Tomas Englund

This paper seeks to make use of later works of Habermas in the field of education. The theme, developed out of the pragmatic tradition, is that of deliberative communication as a central form of activity in schools. This implies a displacement of traditional teaching and learning as the central form of activity to the creation of meaning through deliberative communication. Deliberative communication can be understood as an endeavour to ensure that each individual takes a stand by listening, deliberating, seeking arguments, and evaluating, while at the same time there is a collective effort to find values and norms on which everyone can agree.

Utbildning som deliberativ kommunikation - förutsättningar, möjligheter och konsekvense

What new tendencies can be made out in Swedish educational research in the last three decades? Briefly, the following developments are described: In the 1970s, a long‐prevailing emphasis on quantitative research was challenged by a number of different qualitative methods. Traditional sociology of education, meanwhile, was challenged by the new sociology of education. During the 1980s, the dominant trend was a “didacticisation” of educational research, and here two main strands can be discerned, based in phenomenography and curriculum theory. Didactics very soon made its presence felt in educational policy, and in a major evaluation of Swedish educational research the two largely didactics‐based traditions of “teaching and learning” and “curriculum theory” were identified as internationally the most significant. In the 1990s, educational research took a “linguistic turn”—involving a wide‐ranging shift in emphasis towards language and communication—with the result that new perspectives emerged. In addition, the philosophy of education experienced a powerful renaissance, partly as a reflection of the new focus on language and communication, but also in other respects, leading to a reawakening of interest in both classical and modern philosophy (of education).

During the last few decades, the concept of equivalence has assumed an increasingly important role in Swedish educational policy, and at the same time the actual meaning of equivalence has been given different authoritative interpretations. The shift in significance which the concept has undergone seems to be not only an aspect of the social power play of which it is part, but also, at the same time, a clear expression of the ‘reality constituting’ power of language. In the 1970s and early 1980s the concept referred to a common curriculum and equally allocated resources, ensuring that all students would have an educational experience that was both shared and equal. In the late 1980s and 1990s, this meaning of equivalence was challenged by something quite different: a reference to a form of curriculum distribution and resource allocation that put primary emphasis on allowing students and their parents to freely pursue educational choices and on providing an array of curriculum possibilities that varied according to the interests of students and their parents. From the perspective of the challenged meaning of equivalence the question asked is what the markedly weaker emphasis of the former shared frame of reference in favour of increased individual freedom may imply in the light of new conditions for the shaping of community through education.