This article investigates the pedagogies of philosophy and specifically the form of dialogue, especially in its most recent neopragmatist minimalist conversational version promoted by Richard Rorty as the basis of liberal learning which we problematize by considering the advent of user-generated cultures. We argue that «street talk» is a more progressive model for philosophy and pedagogy than dialogue because it is not a conversation of co-seekers after truth and does not require a condition of formal equality among participants. By contrast, street talk as a model and metaphor for philosophy and pedagogy proceeds on the rule-breaking epistemological assumption of «anything goes» based on local knowledge or «street cred». Street talk is not bound by institutional rules and there are no entry criteria; it is expressed in the vernacular, the local dialect, and becomes expressive of the local culture.
The academic genre has been challenged from many different angles, such as poststructuralist perspectives on language, on the subject, and on the university as an institution for research and education. The question of genre has been one of Jacques Derridas most important philosophical issues, maybe even the most important throughout his philosophical career. The genre of the thesis is both an institution in itself and an important part of the institution of academia. These institutions might be challenged both by the writings of Derrida and by the writing of candidates inspired by him. The topic of this article is: How to identify and describe these challenges, and in so doing explore some implications concerning how we think about the text in relation to the principle of reason, the researcher – and the university.
This article explores shifts in the determination of truth in Foucault and Derrida. A conservative counter trend is identified as the desire to restore a proper relation in the truth of educational research. The relation to truth is inevitably a matter of genre – of the attempt to decree, explicitly or implicitly, what is proper to the domain, to the discourse and its social relations. In the doctoral thesis – that defines the integrity of properly validated knowledge – the relation to truth is, potentially, put into play. The thesis has no determinate genre; even though it is always constrained by the ghostly genre that decrees what is proper to it. This article explores this strange, spectral condition.
In this article we argue that there are several similarities between the process of Bildung and the process of producing a modern monography. A short historical summary of Bildung and hermeneutics is given, followed by a discussion concerning the positioning and conceptualization of the individual within the process of Bildung, which is then criticized from a poststructuralist perspective, so as to suggest how the modern monography might be developed to include an alternative view. Here, knowledge is seen to arise from the interaction of both conscious and unconscious processes, implying the necessity for a different type of research which takes into account ruptures, gaps, inconsistencies and irregularities, as opposed to looking for meaning, unity and consistencies. Presenting examples of postmodern monographies, we argue that the modern thesis needs to expand and/or change to allow for these new modes of research to develop.
The article briefly introduces a normative and epistemological backdrop to our institutional mapping of knowledge. The assignment given to higher education may be said, in very general terms, to contribute to our knowledge of how to cope with life locally and globally in acceptable and possibly innovative and better ways. Our knowledge bases put to use through institutional maps of knowledge are challenged as our coping is questioned. New relations between practise and theory, transdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning, are requested. The central paragraph of the Norwegian Act relating to Universities and University Colleges is used as case of institutional mapping and a pretext for discussing knowledge bases put to use. It is argued that the Acts provision of alternative career tracks might provide an opportunity bridging gaps between theory and practise. The alternative track of «førstelektor» is seen to comply with the international trend towards designing professional doctorates, and additionally to meet the challenges of contemporary society.
The doctoral dissertation and its accompanying disputation are considered the epitome of the acadeamic institution. They consecrate the aspiring scholar, but their mission and position is far from clear in todays academia. The arrival of the professional doctorate and the doctorate by journal publication represent new innovations that challenge not only the conception of the doctorate but also how it is to be achieved. This article has three parts. Firstly an examination of the genealogy of the disputation from the Greeks to the point when it joins with the dissertation. Secondly, a consideration of the relation between the text of the doctoral dissertation and its oral defence. Thirdly, facing the challenge of new doctoral forms an argument is made to re-think and re-conceptualise the ontological space of the dissertation and disputation.
This article distinguishes between a traditional and a post-modern view of the emergence and assessment of scientific texts. The traditional view is characterised by dialogue, tradition, and emotionality, all of which are protected by a meta-narrative. Postmodern science, on the other hand, is characterized by antagonisms, battles and sudden appearances. It is argued that the activity of assessment turns out differently in the two kinds of science. In traditional science, assessment is liked to organic formative feedbacks, which may have tacit dimensions. In postmodernity, it is argued, assessment is not really possible at all. Only the content-oriented and hard working criticism is possible. In this way, postmodern assessment somehow returns to a more traditional view.
Since the time of the Enlightenment we have believed in scientific genres, publication and the fixed roles of the writer/researcher and the public as consumer/reader. In this essay these beliefs are dislodged and seen in another light and as «out of joint». A number of themes are explored: publication as a form of confession for the general public, science as narrative and scientific truth as something always something decided in the future meeting between the reader/informants, rather than simply within the circle of the scientific community.