Misrepresenting Religious Education's Past and Present in Looking Forward: Gearon Using Kuhn's Concepts of Paradigm, Paradigm Shift and Incommensurability

Autor/in	Jackson, Robert
Titel	Misrepresenting Religious Education's Past and Present in Looking Forward: Gearon Using Kuhn's Concepts of Paradigm, Paradigm Shift and Incommensurability
Quelle	In: Journal of Beliefs & Values, 36 (2015) 1, S.64-78 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1361 7672
DOI	10.1080/13617672.2015.1014651
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Religious Education; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Educational Development; Educational History; Misconceptions; Concept Formation; Politics of Education; Sociocultural Patterns; Educational Philosophy; Psychological Patterns; Experiential Learning; Phenomenology; Hermeneutics; Educational Theories; Educational Practices; Foreign Countries; Models; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Kirchliche Erziehung; Religionserziehung; Religionspädagogik; Bildungsentwicklung; Trendanalyse; History of education; Bildungsgeschichte; Missverständnis; Concept learning; Begriffsbildung; Educational policy; Bildungspolitik; Soziokulturelle Theorie; Bildungsphilosophie; Erziehungsphilosophie; Experiental learning; Erfahrungsorientiertes Lernen; Phenomenological psychology; Phänomenologie; Psychologie; Hermeneutik; Educational theory; Theory of education; Bildungstheorie; Bildungspraxis; Ausland; Analogiemodell
Abstract	In looking to the future, some writers on religious education (RE) have attempted to evaluate current approaches to the subject. Some have characterised any significant change in approach as a "paradigm shift", a term derived from Thomas Kuhn's work in the philosophy of science. This article examines the uses of the terms "paradigm", "paradigm shift" and "incommensurability" in Liam Gearon's book "MasterClass in Religious Education". I argue that Gearon misapplies Kuhn's concepts, that his own account of paradigms of RE is internally inconsistent, and that his discussion--partly through placing the views of others within a rigid framework of constructed paradigms--contains some misrepresentations of their work. The critique is pertinent to the debate about the nature and future of RE for, if evaluations of present and past models of RE are defective, their use in re-thinking the shape and content of the subject is highly questionable. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01