½¿É«µ¼º½

A transatlantic perspective on theorising education reveals that the academic study of educational phenomena has developed differently within various contexts (Biesta, 2022). In some non-English-speaking countries (such as Germany), ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì is considered an autonomous scientific discipline. Although disciplines such as psychology or philosophy are conceived in this continental construction as adjacent disciplines, education has its distinctive interests, questions and genuine theories (Siegel & Biesta, 2021).

The relative autonomy of education has always been in jeopardy (Siegel & Matthes, 2022; Sæverot, 2021). Particularly today, several developments (for example, the rise of ‘Empirische Bildungsforschung’ [empirical educational research]) threaten the disciplinary ‘heart’ (Sæverot, 2013) of ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì or at least fundamentally transform its appearance or identity in the German-speaking context (Bellmann, 2017).

The data reports of the German Educational Research Association (see, for example, Abs et al., 2020) show that ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì appears to be a ‘very normal’ and even successful discipline – regarding its secondary characteristics (for example, journals, third-party funding). A closer look at the discipline’s primary characteristics reveals the ‘problem of educational theory’ (Siegel & Biesta, 2021): while educationists are neglecting their terms and concepts as well as the development of distinctively educational theories, there is an enormous willingness to import and use uncritically concepts and theories from adjacent fields of research (Prange, 2012; Sæverot, 2021; Vogel, 2016).

We argue that the rediscovery of the principle of relative (not absolute) autonomy of education (see, for example, Weniger, 1990; figure 1) can help to preserve the field as an autonomous, meaning a self-governing, discipline (Dewey, 1929).

Figure 1: Education’s relative autonomy visualised

To maintain and strengthen the relative autonomy of ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì, educationists first need to ask educational questions and dedicate themselves more to understanding and theorising the phenomenon of education (Biesta, 2022; Prange, 2012). Second, educationists need to increasingly (further) develop (already existing) distinctively educational theories (Sæverot, 2021; Siegel & Biesta, 2021). Third, educationists need to engage in better ‘boundary-work’ (Prange, 2012; Siegel & Matthes, 2021).

By addressing these propositions, educationists could tackle the ‘problem of educational theory’. Accordingly, we encourage all those interested in education as a relatively autonomous discipline to stand up and speak up for education: a ‘structural interest in and activism for education’s autonomy’ (Yosef-Hassidim & Baldacchino, 2021, p. 51) of a strong academic community of educationists is needed to work persistently on this crucial cause.

References

Abs, H. J., Kuper, H., & Martini, R. (Eds.). (2020). Datenreport Erziehungswissenschaft 2020 [Data report educational science 2020]. Budrich.

Bellmann, J. (2017). Forwards to the learning sciences or back to pedagogy? Prospects of education as an academic field. In H. Sæverot & T. Werler (Eds.), Pedagogikkens Språk: Kunnskapsformer i Pedagogikkvitenskap (1st ed., pp. 104–117). Gyldendal Akademisk.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. Liveright.

Prange, K. (2012). Die Zeigestruktur der Erziehung: Grundriss der Operativen ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì (2nd ed.). Ferdinand Schöningh.

Sæverot, H. (2013). On the need to ask educational questions about education: An interview with Gert Biesta. Policy Futures in Education, 11(2), 175–184.

Sæverot, H. (2021). How may education be organized to safeguard its autonomy? Educational Theory, 71(1), 113–128.

Schulz von Thun, F. (2014). Miteinander reden 2: Stile, Werte und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung [Talking to each other 2: Styles, values and personality development]. Rowohlt.

Siegel, S. T., & Biesta, G. (2021). The problem of educational theory. Policy Futures in Education, 20(5), 537–548.

Siegel, S. T., & Matthes, E. (2022). Education’s relative autonomy: A closer look at the discipline’s past, present, and future. Nordic Studies in Education, 42(1), 13–29.

Vogel, P. (2016). Die Erziehungswissenschaft und ihr Wissen. Selbstkritik, Thematisierungsformen, Analytik [Educational science and its knowledge. Self-criticism, forms of topicalisation, analytics]. Zeitschrift für ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì, 62(4), 452–473.

Weniger, E. (1990). Die Autonomie der ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì [The autonomy of ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì]. In E. Weniger (Ed.), Ausgewählte Schriften zur Geisteswissenschaftlichen ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì. Ausgewählt von Bruno Schonig [Selected essays on Geisteswissenschaftliche ±Êä»å²¹²µ´Ç²µ¾±°ì. Chosen by Bruno Schonig] (2nd ed., pp. 11–27). Beltz.

Yosef-Hassidim, D., & Baldacchino, J. (2021). Education’s autonomy as a utopian polysemic possibility: Challenges and a path forward. Educational Theory, 71(1), 35–51.