Learned Societies, Practitioners and their ‘Professional’ Societies: Grounds for developing closer links

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

A learned society in the eighteenth century was primarily a group of men, intellectually curious and congenial, who met together to talk. Often they did nothing more. (Fay, 1932, p. 260)

Introduction

This editorial is based on an address to the New Zealand Association of Philosophy Teachers on 25 September 2015. In the address, I wanted to explore the ground between practitioners (in this case, teachers of philosophy in schools) and learned societies, such as the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA). I wanted to demonstrate that membership of a practitioner-oriented association (what I termed a ‘professional’ association) is unlike membership of a learned society. There is another, less obvious, point to these deliberations, and this would be for the leadership and membership of learned societies (such as PESA) to consider what it may mean to accommodate practitioners.

Learned societies have a long history, evolving from bodies outside universities with amorphous interests into the discipline-focused, university-linked societies of the present time. A parallel development in contemporary times is that of societies or associations serving the needs of practitioners, and I want to make the bold claim that these are ‘professional’ bodies, the key difference between them being that while learned societies exist to advance their society cause primarily by research and dissemination, the ‘professional’ societies exist to support their members who work in practice. There is, however, reason to argue that closer working relationships between practitioners (and their associations) and learned societies will be of mutual benefit.

A background to Learned Societies: Renaissance to Enlightenment

Early forms of the learned society were the Renaissance academies that emerged in the fifteenth century. A notable feature of these academies was their exclusive membership located outside the university, and their commitment to a diverse range of issues—the specialised academies or societies devoted, for example to the sciences, would emerge later (Yates, 1988, cited by Hopkins, 2011). As Fay, (1932) noted, however, even in the eighteenth century, many of the publications of these academies, following the tradition of the encyclopaedia, were a chaotic collection of a range of topics from the sublime to the ridiculous. Efforts at systematisation were often fruitless. These diverse interests reflected an Enlightenment commitment to progress, and running alongside was a quest by societies to be practical and find useful applications for these diverse subjects.

Evans (1977) outlined three types of learned society operating in seventeenth-century Europe, namely those committed to the development of language purity and literary appreciation, those that brought together philosophers and nascent scientists, and finally, those that had a narrower focus on specific vocational development. The effectiveness of these societies was, however, stunted by a simultaneous preservation of Renaissance elitism and an Enlightened development of practical progress (1977).

Learned societies in France enjoyed their greatest period of growth between1730 and 1760. Indeed, this pattern was being repeated throughout Europe, in Germany, the Scandinavian states and England, as the activity of the learned societies increased. The example of Europe was to be followed in distant America, when, as early as I744 (Fay, 1932), an attempt was made to found a learned society. All societies were driven by Renaissance curiosity (1932).

Despite the prestige of the Royal Society of London, established in 1662, its form was ‘primarily scientific [and] too rigid for the tastes and needs of the eighteenth century. The local learned societies, which flourished after 1740 … had a wider field of activity. All “useful” learning was welcomed. The spirit of the Encyclopédie was triumphant’ (1932, p. 257). In 1727, after a visit to London, American Founding Father and scientist, Benjamin Franklin, formed a mutual aid society, at which intellectual and scientific questions were discussed, and all events were considered from a human and scientific point of view. This group led to Franklin’s establishment of the American Philosophical Society in 1743 (1932).

Modern Learned Societies

By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the university star was in the ascendant, and while the academies of Europe supported the creation of knowledge, they found themselves increasingly sidelined by universities, which were seen to be in the business of transmitting knowledge. As universities increased their research role, so the influence of academies waned even further (Kors, 2008, cited by Hopkins, 2011).

The rise of a journal culture, and of academics publishing their research in journals further marginalised academies, though they later began to engage in the business of publishing journals (Heilbron, 2003, cited in Hopkins, 2011), a tradition that continues with today’s societies and associations. This involvement provided an ongoing role for academies. In addition, these organisations have promoted ways of honouring the academic achievements of their members (McClellan & Dorn, 2006, cited in Hopkins, 2011).

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the specialist discipline academies and societies evolved, developing a specific focus. Hopkins suggested a definition of these modern societies:

Modern learned societies exist to promote an academic discipline, sub-discipline or field. They do this through encouraging research, providing a forum for exchange and the means for research to be disseminated. They are not-for-profit organisations that do not exist primarily for the benefit or prestige of their members and are highly accessible to interested individuals and groups. Their primary functions are:

•	facilitating exchange and networking amongst its members through meetings and conferences;
•	publishing journals and book series;
•	awarding prizes and bursaries;
•	providing educational and developmental opportunities;
•	representing its discipline, sub-discipline or field in wider society (2011, p. 259. Emphasis added).

Given this definition, it is a fruitful task to consider some examples of societies and associations that bear closely on the work of teachers and philosophers of education, and to consider the degree of fit these have with the definition provided by Hopkins.

Examples of Twenty-first Century Societies and Associations: The Case of ‘Professional Societies’ Advancing Philosophy Teaching in Schools

Following Foucault (1994), it may be suggested that language expresses a discourse about society and its various institutions and arrangements. Discourse goes beyond a simple sign or reference system to thinking about the ways in which language shapes social practices. With this approach in mind, I will briefly outline key points regarding a small sample of contemporary societies, drawn from self-descriptive statements made on their respective websites. These provide insight into their constitution, aims and practices, marking them out as ‘professional’ societies.

SAPERE: Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education http://www.sapere.org.uk. Matthew Lipman’s Philosophy for Children approach inspired this charity, founded in 1992. Its focus is to embed Philosophy for Children in schools, and to network with providers of initial teacher education. It is managed by a Board of Trustees, and offers an annual conference with a practice focus. For example, it bills its 2015 conference as an opportunity to ‘explore P4C and Self-Regulation strategies in schools’ (SAPERE, 2015, ‘Other Information & Dates’. Emphasis in the original). SAPERE offers members a bulletin and various online resources. Membership is open, currently £30 annually.

SOPHIA: European Foundation for the Advancement of Doing Philosophy with Children http://www.sophianetwork.eu. Established in 1993 as a foundation, it was based at the University of Amsterdam. Membership of its board is open only to those who represent a charity, company or educational institution. Board positions fall vacant every 4 years, and are filled by self-nomination, voting taking place only if nominations exceed positions available. It holds annual network meetings, focusing on professional development activities for members and opportunities to network with other European members engaged in Philosophy with Children. Examples of topics for consideration at a recent annual network meeting include, ‘Philosophy and Kinaesthetic Learners’; ‘Thinking to Learn, Learning to Think’; ‘Philosophical Enquiry in Role’; and ‘What is a soul?’ (SOPHIA, 2015, ‘2014 SOPHIA Network Meeting PROGRAMME’ (sic)). Tiered subscription allows free membership (with limited access to online resources), and two levels of paid membership, the top rate being 60€ biannually, which provides full access to resources.

FAPSA: Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations http://fapsa.org.au is a non-profit linking affiliated associations in Australian states, New Zealand and Singapore. It promotes the aims of these affiliates and engages in widespread promotion of the teaching of philosophy in schools, acknowledging, in particular, the influence of Philosophy for Children. Its council, which consists of representatives of each association, elects one of these affiliates biannually to form the executive of the council. FAPSA, like SOPHIA, achieves its aims by offering teachers professional development (including training courses leading to certification), and networking opportunities through conferences and meetings. Recent conference subjects include, ‘Deep reflective thinking through collaborative philosophical inquiry’; ‘Philosophy in the foreign language classroom’ and ‘What contribution can philosophy make to school education?’ (FAPSA, 2011, ‘Past Conferences’). More recently, FAPSA has established its Journal of Philosophy of Education http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/jps/index, published once annually, since 2014. Paid up members have access to back issues of Critical & Creative Thinking, offering a wide range of articles authored by several notable names in the field of Philosophy for Children and philosophy in schools. Membership extends beyond the affiliates to include individuals. Individual membership is tiered, the cost of full individual membership being $30 (AUD) and $75 (AUD) for institutions.

What are the discourses that may be perceived when examining these websites? Promotion is a prevalent discourse, primarily the promotion of the teaching of philosophy in schools. The organisations referred to here are generally oriented towards Philosophy for Children, though there is an underlying discourse of alternative language use (such as ‘philosophy in schools’ and ‘K–12’), suggesting a bid for broader appeal. The language of promotion is focused on the positive benefits of ensuring some form of philosophy teaching or concepts are made available to schools, arguably as a corrective to the dominance of literacy and numeracy in the primary phase and examination-orientation in the secondary.

A further prevalent discourse is that of networking, a peculiarly neoliberal and technological label that has deeply infiltrated the English language. It now carries notions of power (that comes from being a ‘good networker’, or ‘well networked’) and influence (as in having ‘strong networks’ or ‘wide networks’), and is an implied requirement for disseminating knowledge and expertise. Networking may occur across organisations and nations, or within organisations (such as at meetings and conferences).

Knowledge dissemination is common to the examples above, and along with professional development, may be said to be a central rationale for the existence of these bodies. The two work hand in hand, with bulletins, journals and website links and resources providing a steady stream of knowledge and resources. Unsurprisingly, a feature of much of the knowledge being disseminated is its heavy focus on practice, with many ‘tips for teachers’ or useful ways to employ philosophical processes to address many issues students may encounter in their daily lives.

Finally, matters of governance create a discourse around such matters as rules of constitution, governing body and election to that body and categories of membership. A notable, but subtle discourse is that of access related to membership, and, in some cases, providing differential access based on category of membership. Here, the Foucauldian idea of discourses indicating who may speak, on which matters and with what authority is ironically embedded in the size of membership subscription!

These discourses indicate some relationship to the functions outlined by Hopkins (2011, p. 259), namely:

•	facilitating exchange and networking amongst its members through meetings and conferences;
•	providing educational and developmental opportunities;
•	representing its discipline, sub-discipline or field in wider society

There seems, however, less certainty in regard to these items:

•	publishing journals and book series;
•	awarding prizes and bursaries

The notable exception to the first of these two items being FAPSA, which does in fact support an academic journal that follows scholarly conventions, notably double-blind peer review, and is edited by practicing academic scholars. Ultimately, what may be the deciding factor in establishing whether a particular body is a learned society, rests, it seems, on the first part of Hopkins (2011) definition: ‘Modern learned societies exist to promote an academic discipline, sub-discipline or field. They do this through encouraging research, providing a forum for exchange and the means for research to be disseminated’ (p. 259). It is research, I argue, that can help to provide the link between a learned, or perhaps, academic society or association, and one that may otherwise be thought of as a professional society.

Closer to Home

These societies are ‘professional’, in the sense that they exist for the benefit of members, who happen also to be people working in schools to promote philosophy. By the definition Hopkins (2011) provided, they are not, however, ‘learned’, ‘academic’ or ‘scholarly’, primarily because they do not promote their aims through research (but rather through other functions, such as promoting professional development).

Rather than falling into a binary between research and teaching, or theory and practice, I consider engaging with this situation, and for this purpose, focus on the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) which exists to ‘promote research and teaching in philosophy of education (PESA, 2015, “President’s Welcome”)’. These words suggest a common link to those whose interest is to teach philosophy in schools. Indeed, more so as several PESA members work in one form or another with teacher education at the university level.

How closely does PESA match the definition of a learned society provided by Hopkins (2011)? Before responding, note must be made of an additional question posed by Hopkins, namely whether such bodies work altruistically on behalf of their members, or whether they have as their chief aim knowledge creation and dissemination. The answer is significant for practitioners, who find themselves outside of the traditional university environment, with less time, and possibly, less inclination, to pursue knowledge creation and dissemination. In other words, creating research is likely to be less important to practitioners than the practical application and use of knowledge in practice. Thus, what I call ‘professional societies’ exist to support practitioners in their work (and to advance the cause of, in the cases discussed here, the teaching of philosophy in schools), and to this extent, it may be argued that they are more member focussed. PESA, as a learned or academic society, is however, more society focussed, as its key driver is to promote the advancement of philosophy of education, through research and teaching of philosophy of education. It is this research focus, I argue, that can benefit school practitioners just as it supports academic practitioners.

There are significant mutual benefits to be derived from cultivating closer relationships between practitioners and learned societies. Hopkins (2011), in his examination of the Regional Studies Association, established in the United Kingdom in 1965, suggested that relationships with practitioners provide expanded networking possibilities, and promote knowledge exchange. It may also be argued that such knowledge exchange recognises knowledge as a public good (see Peters, Liu, & Ondercin, 2012 on knowledge as a public good).

Closer relationships may, however, require some changes on the part of learned societies. Conferences are a key event where practitioners can engage with current research. Where learned societies sponsor or arrange conferences, I would suggest, though, that reconstitution to accommodate practitioners requires some realignment or reorganisation of such conferences, so as to provide appropriate opportunities for practitioners to contribute, in ways that their participation is not marginalised. Stimulating academic conferences can (and ought) provide members the opportunity to share their ideas with colleagues, and also to be invigorated, sustained and impassioned to further their own interest and expertise in philosophical ideas by the presentations of others. For practitioners, there is an opportunity to bring their interests and concerns to the attention of academic members, many of whom, as earlier indicated in regard to PESA, are engaged in various aspects of initial teacher education.

A further possibility indicated by Hopkins (2011), is for learned societies to incorporate policy influence into their activities. PESA is well placed to contribute to curriculum debates over whether philosophy may be pursued in classrooms, and if so, how and in what form. Haynes (2009) indicated that policy intervention, in the form of comment, for example, was approved as appropriate for PESA, this in light of the declining official and university support for philosophy of education. Here too is an area of common interest and concern for philosophers of education and philosophy teachers in schools: both parties desire similar outcomes, albeit it in several education sectors—practitioners seek the opportunity for philosophy to be seriously regarded for inclusion in the curriculum offerings of primary and secondary schools, while philosophers of education promote the significance of their discipline as a foundational educational study. Both parties face similar threats of marginalisation by the neoliberal focus on literacy, numeracy and STEM, whether in schools or in teacher education programmes.

Journal publications raise some interesting challenges and opportunities for editors and practitioners. There is no doubt that practitioners will benefit by reading scholarly material related to their field of practice interest, but teachers in particular have limited opportunities for reading. An additional brake on reading is the intentionally dense and impenetrable prose style of many scholarly writers whose contributions practitioners perceive as irrelevant and unhelpful. Learned societies such as PESA may do well to consider appropriate communication and dissemination channels that provide both scholars engaged in the philosophy of education, and practitioners engaged in developing programmes of philosophy in schools, with opportunities to share experiences, expertise and theoretical reflection on issues of mutual interest. In this regard, although societies can live or die by their subscription base, there may be considerable value in pursuing an online-only, open-access publication option. There are several additional reasons to consider more deeply the role of a formal publication, such as a journal, with a practitioner focus, that is linked to a learned society. One of these is to open up the field of interest of practitioners to a wider, international audience.

Conclusion

The ground for seeking some kind of closer relationship between practitioners (the example here being teachers of philosophy in schools) and learned or academic societies (the example here being the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia) is a fertile one. That being said, any process of breaking new ground presents significant challenges. Not least amongst these would be the arguments of some academic philosophers of education that what passes for ‘philosophy’ in schools is not philosophy at all. This suggestion deepens the theory–practice bifurcation, although practitioners will find that challenging this critique provides a perfect dialogical opportunity! A further challenge is that practitioners will not find in a learned society the kind of member-focused provision of practical resources. Instead, they will find a society-wide focus on knowledge creation and dissemination, but also a stimulating and varied space in which to craft and hone their own philosophical skills and knowledge. The opportunity exists, however, for practitioners to bring the value of their practical experience to a forum where this experience will find itself in a dialectical relationship with the research being developed by their academic counterparts. Ultimately, such new links will enrich both academics and practitioners, and with it, their common goal to promote and develop philosophical thought, ideas and dialogue.

Leon Benade
School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand