Universities as social critics

Should universities concern themselves with social criticism or should their intellectual role be conceived solely in terms of the preservation and extension of knowledge? It is argued that the claim that universities should act as centres of social criticism can be justified on two grounds: the nature of intellectual inquiry and the concept of higher education. Several current sources of opposition to this view are then examined and ways in which they might be resisted are outlined.

     

The Reflective Practitioner and Teacher Education: an answer to critics

Abstract

This article is an attempt to answer some of the criticisms of the notion of reflective practice in teacher education. It is argued that in a democratic society personal autonomy is an important ideal of education, including teacher education, and that therefore the notion of reflective practice should have a central place. The relationship between autonomy and the reflective self is clarified with reference to different models of the self. In the light of this, the purpose of teacher education for autonomy is defined in terms of the nature of the committed as well as the reflective aspects of the self. The argument is further illustrated and elaborated by examining Schb'n's attempt to reintellec‐tualize professional practice through an analysis of the reflective practitioner as artist. In addition to facilitating self‐analysis and reflection, teacher education should raise awareness of the need to produce and reproduce the milieu of democratic reform. In conclusion, the role of the disciplines is reviewed as a resource for pursuing the goal of autonomy in teacher education.     

Public educators as interpretive critics: Edward Said and Raymond Williams

The work of Edward Said and Raymond Williams exemplifies an important aspect of the role of the public intellectual as educator. This paper concentrates on the significance of their work as public educators and on the tradition of interpretive criticism as they developed it within the field of literary and cultural theory. The argument builds from the assumptions that (1) the work of these two very different critics provides important methodological insights regarding the nature of interpretation; (2) these insights have general application across the human and social sciences; and (3) their application is integral to the role of the public intellectual as educator. Central to the argument is that the prime responsibility of the public educator is not to mark out her or his own value position, but to ensure that there are the necessary civic spaces for others to do so – and, crucially, that these spaces are kept open. Holding open the civic spaces is the duty and moral responsibility of the public educator as interpretive critic.