Philosophical questions of transformative learning: a dialogic exploration of the way forward

Philosophical questions of transformative learning: a dialogic exploration of the way forward

Implicit in most conceptions of transformative learning is a vision for what constitutes a good transformation or a better meaning perspective. Mezirow famously pointed to “more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective” meaning perspectives “that will prove more true or justified to guide action” (2000, p.7-8). Kegan (2000) argued that transformative learning (ideally) yielded “changes in the learner’s form of knowing” that are “more complex, more expansive” (p.53-54).

But when we, transformative learning practitioners and researchers, discuss what “better” entails, do we define what we mean or do we assume that it automatically means, for example, a free liberal democratic society? What if, to someone else, "better" means authoritarian leadership or extreme ideological values? How about if one defines “transformative” an embodied experience of (re)connection to the world, oneself, and the other, while another sees it as rational critical reflection (see e.g., Formenti & West 2018, Hoggan 2016, Taylor 2008)?

These are fundamental philosophical questions on transformative learning. To be more precise, they are ontological (regarding on being/existence), epistemological (regarding knowledge/knowing) and axiological (regarding values/valuation) questions that are rarely explicated in e.g., research articles or even in what is aimed to be transformative education. In a sense, the way they are answered (implicitly or explicitly) define our whole understanding of transformative learning.

There will inevitably be differences in the way scholars define an instance of transformative learning, but it is important to be explicit about the embedded epistemologies, ontologies, and axiologies in those conceptions of transformation. Important differences within our community are blurred when these issues remain implicit and unclarified. In our portrayals of transformative learning, what are the bases and paths to knowledge creation that are privileged (epistemology), which ways of being in the world are assumed or prioritized (ontology), and what are the implicit values manifest in those portrayals (axiology)?

One could define dialogue as a deep and thorough conversation about presuppositions - a philosophical, existential, and political way to engage with the “other”. Differences are precious. They form the basis for a common understanding, which need not be a shared understanding: the end result may be an understanding that we understand the issue in a fundamentally different way. However, if we do not explicate and define our epistemological, ontological, and axiological commitments, we may talk past each other and the possibility of a real dialogue and advancement in theory and practice becomes more difficult. We believe that genuine dialogue can thrive on the reciprocal engagement in these philosophical underpinnings, rather than aiming for a "shared definition" or "master story", but in recognizing and legitimizing differences among the speakers.

The workshop will invite the participants to engage reflexively on these topics. The facilitators will begin by offering personal experiences to ground this discussion in real, lived experiences. Then, participants are invited to join in by offering metaphors, images, or other forms of aesthetic language to explore distinctions in epistemological, ontological, and axiological dimensions of transformative learning. The group will then have a dialogue about the various ideas and themes that arose: What are the differences, tensions, dilemmas, emotions, and so forth? The session will end with explorations of possible paths forward for the theory and practice of transformative learning theory.

Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions.