The limits to dialogue

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Oxford Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1080/03054985.2023.2268513
Laura D’Olimpio
{"title":"The limits to dialogue","authors":"Laura D’Olimpio","doi":"10.1080/03054985.2023.2268513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The great hope of dialogical pedagogy such as the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) as advocated for by practitioners of philosophy for and with children (P4C) was to cultivate critical thinkers who would be guided by epistemic and moral virtues in their engagement with one another in an effort to uncover truth. And, further, that those democratic citizens could then take these newly honed skills out into the public square and enact good decision-making in their lives. The focus on equality and inclusion, with a respect for diversity of thought and opinion, guided a sense that every participant should feel as though they ‘belong’, and were free to engage in dialogue with others as equals. And yet, the question about how we might ensure the CoPI is a space in which everyone can meaningfully contribute is forefront in my mind. In this paper, I will focus on what might limit dialogue by explicating three main issues which I call ‘paying lip service’, ‘existing power dynamics’ and ‘the transfer problem’. I will see if I can respond to these in order to ultimately affirm the role for dialogical pedagogy to support radical listening and genuinely inclusive dialogue.","PeriodicalId":47910,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Review of Education","volume":"36 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2268513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The great hope of dialogical pedagogy such as the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) as advocated for by practitioners of philosophy for and with children (P4C) was to cultivate critical thinkers who would be guided by epistemic and moral virtues in their engagement with one another in an effort to uncover truth. And, further, that those democratic citizens could then take these newly honed skills out into the public square and enact good decision-making in their lives. The focus on equality and inclusion, with a respect for diversity of thought and opinion, guided a sense that every participant should feel as though they ‘belong’, and were free to engage in dialogue with others as equals. And yet, the question about how we might ensure the CoPI is a space in which everyone can meaningfully contribute is forefront in my mind. In this paper, I will focus on what might limit dialogue by explicating three main issues which I call ‘paying lip service’, ‘existing power dynamics’ and ‘the transfer problem’. I will see if I can respond to these in order to ultimately affirm the role for dialogical pedagogy to support radical listening and genuinely inclusive dialogue.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对话的局限
对话教学法的巨大希望,如哲学探究共同体(CoPI),是由儿童哲学实践者(P4C)倡导的,是培养批判性思想家,他们将在认识论和道德美德的指导下,在彼此的接触中努力发现真理。此外,这些民主公民可以将这些新磨练出来的技能运用到公共领域,并在他们的生活中制定出正确的决策。注重平等和包容,尊重思想和意见的多样性,引导了一种意识,即每个参与者都应该感到自己“属于”,并且可以自由地与他人平等对话。然而,我们如何确保CoPI是一个人人都能做出有意义贡献的空间,这个问题是我脑海中最重要的。在本文中,我将通过解释我称之为“口头承诺”、“现有权力动态”和“转移问题”的三个主要问题来关注可能限制对话的因素。我将看看我是否能回应这些问题,以便最终肯定对话教学法在支持激进倾听和真正包容对话方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Oxford Review of Education
Oxford Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Oxford Review of Education is a well established journal with an extensive international readership. It is committed to deploying the resources of a wide range of academic disciplines in the service of educational scholarship, and the Editors welcome articles reporting significant new research as well as contributions of a more analytic or reflective nature. The membership of the editorial board reflects these emphases, which have remained characteristic of the Review since its foundation. The Review seeks to preserve the highest standards of professional scholarship in education, while also seeking to publish articles which will be of interest and utility to a wider public, including policy makers.
期刊最新文献
Colour-evasive racial ideologies underpinning the hidden curriculum of a majority-minority occupational therapy school in London, England: an analysis of minoritised undergraduate students’ experiences Environment in the views of preschool children: an investigation of children’s drawings and narratives in Turkey Understanding the salary gap between academic faculty and top administrators: a New Public Management perspective Theory-informed beliefs in early childhood education: contradictions in child development theories and models of play The pronunciation of students’ names in higher education: identity work by academics and professional services staff
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1