Face‐to‐face with children

This paper investigates the motivational power of children to change teachers' beliefs about teaching. Weekly and summary reflections written by 18 preservice teachers served as data sources. Preservice teachers were learning from the children what they expect their teachers to know, to do, and to be, and in consequence of the face‐to‐face encounters with children, teachers were likely to establish and change their beliefs about children and how to teach. Teacher educators may encourage this learning by asking preservice teachers, during and after their work in classrooms, to respond to the questions: ‘As I related to the children, what did they require from me?’, and ‘How did I respond to these demands?’. The work of Emmanuel Levinas on the relationship in the face‐to‐face encounter between people provided an interpretive framework for evaluating responses to these questions.     

Regulating Academic Pressure: From Fast to Slow

This paper investigates the impact of publication pressure on the ethics and the scientific integrity in the domain of mathematics and of the arts. Both research fields are specific in their methodology, being that they do not start from a classical hypothesis and researchers in these areas are not knowing what the outcome will be. The research design is open, and creativity is a main part of the research investigation. Both research fields do not rely on empirical cases nor on data collection or data handling. This could be a reason why mathematics and arts seem to be less subject to scientific misconduct. After presenting the (inter)national regulations on ethics and integrity, we will investigate a philosophical analysis in which we consider possible influences from publication pressure that became widespread over all disciplines. We will clarify if and how mathematics and the arts are sensitive to scientific research misconduct or questionable research practices.     

Lines of Testimony

The topic of testimony has gained increased prominence in recent years in epistemology, where it is typically taken to refer to the possible acquisition of knowledge through the understanding and acceptance of someone else's judgement. There is no doubt that learning in this way is a prominent feature of education. This conception of testimony contrasts, however, with the more restricted way in which it is commonly understood: everyday usage situates the concept in such contexts as places of worship and courts of law. Testimony in these contexts is likely to be seen by the epistemologist as a special case of testimony in the wider sense, but is this accurate? With reference to contrasting traditions in philosophy and drawing on examples from film and literature, this paper considers the relationship between the epistemological and the everyday senses of testimony, exploring the significance of these matters for questions of teaching and learning as well as for the understanding of language as a whole.     

The Research Community Philosophy and History of the Discipline of Education: A Retrospect of Collaborative Research over Two Decades. Continued—Part Two

The Research Community ‘Philosophy and History of the Discipline of Education’ was established in 1999. First an overview is given of the two main areas into which the more than 180 chapters published in 12 books can be grouped. In general the papers are addressing ‘internal’ educational research topics and more ‘external’ relations. The suite of papers in this issue continues the selection of material presented during the 2017 and 2018 meetings and follow on from the suite published in an issue of this journal earlier this year (54:3). Next, the suite of papers appearing in this issue is introduced. In this, and the preceding suite, aspects of the production and acceleration, as well as of the (re)presentation, dissemination and reception of educational research are brought into focus.     

Who Should Pay for Higher Education?

Policies that shift the costs of higher education from the taxpayer to the university student or graduate are increasingly popular, yet they have not been subjected to a thorough normative analysis. This paper provides a critical survey of the standard arguments that have been used in the public debate on higher education funding. These arguments are found to be wanting. In their place, the paper offers a more systematic approach for dealing with the normative issues raised by the funding of higher education. This approach is drawn from the political theory of John Rawls, whose view seeks to reconcile the values of equality, efficiency, and liberty. I show that, contrary to what we may think at first, an egalitarian approach like Rawls' does not in principle rule out policies that shift the funding burden from taxpayers to students or graduates. Which funding policy that approach selects as most fair will instead depend on the likely impact on the lifetime income prospects of the worst‐off group in society, and this is a question which will need to be settled by empirical evidence.