Philosophical questions of transformative learning: a dialogic exploration of the way forward
Presentation
Paper/Presentation Title | Philosophical questions of transformative learning: a dialogic exploration of the way forward |
---|---|
Presentation Type | Presentation |
Authors | Matikainen, M., Green, L., Formenti, L., Hoggan, C., Hoggan-Kloubert, T. and Roux, R. |
Journal or Proceedings Title | Dialogue in and through adult education and learning |
Web Address (URL) of Conference Proceedings | https://esrea2025.ff.cuni.cz/ |
Conference/Event | European Society for Research on the Education of Adults 11th Triennial Conference |
Event Details | European Society for Research on the Education of Adults 11th Triennial Conference Delivery In person Event Date 24 to end of 27 Sep 2025 Event Location Charles University, Prague Event Venue Arts Faculty Event Description Dialogue in and through Adult Education and Learning 24th–27th September 2025 Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, the Czech Republic Dialogue in society in general, in the field of education, and in adult education in particular, is a major topic of discussion. It can be linked to the question of responding to the changes in contemporary society, which for many good reasons can be characterised as a communicative society. However, the quantity, intensity and speed of communication do not guarantee the kind of communication that can lead to significant learning, social justice and a better life, nor do they guarantee the existence of the preconditions for the quality of deliberation that it has long been argued, is the basis for democracy and the development of genuinely responsive social institutions, including those involved in adult education. The need for dialogue in today’s world is reinforced by the growth of inequalities, the erosion of democracy, and the profound marginalisation associated with the impossibility of being heard and recognised. Alongside the persistence and also the reemergence of old divisions (between West and East, North and South, the privileged and dispossessed, between citizens and denizens etc.), we are witnessing worrying trends of polarisation, division and violence, the shift from liberal to so-called illiberal democracy, and witnessing increasing conflict, war and the massacre of civilian populations. Adult education and learning can, and should, contribute to a better life for all, since dialogue is a fundamental element of adult education as a field of intervention and research, not only to prevent or correct the effects of oppression, poverty, and societal problems, but also to promote dignity, recognition, solidarity, and reciprocal learning among adult citizens and in relation to other generations. Dialogue is a basis for new and better quality of social communication, including in the media and in the public sphere. The ability to communicate and learn through dialogue and mutual recognition is a prerequisite for good enough adult education and a positive answer to the key fundamental question of social research and adult education research: how can we live together? Research in adult learning and education is characterised by a plurality of topics, approaches, methodologies and conceptualisations of the fundamental nature and possibilities of adult learning and education. Many of these approaches elaborate in specific ways on the theme of dialogue as a valuable mode of learning and method of education. Dialogue includes ethical, methodological, theoretical, political and pedagogical dimensions. You can see this in the history of progressive education for adults, critical pedagogy, popular education, transformative learning theory, feminist adult education, versions of hermeneutics and phenomenology, and anti-racist adult education. It is also relevant to liberal and andragogical strands of adult education. In addition it is a point where adult education with general educational theory (e.g. the idea of Bildung), more recent and specific approaches to dialogical pedagogies and dialogical research methods bring a new critical and creative contribution to the field. This richness of ideas fuels the possibility of dialogue as an invaluable source of learning and development in all the contexts of adult learning: formal, non-formal and informal, private and public, intra, inter and trans-cultural. A common trend in most approaches to dialogue is the possibility and the desire to build on reflexivity, including self-reflexivity, since meeting the ‘other’ is a way to look at ourselves, revealing (often by contrast) our presuppositions, narratives, and representations. In dialogue, we can share, listen, and change what we think and say, while keeping it open to debate, and therefore learning. Real dialogue is challenging: the other’s perspective is often different from ours, based on other values, frameworks of meaning, and priorities. Conflict is unavoidable, and conflict is a major leverage for learning. However, in our society the opportunity of meeting the other is not granted, neither the capacity of authentic communication and reciprocity. So, the utopia of dialogue is based on the imagination of a space where people can meet as equals and communicate on an equal basis. In that sort of space, any person, no matter their age, gender, class, ethnicity, or experience, should be able (enabled), ready, and capable to share their experiences, feelings, knowledge etc. Based on this ideal we expect this kind of experience to grow individual and collective critical consciousness, or to find common interests, take decisions, and practice freedom. This is a real challenge for contemporary education. Event Web Address (URL) |
Abstract | 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. |
Keywords | Dialogue, transformative learning, ontology, epistemology, axiology |
Contains Sensitive Content | Does not contain sensitive content |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 390202. History and philosophy of education |
390203. Sociology of education |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/100322/philosophical-questions-of-transformative-learning-a-dialogic-exploration-of-the-way-forward
1
total views0
total downloads1
views this month0
downloads this month