On the Virtues of van Manen's Argument: A Response to “Pedagogy, Virtue, and Narrative Identity in Teaching”

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

There is much to applaud in the provocative article by Max van Manen. Indeed it would be difficult for anyone to object to fostering mensenkennis, nurturing the pedagogical relation, developing virtue, and encouraging teachers to express themselves through narrative. Even the most technocratic, bureaucratic, plutocratic American policymaker is likely to assent to these noble aspirations. The problem is not with the goals themselves, but with their precise definition, means of implementation, and the subsequent appraisal of their consequences. Van Manen has many good things to say about these features as well, though there are, in my view, problems that must be acknowledged before one's heart and soul are completely absorbed by his lofty aspirations for pedagogy. Let me mention a few of the more modest concerns before moving on to matters that I regard as more serious. The first is simply a caution, applicable to all scholars in education. Diligence must be exercised when drawing a connection between the kinds of research done in a nation and the nature of teaching that takes place in that nation. Van Manen may be correct in his assertion that the educational research of many American scholars is intellectualistic, rationalistic, instrumentalist, technical, and analytical (his choice of terms). That U.S. educational research might have these characteristics does not mean that the teaching that goes on in American classrooms has these characteristics, a perceptual error that van Manen invites us to make in the early portions of the paper, then partially repairs as the piece nears its conclusion. We cannot and should notjudge the character of a nation's pedagogy from the character of that nation's pedagogical research. The second minor matter is also cautionary. North America includes Mexico. This fact is not readily apparent in van Manen's use of the term