Call for Papers: Thresholds in Education

Thresholds in Education (ISSN 0196-9641)

CALL FOR PAPERS

Guest Editor:
John Petrovic, The University of Alabama

Overview
This special issue seeks to elaborate on two themes: the nature of
controversy and the use of controversial topics as pedagogy in
schools. Authors are free to engage the themes discretely or
simultaneously.

On the Nature of Controversy
The “nature of controversy” refers to the question of how a topic is
deemed “controversial.” What does it mean to say something is
controversial? A criterion of numerosity (or behavioral criterion),
wherein a topic is deemed controversial simply because disagreement
attaches to it, is probably insufficient. How many people must
disagree? Must the disagreement be reasonable? Should we treat Nazism
as controversial because some people deny the holocaust?

Michael Hand, for example, argues that there are no reasonable
arguments against homosexuality and that it, therefore, should not be
approached as a controversial issue in schools, even as people
disagree. Hand defends what he calls the epistemic criterion, wherein
an issue cannot be held to be controversial if argument on one side or
the other is contrary to reason. Petrovic, however, defends a
political criterion by which controversy obtains when no answer to an
issue is entailed in the public values of the liberal democratic
state. What are the pedagogical implications here? Do we even need
determine philosophically the nature of controversy before discussing
pedagogical issues? Might the behavioral criterion be sufficient? Can
we assume, in other words, that any disagreement can promote the
development of the capacity for democratic deliberation and civic
engagement – presumably the raison d'etre of controversy as pedagogy?

Controversy as Pedagogy
Too often teachers consider the introduction of a controversial issue
as a method in and of itself under the assumption that it will
engender not only discussion but also thoughtful discussion. To
discuss controversy as pedagogy, we must consider a number of
interrelated questions: Are all controversial issues pedagogically
equal? Or, put another way, should all controversial issues be dealt
with in schools or can we determine that certain issues are more or
less educative or even miseducative than others or just too
controversial? Diana Hess, for example, rightly contemns that there
seems to be little support “for engaging young people in serious
discussions of policy and constitutional issues related to abortion.”
Given the very strong positions on both sides of such an issue, might
an issue be too controversial or the positions too far apart? Could
engagement with such an issue have “the effect of arresting or
distorting the growth of further experience,” as Dewey cautioned? What
happens to students who hold less popular or more radical views? Might
they not retreat and simply “dig in”? What happens to students who
really just don't know? Are they expected to take a position in the
end? Should students be allowed to be “positionless” always? If so,
how do their own values form and on what grounds do they engage in
democratic deliberation?

Having waded through such questions, how should we introduce
controversial issues in schools? What practices might best serve our
purpose in dealing with controversy in the first place? Is simple
debate among students enough? Are there guiding principles of such
debate that should be taught first and what are those? Might they too
be controversial? For example, must one really respect positions s/he
finds repugnant? How should such respect manifest? What should the
role of the teacher be? Should she seek to lead students to certain
understandings? If she holds that an issue about which there is
disagreement betrays the epistemic criterion or the political
criterion, shouldn't the pedagogy be leading?

Author Guidelines

Proposal Format
Please email a 500-1000 word, excluding references, proposal for
review in a word document to John Petrovic (contact information below)
by August 1, 2015. This proposal should include a list of key
references that will be utilized in the chapter, as well as 3-4
keywords. Also, please include a brief author bio (200 word limit) and
all relevant contact information.

Final Manuscript Formatting
• TIE accepts manuscripts of up to 10,000 words, including abstract,
list of keywords, appendices, footnotes and references, and reserves
the right to return any manuscript that exceeds that length.
• All text must be double-spaced; type size must be 12 point with
1-inch margins on all sides.
• Authors should refer to The Chicago Manual of Style for general
questions of style, grammar, punctuation, and form, and for footnotes
of theoretical, descriptive, or essay-like material.
• The journal defers to author preference in decisions about the
naming and capitalization of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.
Manuscripts should be internally consistent in this regard.

Call for papers: May 1, 2015
Proposals Due: August 1, 2015
Accept/Reject: August 28, 2015
Draft Articles Due: January 8, 2016
Feedback to authors: March 8, 2016
Final Drafts Due: May 8, 2016
Published: Summer 2016

Contact Info:

John E. Petrovic

The University of Alabama

Box 870302

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0302

205 348 0465 (office)

205 348 2161 (fax)

petrovic@bamaed.ua.edu