Severin S. POST-NON-CLASSICAL PEDAGOGY AS AN OBJECT OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY AND METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION: RISKS OF DESOVEREIGNIZATION. LIFELONG EDUCATION: The 21st Century.
2024. № 3 (47). DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2024.9687


Issue 3 (47)

Lifelong learning in the modern world: the research and design methodology
pdf-version

POST-NON-CLASSICAL PEDAGOGY AS AN OBJECT OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY AND METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION: RISKS OF DESOVEREIGNIZATION

Severin Sergey N.
PhD in Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of German Philology and Linguodidactics
Brest State University named after A.S. Pushkin
(Brest, Republic of Belarus)
severin_sn@mail.ru
Keywords:
post-non-classical pedagogy
methodological trends
trends in the development of science
development strategies of post-non-classical pedagogy
risks of desovereignization of post-non-classical pedagogy
factors of deconfiguration of pedagogy.		 Abstract: the article is devoted to the methodological problem of desovereignization of post-non-classical pedagogy and is of an analytical-hypothetical, debatable nature. The research problem is to determine how cultural and scientific transformations associated with the formation of post-non-classical culture, science, development trends of post-non-classical science influence the development of pedagogy; what methodological trends of post-non-classical pedagogical research these transformations form, including those of a destructive nature. The author focuses on the trends in the development of science in the context of post-non-classical culture (humanitariazation, convergence, intensification of inter- and transdisciplinary research, etc.), strategies for the development of post-non-classical pedagogy (in what direction should pedagogy be developed?), the trends in the methodology of post-non-classical pedagogical research, the risks of desovereignization pedagogy, factors of desovereignization, involution of post-non-classical pedagogy, methodological entropy in pedagogy (spontaneous divergent and convergent processes in science, the formation of «metascience», «technoscience», intensification of inter- and transdisciplinary studies of education, integration of pedagogy into inter- and transdisciplinary complexes, influence postmodernism, rejection of the paradigm as a methodological standard of research, emphasis on methodological pluralism, multi-paradigm). The author accentuates the main destructive methodological attitudes/trends/tendencies of post-non-classical pedagogy, post-non-classical pedagogical research (humanistic «declarism» (A. A. Arlamov), technocratism, «parade of paradigms, methodologies, neo-pedagogy» (V. V. Kraevsky), «erosion» of the disciplinary structure of pedagogy, legalization of «polymethodologies»), it is argued that the condition for ensuring the scientific sovereignty of post-non-classical pedagogy is the complementarity and synchronization of the following strategies for its development: theorization, humanitarization, methodologization and convergence (application of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, inter- and transdisciplinary methodological tools in pedagogical research).
Paper submitted on: 06/23/2024; Accepted on: 08/16/2024; Published online on: 09/26/2024.

References

  1. Arkhipova O. V. Philosophical and cultural foundations of education throughout life: post-non-classical context. Nepreryvnoye obrazovanie: XXI vek [Lifelong education: the 21st century]. 2013. Is. 1. DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2013.1942 (In Russ.)
  2. Budanov V. G. Transdisciplinary discourses of post-non-classics: knowledge, communication, self-organization in the anthroposphere. Transdistsyplinarnost v filisofii i nauke: podkhody, problem, perspectivy [Transdisciplinarity in philosophy and science: approaches, problems, prospects]. Moscow, 2015. P. 145–159. (In Russ.)
  3. Kiyashchenko L. P., Moiseev V. I. Philosophy of transdisciplinarity. Moscow, 2009. 205 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Stepin V. S. Classics, non-classical, post-non-classical: criteria for differentiation. Postneklassika: filisofiya, nauka, kultura [Post-non-classical: philosophy, science, culture]. Saint Petersburg, 2009. P. 249–295. (In Russ.)
  5. Lyotard J.-F. The state of postmodernity. Saint Petersburg, 1998. 159 p. (In Russ.)
  6. Toffler E. The Third Wave [Electronic resource]. Electron. dan. URL: http://royallib.com/read/toffler_elvin/tretya_volna.html#2130051. (In Russ.)
  7. Bibler V. S. Dialogue and dialogue [Electronic resource]. Electron. Dan. URL: https://dia-logic.livejournal.com/189020.html?ysclid=lor7fr5r8u930688732 (date of acсess 11.09.2023). (In Russ.)
  8. Kagan M. S. Prospects for the development of humanitarian knowledge in the 21st century. Lichnost. Kultura. Obshchestvo [Personality. Culture. Society]. 2005. Vol. 4 (28). P. 60–69. (In Russ.)
  9. Likhachev D. S. On the national character of Russians. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of philosophy]. 1990. No. 4. P. 3–7. (In Russ.)
  10. Knyazeva E. N., Kurdyumov S. P. Laws of evolution and self-organization of complex systems. Moscow, 1994. 236 p. (In Russ.)
  11. Subetto A. I. Ethics of pedagogical innovations [Electronic resource]. Academy of Trinitarianism. Electron. dan. URL: http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/000/a0000001.htm (date of acсess 07.14.2023). (In Russ.)
  12. Yudin B. G. Transhumanism: superhumanism or antihumanism? Bioetika i gumanitarnaya ekspertiza [Bioethics and humanitarian expertise]. Moscow, 2013. Is. 7. P. 10–24. (In Russ.)
  13. Stepin V. S. Theoretical knowledge. Moscow, 2000. 744 p. (In Russ.)
  14. Dugin A. G. Evolution of paradigmatic foundations of science. Moscow, 2002. 418 p. (In Russ.)
  15. Mikeshina L. A. Methodology of scientific knowledge in the context of culture. Moscow, 1992. 174 p. (In Russ.)
  16. Bratchenko S. L. Introduction to humanitarian examination of education. Moscow, 1999. 137 p. (In Russ.)
  17. Knyazeva E. N. Transdisciplinary research strategies. Vestnik Tomskogo GPU [Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University]. 2011. No. 10 (112). P. 193–201. (In Russ.)
  18. Tulchinsky G. L. Humanitarian expertise as a social technology. Vestnik Cheliabinskoy gosudarstvennoy akademii kultury i iskusstva [Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State Academy of Culture and Arts]. 2008. No. 4 (16). P. 38–52. (In Russ.)
  19. Yudin B. G. Transdisciplinary character of humanitarian expertise. Transdistsyplinarnost v filosofii i nauke [Transdisciplinarity in philosophy and science: approaches, problems, prospects]. Moscow, 2015. P. 319–333. (In Russ.)
  20. Porus V. N. Paradoxical rationality (essays on scientific rationality). Moscow, 1999. 124 p. (In Russ.)
  21. Shvyrev V. S. Rationality as a value of culture. Tradition and modernity. Moscow, 2003. 176 p. (In Russ.)
  22. Shavel S. A. Public mission of sociology. Minsk, 2010. 404 p. (In Russ.)
  23. Nicolescu B., Volckmann B. Transdisciplinarity: Basarab Nicolescutalks with Russ Volckmann // Integral Rev. 2007. Is. 4. P. 73–90.
  24. Barnes V. Elusive Memories of Technoscience // Perspectives on Science: Historical, Philosophical, Social. 2005. Vol. 13. Is. 2. P. 142–165.
  25. Bazhanov V. A. On the phenomenon of transdisciplinary scientific revolution. Transdistsyplinarnost v filosofii i nauke [Transdisciplinarity in philosophy and science: approaches, problems, prospects]. Moscow, 2015. P. 136–144. (In Russ.)
  26. Morin E. Method. Nature of Nature. Moscow, 2005. 464 p. (In Russ.)
  27. Porus V. N. From interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity: bridges between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of culture. Transdistsyplinarnost v filosofii i nauke [Transdisciplinarity in philosophy and science: approaches, problems, prospects]. Moscow, 2015. P. 416–432. (In Russ.)
  28. Arlamov A. A. Integrity of methodological approaches in pedagogical research (universalization and the relation of compensatoryness). Vestnik Volgogradskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University]. 2009. No. 5. P. 14–18. (In Russ.)
  29. Bordovskaya N. V. Pedagogical systemology: statement of the problem. Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 1998. No. 8. P. 25–30. (In Russ.)
  30. Korshunova N. L. The concept of a paradigm: in the labyrinths of search. Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 2006. No. 8. P. 11–20. (In Russ.)
  31. Kraevsky V. V. Methodology of pedagogy: past and present. Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 2002. No. 1. P. 3–10. (In Russ.)
  32. Kraevsky V. V. How many pedagogies do we have? Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 1997. No. 4. P. 113–118. (In Russ.)
  33. Polonsky V. M. Conceptual and terminological apparatus of pedagogy. Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 1999. No. 8. P. 16–23. (In Russ.)
  34. Pruzhinin B. I. Ratio serviens? Contours of cultural-historical epistemology. Moscow, 2009. 423 p. (In Russ.)
  35. Rakitov A. I. New science ‒ new science. Naukovedcheskiye issledovanija [Scientific research]. Moscow, 2003. 144 p. (In Russ.)
  36. Ivin A. A. Theory of argumentation. Moscow, 2000. 414 p. (In Russ.)
  37. Choshanov M. A. E-didactics: a new look at the theory of learning in the era of digital technologies. Obrazovatelnyje tekhnologii i obshchestvo [Educational technologies and society]. 2013. T. 16. No. 3. P. 673–685. (In Russ.)
  38. Kolesnikova I. A. Post-pedagogical syndrome of the era of digital modernism. Vysshee obrazovanoje v Rossii [Higher education in Russia]. 2019.  T. 28. No. 8/9. P. 67–82. (In Russ.)
  39. Kolesnikova I. A. Transdisciplinary strategy for the study of continuing education [Electronic resource]. Nepreryvnoje obrazovanije: XXI vek [Lifelong education: the 21st century]. 2014. Is. 4. Electronic. Dan. URL: https://lll21.petrsu.ru/journal/article.php?id=2642 (date of acсess 11.17.2023). (In Russ.)
  40. Sulima I. I. Humanitarian principles of organizing the educational process. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta imeni N. I. Lobachevskogo [Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod N. I. Lobachevsky University]. 2014. No. 6. P. 178–182. (In Russ.)
  41. Stepanov S. Yu. On the problem of choosing a strategy for the development of digital education as continuous. Nepreryvnoje obrazovanije: XXI vek [Lifelong education: the 21st century]. 2019. Vol. 1 (25). DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2019.4464 (In Russ.)
  42. Novikov A. M. Methodology of education. Moscow, 2006. 488 p. (In Russ.)
  43. Fomicheva I. G. Theoretical and methodological foundations for the structuring of pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. 2001. No. 9. P. 11–19. (In Russ.)
  44. Rozhkov M. I. Concept of existential pedagogy. Vestnik Yaroslavskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Yaroslavl Pedagogical University]. 2002. No. 4 (33). P. 1–15. (In Russ.)
  45. Podlinyaev O. L., Shisharina N. V., Romm T. A. The problem of hygienic assessment of pedagogical technologies in secondary schools in the context of neurodidactics. Vestnik Buriatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Obrazovanije. Lichnost. Obshchestvo [Bulletin of the Buryat State University. Education. Personality. Society]. 2019. Vol. 1. P. 63–70. (In Russ.)
  46. Feldshtein D. I. Psychological and pedagogical science as a resource for the development of modern society. Probleny sovremennogo obrazovanija [Problems of modern education]. 2011. No. 6. P. 8–22. (In Russ.)
  47. Tsyrkun I. I. Unsolved problems and strategies for the development of pedagogical science. Adukatsiya i vykhavanne [Education and Upbringing]. 2011. No. 8. P. 16–24. (In Russ.)
  48. Acker R., Gibbons E., Vermeulen T. Metamodernism. Historicity, Affect and Depth after postmodernism. Moscow, 2017. 273 p. (In Russ.)
  49. Guseltseva M. S. Metamodernism in psychology: new methodological strategies and changes in subjectivity. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologija [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Psychology]. 2018. T. 8. Is. 4. P. 327–340. (In Russ.)

Displays: 241; Downloads: 42;

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15393/j5.art.2024.9687