The research potential of educational theory: On the specific characteristics of the issues of education

Abstract

In this article, I present the argument that educational theory has specific character, which distinguishes it from most scientific disciplines. It requires the application of not only strictly scientific methods, which essentially consist of descriptions and explanations, but also normative ones, which indicate how it is related to philosophy and ethics. Its essential connections with philosophy and ethics cause that clear and final thesis (e.g. about educational aims) are actually impossible to claim, but from the other hand, it is the only discipline (excluding normative ethics) which, according to its definition, tries to answer practical-moral questions.The crucial elements of this analysis are (1) the presentation of the justification of a thesis on the specific character of educational theory, which will be accomplished with the concept of “research potential”, formulated for its purposes, and (2) showing the consequences of this particular characteristic of the discipline being discussed.

Keywords:

• Philosophy of education
• educational theory
• normative ethics
• aims of education

Notes

1. A precise definition of research potential is provided later in the text.

2. For example metatheoretical, metamethodological, theoretical-practical, theoretical, practical (Palka, 2006, p. 20).

3. A similar interpretation is provided by J.M. Bocheński, who, when addressing the issue of verifiability, distinguishes the technical, physical, transempirical and logical possibility (Bocheński, 2009, p. 66).

4. I omit here discussions concerning the scientific status of philosophy. I only point out that we can find various opinions on this issue, from those granting philosophy the status of a science by attributing a scientific nature to it strictly in a broad sense to those absolutely rejecting said status.

5. For more on philosophy of education, see for example Siegel (2009), Dupuis and Gordon (2010), Phillips and Siegel (2013)

6. For more on this issue, see for example Frankena (1973).

7. I omit here discussions concerning possible interpretations of Aristotle’s position on the issue of the scope of the concept of the supreme good, i.e. inclusivism and intellectualism. For more on this issue, see for example Hughes (2003).

8. For more on this issue, see for example Brighouse (2009), Siegel (2009).

9. In this passage, I refer to passages from my doctoral dissertation concerning the analysis of the concept of wisdom and its educational implications. The dissertation was written at Jagiellonian University, under the guidance of Krystyna Ablewicz, Ph.D.