Call for Papers for both events and publications.
CFP: ACCESS Special Issue - Leadership for Justice
Deadline: Sep 1, 2021
‘Leadership’ studies have focussed around the relationship between the leaders and the led; but what about the wider implications, the consequences for the not-led? How can leadership become more oriented to wider issues of social justice rather than to the efficacy of their leadership within their own institutions? The current world amply rewards those who can lead their followers, be they in corporations, schools or universities, to success in competitive terms. Can leadership success be evaluated in terms more embedded in notions of ethics, aesthetics, and social justice?
We look forward to receiving your submission.
CFP: Call for Papers for Special Issue of Educational Philosophy and Theory Title:
Deadline: Oct 29, 2021
Call for Papers for EPAT Special Issue
Title: Teaching About Climate Change in the Midst of Ecological Crisis: Professional and Ethical Responsibilities
Editors: Dr Jennifer Bleazby; Dr Ilana Finefter-Ronsebluh; Associate Professor Gilbert Bugh; Associate Professor Mary Graham; Associate Professor Alan Reid; Dr Simone Thornton.
Abstract: As UNESCO (2019) states, “climate change is the defining challenge of our time” and education is “an essential element for mounting an adequate response to it”. As part of our collective moral responsibility for addressing climate change, teachers have specific responsibilities, including helping students to understand climate science and encouraging students to develop pro-environmental values and behaviours. However, these responsibilities can give rise to ethical or professional dilemmas, which may impede quality climate change education. For example, because of the politicised public debate about climate change, teachers may fear accusations of political indoctrination if they encourage students to accept, and act on, climate science (Kissling and Bell, 2020). Problematically, this leads many teachers to adopt a ‘teaching the controversy’ approach – i.e., they teach ‘both sides’ of the debate in neutral a manner (Colston, N.M. & Vadjunec, J.M., 2015). Such dilemmas can be even more pronounced when teaching within the context of ecological crises, like the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires, as such crises can further provoke intense feelings and public debate about climate change. Educational philosophy is pertinent to understanding and responding to these issues, especially literature on indoctrination; values education; the teaching of controversial topics; epistemological criteria and curriculum content; student voice and student participation rights; and teacher professional ethics.
We invite submissions that explore any of the following themes or related topics:
• What sorts of ethical responsibilities, if any, do teachers have, and what sorts of dilemmas might they encounter, when teaching about climate change, especially in the context of ecological crises?
• Should teachers support students’ environmental activism, such as the School Strike 4 the Climate?
• Do some forms of climate change education constitute political indoctrination and, if so, does this make them unethical?
• Should teachers teach the claims of climate change deniers, alongside climate science? If so, how should they be taught and what is their epistemological status?
• How can teachers foster their students’ capacities for independent thinking and autonomy while actively encouraging them to adopt pro-environmental values?
• Should teachers use ecological crises, like the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires, to promote pro-environmental values and behaviours or is this emotionally manipulative or insensitive?
• What philosophies, policies and practices might educators use to overcome these issues with climate change education (in particular, we welcome papers that examine indigenous philosophies and pedagogies; Philosophy for Children/Community of inquiry; pragmatist, feminist and non-Western theories).
Colston, N.M. & Vadjunec, J.M. (2015). A critical political ecology of consensus: On ‘‘Teaching Both Sides” of climate change controversies. Geoforum, 65, 255-265.
Foss, A.W. & Yekang, K. (2019) Barriers and opportunities for climate change education: The case of Dallas-Fort Worth in Texas, The Journal of Environmental Education, 50(3), 145-159.
Hand, M. (2008). What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213-228.
Humphreys, C. & Blenkinsop, S. (2017). White Paper Concerning Philosophy of Education and Environment. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 243–264.
Kvamme, O. A. (2019). School Strikes, Environmental Ethical Values, and Democracy, Sustainability and Education: Philosophical Perspectives, 8(1), 6-27.
Kissling, T. & Bell, J.T. (2020). Teaching social studies amid ecological crisis, Theory & Research in Social Education, 48(1), 1-31.
UNESCO (2019). Country Progress on Climate Change Education, Training and Public-Awareness: An analysis of country submissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris: UNESCO.
• April 9th, 2021: Due date for submission of abstract of 200-300 words
• by April 30th, 2021: Decisions on abstracts
• October 29th, 2021: Submission of 6000 word manuscript for review
• December, 10th: Reviews completed
• January 7th, 2022: Resubmissions of manuscript for re-review (if needed)
• Mid 2022: Publication on line in hard copy as soon as space available
CFP: Journal: Educational Philosophy and Theory
Deadline: Jul 1, 2021
Humility in Educational Philosophy and Theory
Special Issue Editors:
Key Words: humilities, virtues, comparative philosophy, moral education, Confucianism, Buddhism
Humility is regarded as beneficial for individuals, relationships, and society. It is believed to increase personal well-being and tolerance of difference, and enhance interpersonal relationships. Scholars recommend that schools educate young people for “cultural humility”, “democratic/civic humility”, and “intellectual humility”. Cultural humility involves self-reflection when interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds (Haynes-Mendez & Engelsmeier, 2020). Button (2016) recommends democratic humility as “recognition that we are in need of ethical dispositions in accordance with which we can live within the multiple and increasingly heightened tensions of our ontological-historical condition” (p. 855). Intellectual humility refers to accurate and sincere recognition of epistemic limitations of oneself and others (Pritchard, 2020; Spiegel, 2012; Tanesini, 2018).
Educating for humility could be regarded as an important element and goal of education as it helps students realise their limitations and consider different (even opposite) perspectives (Pritchard, 2020; Spiegel, 2012). However, as with other virtues, humility may be conceptualised and expressed differently across diverse cultural communities. In relation, how to educate for humility may look different in schools around the world. Meanwhile, some evidence suggests that education actually decreases people’s level of humility, particularly in western societies, at odds with the goals of those interested in moral and values education.
In western philosophy, humility is seen to have two components, as inwardly and outwardly directed: as a personal state, and a disposition toward others. Before the late nineteenth century, many western philosophers, such as Spinoza, Nietzsche, Kant, Sidgwick, and others following Aristotelian and liberal traditions, saw humility as a lack of rational understanding, self-abasement, or underestimation of moral worth. Since the last few decades, more scholars identify humility with non-overestimation of moral self-worth. In view of human vulnerabilities, they state that it is important to recognise human imperfections and develop a realistic sense of self.
Similar to western ideas, humility in Confucianism is an inner virtue and outward demeanour (Rushing, 2013). The fundamental ideas concerning human life purposes start with self-cultivation (修身) (Tu, 1985). With a view that “the self is both the seeker and the impeder” (Li, 2016, p. 153) in self-cultivation, Confucianism contends that self-conceit (自大), hubris (自负), arrogance (傲慢), and complacence (自以为是/洋洋得意) impede this process (Li, 2016; Rushing, 2013). These feelings are dangerous as they lead people to become self-satisfied, overestimate themselves, and make mistakes that can lead to moral and other kinds of failure.
Few researchers have comparatively examined philosophies of humility, and while many recommend its benefits, how to teach for humility within a particular cultural context, in light of the political challenges it may pose (e.g., political submission), has also not yet been systematically explored.
This call for papers invites explorations of the philosophical and theoretical roots underpinning different conceptions of humility, and their implications for education. We particularly invite contributions which:
• Compare the role of humility across different philosophical traditions (for example, East and West, or different religious and metaphysical views)
• Develop critical analyses of the political implications of promoting humility in education in different cultural and social contexts
• Trace how distinctive philosophical and political views of humility link to educational models and practices
• Consider humility in connection to views of self-other relations and amidst other complementary or competing virtues (for instance, vulnerability, courage, openness, prudence, and gratitude)
Final papers for peer review should be no more than 6,000 words in length, including references. A guide for authors, sample issues, and other relevant information is available on the EPAT website https://pesa.org.au/our-publications.