Troubled Theory in the Debate between Hirst and Carr

Abstract

When Paul Hirst and Wilfred Carr squared up to each other a few years ago on the issue of the role of philosophical theory in educational practice, it became clear that theory itself had become a troubled term. The very fact that Wilfred Carr could argue for the end of educational theory recalls Paul Feyerabend's fiery argument for the end of theory in natural science and simply deepened the attack that had already appeared in Carr and Kemmis's book, Becoming Critical (1986). In response, Hirst insisted that theory, and particularly the philosophical theory of education, should be defined as a discrete area of study in itself, governed and structured by the axioms of logic. In this way, he argued, the philosophy of education would be no different from philosophy in general (at least in its analytic formulation). Carr, on the other hand, preferred to consider educational theory as a flexible event that took its shape from the landscape explored, and hence precisely not the kind of study that Hirst supported, but one based in action research and reflective practitioner experience. This debate is as yet unresolved. In this piece I begin by making several remarks about the current context for raising the question Hirst and Carr address, and I go on to consider other possible understandings of theoria in a Greek sense before developing this idea through a reading of Aristotle. I eventually conclude that each of the protagonists in the debate has taken a step too far.

Celebrating Moderate Dualism in the Philosophy of Education: A Reflection on the Hirst-Carr Debate

“…However, as Long has shown, theory had different meanings in Aristotle's view, the most comprehensive list of which includes techne , episteme, phronesis , noûs , and sophia . While Long considers phronesis , because of its plasticity in relation to different particular situations, suitable for the realm of education, he prefers sophia for philosophy of education (Long, , p. 143). It is clear that theorising in terms of sophia is much closer to Hirst's type of philosophy of education.…”

“…Answering this question, Paul Hirst and Wilfred Carr (Hirst and Carr, ) were involved in a debate which has itself been the subject of some discussion since then (e.g. Long, ; Misawa, ; Clark, ; MacAllister, ). This debate is in a sense a struggle between the two major European philosophical traditions, i.e.…”

Virtue Epistemology and the Philosophy of Education

“…I therefore concur with Kristjánsson () who maintains that Wilfred Carr has (as one of the main proponents of what Kristjánsson dubs the ‘ phronesis‐praxis perspective’ of teaching ( PPP )) ‘recast and reconceived, rather than retrieved, Aristotelian ideas on a number of issues, so that the Aristotelian foundation, on which the PPP is supposed to build, has been changed beyond recognition’ (Kristjánsson, , p. 159). Long (), in a critique of the debate between Hirst and Carr similarly suggests that ‘a much more connected kind of theory is required than phronesis … for the philosophy of education’ (, p. 143). In this respect it will in the final section of this paper be suggested that Aristotelian thought might yet still offer a platform for a more ‘connected’ philosophy of education.…”

Praxis and pedagogy as related to the arts and humanities

“…Ever since Hirst's new-found emphasis on the educational significance of initiation into social practices the notion has been of interest to many (Long, 2008). In the work of John White general education is viewed as being concerned to promote 'a person in the round, a person with a life to lead, a path to follow through all its conflicts, opportunities, contingencies', as one 'who lives the life'.…”