In this chapter Chen and Dervin suggest moving beyond a simplistic mantra of criticality, explaining that claiming and performing criticality does not mean one is really critical in (education) research. The authors start by referring to a group of Finnish students’ reflections about interculturality, for whom criticality meant: asking questions, questioning, reconsidering one’s assumptions, and unthinking. Chen and Dervin claim that, for other students, anywhere else in the world or from a different major at the same university, criticality might mean the same or something different. They thus advocate turning one’s attention to the question whose criticality can assess criticality? They also suggest an open-ended perspective whereby educators and researchers must accept contradictions, debates, and the symbolic violence of being questioned, of having their criticality critiqued. For the authors, this also means thinking for oneself to avoid being enslaved by pet theories, gurus and analytical stereotypes (amongst others) and to stop thinking that ‘one’s’ criticality is better than others’.
|Title of host publication||The Meaning of Criticality in Education Research|
|Publication status||Published - 2020|
|MoE publication type||A3 Book chapter|
|Name||Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods|
Chen, N., & Dervin, F. (2020). Beyond the naïve mantra of criticality in education (research)? In The Meaning of Criticality in Education Research ( Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods). Palgrave Macmillan.