Month: February 2023

Acknowledging My Prior Knowledge

To illustrate my synthesis of the content within this course, it only makes sense that I would start by sharing key cultural references that have positioned and informed my conception. I have a fine arts academic background that was focused on critical theory, and visual and cultural theory. In a previous discussion within this course, I shared how my introduction to semiotics activated a profound paradigm shift for how I have come to view my world, (my “worldview” or “Weltanschauung”, as Swoyer (2014) describes). I began to see the world as a fluctuating construct built with signs and symbols, with a deeply layered and complex system of meaning.

The theories of Vygotsky and Piaget were introduced early in the MET program. I immediately connected with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory for its explicit coherence with semiotics, “…Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the importance of social interaction with more knowledgeable others in the zone of proximal development [ZPD] and the role of culturally developed sign systems as psychological tools for thinking” (Fosnot, 2013, pp. 41-42). In a later MET course, I discovered Latour, Actor Network Theory and New Materialism, concepts that radically amplify elements of sociocultural theory and constructivism by emphasizing the importance of the relational space between everything, including living and non-living things. Everything has agency, everything is in flux, and everything has come from somewhere and will continue somewhere else in a continual state of becoming.

Actively Scaffolding

As I develop my understanding of constructivism through reading about the classical philosophical ontologies and epistemologies it emerged from, I tap into my collected experience, rearrange, and adjust what is there to find a place where something new can fit, a process analogous to Piaget’s notion of equilibration, “a nonlinear, dynamic “dance’ of progressive equilibria, adaptation and organization, growth and change” (Fosnot, 2013, p. 18). Through Pritchard’s (2018) text, I connected with the notion of indirect realism, “the idea is that we can only make sense of our perceptual experiences as responses to an external world, even if we are not directly acquainted with this world in perceptual experience” (p. 69) and Kant’s notion of transcendental idealism, “the leading idea was that much of the structure that we ascribe to the world – such as the temporal or casual order – is in fact a product of our minds” (p. 73). Although the concepts appear similar, I speculate that a key difference lies in the concepts’ origins, with indirect realism emerging as a modern take on realism, and transcendental idealism emerging as a more grounded, more reasonable view of idealism. Both assert that a reality exists, but that it cannot be directly experienced through sense perceptions: the former focuses on the ‘real’ objective world and acknowledges that perception requires internal construct; the latter focuses on a constructed world and acknowledges that its validity requires the existence of ‘real’ objective world. Both correlate with semiotics and sociocultural theory and substantiate and enlighten my own becoming.

Traversing the ZPD

My interpretation of constructivism combines notions of cognitively constructed realities that are inherently affected by the environments they develop from and with. I subscribe to Fosnot’s (2013) claim that social and cognitive constructivism are connected processes, “in effect, active individual construction constitutes the background against which guided participation in cultural practices comes to the fore for Rogoff, and this participation is the background against which self-organization comes to the fore for von Glasersfeld” (p. 48). However, I see both cognitive and social constructivism as holding equal weight. This results in a personal conceptualization of learning that portrays a constant and potentially chaotic movement of inward reflection and outward connection: information outwardly gleaned is subject to relational affect through an infinitely vast and dynamic entanglement, and the information taken in is subject to the inner network of collected knowledge – a microcosm of said entanglement.

In previous discussions in this course, I questioned Pritchard’s (2018) cynical take on relativism and interpreted it as a signal to be cautious with the subject, yet after reading Swoyer (2014) and watching Taber’s (2020) talk, I am not certain such caution is warranted. Swoyer explains that relativism asserts that “…what we see (hear, feel, etc.) in any particular situation is partially determined by the concepts, beliefs, and expectations we bring to the situation”, a perspective that aligns with my worldview. Swoyer implies that extreme forms of relativism invite criticism. Taber refutes this criticism and suggests it’s the opposers who assume constructivists and relativists take this extreme stance. Taber explains, “…assuming a greater level of objectivity than what is possible is what would really be unscientific. By applying appropriate methods to the materials studied, a researcher seeks to be more scientific. Again, the choice made by constructivist researchers is not an ideological rejection of objective methods but doing the best job considering the nature of the task at hand” (Taber, 2020). This epitomizes what education can and should be – like an outward iteration of the internal act of equilibration, our aim should be to assess and reflect on the methods available, to welcome “adaptation and organization, growth and change” (Fosnot, 2013, p. 18) to create and facilitate the necessary conditions for learning to succeed.

 

References

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp 3-54). Teachers College Press.

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

Swoyer, Chris, “Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Taber, K. (2020, December 11). Constructivism – the good; the bad; and the abhorrent? [Video]. University of British Columbia. https://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/constructivism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-abhorrent/

My role is to train new staff in a highly complex position. The direct training occurs over an approximate 1-year period, but additional training and mentorship continues after that point, and most staff are fully trained within 2 years. I have recently started training a new group of 7 staff, which is the largest group we’ve had. Usually there are 1-3 new staff at a time, and the training is much more personal. With this larger group I have had to implement group learning techniques, which I know very little about. As I read the text, I considered the different types of constructivism (cognitive and social), or as Fosnot (2013) describes, “those that place more emphasis on the individual cognitive structuring process and those that emphasize the social and cultural effects on learning” (p. 28). I kept thinking about the 7 new staff and wondering which type of constructivism they would believe is most useful to their learning both individually and as a group.  Some other questions I had are as follows:

• Do they find both independent and social aspects of learning beneficial or does one aspect stand out?
• Are they drawing on their past knowledge?
• Are they sharing their knowledge with their peers?
• Do they feel part of a community?

The content of what I am training is an opposing mix of rules based on internal policy, procedures, and provincial legislation, but also, and of equal importance, competencies such as communication skills, problem solving, strategy and risk analysis. This can be challenging to teach, as at times, there is not much room for interpretation, but simply a correct and incorrect action. However, within that action there is room for style and strategy, and occasionally there is space to shift what might initially appear as having a binary outcome. Due to this, I feel I am doing a lot of (too much) talking at the staff. Fosnot (2013) writes, “…cultural knowledge that is assumed to be held by members of the culture is in reality only a dynamically evolving, negotiating interaction of individual interpretations, transformations and constructions…Yet cultural knowledge is a whole larger sum of the individual cognitions” (p.28). With the fluctuating nature of cultural knowledge in mind, I don’t want the staff to be only hearing my past perspective – I want them to have access of other senior staff’s active knowledge as well as each other’s as they gain experience. I want them to feel they are part of a dynamic community of discourse and practice (p. 34). Furthermore, I want them to feel they have the space and support to collectively explore disequilibrium as it arises. As Fosnot states, “Challenging, open-ended investigations in realistic, meaningful contexts need to be offered which allow learners to explore and generate many possibilities, both affirming and contradictory. Contradictions, in particular, need to be illuminated” (p. 34).

I designed a poll titled Checking-in: A Reflection on Learning to Date to serve as a check-in for the new staff I am training to get a clearer sense of where they are at, and to allow the opportunity to collaboratively design future learning scenarios and activities. For those of you who will be filling it out in this course, you can consider the questions from the perspective of a new learner of this course content, and a student of the MET program as a whole.

You can access the poll HERE.

References:

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp 3-54). Teachers College Press.

Sandra Harding’s (2003) article, Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project is a critical response to an article by Tony Lawson (2003) Ontology and Feminist Theorizing. If I didn’t look further into Lawson’s article, I likely would have missed the fact these two writings are only parts of an ongoing dialogue between Harding and Lawson regarding the incongruency of Critical Realism (CR) and feminism. Below is a list of the dialogic articles I could find, in chronological order.

• Theorizing Ontology (2003) – Tony Lawson
• Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project (2003) – Sandra Harding
• Ontology and Feminist Theorizing (2003) – Tony Lawson
• The Case for Strategic Realism: A Response to Lawson (1999) – Sandra Harding
• Feminism, Realism and Universalism (1999) – Tony Lawson

Harding’s (2003) Representing Reality critiques Lawson for claiming that his conception of CR firstly, includes one, true ontology and secondly, that this ontology exists outside of culture as it must have “universal validity” (pp. 152-133). Harding argues that this notion of one true reality goes against the core postpositivism ideologies inherent to feminism, “…that a culture’s or individual’s favored ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and other kinds of beliefs form a network of belief…” (p. 152).

To better understand this, I found a definition of postpositivism (only to immediately remember that I have looked this term up numerous times before):

Postpositivism rejects the positivist approach that a researcher can be an independent observer of the social world. Postpositivists argue that the ideas, and even the particular identity, of a researcher influence what they observe and therefore impacts upon what they conclude. Postpositivism pursues objective answers by attempting to recognise, and work with, such biases with the theories and knowledge that theorists develop (E-International Relations, 2021).

Throughout the reading of Pritchard’s (2018) text I attempted to piece together parts to form my own personal ontology. Both indirect realism, or similarly, Kant’s transcendental idealism resonated with me: that reality outside of us exists, but we can only experience it through the subjective lens of our sense perceptions, “…what we are immediately aware of in sensory experience is not the world itself…we are required to suppose that there is an external world that gives rise to this sensory experience since, without this supposition, we would not be able to make any sense of such experience” (Pritchard, 2018, pp. 72-23). This notion led me to believe that to attempt to identify truths, we must look somewhere between us, where our perceptions collect in agreement. It’s difficult to explain in words, but I envision something like the below diagram, with the points being the places where we come closest to objective truth.

I’ve essentially developed a postpositive approach – one that I may have built for myself without knowing it was postpositivist, but surely based on other readings and media that were intentionally created through a postpositivist lens. So, what is Critical Realism, and why is it such a contestable topic for Harding and Lawson? I read this blog post and this one and finally found a simplistic definition of CR:

In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some sense-data (for example, of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other sense-data (for example, secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. In short, critical realism refers to any position that maintains that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, while acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition (New World Encyclopedia).

Lawson’s argument for CR pushes that an objectively knowable ontology exists, whereas Harding (2003) questions, “…is it [even] valuable to seek to identify and represent universal features of human nature and of social relations (‘social reality’)” (p. 151)? This statement reminds me of Pritchard’s (2018) rather strongly worded ideas on relativism, e.g., “I’m not sure that anyone actually is a relativist (although some claim to be), because anyone who puts a modicum of thought into what the view is about will surely realise that it is self-defeating” (p. 219). At first I was taken aback, as I thought Pritchard was arguing for empiricism and objectivism – but at a closer read, I realized that what Pritchard is saying is that striving for truth, attempting at nearing the objective world, believing that it exists even if skewed through our biases, is a lot different than denying one exists at all.

Questions:

1. Where has your personal ontology landed throughout these readings?
2. What are your thoughts on Harding’s question, “is it valuable to seek to identify and represent universal features of human nature and of social relations (‘social reality’)”? Or is a culturally subjective, sociocultural ontology of more value?

References:

E-International Relations. (2021, September 26). Positivism, post-positivism and interpretivism. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.e-ir.info/2021/09/25/positivism-post-positivism-and-interpretivism/

Harding, S. (2003). Representing reality: the critical realism project. Feminist Economics, 9(1), 151-159.

New World Encyclopedia. Critical realism. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Critical_realism

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

Richard Linklater’s 2001 animated film, Waking Life, is comprised of a series of vignettes, most of which are monologues of disparate characters. There is a plot that ties the many pieces together: the main character, unnamed, played by Wiley Wiggins is trying to decipher whether he is dreaming or awake. He repeatedly wakes within a dream, or a false awakening. Dreamscape tropes are prevalent, Wiggins floats through space and time effortlessly, yet simultaneously, in a slow-motion pursuit, he cannot seem to grasp how to wake up.

I first watched this film as a high school student. I did not understand it, but felt I was supposed to think it was cool – so I watch it more than once, and probably fell asleep watching it more than once. I wanted to watch it again to find out if I have gained more knowledge in the 20 or so years since my last viewing, I also know that I at least have a better understanding of Linklater’s work at this point. On this recent viewing I realized that Waking Life serves as a variant to Linklater’s earlier work, Slacker (1990), which is also a collection of vignettes, but with a quotidian focus on life amongst nonconformists in Austin, Texas. Waking Life mimics this form, but its focus is philosophical musings about language, existence, collective memory, society, free will and the meaning of life (amongst other things), and unlike Slacker, it’s animated, with illustrative styles that shift per scene, amplifying a dream-like quality. What I failed to grasp as a teenager, is that Waking Life is not quite a documentary, nor presented as strictly educative, it’s art; the line between what is scripted and not is blurred, and the line between what is based on established theory and complete nonsense is also blurred. Some of the characters are actors acting, some are lecturing and hold academic stature, and some are artists making art. The monologues are at times poetic, poignant, and thought provoking, and other times ridiculous, bizarre, and funny.

Indirect Realism

Early in the film is a scene of a blonde woman sitting on a couch in a blurry living room asserting that humans, instigated by “…a striving and frustration…” created language, and what she finds particularly interesting is when humans use this “…system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things we’re experiencing” (Linklater, 2020). She explains that we use language to communicate that which is elusive, such as feelings and emotions, and the receiver accepts our words, and they believe to have understood them, and we believe they have, but how can we know that they truly do? This notion that we perceive our reality, synthesize the information, then use communication tools to share our experiences with others, yet cannot fully and accurately relay our total truths is agonizing. It is an idea that is reminiscent of indirect realism, described as that which “holds that we gain knowledge of an objective world indirectly by making inferences from our sense impressions,” (Pritchard, 2018, p. 69). Although plausible, indirect realism overwhelms me with a sense of claustrophobia, as though we are each trapped within a body that both allows us to experience our world (albeit indirectly), but also restricts us from moving beyond the limits of our sense perceptions, or the limits of ourselves. Rather than feeling trapped and alone, the blonde woman ends her musings on a more optimistic note: “…when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected, and we think that we are understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion”. It is as though, it doesn’t matter if we truly understand each other, or if our perceiving selves obscure that which exists outside of us, if we believe we are connecting, it’s the same as if we are.

Viewing our reality through this lens, how can objective true belief be possible? I come back to Pritchard’s (2018) statement, “…that truth is objective in the following sense: at least for most propositions, your thinking that they are true does not make them true” (p. 7). Yet, perhaps the closest we can get to grasping knowledge is to gain an acceptance of a kind of relative truth – one that is considerate of many perspectives to find the truth amongst them, or between them – an averaging of truths.

Idealism

The question of, ‘what is reality?’ is a core theme of Waking Life that is explored through philosophical dialogue set within a meandering narrative dream state. In another early scene Wiggins’ is a student to a university professor who lectures on existentialism and Sartre. The professor explains these ideas are not pessimistic, but rather empowering, “…life is yours to create…what you do makes a difference…”. He describes a “person as a social construction” (Linklater, 2020). This scene introduces the notion that reality is constructed, a movable force that we have the power to affect. This idea is carried throughout the film, as Wiggins becomes aware he is dreaming and is introduced to the notion of lucid dreaming, which he essentially what he is doing. Once aware of his lucid dream state, Wiggins is passively urged by a variety of characters to take control of his reality – a reality that reflects the notion of idealism, or “…knowledge of a world that is constituted by our perception of it… ‘constructed’ out of appearances rather than being that which gives rise to such appearances, and thus it is not ‘external’ in the relevant sense at all” (Pritchard, 2018, p. 71). Setting Wiggins in this inescapable dreamscape amplifies the notion of idealism: not only is he in a world that he is repeatedly told is his to construct, but he is also within his own dream, a world that both philosophically and actually exists within his mind.

In the final scene of Waking Life Wiggins wakes up once more, and the viewer is hopeful that perhaps this time he is actually awake.  He walks outside his house and begins to float. At first, he grabs on to the handle of a car door, but eventually lets go and floats away into the sky. In an idealist world, what happens if you refrain from constructing? Does your world cease to exist? Do you float away?

References:

Linklater, R. (Director). (2001). Waking Life [Film]. Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

What does it mean that one has formed a belief in a reliable way?

To form a belief in a reliable way means that the reasoning for your belief is from a trusted source. That trust might be formed from a perception that the source is an authority on the topic, or it might be formed through repeated patterns of logical or successful outcomes that have appeared to substantiate other true beliefs, or trust may be formed simply through consistency over time. In fact, consistency over time appears to be a key element of reliability, Pritchard asserts that “…at the very least, the method used was more likely to get you to the truth than not” (2018, p. 54) but how would one trust a method’s likelihood to get to the truth, if it had not consistently done so, repeatedly, time and time again? Which perhaps means that reliably formed belief comes through experience; through repeated activity, that has led to similar or adjacent outcomes forming a sense of reliability of a set of beliefs.

Could a belief so formed be false, do you think?

Pritchard provides an example of one person who repeatedly checks a faulty thermometer, while secretly another person adjusts the faulty thermometer so that every time it is checked, it appears correct, which leads the unsuspecting thermometer checker to belief the thermometer works (2018, p. 55). In this scenario the thermometer checker forms what they believe is a reliable belief in a world that they do not realize is partially built on a well-kept lie. Pritchard’s example seems somewhat fragile (really, how long can the adjuster keep up their sneaky work without the checker finding them out?) Though it’s not too difficult to imagine whole perspectives based on beliefs formed seemingly reliably that are in fact false.

When I was around 4 years old, my family moved houses and for some reason, I thought that moving meant you switched houses with another family. I would often talk about the family that used to live in our new house and wonder aloud what they were doing in our old house, I would ask which of the children took which room as their bedroom. It took years before my father pointedly asked what I was talking about and explained to me that the family did not live in our old house, they bought a different house, but I had believed this for so long because when I talked about it, no one had corrected me, and would respond with “I don’t know, Erin!” without truly listening to me. In retrospect they probably thought I was just making up stories as children do.

At work, I often am in a position of educating the public about estate administration practices. To provide meaningful information, I first listen to their questions and comments closely to gain an understanding of their perspective – where might their beliefs or biases come from? What might they consider a reliable belief and why? How can I best respond to their inquiry? A common example is that many people are hesitant to become involved with their next of kin’s estate because they believe they will be required to personally pay the deceased’s debts. They might believe this because this is true in other jurisdictions, such as certain US states, or certain countries in Europe. They might believe this because a friend of theirs told them this, but perhaps that friend administered an estate in error and was forced to pay out-of-pocket to correct the error. In Canada, generally speaking, a debt solely owned by the deceased is only payable by their estate, not by their family members personally. Yet this example highlights how easily we might form false beliefs through sources that are falsely reliable.

Give an example of a reliable and an unreliable way of forming a belief about the following subject matters (try to avoid repetition in your answers):

     the time;

• Reliable: Once a week, look up the world clock on the internet and ensure my watch is set to match.
• Unreliable: Once a week, ask a friend what time their watch says and ensure my watch is set to match.

     the Capital of France; and

• Reliable: Go to a bookstore and cross-reference multiple current travel books about France.
• Unreliable: Consult a Ouija board.

     the solution to a crossword puzzle.

• Reliable: The clue is related to something I know a lot about, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with all three of the other words.
• Unreliable: The clue is vague to me, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with only two of the other words, I erase the third word, but have difficulty thinking about another suggestion that fits that clue, I think of a loosely fitting word, guess how to spell it, and it fits.

Questions:

1. While reading and writing about reliabilism I was thinking a lot about cultural norms, or insular groups with shared beliefs. I questioned whether a problem with reliabilism is that reliability is relative, and what might seem reliablecould only be so within an insular group. I wonder, do others have similar (or differing) thoughts, or thought of an examples related to this idea?
2. Another theme that came out of my focus on reliabilism (and what I was attempting to get at in my second, work-related example above), is the recognition that I actively try to anticipate how to deliver information that is accepted as reliable. And although I’m not sure ‘reliable’ alone can replace ‘justified’s’ partnership with ‘true belief’, I do think it has a role in helping us understand knowledge. If we think about strategies we employ to attempt to impart knowledge, can we identify other criteria for what knowledge is?

References:

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326.

Utilize an online concept mapping tool, infographic, short video or animation or any other application that you are familiar with, to generate a visual representation of linkages between the posts in What is knowledge? forum earlier this week with the readings from Pritchard:

See the padlet.

Share your initial ideas on what is knowledge. This rendering of knowledge may involve first impressions, making sense of it in your context, include keywords related to your personal definition of knowledge, or a visual concept map drawing or word cloud of initial ideas: