research on philosophy of education

Search Menu
Advance Articles

Special Issues

Virtual Issues
Trending Articles
IMPACT Content
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access Options
Self-Archiving Policy
Author Resources
Read & Publish
Why Publish with JOPE?
About the Journal of Philosophy of Education
About The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
Editorial Board
Advertising & Corporate Services
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Editor-in-Chief David Bakhurst Editorial Board

About the journal

Journal of Philosophy of Education publishes articles on a variety topics varying from fundamental philosophical issues to current educational practice or policy.

Featured Content

Meet the Editorial Board

Learn more about the team behind the journal.

Editorial board

Submit to Journal of Philosophy of Education

Submit to JOPE

JOPE Video abstracts

JOPE is pleased to announce that the journal now invites authors to produce video abstracts. 

Watch the latest videos 

IMPACT Series

Written by leading general philosophers and philosophers of education, IMPACT provides a unique forum for the analysis of education policy and practice from a philosophical perspective.    Read the latest publication 

Climate Crisis

Climate Crisis: Education, Environment, Sustainability Edited by: Jeff Stickney and Adrian Skilbeck

Teaching and Learning

Teaching and Learning: Epistemic, Metaphysical and Ethical Dimensions Edited by David Bakhurst

Love and Desire in Education

Love and Desire in Education Edited by David Aldridge and David Lewin

Special Issues from Journal of Philosophy of Education

Journal of Philosophy of Education publishes regular special issues on key topics and developments in the field.

Browse the full archive of special issues

Email alerts

Register to receive table of contents email alerts as soon as new issues of Journal of Philosophy of Education are published online.

Librarian resources

Materials, tools, and ideas to help you make the most of your institutional access.

Find out more

  JOPE Book Series 

The JOPE Book Series comprises original texts and previous journal Special Issues - priced £19.99, with most available in paperback and e-book formats.    Browse the full collection 

Related Titles

Recommend to Your Librarian
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1467-9752
Print ISSN 0309-8249
Copyright © 2024 Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Philosophy of Education

Introduction, general overviews.

Introductory Works
Greek Philosophy
19th Century
Early 20th Century
Philosophical Contributions from Social Work and the Sciences
Middle 20th Century
Analytic Philosophy
Continental Philosophy
Philosophy and Education Research
Political Philosophy and Education
Philosophy with Children

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Gender, Power, and Politics in the Academy
Girls' Education in the Developing World
Non-Formal & Informal Environmental Education
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Philosophy of Education by Chad Lykins LAST REVIEWED: 03 May 2021 LAST MODIFIED: 15 December 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0028

Philosophy of education includes the investigation of the ethical, political, social, epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological dimensions of education. Philosophy of education is certainly the oldest of the educational subfields, dating at least as far back as ancient Athens with its Sophists and their greatest critics, Socrates and Plato. The central challenge in philosophy of education is to produce insights that are relevant both to educational practice and philosophical theory. In some cases, philosophical theories are examined in light of their educational implications. In other cases, educational practices are examined in terms of their philosophical assumptions and implications. The challenge for philosophy of education is to contribute both into educational practice and philosophical theory. The pressure to balance these two demands continues to influence the professionalization of philosophy of education, its self-exile from mainstream philosophy, and its tenuous relationship with educational practice. The following bibliography serves as a portal through which readers can access some important figures and problems in philosophy of education. It focuses on Western philosophy, specifically philosophy written or translated into English. While this bibliography does not cover all work in philosophy of education, it does a good job providing interested readers and students with extensive guidance to many of the most influential thinkers and traditions in the field.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Phillips 2008 ) and the Encyclopaedia Britannica ( Siegel 2010 ) have terrific overviews of philosophy of education. Readers looking for a broad sampling of educational “thinkers,” many of whom count as philosophers, should turn to the two volumes Palmer, et al. 2003 and Palmer, et al. 2001 . For a volume that gives overviews not just of figures but also of major concepts, readers should consult Chambliss 1996 . Though the breadth of the 228 entries may overwhelm the novice reader while leaving the expert reader yearning for more depth, it successfully conveys the diversity of the field and includes many overlooked historical sources of philosophical insight.

Chambliss, J. J., ed. 1996. Philosophy of education: An encyclopedia . Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1671. New York: Garland.

This hefty volume contains dense but readable coverage of an incredible range of thinkers and concepts. It is best used to answer casual questions and to stimulate further inquiry rather than for definitive statements on any given issue.

Palmer, J., L. Bresler, and D. E. Cooper, eds. 2003. Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey . Routledge Key Guides. London: Routledge.

The editors provide a series of entries on major “thinkers,” many of whom count as philosophers and philosophers of education. The juxtaposition next to religious figures, psychologists, and others makes for interesting reading.

Palmer, J., D. E. Cooper, and L. Bresler, eds. 2001. Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present day . Routledge Key Guides. London: Routledge.

See also Palmer, et al. 2003 , which contains many more entries on empirical researchers.

Phillips, D. C., ed. 2008. Philosophy of education . In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Phillips gives a brief overview of the recent history and current directions of philosophy of education. He also gives a rather extensive bibliography of major works.

Siegel, H. 2010. Philosophy of education . In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online .

Siegel’s introduction also includes a helpful bibliography and a useful narrative about the main problems in the field.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Education »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Academic Achievement
Academic Audit for Universities
Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
Action Research in Education
Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
Administrator Preparation
Adolescence
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
African American Racial Identity and Learning
Alaska Native Education
Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
Alternative Schools
American Indian Education
Animals in Environmental Education
Art Education
Artificial Intelligence and Learning
Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
Assessment, Behavioral
Assessment, Educational
Assessment in Early Childhood Education
Assistive Technology
Augmented Reality in Education
Beginning-Teacher Induction
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
Blended Learning
Case Study in Education Research
Changing Professional and Academic Identities
Character Education
Children’s and Young Adult Literature
Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
Citizenship Education
Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
Classroom Management
Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
College Admissions in the United States
College Athletics in the United States
Community Relations
Comparative Education
Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Computer-Based Testing
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
Counseling in Schools
Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
Culturally Responsive Leadership
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
Curriculum Design
Data Collection in Educational Research
Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
Deaf Education
Desegregation and Integration
Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
Development, Moral
Digital Age Teacher, The
Digital Citizenship
Digital Divides
Disabilities
Distance Learning
Distributed Leadership
Doctoral Education and Training
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Childhood Education in Australia
Early Childhood Education in China
Early Childhood Education in Europe
Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
Early Childhood Education in Sweden
Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
Early Childhood Education Policy
Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
Early Childhood Mathematics
Early Childhood Science
Early Childhood Teacher Education
Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
Economics of Education
Education For Children with Autism
Education for Sustainable Development
Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
Education of Native Hawaiian Students
Education Reform and School Change
Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
Environmental Education
Environmental Education in Brazil
Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
Ethical Research with Young Children
Ethics and Education
Ethics of Teaching
Ethnic Studies
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Family and Community Partnerships in Education
Family Day Care
Federal Government Programs and Issues
Feminization of Labor in Academia
Finance, Education
Financial Aid
Formative Assessment
Future-Focused Education
Gender and Achievement
Gender and Alternative Education
Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
Gifted Education
Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
Global University Rankings
Governance, Education
Grounded Theory
Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
Higher Education and Globalization
Higher Education and the Developing World
Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
Higher Education Finance
Higher Education Governance
Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
Higher Education in Africa
Higher Education in China
Higher Education in Latin America
Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
Higher Education, International Issues in
Higher Education Management
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Research
Higher Education Student Assessment
High-stakes Testing
History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
History of Education in the United States
History of Technology Integration in Education
Homeschooling
Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
Indigenous Education in a Global Context
Indigenous Learning Environments
Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
Inservice Teacher Education
Integrating Art across the Curriculum
Intelligence
Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
Leadership in Early Childhood Education
Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
Learning Analytics in Higher Education
Learning Difficulties
Learning, Lifelong
Learning, Multimedia
Learning Strategies
Legal Matters and Education Law
LGBT Youth in Schools
Linguistic Diversity
Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
Mathematics Identity
Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
Mathematics Teacher Education
Measurement for Improvement in Education
Measurement in Education in the United States
Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
Mixed Methods Research
Motherscholars
Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
Multivariate Research Methodology
Museums, Education, and Curriculum
Music Education
Narrative Research in Education
Native American Studies
Note-Taking
Numeracy Education
One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
Online Education
Open Education
Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
Outdoor Play and Learning
Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
Pedagogical Leadership
Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
Performance Objectives and Measurement
Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
Performance-based Research Funding
Philosophy of Education
Physical Education
Podcasts in Education
Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
Politics of Education
Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
Post-humanism and Environmental Education
Pre-Service Teacher Education
Problem Solving
Productivity and Higher Education
Professional Development
Professional Learning Communities
Program Evaluation
Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
Psychology Learning and Teaching
Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
Qualitative Research Design
Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Reading Education
Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
Reliability in Educational Assessments
Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
Response to Intervention
Restorative Practices
Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
School Accreditation
School Choice
School Culture
School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
School Improvement through Inclusive Education
School Reform
Schools, Private and Independent
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Science Education
Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
Service-Learning
Severe Disabilities
Single Salary Schedule
Single-sex Education
Single-Subject Research Design
Social Context of Education
Social Network Analysis
Social Science and Education Research
Social Studies Education
Sociology of Education
Standards-Based Education
Statistical Assumptions
Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
Student Assignment Policy
Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
Student Participation
Student Voice in Teacher Development
Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Higher Education
Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
Teacher Training and Development
Teacher Unions and Associations
Teacher-Student Relationships
Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
Technology Education in Early Childhood
Technology, Educational
Technology-based Assessment
The Bologna Process
The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
Theories of Educational Leadership
Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
Tracking and Detracking
Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
Transformative Learning
Transitions in Early Childhood Education
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
Using Ethnography in Educational Research
Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
Virtual Learning Environments
Vocational and Technical Education
Wellness and Well-Being in Education
Women's and Gender Studies
Young Children and Spirituality
Young Children's Learning Dispositions
Young Children's Working Theories
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|195.216.135.184]
195.216.135.184

Philosophy of Education

All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession. While not all societies channel sufficient resources into support for educational activities and institutions, all at the very least acknowledge their centrality—and for good reasons. For one thing, it is obvious that children are born illiterate and innumerate, and ignorant of the norms and cultural achievements of the community or society into which they have been thrust; but with the help of professional teachers and the dedicated amateurs in their families and immediate environs (and with the aid, too, of educational resources made available through the media and nowadays the internet), within a few years they can read, write, calculate, and act (at least often) in culturally-appropriate ways. Some learn these skills with more facility than others, and so education also serves as a social-sorting mechanism and undoubtedly has enormous impact on the economic fate of the individual. Put more abstractly, at its best education equips individuals with the skills and substantive knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, and also allows them to participate in the life of their community as full-fledged, autonomous citizens.

But this is to cast matters in very individualistic terms, and it is fruitful also to take a societal perspective, where the picture changes somewhat. It emerges that in pluralistic societies such as the Western democracies there are some groups that do not wholeheartedly support the development of autonomous individuals, for such folk can weaken a group from within by thinking for themselves and challenging communal norms and beliefs; from the point of view of groups whose survival is thus threatened, formal, state-provided education is not necessarily a good thing. But in other ways even these groups depend for their continuing survival on educational processes, as do the larger societies and nation-states of which they are part; for as John Dewey put it in the opening chapter of his classic work Democracy and Education (1916), in its broadest sense education is the means of the “social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, 3). Dewey pointed out that the “primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group” make education a necessity, for despite this biological inevitability “the life of the group goes on” (Dewey, 3). The great social importance of education is underscored, too, by the fact that when a society is shaken by a crisis, this often is taken as a sign of educational breakdown; education, and educators, become scapegoats.

It is not surprising that such an important social domain has attracted the attention of philosophers for thousands of years, especially as there are complex issues aplenty that have great philosophical interest. Even a cursory reading of these opening paragraphs reveals that they touch on, in nascent form, some but by no means all of the issues that have spawned vigorous debate down the ages; restated more explicitly in terms familiar to philosophers of education, the issues the discussion above flitted over were: education as transmission of knowledge versus education as the fostering of inquiry and reasoning skills that are conducive to the development of autonomy (which, roughly, is the tension between education as conservative and education as progressive, and also is closely related to differing views about human “perfectibility”—issues that historically have been raised in the debate over the aims of education); the question of what this knowledge, and what these skills, ought to be—part of the domain of philosophy of the curriculum; the questions of how learning is possible, and what is it to have learned something—two sets of issues that relate to the question of the capacities and potentialities that are present at birth, and also to the process (and stages) of human development and to what degree this process is flexible and hence can be influenced or manipulated; the tension between liberal education and vocational education, and the overlapping issue of which should be given priority—education for personal development or education for citizenship (and the issue of whether or not this is a false dichotomy); the differences (if any) between education and enculturation; the distinction between educating versus teaching versus training versus indoctrination; the relation between education and maintenance of the class structure of society, and the issue of whether different classes or cultural groups can—justly—be given educational programs that differ in content or in aims; the issue of whether the rights of children, parents, and socio-cultural or ethnic groups, conflict—and if they do, the question of whose rights should be dominant; the question as to whether or not all children have a right to state-provided education, and if so, should this education respect the beliefs and customs of all groups and how on earth would this be accomplished; and a set of complex issues about the relation between education and social reform, centering upon whether education is essentially conservative, or whether it can be an (or, the ) agent of social change.

It is impressive that most of the philosophically-interesting issues touched upon above, plus additional ones not alluded to here, were addressed in one of the early masterpieces of the Western intellectual tradition—Plato's Republic . A.N. Whitehead somewhere remarked that the history of Western philosophy is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato, and if the Meno and the Laws are added to the Republic , the same is true of the history of educational thought and of philosophy of education in particular. At various points throughout this essay the discussion shall return to Plato, and at the end there shall be a brief discussion of the two other great figures in the field—Rousseau and Dewey. But the account of the field needs to start with some features of it that are apt to cause puzzlement, or that make describing its topography difficult. These include, but are not limited to, the interactions between philosophy of education and its parent discipline.

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

1.2 the different bodies of work traditionally included in the field, 1.3 paradigm wars the diversity of, and clashes between, philosophical approaches, 2.1 the early work: c.d. hardie, 2.2 the dominant years: language, and clarification of key concepts, 2.3 countervailing forces, 2.4 a new guise contemporary social, political and moral philosophy, 3.1 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 3.2 the content of the curriculum, and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.3 rousseau, dewey, and the progressive movement, 4. concluding remarks, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries, 1. problems in delineating the field.

There is a large—and ever expanding—number of works designed to give guidance to the novice setting out to explore the domain of philosophy of education; most if not all of the academic publishing houses have at least one representative of this genre on their list, and the titles are mostly variants of the following archetypes: The History and Philosophy of Education , The Philosophical Foundations of Education , Philosophers on Education , Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , A Guide to the Philosophy of Education , and Readings in Philosophy of Education . The overall picture that emerges from even a sampling of this collective is not pretty; the field lacks intellectual cohesion, and (from the perspective taken in this essay) there is a widespread problem concerning the rigor of the work and the depth of scholarship—although undoubtedly there are islands, but not continents, of competent philosophical discussion of difficult and socially-important issues of the kind listed earlier. On the positive side—the obverse of the lack of cohesion—there is, in the field as a whole, a degree of adventurousness in the form of openness to ideas and radical approaches, a trait that is sometimes lacking in other academic fields. This is not to claim, of course, that taken individually philosophers of education are more open-minded than their philosophical cousins!

Part of the explanation for this diffuse state-of-affairs is that, quite reasonably, most philosophers of education have the goal (reinforced by their institutional affiliation with Schools of Education and their involvement in the initial training of teachers) of contributing not to philosophy but to educational policy and practice. This shapes not only their selection of topics, but also the manner in which the discussion is pursued; and this orientation also explains why philosophers of education—to a far greater degree, it is to be suspected, than their “pure” cousins—publish not in philosophy journals but in a wide range of professionally-oriented journals (such as Educational Researcher , Harvard Educational Review , Teachers College Record , Cambridge Journal of Education, Journal of Curriculum Studies , and the like). Some individuals work directly on issues of classroom practice, others identify as much with fields such as educational policy analysis, curriculum theory, teacher education, or some particular subject-matter domain such as math or science education, as they do with philosophy of education. It is still fashionable in some quarters to decry having one's intellectual agenda shaped so strongly as this by concerns emanating from a field of practice; but as Stokes (1997) has made clear, many of the great, theoretically-fruitful research programs in natural science had their beginnings in such practical concerns—as Pasteur's grounbreaking work illustrates. It is dangerous to take the theory versus practice dichotomy too seriously.

However, there is another consequence of this institutional housing of the vast majority of philosphers of education that is worth noting—one that is not found in a comparable way in philosophers of science, for example, who almost always are located in departments of philosophy—namely, that experience as a teacher, or in some other education-related role, is a qualification to become a philosopher of education that in many cases is valued at least as much as depth of philosophical training. (The issue is not that educational experience is irrelevant—clearly it can be highly pertinent—but it is that in the tradeoff with philosophical training, philosophy often loses.) But there are still other factors at work that contribute to the field's diffuseness, that all relate in some way to the nature of the discipline of philosophy itself.

In describing the field of philosophy, and in particular the sub-field that has come to be identified as philosophy of education, one quickly runs into a difficulty not found to anything like the same degree in other disciplines. For example, although there are some internal differences in opinion, nevertheless there seems to be quite a high degree of consensus within the domain of quantum physics about which researchers are competent members of the field and which ones are not, and what work is a strong contribution (or potential contribution). The very nature of philosophy, on the other hand, is “essentially contested”; what counts as a sound philosophical work within one school of thought, or socio-cultural or academic setting, may not be so-regarded (and may even be the focus of derision) in a different one. Coupled with this is the fact that the borders of the field are not policed, so that the philosophically-untrained can cross into it freely—indeed, over the past century or more a great many individuals from across the spectrum of real and pseudo disciplines have for whatever reason exercised their right to self-identify as members of this broad and loosely defined category of “philosophers” (as a few minutes spent browsing in the relevant section of a bookstore will verify).

In essence, then, there are two senses of the term “philosopher” and its cognates: a loose but common sense in which any individual who cogitates in any manner about such issues as the meaning of life, the nature of social justice, the essence of sportsmanship, the aims of education, the foundations of the school curriculum, or relationship with the Divine, is thereby a philosopher; and there is a more technical sense referring to those who have been formally trained or have acquired competence in one or more areas such as epistemology, metaphysics, moral philosophy, logic, philosophy of science, and the like. If this bifurcation presents a problem for adequately delineating the field of philosophy, the difficulties grow tenfold or more with respect to philosophy of education.

This essay offers a description and assessment of the field as seen by a scholar rooted firmly in the formal branch of “philosophy of education”, and moreover this branch as it has developed in the English-speaking world (some of which, of course, has been inspired by Continental philosophy); but first it is necessary to say a little more about the difficulties that confront the individual who sets out, without presuppositions, to understand the topography of “philosophy of education”.

It will not take long for a person who consults several of the introductory texts alluded to earlier to encounter a number of different bodies of work (loosely bounded to be sure) that have by one source or another been regarded as part of the domain of philosophy of education; the inclusion of some of these as part of the field is largely responsible for the diffuse topography described earlier. What follows is an informal and incomplete accounting.

First, there are works of advocacy produced by those non-technical, self-identified “philosophers” described above, who often have an axe to grind; they may wish to destroy (or to save) common schooling, support or attack some innovation or reform, shore-up or destroy the capitalist mode of production, see their own religion (or none at all) gain a foothold in the public schools, strengthen the place of “the basics” in the school curriculum, and so forth. While these topics certainly can be, and have been, discussed with due care, often they have been pursued in loose but impressive language where exhortation substitutes for argumentation—and hence sometimes they are mistaken for works of philosophy of education! In the following discussion this genre shall be passed over in silence.

Second, there is a corpus of work somewhat resembling the first, but where the arguments are tighter, and where the authors usually are individuals of some distinction whose insights are thought-provoking—possibly because they have a degree of familiarity with some branch of educational activity, having been teachers (or former teachers), school principals, religious leaders, politicians, journalists, and the like. While these works frequently touch on philosophical issues, they are not pursued to any philosophical depth and can hardly be considered as contributions to the scholarship of the discipline. However, some works in this genre are among the classics of “educational thought”—a more felicitous label than “philosophy of education”; cases in point would be the essays, pamphlets and letters of Thomas Arnold (headmaster of Rugby school), John Wesley (the founder of Methodism), J.H. (Cardinal) Newman, T.H. Huxley, and the writings on progressive schooling by A.S. Neill (of Summerhill school). Some textbooks even include extracts from the writings or recorded sayings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Jesus of Nazareth (for the latter three, in works spanning more than half a century, see Ulich, 1950, and Murphy, 2006). Books and extracts in this genre—which elsewhere I have called “cultured reflection on education”—are often used in teacher-training courses that march under the banner of “educational foundations”, “introduction to educational thought”, or “introduction to philosophy of education”.

Third, there are a number of educational theorists and researchers, whose field of activity is not philosophy but—for example—might be human development or learning theory, who in their technical work and sometimes in their non-technical books and reflective essays explicitly raise philosophical issues or adopt philosophical modes of argumentation—and do so in ways worthy of careful study. If philosophy (including philosophy of education) is defined so as to include analysis and reflection at an abstract or “meta-level”, which undoubtedly is a domain where many philosophers labor, then these individuals should have a place in the annals of philosophy or philosophy of education; but too often, although not always, accounts of the field ignore them. Their work might be subjected to scrutiny for being educationally important, but their conceptual or philosophical contributions are rarely focused upon. (Philosophers of the physical and biological sciences are far less prone to make this mistake about the meta-level work of reflective scientists in these domains.)

The educational theorists and researchers I have in mind as exemplars here are the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner (who among other things wrote about the fate of the notions of human freedom and dignity in the light of the development of a “science of behavior”, and who developed a model of human action and also of learning that eschewed the influence of mental entities such as motives, interests, and ideas and placed the emphasis instead upon “schedules of reinforcement”); the foundational figure in modern developmental psychology with its near-fixation on stage theories, Jean Piaget (who developed in an abstract and detailed manner a “genetic epistemology” that was related to his developmental research); and the social psychologist Lev Vygotsky (who argued that the development of the human youngster was indelibly shaped by social forces, so much so that approaches which focused on the lone individual and that were biologically-oriented—he had Piaget in mind here—were quite inadequate).

Fourth, and in contrast to the group above, there is a type of work that is traditionally but undeservedly given a prominent place in the annals of philosophy of education, and which thereby generates a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the field. These are the books and reflective essays on educational topics that were written by mainstream philosophers, a number of whom are counted among the greatest in the history of the discipline. The catch is this: Even great philosophers do not always write philosophy! The reflections being referred-to contain little if any philosophical argumentation, and usually they were not intended to be contributions to the literature on any of the great philosophical questions. Rather, they expressed the author's views (or even prejudices) on educational rather than philosophical problems, and sometimes—as in the case of Bertrand Russell's rollicking pieces defending progressive educational practices—they explicitly were “potboilers” written to make money. (In Russell's case the royalties were used to support a progressive school he was running with his current wife.) Locke, Kant, and Hegel also are among those who produced work of this genre.

John Locke is an interesting case in point. He had been requested by a cousin and her husband—possibly in part because of his medical training—to give advice on the upbringing of their son and heir; the youngster seems to have troubled his parents, most likely because he had learning difficulties. Locke, then in exile in Europe, wrote the parents a series of letters in which alongside sensible advice about such matters as the priorities in the education of a landed gentleman, and about making learning fun for the boy, there were a few strange items such as the advice that the boy should wear leaky shoes in winter so that he would be toughened-up! The letters eventually were printed in book form under the title Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), and seem to have had enormous influence down the ages upon educational practice; after two centuries the book had run through some 35 English editions and well over thirty foreign editions, and it is still in print and is frequently excerpted in books of readings in philosophy of education. In stark contrast, several of Locke's major philosophical writings—the Essay Concerning Human Understanding , and the Letter on Toleration —have been overlooked by most educational theorists over the centuries, even though they have enormous relevance for educational philosophy, theory, policy, and practice. It is especially noteworthy that the former of these books was the foundation for an approach to psychology—associationism—that thrived during the nineteenth century. In addition it stimulated interest in the processes of child development and human learning; Locke's model of the way in which the “blank tablet” of the human mind became “furnished” with simple ideas that were eventually combined or abstracted in various ways to form complex ideas, suggested to some that it might be fruitful to study this process in the course of development of a young child (Cleverley and Phillips, 1986).

Fifth, and finally, there is a large body of work that clearly falls within the more technically-defined domain of philosophy of education. Three historical giants of the field are Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, and there are a dozen or more who would be in competition for inclusion along with them; the short-list of leading authors from the second-half of the 20 th century would include Richard Peters, Paul Hirst, and Israel Scheffler, with many jostling for the next places—but the choices become cloudy as we approach the present-day, for schisms between philosophical schools have to be negotiated.

It is important to note, too, that there is a sub-category within this domain of literature that is made-up of work by philosophers who are not primarily identified as philosophers of education, and who might or might not have had much to say directly about education, but whose philosophical work has been drawn upon by others and applied very fruitfully to educational issues. (A volume edited by Amelie Rorty contains essays on the education-related thought, or relevance, of many historically-important philosophers; significantly the essays are almost entirely written by philosophers rather than by members of the philosophy of education community. This is both their strength and weakness. See Rorty, 1998.)

The discussion will turn briefly to the difficulty in picturing the topography of the field that is presented by the influence of these philosophers.

As sketched earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, criteria for selecting evidence that has relevance for the problems that they consider central, and the like. No wonder educational discourse has occasionally been likened to Babel, for the differences in backgrounds and assumptions means that there is much mutual incomprehension. In the midst of the melee sit the philosophers of education.

It is no surprise, then, to find that the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content and methods of argument in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is revealing to note some of the names that were heavily-cited in a pair of recent authoritative handbooks in the field (according to the indices of the two volumes, and in alphabetical order): Adorno, Aristotle, Derrida, Descartes, Dewey, Habermas, Hegel, Horkheimer, Kant, Locke, Lyotard, Marx, Mill, Nietzsche, Plato, Rawls, Richard Rorty, Rousseau, and Wittgenstein (Curren 2003; Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish 2003). Although this list conveys something of the diversity of the field, it fails to do it complete justice, for the influence of feminist philosophers is not adequately represented.

No one individual can have mastered work done by such a range of figures, representing as they do a number of quite different frameworks or approaches; and relatedly no one person stands as emblematic of the entire field of philosophy of education, and no one type of philosophical writing serves as the norm, either. At professional meetings, peace often reigns because the adherents of the different schools go their separate ways; but occasionally there are (intellectually) violent clashes, rivaling the tumult that greeted Derrida's nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge in 1992. It is sobering to reflect that only a few decades have passed since practitioners of analytic philosophy of education had to meet in individual hotel rooms, late at night, at annual meetings of the Philosophy of Education Society in the USA, because phenomenologists and others barred their access to the conference programs; their path to liberation was marked by discord until, eventually, the compromise of “live and let live” was worked out (Kaminsky, 1996). Of course, the situation has hardly been better in the home discipline; an essay in Time magazine in 1966 on the state of the discipline of philosophy reported that adherents of the major philosophical schools “don't even understand one another”, and added that as a result “philosophy today is bitterly segregated. Most of the major philosophy departments and scholarly journals are the exclusive property of one sect or another” ( Time , reprinted in Lucas, 1969, 32). Traditionally there has been a time-lag for developments in philosophy to migrate over into philosophy of education, but in this respect at least the two fields have been on a par.

Inevitably, however, traces of discord remain, and some groups still feel disenfranchised, but they are not quite the same groups as a few decades ago—for new intellectual paradigms have come into existence, and their adherents are struggling to have their voices heard; and clearly it is the case that—reflecting the situation in 1966—many analytically-trained philosophers of education find postmodern writings incomprehensible while scholars in the latter tradition are frequently dismissive if not contemptuous of work done by the former group. In effect, then, the passage of time has made the field more—and not less—diffuse. All this is evident in a volume published in 1995 in which the editor attempted to break-down borders by initiating dialogue between scholars with different approaches to philosophy of education; her introductory remarks are revealing:

Philosophers of education reflecting on the parameters of our field are faced not only with such perplexing and disruptive questions as: What counts as Philosophy of Education and why?; but also Who counts as a philosopher of education and why?; and What need is there for Philosophy of Education in a postmodern context? Embedded in these queries we find no less provocative ones: What knowledge, if any, can or should be privileged and why?; and Who is in a position to privilege particular discursive practices over others and why? Although such questions are disruptive, they offer the opportunity to take a fresh look at the nature and purposes of our work and, as we do, to expand the number and kinds of voices participating in the conversation. (Kohli, 1995, xiv).

There is an inward-looking tone to the questions posed here: Philosophy of education should focus upon itself, upon its own contents, methods, and practitioners. And of course there is nothing new about this; for one thing, almost forty years ago a collection of readings—with several score of entries—was published under the title What is Philosophy of Education? (Lucas, 1969). It is worth noting, too, that the same attitude is not unknown in philosophy; Simmel is reputed to have said a century or so ago that philosophy is its own first problem.

Having described the general topography of the field of philosophy of education, the focus can change to pockets of activity where from the perspective of this author interesting philosophical work is being, or has been, done—and sometimes this work has been influential in the worlds of educational policy or practice. It is appropriate to start with a discussion of the rise and partial decline—but lasting influence of—analytic philosophy of education This approach (often called “APE” by both admirers and detractors) dominated the field in the English-speaking world for several decades after the second world war, and its eventual fate throws light on the current intellectual climate.

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—which make up part at least of the philosophical analysis package—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. But traditionally they stood alongside other philosophical activities; in the Republic , for example, Plato was sometimes analytic, at other times normative, and on occasion speculative/metaphysical. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity (for metaphysics was judged to be literally vacuous, and normative philosophy was viewed as being unable to provide compelling warrants for whatever moral and ethical positions were being advocated).

So, although analytic elements in philosophy of education can be located throughout intellectual history back to the ancient world, the pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

The Cambridge analytical school, led by Moore, Broad and Wittgenstein, has attempted so to analyse propositions that it will always be apparent whether the disagreement between philosophers is one concerning matters of fact, or is one concerning the use of words, or is, as is frequently the case, a purely emotive one. It is time, I think, that a similar attitude became common in the field of educational theory. (Hardie, 1962, xix)

The first object of his analytic scrutiny in the book was the view that “a child should be educated according to Nature”; he teased apart and critiqued various things that writers through the ages could possibly have meant by this, and very little remained standing by the end of the chapter. Then some basic ideas of Herbart and Dewey were subjected to similar treatment. Hardie's hard-nosed approach can be illustrated by the following: One thing that educationists mean by “education according to Nature” (later he turns to other things they might mean) is that “the teacher should thus act like a gardener” who fosters natural growth of his plants and avoids doing anything “unnatural”(Hardie, 1962, 3). He continues:

The crucial question for such a view of education is how far does this analogy hold? There is no doubt that there is some analogy between the laws governing the physical development of the child and the laws governing the development of a plant, and hence there is some justification for the view if applied to physical education. But the educationists who hold this view are not generally very much concerned with physical education, and the view is certainly false if applied to mental education. For some of the laws that govern the mental changes which take place in a child are the laws of learning …. [which] have no analogy at all with the laws which govern the interaction between a seed and its environment. (Hardie, 1962, 4)

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D.J. O'Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences; Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), that contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and should be seen as truncated arguments); Smith and Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of British writers who were becoming prominent—most notably R.S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the USA), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

Among the most influential products of APE was the analysis developed by Hirst and Peters (1970), and Peters (1973), of the concept of education itself. Using as a touchstone “normal English usage”, it was concluded that a person who has been educated (rather than instructed or indoctrinated) has been (i) changed for the better; (ii) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills, and the development of understanding; and (iii) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. The method used by Hirst and Peters comes across clearly in their handling of the analogy with the concept of “reform”, one they sometimes drew upon for expository purposes. A criminal who has been reformed has changed for the better, and has developed a commitment to the new mode of life (if one or other of these conditions does not hold, a speaker of standard English would not say the criminal has been reformed). Clearly the analogy with reform breaks down with respect to the knowledge and understanding conditions. Elsewhere Peters developed the fruitful notion of “education as initiation”.

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for—it was argued—getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook, 1972). Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by: the content that had been taught; or by the intention of the instructor; or by the methods of instruction that had been used; or by the outcomes of the instruction; or, of course, by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Two examples will be sufficient to make the point: (i) The first criterion mentioned above—the nature of the content being imparted—was supported by an argument that ran roughly as follows: “If some students have learned, as factual, some material that is patently incorrect (like ‘The capital city of Canada is Washington D.C.’), then they must have been indoctrinated. This conclusion is reinforced by the consideration that we would never say students must have been indoctrinated if they believe an item that is correct!” However, both portions of this argument have been challenged. (ii) The method criterion—how the knowledge was imparted to the students—usually was supported by an argument that, while different, clearly paralleled the previous one in its logic. It ran roughly like this: “We never would say that students had been indoctrinated by their teacher if he or she had fostered open inquiry and discussion, encouraged exploration in the library and on the net, allowed students to work in collaborative groups, and so on. However, if the teacher did not allow independent inquiry, quashed classroom questions, suppressed dissenting opinions, relied heavily on rewards and punishments, used repetition and fostered rote memorization, and so on, then it is likely we would say the students were being indoctrinated”. (The deeper issue in this second example is that the first method of teaching allows room for the operation of the learners' rationality, while the second method does not. Siegel, 1988, stresses this in his discussion of indoctrination.)

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import; I can offer as illustration a presidential address at a US Philosophy of Education Society annual meeting that was an hour-long discourse on the various meanings of the expression “I have a toothache”. (It is worth noting that the 1966 article in Time , cited earlier, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970's radical students in Britain accused the brand of linguistic analysis practiced by R.S. Peters of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy had been mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many years were reaching the attention of philosophers of education. There even had been a surprising degree of interest in this arcane topic on the part of the general reading public in the UK as early as 1959, when Gilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind , refused to commission a review of Ernest Gellner's Words and Things (1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein's philosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryle argued that Gellner's book was too insulting, a view that drew Bertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner's side—in the daily press, no less; Russell produced examples of insulting remarks drawn from the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta, 1963)

Richard Peters had been given warning that all was not well with APE at a conference in Canada in 1966; after delivering a paper on “The aims of education: A conceptual inquiry” that was based on ordinary language analysis, a philosopher in the audience (William Dray) asked Peters “ whose concepts do we analyze?” Dray went on to suggest that different people, and different groups within society, have different concepts of education. Five years before the radical students raised the same issue, Dray pointed to the possibility that what Peters had presented under the guise of a “logical analysis” was nothing but the favored usage of a certain class of persons—a class that Peters happened to identify with. (See Peters, 1973, where to the editor's credit the interaction with Dray is reprinted.)

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault, and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard's foundational work on The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s; the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin's Reclaiming a Conversation . APE was no longer the center of interest.

By the 1980s, the rather simple if not simplistic ordinary language analysis practiced in philosophy of education, was reeling under the attack from the combination of forces sketched above, but the analytic spirit lived on in the form of rigorous work done in other specialist areas of philosophy—work that trickled out and took philosophy of education in rich new directions. Technically-oriented epistemology, philosophy of science, and even metaphysics, flourished; as did the interrelated fields of social, political and moral philosophy. John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971; a decade later MacIntyre's After Virtue appeared; and in another decade or so there was a flood of work on individualism, communitarianism, democratic citizenship, inclusion, exclusion, rights of children versus rights of parents, rights of groups (such as the Amish) versus rights of the larger polity. From the early 1990s philosophers of education have contributed significantly to the debates on these and related topics—indeed, this corpus of work illustrates that good philosophy of education flows seamlessly into work being done in mainstream areas of philosophy. Illustrative examples are Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Callan (1997); The Demands of Liberal Education , Levinson (1999); Social Justice and School Choice , Brighouse (2000); and Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Reich (2002). These works stand shoulder-to-shoulder with semi-classics on the same range of topics by Gutmann, Kymlicka, Macedo, and others. An excerpt from the book by Callan nicely illustrates that the analytic spirit lives on in this body of work; the broader topic being pursued is the status of the aims of education in a pluralistic society where there can be deep fundamental disagreements:

… the distinction must be underlined between the ends that properly inform political education and the extent to which we should tolerate deviations from those ends in a world where reasonable and unreasonable pluralism are entangled and the moral costs of coercion against the unreasonable variety are often prohibitive. Our theoretical as well as our commonsense discourse do not always respect the distinction…. If some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church conflict with our best theory of the ends of civic education, it does not follow that we have any reason to revise our theory; but neither does it mean we have any reason to impose these ends on Catholic schools and the families that they serve. (Callan, 1997, 44)

Callan and White (2003) have given an analysis of why the topics described above have become such a focus of attention. “What has been happening in philosophy of education in recent years”, they argue, mirrors “a wider self-examination in liberal societies themselves”. World events, from the fall of communism to the spread of ethnic conflicts “have all heightened consciousness of the contingency of liberal politics”. A body of work in philosophy, from the early Rawls on, has systematically examined (and critiqued) the foundations of liberalism, and philosophy of education has been drawn into the debates. Callan and White mention communitarianism as offering perhaps “the most influential challenge” to liberalism, and they write:

The debate between liberals and communitarians is far more than a theoretical diversion for philosophers and political scientists. At stake are rival understandings of what makes human lives and the societies in which they unfold both good and just, and derivatively, competing conceptions of the education needed for individual and social betterment. (Callan and White, 2003, 95-96)

It should be appended here that it is not only “external” world events that have stimulated this body of work; events internal to a number of democratic societies also have been significant. To cite one example that is prominent in the literature in North America at least, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling ( Wisconsin v. Yoder ) in which members of the Amish sect were allowed to withdraw their children from public schools before they had reached the age of sixteen—for, it had been argued, any deeper education would endanger the existence of the group and its culture. In assessing this decision—as of course philosophers have frequently done (see, for example, Kymlicka, 1995)—a balance has to be achieved between (i) the interest of civic society in having an informed, well-educated, participatory citizenry; (ii) the interest of the Amish as a group in preserving their own culture; and (iii) the interests of the Amish children, who have a right to develop into autonomous individuals who can make reflective decisions for themselves about the nature of the life they wish to lead. These are issues that fall squarely in the domain covered by the works mentioned above.

So much work is being produced on the complex and interrelated issues just outlined, that in a different context it seemed fair for me to remark (descriptively, and not judgmentally) that a veritable cottage industry had sprung up in post-Rawlsian philosophy of education. There are, of course, other areas of activity, where interesting contributions are being made, and the discusion will next turn to a sampling of these.

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

As was stressed at the outset, and illustrated with a cursory listing of examples, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume, and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in the recent A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren, 2003), which contained more than six-hundred pages divided into fourty-five chapters each of which surveyed a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge and truth in learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, purposes of universities in a fluid age, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education.

There is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to filling out—and deepening—the topographical account of the field that was presented in the preceding sections. The discussion will open with a topic that was not included in the Companion , despite it being one that is of great concern across the academic educational community, and despite it being one where adherents of some of the rival schools of philosophy (and philosophy of education) have had lively exchanges.

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but particularly since publication of the book by Stokes mentioned earlier, and also in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one.

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is its not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn's ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred-to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemolgical: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they only were used sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe, 2003, and Phillips, 2008.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millenium when the US Federal Government moved in the direction of funding only rigorously scientific educational research—the kind that could establish causal factors which could then guide the development of practically effective policies. (It was held that such a causal knowledge base was available for medical decisionmaking.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicans and not by the research community, and it was given in terms of the use of a specific research method—the net effect being that the only research projects to receive Federal funding were those that carried out randomized controlled experiments or field trials (RFTs). It has beome common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the U.S. National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC, 2002), that argued this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work.

Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value-neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, they were guilty of advocating “your father's paradigm”(clearly this was not intended as a compliment). One critic with postmodernist leanings asserted that educational research should move “toward a Nietzschean sort of ‘unnatural science’ that leads to greater health by fostering ways of knowing that escape normativity”—a suggestion that evokes the reaction discussed in Section 1.3 above, namely, one of incomprehension on the part of most researchers and those philosophers of education who work within a different tradition where a “way of knowing”, in order to be a “way”, must inevitably be normative.

The final complexity in the debates over the nature of educational research is that there are some respected members of the philosophy of education community who claim, along with Carr, that “the forms of human association characteristic of educational engagement are not really apt for scientific or empirical study at all” (Carr, 2003, 54-5). His reasoning is that educational processes cannot be studied empirically because they are processes of “normative initiation”—a position that as it stands begs the question by not making clear why such processes cannot be studied empirically.

The issue of what should be taught to students at all levels of education—the issue of curriculum content—obviously is a fundamental one, and it is an extraordinarily difficult one with which to grapple. In tackling it, care needs to be taken to distinguish between education and schooling—for although education can occur in schools, so can mis-education (as Dewey pointed out), and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches, or the development of social networks); and it also must be recognized that education can occur in the home, in libraries and museums, in churches and clubs, in solitary interaction with the public media, and the like.

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or in a system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why is evolution included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Why is Driver Education part of the high school curriculum, and methods of birth control usually not—even though sex has an impact on the life of teenagers that at least is comparable to the impact of car-driving? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Does the justification for not including the Holocaust or the phenomenon of wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some countries stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato's brilliant pioneering efforts all draw upon, explicitly or implicitly, the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues. First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same), or alternatively, what constitutes the good life and human flourishing. These two formulations are related, for presumably our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to act rationally and/or autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. How this is to be done, of course, is not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the matter. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing a conception of the good life, and then for pursuing it; and because logical analysis shows—he argued—that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms. Luckily for Hirst, the typical British high school day was made up of seven instructional periods. (Hirst, 1965; for a critique see Phillips, 1987, ch.11.)

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a ruler or ruling class; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as a medium of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect, and serve, the interests of the ruling class. Michael Apple is typical:

… the knowledge that now gets into schools is already a choice from a much larger universe of possible social knowledge and principles. It is a form of cultural capital that comes from somewhere, that often reflects the perspectives and beliefs of powerful segments of our social collectivity. In its very production and dissemination as a public and economic commodity—as books, films, materials, and so forth—it is repeatedly filtered through ideological and economic commitments. Social and economic values, hence, are already embedded in the design of the institutions we work in, in the ‘formal corpus of school knowledge’ we preserve in our curricula….(Apple, 1990, 8-9)

Third, should educational programs at the elementary and secondary levels be made up of a number of disparate offerings, so that individuals with different interests and abilities and affinities for learning can pursue curricula that are suitable? Or should every student pursue the same curriculum as far as each is able—a curriculum, it should be noted, that in past cases nearly always was based on the needs or interests of those students who were academically inclined or were destined for elite social roles. Mortimer Adler and others in the late twentieth century (who arguably were following Plato's lead in the Republic ), sometimes used the aphorism “the best education for the best is the best education for all”.

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all! Medically, this probably is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings, 2007.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato's system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually be able to contemplate the metaphysical realm of the “forms”, thanks to their advanced training in mathematics and philosophy. Having seen the form of the Good, they would be eligible after a period of practical experience to become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

Plato's educational scheme was guided, presumably, by the understanding he thought he had achieved of the transcendental realm of fixed “forms”. John Dewey, ever a strong critic of positions that were not naturalistic, or that incorporated a priori premises, commented as follows:

Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence. If we do not know its end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice…. And only those who have rightly trained minds will be able to recognize the end, and ordering principle of things. (Dewey, 1916, 102-3)

Furthermore, as Dewey again put it, Plato “had no perception of the uniqueness of individuals…. they fall by nature into classes”, which masks the “infinite diversity of active tendencies” which individuals harbor (104). In addition, Plato tended to talk of learning using the passive language of seeing, which has shaped our discourse down to the present (witness “Now I see it!” when a difficult point has become clear).

In contrast, for Dewey each individual was an organism situated in a biological and social environment in which problems were constantly emerging, forcing the individual to reflect and act, and learn. Dewey, following William James, held that knowledge arises from reflection upon our actions; and the worth of a putative item of knowledge is directly correlated with the problem-solving success of the actions performed under its guidance. Thus Dewey, sharply disagreeing with Plato, regarded knowing as an active rather than a passive affair—a strong theme in his writings is his opposition to what is sometimes called “the spectator theory of knowledge”. All this is made clear enough in a passage containing only a thinly-veiled allusion to Plato's famous analogy of the prisoners in the cave whose eyes are turned to the light by education:

In schools, those under instruction are too customarily looked upon as acquiring knowledge as theoretical spectators, minds which appropriate knowledge by direct energy of intellect. The very word pupil has almost come to mean one who is engaged not in having fruitful experiences but in absorbing knowledge directly. Something which is called mind or consciousness is severed from the physical organs of activity. (164)

This passage also illuminates a passage that many have found puzzling: “philosophy is the theory of education” (387). For in the sentences above it is easy to see the tight link between Dewey's epistemology and his views on education—his anti-spectator epistemology morphs directly into advocacy for anti-spectator learning by students in school—students learn by being active inquirers. Over the past few decades this view of learning has inspired a major tradition of research by educational psychologists, and related theory-development (the “situated cognition” framework); and these bodies of work have in turn led to innovative efforts in curriculum development. (For a discussion of these, see Phillips, 2003.)

The final important difference with Plato is that, for Dewey, each student is an individual who blazes his or her unique trail of growth; the teacher has the task of guiding and facilitating this growth, without imposing a fixed end upon the process. Dewey sometimes uses the term “curriculum” to mean “the funded wisdom of the human race”, the point being that over the course of human history an enormous stock of knowledge and skills has accumulated and the teacher has the task of helping the student to make contact with this repertoire—but helping by facilitating rather than by imposing. (All this, of course, has been the subject of intense discussion among philosophers of education: Does growth imply a direction? Is growth always good—can't a plant end up misshapen, and can't a child develop to become bad? Is Dewey some type of perfectionist? Is his philosophy too vague to offer worthwhile educational guidance? Isn't it possible for a “Deweyan” student to end up without enough relevant knowledge and skills to be able to make a living in the modern world?)

Dewey's work was of central importance for the American progressive education movement in its formative years, although there was a fair degree of misunderstanding of his ideas as progressives interpreted his often extremely dense prose to be saying what they personally happened to believe. Nevertheless, Dewey became the “poster child” or the “house philosopher” of progressive education, and if he didn't make it onto many actual posters he certainly made it onto a postage stamp.

His popularity, however, sharply declined after the Soviets launched Sputnik, for Dewey and progressive education were blamed for the USA losing the race into space (illustrating the point about scapegoating made at the start of this essay). But he did not remain in disgrace for long; and for some time has been the focus of renewed interest—although it is still noticeable that commentators interpret Dewey to be holding views that mirror their own positions or interests. And interestingly, there now is slightly more interest in Dewey on the part of philosophers of education in the UK than there was in earlier years, and there is growing interest by philosophers from the Continent (see, for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003).

To be a poster child for progressivism, however, is not to be the parent. Rather than to Dewey, that honor must go to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to his educational novel written in soaring prose, Emile (1762). Starting with the premise that “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil” (Rousseau, 1955, 5), Rousseau held that contemporary man has been misshapen by his education; the “crushing force” of social conventions has stifled the “Nature within him”. The remedy adopted in the novel is for the young Emile to be taken to his family estate in the country where, away from the corrupting influence of society, and under the watchful eye of his tutor, “everything should … be brought into harmony with these natural tendencies”. (This idea of education according to nature, it will be recalled, was the object of Hardie's analytic attention almost two centuries later.)

Out in the countryside, rather than having a set curriculum that he is forced to follow, Emile learns when some natural stimulus or innate interest motivates him—and under these conditions learning comes easily. He is allowed to suffer the natural consequences of his actions (if he breaks a window, he gets cold; if he takes the gardener's property, the gardener will no longer do him favors), and experiences such as these lead to the development of his moral system. Although Rousseau never intended these educational details to be taken literally as a blueprint (he saw himself as developing and illustrating the basic principles), over the ages there have been attempts to implement them, one being the famous British “free school”, A.S. Neill's Summerhill. (It is worth noting that Neill claimed not to have read Rousseau; but he was working in a milieu in which Rousseau's ideas were well-known—intellectual influence can follow a less than direct path.) Furthermore, over the ages these principles also have proven to be fertile soil for philosophers of education to till.

Even more fertile ground for comment, in recent years, has been Rousseau's proposal for the education of girls, developed in a section of the novel (Book V) that bears the name of the young woman who is destined to be Emile's soul-mate, Sophy. The puzzle has been why Rousseau—who had been so far-sighted in his discussion of Emile's education—was so hide-bound if not retrograde in his thinking about her education. One short quotation is sufficient to illustrate the problem: “If woman is made to please and to be in subjection to man, she ought to make herself pleasing in his eyes and not provoke him …her strength is in her charms” (324).

The educational principles developed by Rousseau and Dewey, and numerous educational theorists and philosophers in the interregnum, are alive and well in the twenty-first century. Of particular contemporary interest is the evolution that has occurred of the progressive idea that each student is an active learner who is pursuing his or her own individual educational path. By incorporating elements of the classical empiricist epistemology of John Locke, this progressive principle has become transformed into the extremely popular position known as constructivism, according to which each student in a classroom constructs his or her own individual body of understandings even when all in the group are given what appears to be the same stimulus or educational experience. (A consequence of this is that a classroom of thirty students will have thirty individually-constructed, and possibly different, bodies of “knowledge”, in addition to that of the teacher!) There is also a solipsistic element here, for constructivists also believe that none of us—teachers included—can directly access the bodies of understandings of anyone else; each of us is imprisoned in a world of our own making. It is an understatement to say that this poses great difficulties for the teacher. The education journals of the past two decades contain many thousands of references to discussions of this position, which elsewhere I claimed has become a type of educational “secular religion”; for reasons that are hard to discern it is particularly influential in mathematics and science education. (For a discussion of the underlying philosophical ideas in constructivism, and for an account of some of its varieties, see the essays in Phillips, ed., 2000.)

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, to mention only a few—have their own intellectual traditions, and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education into the academic universe, and no discussion of any of this appears in the present essay. But even in the Anglo-American world, there is such a diversity of approaches to the discipline that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her areas of competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last twenty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, commenting on the field as a whole or on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules, 1994; Chambliss, 1996; Phillips, 1985; Siegel, 2007; Smeyers, 1994); two large volumes—a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith and Standish, 2003) and a “Companion” (Curren, 2003)—have been produced by Blackwell in their well-known philosophy series; and the same publisher recently released an anthology, with 60 papers considered to be important in the field, and which also are representative of the range of work that is being done (Curren, 2007). Several encyclopedias of philosophy of education have been published or are in the works (for example, Chambliss, 1996; Siegel, 2008); there is a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch and Gingell, 1999), and a good textbook or two (see Noddings, 2007); in addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift in the present work (for another sampling see A. Rorty, 1998; Smeyers and Marshall, 1995; Stone, 1994); and several international journals appear to be flourishing— Educational Philosophy and Theory , Educational Theory , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Studies in Philosophy and Education , Theory and Research in Education . Thus there is enough material available to keep the interested reader busy, and to provide alternative assessments to the ones presented in this present essay.

Apple, M., 1990, Ideology and Curriculum , New York: Routledge, 2 nd . Editon.
Archambault, R., (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
Biesta, G., and Burbules, N., 2003, Pragmatism and Educational Research , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., and Standish, P., (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
Brighouse, H., 2000, Social Justice and School Choice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burbules, N., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 3617-22.
Callan, E., 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Callan, E., and White, J., 2003, “Liberalism and Communitarianism”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P. Standish (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp.95-109.
Carr, D., 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Chambliss, J., 1996, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss (ed.), New York: Garland, pp.461-72.
Cleverley, J., and Phillips, D.C., 1986, Visions of Childhood , New York: Teachers College Press.
Curren, R., (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
Curren, R., (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
Gellner, E., 1959, Words and Things , London: Gollancz.
Hardie, C., 1962, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
Hirst, P., 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , R. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113-138.
Hirst, P., and Peters, R., 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
Howe, K., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaminsky, J., 1996, “Philosophy of Education: Professional Organizations In”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss, (ed.), New York: Garland, pp. 475-79.
Kohli, W., (ed.), 1995, Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education , New York: Routledge.
Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Levinson, M., 1999, The Demands of Liberal Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lucas, C., (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? London: Macmillan.
Martin, J., 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation , New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Mehta, V., 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle : London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Murphy, M., (ed.), 2006, The History and Philosophy of Education: Voices of Educational Pioneers , New Jersey: Pearson.
Noddings, N., 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
–––, 2007, Philosophy of Education , Boulder, CO: Westview, 2 nd . Edition.
National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O'Connor, D., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
Peters, R., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education, T. Husen and N. Postletwaite, (eds.), pp.3859-3877.
–––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry , Oxford: Pergamon.
–––, (ed.), 2000, Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues , (Series: 99 th . Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 2003, “Theories of Teaching and Learning”, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , R. Curren, (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 232-245.
–––, 2008, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , H. Siegel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
Reich, R., 2002, Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rorty, A., (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
Rousseau, J-J., 1955, Emile , B. Foxley, (tr.), London: Dent/Everyman.
Scheffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education , Illinois: Thomas.
Siegel, H., 1988, Educating Reason: rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , [ Available online ].
–––, (ed.), 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
Smeyers, P., 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 4456-61.
Smeyers, P., and Marshall, J., (eds.), 1995, Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein's Challenge , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, B., and Ennis, R., (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
Snook, I., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge.
Stokes, D., 1997, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , Washington, DC: Brookings.
Stone, L., (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
Ulich, R., 1954, Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Revised Ed.
Winch, C., and Gingell, J., 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)
UNESCO/International Bureau of Education: Thinkers on Education

Philosophy of education : Background information

Background information

Next: Recent e-books >>
Recent e-books
Recent print books
Connect to Stanford e-resources

Last Updated: Jan 9, 2023 12:47 PM
URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/philosophy_of_ed

Research and Publication Ethics pp 1–22 Cite as

Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

Santosh Kumar Yadav 2
First Online: 30 August 2023

169 Accesses

The word research itself is a combination of “ re ” and “ search ,” which is meant by a systematic investigation to gain new knowledge from already existing facts. Frankly speaking, research may be defined as a scientific understanding of existing knowledge and deriving new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of the mankind. In the words of Wernher von Braun (a German philosopher), “ Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing .” It is basically the search for truth/facts. The significant contribution of research deals with the progress of the nation as well as an individual with commercial, social, and educational advantages. Albert Szent Gyorgyi (Hungarian Biochemist, Nobel Prize 1937) writes “ Research is to see what everybody else has seen and think what nobody has thought .” Research may be an important parameter to judge the development of any nation/generation. According to Clifford Woody (American philosopher, 1939), “ Research comprises of defining and redefining problems, formulating the hypothesis for suggested solutions, collecting, organizing and evaluating data, making deductions and reaching conclusion and further testing the conclusion whether they fit into formulating the hypothesis .” The major objectives of research are to find out a hidden and undiscovered truth of the nature/society. There are various objectives behind undertaking research by individuals as well as various organizations/universities. Some philosophical objectives behind any research include:

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India

Santosh Kumar Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santosh Kumar Yadav .

Review Questions

Explain the term “research” in view of two philosophers.

Briefly describe the different steps involved in a research process.

Describe the different types of research, clearly pointing out the difference between an experiment and a survey.

“Empirical research in India in particular creates so many problems for the researchers.” State the problems that are usually faced by such researchers.

“Creative management, whether in public administration or private industry, depends on methods of inquiry that maintain objectivity, clarity, accuracy, and consistency.” Discuss this statement and examine the significance of research.

What is research problem? Define the main issues which should receive the attention of the researcher in formulating the research problem. Give suitable examples to elucidate your points.

“Knowing what data are available often serves to narrow down the problem itself as well as the technique that might be used.” Explain the underlying idea in this statement in the context of defining a research problem.

What is research design? Discuss the basis of stratification to be employed in sampling public opinion on inflation.

Give your understanding of a good research design. Is single research design suitable in all research studies? If not, why?

“It is never safe to take published statistics at their face value without knowing their meaning and limitations.” Elucidate this statement by enumerating and explaining the various points which you would consider before using any published data. Illustrate your answer by examples wherever possible.

“Experimental method of research is not suitable in management field.” Discuss, what are the problems in the introduction of this research design in business organization?

What are common features of good research?

How many ways the philosophical scientific knowledge may be classified in the research?

Explain Wilfred Carr’s concept of educational philosophy and theory.

What is the difference between philosophy of research and philosophy in research?

What is the physical relationship between learning and experience?

What is the impact of action research on the scholar’s learning?

What are philosophical features of a good research study?

Explain the role of a philosopher in an interdisciplinary research.

Write Short Notes on the following:

Educational Research and Philosophy

Philosopher in the Classroom

Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth

Interdisciplinary Research

Pragmatic Theory of Knowledge

Ethical Codes and Academic Independence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Yadav, S.K. (2023). Philosophy of Research: An Introduction. In: Research and Publication Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_1

Published : 30 August 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-26970-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-26971-4

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

2023 AERA in the News
2022 AERA in the News
2021 AERA In the News
2020 AERA In the News
2019 AERA In the News
2018 AERA In the News
2017 AERA In the News
2016 AERA In the News
2015 AERA In the News
2014 AERA In the News
2013 AERA In the News
AERA Speaking Out on Major Issues
2023 AERA News Releases
2022 AERA News Releases
2021 AERA News Releases
2020 AERA News Releases
2019 AERA News Releases
2018 AERA News Releases
2017 AERA News Releases
2016 AERA News Releases
2015 AERA News Releases
2014 AERA News Releases
2013 AERA News Releases
2012 AERA News Releases
2011 News Releases
2010 News Releases
2009 News Releases
2008 News Releases
2007 News Releases
2006 News Releases
2005 News Releases
2004 News Releases
AERA Research Archive
Trending Topic Research Files
Communication Resources for Researchers
AERA Highlights Archival Issues
AERA Video Gallery

About AERA The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is the largest national interdisciplinary research association devoted to the scientific study of education and learning. Founded in 1916, AERA advances knowledge about education, encourages scholarly inquiry related to education, and promotes the use of research to improve education and serve the public good. Find AERA on Facebook , Twitter , LinkedIn , Instagram , Threads , and Bluesky .

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Message from the director.

A welcome message from Sabrina Diano, PhD, Director, Institute of Human Nutrition.

IHN alumni are advancing nutrition around the world through work in the health care industry, clinical research, medical education, and more.

Research Laboratories

Learn more about the Institute for Human Nutrition's research.

In the Community

Local initiatives.

IHN is a proud supporter of local organizations and activities here in Washington Heights and the surrounding communities.

PhD in Nutritional and Metabolic Biology

The Nutritional and Metabolic Biology (NMB) PhD training program prepares students to work at the frontiers of biomedical research in nutritional and metabolic sciences, exploring the role of nutrition in maintaining optimal human health. The objective of the training program is to prepare individuals who will conduct original basic science research, teach in medical schools and universities, and hold positions of leadership in community and international nutrition.

Housed within the Institute of Human Nutrition (IHN) at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC), this inter-disciplinary and multi-departmental training program is highly structured and comprises both coursework and basic research. The NMB program is one of the few pre-doctoral training programs in nutrition in the United States that is located within a medical school and is unique among the other PhD programs at CUMC with an equal number of MDs and PhDs as faculty mentors (including ten MD/PhDs). The location of the NMB training program in a medical school offers trainees a wide array of research opportunities in laboratories headed by established senior scientists as well as NIH-funded younger independent investigators, all focused on the role of nutrition and metabolism in health and disease.

nmb_phd_program_faculty_-_life_at_columbia

nmb_phd_program_students_-_life_at_columbia

For information on NMB faculty, please visit the Faculty page on the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) site .

Lori Zeltser, PhD

Co-director

Anthony Ferrante Jr., MD, PhD

International
Today’s Paper
Premium Stories
Express Shorts
Health & Wellness
Board Exam Results

IIM Bangalore holds 49th convocation, over 700 degrees awarded

Iim bangalore has introduced the institute research award for a graduating student of the doctor of philosophy (phd) programme, which includes a cash prize of inr 1.75 lakh, certificate and memento.

The Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIM Bangalore) on April 6 held its 49th convocation ceremony. A total of 706 students from various programmes graduated this year.

The programme-wise details are as follows: 22 Doctoral Programme (PhD) students; 78 from Post Graduate Programme in Enterprise Management (PGPEM); 76 from Executive Post Graduate Programme in Management (EPGP); 47 from Post Graduate Programme in Business Analytics (PGP-BA), and 483 from the Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGP).

Gold medal winners

This year, a total of eight students have won gold medals at IIM Bangalore , which includes three women students. In the Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGP) 2022-2024, Anant Ashutosh Sharma is the first rank holder, while Aditya Nishith Shah is the second rank holder.

IIM Bangalore convocation; 706 degreees awarded

Jayant Ramchandra Yadav is the Gold Medallist for Best All Round Performance for Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGP) and Post Graduate Programme in Business Analytics (PGP-BA) 2022-2024 combined. For the Post Graduate Programme in Business Analytics (PGP-BA) 2022-2024, Hemakshi Janyani is the first rank holder.

In Executive Post Graduate Programme in Management (EPGP) 2023-2024, Renu Chaubey is the first rank holder and Velamuri Sai Yaswanth is the Best All Round Performer. In Post Graduate Programme in Enterprise Management (PGPEM) 2022-2024, P Govind N Shenoy is the first rank holder, while Rawat Megha Vijay Singh is the Best All Round Performer.

This year, IIM Bangalore has introduced the Institute Research Award for a graduating student of the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programme, which includes a cash prize of INR 1.75 lakh, certificate and memento. The introductory Institute Research Award was won by Bibek Bhattacharya, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) student of the Strategy area of the graduating batch.

Last year, a total of eight students won the gold medals and the convocation was held on March 31.

convocation
IIM Bangalore

What makes Pushpa 2: The Rule's arrival even more exciting is the fact that Allu Arjun had bagged the National Film Award for Best Actor for the first movie

Pushpa Raj (Allu Arjun) has evolved from a spark to a raging wildfire in Pushpa 2: The Rule. The 68-second teaser, released on Allu Arjun's birthday, shows him as a powerful and fearless force, dressed as Goddess Kali. The film, directed by Sukumar and also starring Rashmika Mandanna, Fahadh Faasil, and others, is set to release on August 15, 2024.

Stock Market Live Updates: Sensex heads to 74,750 mark, Nifty inches toward all-time high 37 mins ago
Chess Candidates Tournament 2024 Live Updates: Vidit, Humpy lose; Pragg, Vaishali, Gukesh draw 2 hours ago
Lok Sabha Election Live Updates: Katchatheevu row arose only when Opposition pointed to Sino-Indian border issue, says Kanimozhi 2 hours ago
Mumbai News Live Updates: ED summons Sena (UBT) Amol Kirtikar in Khichdi scam case 2 hours ago

Best of Express

Suspended Maldivian minister Mariyam Shiuna with President Mohamed Muizzu. (X/Mariyam Shiuna)

Buzzing Now

Seema Patil shares about her battle against breast cancer

Apr 08: Latest News

01 Anandraj Ambedkar says will contest polls from Amravati
02 Over 6,500 booked in 3 months for drunk driving
03 Chess Candidates Tournament 2024 Live Updates: Vidit, Humpy lose; Pragg, Vaishali, Gukesh draw
04 Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR filed by woman after divorce for ill-treatment faced during marriage
05 Is New York City overdue for a major earthquake?
Elections 2024
Political Pulse
Entertainment
Movie Review
Newsletters
Gold Rate Today
Silver Rate Today
Petrol Rate Today
Diesel Rate Today
Web Stories

Share on twitter
Share on facebook

Kent v-c to depart after restructure and deficit warning

Karen cox to step down next month as university grapples with projected £30 million deficit.

Share on linkedin
Share on mail

The vice-chancellor of the University of Kent has announced that she is leaving the role next month after overseeing a major restructuring programme in the face of a potential £30 million deficit.

Karen Cox, who has led the institution since 2017, will be replaced on an interim basis by her deputy, Georgina Randsley de Moura, from 22 May.

A former nurse who became a professor of cancer and palliative care before moving into university administration, Professor Cox said that her time in post had been a “complete privilege” and that she had been inspired daily “by the talent, drive and ingenuity of our students and staff”.

But her seven years in charge have seen Kent bear the brunt of sector-wide trends, losing out heavily in student recruitment as competitor Russell Group institutions expanded, while cost-of-living pressures have driven higher-than-average dropouts.

The university posted an underlying deficit of £12 million in its latest financial accounts and said it expects an even bigger shortfall of more than £30 million in the current year.

A radical restructuring programme announced earlier this year proposed closing nine courses , later revised to six after a consultation.

Student recruitment is being halted for anthropology, art history, health and social care, journalism, music and audio technology and philosophy – before they will all be phased out entirely in the coming years. Up to 58 jobs were initially put at risk of redundancy as a result of the changes.

The university has also faced criticism for its plans to cut the amount of time staff are given for research and for the way it closed its Brussels campus last year.

In announcing her departure, Kent highlighted Professor Cox’s role in initiatives such as the launch of the Kent and Medway Medical School with Canterbury Christ Church University and recent approval for the Docking Station, a cultural centre being built in a former police station at Chatham’s historic dockyard.

“While the sector faces well-known challenges, seeing students achieve their ambitions with us and go on to make the world a better place remains as moving as it has always been,” Professor Cox said.

“I am, and will remain, a passionate advocate for the power of higher education as a driver of social mobility and as a key part of our wider civic society. I look forward to celebrating both this and Kent’s continued successes under new leadership in the years ahead.”

Before joining Kent, Professor Cox spent more than 20 years at the University of Nottingham , joining as a district nurse and research associate and rising to become head of the School of Nursing and then deputy vice-chancellor, responsible for strategy development and change management.

Mark Preston, the chair of Kent’s council, said Professor Cox had shown “exceptional leadership” during an “incredibly challenging period for the sector”.

“Karen’s work has culminated in leading a strategic review of our size, shape and ambition for the future, captured in our Kent 2030 plan,” he added. “It draws on our strengths, creates a clear mission for the next phase of the university’s life, and has won the support of key internal and external stakeholders.

“We will now be looking for the next person to take Kent forward, continuing to build on this strategy, while ensuring we meet what students and industry are looking for from universities in the future.”

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

Registration is free and only takes a moment
Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
Digital editions
Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Canterbury Innovation Centre building at University of Kent

Kent saves languages but confirms anthropology and philosophy axe

University says it intends to phase out teaching in areas also including art history and journalism, as UWE becomes latest institution to announce job cuts

Fury at Kent’s plan to cut academics’ time for research

Plans to introduce 20 per cent ‘baseline’ for research time will harm university’s standing in academia and beyond, warns critic

Someone with an umbrella walks through heavy rain past some bicycles

UK funding crisis forces three more universities to cut jobs

Winchester, Surrey and Queen Mary latest to shed academic positions as industrial disputes heat up elsewhere

Gates Foundation open access move ‘shifts needle in right direction’

US’ biggest charitable foundation, with focus on global health, abandons APCs in favour of preprint repositories

Japanese women with student loans more likely to delay child-rearing

Student loan debt could be contributing to Japan’s declining birth rate, researchers find

IMAGES

Philosophy of Education: The Essential Texts, 1st Edition (Paperback
(PDF) Introduction: Toward a Philosophy of Higher Education
(PDF) Three professors' teaching philosophy of education: Strategies
(PDF) What Is “Philosophy of Education”?
(PDF) Modern philosophy of education
Philosophy of Education (Edition 4) (Paperback)

VIDEO

Education Theory: Philosophy of Education Part 9: Pragmatism
Philosophy of Education
1.Introduction of Research & Research Philosophy in Education
Exploring Philosophy of Education
EDUCATION & PHILOSOPHY : Concept, Nature & Relationship || Education Academy || Sonia Gupta
Philosophy and Ethics

COMMENTS

Journal of Philosophy of Education
The JOPE Book Series comprises original texts and previous journal Special Issues - priced £19.99, with most available in paperback and e-book formats. Browse the full collection. Journal of Philosophy of Education, the official journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, publishes articles on a variety of.
(PDF) Philosophy of Educational Research: New Epistemological
The philosophy of educational research has traditionally been one of them least studied fields in the epistemology of the social sciences and humanities. However, a philosophical reflection on ...
Philosophy of Education
Philosophy of Education. Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and ...
Home
Overview. Studies in Philosophy and Education is an international journal focusing on philosophical and theoretical issues in educational research, policy, and practice. Promotes collaboration among philosophers, educational and social science researchers, and policy makers. Offers international, peer-reviewed coverage.
Roles of (Educational) Philosophy in Educational Research
The four roles are philosophy as (a) provider of a priori conceptual analyses, (b) clarifier of educational research concepts and their implications, (c) interpreter of educational research results, and (d) dialogue partner with a voice of its own.The first view of philosophy is the educational variant of the traditional view that philosophy is ...
Chapter 1
philosophy as educational research. Philosophy in educational research refers to the kind of philosophical analysis that takes the practice of empirical educational research as its point of departure. It involves critical discussions of research methodology and how empirical educational research is framed. Philosophy as educational research is ...
Philosophy of Education and Educational Research
The research group was set up. to represent the disciplines of social psychology, sociology, school ad ministration and philosophy of education. Philip G. Smith, the mem. ber of the team representing philosophy of education, used the term. "philosophic-mindedness" to denote a disposition or attitude crucial.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education aims to engage a broad array of scholars from around the world in order to reflect philosophically on a range of contemporary issues in education. The editor is particularly interested in diversifying the field of philosophy of education by including non-Western voices and perspectives, both ...
Philosophy in Educational Research
Book. Authors: David Bridges. The most wide-ranging and comprehensive book in the field. Shows engagement in the execution, direction, and management of educational research and reflection on this experience. Clearly written and accessible to all sections of the education research community. Extensive use of international references. 71k Accesses.
Philosophy of Education
General Overviews. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Phillips 2008) and the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Siegel 2010) have terrific overviews of philosophy of education.Readers looking for a broad sampling of educational "thinkers," many of whom count as philosophers, should turn to the two volumes Palmer, et al. 2003 and Palmer, et al. 2001.For a volume that gives overviews not just ...
Philosophy of education in a new key: Snapshot 2020 from the United
The collective writing continues with Mayo, Norris, Stitzlein, Thompson and Waks to finish with five papers that traverse philosophy of education in a new key. These papers are philosophically sound pieces that create a snapshot of life and scholarship in 2020 in North America.
Philosophical Paradigms in Qualitative Research Methods Education: What
1. Introduction. This paper discusses and critically assesses how the relationship between philosophy of science and scientific practice is conceptualized in qualitative research methods education (QRME).. QRME has in the last years drawn the attention of researchers (Lewthwaite & Nind, Citation 2016; Wagner et al., Citation 2019).This field has focused on several aspects of the practice of ...
Philosophy of educational research
Philosophy of educational research by Richard Pring, 3rd edition, London Oxford New York New Delhi Sydney, Bloomsbury Academic, 2015, 221 pp., £29.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-1-4725-7534-. Mary Catherine Garland University of Plymouth Institute of Education, Plymouth, UK Correspondence [email protected].
Philosophy of Education
This is a file in the archives of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Philosophy of Education. First published Mon Jun 2, 2008. All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession.
(PDF) Introduction: Philosophy of Education and Philosophy
Bradley, N., (2022) Educational Philosophies of Teachers. NUFS Teacher Development Symposium Proceedings. 2, pp13-25 Every year the research produced in education is vast and has the positive ...
Philosophy of education
philosophy of education, philosophical reflection on the nature, aims, and problems of education.The philosophy of education is Janus-faced, looking both inward to the parent discipline of philosophy and outward to educational practice. (In this respect it is like other areas of "applied" philosophy, such as the philosophy of law, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of medicine ...
Philosophy of education : Background information
This encyclopaedia is a dynamic reference and study place for students, teachers, researchers and professionals in the field of education, philosophy and social sciences, offering both short and long entries on topics of theoretical and practical interest in educational theory and philosophy by authoritative world scholars representing the full ambit of education as a rapidly expanding global ...
(PDF) Philosophy of Educational Research: an Update
This research paper updates my previous work on the philosophy and application of the educational research (Hamood, 2021). It deals with and seeks to explain such philosophical terms as ...
Philosophy of Educational Research
Education, Philosophy. Foreword to Third Edition 1. Setting the scene: criticisms of educational research 2. Doing philosophy: defining what you mean 3. The focus of educational research: practice and policy 4. Research methods: philosophical issues they raise 5. Quantitative and qualitative research: a false dualism 6.
PDF The impact of teachers' educational philosophy tendencies on their
The impact of teachers' educational philosophy tendencies on their curriculum autonomy . ... parallel with their own research, without losing the essence of autonomy (Bizmiye, 2020). Several studies have cited the necessity for promoting teaching to the status of a profession by empowering the teachers and giving them the autonomy in their work ...
Philosophy of Research: An Introduction
Abstract. The word research itself is a combination of " re " and " search ," which is meant by a systematic investigation to gain new knowledge from already existing facts. Frankly speaking, research may be defined as a scientific understanding of existing knowledge and deriving new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of the ...
Full article: Teaching philosophies revalued: beyond personal
Introduction and context. In today's changing higher education context, the impacts of a teaching philosophy (TP) and teaching philosophy statements (TPS), beyond individual personal professional development, have received little attention (Arroyo et al., Citation 2015; Schönwetter et al., Citation 2002).Yet, as observed by Fitzmaurice and Coughlan (Citation 2007), TPs are likely to be ...
(PDF) What Is "Philosophy of Education"?
Philosophy of education refers to the systematic process of understanding and explicating key concepts related to educational practice. Analytic philosophy of education is a contemporary approach ...
AERA Announces 2024 Award Winners in Education Research
The Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award is the premier acknowledgment of outstanding achievement and success in education research. It is designed to publicize, motivate, encourage, and suggest models for education research at its best. 2024 Excellence in Media Reporting on Education Research Award
PhD in Nutritional and Metabolic Biology
The location of the NMB training program in a medical school offers trainees a wide array of research opportunities in laboratories headed by established senior scientists as well as NIH-funded younger independent investigators, all focused on the role of nutrition and metabolism in health and disease.
IIM Bangalore holds 49th convocation, over 700 degrees awarded
News; Education; IIM Bangalore holds 49th convocation, over 700 degrees awarded; IIM Bangalore holds 49th convocation, over 700 degrees awarded IIM Bangalore has introduced the Institute Research Award for a graduating student of the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programme, which includes a cash prize of INR 1.75 lakh, certificate and memento
Philosophy is Life and a Way of Life
By emphasizing on the consumeristic, positivistic, instrumentalist, utilitarian, extractive, and pragmatic demands of capitalist-oriented education, the relevance of Philosophy may diminish in the eyes of present academic curriculum makers, and it may vanish in the General Education courses and syllabi of profit-oriented capitalistic ...
The philosophy of emotions: Implementing character education through
Kristian Guttesen is a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. He has a background in upper secondary education, and has published work on philosophy of education, character education, poetry teaching, creative writing, and poetic inquiry.
University of Kent vice-chancellor Karen Cox to step down
The vice-chancellor of the University of Kent has announced that she is leaving the role next month after overseeing a major restructuring programme in the face of a potential £30 million deficit.. Karen Cox, who has led the institution since 2017, will be replaced on an interim basis by her deputy, Georgina Randsley de Moura, from 22 May.

Special Issues

About the journal

Featured Content

Meet the Editorial Board

Submit to JOPE

JOPE Video abstracts

IMPACT Series

Climate Crisis

Teaching and Learning

Love and Desire in Education

Email alerts

Librarian resources

JOPE Book Series

Related Titles

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Philosophy of Education

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Philosophy of Education by Chad Lykins LAST REVIEWED: 03 May 2021 LAST MODIFIED: 15 December 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0028

Philosophy of Education

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

Philosophy of education : Background information

Philosophy of Research: An Introduction

Buying options

Further Reading

Author information

Corresponding author

Review Questions

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Share

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Research Laboratories

In the Community

PhD in Nutritional and Metabolic Biology

nmb_phd_program_faculty_-_life_at_columbia

nmb_phd_program_students_-_life_at_columbia

Lori Zeltser, PhD

Anthony Ferrante Jr., MD, PhD

IIM Bangalore holds 49th convocation, over 700 degrees awarded

Gold medal winners

Best of Express

Buzzing Now

Apr 08: Latest News

Kent v-c to depart after restructure and deficit warning

Register to continue

Related articles

Kent saves languages but confirms anthropology and philosophy axe

Fury at Kent’s plan to cut academics’ time for research

UK funding crisis forces three more universities to cut jobs

You might also like

Gates Foundation open access move ‘shifts needle in right direction’

Japanese women with student loans more likely to delay child-rearing

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

  JOPE Book Series 