ART - Gunnlaugson - Toward Integrally Informed Theories of Transformative Learning

8/12/2019 ART - Gunnlaugson - Toward Integrally Informed Theories of Transformative Learning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/art-gunnlaugson-toward-integrally-informed-theories-of-transformative-learning 1/24

http://jtd.sagepub.com/ Education

Journal of Transformative

http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/3/4/331The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/1541344605278671

2005 3: 331Journal of Transformative Education Olen Gunnlaugson

Toward Integrally Informed Theories of Transformative Learning

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Transformative Education Additional services and information for

http://jtd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jtd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/3/4/331.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 4, 2005Version of Record>>

at University of Essex on April 27, 2012 jtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jtd.sagepub.com/


http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/3/4/331


http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://jtd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jtd.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/3/4/331.refs.html


http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://jtd.sagepub.com/content/3/4/331.full.pdf








http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://jtd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://www.sagepublications.com/





Toward Integrally Informed Theories of TransformativeLearning

Olen GunnlaugsonUniversity of British Columbia

This article investigates possibilities for advancing beyond the shortcomings of decon-structive postmodern perspectives shaping transformative learning (TL) theory. Theauthor introduces Ken Wilber’s integral metatheory and explores four recommenda-tions to inspire future “integrally informed” theories of TL. Intending to supplement existing integrative, holistic, and integral perspectives within the literature, this arti-cle also raises a number of questions to invite other scholar-practitioners to contem- plate how we might proceed with building frameworks of TL theory that are morecomprehensive, balanced, and inclusive.

Keywords: transformative learning; integrally informed; integral theory integrative; postmodernism

A wide diversity of paradigms and fields of knowledge inform existing trans-formative learning (TL) frameworks within the literature. Among other broadinfluences, postmodern theory has played a formative role, either tacitly or ex-plicitly, in shaping the epistemologies, worldviews, and interpretive frameworksof many contemporary TL theorists. Initially, Mezirow’s (1978) constructivisttheory of TL1 served as the chief catalyst in establishing the field of TL nearly 30 years ago. Since then, many scholar-practitioners have expanded upon Mezirow’stheory. Within the recent decade, a new focus has emerged whereby theoristshave begun to venture more “integrative” (Illeris, 2004; Miles, 2002; etc.), “holis-tic” (Cranton & Roy, 2003; Dirkx, 1997; etc.) and “integral” (O’Sullivan, 1999;O’Sullivan, Morrell, & O’Connor, 2002; Robinson, 2004; etc.) perspectives. Inbringing together disparate views, expanding traditional categories, or proposinga whole portrait of TL, most of these approaches have succeeded in weaving to-gether a broader theoretical constellation in contrast to initial contributions. Ad-vocating for the respective merits of each of these broad-based perspectives, thisarticle proposes that the extent to which theorists have omitted or resisted otherprominent perspectives within TL literature is the extent to which these frame-works fall short of being comprehensive, balanced, and inclusive.

Journal of Transformative Education Vol. 3 No. 4, October 2005 331-353DOI: 10.1177/1541344605278671©2005 Sage Publications

331








332

In support of frameworks that strive to integrate a rich breadth and depth of perspectives, this article explores how Ken Wilber’s (2003b) 2 “integrally in-formed” 3 approach helps identify blind spots or missing perspectives within and

attempts at existing comprehensive portraits. Intended not so much a critique asa catalyst for generating creative tension within the field of transformative edu-cation, this article attempts to open a space for integrally informed theory toserve the continued development of existing integrative, holistic, and integralperspectives. With approaches that are more encompassing, it is likely that adultlearners and educators will be better equipped to explore the challenging territory of TL. In turn, this will help take into consideration perspectives and dimensionsof experience that might otherwise lie outside the scope of our interpretiveframeworks.

From Integrative to Integrally Informed Approaches of TL

The movement in TL literature toward more integrative and inclusive ap-proaches reflects the recognition of the importance of redressing the fragmentary tendencies of traditional discipline-based scholarship, which can emphasize oneor several dimensions of TL to the exclusion of others. In contrast, Susan Imel(2001) points out that “existing integrated models [of TL] tend to examine how the biological, psychological and socio-cultural aspects of adult development in-tersect and influence each other” (p. 1). Consistent with Ernest Boyer’s (1990)ideal of the “scholarship of integration,” researchers adopting such integrative ap-proaches generally aspire to move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries tocommunicate with colleagues from neighboring fields. This leads to poolingknowledge from previously isolated or competing traditions, subsequently creat-ing patterns and relationships within or across disciplines. Similarly, bringing to-gether perspectives within a discipline and between disciplines is required forbuilding integrally informed theory. Both integrative and integrally informed ap-proaches attempt to honor the validity of diverse perspectives from which exist-ing theories of TL have been constructed. This also applies to those claims thatseem foreign to us, viewed as “other” or outside the scope of what we considertrue or useful. The founding editors of the Journal of Transformative Educationelaborate,

We propose to suspend judgment, not as to the quality of scholarship but as toits approach and orientation. We propose to tolerate ambiguity in appreciativeembrace of a variety of viewpoints, origins, disciplines, and methods that will

come across the pages of the journal. We propose deference to what can belearned from embracing multiple paradigms, engaging in alternative ap-proaches, seeing through others’ lenses, and viewing through multiple frames.We propose to engage collaboratively in what we hope will be a transformativeprocess in and of itself. (McWhinney & Marcos, 2003, p. 7)

Journal of Transformative Educat ion / October 2005










334

As an integral framework, most students gravitated to the ITP as a practicalmeans to consciously direct and shape their learning and development in accor-dance with other integral and holistic models. As a registry or balance sheet out-lining the personal tools and practices students favored, the basic idea of the ITPis simple: the more aspects of our being that we simultaneously exercise, themore likely that transformation will occur through the activation of “multiplecatalysts” (Swimme, 2003) on different levels of one’s body, mind, soul, spirit in

self, culture, and nature. (Gunnlaugson, 2004, p. 322)

Overall, we found that these AQAL lenses are particularly helpful in locating ourbiases and partial perspectives, as well as bringing to light those aspects of oureveryday experience and reality that we might be ignoring or privileging. As stu-dents explore the multiple perspectives and the corresponding territories of ex-perience that are disclosed through these five lenses, the opportunities for learn-ing about oneself, others, and the world grow in a more comprehensive fashion.

Briefly summarizing, Wilber’s AQAL metatheory rests within the quadrant

model (Figure 1). Quadrants signify the first-person (subjective), second-person6

(intersubjective), and third-person (objective and interobjective) “perspective di-mensions” (2003e) of human experience. The four quadrants represent the fourfundamental perspectives one can take during any occasion, whether building in-tegral theory or considering multiple knowledge perspectives of the same occa-sion in any context of TL.


Figure 1: Wilber’s (1995) Four Quadrants








Within each quadrant there are levels, which represent patterns of increasingcomplexity and capacity. Levels unfold in a sequence, with each senior wave tran-scending yet including its junior wave. As Wilber (2003d) points out, “the seniordimensions do not sit on top of the junior dimensions like rungs in a ladder, butrather embrace and enfold them (just as cells embrace molecules, which in turnembrace atoms).” Depending on the developmental framework one is consider-ing, different levels represent different milestones of growth in different contexts.Within an integrally-informed approach, levels generally represent a particularcapacity of development ranging from preconventional through conventional topostconventional.

Levels develop along different lines of development, which represent a specificintelligence or capacity of consciousness (including ways of knowing). Lines of-fer a more differentiated understanding of human development in contrast tomore traditional, stage-based developmental theories that fuse different dimen-sions of development together (Figure 2).

States of consciousness are episodic (from a few minutes to several days) andrange considerably from ordinary to supernormal varieties. Peak experiences,which provide great meaning and motivation, represent various “states” of con-sciousness, in addition to meditative states (induced by contemplation and med-itation) and altered states (induced by psychedelic substances, demanding physi-cal exercise, etc.). Wilber (2003a) notes that the characteristic feature of states isthat they are temporary, unlike stages, which are permanent. Finally, types refer toelements that can be present at any “state” or “stage” of consciousness. A familiartypology is the Myers-Briggs (whose main types are introversion and extrover-sion, feeling and thinking, sensing and intuition, and judging and perception), inwhich one can be any combination of types at virtually any stage of development.

Overall, Wilber’s AQAL metatheory offers a coherent language and set of dis-tinctions that can help TL educators and theorists move toward a more compre-

Integral ly Informed Theories of Learning 335

Figure 2: Developmental Levels and Developmental Lines








336

hensive engagement with the dimensions of TL. If we leave out any of these per-spective dimensions, a significant part of reality is left unaddressed. In turn, thefullness of our learning and development lack in possibilities of depth and

breadth.

Four Recommendations for Future Integrally InformedProjects of TL

Educators affiliated with the Integral Education Domain (I-ED), a future cen-ter of Integral University, 7 are presently undertaking integrally informed concep-tual and empirical research at several alternative schools and adult education set-

tings. To date, emerging research by integrally informed educators andscholar-practitioners affiliated with I-ED draws largely from Wilber’s seminalwork. Yet critical interpretations have been advanced to serve the process of ad-dressing the field-specific issues that arise when bringing integral approaches tocontemporary educational projects.Although it remains to be seen to what extentsuch “projects of possibility” (Simon, 1992) will influence existing educationalapproaches, this article is written in response to the call for more integrative in-terpretations of TL and to serve as a springboard to inspire such visionary work.

In the interest of constructing more comprehensive, balanced, and inclusivetheories of TL, the remainder of this article outlines the following recommenda-tions for TL scholar-practitioners:

1. Address the shortcomings of deconstructive postmodern paradigms and providea basis for inclusivity that honors both the unique and universal features of TLexperiences.

2. Integrate “phase”- and “stage”-based structural, psychosocial, and evolutionary developmental frameworks to better address the process of transformation andthe greater developmental paths in which learners are situated.

3. Offer an expanded account of rationality within the context of multiple ways of knowing and vision-logic.

4. Weave together domains of individual (micro) and social (macro) transforma-tion within an evolving integral cosmological context that includes intrapersonal,relational, cultural, planetary, and universal dimensions of being.

TOWARD INTEGRALLY INFORMED FRAMEWORKS THATFOSTER INCLUSIVITY, UNIQUENESS, AND UNIVERSALITY

WITHIN TL THEORY

It is difficult to avoid the term “postmodernism” in the contemporary academicworld. Postmodern ideas have surfaced in a remarkably diverse range of schol-arly fields, including sociology, philosophy, anthropology, geography, women’sstudies, literary criticism, art, architecture, cultural studies, and education.(Roberts, 1998)









In spite of the complex cluster of notions and often inconsistent claims of postmodern philosophy and criticism, Wilber (1999, p. 121) points out that therejections of postmodernism stem from three core assumptions: all reality is a

human interpretation (constructivism), meaning is entirely dependent on con-text (contextualism), and no single perspective must be privileged (pluralism). AsSellars (1997), Habermas (1990), Wilber (1999), and other scholars have pointedout, during the initial “deconstructive” phase of postmodernity, the above as-sumptions rigidified into absolute positions. This led to what Habermas andWilber have regarded as a series of performative contradictions, or arguments inwhich there is a discrepancy between performance and proposition. Take for in-stance the last claim. If no single perspective is to be privileged, then the act of supporting this view leads to favoring the perspective that no perspective should

be privileged, hence a performative contradiction. Such positions when fully un-packed in educational practice led to the tacit or explicit endorsement of episte-mological relativism (i.e., all perspectives are equal and entirely dependent oncontext), hypersubjectivity (i.e., all forms of objective truth are nothing morethan subjective interpretations), and a general nihilistic effort to undermine theWestern enlightenment paradigm. 8 Broadly speaking, by problematizing every-thing the modern world has taken for granted, deconstructive postmodernismuses the methods of modernity to undercut both its positive and negative con-tent. Through the process of deconstructing all metanarratives and thereby mak-

ing all values relative, deconstructive postmodernism leaves us with no basis to justify any sustainable alternatives.Within recent years, the shift toward a “reconstructive” emphasis has followed

from the above and similar criticisms of deconstructive postmodernism. Kegan(1994) elaborates, “Not every ‘theory’ ‘stand’ or ‘way’ is necessarily absolutistic orideological. Not every differencing, normatizing or hierarchizing is necessarily ahidden and arbitrary privileging of a special interest. Not every kind of judgingor prioritizing is impermissible modernist domination” (p. 329). Recognizingthat not all forms of generalization and universality follow from modernist think-

ing, it becomes possible to reposition modernist categories of reason, objectivity,freedom, progress, and autonomy on theoretical grounds that are neither abso-lutistic nor relativistic. Critical of eclectic frameworks formulated by the subjec-tive tastes and biases of researchers, Wilber’s integral approach attempts to en-compass the strengths and limit the shortcomings of previous premodern,modern, and postmodern traditions. In this way, Wilber’s contribution takes intoaccount the critique of deconstructive postmodern thought and advances a re-freshing vision of unparalleled scope. Alongside Wilber’s project, several contri-butions within transformative and integral literature deserve mention here.

For instance, transformative educator and visionary Edmund O’Sullivan takesinto account the deconstructive critique of past grand narratives within educa-tion and endorses Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme’s (1994) “universe story”:

How do we break out of this destructive spiral? One option has been to decon-struct modernist assumptions through rigorous intellectual analysis. This in-









338

cludes resisting the substitution of any other synthesis or overarching perspec-tive and refusing to prioritize any perspective over others. Taken to its conclu-sion, deconstructive postmodernism, indeed anti-modernism, leaves us withnowhere to stand and no avenue into a different future. We are still positionedoutside the world. To act, we must step into the world, select a direction, and in-vest in it our energy and confidence, at least temporarily. (O’Sullivan & Taylor,2004, p. 3)

As a reconstructive vision, the universe story posits an open-ended evolving cos-mology that advocates for “the telling of stories within The Story. The Story, incapitals, is the ground for all of the stories that have been told over the ages” (O’-Sullivan, 1999, p. 183). In contrast to modernist cosmological conceptions thatplace the learner into a static worldview as a disembodied mind set apart from thenatural world, O’Sullivan’s work serves an invaluable function in offering a func-tional integral cosmology for orienting present-day educational projects.

Echoing O’Sullivan, Swedish integral researcher Thomas Jordan (2000) pointsout that a persistent focus on creating a larger common vision among disparatetheories can lead to ignoring the importance of specific historical, societal, andcultural nuances of meaning. For the purposes of developing a truly comprehen-sive integral theory, Jordan outlines two distinct yet essential dimensions of inte-gral theory building:

It is important to understand that the function of theories are very different inthese two approaches. The nomothetical approach tries to build and refine avalid and universal theoretical system. The result is a striving for “Grand The-ory,” a hermetic theoretical system that gives a unified and coherent explanationof a field of knowledge. The idiographical approach looks for theoretical toolsthat may be helpful in explaining the particular. These scholars do not expectthat reality can be meaningfully represented by an abstraction.

To avoid the shortcomings of nomothetical approaches, future integrally in-

formed theorists will benefit from elucidating methods for embracing both uni-versal deep features and local surface features within a given theoretical context.Wilber’s frameworks bear a striking resemblance to nomothetical approaches andare often applied with a universal intent. Thus, more attention needs to be givento how his theory might be better responsive to different educational contexts tooffset this bias. Additionally, there is a value in integrating ideographical ap-proaches to address the variations and nuances of meaning within students’ lives.Otherwise, if Wilber’s integral theory becomes overly steeped in the nomotheti-cal, it risks reverting back to the modernist scenario of becoming another colo-

nizing structure of knowledge that lacks the skillful means for addressing the par-ticular contextual and cultural issues educators face.R eflecting further on the reconstructive postmodern move toward more

integra tive perspectives, it seems that such visions are prone to carrying forth thelimitations of former paradigmatic assumptions from previous epistemologies(e.g., deconstructive postmodernism; Ferrer, 2002). As a case in point, Patricia









Cranton and Merv Roy’s (2003) work attempts to bring together a number of tra-ditional and contemporary perspectives within the field of TL by introducing aninclusive holistic framework. Their gesture in addressing the fragmentation of

perspectives within TL theory is critical. However, it seems that Cranton and Roy inadvertently endorse a subtle order of fragmentation through a form of episte-mological relativism.

By sketching out a holistic perspective that attempts to preserve the validity of existing approaches, they do not elaborate how different theoretical perspectivesmight fit together. In other words, it is questionable to what extent this inclusivegesture can embrace all that is well conceived among rival positions, as each doesnot necessarily share ontological assumptions, methodological commitments, orepistemological foundations. Cranton and Roy (2003) are clear in stating that

their aim in bringing diverse perspectives together is “not to synthesize them inthe way of bringing black and white together to make gray but rather to suggestthat they can and should coexist” (p. 87). To remedy this incoherence, they avoidmoving toward a synthesis of views. Instead, they corral the different perspectivestogether to establish a new epistemological basis that honors the diversity of po-sitions. However, this leads their initiative into the blind alley of epistemologicalrelativism insofar as the aim is to bring all the perspectives together by getting allviews to coexist equally side by side. Thus, the gesture of creating a theoreticalcontext in which opposites and differences can coexist does not guarantee an end

to the fragmentation produced by competing perspectives.Rather than assuming that existing perspectives are equal, an integrally in-formed approach assumes that existing perspectives need to be sufficiently dif-ferentiated. Then, instead of attempting a traditional Hegelian synthesis of or anorder between different perspectives, this approach undertakes to locate these per-spectives within an order beyond them. In essence, what is needed is a metatheory that honors the vital contributions of each perspective by recognizing its existinglimitations and boundaries. Unlike many eclectic frameworks such as Crantonand Roy’s (2003), Wilber’s metatheory (when applied within the context of the-

ory building) attempts to preserve the degree of relative truth of different per-spectives, while respecting the partial truths of other neighboring perspectives.By questioning the limiting “exclusivity claims” (Wilber, 2003a) of each perspectivethat resists or opposes a greater integration, we no longer need to exclude othertruths or hold all views as equally true.

TOWARD INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORKS WITHIN TL THEORY

The notion of learners’ development taking place as a series of changes overtime is basic to TL theory. Interestingly, a number of TL theorists interpret thephenomenon of TL through the lenses of adult developmental theory (e.g.,Kegan, 1994; Perry, 1999), whereas others prefer to interpret TL in a nondevelop-mental context with frameworks that use more process-based approaches (e.g.,









340

Mezirow’s 10 phases). It seems that part of the resistance against adult develop-mental theory stems from the early deconstructive postmodern criticism towardclassic conceptualizations of development, which privilege some combination of

elitist, gender, or ethnocentric biases by the researcher (Reeves, 1999, p. 19). For-tunately, the comprehensiveness of classic developmental theories has been chal-lenged in recent decades. This has led to the proliferation of a broad cross-sectionof developmental models that take into account biological, psychological, socio-logical, and integrative perspectives (Clark & Caffarella, 1999, p. 4). It is impor-tant to recognize that these initial criticisms have subsequently inspired a broaderrange of theories with an overall expanded range of interpretation. However, sucharguments against adult developmental theories do not eliminate a basis forpositing developmental patterns that unfold in stages of increasing complexity

over time. Our experiences of TL may feel more like a constantly changingchaotic process of shifting contexts that defies any semblance of order. Neverthe-less, one cannot ignore the important differences between preconventional, con-ventional, and more complex postconventional perspectives that emerge in learn-ers who undergo TL experiences, even in the absence of conceptual frameworksto assemble these patterns.

With regard to the bias against process- or phase-based theories that depict TLas a series of steps in time, such views tend to focus primarily on the process of TL and ignore the context of a learner’s overall development. Interestingly, such

views tend to express resistance toward any developmental unfolding of an adultlearner’s worldview, epistemology, or stage of consciousness, even though suchformulations are commonly accepted within developmental theory of children(e.g., Piaget). One could argue that theorists who endorse process-based inter-pretations to the exclusion of adult developmental theory support the decon-structive postmodern criticism against hierarchical stage-based models of devel-opment as tools for marginalization, repression, and abuse (Bourdieu, 2001;Foucault, 2000). Because most developmental perspectives are predicated uponcomplex adaptive hierarchal structures within the individual, it is of little surprise

that a number of TL scholars are, at least initially, reluctant to support these mod-els. As a counterpoint to this criticism, Wilber (1996) points out that when stagesof development are not made explicit, or are outright denied, theorists engage in yet another performative contradiction:

You cannot avoid hierarchy. Even the anti-hierarchy theorists have their own hi-erarchy, their own ranking. Namely, they think that linking (i.e. heterarchy) isbetter than ranking. Well, that is a hierarchy, a ranking of values. But becausethey do not own up to this, then their hierarchy becomes unconscious, hiddenand denied. (p. 25)

Although one may not be able to avoid hierarchy, clearly, some form of distinc-tion needs to be made between nonauthoritarian hierarchies and social hierar-chical structures with top-down sequences of authoritative control that translateinto widespread social oppression and inequality. Within the context of develop-









ment,“actualization hierarchies” (Eisler, 1987) involve a ranking of increasing ca-pacities. Here, each stage is adequate and valuable, but each deeper or higher stageis more adequate and valuable than the former. In such a context, a learner draws

from the respective intelligence of his or her present stage and previous stages.This distinction stands in contrast to the hierarchical structures of modernity,which tend to deny the orders of intelligence found in previous stages or levels,for example, the rejection of indigenous nonrational ways of knowing as “primi-tive.” From this vantage point, the abuse of pathological sociocultural hierarchiesneed not preclude the value of actualization hierarchies in serving the context of human development. Furthermore, such structures need not incorporate the sav-age deconstructive postmodern critiques of progress, because not all metaphorsof progress are destructive or irrelevant. Nevertheless, to proceed, a judicious de-

construction of modern myths of progress is required, particularly in ways thatcan acknowledge the partial truths of psychosociocultural ideals of emancipa-tion, transformation, and personal and collective enlightenment.

Taking these biases and criticisms into account, what might TL look likewithin a more integrally informed theory of adult development? Robert Kegan’s(2000) model of adult development serves as a fine example, locating the funda-mental change of TL in the core “form,” self-structure, or epistemology in whichthe learner is embedded. Kegan elaborates,

The suggestion that a given individual may over time come to organize her ex-perience according to a higher order principle suggests that what we take as subject and what we take as object are not necessarily fixed for us.…In fact, trans-forming our epistemologies, liberating ourselves from that in which we wereembedded, making what was subject into object so that we can “have it” ratherthan “be had” by it—this is the most powerful way I know to conceptualize thegrowth of the mind. (p. 34)

As the learner begins to develop a new order or dimension of consciousness, thisnew self-structure undergoes a gradual or dramatic reconstruction into a moreinclusive and complex structure for organizing one’s experience. Consistent withBeck and Cowan (1996), Cook-Greuter and Rooke (1999), Torbert (2000), Wilber(1996), and other developmental theorists, Kegan points out that in moving froman existing to a higher order of consciousness, the epistemology of an individualis fundamentally reconstituted, in essence transformed.

Turning to the integrally informed theory of spiral dynamics integral, basedon the research of psychologist Clare Graves and the integral framework of Wilber, Beck points out that the previous stage of one’s self-development doesnot disappear or vanish. Rather, like a Russian doll, it is contained within the ex-isting stage of development, in which the higher or most recent stage is essentially a more complex order of consciousness containing a new range of capacities andpotentials. Interestingly, as the learner’s consciousness develops up the spiral, suc-cessive stages of development offer broader and more inclusive worldviews, setsof values, and scopes of identifications that grow to include one another, hu-









342

mankind, and the planet. Although such frameworks suggest a more linear un-folding of complex capacities, actual transformative development is a messy andchaotic process as learners move through each new developmental stage. How-

ever, with such maps, learners can begin to orientate from the general milestonesof human development in contrast to relativist frameworks that offer no suchclues.

Both Beck’s spiral dynamics integral developmental theory and Mezirow’sprocess-based model share the assumption that the worldviews of the learnerchange in any given instance of TL. However, unlike Mezirow’s process-basedmodel, Beck’s theory assumes that individuals’ worldviews unfold in a develop-mental sequence of increasing complexity, thus mirroring the developmental pat-terns of humanity (i.e., ontogeny loosely recapitulates phylogeny). Within Beck’s

model, the individual’s particular “stage” of development is reflected in previousand emergent stages of consciousness within the human family extending back through evolution until the present day. Beck recognizes the role of consciousnessin reciprocally shaping and being shaped by our experience, our perceptions, ourexpectations and our actions. Like other integral developmental theorists, heviews consciousness within an evolutionary emergent context.

In contrast to Mezirow’s approach, Beck’s research has taken him in a differ-ent direction, with a focus on mapping out the developmental unfolding of worldviews and values from personal to regional and global contexts. As men-

tioned in a previous article (Gunnlaugson, 2004), Mezirow tends to conceptual-ize these worldviews independent of the learner’s values within an epistemology shaped by a form of pluralistic relativism. In practice, it becomes a bewilderingchallenge to address the respective dimensions of a given TL experience withinhis framework, in spite of the fact that his theory provides a valuable articulationof the phases or steps involved.

For Mezirow (1991), the meaning structure is what develops in the learner andhis claim is that such “perspective transformations” involve a shift in one’s estab-lished frame of reference, worldview, or habit of mind. However, it is not clear in

Mezirow’s constructivist account whether this is merely a lateral shift in one’sperspective or if there has been a fundamental change in the order or form of consciousness of the learner. Additionally, if a change in the consciousness of thelearner, what might be the nature of such change? How can we begin to under-stand this form of growth as educators, theorists, and adult learners? Interest-ingly, Mezirow’s theory points in the same direction as Beck, Kegan, and other in-tegral developmental theorists:

An essential point made in many studies, including my own (Mezirow, 1978), is

that transformation can lead developmentally toward a more inclusive, differen-tiated, permeable, and integrated perspective and that, insofar as it is possible,we all naturally move toward such an orientation. (p. 155)

Yet once again, regardless of whether TL happens in an epochal or incrementalfashion, Mezirow’s step-based process does not address how the consciousness of









the learner’s self evolves from preconventional through conventional towardpostconventional levels or capacities. Without the support of developmentalframeworks that address both the levels and stages of consciousness that change

within the self and communities of learners over time and the phase-basedprocesses that learners experiencing TL goes through, we are left with at besttrue but partial perspectives. From an integrally informed perspective, both in-terpretations are incomplete. Yet each contains partial truths when appropri-ately limited and recontextualized in such a manner that preserves each originalinsight. What makes these former views problematic is the outright dismissalof conflicting perspectives, which tends to result in unbalanced if not distortedinterpretations.

To move toward more integrally informed perspectives of development within

TL, theorists will benefit from taking into account frameworks that engage thepartial truths of both adult developmental theory and traditional process-basedmodels. Because the stage-based changes described within adult developmenttheory often take many years to accomplish, future research will benefit by ex-ploring how contextualizing process-based TL theories (e.g., Mezirow) withinstage-based models (e.g., Kegan) brings forth a richer integration of existing the-ory. Also given the limitations of certain stage-based models that fuse togetherdifferent dimensions of development into one theory, there is a need for futuremodels that render a broader range of developmental capacities within such

frameworks as Wilber’s “lines.” Overall, in moving toward the articulation of ap-proaches that assist us in developing greater openness, differentiation, and inte-gration within our existing perspectives, we become more adept at positively in-fluencing the dynamic process of TL as educators and lifelong learners.

EXPLORING AN EXPANDED ACCOUNT OF RATIONALITY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF MULTIPLE WAYS OF KNOWING AND VISION-LOGIC

There is a widespread tendency in the literature for TL scholars to frame mul-tiple ways of knowing within the traditional binary representation of the “twolayered role of the rational and the affective” (Taylor, 1998). This often leads tolumping the intuitive and imaginative with affective under the broad category of “subjective” ways of knowing. In turn, these respective intelligences are placedalong a flat conceptual continuum that oversimplifies and misrepresents the ca-pacities of each distinct faculty of knowing and how they are interrelated. Re-garding emotional or intuitive intelligence as the opposing category of reason in-evitably generates fragmentation. Because different ways of knowing requiredifferent methods to assess their respective context and scope of validity, it be-comes a reductionistic move to apply objective methods of verification to the dif-ferent forms of subjective knowing.

In considering other ways of knowing via Wilber’s AQAL theory, dichotomousframeworks can be represented from the perspectives of the four “quadrants”and









344

multiple “lines of development” (Wilber, 2003c). The quadrants provide a broadconceptual framework to locate the different interior and exterior capabilities of learners and learning communities. Quadrants become an important framework

to ensure that careful attention is given to not imposing the epistemologies or thebroad validity claims of different quadrants upon one another. Within this ex-panded framework, conventional rationality can be recontextualized as an inter-mediate stage of the cognitive line, which exists as an intelligence alongside twodozen other vital developmental lines 9 within any given learner. ReflectingHoward Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (e.g., cognitive intelligence,emotional intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, etc.), the framework of “lines of development” provides a basis to measure and conceptualize cognitive develop-ment without marginalizing the respective truths of other intelligences and ways

of knowing. Within the context of TL, learners tend to be at different levels of dif-ferent developmental lines in different learning contexts. Wilber also regards de-velopmental lines as “streams” (Wilber, 2000a, p. 28), because though most of these capacities develop in a relatively independent fashion, many draw from theintelligences of neighboring streams. This reflects TL educator Taylor’s (1998)point that “recent research has revealed how emotions are indispensable for ra-tionality, such that one cannot reason without emotions or feelings” (p. 35).

Revisiting Mezirow’s (1991) foundational assumption that TL hinges upon thethree phases of “critical reflection on one’s assumptions, discourse to validate the

critically reflective insight and action” (p. 131) implies that critical reflection isguided chiefly by reason. 10 However, in locating conventional reason as a con-ventional “stage” of the cognitive line that serves an invaluable but limited func-tion within the TL process, a space opens to acknowledge the transformative po-tential of other ways of knowing, as Taylor (1998) elaborates:

Multiple studies refer to the importance of such ways as intuition (Bailey 1996;Brooks 1989), affective learning (Clark 1991; Scott 1991a) and the guiding forceof feelings (Hunter 1980; Taylor 1994). The Group for Collaborative Inquiry (1994), in a recent study re-conceptualizing the transformative learning process,identified the significance of whole person learning—awareness and use of allthe functions we have available for knowing including our cognitive, relational,affective, somatic, intuitive and spiritual dimensions. (p. 36)

In addition to whole-person learning, a space opens up to consider the trans-formative potentials of postconventional stages of reasoning. Educator SharanMerriam’s (2004) recent claim that “it appears that one must be at a mature levelof cognitive functioning to engage in the transformative learning process” (p. 60)invites further inquiry into what degree of cognition constitutes maturity. Toventure into this inquiry from an integrally informed perspective, cognitioncan be evaluated as a key developmental line with various levels of cognitive ca-pacity. Viewed in this way, it seems that independent thinking born from criticalreflection and reflective discourse may no longer either be the most mature or ap-propriate ideal for engaging the TL process within contexts of adult and highereducation.









Given Wilber’s (1996) and other developmentalists’ claims 11 that there aremore mature levels of cognition that “transcend and include” (p. 27) conven-tional reason, how might such forms of knowing guide and informexisting frameworks of TL? Moving toward the cultivation of such ideals as a“self-transforming mind” (Kegan, 1994) and “evolving self” (Csikszentmihalyi,1993), we develop the capacity to embrace contradictory systems and becomeconscious participants in our own evolutionary unfolding. Wilber (1995)elaborates,

As rationality continues its quest for a truly universal or global or planetary out-look, non-coercive in nature, it eventually gives way to a type of cognition I callvision-logic. Vision-Logic can hold in mind contradictions, it can unify oppo-

sites, it is dialectical and non-linear, and it weaves together what otherwise ap-pear to be incompatible notions. (p. 185)

Integrally informed adult educator Irene Karpiak (1997) remarks that vision-logic represents “a way of relating to the world that is more inclusive, more inte-grated, and more complex than our traditional and prevailing ‘rational’ view”(p. 83). Rather than privilege any perspective as final, vision-logic strives to graspdifferent systems and pluralistic contexts of meaning making in the attempt to join and integrate them together. To grasp different systems, the learner is no

longer exclusively identified with his or her own interpretive system. He or shecan therefore listen to the arguments of others without feeling the need to mar-ginalize, devaluate, or outright reject them. Wilber (2003c) remarks that early vi-sion-logic left us in a relativistic dilemma without integration. However, hepoints out that the middle and late stages of vision-logic begin to articulate amore encompassing integral embrace. From this perspective, an integrally in-formed approach begins to develop “metaparadigmatical reasoning” 12 (Jordan,2000), which helps develop the cognitive capacity of vision-logic. As Alan Combs(2002), an integral theorist within consciousness studies, remarks,

I suspect that integral consciousness, or vision logic, is a kind of intellectual endof the road. For those who cling desperately to the world of rationality, the out-come of this breakdown is depression, existential angst or even suicide…forthose who can relax into the liminal spaces opened by the fault lines in an intel-lect at the end of its tether, the light of the higher planes can begin to streamthrough. (p. 265)

Revisiting Mezirow’s (1997) assumptions about the forms of knowing required toguide the TL process, how might the advanced capacity of vision-logic illuminateour existing presuppositions about TL? As an extension of this question, how might an integrally informed theory of TL account for how TL takes place alongthe different developmental lines of learners, not only their “frames of reference”or “habits of mind”?









346

Although numerous studies (Merriam, 2004, p. 63) indicate that many adultshave not yet developed the capacity for late conventional or postconventionalcognitive functioning, one cannot deny the thresholds of transformation that

learners traverse along the developmental journey from preconventional to con-ventional and finally more complex postconventional perspectives (along differ-ent developmental lines). Conventional and postconventional forms of cognition(e.g., reason and vision-logic) are crucial in integrating one’s “meaning perspec-tives”(Mezirow) by becoming more aware of one’s unconscious roles, beliefs, andassumptions. However, adult learners who are at late preconventional and early conventional cognitive capacities would still experience disorienting dilemmas,among other transformative processes. They may not experience all the 10 phasesof Mezirow’s framework or be at Kegan’s fourth stage of “self-authoring,” and in

this sense, future research will benefit from articulating more comprehensiveframeworks of TL that take into account the multiple “forms” of transformation,particularly theories that do not place contingencies upon one’s level of cognitivematurity but take into account experiences of TL from the perspectives of devel-opmental lines (e.g., emotional, spiritual, and interpersonal intelligence) as wellas the territory of vision-logic (with conventional reason no longer fronting asthe highest accolade of cognition). Because the modernist legacy of educationcontinues to persist with its tendencies toward colonization of the body, sexual-ity, passions, and other subtle dormant intelligences by conventional rationality,

there is a need for differentiating, healing, and reintegrating these multiple intel-ligences within new modalities of TL and ideals of mature adult life.

TOWARD MORE COMPREHENSIVECOSMOLOGICAL CONTEXTS OF TL THEORY

In spite of the influences of ecoliteracy informing contemporary education(Orr, 1992), within the field of TL, many scholars continue to adapt an anti-quated secularized view of the individual within the abstractions of “society” and“culture.” Cosmology, within a modernist framework, traditionally involves ex-plorations of the large-scaled properties of the universe as a whole. Until recent years, the lens of classical science has been the primary interpreter of these ven-tures, which outright exclude cultural, psychospiritual, and ecosocial accounts of who we are, where we have come from, and where we might be heading. How-ever, groundbreaking discoveries in new science and evolutionary perspectivesover the past century have greatly expanded former modernist categories of cos-mology. Present-day cosmologists such as Brian Swimme and Mathew Fox have,in addition to integrating these contemporary insights, excavated previous devel-opments from prescientific conceptions of the world that were lost with the ar-rival of modern culture. In acknowledging not only the story of geophysical mat-ter but also the correlative forms of body, mind, soul, and spirit in humans withinthe greater universe, these and other visionaries are restoring the vitalizing func-tions of cosmology. Wilber (1996, p. 16) reintroduces the Pythagorean term kos-









mos to acknowledge the patterned process of all interior and exterior domains of existence from matter to the subtle correlative forms of mind, soul, and spirit.Unlike the traditional religious or scientific meanings of cosmos, the integral ver-sion of kosmos moves us into nested contexts from the personal to the interper-sonal, local, and ultimate aspects of the universe as the always present backdropto each moment. Within these contexts, learners are invited into participationwith these nested evolving contexts as the always present backdrop to each mo-ment. A simplified example is conceptually illustrated by Houston Smith’s (1992)insightful diagram that unites different levels of reality with different levels of selfhood (Figure 3). As a point of contrast, within more secularized theories of TL, for instance those that draw upon Carl Jung’s process of individuation (Boyd& Myers, 1988; Cranton & Roy, 2003), there is an attempt to integrate the un-conscious content of the individual within the social context of one’s given soci-ety. Mezirow, Cranton, Boyd, and other leading theorists also tend to focus on theindividual dimension of TL either within or as abstracted from society, leaving uswith a general imbalance in TL theory that is ahistorical and decontextualized(Clark & Wilson, 1991, p. 90). As Angela Miles (2002) points out,

Transformational Learning in the field of adult education has generally fallen onthe humanist side of this divide, referring to individual learning that transforms


Figure 3 : “As Above, so Below” (Smith, 1992)








348

the personal worldview of the learner without integral theoretical attention tothe core values or social meaning of the changes involved. (p. 23)

Though Miles establishes a vital point, her perspective falls short of a cosmolog-ical vision that is appropriate to our 21st-century moment inasmuch as it doesnot address the more-than-human and planetary contexts in which our societiesand cultures are presently situated.

Presently O’Sullivan (1999) is the most well known scholarly voice advocatingfor an integral cosmological context within the field of TL. By questioning con-ventional categories of development, O’Sullivan points our awareness beyond thepartial frameworks of traditional Western models of human development andlearning. In turn, this relocates the creative developmental intelligence of the in-

dividual from the individual or social realms to the larger creative processes of thegreater earth community and universe.To develop a more integrally informed framework, O’Sullivan’s work could

benefit from exploring how these macro dimensions of consciousness are at oncedistinct from yet reflected within the micro interiors of human subjects and com-munities. When these interconnections are not made explicit, the vital linkages of consciousness between the interiors of the micro and macro dimensions can bemistakenly addressed as separate and disconnected. Integral theorist SeanEsbjorn-Hargens (2005) elaborates,

Integral Ecology recognizes that for an ecocentric approach to manifest in our-selves, and our communities, we have to work together to stabilize worldcentricpatterns of being in relationship. Otherwise, ecologically concerned individualswho are ostensibly one with the earth might propagate dynamics of “othering”against their neighbors as well as various members of the global village. (p. 2)

Additionally, such dynamics of “othering” can take place within one’s own beingif our outward gaze is divided from our interior realms. The new cosmologicalstory of the universe places the human back into depth and breadth participationwith our world (Berry & Swimme, 1994). As a contribution to this story, O’Sulli-van (1999) posits the construct of an “ecological self” to signify a self that is look-ing beyond the horizon of one’s personality and ego to embrace a widening scopeof transpersonal or more-than-personal concerns.

Yet again, without an integrally informed context, this construct could easily guide one to overlooking or, worse still, denying the personal dimensions of hu-man experience through a planetary-centered language that does not adequately integrate the personal and psychological domains of human experience. How might integrally informed TL frameworks adequately account for the respectivelanguages within and between these interconnected domains? In this regard, anintegrally informed approach leaves no major stone unturned, inviting a broadrecalibration of all the micro and macro levels as well as the interior and exteriordimensions of TL. With more encompassing cosmologies, we bring long awaitedsustenance to the nested living contexts in which TL experiences are unfolding inour lives as educators and students.









Closing

As the field of TL fills out in breadth and depth, scholars advocating integra-

tive, holistic, and integral perspectives within the literature would do well to con-sider the merits of Wilber’s integral approach. As Boyer (1990) commented onthe virtue of integrative studies 15 years ago,“Long on the edges of academic life,[integrative studies] are moving to the center, responding both to new intellectualquestions and to pressing human problems” (p. 21). In the interest of assistingthis process, it is my sincere hope that by introducing Wilber’s AQAL metatheory,addressing the shortcomings of deconstructive postmodernism, integrating“phase”- and “stage”-based developmental frameworks, bringing forth an ex-panded account of rationality, and weaving together more comprehensive cos-mologies, this article will serve as a catalyst in advancing integral projects of pos-sibility within the field of TL. By extending our imaginings beyond thedisciplinary and interdisciplinary horizons of existing theories, I invite other in-tegrative scholar-practitioners to dare to dream up more comprehensive and in-clusive maps within more transdisciplinary contexts. Informed by vision-logicreasoning and other vital ways of knowing, such initiatives will undoubtedly bring coherence to and assist with integrating the greater wholes and parts of TLtheory. Like burning phoenixes rising from the ashes of the deconstructive post-modern legacy, the value and significance of such approaches promise to not only light up the essential perspectives and levels within TL territory but also to en-liven the discourse and inform new collective visions and directions for existingand future transformative education initiatives.

Notes

1. As Mezirow (1991) himself has written,“My approach to transformation theory hasas its current context the insurgence of constructivism, critical theory, and deconstruc-

tivism in social theory” (p. xiii).2. According to integral theorist Sean Esbjorn-Hargens (2005),

Ken Wilber is known as one of the most important intellectual contributors tothe contemporary exploration of inter- and transdisciplinary scholarship. Throughhis extensive writings, on a variety of topics, Wilber has established what is referredto as Integral Theory. Due to the relevance and popularity of his vision, Wilber’sbooks have been translated into more than 24 languages. As a result of its applica-bility across disciplinary boundaries, Integral Theory has received a wide embracefrom individuals associated with a variety of fields. (p. 3)

3. I broadly distinguish “integrally informed”interpretations as those that critically ad-dress the strengths and shortcomings of postmodern frameworks. Second, I employ Wilber’s term integrally informed as a theoretical and practical method for introducing amore encompassing awareness of the perspectives and dimensions of human experiencethat follow from an understanding of his AQAL (the short form of “all quadrants, all lev-els, all lines, all states, and all types”) frameworks.









350

4. According to Esbjorn-Hargens (2005),

in addition to the field of Ecology (Zimmerman 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001), Wilber’sIntegral Theory has been applied to: Education (Astin, 2000; Fisher 2003; Gunnlaug-

son 2004; Karpiak 1996; Lauzon 1998); Medicine (Astin & Astin 2002; Paulson1999a, 1999b; Schlitz forthcoming); Nursing (Fiandt et al 2003); Psychology (Miku-las 2001); Business (Paulson 2002); Future Studies (Slaughter, 1997, 1998, 2001;Voros 2001); Intersubjectivity (Hargens 2001); Social Action (Walsh 2002; Moyer2001); Criminology (Gibbs et al. 2000); Music Therapy (Bonde 2001); Gender(Peschek forthcoming); Politics (Harguindey, forthcoming; Roof 2003; Wilpert2001); Art (Grey 1990, 1998, 2001; Dallman 2003a, 2003b, Davis 1997); Near Deathexperiences (Paulson 1999); Christianity (Marion 2000, Harris 2001, Main 1985);Religion (Bauwens 2003, Araya 2003); and Sustainable Development (Hochachka2001; Hargens 2002). As evidenced by these examples, Integral Theory has a widerange of applicability across divergent fields of inquiry. (p. 4)

5. Rather than perform a comprehensive integrally informed review of the literature,which is beyond the scope of this project, throughout this article, I will suggest possibili-ties for expanding the scope of existing integrative, holistic, and integral theoretical per-spectives, as well as integrally informed models.

6. Second person is first-person plural.7. Integral University, scheduled to open in fall 2005, will be an online learning com-

munity with an extensive integral knowledge library, interactive learning environments,and online courses. It will offer accredited courses in a variety of fields, certificates, train-

ing seminars, and, eventually, accredited graduate-level degrees.8. As Wilber (1999, pp. 44-58) points out, modernity loosely refers to the period of the

Renaissance and the liberal Western enlightenment paradigm. Following in the wave of modernity is the proclamation of the values of equality, freedom, justice, and representa-tional democracy. More good news includes the rise of rationality and the demand for em-pirical evidence overcoming mythic thinking. The shadow side or bad news of this period,which tends to be the focus of deconstructive postmodernism, is the strict adherence topatriarchal ideals of critical reason; the inevitability of progress; a dogmatic faith in the objectivity of science; the existence of an unquestionable universal moral code; and the exis-tence of a singular, autonomous self.

9. Among the two dozen or so developmental lines are cognition, morals, affects andemotion, motivation and needs, ideas of good, psychosexuality, kinesthetic, intelligence,self-identity (ego), role taking, logic-mathematical, relational capacity, worldviews, values,musical skill, altruism, communicative competence, creativity, modes of space and timeperception, and meditative stages (Wilber, 2000a).

10. Interestingly, Mezirow (2003) mentions the importance of “metacognitive reason-ing” (p. 61) as being a part of the process of critical reflection. However, he does not view this as a form of postconventional reasoning, nor does he elaborate how this capacity ei-ther draws upon or is distinct from other ways of knowing.

11. In addition to vision-logic, higher stages of integral cognition are broadly knownby developmental researchers as the “fifth order of consciousness” (Kegan, 1994), the “in-tegral-aperspectival worldview” (Gebser, 1986), “autonomous and integrated stages,” the“authentic stage,” and “second-tier consciousness” (Beck & Cowan, 1996).

12. Jordan (2000) refers to metaparadigmatical reasoning as allowing a person to spotthe nature of the kind of reasoning used to arrive at valid knowledge. One may then tosome extent be able to recognize how the spectrum of valid knowledge that accumulates









in a particular field of inquiry is biased by the types of concepts and by the rule set usedfor reasoning. One understands that it is indeed possible to take a perspective on all per-spectives, that one can construct a point of view that can embrace many different per-spectives and discourses, and review their (sometimes contradictory and paradoxical) in-terrelationships.

References

Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change: Exploring the new science of memetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Berry, T., & Swimme, B. (1994). The universe story: From the primordial flaring forth to theecozoic era—A celebration of the unfolding of the cosmos. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Boyd, R., & Myers, G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 4, 261-284.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Clark, M. C., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). An update on adult development theory: New waysof thinking about the life course( New directions for adult and continuing education, Vol.84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. C., & Wilson, A. L. (1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory of trans-formational learning. Adult Education Quarterly , 41, 75-91.

Combs, A. (2002). The radiance of being: Understanding the grand integral vision: Living theintegral life. New York: Omega.

Cook-Greuter, S., & Rooke, D. (1999). The seven action logics of the leadership development framework. Lydney, UK: Harthill.

Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holisticperspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 86-98.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. New

York: HarperCollins.Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Nurturing the soul in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74 , 79-88.

Dirkx, J. M (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: Anoverview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning , 7 , 1-14.

Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. Cambridge, MA: Harper& Row.

Esbjorn-Hargens, S. (2005). Integral ecology: The what, who, and how of environmentalphenomena. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 61(1-2), 5-49.

Ferrer, J. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of human spiritu-

ality . Albany: State University of New York Press.Foucault, M. (2000). Power (J. D. Faubion, Ed., R. Hurley et al., Trans.). New York: New

Press.Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad, Trans.). Athens: Ohio University

Press.









352

Gunnlaugson, O. (2004). Towards an integral education for the ecozoic era. Journal of Transformative Education , 2, 313-335.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action(C. Lenhardt & S. W.Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Illeris, K. (2004). Transformative learning in the perspective of a comprehensive learningtheory. Journal of Transformative Education, 2, 79-89.

Imel, S. (2001). Adult development: Trends and issues alert, no. 22. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cete.org/acve/docs/tia00090.pdf

Jordan, T. (2000, January). Dimensions of consciousness development: A preliminary frame-work. Retrieved from http://www.lightmind.com/library/essays/Jordan-01.html

Karpiak, I. E. (1997). Change, evolution, and global vision-logic: A gentle challenge foradult development. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education , 23(1), 81-95.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Kegan, R. (2000). What form transforms: A constructive-developmental approach totransformative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation:Critical perspectives on a theory in progress(pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McWhinney, W., & Marcos, L. (2003). Editors’ perspectives. Journal of Transformative Ed-ucation, 1, 4-16.

Merriam, S. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformationallearning theory. Adult Education Quarterly , 55, 60-68.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28(2), 100-109.Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997).Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Trans- formative learning in action ( New directions for adult and continuing education , Vol. 74,pp. 5-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Educa-tion, 1, 58-63.

Miles, A. (2002). Feminist perspectives on globalization and integrative transformativelearning. In E. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, & M. A. O’Connor (Eds.), Expanding the bound-aries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and practice(pp. 23-34).New York: Pal-grave.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world state.Albany: University of New York Press.

O’Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century .Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press.

O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A., & O’Connor, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Expanding the boundaries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis. New York: Palgrave.

O’Sullivan, E., & Taylor, M. (2004). Learning toward an ecological consciousness: Selected transformative practice. New York: Palgrave.

Perry, W. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reeves, P. (1999). Psychological development: Becoming a person. In M. C. Clark & R. S.Caffarella (Eds.), An update on adult development theory: New ways of thinking about thelife course( New directions for adult and continuing education , Vol. 84, pp. 19-28). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, P. (1998). Rereading Lyotard: Knowledge, commodification and higher educa-tion. Electronic Journal of Sociology . Retrieved from http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.003/roberts.html









Robinson, P. (2004). Meditation: Its role in transformative learning and in the fostering of an integrative vision for higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 2, 107-119.

Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility . Toronto,Canada: OISE Press.

Smith, H. (1992). Forgotten truth: The common vision of the world’s religions. San Francisco:HarperSan Francisco.

Taylor E. W. (1998). Transformative learning: A critical review . Columbus,OH: ERIC Clear-inghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Torbert, W. (2000). A developmental approach to social science: Integrating first-, second-, andthird-person research/practice through single-, double-, and triple-loop feedback. Jour-

nal of Adult Development , 7 (4) 255-268.Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala.Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything . Boston: Shambhala.Wilber, K. (1999). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York:

Random House.Wilber, K. (2000a). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy . Boston:

Shambhala.Wilber, K. (2000b). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science,

and spirituality . Boston: Shambhala.Wilber, K. (2003a).Excerpt B: The many ways we touch: Three principles helpful for any integrative ap-

proach. Retrieved from http://wilber. shambhala. com/html/books/kosmos/excerptB/part2.cfm

Wilber, K. (2003b). Integral medicine: A noetic reader . Retrieved from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/integral-med-2.cfm

Wilber, K. (2003c). Introduction to Volume 7 of the Collected works: The integral visionat the millennium. Retrieved from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/cowokev7_intro.cfm

Wilber, K. (2003d). Waves, streams, states, and self—A summary of my psychological model (or, outline of an integral psychology). Retrieved from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model1.cfm

Wilber, K. (2003e). Excerpt C: The ways we are in this together: Intersubjectivity and inter-objectivity in the holonic kosmos. Retrieved from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/intro-2.cfm

Yang, B. (2004). Holistic learning theory and implications for human resource develop-ment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6 , 241-262.

From 2001 to 2003, Olen Gunnlaugson served as program coordinator, lecturer, personal coach, and integral visionary at Holma College of Integral Studies. He hassince returned to graduate studies in education at the University of British Columbia,with a research focus in generative dialogue as a praxis for supporting and catalyzing transformative learning within adult and higher education settings. E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

ART - Gunnlaugson - Toward Integrally Informed Theories of Transformative Learning