2012 Fendler Lurking

7/30/2019 2012 Fendler Lurking

1/14

1 23

Studies in Philosophy and Education

An International Journal

ISSN 0039-3746

Stud Philos Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11217-012-9303-x

Lurking, Distilling, Exceeding, Vibrating

Lynn Fendler


2/14

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer

Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If youwish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted authors version for posting to your

own website or your institutions repository.

You may further deposit the accepted authors

version on a funders repository at a funders

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.


3/14


Lynn Fendler

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper addresses two main questions: (1) What has theory been doing? and

(2) What might theory be doing? The first question is addressed historically, and the second

question is addressed imaginatively. In between those two topics, I have inserted a brief

interval to raise some sticking points pertaining to the question, What is properly edu-

cational about educational theory?

Keywords Educational theory

Imagination

Post/modernismLaboratory for educational theory

All of us in the field of education have had experiences talking about the theory/practice

dichotomy. We hear teachers say, I need practical ideas; I dont need or care about

theories. As a teacher educator, when I hear teachers express that view, I usually respond

with a question: Do you ever give your students rewards, prizes, consequences, or

praise? Of course! they reply. Then I try to explain that the word learning comes

from the theory of behaviorism, which is a rather new idea, and the practice of using praise

or reinforcements to promote learning is an enactment of that theory, which was formal-

ized by B.F. Skinner in the 1950s.

Over time and with repeated use, the theory of behaviorism has become naturalized so

that most people do not even recognize it as a theory when it gets enacted in classrooms.

We now tend to take that particular theory for granted. Giving praise and rewards feels like

a practical thing to do, not a theoretical thing; the theoretical underpinnings of praise and

rewards have long since been forgotten.

My repeated encounters with the theory/practice dichotomy have led me to this infer-

ence: Whatever is familiar is regarded as practical, whereas whatever is new, different,

The article is based upon an invited keynote speech to the First International Theorising Education

Conference, University of Stirling, June 2010.

L. Fendler (&)

Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Stud Philos Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11217-012-9303-x


4/14

or unfamiliar is considered to be theoretical. That inference serves as a launching point

for this essay.

This paper addresses two main questions: (1) What has theory been doing? and (2) What

might theory be doing? The first question is addressed historically, and the second question

is addressed imaginatively. In between those two topics, I have inserted a brief interval toraise some sticking points pertaining to the question, What is properly educational about

educational theory?

What has Theory Been Doing?

Lurking

Theory has been lurking. In most cases these days, theory has been lurking behind

methodology. The relationship between theory and methodology has been put forward as a

central issue for the LET conference. I dont want to say that methodology has replaced

theory because it has not. Rather, by using the term lurking I am trying to convey the

idea that, even though methodology has been prominent and obvious in educational

studies, theory has never been absent.

As an illustration of how theory has been lurking, we can consider the required formats

for conference proposals, and even most dissertation proposals. When we write or review

conference proposals (such as for AERA), it is often difficult to discern which part of the

proposal is supposed to be devoted to the theoretical explication of the project. Theory

often lurks in the methodology section or sometimes the literature review section. Theoryis often implied in the analysis section. For social science projects in education, it is rarely

explicit how researchers have theorized their projects with respect to epistemology, poli-

tics, ethics, or aesthetics.

By the same token, it can be awkward to write conference proposals for (what AERA

calls) conceptual studies. Theoretical, philosophical, and historical research projects do

not fit easily into the required formats for AERA proposal formats, which have been

designed to facilitate communication about social scientific research approaches.

Much conceptual research is humanities oriented. In humanities-oriented educational

research, it doesnt always make sense to separate the literature review from the theoretical

framework from the analysis. In the process of writing an AERA proposal, it becomesnecessary to become creative about fitting aspects of a humanities-oriented study into the

proposal format that is designed for social science. The format of the proposal does not

easily accommodate theoretical research projects. That incompatibility is an example of

how theory is lurking in the institutional expectations for research. Theory is lurking in the

very structure of the research proposal requirements.

Here is another story to illustrate how theory has been lurking. In 1994, I attended an

AERA meeting in New Orleans. There was a panel discussion that was moderated by Bob

Donmoyer that was called Yes, But Is It Research? On the panel were several eminent

educational researchers including Howard Gardner, Elliot Eisner, Patti Lather, and Deb-orah Britzman. The first question that the moderator posed to the panel was, Should a

novel be accepted as a dissertation in colleges of education? The question was cleverly

designed to elicit arguments defining the limits around what might be regarded as

acceptable research in the field of education.

It was a very interesting session, and participants raised a wide array of arguments. But

here is what I noticed most. The educational researchers who were promoting non-

L. Fendler

123


5/14

scientific research paradigms (including qualitative studies, arts-based studies, and

humanities-oriented studies) were very skillful at articulating and making explicit the

theoretical bases for their research projects. In contrast, the science- or social-science-

oriented educational researchers were quite at a loss to justify in theoretical terms their

epistemological commitments. The scientific educational researchers had apparently neverbeen required to theorize their research projects or explaining the affordances and limi-

tations of their scientific approach to educational research. They had not had opportunities

to explain their work in theoretical terms because the theoretical support mechanisms for

their scientific projects had always been lurking, and taken for granted as self-evident in

their approaches to research.

The science-oriented researchers were very experienced in outlining their methodolo-

gies and articulating aspects of validity in methodological terms. However, whenever a

question arose regarding theory, the scientists tended to respond by providing details about

their methodological protocol. Theory was not absent from their projects, but theory was

not made explicit; it was lurking within the research projects and in the attempts by

scientists to justify their approaches to research.

In attempts to make theory more explicit, some critical theorists have argued that in our

proposals and research reports we should distinguish method from methodology. For many

critical theorists, for example, method is a protocol, or the series of steps you might do to

conduct research. In contrast, the methodology section should include a discussion of

epistemology and an explanation of the lenses, basically a theorization of the research

approach. The distinction between method and methodology has been one attempt to

expose the lurking theories and make them explicit within the discourses of methodology

and analysis.From some relatively recent developments in the field of educational research, I suspect

that theory might be doing less lurking and becoming increasingly more explicit in edu-

cational research. The most prominent among these developments is the recent (2009)

publication by AERA of Standards for Reporting on Humanities-Oriented Research in

AERA Publications. For many of us, our first reaction to the publication of these AERA

standards might be, Oh, no. Not more standards! Not for the humanities! Surprisingly,

however, I found these standards quite refreshing, and indicative of an increasingly explicit

role for theory in educational research, at least among researchers working in philosophy,

history, and arts based traditions. The AERA Standards are presented in a relatively short

document (about 9 pages), and the standards provide for a wide range of theoreticalengagements. In my experience as a faculty advisor, I have found that these standards have

been very useful for doctoral students who want to write theoretical and philosophical

dissertations. These new AERA standards have served to provide some helpful language

for researchers who need to articulate some of the theories that have been lurking within

educational research projects. The language of the standards helps to make educational

theory more explicit.

Distilling

In the context of social complexity, theory has been distilling. Educational researchers are

quite familiar with how theory has been distilling in an analytic sense: analytical theories

express in clarifying terms a pattern that distills a vast and complicated array of data.

Theory in the analytic sense distills complexity; some would even say it reduces

complexity to regularity. In the case of Darwins theory of evolution, for example, a vast

array of genetic mutations can be understood as adaptations; and in the case of Aristotles


123


6/14

theory of persuasion, complex human communications become recognizable in a beautiful

three-part structure: ethos, pathos, and logos. The distillations accomplished by analytical

theories are quite familiar to us. This distillation role of theory is probably the most

familiar and recognizable role of theory in education and other fields.

But it is not only analytic theories that have been distilling; critical theories have alsobeen distilling, and thereby providing us with language to talk more efficiently about

complex patterns of power. The value of distilling for critical theory is to help us put

intuitions and perceptions into discourse. When theory distills, it renders formulations.

Formulations allow us to put perceptions and intuitions into language. When we put

perceptions into language, then it becomes possible to debate, critique, and deconstruct

those intuitions.

As an example of distilling in critical educational theory, we can think of Popkewitzs

(2002, 2004) alchemy of school subjects. The alchemy is a theory that addresses the

relationship between university disciplines and school subjects. The theory of the alchemy

of school subjects suggests that subjects are constructed in their own respective historical

contexts. In universities, disciplines are shaped by funding demands, publication trends,

and organizational structures of university departments. In schools, disciplines are shaped

by child psychology, pedagogy, assessment instruments, classroom routines, administrative

structures, and socialization practices. In the theory of the alchemy of school subjects, we

can see that disciplines in the university are not the same as disciplines in the schools. We

cannot expect them to be the same because disciplines are always constructed by their

respective historical enactments.

For Popkewitz, the theory of the alchemy of school subjects is not a neutral, analytic

theory. It is a critical theory. The theory of the alchemy of school subjects serves as a toolto help us grasp the effects of power, specifically that subject matter is never pure, never

neutral, and never value-free. The theory of the alchemy highlights power relations that

shape disciplines: subject matter is value-laden in a way that normalizes what it means to

be a researcher, a teacher, or a student.

The theory of the alchemy of school subjects shows us the multiple meanings of the

word discipline. School subjects are disciplines, and we discipline ourselves in school

subjects. This is an example of how theory has been distilling in critical approaches to

educational research.

Reframing

To illustrate how theory has been reframing, I speak here about a relatively new and utterly

fascinating theory of smell.

The long-standing, and dominant theory of smell has claimed that the shapes of mol-

ecules determine what they smell like to us. For biochemistry, shape has served as an

effective mechanism for explaining how molecules get together. The problem is that the

shape theory (that works so well in so many other domains of biochemistry) does not really

work in the case of smell: That is, if we take a natural molecule, and synthesize that

molecule to have the same shape as the natural one, the two molecules will not smell thesame.

The shape theory of smell has been challenged by Luca Turin, a biophysicist, now at

MIT. According to Turin (2005), A theory is labor saving. A theory enables you to do less

work. Turin has theorized that it is molecular vibrationsnot molecular shapesthat

determine their smell. This vibrational theory totally reframes how it is possible to talk

about the relationship of chemistry to olfactory perceptions.

L. Fendler

123


7/14

Interestingly, Turin has a second job besides being a biophysicist at MIT. He also works

for the French perfume industry. In that capacity, he has had a chance to demonstrate the

applications of his vibrational theory. Turins laboratory synthesized a molecule for cou-

marin, a lovely smelling but toxic natural substance that is coveted by perfumers. Turin

created a molecule with the same vibrational signature as natural coumarin. The result wasa synthetic coumarin that smelled the same as natural coumarin to the perfumers, but was

also free of the toxicity that came with natural coumarin.

Turins vibrational theory of smell has reframed the issue of smell so dramatically that

the theory has revolutionized the field of olfactory chemistry. Turins theory is not yet

universally acknowledged. Some major scientific journals still maintain the shape theory of

smell, and they do not always accept manuscripts that are based on research in a vibrational

theory of smell.

Here is another illustration of how theory has been reframing. This time the illustration

is from teacher education, namely: How do we teach dispositions? In order to talk about

reframing how we think about teaching dispositions, I will suggest that we combine a

standard theory of educational objectives with a standard theory of pedagogical modes.

It is very common in teacher education to classify educational objectives into three

categories: knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In the educational curriculum literature,

knowledge and skills are well defined; we know basically what they are, how to teach

them, and how to assess them. However, educators also seem to agree that the curriculum

of teacher education must include not only knowledge and skills, but also dispositions. By

dispositions, people usually mean things like virtues, ethical sensibilities, citizenship, and

character traits; but dispositions remain poorly defined.

Not only are dispositions poorly defined, they are also poorly distinguished in teachingand educational assessments. In many cases, a curriculum that is focused on dispositions is

often executed through the delivery of information about ethics, cultural tolerance and

respect, etc. That is, dispositions are converted into the knowledge domain, in which

students are expected to know about dispositions. In this curriculum students are expected

to know such things as what constitutes respectful behavior and that there are cultural

differences we must respect. In other cases, dispositions become operationalized not as

knowledge, but rather behaviors. In these curricula, dispositions get converted into the skill

domain, in which particular behaviors (smiling; docility; attentiveness) become identified

as enactments or indications of dispositional objectives. Although there has been more

work on dispositions recently, we are still (at least in the US) not very good at defining,teaching, or assessing dispositions as such. Dispositions have been a problem for teacher

education for a long time. But theory has been helping us to reframe the issue. Here is an

illustration of how theory has been reframing the issue of dispositions in teacher education.

We begin with the educational domains of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. To that

frame we add an analysis of pedagogical modes or modalities of teaching, namely pro-

vider, facilitator, and model.

In the provider mode, teachers may lecture, answer questions, or serve as resources for

information. In the provider mode, teachers have something to give students.

In the facilitator mode, teachers design environments, create assignments, encourageexperiences, and promote repeated practice for students.

In the model mode, teachers teach by example. Modeling may be unintentional or tacit.

When teachers act in particular ways in the classroom, students tend to pick up on the

tone and norms of interpersonal relations. In this mode, teachers exemplify styles of

interacting with people and with ideas.


123


8/14

One indication that teacher education has been under-theorized is that too many people

conflate teaching with the provider mode.

An anecdote from my teaching illustrates how even teachers tend to conflate teaching

with the provider mode, and neglect the facilitator and model modes. Last spring I was

teaching a Masters level Philosophy of Education course, and the course was fully online. Itaught it using a wiki format in order to maximize opportunities for everybody in the

course to contribute, create pages, and interact with one another. At the end of the course,

one student wrote me an email saying: Thank you for running this course. I was struck at

her use of the term running this course, so I wrote back to her saying, Why did you say

running this course instead of teaching this course? She replied saying that since the

course was not lecture based, it was not exactly teaching. I was surprised that it became

necessary to explain to her that the whole design of the course, the assignments, the

responses to student writing, and the wiki architecture were all teaching because teaching

includes not only providing information, but also facilitating educational experiences, and

modeling scholarship and inquiry.

Beginning with the domains of knowledge, skills and dispositions, and then adding the

three teaching modalities, we can begin to reframe the issue of dispositions in teacher

education in relation to pedaogical modes this way:

The provider mode is associated with knowledge. Teachers are providers of knowledge.

The facilitator mode is associated with skills. Teachers design environments to

facilitate repeated practices for the development of skills.

Modeling is associated with dispositions. Teachers embody and exemplify respectful

relationships, intellectual curiosity, and aesthetic appreciation.

Theory has been reframing issues in education. In this case, reframing allows us to

recognize various modalities of teaching, and to appreciate the potential relationship of

modeling to the teaching of dispositions.

A Short Interval on Sticking Points

Gert Biesta has drawn our attention to the issue of what is properly educational about

educational theory. I would like to take up and extend Gerts focus now by illustratingthree sticking points that pertain to the question of what might be considered proper

educational theory.

Grain Size

The first sticking point has to do with grain size. Obviously, education as a field is too

big and includes too many things. But the field of education also is comprised of a vast

array of grain sizes from micro through meso to macro. I sometimes refer to this as the

focal distance. From how far away, or how closely, are we examining an issue?By analogy, the institutional division of life sciences can help to illustrate variations in

grain size. Biology includes several areas of specialization that vary according to grain size

from small to large: molecular biology, microbiology, biomechanics, zoology, and ecol-

ogy. These areas of specialization complement one another within the broad study of life

sciences. Different focal distances afford a range of perspectives that add depth and

dimension to the field of Biology.

L. Fendler

123


9/14

Like Biology, education is a similarly broad topic. However, within education we have

not been similarly explicit about how various grain sizes of research can function in a

complementary way. We may be able to generate robust educational theories that pertain to

teaching in a classroom, but those theories would not necessarily help us with developing

theories that pertain to a school, a district policy, or historical trajectories. Theorizing at theclassroom level is very different from theorizing at the global level. As a field I think we

would benefit from more explicit clarification of the grain size for which our theorizations

are applicable. I think grain sizes for what we mean by education is one of the sticking

points for educational theory.

It might be worthwhile for researchers to be more explicit about the grain size of our

research foci in order to help us understand more clearly the relationships among various

theoretical formulations, and to see those relationships as complementary instead of

contradictory or in competition with one another.

Modernism

The second sticking point is that educational research in general has tended to recognize

and define theory in terms of modernity. Most of what we know today as theory,

including the Great theories of the world, are understood in modern terms. By modern I

mean theories that have the characteristics of generalizability, predictive power, and

rational coherence. In assessing the value of a theory, for example, the general rule has

favored modernism: the more comprehensive and generalizable the theory, the more

valuable the theory. Under the influence of modernism, I think it has been usual to assume

a close relationship between theory and grand narrative. If we think of theory only in termsof modern grand narratives, then we have limited the potential for both education and

theory.

Given the conventional association of theory with modernism, we have perhaps not

cultivated sufficient imagination for theories that might be valuable on the basis of criteria

other than grandness, coherence, generalizability, or predictive accuracy (this point will be

elaborated in Part 3).

Originality and Derivation

In one framing of the issue of what is properly educational about educational theory, wethink of the problem as one of borrowing ideas and methods from disciplines other than

education. The question, then, becomes what would be a theory that is not derived from

other disciplines, and is therefore properly educational. In this framework, proper educa-

tional theory is contrasted with derivative educational theory. In the discussion of this third

and last sticking point, I would like to try to reframe the problem of original-versus-

derivative for educational theory.

I will try to illustrate this reframing with a story, by way of analogy. When I was an

undergraduate student studying Modern East Asian History, one year I was given a par-

ticularly well-crafted final exam essay question. The question was: Is Japanese cultureoriginal or derivative? It was an excellent exam question because it is possible to argue

either position with compelling support. Japanese culture has often been described as a

collage of other cultural influences because almost everything about Japanese culture

(including the writing system, religions, schooling, arts, food, politics, and social struc-

tures) seem to have been borrowed from other cultures. At the same time, across all of

these expressions of Japanese culture, we can recognize something distinctly Japanese.


123


10/14

Therefore, it is possible to argue effectively either that Japanese culture is derivative, and/

or that Japanese culture is original and unique.

Extending this analogy, it could be argued that all disciplines are original or derivative

in some way or another: physics derives from math; literary criticism derives from political

theory; history derives from economics or literature. As pertaining to education, we haveusually been more inclined to portray our field as derivative. However, it would be pos-

sible, within an alternate framework, to argue that educational research is original and is

characterized by unique features, distinguishable from research in any other field.

Another layer of insight on the derivative question is provided by Deleuzes (1995)

Difference and Repetition. From Deleuzes work we are prompted to ask, How different

is different? Deleuzes Difference and Repetition can help by providing language for us to

articulate the relationship of educational theory to other disciplinary theories as a system of

complex difference.

Finally, derivations are not all alike. I would like to suggest that some derivations may

be a great deal more desirable than others. For example, we can see many theories of

schooling that are now being derived from corporate structures and capitalist value sys-

tems. Thats one kind of derivation. It is perhaps quite another thing to derive educational

theories from robust and exciting artistic, philosophical, and scientific breakthroughs.

On these bases, I think the sticking point around the idea of derivation is that the

originality-versus-derivation juxtaposition may not be the central issue. It may be an

unproductive or false dichotomy. Rather, if we reframe it, the questions of what is properly

educational theory can be focused on the specific criteria that are used to select from other

fields, and the use to which those selections are put: What exactly do we choose to borrow

from other fields, and to what purposes do we put those borrowings?

What Might Theory be Doing?

Specifically, what might theory be doing that would qualify it as educational theory

proper? In order to make this point, I would like to posit a strategic distinction between

instruction and education. As we know, instruction has the etymological root of struere/

structure, which means to pile or to build. Education in contrast, has as its etymo-

logical root educe, which means to lead out or draw out. Instruction builds; education

draws out. I would like to position instruction as one of many possible technologies that

might serve to be educational.

Exceeding

Educational theory might be exceeding. By exceeding, I mean pushing beyond current

limitations, beyond what is known or imaginable, and toward the realm of the not-yet. Just

to give you a brief idea of what Im getting at, here are a couple examples of different

possible dimensions in which educational theory might be exceeding:

Educational theory might cast itself as temporally forward looking instead of just

retrospective, just as Deweys conception of reflective thinking is forward looking

rather than just retrospective.

Educational theory might push past modern and analytical definitions and assumptions

about what could qualify as theory and reach toward the horizons of what it is

possible to think.

L. Fendler

123


11/14

Educational theory might exceed current spatial limits and boundaries around

knowledge and discourse.

Now to illustrate what I mean by exceeding, I would like to draw an analogy with the

term carbon footprint as it is used in environmental studies. We can think about how

environmental scientists have given us terminology that is forward looking, and has

exceeded the previous conceptualizations of energy use beyond the fields of economics and

engineering. The term carbon footprint, adds a moral/ethical dimension to the definition

of energy. The idea of a carbon footprint exceeds the scope of more technical and

instrumental definitions, and awakens an ethical realm of implications when we think about

and debate energy use.

By analogy, educational theory might be highlighting the pedagogical footprint of our

work. Here is an example of what I mean by a pedagogical footprint. In dissertations and other

research projects, I consider it a requirement for the research proposal to explain how the

research project will be educational for everyone involved. I dont mean that we shouldexplain just how the findings will eventually benefit the knowledge base for teachers,

administrators, and educational researchers. Rather, I mean that every step in the research

process could be educationally beneficial: the interview protocols, the survey or testing

instruments, and the style of writing can all be designed to be educational for all participants.

In order to be properly educational, theory might be exceeding current limitations by

holding us accountable to educational dimensions such as these:

What if educational theory were to hold us accountable for our pedagogical footprint in

research, teaching, administering, collegial relations, and policy-making?

What if we held ourselves accountable for not only the educational implications of ourfindings, but also for the educational implications of our research designs, protocols,

methods, instruments, and style of writing?

Educational theory might be inviting and inciting us to ask the following questions of

our professional practices:

What interview protocol will not only elicit the precise information that addresses our

research questions, but will also educate us and the participants at the same time?

What administrative structure for schools and classrooms will not only accomplish

bureaucratic efficiency, but will also effectively modeland thereby teach

democratic relations? How can we write educational policy statements in such a way that the policies become

informative, generative, and exemplary?

What publication venues and what approaches to writing will be most effective in

providing the most education for the most people most of the time?

By imagining the term pedagogical footprint and suggesting that educational theory

might be exceeding, I am trying to point to and make explicit the limits of our current

educational theorizations as a means of recognizing, identifying, and challenging those

limits.

Generating

Educational theory might be generating, and not only informing. In order to explicate this

point, I will draw examples from rhetorical studies of genre and contrasting rhetorical

studies with social sciences.


123


12/14

Social science research in education is useful for providing us with thick descriptions of

teaching and classifications of the kinds of teaching that are possible. Along those lines, the

most usual genre for social science texts is expository or informational. In the tradition of

social sciences, we tend to read for information. Informational texts are instructional texts.

Instructional/informational genres approximate the provider mode of teaching.However, in education we are not only interested in instructing and providing information.

We are also interested in communicating: the rhetorical effectiveness of our teaching practices.

There is a genre distinction between the social sciences and the humanities: on the one

hand we have informational texts; on the other hand, we have generative texts. Generative

texts are like poetry and art, which are designed to generate in us experiences, feelings, and

sensibilities. The genre of generative texts is not to deliver/convey information, but rather

to evoke and inspire ways of knowing.

Informational texts go with instruction.

Generative texts go with education.In my teaching, I have been trying to facilitate different kinds of reading and genre

recognition. I try to facilitate and model how to read texts not only for information but also

for inspiration. I try to help students pay attention to how the text affects them. As I learned

from Rebekka Habermas, it works better in German: Was tut der Text? When I read a

text, what effect does that text have on my sense of self? When I write a text, what effect

does that writing have on my sense of self?

Classically speaking, a major purpose of education was reading to provide inspiration,

to stimulate the senses, and to generate spiritual experiences. I want to highlight the ways

generative textsand not just informational textsmight be regarded as educational.When texts are generative, they can take a very long time to finish reading. While we

are reading a generative text, we can easily become transported, go on flights of fancy, and

visualize the world in a way we have never seen before. In generative reading, it is usual

that we have to stop every paragraph or so to revel, reflect, or imagine. A generative

reading ignites some memory or connection or perspective. Generative readings, then, are

those whose purpose is not only to inform, but also to inspire: to animate, activate, and

galvanize. To generate understandings in us.

So if we think of most theories as being expository or informative, we might reframe the

role of theory, namely to think of educational theory as generatingas being generative.

From this point of view, educational theory can be seen as that which generatesor thatwhich facilitates the drawing out (educare) of knowledge, understanding, experience, and

imagination.

In my remarks so far, it will be apparent that this analysis does not provide a normative

basis for evaluating theory or education. That is, my discussion does not assume that theory

is a good thing or a bad thing. I have not provided any means by which we could distinguish

an evil theory from a beneficent theory, or a sloppy theory from an elegant theory. I have not

provided any basis by which we might distinguish good education from bad education. In

any case, it was deliberate on my part not to argue the normative aspects of theory or

education. That would be a worthy project, but not one I am pursuing in this particular essay.

Vibrating

Educational theory might be vibrating. For this section, I begin with the observation that, at

least in educational research published in English, I do not see very much connection

between teaching and learning.

L. Fendler

123


13/14

Teaching and learning tend to remain largely separate areas of study. There is one

AERA division for studying teaching (Division K), and a different division for studying

learning (Division C). There are separate publication venues: some journals for research on

teaching, and other journals for research on learning. It seems to me, anyway, that the

relationship between teaching and learning is under researched and under theorized.By using the term vibrating, I am gesturing toward a way for us to conceptualize the gap

between teaching and learning. To do that, I would like to put Luca Turins (2005)

vibrational theory of smell together with Nel Noddings (2005) ethic of care.

If we accept for the moment Luca Turins vibrational theory of smell, then we notice

that his theory puts three of our five senses into the vibrational category:

Hearing is perception according to frequency of sound waves;

Sight is perception according to frequency of light waves;

Smell is perception according to frequency of chemical bonding waves.

On this basis, we can think of vibration as being associated with resonance, as insympathetic vibrations.

Now I turn from Luca Turin to Nel Noddings (educational philosopher at Stanford).

As most of you know, in Nel Noddings ethic of care, what matters is uptake. According

to Noddings, there is no care unless the other person feels cared for. It does not matter that I

intended to care for you, or that I acted in a caring way toward you. Rather, for Noddings, it

only counts as care if you feel cared for by me. Its the uptake that matters. Not the intention

or the merits of the act itself, but rather the effect of my actions on you. Noddings ethic of

care presents us with a very particular kind of ethics: neither Aristotelian nor utilitarian.

Now we put Luca Turin together with Nel Noddings. We might imagine educationaltheory, then, in terms of a vibrational version of uptake. We might want to argue that one

criterion to qualify a theory as educational would be defined in terms of uptake. My

position on uptake is closely related to Deweys theory of education as communication

(but, perhaps because the term communication seems to be overused, for me, I prefer the

term vibrational uptake in this case). So a theory might be regarded as educational to the

extent that people get itget the theory and get the education.

We can think of a theory as properly educational to the extent that it effectively

generates uptake of resonant vibrations that exceed the given.

Closing

In addition to all the things that theory has been doing, there are things that theory might be

doing that could put a pedagogical footprint on perspectives, concepts, and ideas that come

from other disciplines. We can also extend this resonant vibrational criterion to critical

theories in education:

As Gert Biesta has continued to remind us, Derrida wants to shake metaphysics by

showing us that metaphysics is itself always already shaking. A critical theory mightbe regarded as educational to the extent that we get shaken up by it.

A critical theory might be regarded as educational to the extent that more peopleand

more kinds of peopleget it: regardless of ability, socioeconomic means, family

background, ethnicity, culture, race, religion, age, sexuality,

A critical theory might be regarded as educational to the extent that it generates more

educational theories that more people get.


123


14/14

The language of exceeding in educational theorising gives us alternatives to repro-

duction and the reproductive technologies that have been plaguing education. Reproduc-

tion stays within given confines; exceeding pushes our thinking to the limits and allows for

creative and imaginative flights beyond reproduction.

The language of generating gives us alternatives to authoritarianism and authoritarianversions of knowledge production. Generating opens up possibilities for more distributed,

democratic creations of knowledge because the generative texts are not designed to deliver

information authoritatively from the top down. Rather, generative texts are designed to

educe in an open and distributed way.

The language of vibrating gives us alternatives to essentialism (e.g., Platonic forms,

Cartesian substances, or reified concepts). Vibrating is dynamic, changing, and relational.

It occurs in the gaps between things. It depends on uptake and connections; it is not

dependent on generalizability or replicability. Vibration reframes the issue of pedagogy so

that teaching is no longer envisioned as a process of unidirectional delivery of authoritative

information, but rather of dynamic, democratic, and experiential connections.

References

American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on Humanities-Oriented

Research in AERA Publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481486.

Deleuze, G. (1995). Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (2002). How the alchemy makes inquiry, evidence, and exclusion. Journal of TeacherEducation, 53(3), 262267.

Popkewitz, T. (2004, Spring). The alchemy of the mathematics curriculum: Inscriptions and the fabrication

of the child. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 334. Stable http://www.jstor.

org/stable/3699383.

Turin, L. (2005). The science of scent. TED Talks. Available: http://www.ted.com/talks/luca_turin_

on_the_science_of_scent.html.

L. Fendler

13
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699383http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699383http://www.ted.com/talks/luca_turin_on_the_science_of_scent.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/luca_turin_on_the_science_of_scent.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/luca_turin_on_the_science_of_scent.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/luca_turin_on_the_science_of_scent.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3699383http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699383

Documents

2012 Fendler Lurking