Advertisement

A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online: What does it offer and what are the difficulties?

  • Michael Hammond
Article

Abstract

This paper is an exploration of the relevance of Habermas’s social theory for understanding meaning making in the context of shared online interaction. It describes some of the key ideas within Habermas’s work, noting the central importance it gives to the idea of communicative action - a special kind of discourse in which there is ‘no other force than that of the better argument’ and no other motive other than ‘the cooperative search for truth’. The paper then turns to the referencing of Habermas by educationalists in general and by supporters of online discussion in particular. It argues that a Habermasian perspective on meaning making is one in which participants strive for ‘genuine consensus’ by interrogating their own beliefs while actively engaging with opposing points of view. The value of this approach is that it introduces a concern for validity or truth into discussion of knowledge building and discriminates between emancipatory and strategic goals. While critics would argue that genuine consensus is not achievable, from Habermas we can better understand the importance of striving for such consensus.

Keywords

Intersubjectivity Habermas Critical theory CSCL 

References

  1. Anderson, B. (2004). Dimensions of learning and support in an online community. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, R. (2006). The role of ICT in bridge building and social inclusion: Theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamber, J., & Crowther, J. (2012). Speaking Habermas to Gramsci: Implications for the vocational preparation of community educators. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2004). The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia. London Review of Education, 2(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton, D. (2012). Participation, deliberate learning and discourses of learning online. Language and Education, 26(2), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beemer, J. (2006). Breaching the theoretical divide: Reassessing the ordinary and everyday in Habermas and Garfinkel. Sociological Theory, 24(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonamy, J., & Haugluslaine-Charlier, B. (1995). Supporting professional learning: Beyond technological support. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11(4), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boshier, R. (1990). Socio psychological factors in electronic networking. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 9(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd, G. (1996). Emancipative educational technology. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 25, 179–186.Google Scholar
  11. Brookfield, S. (2005). Learning democratic reason: The adult education project of Jürgen Habermas. The Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1127–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2002). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why? In S. Weisband (Ed.), Leadership at a distance: Research in technologically supported work (pp. 171–194). Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Cammaerts, B. (2009). Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces: The case of North Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(6), 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer.Google Scholar
  15. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Webb, C. (2000). Towards a communicative model of collaborative web-mediated learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 73–85.Google Scholar
  16. Chernela, J. (1997). The “Ideal speech moment”: Women and narrative performance in the Brazilian amazon. Feminist Studies, 23(1), 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coco, A., & Short, P. (2004). History and habit in the mobilization of ICT resources. The Information Society, 20(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., et al. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Derry, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1922/2007). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. NY: Cosimo.Google Scholar
  22. Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i + 1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48(3), 411–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Englund, T. (2006). Introduction: Jürgen Habermas and education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 499–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eve, J., & Brabazon, T. (2008). Learning to leisure? failure, flame, blame, shame, homophobia and other everyday practices in online education. The Journal of Literacy and Technology, 9(1), 36–61.Google Scholar
  25. Ewert, G. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
  27. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillespie, A., Reader, T., Cornish, F., & Campbell, C. (2014). Beyond ideal speech situations: Adapting to communication asymmetries in health care. Journal of Health Psychology, 19(1), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  30. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gunawardena, C., Hermans, M., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, 3, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Habermas, J. (2001). Why Europe needs a constitution. New Left Review, 11, 5–26.Google Scholar
  39. Habermas, J. (2005). Equal treatment of cultures and the limits of postmodern liberalism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Habermas, J., & Dews, P. (1992). Autonomy and solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  42. Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, critical social theory, and the possibility of rational discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harasim, L. (1996). Online education: The future. In T. Harrison & T. Stephen (Eds.), Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first-century university. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  44. Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1–2), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hiltz, S., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading: MA Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  47. Hiltz, R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Toroff, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2-3), 101–119.Google Scholar
  48. Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jeffries, S. (2010) A rare interview with Jürgen Habermas, 30 April 2010, Financial Times.Google Scholar
  50. Kent, G. (2013). Evidence of distorted communication as impetus for use of strategies to achieve ‘something like’ an ideal speech situation. The University of Wales Journal of Education, 16(1), 70–83.Google Scholar
  51. Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2004). The video analyst’s manifesto: (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). California: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  52. Lasker, J., Sogolow, E., & Sharim, R. (2005). The role of an online community for people with a rare disease: content analysis of messages posted on a primary biliary cirrhosis mailinglist. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1).Google Scholar
  53. Lewin, K. (1951). Resolving social conflicts. Washington: American Pyschological Association.Google Scholar
  54. Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lukes, S. (1982). Of gods and demons: Habermas and practical reason. In J. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas, critical debates (pp. 134–148). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  57. Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community. Computers and Composition, 19(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer supported collaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education, 19(3), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Paul.Google Scholar
  60. McNamee, L., Peterson, B., & Peña, J. (2010). A call to educate, participate, invoke and indict: Understanding the communication of online hate groups. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 257–280.Google Scholar
  61. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morselli, F., & Boero, P. (2009). Proving as a rational behaviour: Habermas’construct of rationality as a comprehensive frame for research on the teaching and learning of proof. Lyon: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  63. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Murphy, M., & Bamber, J. (2012). Introduction: From Fromm to Lacan: Habermas and education in conversation. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(2), 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nett, B. (2008). A community of practice among tutors enabling student participation in a seminar preparation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Neuman, W., Bimber, B., & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and four dimensions of citizenship. In G. Edwards, L. Jacobs, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and The Media (pp. 22–42).Google Scholar
  67. Outhwaite, W. (2013). Bourdieu and Habermas: ‘Linguistic exchange’ versus ‘communicative action’? A reply to Simon Susen. Social Epistemology, 27(3-4), 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pinkett, R. (2003). Community technology and community building: early results from the creating community connections project. The Information Society, 19(5), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Price, V. (2009). Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence. In T. Davies & S. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 37–58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In W. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). Ma, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in second life. Educational Research, 52(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwarz, B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stahl, G. (2011). How a virtual math team structured its problem solving. Hong Kong: Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2011).Google Scholar
  77. Susen, S. (2013). Bourdieusian reflections on language: Unavoidable conditions of the real speech situation. Social Epistemology, 27(3-4), 199–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Takahashi, M., Fujimoto, M., & Yamasaki, N. (2003). The active lurker: influence of an in-house online community on its outside environment. Florida: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomas, A. (2005). Children online: Learning in a virtual community of practice. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
  80. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wee, J. D., & Looi, C.-K. (2009). A model for analyzing math knowledge building in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 475–497). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.Google Scholar
  83. Wellman, B., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2002). The networked nature of community: Online and offline. It & Society, 1, 151–165.Google Scholar
  84. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Education Studies, Westwood CampusUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations