Education as deliberative communication – preconditions, possibilities
and consequences (project report to the Committee for Educational
Science, Swedish Research Council 2006)
1. Registration number Main applicant: Tomas Englund Part I: Scientific progress
2. Overall aim of the project
The aim of the project has been to analyse the future role and potential of the educational system (primarily comprehensive and upper secondary schools, but also to a certain extent teacher education, university studies and adult education) with regard to sustaining, developing and strengthening a deliberative
democracy. The project focuses on the basic conditions, within educational policy as well as within institutions, affecting the extent to which processes of education and learning can be developed in the direction of what can be
characterized as deliberative communication and of a practice that can be related to deliberative democracy. Within the project, analyses of the relationship
between education and (deliberative) democracy have been undertaken from different starting points, but with a common emphasis on education as a potentially public sphere (a weak public) where political, social and cultural diversity is apparent.
3. Main scientific areas:
Educational and learning conditions, Values and philosophy, Didactics 4. Specific research questions
(a) To develop and refine the basic ideas of the theory of deliberative democracy in relation to education as a public sphere, (b) to analyse the preconditions within educational policy for schools and other educational institutions to constitute deliberative democratic environments, (c) to analyse the possibilities and limits as regards changing schools and the internal work of educational institutions in the direction of deliberative democracy, (d) to analyse the
relationship between learning and deliberative communication within different school subjects and to test deliberative communication as a didactic idea.
5. Results
(a) contributions to the scientific field / (b) contributions to the practice field It is difficult and perhaps also inappropriate to (try to) distinguish between the scientific and the practice field with regard to the problem that is the focus of this project, education as (deliberative) communication, with an analysis of the classroom as a potential weak public sphere. However, starting from the
question whether the classroom can serve as a potential weak public (cf. Fraser 1992/2003), the project has learnt that the classroom seems to be underutilized in this respect, while at the same time there is an obvious boom in educational research (of which this project forms a part) advocating education and learning as communication. The project’s interest in deliberative communication can be seen as one branch of the communication tree that has been developed in close relation to the question of the constitution of democratic values in Swedish schools. The concept of deliberation also has a specific relationship to a certain view of democracy, namely deliberative democracy. In the context of the
project, deliberative communication is understood as and has its starting point in a view of communication in which different opinions and values can be brought face to face, with “an endeavour to ensure that each individual takes a stand by listening, deliberating, seeking arguments and evaluating, while at the same time there is a collective effort to find values and norms that everyone can agree upon” (National Agency for Education, Dnr 2000:1613, p. 6, my tr.).
The original specific research questions of the project have gradually been developed, and five questions serve as starting points for the structure of this report and the final anthology from the project (in press): 1. What are the historical ideas of relevance to the calls for education as communication, and especially to the idea of deliberative communication in schools? Here we
primarily analyse some chosen aspects of the philosophy of education, related to classical pragmatism and especially to John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. 2. To what extent can the theories of deliberative democracy and communicative rationality developed by the modern pragmatist Jürgen Habermas be translated to the world of schooling, and what kinds of models and classroom practices could they lead to? 3. What are the most important critical points against, and the indicated restrictions of and alternatives to, the ideas of deliberative
democracy and deliberative communication? What might be the meaning and the consequences of the use of deliberative communication within different spheres? 4. What different communication genres are there in Swedish
classrooms today, and to what extent do those classrooms seem to be influenced by the idea of deliberation? 5. To what extent and under what conditions can deliberative communication take shape successfully within different school subjects?
(1) The classic pragmatists John Dewey and George Herbert Mead are central sources of inspiration for the idea of deliberative communication in schools. John Dewey makes his “communicative turn” in the opening chapters of his
Democracy and Education from 1916, and the translation and publication in
Swedish of that work in 1999 forms a central part of the background to the project (cf. the introduction to that work, which is also cited in the following).
Democracy and Education can be seen as one of the first expressions of a
pragmatic philosophy of education applied to education, in which the focus is on interaction and communication and mass education is seen as an integral part of a democratic life form. This view of communication – at the time a very radical view of education and its possibilities – which Dewey developed together with his friend George Herbert Mead, who deepened the perspective of interaction at a theoretical level, has only in recent years come into focus in the educational policy and educational arenas. Dewey argued that democracy was not primarily an alternative to other models of society and forms of government, but more an expression of a society characterized by (increasingly) mutual communication in a pluralistic setting. It is within that perspective that the communicative aspects of education, understood as experiences of continual growth, are analysed in
Democracy and Education. It is also the idea of (democratic) society as an open
communicating society, with a public that defines itself as a citizen public, which Dewey develops in his political-philosophical follow-up work The Public
and its Problems, 1927 (cf. Ljunggren 1996). In the perspective of the education
system’s potential as a democracy-shaping instance, communication holds a very central role in the concept of education that Dewey defines as “the idea of continuous reconstruction of experience”. Dewey (1916) also holds that “we are doubtless far from realizing the potential efficacy of education as a constructive agency of improving society, from realizing that it represents not only a
development of children and youth but also of the future society of which they will be constituents”.
In the analyses relating to this specific question of the inspiration provided by the classic pragmatists, which will be presented in the anthology from the project, the guest professor at the Department of Education, Gert Biesta, traces the starting points of Dewey’s interest in communication, Ninni Wahlström analyses Dewey’s use of the concept of experience and how it explains his view of education as communication, and Moira von Wright, finally, analyses the emphasis placed by Mead on how, in social situations and concrete encounters, we have the ability to take the role and perspective of another person in a way that means that we internalize and coordinate the perspective and actions of the other with our own perspective.
(2) Another very important source of inspiration for the discussion within the project on deliberative communication is the works of Jürgen Habermas. Habermas, who is heavily influenced by Mead, is one of the scholars who has stated most forcefully and persuasively that modernity is an unfinished project and that, through more extensive use of a communicative rationality and a more highly developed mode of deliberation, we can create a better, more modern society. While Dewey can be said to be more playful and open in his calls for communication, his criterion for democracy being open communication between and within groups, Habermas puts forward a more systematic battery of
analyses, which have been investigated and tested by many of the project
participants. Consequently, within the project, Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy is related to Swedish history (of education) by Boman in her 2002 dissertation, and by Carleheden 2002/chapter in the anthology, and an analysis of the relationship and comparisons between deliberative democracy and deliberative communication is undertaken by Englund in a couple of works. Consequently, the first two questions are answered and developed on in a large number of studies, and classical as well as modern pragmatism are given a relatively large amount of space, to show how they have influenced the current development of the idea of deliberative communication – an idea which focuses on schools as weak publics, where deliberative communication of different views on different questions can take place.
In a series of contributions to Journal of Curriculum Studies (forthcoming), project participants examine the idea of deliberation and, in particular, the inspiration from Habermas. Englund presents the idea of deliberative
communication, Carleheden makes a comparison of Habermas’s paradigms of law and Englund’s (1986) conceptions of education, and Boman makes a Habermas-inspired analysis of the promise of education (cf. the next point concerning Boman’s theme).
(3) The third question, concerning critical points against deliberative democracy and deliberative communication, also centres on the theoretical system
elaborated by Habermas, and has primarily given rise to conceptual analyses of the preconditions for achieving deliberative communication and, more generally, the preconditions for deliberative democracy. On this question, we present analyses in the anthology concerning, for example, to what extent deliberation can address social inequality and cultural pluralism (Boman, Carleheden). The question of inadequate equality is the one most frequently asked of the
deliberation model, and this question is of course also transferable to that of cultural pluralism. Here we ask whether there is a need for many more publics, whether different cultural groups have a need for their own public spheres and whether these are then to be seen as publics. We also ask whether the school can
be seen as a culturally defined public or whether this idea violates the deliberative model’s idea of the school as an encounter between different cultural groups. We also examine the scope of deliberation in relation to the questions of how to treat the uncertainty in the encounter between different cultures and to what extent the individual will be given space and authority in deliberative communication. There are also analyses of concrete issues such as the wearing of the burqua (Boman) and its consequences for difference and uniqueness, and the relationships between ethics and morals (an important distinction for Habermas) and between universalism and particularism. A comparison is also made between deliberative and agonistic communication (Ljunggren), with the latter emphasizing uniqueness and difference in relation to different identities. Agonism does not see action as primarily
cognitive-rationally based (as the deliberative ideal does), but as a disposition by the person to act in relation to habits, traditions and a will-based motivation which cannot be reduced to mere cognitive rationality. Finally, analyses have been made of the relationship between deliberative democracy and deliberative communication, and one of these analyses, by the guest professor at the
Department of Education, Lars Løvlie, is included in the final anthology from the project.
(4) The question of the possibilities of deliberative communication is also analysed in relation to the different communication genres developed in the school tradition, and to the inherent potentials of the classroom to develop deliberative communication. However, this question is not easily answered. Within the project, three subject didactic studies (dissertations) have tried to analyse it. Liljestrand, in an ethnographic study (2002), has examined what happens in different upper secondary classrooms when “discussion is on the programme”, revealing different patterns for participation and meaning creation. Another ongoing ethnographic study (Hultin forthcoming) analyses four
different communication genres within literary studies in the upper secondary classroom. Hultin also contributes to the anthology a discussion of deliberation as a utopia or a real possibility, in which she also compares two normative positions concerning the democratic task of schools, the dialogic classroom and deliberative communication. Hultin was also the main organizer of a national conference on Swedish as a democratic school subject. In a third study related to this fourth question, Larsson (2004 and forthcoming), an analysis is made of the possibilities of deliberation in the upper secondary social studies classroom, concentrating on the dimension of a sense of community and collective will formation.
(5) Finally, what are the meanings and consequences of deliberation in relation to different school subjects and educational settings, and under what
deliberation mean, for example, in the language classroom? In her contribution to the anthology, Tornberg analyses these kinds of questions, and she has also been the main organizer of an international conference within the project on language didactics. Within the project, Gustavsson (2005) has applied the question of deliberation to adult education, and it is also one strand within the dissertation written by Hagström (2005).
References:
(Concerning publications produced by the project participants during the project time and the years before, see the publication list from the project)
Englund, Tomas (1986): Curriculum as a Political Problem. Changing
Educational Conceptions with Special Reference to Citizenship Education.
Lund: Studentlitteraur.
Dewey, John (1916/1985): Democracy and education. In Jo Ann Boydson ed.:
John Dewey. The Middle Works, 1899-1924: Volume 9. Carbondale, IL.:
Southern Illinois University press.
Dewey, John (1927/1988): The public and its problems. In Jo Ann Boydson ed.:
John Dewey. The Later Works, 1925-1953: Volume 2. Carbondale, IL.: Southern
Illinois University press s. 235-372.
Fraser, Nancy (1992/2003): Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually exiting democracy. In Craig Calhoun ed.: Habermas and the
Public Sphere. Cambridge, Ma: MIT press. (In Swedish in Fraser: Den radikala fantasin. Göteborg: Daidalos).
Ljunggren, Carsten (1996): Medborgarpubliken och det offentliga rummet. Om
utbildning, medier och demokrati [The public and the need to define itself. On
education, media and democracy]. Uppsala: Uppsala Studies in Education 68. National Agency for Education: Dnr 2000:1613,
5b. Contributions to the practice field (significance for teacher training and/or the teaching profession)
All products from the project should and could be used in the practice field. Studied levels of education: Compulsory school, upper secondary school, university studies and adult education. The project has been presented to teachers in many different forums.
6. Comments on changes in the research plan or design of the project programme in relation to the original application for funding
The most fundamental change in relation to the original application for funding was the engagement of the sociologist and expert on Jürgen Habermas’s social theory, Mikael Carleheden at Örebro University. Carleheden was engaged financially within the project on a half-time basis during its first two years, and has been part of the project throughout. He has two contributions (chapters) in the final report on the project, and was also one of the presenters at AERA and in the subsequent publication in Journal of Curriculum Studies from the project. Carsten Ljunggren and Ylva Boman (diss. 2002) have not been financially engaged in the project to the extent that was originally planned, but both of them have been closely involved with the project, as has Moira von Wright, and all three of them are contributing to the final report. Dissertations written with part-time funding through the project have been produced by Ylva Boman (2002), Johan Liljestrand (2002) and Eva Hagström (2004), and doctoral projects that have started within the project and will be completed in 2006–2007 are those of Eva Hultin and Kent Larsson (who presented his licentiate dissertation in 2004). The two last-mentioned researchers have also been funded in part through the project and will be participating in the final anthology.
Other contributors to the final anthology include the two guest professors at the Department of Education, Gert Biesta and Lars Løvlie, who have both been continually linked to the project, as have Ulrika Tornberg and Ninni Wahlström. Researchers who according to the original application were intended to be part of the project, but who (for various reasons) never participated, are Owe
Lindberg and Martin Lundberg. Among planned dissertations related to the project, that of Lotta Brantefors will not be completed owing to ill health. Part IIa Organizational matters:
7. National contacts and collaboration related to the project
The participants in the project have had numerous national contacts, which are impossible to even try to mention, but it should be underlined that the project has organized three well-attended conferences related to project themes. The first, on “Educational policy” and especially its central concepts, held in 2002 as a kind of starting point for the project, was organized by Ylva Boman, Carsten Ljunggren and Tomas Englund. Among the researchers invited to that
conference were the following professors of education: Solveig Hägglund from Karlstad University, Ulf P. Lundgren, Uppsala University, and Birgitta Qvarsell, Stockholm University. Political scientists included Mats Dahlkvist, Örebro University, Bo Lindensjö, Stockholm University, and Sun-Joon Hwang from the National Agency for Education, while sociologists included Mikael Carleheden, Örebro University (Dahlkvist and to a larger extent Carleheden became involved in the project following that conference). The contributions made at the first conference are collected in the journal Utbildning & Demokrati (Education & Democracy), vols. 10:2, 11:1 and 11:3.
The second conference on “Swedish as a democratic school subject”, in 2003, was organized by Eva Hultin and Tomas Englund, and was attended by all the most important Swedish researchers in that field: Kerstin Bergöö, Kristianstad College, Jan Einarsson, Växjö University, Annette Ewald, Malmö Institute of Education, Birgitta Garme, Uppsala University, Caroline Liberg, Malmö Institute of Education, Gun Malmgren, Lund University, Gunilla Molloy, Stockholm Institute of Education, and Margareta Pettersson, Växjö University. The proceedings of that conference are collected in the journal Utbildning &
Demokrati (Education & Democracy), vol. 12:2.
The researchers involved in the project have participated in national conferences on didactics, educational history and so on (cf. the scientific publication list). Within three fields of didactics, project researchers have started/participated in (inter)national and regional networks: Ulrika Tornberg within language
didactics, Eva Hultin in the field of Swedish didactics and Kent Larsson in social studies didactics.
8. International contacts and collaboration related to the project
Most of the researchers involved in the project have attended and presented papers at international conferences in different areas (cf. the scientific
publication list), and the two guest professors at the Department of Education (Gert Biesta, University of Exeter, England, and Lars Løvlie, Institute of Education, Oslo University, Norway) have been two important international contacts and paprtner in the cooperative work of the project.
A third conference on the “Multicultural foreign language classroom: An arena for democratic experiences”, in 2004, was organized by Ulrika Tornberg and Tomas Englund. This conference featured prominent international researchers from the language didactics field as keynote speakers: Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta, Örebro University, Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Hans-Jürgen Krumm, University of Vienna, Austria, David Little, Trinity
College, Dublin, Ireland, and Leo van Lier, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA. Another volume of collection of papers from the conference will be produced within the series of Reports from the Department of Education,
Örebro University and edited by Ulrika Tornberg.
9. Financial situation – summary of funding from Swedish Research Council As noted, there have been certain shifts and changes in relation to the original programme of the project. In sum, many researchers have been related to the project to varying degrees, and it has had significance in the fields of philosophy of education, educational theory, theories of democracy and didactics. An
attempt was made to secure a continuation of the project with an application in 2004, but the necessary funding was not approved. However, the two planned dissertations, started within the project by Eva Hultin and Kent Larsson, will hopefully be finished in 2006–2007.
Part III: Dissemination of results
a) Scientific publication list, containing journal articles, books or book chapters, conference contributions etc. in the context of the project
b) Dissemination of popular science (see publication list) 14. Plans for further dissemination of results
