MCLS 6508 Selected Topics in Liberal Studies Lecture 2 Teaching through Issue Enquiry Approach (IEA)

MCLS 6508

Selected Topics in Liberal Studies

Lecture 2Teaching through

Issue Enquiry Approach (IEA)

Why Issue Enquiry Approach?

The Official Version of Issue Enquiry


ProcessesRelationship with development of multiple perspectives

( I )Mastering the facts, understanding the phenomena, clarifying the concepts

Different sources of information Different ways of data collection Different interpretations and explanations Different associations …

( II )Understanding the differences and conflicts involved

Different values Different interests Different convictions …

( III )Reflection, evaluation, judgment, solution, action

Considering all sides of the argument Weighing the pros and cons Putting forward reasons and justifications Accepting consequences Revising judgement …


Design Flow

What is At Issue? Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry

The idea of “Issue” According to the Oxford English Dictionary,

The noun “issue” means “a point or matter in contention between two parties; …a choice between alternatives; a dilemma”.

The phrasal expression “at issue” means “in controversy; taking opposite sides of a case or contrary views of a matter.

“To join issue” means “to accept or adopt a disputed point as the basis of argument in a controversy; to proceed to argument with a person on a particular point”.

“To make an issue of” means to turn into a subject of contention”.


Defining issues-centered education:“Issue-centered education focuses on problematic

questions that need to be addressed and answered, at least provisionally. Problematic questions are those on which intelligent, well-informed people may disagree. Such disagreement, in many case, leads to controversy and discussion marked by expression of opposing views. The questions may address problems of the past, present or future. They may involve disagreement over facts, definition, values and beliefs. ….


“…….To say that questions are problematic means there are no conclusive, finally ‘right’ answers. But some answers, however tentative or provisionally and subject to change in the future, are clearly better or more valid than other. The purpose of issues-centered education is not just to raise the questions and expose students to them, but to teach students to offer defensible and intellectually well-grounded answers to these questions. …The point of issues-centered education is …to develop well-centered responses based on disciplined inquiry, on thoughtful, in-depth study, and to move beyond relativistic notion of truth.” (Evans, Newmann & Saxe, 1996, P.2)

What is At Issue? Understanding the Epoch Nature of “Late-Modern” Society

C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: In the beginning chapter of the book Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills makes a useful distinction between “trouble” and “issue” By trouble, Miils refers to problems which “occurs within the

characters of the individual and within the range of the immediate relations with others; they have to do with his self and with those limited areas of social life of which he is directly and personally aware. Accordingly, the statement and the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual as a biographical entity and within the scope of his immediate milieu. A trouble is a private matter: values cherished by an individual are felt by him to be threatened.” (1970, p.15)

C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: By issues, Mills specifies that “Issues have to do with matters

that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range of his inner life. They have to do with the organization of many such milieux into the institutions of a historical society as a whole, with the way in which various milieux overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life. An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by the public is felt threatened.” (1970, p. 15)


C. Wright Mills’ distinction between personal trouble and public issue: Apart from its public character, Mills also underlines the

contradictory and ambiguous nature of an issue. He states that “often there is a debate about what the values is all about and what it is that really is threatens it. This debate is often without focus if only because it is the very nature of an issue…. An issue, in fact often involves …’contradictions’ or ‘antagonism.’” (1971, p. 15)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement:


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement:

In his book entitled Political Liberalism, John Rawls makes a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable disagreements. The distinction can further our understanding of the nature and features of the idea of issue. By unreasonable disagreement, it refers to disagreements in

public life, which grow out of “prejudice and bias, self and group interest, blindness and willfulness” (Rawls, 1993, p. 58) or of “simple ignorance or …mere undisciplined assertiveness.” (Dearden, 1984, p. 85)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: By reasonable disagreement, John Rawls defines it as

“disagreement between reasonable persons.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55). In understanding the idea of reasonable person, Rawls makes a distinction between rational and reasonable persons within the conception of modern man. “Persons are reasonable in one basic aspect when, among

equals say, they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. ….The reasonable is an element of the idea of society as a system of fair cooperation and that its fair terms be reasonable for all to accept is part of its idea of reciprocity.” (1993, 49-50)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: “The rational is, however, a distinct idea from the reasonable and

applied to a single, unified agent (either an individual or corporate person) with the powers of judgment and deliberation in seeking ends and interests peculiarly its own. The ration applies to how these ends and interests are adopted and affirmed, as well as to how they are given priority. It also applies to the choice of means, in which case it is guided by such familiar principles as: to adopt the most effective means to ends, or to select the most probable alternative, other things equal. (1993, p. 50) More specifically, “what rational agents lack is the particular form of moral sensibility that underlies the desire to engage in fair cooperation. …Rational agents approach being psychopathic when their interests are solely in benefits to themselves.” (1993, p. 51) As in everyday speech, we may characterize rational agents that “their proposal was perfectly rational given their strong bargaining position, but it was nevertheless highly unreasonable.” (1993, 48)


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: Accordingly, a reasonable disagreement is not disagreement

generated prejudice, bias, ignorance, or even rational calculation of self-interest. They are disagreement between persons “who have an enduring desire to honor fair terms of cooperation and to be fully cooperating members of society.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55).


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: Rawls has specified numbers of sources, from which

disagreement among reasonable citizens in constitutional democracy could have derived. More specifically, Rawls suggests, “these sources I refer to as the burden of judgment.” (1993, p. 55) That is, if reasonable citizens have to come to term with (not completely resolve) their disagreements, they are burdened with reasonable judgments on the following sources of reasonable disagreements


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: …sources of reasonable disagreements

Availability and reliability of evidences: “The evidence—empirical and scientific—bearing on the case is conflicting and complex, and thus hard to assess and evaluate.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) This source of disagreement derives on the ground that the evidences required to settle the dispute are in conflict or unavailable. For example, the effects of GM (genetic-modified) food or cloning (both beneficial and harmful effects), the causes of the damage of the ozone layer, or the effects on the development of children growing up in queer families, etc. are still in dispute among natural and social scientists. And there are not sufficient and reliable evidences to make informed decisions on the issues in point.



Relevance and relative weight of evidences: In cases where evidences have been scientifically and empirically proven to be reliable, disputes may still derive on the ground that the evidences in point are irrelevant to the issues in dispute. Furthermore, “even where we agree fully about the kinds of considerations that are relevant, we may disagree about their weight, and so arrive at different judgments.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 56) Parties in dispute may put forth relevant and reliable scientific evidences in support of the stances in controversial issues. As a result, disagreements will derived on the ground that how relative weights should be assigned to different evidences relevant to the issue in dispute.



Judgment and interpretation of concepts: People’s concepts, not only moral and political concept but also empirical and factual concepts, are “vague and subject to hard cases; and this indeterminacy means that we must rely on judgment and interpretation (and on judgment about interpretation) within some range (not sharply specifiable).” (1993, p. 56) This is another source where reasonable disagreement may have invoked.



Value judgments and preferences: Disagreements may not only involve judgments of factual evidences, but may also be caused by desirable and preferable attributes, which individuals or social groups attached to the issues in point. For example, legalization of same-sex marriage may invoke value controversy between personal liberty of choice and the stability of the institutional orders of a given society. Furthermore, the normative concepts attached to social and political issues are most likely to be indeterminacy in nature and subject to different interpretations. Hence, disagreements between values and their interpretations are another reasonable ground from which controversial issues may derive.



Prioritization of values: Even where there are general agreements on the relevance and interpretations of the values involved in an issue, disagreement can still derive from the priorities ascribed to each of the values and preferences involved.

Positional and experiential considerations: “In a modern society with its numerous offices and positions, its various divisions of labor, its many social groups and their ethnic variety, citizens’ total experiences are disparate enough for their judgment to diverge.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) As a result, they will constitute reasonable disagreements in modern liberal-democratic society.



Normative and perspective considerations: Another source of disagreements among reasonable citizens in liberal-democratic society is differences in comprehensive moral doctrines or overall socio-political perspectives, for examples differences in the socio-political orientations between unionists and employer and business federations; or differences in public-policy stances between liberals and communitarians; etc.



Institutional imperatives: “Any system of social institutions is limited in the values it can admit so that some selection must be made from the full range of moral and political values that might be realized. This is because any system of institutions has, as it were, a limited social space.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) Public choices are not made in social, economic, political and cultural vacuum; they are bounded by different institutional constraints. However, reasonable citizens may disagree on whether institutional imperatives should be imposed on particular sets of social actions and/or interactions, for examples controversies over restriction of smoking in in-door areas, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc.


John Rawls’ conception of a reasonable disagreement: The burdens of judgment and necessities of issue inquiry: In

modern liberal-democratic societies, citizens are often confronted by these reasonable disagreements or controversial issues. As a result, they are burdened with these hard decisions and judgments.


Issues of recognition of diversities under the multiculturalism of the global age Amy Gutmann indicates in the Introduction of the book she

edited Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition that


Issues of recognition of diversities under the multiculturalism of the global age … “Public institutions, including government agencies, schools,

and liberal art colleges and universities, have come under severe criticism these days for failing to recognize or respect the particular identities of citizens. In the United States, the controversy most often focuses upon the needs of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women. Other groups could easily be added to the list, and the list would change as we moved round the world. Yet it is hard to find a democratic or democratizing society these days that is not the site of some significant controversy over whether and how its public institutions should better recognize the identities of cultural disadvantaged minorities.” (Gutmann, 1994, P.3)


Issues of recognition of diversities under the multiculturalism of the global age … As a result, Gutmann complied papers from three prominent

philosophers of our time. In each paper, Charles Taylor, K. Anthony Appiah and Jurgen Habermas reflect respectively on their experiences in the diverse and multicultural contexts of their societies (namely Canada, the US and the unified Germany). And each of them then suggest ways of how to cope with the issue and politics of diversity of multiculturalism.

In light of these discussions, issues can further be elevated beyond the levels of public issue (Mills, 1970) and political liberalism (Rawls, 1993) and be construed at global and multicultural level.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies In light of C.Wright Mills’ conception of issues and John

Rawls’ theory of reasonable disagreement political liberalism, we may define the enquiry object, i.e. a issue with the following attributes Issues are public in nature. They differ from personal trouble or

problem, which involves individuals' personalities and/or milieux. Issues usually involve institutional or systemic deficiencies and their impacts of individuals' livelihoods and well beings.

Issues are disputatious, contradictory or even antagonistic in nature because they usually embedded in some institutional and systemic arrangements, which invoke contradiction or even antagonism among different social groupings in social institutions and systems.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies Accordingly, issue enquiry may categorize into different

aspects of burden of judgment. Factual and empirical judgment:

• Empirical verification• Judgments on the relevance and relative weight of the verified

evidences• Judgments on the interpretation of concepts

Value and preference judgment• Judgment on the relevance values and preferences• Judgment on value priority• Normative and perspective considerations


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies … different aspects of burden of judgment.

Institutional judgment• Relevance and legitimacy of positional and experiential

considerations• Legitimacy and respectability of normative and cultural

consideration• Appropriateness of institutional imperatives


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies … different aspects of burden of judgment.

Comparative judgment• Locating the factual, normative and institutional judgment

against the multicultural context of the global age

• Evaluating one’s judgments on the issue from the perspective of politics of recognition.


The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies Decision making: Based on these inquiries and

judgments, citizens in late-modern society are expected to be able to make well-informed, rationally justifiable, and reciprocally reasonable decision on the issues in contention. Furthermore, they are also expected to carry out their decision in social and political actions in continuous and persistent manners.


Teaching of IEA:

Debate between issue-centered and content-centered curriculum Since the 1950s, educators of social education in

the US (including social studies, social –science education, general education, liberal education, liberal studies, citizenship education, etc.) have been debating on the issue of “selection of content in social studies”. (Oliver, 1957)

Teaching of IEA:

Debate between issue-centered and content-centered curriculum … Against the conventional conception of content-centered or

discipline-centered curriculum prevailing in the field of social education in the US schools, Donald W. Oliver led the charge by publishing an article in Harvard Educational Review and underlined that the primary aim of social education should not be to transmit contents of specific disciplines in social sciences, such as geography, economics, cultural sociology, political science, and history (Oliver, 1957, P. 276) but to prepare student to address the nature of citizenship in the liberal-democratic state, and the pluralistic and multi-value society of the US. (P. 284-5).

Teaching of IEA:

Debate between issue-centered and content-centered curriculum … More specifically, Oliver underlined that in such socio-

political context, intractable disagreement and conflicts are “inevitable” (P. 285), hence “the central core of the curriculum would be the study of those human affairs fraught with conflict or tension which might threaten the integrity of a free society” (P. 299) and to prepare students to deal with these “inevitable conflict”, which he and his collaborators later termed “public issues” or what some other called “controversial issues.”

Teaching of IEA:

Debate between issue-centered and content-centered curriculum Among the proponents of the issue-centered approach in the

field of social education in both the US, three teams of scholars can be identified to be the most representative:Donald W. Oliver, James P. Shaver and Fred P. Newmann,

their works have been recognized under the name of the Harvard Social Studies Project or characterized as Teaching Public Issues in the Higher School (Oliver & Shaver, 1966; see also, Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Shaver, & Strong, 1982)

Teaching of IEA:

Debate between issue-centered and content-centered curriculum Among the proponents of the issue-centered approach ….

Shirley H. Engle, Byron G. Massialas and Benjamin Cox, their works have been characterized as issue-centered, inquiry, decision-making approaches to social studies (Engle, 1960; Engle & Ochoa-Becker, 1988; Ochoa-Becker, 2007; Massialas & Cox, 1966; Evan & Saxe, 1996)

James A. Banks, his works have been characterized as multiculturalism education. (Banks, 2007; Banks & McGee Banks, 2004)

Teaching of IEA:

In the UK, a stream of scholars have also advocated that teaching controversial issues should be the core approach in political education and citizenship education. Bernard Crick and the working party of the Hansard Society

first initiated the idea of teaching controversial issue to be the approach to political education in the 1970s. (Crick, 1978; see also Stradling et al., 1984)

Again in 1998, Bernard Crick chaired an advisory group and produced the government document entitled Teaching of Democracy in Schools: Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (The Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998). In the report, the controversial-issues approach has gained its retrieval in the Section 10 of the document, captioned “Guidance on the Teaching of Controversial Issues”.

Teaching of IEA:

In the UK, …. Other scholars in the UK have also contributed to the

development of the approach in numbers of works, for examples, Wellington, 1986; Oulton et al. 2004; Fiehn, 2005; Oxfam, 2006; and Claire & Holden, 2007.

The Comprehensive Framework of Issue-Enquiry-Approach Model

Various teams of scholars have developed different frameworks in teaching of public and controversial issues in school curricula such as political education, citizenship education, social studies, social education, or general education. For example Jurisprudential or legal-ethical framework (Oliver & Shaver, 1966;

Newmann & Oliver, 1970) Decision making model (Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Ochoa-Becker,

2007) Social studies inquiry model (Massialas & Cox, 1966; Massialas et

al., 1975) Multicultural approach (Banks, 2007; Banks and McGee Banks,

2004) Teaching-controversial-issue approach (Stradling et al, 1984;

Wellington, 1986; Oulton et al. 2004; Fiehn, 2005; Oxfam, 2006)


To synthesize these models, we may categorized the constituents of the Issue-Enquiry-Approach (IEA) Formulation of public issue and its controversy Social enquiry Value enquiry Institutional enquiry Comparative-multicultural enquiry Decision making


Formulation of public issue and its controversy Issue enquiry begins of course with the identification of the

issue in point. The issue usually appears in the form of public actions, which articulate points of contention on specific public affairs, such as public policy, actions of public figures and/or social groups, media reports, results of social surveys, etc.

The second step is to enquire into the social backgrounds from which the issue invokes.

The third step of the enquiry is to identify the parties engaging in an issue. In public and social issues, they may involve different political parties, interest groups or stake-holders. However, in a controversial social issue, the engaging parties may be numerous in number and their opinions about the issue may vary diversely. Nevertheless, as in most political issues, these diverse stances will subsequently aggregate or even polarize into two opposite camps.


Formulation of public issue and its controversy… Fourth, the process of political aggregation and alignment

among various parties participated in the contention of the public issue should be mapped out.

Finally, statements and arguments put forth by opposite camps engaged in the debate and contest of the controversial issue are to be collected and categorized for sequent enquiries.


The factual enquiry: It refers to analyzing the factual evidences which the disagreements and controversies are based and derived. These factual evidences may be categorized into three groups, from which three types of factual enquiries can be identified.


The factual enquiry: … Clarification of definitional and categorical disagreements:

These type of enquiries begin with analyses of the words, rhetoric, statements, and any other forms of representation used by contesting parties in describing and defining the nature and features of the issue in point.

The enquiry then advances to interpretive studies of the meanings, intentions and protentions which the contesting parties bring to bear in their statements and representations, i.e. their texts on the issue.

Finally, the interpretive study can further look into the different depictions of the status quo or even the prospect of “the world of the text” that various contesting parties envisioned.


The factual enquiry: … Validation of the situational meanings involved in the

disagreement: These type of enquiries begins with recording what

anthropologists call “deep description” of the meanings that contesting parties invested into the issue.

It would then involve the enquirer to immerge into the situations or even the “lived world” of the contesting parties involved and to have empathetic understanding of the contesting parties.

Finally, the enquiry should advance to the stage of validation. That is to contrast the situational meanings cherished by a particular contesting party with the large socioeconomic and cultural contexts. As a result, the enquiry can bring light to the question whether a specific situational meanings of a particular contesting party is justifiable against the larger meaning contexts which involve all parties concerned.


The factual enquiry: … Verification of the empirical grounds of the contention:

This type of enquiry begins with recording all the empirical evidences, in the form of scientific law, tested propositions, or statistical-probabilistic hypotheses in natural science and social science, put forth by contesting parties engaged in a particular controversial issue.

The enquirers are then expected to verify all these empirical evidences, usually in the form of statements of causes and effects or consequences, and to draw their own conclusion that which contesting parties’ arguments are empirically and scientifically more well-grounded.


Value Enquiry: Apart from factual disagreement, controversial issues in human societies may invoke by disagreement and conflict in value dispositions or positions among different social groups. Hence, to clarify, analyze and prioritize the value stances imputed by contesting parties involved to the controversial issue is another significant component in IEA. An value enquiry may generally be categorize into the following constituents


Value Enquiry: … The concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable

attributes a person impute to objects in his environment. “Conduct, performances, situations, occurrence, states of affairs,

production, all these is associated with the ways in which we perceive them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are inclined towards or away from, attracted to or repelled by, such objects, production, states of affairs, performances, manifestations of conducts. We choose them. We prefer them over other things in the same class of comparison. We want to follow their model or to replicate them. We want to emulate them.” (Aspin, 1999, p.125)

價值：「大體上說來，一切具價值之事物，都是人所欲得的，人所尋求的、喜悅的、愛護的、讚美的、或崇敬的。簡言之，即都是人所欲或所好的。一切具負價值或反價值之事物，則都是人所不欲得的，人所不尋求的、厭棄的、憎恨的、貶斥的、鄙視的。簡言之，即都是人所不欲或所惡的」。（唐君毅， 2005，頁 707）


Value Enquiry: … Types of values: Values can be classified into two general

types, intrinsic and extrinsic (or instrumental) values: “An intrinsic value can be defined as something that is valuable for

its own sake” (Ellis, p.12) or important in and of itself. “An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but because it

facilitates getting or accomplishing something that is valuable for its own sake.” (Ellis, p.12) It means the worth or desirability of a thing or person is derived from its instrumentality and efficiency in achieving something more desirable.


Value Enquiry: … Levels of value: Ronal Dworkin has made a distinction between

three levels of value. He suggests that “ethnics studies how people best manage their responsibility to live well, and personal morality what each as an individual owes other people. Political morality, in contrast, studies what we all together owe others as individuals when we act in and on behalf of that artificial collective person.” (Dworkin, 2011, Pp. 327-8) Accordingly, value can be categorized into Ethical value: It refers to desirable traits and features we attributed to

human behaviors, actions, and conducts. Moral value: It refers to desirable traits and features attributed to human

interactions and relationships among fellows humans. Political values: It refers to the ethical and moral values taken by a given

society as of prominent importance that they should be imposed onto all members of that society coercively.

551931-2013


Value Enquiry: … Ingredients or strategies of evaluation: Charles Taylor has

made a distinction between weak and strong evaluation. By “strong evaluation”, it refers to the kind of value inquiry which aims to substantiate an attribution of an intrinsic value to a state of affair, an object and even a person. He has outlined the numbers of constituents for such a strong-evaluation inquiry. (Taylor, 1985; see also Dworkin, 1995) In strong evaluation, a value stance may be substantiated with the followings components


Value Enquiry: … Ingredients or strategies of evaluation: ……In strong

evaluation, ….Justificatory with articulacy and depth: The first constituent of a

strong evaluation, Taylor, Charles (1985) “What is Human Agency?” Pp. 15-44. In C. Taylor. Philosophical Papers Vol. 1: Human Agency and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. is that the evaluation must be supported with explicitly articulated justifications. Furthermore, these justifications must be grounded on ethical, moral and/or political validities and “depth”.


Ingredients or strategies of evaluation: …Strong evaluation…Supported with sense of responsibility and agency: A strong

evaluative assertion must also be supported with human practices and actions, i.e. human agencies. Furthermore, those who are in support of the strong evaluative positions are not just paying lip services but are ready to bear the cost or even lost for its fulfillment

Embodied with notion of identity: A person who are in support of a strong evaluative stance are most probably hold that value orientation continuously over time, consistently in various circumstances and coherently with the other aspects of his life. In other word, the value orientation becomes part of his own identity.

Embedded in community: The last constituents of strong-evaluation inquiry is to look beyond human agency or identity but into human community, which may be defined as a group of human agents who share and identify with a particular value stance. In other words, the strong and intrinsic value in question has been embedded into the lifeworld of a community.

Intrinsic Values Extrinsic Values

Justificatory with articulacy and depth

Supported with sense of responsibility and agency

Embodied with notion of identity

Embedded in community

… … … …

Ethical Values

Moral Values

Political Values

Types, Constituents and Levels of Evaluation


Bases of strong evaluation: In order to justify and substantiate a value stance, evaluators may rely on one of the following theories of evaluation. Deontological theory of evaluation: The theoretical tradition can

usually be traced back to Kant’s concept of categorical imperative. It is the universal normative rule, which transcends all particular ontological situations, i.e. the deontological principle of ethical conduct.

• It is called the categorical imperative because it is “'categorical' in a sense that the principle is not based upon different goals and desires people might happen to have, and ‘imperative’ since it tells people what they ought to do.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)

• Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can simply be stated as that in testing for the morality of actions, “an action is morally permissible if you would be willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act (if you would be willing to have the ‘maxim’ of your action become a universal law). An action is morally wrong if you are not willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to act.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)


Value Enquiry: … Bases of strong evaluation: ….

The institutional bases of evaluation • Alasdair McIntyre, in contrast to Neo-Kantian stance, proposes that the

social ground of intrinsic-value evaluation “can never be grounded by an appeal to some neo-Kantian ideal of a set of norms presupposed by all speakers in a discussion. Rather, the concept of the better argument must always be ground within social particular tradition of philosophical enquiry.” (Doody, 1991, p. 61)

• More specifically, McIntyre contends that it is within a tradition of a craft of inquiry that rationality and ethical principles can find their authority or ground of justification. Hence, “for on McIntyre’s account, moral rules are not embodiments of a pure practical reason whose charge is to issue statements of oughts which necessarily bind ahistorical beings. Rather moral rules which express claims of ought are expressions or statements of …virtues and rules of practices that which were …grounded in a community of practice which understood itself through those practices.” (Doody, 1991, p.68)


Given all these analytical tools in value enquiry, IEA may conduct the value enquiry of the controversial issue in point in the following ways Identifying the value stances of various put forth by various contesting

parties engaged in a given controversial issue. Classifying these contesting value stances by the categorization

between extrinsic (instrumental) and intrinsic valuesClarifying the levels of value that various contesting parties attributed to

their value stance, namely ethical, moral or political values. Analyzing the “ingredients” or strategies used by various contesting

parties in justifying and substantiating their own value stances, e.g. justificatory with articulacy and depth, Supported with sense of responsibility and agency, embodied with notion of identity, and embedded in community.

Analyzing the theoretical ground upon which various contesting parties build up their evaluative arguments, e.g. deontological or institutional grounds.

Intrinsic Values Extrinsic Values

Justificatory with articulacy and depth

Supported with sense of responsibility and agency

Embodied with notion of identity

Embedded in community

… … … …

Ethical Values

Moral Values

Political Values

Deontological Perspective Institutional Perspective


The institutional enquiry: Apart from analyzing the factual and value stances adopted by

various contesting parties in a controversial issue, IEA must proceed further into the institutional context within which a particular controversial issue invoked and the parties involved waged their conflicts against each other. As Douglas North defined, “institutions are rules of the game in a society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction.” (North, 1990, p. 3) This type of enquiry involved analysis of the rule of the games that various contesting parties defined as well as willing to obliged.


The institutional enquiry: More specifically, Cleo H. Cherryholmes (1980) suggests that in

the “institutional enquiry” students should be led to enquire into the following questionsWhat is the history of their institutions?What actions are permitted? What actions are proscribed?What is prescribed?What is the verification, justification underlying the prevailing

institutional arrangements?


The comparative-multicultural inquiry: As national societies and ethnic groups are drawn closer both

spatially and temporally by global-informational networks, educators such as James A. Banks propose that multicultural dimensions should be incorporated in preparing future citizens. Hence students will not confine their perception in ethnocentric perspective and be able to consider public issue in multicultural perspective.

In order to enlarge students’ perception and understanding of the issue under study, IEA should extent the enquiry beyond the institutional contexts in which one is familiarized with, to avoid culturally ethnocentric version. Accordingly, comparable issues invoked in other spatial and temporal contexts should also be studied.


The comparative-multicultural inquiry: As a result, students could recognize how societies of different

cultural and sociopolitical backgrounds resolve their internal controversies and conflicts. And subsequently they may be able to recognize the diversities among their fellow citizens and learn how to contain their conflicts and work collaboratively in a liberal and democratic fashion.


The decision making: Based on the precedent four types of enquires, issue enquirers

may then proceed to make decision on the public issue under study, more specifically they may be in the position to decide whether to support the issue stance of a contesting parties engaged in a controversial issue.

Structure of decision tree Identifying alternativesAssessing anticipated effects of each alternativesPredicting unanticipated consequences of alternativesPrioritizing alternativeMaking choice


The decision making: Theories of decision making: Herbert Simon and James March

two pioneers in the studies of decision making have formulated two theoretical perspectives in terms of the following three dimensions Assumption on decision maker: They draw a distinction between economic

man and administrative man. Simon underlined that "The model of economic man was far more completely and formally developed than the model of the satisficing administrator. …limited rationality was defined largely as a residual category—as a departure from rationality." (P. 118)

Assumption on outcome of the decision: They draw a distinction between the maximization principle (best solution) and satisfice principle (good-enough solution). Simon suggest "Whereas economic man supposedly maximizes—selects the best alternative from among all those available to him—his cousin, the administrator, satisfices—looks for course of action that is satisfactory or "good enough". (P.119)

1916-2001 1928-


Theories of decision making: Accordingly, James March makes a distinction between the

logics of consequence and that of appropriateness.• Logic of consequence: “The idea is that a reasoning decision

maker will consider alternatives in terms of their consequences for preferences.” In other words, it assumes that “decision processes …are consequential and preference-based. They are consequential in the sense that action depends on anticipation of the future effects of current actions. Alternatives are interpreted in terms of their expected consequences. They are preference-based in the sense that consequences are evaluated in terms of personal preferences. Alternatives are compared in terms of the extent to which their expected consequences are thought to serve the preferences of the decision make. (March, 1994, P. 2)


Theories of decision making: Accordingly, James March makes a distinction between the

logics of consequence and that of appropriateness.• Logic of appropriateness: “When individuals and

organizations fulfill identifies, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preferences as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)


Theories of decision making: Accordingly, decision makers on controversial issues,

especially those in informational-global context, could no longer based solely on consequences of actions and the extent that their preferences are satisfied by the consequences of actions. Instead they would base their choices on the follows: (p.58)• The question of recognition: What kind of situation is

this? • The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or

what kind of organization is this?• The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or

an organization such as this, do in a situation as this?” (March, 1994, P. 58)

Issue Analysis 1. Analyzing the nature & features of the controversial issue 2. Analyzing the social backgrounds of the controversial issue 3. Mapping the contesting parties involved 4. Analyzing the process of political aggregation and alignment 5. Recording the arguments signified by the contesting camps

Factual Enquiry 1. Clarification of definitional & categorical

disagreements 2. Validation of the situational meanings involved in

the disagreement 3. Validation of the situational meanings involved in

the disagreement 4. Weights and priorities assigned to various

Value Inquiry 1. Clarification of values (substance, types & levels)

Identify the values attributed by parties in dispute 2. Analyzing the substances of strong evaluation 3. Analyze the theoretical grounds of evaluation 4. Priority analyze the conflicting values

Theories of decision-making 1. Economic or administrative man 2. Maximization principle or satisfice principle 3. Logic of consequence or appropriateness

Institutional Enquiry 1. Identify the institution and its history in which the

controversial issue invoked 2. Identify the institutional practices or values

endorsed or violated 3. Priority analyze institutional imperatives

Comparative Enquiry 1. Identify controversial issues in other comparable

societies 2. Identify comparable issue in other points in time 3. Analyze the commonalities and differences among

cases 4. Recognition of diversities in multicultural perspective

A framework for issue enquiry approach

Structure of decision-making 1. Identifying Alternatives 2. Assessing anticipated effects of each alternative 3. Predicting unanticipated consequences of alternatives 4. Prioritizing alternatives 5. Making choice

A Framework for Issue Inquiry Approach

MCLS 6508 Selected Topics in Liberal Studies Lecture 2 Teaching through Issue Enquiry Approach (IEA)

Documents

public issue

issuecentered education

issue yby trouble

xthe noun issue

judgement slide

problematic questions

problematic means

point of issues