paper identifies and considers issues of perspective taking and communicative agency in applying Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory to policymaking in educational settings. The central question is whether Habermas provides an epistemic framework that supports reciprocal and sincere expressions of the views and interests of individuals in a heterogeneous society. Examining this question leads to a discussion of “practical discourse” in light of a willingness of participants to reach mutual understanding and agreement, and the centrality of perspective taking and communicative agency in such discourses. Also examined is a conceptualization of “application discourses,” the implications of such discourses for perspective taking and communicative agency, and the role these discourses might play in further assuring the overall inclusivity and context sensitivity of applying education policies in specific circumstances. The paper then gives a brief re-analysis of an empirical study that used Habermas’s concept of the “ideal speech situation” as a normative framework for interpreting data. The re-analysis means to illustrate the practical value of practical discourse for guiding and assessing educational policymaking. The paper ends with a short justification of the necessity of attending to perspective taking and communicative agency when viewing education as a basic human right.
Keywords:
- educational policymaking,
- practical discourse,
- application discourses,
- reciprocity,
- sincerity,
- perspective taking,
- communicative agency,
- inclusivity,
- context sensitivity
Appendices
Bibliography
- Barry, K. B. (2022). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a77324-early-childhood-care-and-education
- Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2010). A researcher-student-teacher model for democratic science pedagogy: Connections to community, shared authority, and critical science agency. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(1), 72–87.
- Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.
- Brown, R. (2009). Teaching for social justice: Exploring the development of student agency through participation in the literacy of a mathematics classroom. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 12(3), 171–185.
- Clark, S. N., Howley, I., Resnick, L., & Rose, C. P. (2016). Student agency to participate in dialogic science discussions. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 10, 27–39.
- Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1,023.
- Ewert, G. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345–378.
- Ferrara, A. (1988). Universalisms: Procedural, contextualist and prudential. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 14(3–4), 243–269.
- Foster, W. (1980). Administration and the crisis in legitimacy: A review of Habermasian thought. Harvard Educational Review, 50(4), 496–505.
- Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Prometheus Books.
- Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: Toward an argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning, 40(2), 129–144.
- Goodman, J. F., & Eren, N. S. (2013). Student agency: Success, failure, and lessons learned. Ethics and Education, 8(2), 123–139.
- Günther, K. (1993). The sense of appropriateness: Application discourses in morality and law (J. Farrell, Trans.). State University of New York Press.
- Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). MIT Press.
- Habermas, J. (1994). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics (C. Cronin, Trans.). MIT Press.
- Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory (C. Cronin & P. De Greiff, Trans.). MIT Press.
- Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification (B. Fultner, Trans.). MIT Press.
- Habermas, J. (2008). Between naturalism and religion (C. Cronin, Trans.). Polity Press.
- Harris, C. (2002). Expanding dimensions of the “knowledge society”: Technology, discourse ethics and agency in coastal communities [Communication for survival information and communication technology initiative]. Journal of Education Administration and Foundations, 16, 37–65.
- Honneth, A. (1995). The other of justice: Habermas and the ethical challenge of postmodernism. In S. K. White (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Habermas (pp. 288–323). Cambridge University Press.
- Johnson, M. J., & Pajares, F. (1996). When shared decision making works: A 3-year longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 599–627.
- Johnson, P. (2001). Distorted communications: Feminism’s dispute with Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 27(1), 39–62.
- Kelly, D. (2009). From Senge to Habermas: Reconceiving “discourse” for educational learning organizations. Philosophy of Education, 2009, 104–112. [This publication marks the first time Habermasian discourse theory has been used to critique the highly influential concept of the “learning organization” in its application to formal education.]
- Kelly, D. (2020). Habermasian practical discourse for educational policymaking: Historical lacunae and the critical potential of “rational trust.” International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5), 485–495.
- Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69–85.
- Martin, C. (2012). Education in a post-metaphysical world: Rethinking educational policy and practice through Jürgen Habermas’ discourse morality. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- McCarthy, T. (1991). Ideals and illusions: On reconstruction and deconstruction in contemporary critical theory. MIT Press.
- Milley, P. (2002). Imagining good organizations: Moral orders or moral communities? Educational Management and Administration, 30, 47–64.
- Murphy, M., & Fleming, T. (Eds.). (2009). Habermas, critical theory and education. Routledge.
- O’Donnell, D. (2010). Discourse ethics. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 309–310). Sage Publications.
- Okshevsky, W. (2004). On the epistemic grounds of moral discourse and moral education: An examination of Jürgen Habermas’s “discourse ethics.” Philosophy of Education, 2004, 174–182.
- Okshevsky, W. (2016). Discourse, justification, and education: Jürgen Habermas on moral epistemology and dialogical conditions of moral justification and rightness. Educational Theory, 66(6), 691–718.
- Rehg, W. (1997). Insight and solidarity: The discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas. University of California Press.
- Rummens, S. (2012). Staging deliberation: The role of representative institutions in the deliberative democratic process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(1), 23–44.
- Smith, D., Kelly, D. & Allard, C. (2016). Dialogic spaces: A critical policy development perspective of educational leadership qualifications. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 393–415.
- Turnbull, B. (2002). Teachers’ participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives. Learning Environments Research, 5, 235–252.
- Young, I. M. (1995). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In M. Wilson & A. Yeatman (Eds.), Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp. 135–152). Allen & Unwin.
- Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical reciprocity: On moral respect, wonder, and enlarged thought. Constellations, 3(3), 340–363.