Article Summary
Toward An Integrated “In All Things” Based Ignatian
Teaching and Theory Building Epistemology
Abstract
While Ignatian teaching epistemology is relatively well developed, it is less so for theory
building epistemology within the social sciences and professional schools. This issue is
particularly important for research universities and research oriented professors where
teaching and research are much more closely joined, particularly in Ph.D. and some
masters level programs. A three moment Ignatian teaching epistemology is: (1) inductive
attention to “God in all things;” (2) hermeneutic interpretation of meaning; and, (3)
loving praxis. This is similar to the first three moments of a four moment Aristotelian
theory building epistemology of: (1) experience based induction; (2) hermeneutic
interpretation (what Aristotle referred to as theoria and is different from the fourth
moment theory building); (3) ethical praxis; and, (4) praxis based theory building. That
fourth theory building Aristotelian moment can be integrated with the three moment
Ignatian process. This integration can be considered from both a theological “In All
Things” perspective and a philosophical Aristotelian perspective. Within social science
based conflict transformation, socioeconomic development, organization development,
action learning, positive psychology, and positive organizational studies, this four
moment Aristotelian theory building epistemology is often implicitly used. This article
compares an Ignatian pedagogical epistemology with an Aristotelian theory building
epistemology. It then considers examples of Jesuits and other social scientists who have
used this four moment epistemological process. Implications for research and theory
building within Jesuit colleges and universities are considered. [Following is a summary
of the full article that is being developed.]
Richard P. Nielsen, Professor
Department of Management and Organization
Boston College
Fulton Hall 436
Carroll School of Management
[email protected]
1
Article Summary
Toward An Integrated “In All Things” Based Ignatian
Teaching and Theory Building Epistemology
Abstract
While Ignatian teaching epistemology is relatively well developed, it is less so for theory
building epistemology within the social sciences and professional schools. This issue is
particularly important for research universities and research oriented professors where
teaching and research are much more closely joined, particularly in Ph.D. and some
masters level programs. A three moment Ignatian teaching epistemology is: (1) inductive
attention to “God in all things;” (2) hermeneutic interpretation of meaning; and, (3)
loving praxis. This is similar to the first three moments of a four moment Aristotelian
theory building epistemology of: (1) experience based induction; (2) hermeneutic
interpretation (what Aristotle referred to as theoria and is different from the fourth
moment theory building); (3) ethical praxis; and, (4) praxis based theory building. That
fourth theory building Aristotelian moment can be integrated with the three moment
Ignatian process. This integration can be considered from both a theological “In All
Things” perspective and a philosophical Aristotelian perspective. Within social science
based conflict transformation, socioeconomic development, organization development,
action learning, positive psychology, and positive organizational studies, this four
moment Aristotelian theory building epistemology is often implicitly used. This article
compares an Ignatian pedagogical epistemology with an Aristotelian theory building
epistemology. It then considers examples of Jesuits and other social scientists who have
used this four moment epistemological process. Implications for research and theory
building within Jesuit colleges and universities are considered. [Following is a summary
of the full article that is being developed.]
1. Introduction
Colleges and universities can be compared and identified with respect to relative
emphases on production of relatively new knowledge and distribution of relatively old
knowledge, in short, the teaching vs. research university (McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C.
M. (2005). There is a large literature on Ignatian pedagogical epistemology that for the
most part focuses on undergraduate pedagogy that is particularly applicable to teaching
and knowledge distribution oriented colleges and universities (e.g., Korth, 2008).
However, there is a potential problem here with respect to research and knowledge
2
production universities where teaching is closely related to research and research focused
on theory building, particularly in Ph.D. programs and some masters programs.
There is also some data to suggest that in the U.S. about 10% of professors
produce about 90% of research in the top research journals and most of those professors
are located within the top 100 research universities out of a U.S. population of some
2,000 plus colleges and universities. Most Jesuit universities within the U.S. are generally
considered, perhaps unfairly, more teaching than top 100 research and theory building
universities. A partial solution to this problem and potential opportunity is an extension
of Ignatian pedagogical epistemology to include an Aristotelian theory building moment
that could help link Ignatian pedagogical epistemology with research and teaching
interests of research oriented professors and universities.
This article proceeds as follows. First, a common Ignatian teaching oriented
epistemology that does not include a theory building moment is described. Second, an
extension of this Ignatian teaching oriented epistemology to include a theory building
moment is suggested. Third, the work of Jesuits, Jesuit influenced scholars, and other
social scientists who do “In all things” related praxis based theory building is analyzed.
Fourth, it is suggested that Jesuit teaching and research oriented universities consider
expanding their Ignatian epistemologies to include the research oriented theory building
moment that might better join Ignatian teaching epistemology with both the research and
knowledge production dimensions, particularly in Ph.D. and some masters programs.
Research oriented professors and universities can benefit from a better integration rather
than compartmentalization and separation of Ignatian teaching epistemology from theory
building epistemologies, and an integrated teaching and research epistemology.
3
2. A common articulation of an Ignatian pedagogical epistemology
A common description of an Ignatian pedagogical epistemology can be found
within Jesuit University “Vision and Value Statements.” For example, within the Boston
College Vision and Value Statement that is included in the Boston College web site, it is
explained that “Jesuit education … can be described in terms of three key movements [or
moments]:
1. Be Attentive [Moment 1, What Aristotle referred to as an experience based
inductive moment]….Conscious learning begins by choosing to pay attention to our
experience – our experience of our own inner lives and of the people and the world
around us. When we do this, we notice a mixture of light and dark, ideas and feelings,
things that give us joy and things that sadden us….Ignatius was convinced that God deals
directly with us in our experience. This conviction rested on his profound realization that
God is ‘working’ in every thing that exists. This is why the spirit of Jesuit education is
often described as ‘finding God in all things’.
2. Be Reflective [Moment 2, A hermeneutic interpretive moment, what Aristotle
referred to as ‘Theoria’]….We need…to see the patterns in our experience and grasp their
significance. Reflection is the way we discover and compose the meaning of our
experience. Figuring out our experience can be an inward-looking activity – identifying
our gifts and the future they point us towards or confronting the prejudices, fears, and
shortcomings that prevent us from being the kind of people we want to be – but it can
also mean looking outward – at the questions that philosophy and theology pose to us, at
subjects like biology and finance and economics and the different ways they organize and
interpret the world and help us understand ourselves.
3. Be loving [Moment 3, what Aristotle referred to as praxis which requires
ethical action to be considered praxis]….Being loving requires that we look even more
closely at the world around us. It asks the question: How are we going to act in this
world?....This is a question about what we are going to do with the knowledge and selfunderstanding and freedom that we have appropriated by reflections ….For him
[Ignatius] growing in love is the whole purpose of the spiritual life. He suggests two
principles to help us understand love. One is that love shows itself more by deeds that by
words. Action is what counts, not talk and promises….This is why Jesuit education is so
often said to produce ‘men and women for others’.”
3. An Ignatian pedagogical epistemology with a fourth praxis based theory building
moment.
A typical epistemological process in much of normal social science theory
building is as follows: (1) a deductive literature gap or contradiction is identified based
4
on a tracing of an intellectual history of an idea; (2) propositions and hypotheses for
extending or developing a better idea are developed based on deductive reasoning from
the literature; (3) data is collected from a convenient data site to test the proposed
extended or new idea; (4) theory building is developed based on the data’s confirmation
or negation of the proposed propositions and hypotheses for theory building; and, (5)
potential applications to practice are considered (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Curle,
1990; Eikeland, 2008; Nielsen, 2016, 2017).
In Aristotelian epistemology with a theory building moment, the process is as
follows: (1) inductive attention to experience with positives and negatives noted; (2)
hermeneutic interpretation, existing theories are used to interpret the meaning of the
experience based inductive data, what Aristotle referred to hermeneutic “theoria” and
different from the theory building moment 4 below; (3) praxis, based on the inductive
data and hermeneutic interpretation, (which must be ethical for it to be praxis) is acted;
and, (4) theory building, based on the experiences with the praxis, past theories used to
interpret the original experience based attention are either confirmed or theoretical
extensions or new theories developed and then tested in further praxis. The process
continues (Aristotle, 2004, 2008, 1981; Eikeland, 2008; Nielsen, 2016, 2017).
For Aristotle, praxis based theory building is foundationally attentive, critical, and
normative. The critical and normative dimension and moment is central to the
Aristotelian concept of praxis. Aristotle discussed the ideas of praxis, moral knowledge,
and its methodology in the Protrepticus, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Nicomachean
Ethics (Aristotle, 2004, 2008, 1981). Aristotle considers praxis as action that
developmentally changes both the actor and the external world. That is, praxis is action
5
that makes the actor a better person and the world a better place. This is a foundationally
normative and critical concept. Development requires a qualitatively, critical
understanding of a former status quo relative to a potential better state that is essentially
and normatively critical of the previous condition. This developmental next step is
positively critical theory building.
Similarly in a common form of social science, action learning, Argyris, Putnam,
and Smith (1985) join their action-learning method with critical theory building. For
Argyris, there are two broad types of action-learning, single-loop action-learning and
double-loop action learning. Single-loop action learning accepts consciously or
unconsciously received, driving values and theories and then tries to learn and practice
more efficient techniques for achieving and implementing those received, driving values
and theories. Double-loop action learning critically examines those driving values and
theories, holds them open for criticism and change, and tries to learn and practice more
effective methods and develop improved and changed theories (Nielsen, 2016, 2017).
In contrast, the traditional view of actionable knowledge has taken the form of a
narrower, uncritical, instrumental knowledge, technique: the latter is thought to be an
instrument to be used at will. Mainstream, modernist, social scientific knowledge is first
produced by scholars and, after being proved valid, is then used by practitioners to
accomplish ends that might not be critically examined. The context of critical discovery
is clearly demarcated from the context of instrumental application. The problem with
such a view, however, is that it reduces knowledge to technique. While techniques may
be useful, they nonetheless (a) incorporate ethical and normative values, issues, and
assumptions, which may not always be transparent to their user; (b) they deal with
6
specific problems at the expense of aiding their user form a broader understanding of the
problem at hand; and (c) the technique is directed at the world, leaving the user intact,
unchanged with little or no development (Nielsen, 2016, 2017).
4. Examples of Jesuit, Jesuit influenced, and other social scientists who use such an
extended theory building epistemology.
There appear to be many very distinguished academics who use various versions
of this type of four moment combined Ignatian and Aristotelian praxis based learning and
theory building process who have written about their methods with autobiographical
dimensions and who appear to conclude that the benefits far outweigh the difficulties and
any challenges or negative factors associated with this approach. Examples of such
distinguished academics and their publications with autobiographical, methodological,
and epistemological dimensions include: Donald Schon (1983) and Chris Argyris (2003)
in the area or organizational learning, transformation, and reflective practice; Scott
Nearing (1972), John Gardner (1981), and William Foote Whyte (1994) in the area of
participatory political-economic change; Gene Sharp (1973), Kenneth Boulding (1989) in
the area of developmental peace-making; Robert Greenleaf (1977), Albert Hirschmann
(1995), and Howard Zinn (1994) in the area of leadership and developmental social
change; Michael Walzer (1988) and Edward Said (2004) in the area of social criticism;
and, Clodovis Boff (1987), Gerard Fourez (1982), Daniel Berrigan (1987), Parker Palmer
(1990), Robert Coles (1999), Douglas Steere (1957) in the area of spiritual philosophy
and social change. Perhaps by coincidence, all of the above people also have/had a strong
interest in ethical and spiritual philosophy. [This section will be further developed with
specific, detailed examples.]
5. Tentative Conclusions.
7
It appears that there is a great deal of similarity between Ignatian and Aristotelian
epistemology with respect to the first three moments of their methods: (1) inductive
experience based attention to God or the good in all things; (2) hermeneutic interpretation
of meaning concerning God or the good in all things; and, (3) loving or ethical praxis.
The fourth moment of Aristotelian epistemology concerning experience and praxis based
theory building also appears to fit reasonable well as a potential extension of Ignation
epistemology that can serve the theory building as well and the teaching and learning
processes.
This is potentially important for Jesuit colleges, universities, professors, and
students who are also interested in the theory building, research, and knowledge
production processes. It is also potentially important as a way to integrate rather than
compartmentalize the teaching and theory building research functions and dimension of
the whole university and the whole person as scholar and practitioner. This summary of
an evolving paper is a step in a process of perhaps collective praxis where with help from
discussion at the CJBE conference, further development of the article, and criticism from
Ignatian and social science scholars, we may be able to better develop an Ignatian theory
building epistemology that would be appropriate for the social sciences and professional
schools.
References
Arendt, Hannah. (1958). The human condition. Viking.
Arendt, Hannah. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil.
Viking.
Argyris, C. (2003). A Life Full of Learning. Organization Studies, 24 (7), 1178-1192.
8
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D.L. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and
skills for research and intervention. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice. Jossey-Bass.
Aristotle. 2008. Aristotle: Protrepticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries.
Aristotle. 2004. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and Vices. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, Loeb Classical Library.
Aristotle. 1981. The Ethics of Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Penguin
Books.
Berlin, Isaiah. (1979). Against the current. Penguin.
Bernstein, R. J. (1971). Praxis and Action. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Berrigan, Daniel. (1987). To dwell in peace: An autobiography. Harper and Row.
Boff, Clodovis. (1987). Theology and praxis: Epistemological foundations. Orbis.
Boulding, Kenneth. (1989). Three faces of power. Sage.
Coles, Robert. (1999). The secular mind. Princeton University Press.
Curle, Adam. (1973). Education for liberation. Tavistock Publications.
Curle, Adam. (1986). In the Middle: Nonofficial mediation in violent situations. Berg,
Leamington, Spa.
Curle, Adam. (1990). Tools for transformation: A personal study. Hawthorn Press.
Durant, W. (1926). The story of philosophy. Simon & Schuster.
Eckaus, R. S., & Parikh, K. S. (1968). Planning for growth. MIT Press.
Eikeland, O. (2008). The Ways of Aristotle. Peter Lang.
Fourez, Gerard. (1982). Liberation Ethics. Temple University Press.
Friere, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
9
Hirschman, A.O. (1995). A propensity to self-subversion. Harvard University Press.
Gardner, John. (1981). Self-Renewal. Norton.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership. Paulist Press.
Korth, S. J. (2008). Precis of Ignatian Pedagogy: A practical approach. A Jesuit education
reader, 280-284.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. {1981). After virtue. Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Maraniss, David. (1999). When Pride Still Mattered. Simon & Schuster.
McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie
classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51-57.
Monan, J. Donald. (1968). Moral knowledge and its methodology in Aristotle. Oxford
University Press.
Nearing, Scott. (1972). The making of a radical. N.Y.: Harper and Row.
Nielsen, R. P. (1996). The politics of ethics. Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, R.P. and Massa, F.G. (2013). Reintegrating ethics and institutional theory,
Journal of Business Ethics, 112 (4), 385-395.
Nielsen, R.P., Balachandra, L. & Nielsen, A. (2013). Whistle-blowing methods for
navigating within and helping reform regulatory institutions. Journal of Business
Ethics, 112 (4): 385-395.
Nielsen, R.P. (2014). Hannah Arendt. In Jenny Helin, Tor Hernes, Daniel Hjorth, and
Robin Holt. The Oxford handbook of process philosophy and organization
studies. Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, R.P. (2016). Action-research as ethics praxis method, Journal of Business
Ethics, 135 (3), 419-428.
Nielsen, R.P. (2017). Who do we identify with?: Ontological and epistemological
challenges of spanning different domains of academic-practitioner praxis. In Jean
Bartunek and Jane McKensie, Eds. Academic practitioner research partnerships:
Developments, complexities and opportunities. London: Routledge.
Palys, Ted & Lowman, John. (2012). Defending research confidentiality to the extent the
law allows: Lessons from the Boston College subpoenas. Journal of Academic
Ethics. Published online: 11 November.
10
Palmer, Parker J. (1990). The active life: A spirituality of work, creativity, and caring.
Harper and Row.
Palmer, Donald. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of
theories of misconduct in and by organizations. Oxford University Press.
Reeve, C.D.C. (2012). Action, contemplation, and happiness: An essay on Aristotle.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Said, E.W. (2003). Humanism and democratic criticism. Columbia University Press.
Schon, Donald. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Sharp, Gene. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Porter, Sargent.
Steere, Douglas V. (1957). Work and contemplation. Harper and Brothers.
Tinbergen, J., & Bos, H. C. (1965). A planning model for the educational requirements of
economic development. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Tsoukas, H. & Cummings, S. (1997). Marginalization and recovery: The emergence of
Aristotelian themes in organization studies. Organization Studies, 18 (4): 655-83.
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2011). Philosophy and organization theory. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations. Emerald.
Veblen, T. (1919). Place of science in modern civilization. Huebsch.
Walzer, Michael. (1988). The company of critics. Basic Books.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. Free Press.
Whyte, William Foote. (1994). Participant observer: An autobiography. ILR Press.
Yarrow, C.H. Mike. (1978). Quaker experiences in international conciliation. Yale
University Press.
Zinn, Howard. (1994). You can’t be neutral on a moving train. Beacon Press.
11
12