Twenty‐two testable hypotheses about phronesis: Outlining an educational research programme

Abstract

The concept of phronesis enters educational discourse at various levels of engagement, and it continues to fascinate and frustrate educational theorists in equal measure. This article begins by charting the vagaries of three educational discourses on phronesis, and by eliciting insights from the recently burgeoning wisdom research within psychology. Mindful of the fact that making progress in the educational study of phronesis is not only a conceptual or philosophical endeavour but also an empirical one, the article elicits and illustrates 22 testable (but as yet mostly untested) hypotheses about phronesis from the Aristotelian and neo-Aristotelian literatures and hence lays the foundation of an educational research programme on phronesis. A serviceable conceptualisation will need to offer ways to evaluate the educational credibility of each hypothesis in real life, rather than just serving as a new philosophical plaything.

Good Character at College: The Combined Role of Second-Order Character Strength Factors and Phronesis Motivation in Undergraduate Academic Outcomes

“…Since this is the first study examining the role of phronesis motivation in academic outcomes, there is no previous empirical research for comparison. However, we interpret our findings in the light of the latest literature proposed for the phronesis construct [68]. According to such literature, phronesis should correlate with subjective measures of well-being.…”

“…A study intending to explore this facet will be of great relevance, especially for the young adult population. This developmental stage has been suggested as adequate for the acquisition of the phronesis meta-virtue according to theoretical analyses [68] (p. 9).…”

Phronesis (Practical Wisdom) as a Type of Contextual Integrative Thinking

“…Relying, in turn, on conceptions of wisdom derived from experts or from folk psychology, this discursive tradition has not paid special attention to what motivates wisdom cultivation to allow deliberation about ethical quandaries, leading to moral action. The lack of a motivational account of wisdom and the absence of a connection between deliberation and action have been highlighted by the phronesis discourses in philosophy and moral education (Darnell et al, 2019;Kristjánsson, 2021), which have gradually been sedimenting around the proverbial post-Kohlbergian question of what bridges the gap between moral cognition and moral action (Blasi, 1980).…”

“…As Jeste and colleagues (2020) remind us, however, enhancing individual components of wisdom is not the same as increasing overall wisdom. The fact that various relevant, if overly narrow (for wisdom-education purposes), interventions exist means that new interventions will not need to be constructed de novo; the key will lie in combining them together correctly under the guidance of holistic models like the APM or the CWM (Kristjánsson, 2021). Moreover, it is promising that almost all wisdom scientists view wisdom as malleable and educable (Grossmann, Weststrate, Ardelt, et al, 2020).…”

Collective Phronesis in Business Ethics Education and Managerial Practice: A Neo-Aristotelian Analysis

“…After slipping from the academic map for centuries-possibly because of the attractions of instrumentalist (Humean/ Weberian) and formalist (Kantian/Kohlbergian) thinkingphronesis has experienced a resurgence of late within philosophy (Annas, 2011;Russell, 2009), education (Kristjánsson, 2021), psychology (Darnell et al, 2019;Fowers et al, 2021;Grossmann et al, 2020;Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010) and general social-science theory/methodology (Flyvbjerg, 2001)but perhaps most importantly, for present purposes, within sub-areas of professional ethics such as medicine (Kaldjian, 2014) and business (Alzola et al, 2020). Within business ethics and leadership/administration studies, we already have at least two handbooks available (edited by Küpers & Pauleen, 2013;Schwartz et al, 2021), a recent comprehensive literature review (Ames et al, 2020) and a new typology of managerial phronesis (Steyn & Sewchurran, 2021).…”