Teologis-filosofista aatehistoriaa uusissa väitöskirjoissa

Simo Knuuttila

Two Cultures of Arts Education, Finland and Canada? An integrated View

Taidekasvatuksen kaksi kulttuuria, Suomi ja Kanada? Integroitu näkemys Tutkimuksessa kuvataan kanadalaisen Learning Through The Arts –pedagogiikan mukainen suomalainen kokeiluhanke, jonka aikana taiteilija–opettaja-parit opettivat yhdessä eri oppiaineita koululuokille: esim. matematiikkaa tanssien, biologiaa maalaten tai yhdistäen eri taiteenlajeja projektimuotoiseen oppimiseen. Hanketta arvioitaessa nousee esille, ei niinkään yksittäisten taiteilijoiden ja opettajien toiminta, vaan pikemminkin Kanadan ja Suomen rakenteelliset sekä kulttuuriset eroavuudet. Tutkimus sivuaa myös Suomessa käytävää keskustelua taiteen hyödyllisyydestä ja pohtii samalla taito- ja taideaineiden asemaa koulussa. Työn teoreettisessa osassa integroidaan opetussuunnitelmateoriaa, kasvatuksen historiaa ja filosofiaa, tähdentäen taidekasvatuksen merkitystä osana koko ihmisen kasvatusta. Opetussuunnitelmateorian osalta tarkastellaan romanttista ja klassista opetussuunnitelmaa, jotka eroavat toisistaan menetelmiensä, sisältöjensä, tavoitteidensa sekä arvioinnin osalta. Ns. kovat ja pehmeät aineet tai matemaattis-luonnontieteelliset aineet vastakohtanaan humanismi, voidaan ymmärtää sekä historiallisia että epistemologisia taustojaan vasten. Pepperin maailmanhypoteesien mukaisesti on kasvatuksen ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi hahmotettavissa neljä selvästi toisistaan eroavaa lähestymistapaa: formismi; organisismi; mekanisismi; sekä kontekstualismi. Kantin filosofiaan viitaten tutkimus puolustaa käsitystä taiteesta rationaalisena ja propositionaalisena kokonaisuutena, joka ei ole vain kommunikaation väline, vaan yksi todellisuuden kohtaamisen lajeista, tiedon ja etiikan rinnalla. Näin ajateltuna taito- ja taidekasvatuksen tulisi olla luonteeltaan aina myös kulttuurikasvatusta. Tutkimuksen tulosten perusteella voidaan väittää, että moniammatillinen yhteistyö monipuolistaa koulun opetusta. Mikäli huolehditaan siitä, että taiteilijat saavat riittävästi koulutusta opettamiseen liittyvissä asioissa, on mahdollista käyttää taiteilijoita opettajien rinnalla koulutyössä.

Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Defining the art of grammar: Ancient perceptions of γραμματική and grammatical

The subject of this dissertation, which belongs to the field of Classical Philology, are the definitions of the art of grammar found in Greek and Latin sources from the Classical era to the second century CE. Definitions survive from grammarians, philosophers, and general scholars. I have examined these definitions from two main points of view: how they are formed, and how they reflect the development of the art itself. Defining formed part of dialectic, in practice also of rhetoric, and was perceived as important from the Classical era onwards. Definitions of grammar seem to have become established as part of preliminary discussions, located at the beginning of grammatical manuals (tékhnai, artes). These discussions included certain principal notions of the art; in addition to the definition, a list of the parts of the art was also typically included. These lists were formed by two different methods: division (diaíresis, divisio) and partition (merismós, partitio). Many of the grammarians may actually have been unfamiliar with these methods, unlike the two most important scholars of the Late Republic, Varro and Cicero. Significant attention was devoted to the question whether the art of grammar is based on lógos or empeiría. This epistemological question had its roots in medical theories, which were prominent in Alexandria. In the history of the concept of grammatiké or grammatica, three stages become evident. In the Classical era, the Greek term is used to refer to a very concrete art of letters (grámmata); from the Hellenistic era onwards it refers to the art developed by the Alexandrian scholars, a matter of textual and literary criticism. Towards the end of the Hellenistic era, the grammarian also becomes involved with the question of correct language, which gradually begins to appear in the definitions as well.

Show me your brain! Stories of interdisciplinary knowledge creation in practice. Experiences and observations from Aalto Design Factory, Finland.

This dissertation centres on the themes of knowledge creation, interdisciplinarity and knowledge work. My research approaches interdisciplinary knowledge creation (IKC) as practical situated activity. I argue that by approaching IKC from the practice-based perspective makes it possible to “deconstruct” how knowledge creation actually happens, and demystify its strong intellectual, mentalistic and expertise-based connotations. I have rendered the work of the observed knowledge workers into something ordinary, accessible and routinized. Consequently this has made it possible to grasp the pragmatic challenges as well the concrete drivers of such activity. Thus the effective way of organizing such activities becomes a question of organizing and leading effective everyday practices. To achieve that end, I have conducted ethnographic research of one explicitly interdisciplinary space within higher education, Aalto Design Factory in Helsinki, Finland, where I observed how students from different disciplines collaborated in new product development projects. I argue that IKC is a multi-dimensional construct that intertwines a particular way of doing; a way of experiencing; a way of embodied being; and a way of reflecting on the very doing itself. This places emphasis not only the practices themselves, but also on the way the individual experiences the practices, as this directly affects how the individual practices. My findings suggest that in order to effectively organize and execute knowledge creation activities organizations need to better accept and manage the emergent diversity and complexity inherent in such activities. In order to accomplish this, I highlight the importance of understanding and using a variety of (material) objects, the centrality of mundane everyday practices, the acceptance of contradictions and negotiations well as the role of management that is involved and engaged. To succeed in interdisciplinary knowledge creation is to lead not only by example, but also by being very much present in the very everyday practices that make it happen.

Organizational creativity – Hegemonic and alternative discourses

SUMMARY Organizational creativity – hegemonic and alternative discourses Over the course of recent developments in the societal and business environment, the concept of creativity has been brought into new arenas. The rise of ‘creative industries’ and the idea of creativity as a form of capital have attracted the interests of business and management professionals – as well as academics. As the notion of creativity has been adopted in the organization studies literature, the concept of organizational creativity has been introduced to refer to creativity that takes place in an organizational context. This doctoral thesis focuses on organizational creativity, and its purpose is to explore and problematize the hegemonic organizational creativity discourse and to provide alternative viewpoints for theorizing about creativity in organizations. Taking a discourse theory approach, this thesis, first, provides an outline of the currently predominant, i.e. hegemonic, discourse on organizational creativity, which is explored regarding themes, perspectives, methods and paradigms. Second, this thesis consists of five studies that act as illustrations of certain alternative viewpoints. Through these exemplary studies, this thesis sheds light on the limitations and taken-for-granted aspects of the hegemonic discourse and discusses what these alternative viewpoints could offer for the understanding of and theorizing for organizational creativity. This study leans on an assumption that the development of organizational creativity knowledge and the related discourse is not inevitable or progressive but rather contingent. The organizational creativity discourse has developed in a certain direction, meaning that some themes, perspectives, and methods, as well as assumptions, values, and objectives, have gained a hegemonic position over others, and are therefore often taken for granted and considered valid and relevant. The hegemonization of certain aspects, however, contributes to the marginalization of others. The thesis concludes that the hegemonic discourse on organizational creativity is based on an extensive coverage of certain themes and perspectives, such as those focusing on individual cognitive processes, motivation, or organizational climate and their relation to creativity, to name a few. The limited focus on some themes and the confinement to certain prevalent perspectives, however, results in the marginalization of other themes and perspectives. The negative, often unintended, consequences, implications, and side effects of creativity, the factors that might hinder or prevent creativity, and a deeper inquiry into the ontology and epistemology of creativity have attracted relatively marginal interest. The material embeddedness of organizational creativity, in other words, the physical organizational environment as well as the human body and its non-cognitive resources, has largely been overlooked in the hegemonic discourse, although thereare studies in this area that give reason to believe that they might prove relevant for the understanding of creativity. The hegemonic discourse is based on an individual-centered understanding of creativity which overattributes creativity to an individual and his/her cognitive capabilities, while simultaneously neglecting how, for instance, the physical environment, artifacts, social dynamics and interactions condition organizational creativity. Due to historical reasons, quantitative as well as qualitative yet functionally- oriented studies have predominated the organizational creativity discourse, although studies falling into the interpretationist paradigm have gradually become more popular. The two radical paradigms, as well as methodological and analytical approaches typical of radical research, can be considered to hold a marginal position in the field of organizational creativity. The hegemonic organizational creativity discourse has provided extensive findings related to many aspects of organizational creativity, although the con- ceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity in the hegemonic discourse are also in many respects limited and one-sided. The hegemonic discourse is based on an assumption that creativity is desirable, good, necessary, or even obligatory, and should be encouraged and nourished. The conceptualiza- tions of creativity favor the kind of creativity which is useful, valuable and can be harnessed for productivity. The current conceptualization is limited to the type of creativity that is acceptable and fits the managerial ideology, and washes out any risky, seemingly useless, or negative aspects of creativity. It also limits the possible meanings and representations that ‘creativity’ has in the respective discourse, excluding many meanings of creativity encountered in other discourses. The excessive focus on creativity that is good, positive, productive and fits the managerial agenda while ignoring other forms and aspects of creativity, however, contributes to the dilution of the notion. Practices aimed at encouraging the kind of creativity may actually entail a risk of fostering moderate alterations rather than more radical novelty, as well as management and organizational practices which limit creative endeavors, rather than increase their likelihood. The thesis concludes that although not often given the space and attention they deserve, there are alternative conceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity which embrace a broader notion of creativity. The inability to accommodate the ‘other’ understandings and viewpoints within the organizational creativity discourse runs a risk of misrepresenting the complex and many-sided phenomenon of creativity in organizational context. Keywords: Organizational creativity, creativity, organization studies, discourse theory, hegemony