Meeting 1:
May 3, 2013

By Steven Taubeneck, Mahboubeh Asgari and Bruce Moghtader

Welcoming Remarks: Dr. Barbara Weber, Human Development, Learning and Culture, UBC

Dr. Weber began by introducing the conference on “Engaged Philosophical Inquiry” (EPI) or “Philosophy for Children” (P4C).  The idea of the meeting was to give a brief history of the idea as a “movement,” to discuss some of the theories involved in that history, and to present an overview of the some of the main practices or “methods” associated with EPI or P4C.  The plan is to develop a kind of “hub for BC.”  Some of the activities for this group could include the construction and maintenance of a website, which would include a collection of materials about EPI /P4C, as well as an ongoing list of current projects the various members are pursuing.  There might be a Summer Institute, or other meetings, as for example the one already scheduled for August 23, 2013, to discuss plans and projects.  There could also be publications or further conferences arising from the discussions.  In general, the outlook seems positive and the timing quite promising.  The aim of this meeting was to see what the participants thought and what they could suggest for further work.
Then, Dr. Weber showed a brief video, with Kwame Appiah and Thomas Wartenburg among others, to provide a little background on P4C, its history and practices.  One of the first features mentioned in this movie was the desire to ask questions or generate questions, specifically the question “why”; and to keep asking “why” long beyond the “normal” limits.  The video also showed a group of children reading the book called The Giving Tree together, and asking questions about the book.  As Dr. Weber mentioned, the clip showed how the children have lots of ideas, but their ideas “are bigger than their words.” It seems that P4C would provide language for children to ask the questions they find most pressing.

First Keynote Speaker: Dr. Susan Gardner, Philosophy, Capilano University: “Introduction to ‘Engaged Philosophical Inquiry’: History, Theory, Method”

 

Dr. Weber next introduced Dr. Susan Gardner, who is a member of the Philosophy Department at Capilano University and a long-time proponent of P4C or EPI.  The first point Dr. Gardner made was that we need to think about the name for the activity we are discussing.  In her view, it could be called “P4C,” but at the same time there are good reasons to think of it as “EPI.”  For the majority of her talk, Dr. Gardner referred to it as P4C but in the end she left the question of the name open for further discussion.
It turns out that P4C has a relatively long history, extending back to at least the 1970s.  It apparently began with the work of Matthew Lipman at Montclair State University in 1974.  There is an extensive website with information about the “Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children” at Montclair: http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc/, though Dr. Gardner also said the funding for the IAPC had been cut.  Dr. Gardner mentioned that we might want to replicate the summer P4C seminars for teacher run by IAPC (in Mendham) or the P4C Eurekamp run by the Alberta group for youngsters.  Information on these can be found at: http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-institutes/iapc/summer/Information and http://p4c.ualberta.ca/.  Dr. Gardner also mentioned that we have already invited Tiffany Poirier, author of the book Q is for Question: An ABC of Philosophy, to come and talk to us about her experience of teaching P4C in the classroom here in Vancouver.

According to Dr. Gardner, there are several reasons why P4C or EPI should be introduced into schools.  First is the emphasis on thinking skills, or critical thinking.  Students will benefit from learning better thinking skills at any age.  Second is the consideration of ethical questions.  Not only will the awareness of ethics improve the atmosphere in classrooms, but it will enhance students’ lives.  Third, and overlapping with the latter, is to encourage sensitivity to questions of morality.  A greater ethical-moral vocabulary will allow students to make more thoughtful, informed and rational choices.
Dr. Gardner then talked about how she works with EPI in her university classrooms.  She encourages students to generate questions, rather than giving them questions in the first place (though she mentioned that Wartenburg’s approach is to give students the questions).  Her idea is to get students to ask questions arising from their own lived experiences.  To Dr. Gardner, if students can begin to formulate questions, they can also begin to derive more rational answers.  In her discussions, referred to in P4c circles as the Community of Inquiry (COI), she pursues a dialogue with students that is sensitive to their own experiences and allows them to move towards a deeper understanding of the issues involved. Dr. Gardner that though the COI is what unites all P4C approaches, facilitators differ with regard to specific techniques. One of her aims, for example, is to get students to at least hear the hidden premises and logical fallacies involved in many of the arguments we hear. Her overriding aim, though, is to get students to get comfortable with listening to opposing points of view.  Dr. Gardner emphasized that the teacher should not know the answers to the questions in advance, but should be open to developing the answers with the students.  In that way, both teachers and students become “co-inquirers” into the issues.

For Dr. Gardner, such an approach calls for real changes in teaching.  Teachers should be able to “think on their feet,” and should not solely rely on pre-arranged plans.  The teacher should have confidence in the method, and in the belief that any question is important.  Listening is very important for everyone involved; teachers, in particular, have to listen more carefully to students’ concerns.  One goal is to generate more accurate and precise formulations of questions; another is to develop new hypotheses about responses.  According to Dr. Gardner, the question of relativism—whether any position is as good as any other—should be addressed from the beginning.  In her view, the merit of any position is a function of the strength of the reasons that back it.  Her idea is to show the students that good reasons, and good reasoning, will determine the best argument.

In conclusion, Dr. Gardner expanded her discussion to show the size of the movement, and to outline some of its goals.  At Harvard, Hopkins and Mt. Holyoke, there are programs turning to P4C.  The University of Washington has a Centre on P4C. And Dr. Gardner mentioned SAPIRE, or the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Inquiry for Education in England as one that we might consider replicating.  For Dr. Gardner, one of the aims of the BC group should be to lobby the BC Ministry of Education.  Philosophy should be offered in all schools B.C., This might be done either by having a P4C training for teachers of there might be “Philosopher in Residence” programs as well.  Her recommendation is that we should begin to convince Philosophy Departments, too, of the benefits of P4C or EPI.

During the discussion, one of the first questions that arose was the question of the definition of a child, or childhood.  Should this kind of thinking be applied to preschool children?  When would it be introduced in schools?  Dr. Gardner mentioned that P4C is taught in other countries as early as pre-school, but that such an approach is hugely powerful at all ages. Given that is the case, we may have to reconsider renaming the approach, as P4C suggests that it is only appropriate for children, though P4C has its merits as the vanguard ought to be directed toward pre-university classrooms.

Second Keynote Speaker: Dr. Barbara Weber, UBC: “Examples of P4C Research: The ‘Children Philosophize’ Initiative in Germany and Cross-Cultural Collaborations between Germany and Israel”

 

Dr. Weber spoke next on the “story of P4C in Germany.”  When she worked at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria, she built an institute that combined ideas from Lipman, involving the “community of inquiry,” with the idea from John Dewey of “democracy as a way of life” and with Ekkehard Martens’ on “philosophy as a cultural technique.”  In her view, P4C or EPI involves a unique combination of speculation, dialectics, logic, hermeneutics and phenomenology.  An important factor in its success was the support of the Ministry of Education in Bavaria.  With Dr. Gardner, Dr. Weber urged us to contact the Ministry or to help them contact the BC Ministry of Education in new ways.  According to Dr. Weber, the goals for education articulated by the Ministry seem entirely appropriate to the goals of P4C or EPI.  These goals appear under the BCCAT, and suggest that philosophy could be offered as a teachable minor in BC schools.

The Institute at Regensburg developed in specific ways.  First there was a professional development program for teachers.  It called for eight (8) weekends of time, one a month for eight months.  About twenty (20) teachers, including some principals, took part in the process.  Through the program, schools in Bavaria became partners in the activities of the University.  The collaboration encouraged and promoted better collaboration between schools and universities. One way of promoting this interaction was by encouraging philosophers and educators, from schools and universities, to work together in pairs.  Both would teach each other.  The dialogue encouraged with the students was further developed among faculty colleagues.  There was also a series of outreach events, involving conferences and events at museums.  These received a great deal of publicity, so word spread around the region that P4C was gathering momentum.  This, in turn, encouraged other groups to participate, and ultimately the Institute at Regensburg became a well-established and well-funded project. Dr. Weber also briefly mentioned her work with schools, ministries and educators in a collaborative project between Germany and Israel.  This project emphasized specifically the importance of cultural differences in practicing philosophy.  Many felt that it would be helpful to have links to these activities on the website. During the discussion Wayne, from UFV, mentioned that he had had some experience trying to lobby the Ministry of Education in BC to make philosophy a “teachable subject” in schools, but that these projects had met with “stony indifference.”  He encouraged the group to think of new ways of promoting the project.  Others asked about the parents’ responses to P4C in Germany, and Dr. Weber emphasized that parents need to be included in the discussion.  Some parents might have questions about the propriety of introducing philosophy at an early age, but at the least it is important to raise the question of philosophy and its roles in society.  The question of religion was addressed, for example, whether religion would be an obstacle to the introduction of philosophy in the schools, and Dr. Weber stressed that religion and philosophy should be brought into a dialogue through these activities.

Another question involved the relation between P4C or EPI as “educational philosophy,” rather than philosophy itself.  How do philosophical traditions address the question of philosophy for children, and how would contemporary philosophers address the movement?  Dr. Gardner commented that, while some of philosophers might suggest that this was “real” philosophy, as the approach does not emphasize learning the history of philosophy, the emphasis on inquiry, critical reflection, self-critique, and the search for conceptual definitions, i.e., learning to be philosophical, certainly qualifies EPI or P4C as essentially philosophical.  It was also suggested that perhaps it would be more effective to target specific areas of the curriculum, at various ages, and thereby introduce elements of EPI or P4C incrementally into schools.  The discussion was lively and multi-faceted, very encouraging for a first meeting.  This first phase ended with a fifteen-minute break for refreshments.

 

Third Keynote Speaker: Dr. Peter Raabe, Counselling Psychology, University of the Fraser Valley (UFV)

 

Dr. Raabe works in the area of philosophy for psychological counselling.  Often, philosophers and philosophy are seen in contrast to students of mental health and mental health studies.  But Dr. Raabe has devoted his work to developing the connections between the different groups, and today there is a student association of philosophical counselling at UFV, called SAPC, the only one of its kind.  He became involved in P4C through the influence of Dr. Gardner, and worked for eight years developing philosophy cafes in North Vancouver. Dr. Raabe began with a brief description of the changes in the study of mental health since the 1980s.  In his view, a major shift has occurred in understanding mental health in terms of two different notions: on the one hand many practitioners employ the biological notion of the brain, while others pursue the propositional notion of the mind.  His approach emphasizes the importance of the mind, and the need for mental health professionals to develop an awareness of the beliefs, values, and assumptions of the person rather than simply pathological, physiological disorders.  In his view, there has been a phase of “clinical enthusiasm,” or “hyper-diagnosis,” which has led to the current state of things in the mental health professions.   But on his view, the use of philosophy as a preventive approach to mental illness could have more beneficial effects for everyone, as well as being more cost-effective.

To him, the use of philosophy not only prevents harm, but also enhances people’s experience with life.         His idea is that we all face troubling life circumstances; philosophy can help us all to prepare for them more productively.  Learning the techniques of good reasoning would provide a proactive way of dealing with difficult circumstances.  He believes we should teach pre-university students to reason cogently, free of biases and fallacies.  He argued for philosophical programs for students in all schools. Dr. Raabe described a kind of “philosophical inoculation” for people facing troubling life situations.  If reasoning skills could be developed in relation to emotional skills, too, Dr. Raabe felt that mental health problems would be substantially reduced in BC.  His view was very optimistic and led to considerable discussion. One question was how precisely one can distinguish between good and poor reasoning.  Dr. Raabe said, and Dr. Gardner emphasized this as well, that is that between valid/sound and invalid/unsound arguments.  If the hidden premises of an argument could be falsified by counterexample, then it could be shown that reasoning was not adequate.  A reasonable sequence of arguments would protect students through logic and the ability to address counter-arguments.  Bad reasoning shuts down questioning, in his view, whereas good reasoning encourages further questions.  Ultimately the discussion came to the question that occurs whenever philosophy is an issue: what is philosophy in the first place?  Dr. Gardner highlighted the proximity of critical thinking to the scientific method, and recommended that all students, from pre-school to university, should be taught the benefits of critical thinking, i.e., all students should know the difference between adequate and in adequate reasoning.

 

General Discussion:

 

Following Dr. Raabe’s remarks, Dr. Weber asked that a general discussion be held.  Everyone was to give their name and institution, and to describe their interest in the project.  What follows is a brief reconstruction of these remarks.

Dr. Mahboubeh Asgari has worked on theory of recognition, and questions of recognition between different cultural groups, following but also modifying the theories of Charles Taylor. In her dissertation, she has emphasized recognition in childhood and looked at this concept from philosophical and psychoanalytical perspectives.  Recently, she has worked with Dr. Weber and Dr. Schonert-Reichl on a research proposal to run P4C program in some elementary schools in Vancouver in order to foster children’s social-emotional competence.

Parmis Aslanimehr is beginning her Master’s in the Human Development, Learning and Cognition Program at UBC and is grateful to hear about the project.

Dean Fogel is a mime and a child-care counsellor who emphasizes the importance of creative thinking in early childhood education.

Claire Fogal is a theatre teacher and director. She is investigating the Ph.D. process as a possible way to support her research in Physical Theatre forms, and is excited about trying to introduce P4C in educational experiences to which she has access.

Dr. Steven Taubeneck is an Associate Professor of German and Philosophy at UBC who teaches and does research on Existentialism and Continental Philosophy.  He would be most interested in encouraging changes to the university culture of “siloization,” which tends to keep disciplines apart and at odds with one another.

Lyle Crawford teaches the introduction to philosophy and critical thinking at the university level.  More recently he has visited high schools, especially grade 11/12. Her goal has been to do some ‘real philosophy’ with students who wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to do that. She show them (roughly) what first-year university philosophy is (or can be) like; and that may serve either as encouragement or as a warning.

Dr. Marina Milner-Bolotin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy in Education at UBC.  Her background is physics and she has worked as a physics teacher.  Her main interest is in how to improve math and science education by using “content-based inquiry” derived from philosophy.

Dr. Christina Delgado is from the School of Education at Capilano University and wrote her dissertation at UBC.  Her emphasis is on curriculum and its intersections with philosophy.  Her idea is that emergent curriculum should reflect the ideas and aspirations of children.  How do we think about thinking with children?  Perhaps we should not only emphasize rationality.

Dr. Jen Vadeboncoeur is Associate Professor in the HDLC program (ECPS department) at UBC.  Her work focuses on sociocultural psychology and discourse analysis.  She emphasized that we would all benefit from knowing more about P4C and EPI, perhaps through more reading, research and discussion.  She sees especially the need to resist the tendency towards fragmentation in schools.

Dr. Jenna Woodrow is a professor of philosophy from Thompson Rivers University, specializing in issues of epistemology regarding children.  She also works on questions of social justice, especially in relation to First Nations.  Her aim would be to include the communities of Thompson Rivers in the discussion developing in the Lower Mainland.

Tania Fierro did her M.A in Philosophy. She is the founder and director of Innerland Learning Centre www.innerland.ca. She is a philosophical counsellor and certified facilitator of the work of Byron Katie and trainer at The Institute for The Work. About Innerland: an inquiry based counselling practice. Services include: individual sessions, workshops national and international, inquiry circles, year-long immersion in inquiry for anyone interested in incorporating inquiry in their life and/or professional practice, friends for life on going volunteer, member of the free international helpline for The Work for anyone undergoing stress that would like to experience Inquiry.

Punam Mann has just joined the HDLC program at UBC, but has worked in the South Asian community in Vancouver and especially in the Khalsa school system.  She has also worked on issues of gang-related violence.  Her interest would be to find applications for philosophy in these areas of the community.

Dr. James Kelleher works on test-preparation strategies using the EPI, specifically for the LSAT exams. His main interest is in how to get people to think with open minds.  He was sure he did not want to work with younger children.

Dr. David Burns works at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey.  He made a few very helpful recommendations about a website arising from our discussion.  His ideas were that the site should include historical information, information about ongoing projects, and room to discuss issues arising from the discussion.  This could be arranged with a “wiki.”

Jim Bigari is a doctoral student in Educational Studies at UBC.  His interest is in moral and civic issues in education, and how philosophy might help to address these issues.

Dr. Daniel Vokey is the acting head of department of the EDST and assistant professor at UBC. He specializes in a number of areas, including questions of professional ethics.  Part of his research deals with the conditions for conversations across different cultures, while another part considers the histories of power and embodiment issues in education.

Kate McCabe is the founder and director of “Creative Minds,” a school for pre-schoolers and up. She had a somewhat negative experience with “philosophical inquiry” in France, but has since recovered some of her enthusiasm.  She has also worked with K through 7 online learning groups, and encouraged our group to develop a wide-ranging, varied website for easy reference and use.

Bruce Moghtader is a member of HDLC at UBC and works specifically in curriculum studies.  His interest would be in new ways of promoting philosophy in schools through the curriculum.

Dr. Wayne Henry worked in philosophy at Capilano and now works at UFV.  He was also sure he did not want to work with younger children.  But he is very interested in finding ways to convince the BC Ministry of Education to allow philosophy as a teachable subject in schools.

 

Concluding Remarks:

 

In conclusion it was agreed that we should try to have another meeting before the meeting already scheduled for August 23.  Before the next meeting, it would be good to have a website available that would include information about P4C/EPI, and would list existing projects.  If there could be an account of what “Rob and John” do, and their grant, that would be helpful.  There was the suggestion that we should have a series of speakers for next year, who might give talks open to everyone.  In particular, the question of the “COI” or “Community of Inquiry” was mentioned; this should be discussed further.  A course should be offered at UBC, and elsewhere, on the topic.  Examples of EPI with children should be available, including the works of Thomas Wartenburg and Tiffany Poirier.  How would P4C look from different philosophical backgrounds, for example, different cultures, analytic or continental backgrounds?  How should the movement be described?  In the end the discussion returned to the question of the name, in this case the question of “inquiry.”  Should it be used in a scientific sense, or more loosely?  The discussion closed with a general sense of goodwill and a real enthusiasm to move ahead on the project.  Thanks were given to everyone who came and arranged the event, especially the speakers.