Abstract
This article addresses the issue of the disciplinary status of Educational Studies, which both in the theoretical discourse and in the practice of this area is far from unambiguous. The issue is relevant not only for theoretical reasons but also for practical and social ones. This is because the status of Educational Studies, by having a decisive impact on the very understanding and nature of studies in education, at least in part may impact changes in educational practice. Two main models of Educational Studies can be differentiated (the Anglo-American model and the Continental model), with additional variation within these models. Among the terms most commonly used in discussion of the disciplinary status of Educational Studies, frequent mention is made of the autonomy that exists in various versions (as in the Continental model) and of interdisciplinarity (as in the Anglo-American model). This article proposes a new way of understanding this status, which I call the autonomy of Educational Studies as a second-level discipline, which includes aspects of both of the previously mentioned models (with a predominance of the Continental model), yet also adds certain modifications (among other things concerning the understanding of disciplinarity). In the course of my argumentation, I will conduct a comparative analysis of both traditions, and subsequently justify the proposed thesis (making reference both to notional questions and pragmatic/scientific questions), and finally briefly indicate potential problems which may be generated by this model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the article, I use the term ‘Educational Studies’ as the name of an area of research on education both in the Anglo-American tradition and the Continental tradition. Such an approach does not highlight the important differences between these traditions, however it is justified by the fundamental similarity in these traditions, i.e. the similarity in terms of the area of study that is education. Apart from this, for pragmatic reasons, this allows for brief and collective reference and for the terminology which functions in the various traditions (e.g. educational studies, educational research, and derivative terms, occurring in various languages, from the German Pädagogik) to be harmonised into a single form. ‘Educational Studies’ here means simply research concerning education; if the term is meant to refer to a concrete tradition, then I specify so, using terms such as ‘Educational Studies in the Anglo-American/Continental tradition’. Readers interested in a detailed discussion of the differences between the traditions discussed here are referred to Friesen (2019, 2020) and Biesta (2011).
It should be stressed that such a division into traditions is a model approach, and as such it presents these in a somewhat simplified, generalised way. Additionally, not all countries on the continent of Europe can be assigned to the Continental tradition. Nevertheless, all Anglo-Saxon countries can be included in the Anglo-American tradition; „These two constructions should themselves be understood as constructed. They are, in a sense, ideal types meant to make sense of differences between the ways in which the study of education has developed in Britain and Germany (and in both cases these developments have impacted on the organisation of the academic study of education in other countries and contexts). […] the two traditions are, to a certain degree, incommensurable as they operate on the basis of fundamentally different assumptions and ideas. This is neither to suggest that communication between the two is impossible, nor to suggest that the two traditions have developed independently from each other.” (Biesta 2011, p. 176).
The state of affairs in which ES is conducted in the interdisciplinary perspective outlined above which does not afford this research the status of scientific uniqueness is also illustrated by the fact that in the tradition discussed, apart from certain exceptions (for example, the Department of Education at Oxford University and at York, or the School of Education at Harvard University), academic titles are not awarded in education. This does not mean, however, that prestigious universities do not allow studies in education (as part of a Department, Faculty, or Institute of Education) with the possibility of obtaining a preliminary or Master’s degree. The programme of such courses of study basically overlaps with the characteristics of ES as in the Continental tradition. Leading international periodicals have been established on the basis of the tradition discussed here, and similarly they represent a broad range of issues related to education, addressing issues which are strictly empirical, historical or even philosophical. It should be stressed, however, that there is a noticeable specialisation, as a general rule assuming one of the perspectives mentioned.
For example, in Scandinavian countries where the initial posts for professors of pedagogics appear as early as 1852 (Finland) and, next, in 1908 (Sweden), 1909 (Norway), and 1955 (Denmark), pedagogics comprises six basic subdisciplines (Kansansen 2006): philosophy of education; psychology of education; sociology of education; didactics; history of education; and comparative pedagogics.
Some research problems undertaken in ES in the Continental tradition may be seen as crossing over into the field of, for example, psychology, and that by addressing these issues, ES is exceeding the limits of its dedicated area of study.
In assessing the adequacy of this variant, I suggest taking into account the following criteria: (a) pragmatic – that is, the conditions, challenges, and current state of research on education; (b) definitive – that is, related to the definition requirements set before scientific disciplines; (c) objective – that is, related to the specifics of the object of research on education.
By this I mean that should ES (as it is understood in the Continental tradition) remain in this variant (W4), it may lead to a constriction of the field of research problems appropriate for it to study to the benefit of disciplines with a stronger academic status, such as psychology or sociology. In this situation, ES would have a low status vis-a-vis these disciplines, which as a result may lead to an abandonment of its autonomy; it would be difficult to identify research problems which could be addressed by ES while simultaneously not being able to be addressed by other disciplines. In terms of the organisational structure of academic institutions, to continue to maintain a discipline of marginal status, one which deals with a narrow scope of research problems, ones which moreover could be in large part taken over by other disciplines, would seem to be a proliferation of entities beyond what is necessary.
For example, such as those previously mentioned, associated among others with questions relating to the neurobiological, psychological, philosophical, and historical conditions of the processes of learning/teaching.
In the Anglo-American tradition, normative and ethical analyses are carried out within the framework of educational theory and philosophy, as a rule treated as subdisciplines of the philosophy of education.
“I do think that the idea of asking educational question about education has some plausability. The argument for this has to do with the question how, as educational researchers, we are able to identify processes and practices of education – which is of course something we need to do before we can start studying them. How, to put it differently, can we select the education going on in a building that has the word ‘school’ on it? From the perspective of Continental construction the answer to this question is that we need to have a conception of educational in order to do so. Thus we need a theory of education that is neither psychological, sociological, historical nor philosophical, in order to identify our object of study.” (Biesta, 2011, p. 190).
References
Benner, D. 2005. Allgemeine Padagogik, Weinheim/Munchen: Juventa, 5th ed.
Biesta, G.J.J. 2011. Disciplines and theory in academic study of education: a comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 19 (2): 175–192.
Biesta, G.J.J. 2010. Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: from evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 29: 491–503.
Bleicher, J. 2006. Bildung. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2–3): 364–365.
Bridges, D. 2017. Philosophy of Educational Research Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Quality. Springer.
Carr, D. 2003. Making sense of education: An introduction to the philosophy and theory of education and teaching. Routledge.
Carr, W. 2003b. Educational research and its histories. In: eds. P. Sikes, J. Nixon, W. Carr, The Moral Foundations of Educational Research. Knowledge, Inquiry and Values. Open University Press.
O’Connor, D.J. 1957. Introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Philosophical Library.
Elkind, D. 1999. Educational research and the science of education. Educational Psychology Review 11 (3): 271–187.
Floud, J., and A.H. Halsey. 1958. The Sociology of Education: (With special reference to the development of research in Western Europe and the United States of America). Current Sociology 7 (3): 165–193.
Friesen, N. 2019. Educational research in America today relentless instrumentalism and scholarly backlash. Erziehungswissenschaft 30 (2019): 77–83.
Friesen, N. 2020. Education as a Geisteswissennschaft:’ an introduction to human science pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum Studies 52 (3): 307 (Published online: 12 Jan 2020).
Furlong, J. 2013. Introduction, in: Education – An anatomy of the discipline: Rescuing the university project? Abingdon. Routledge.
Guilherme, A. 2019. Considering AI in Education: Erziehung but Never Bildung. In Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education, ed. J. Knox, Y. Wang, and M. Gallagher. Springer.
Hammersley, M. 2008. Educational Research, In: G. McCulloch, D. Crook ed. The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education, Routledge.
Hildebrand, D., J. Dewey 2018. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/dewey/, access: 20.XII.2021.
Hirst, P. 1983. Educational Theory. In Educational theory and its foundationals disciplines, ed. P. Hirst. Routledge.
Hodysh, H.W. 1970. An analysis of history of education as an academic discipline. Journal of Teacher Education 22 (2): 203–209.
Horlacher, R. 2004. Bildung – A construction of a history of philosophy of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (5): 409–426.
Kansansen, P. 2006. Education as a discipline in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 34 (4): 271–284.
Katz, M.S., and R.S. Peters. 2010. normative conception of education and educational aims. Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (1): 97–108.
Knox, H. (1971), A History of Educational Research in the United States, ERIC Clearinghouse, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED088800 (accessed: 31.05.2020).
Lagemann, E.C. 2002. An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. University of Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E.C. 1997. Contested terrain: A history of education research in the United States, 1890–1990. Educational Researcher 26 (9): 5–17.
McCulloch, G. 2002. ‘Disciplines contributing to education’? Educational Studies and the Disciplines, British Journal of Educational Studies 50 (1): 100–119.
McCulloch, G. 2003. Towards a social history of educational research, In: eds. P. Sikes, J. Nixon, W. Carr, The Moral Foundations of Educational Research. Knowledge, Inquiry and Values, Open University Press.
Noddings, N. 2015. Philosophy of Education. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Nucci, L. 2001. Education in the Moral Domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palaiologou, I. 2010. The death of a discipline or the birth of a transdiscipline: Subverting question of disciplinarity within Educational Studies undergraduate courses. Educational Studies 36 (3): 269–282.
Peters, R. S. 1963/1980. Education as initiation, In: P. Gordon ed. The Study of Education, Vol. 1, Woburn, London, pp. 273–299.
Peters, R. S. (2015). Ethics and education. Routledge. first published 1966 by Allen & Unwin.
Siegel, H., D.C. Phillips, E. Callan. 2018. Philosophy of Education, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition).
Stephens, P. 2009. The nature of social pedagogy: An excursion in Norwegian territory. Child & Family Social Work 14: 343–351.
Stępkowski, D. 2019. School Moral Education: Does Scholastic Ethical Instruction Need Its Own ‘Morality’?. In: B. Kudlacova, A. Rajsky Education and “Padagogik”. Philosophical and Historical Reflections (Central, Southern and South-Eastern Europe), Bratislava: Peter Lang.
Tibble, J.W. 1966. Introduction. In The study of education, VII-X, ed. J.W. Tibble. London: Routledge and Degan Paul.
Tibble, J.W. 1971. The development of the study of education. In An Introduction to the Study of Education, ed. J.W. Tibble. London: Routledge and Degan Paul.
Winkler, M. (2006), Kritik der Padagogik. Der Sinn der Erziehung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Yosef-Hassidim, D. 2018. K-12 Education as a hermeneutic Adventurous Endeavor Toward an educational way of thinking. Routledge.
Zahler H. 2016. An Experiment in American Educational Philosophy, American Educational History Journal, 43: 1&2.
Zogla, I. 2018. Science of pedagogy: Theory of educational discipline and practice. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 20 (2): 31–43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest:
The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leś, T. On the Autonomy of Educational Studies as a Second-Level Discipline. Stud Philos Educ 41, 445–465 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09825-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09825-9