The problem of educational theory

Abstract

This interview sheds light on current developments threatening the disciplinary ‘heart’ of education. Taking a starting point in the continental ‘configuration’ of the field, Gert Biesta and Stefan T Siegel argue that there are forms of theory considered distinctively educational. Based on this premise, they discuss why defining educational theories ( Erziehungswissenschaftliche Theorien) is so challenging, and why it is nevertheless a rewarding endeavour. By distinguishing between (genuinely) educational theories in a narrow sense and (educationally relevant) theories in a wider sense, Biesta and Siegel attempt to tackle the problem of educational theory and to stimulate the discourse on theorizing education.

Education’s Relative Autonomy: A Closer Look at the Discipline’s Past, Present, and Future

“…Although Erziehung (education) is (or should be) a central (if not the most important) research object of the eponymous academic field, there is currently a tendency to marginalize this concept and even to completely replace it with other terms such as "socialization" or "learning" (Loch, 2019;Siegel & Biesta, 2021, 2022. Currently, only a few educationists seem to be interested in finding an answer to the questions of what education is and how it can and should be theorized.…”

“…4,000 members and comprises 14 divisions and 18 subdivisions (DGfE, 2021). 5 For a more detailed rendition see for instance Bellmann (2017), Saeverot (2021), or Siegel and Biesta (2021).…”

“…Since academic disciplines are socio-historical constructs, they evolve. quantitative research, whereas, for instance, hermeneutic and historical approaches and reflection on fundamental normative questions, which would be very important for educational practice, are often neglected (Siegel & Biesta, 2021). In his article "The Lure of Statistics for Educational Researchers" Labaree (2010) offers a potential explanation:…”

“…Although disciplines such as psychology or philosophy are conceived in this continental construction as adjacent disciplines and education as an independent discipline that (should) have distinctive interests, questions, and genuine theories (Biesta, 2013;Siegel & Biesta, 2021;Siegel & Biesta, 2022), the relative autonomy of education has always been in jeopardy (Matthes, 2020;Saeverot, 2013). Particularly today, several developments (e.g., the rise of empirical educational research) seem to threaten the disciplinary "heart" (Saeverot, 2013, p. 180) of education or at least fundamentally transform its appearance/identity.…”

How is teaching seen? Raising questions about the part of teachers and their educators in the production of educational (non)sense

“…Perhaps "we," as autogestive teachers and teacher educators may take a first step "blurring" the current division of education into standardised, data-fied, "learnified" "sense" and its unhearable, unseeable "other." In re-composing our work on an educational basis (Siegel & Biesta, 2021) we may begin to redistribute the roles, capacities and positions involved in the production of educational sense. We teachers and teacher educators, whose current role in the production of standards and sense about our work is increasingly none, may begin to take a role, even as "the masters of designation and classification who, by virtue of wanting to retain their status and power, flat-out deny this capacity to speak" (Rancière & Panagia, 2000).…”