Philosophy in Pubs - Liverpool Weds 25th Jan 7.30pm

Subscribed to Philosophy in Pubs for many years, I've posted to the list also in the distant past, but I've never attended a meeting. This past week I noticed a message about a new subgroup - Young Philosophers - in Liverpool from Mike (phone numbers removed). Below, I've posted some of the online chat:

On Saturday, 14 January 2023 at 14:38:50 GMT, <info AT philosophyinpubs.co.uk> wrote:

Hi everybody,

 

Its Mike from the Keith's PIP and the young philosophers group.
I am currently re-launching the latter as a new PIP group at
Thomas Rigby's in town (23-25 Dale St, Liverpool L2 2EZ)

 

The first meeting of the Philosophy group will be
Wednesday evening the 25th January at 7.30pm.

Please come along, all welcome, all ages.

 

If you need anymore  information, please email me (email below) or call me on ...

 

Thanks

Mike Green.

michaelljohngreen AT gmail.com 

This piqued my interest, given my love of Liverpool (born in Walton) and the question of at what age can younger people - children be introduced to Hodges' model?

I replied expressing interest in the possibility of contributing, once the group is established, or as a 'starter for 10', seeking critique as to what sense young philosophers would make of the model.

Responding with an introduction to Hodges' model, and expression of interest, Paul and Rob replied as per below, to which I've tried to add some clarification.

Rob's thoughts are very helpful. The upshot is, I'm looking f/w to a full day in Liverpool this Wednesday, meeting Mike, Paul, Rob and possibly others before the meeting starts at 7.30pm.

Paul's message (intended for me):

info AT philosophyinpubs.co.uk
Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 13:00:12 GMT
Subject: Re: New PIP group!

Hi Mike, Peter

Yes, you seem to be part of quite a sizeable group of people on our general members/mailing list that have not gotten round to attending one of the groups yet. But that's okay, absolutely no need for apologies, your interest is appreciated anyway.

I've had a quick glance at your attachments; found what I read very interesting and would like to know more. I don't think I've heard of the Hodges' model, or at least not in relation to what we generally practice (Community of Enquiry method).

It's great that you would like to contribute or provide a session regarding the Hodges' model, but I'm not sure if doing that would fit well with this particular opening meeting of a new PIP group. Having said that, I could be very mistaken, and an introduction in the manner you mention, might be a great way to get people thinking and herald a fruitful meeting. The meeting is due to start at 7.30pm - (meetings usually take one and a half to two hours), but if you like I could meet you there half an hour earlier. Let me know.

We have something called the Enquiry Development Series (EDS) running at the moment. It's a monthly Online event which is run for PIP members and others to learn/refresh their undertanding and practices. You would be most welcome to attend.

Best regards,

Paul ...

PS: I have cc'd some members of the EDS in with this reply.

From Rob:

On 2023-01-16 12:44, fappyhealing02 AT yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Hi Everyone,

From my very limited reading on Hodge's model. It seems to be concerned with very similar issues to those of PIPs and the CofE community, which is an expression of prior analysis, critique and reflection coming from people like Dewey, Postman, Freire, Lipman and so on. I have a basic grasp of the model as a conceptual framework and a means to better care and understanding across society. What I don't seem to have picked up so much is a more fully developed methodology rooted in practice and realisation of these ideas.

This leads me wonder whether this model/framework is mainly conceptual, with limited  methodological guidance towards how the ideas in the framework are to be expressed and realised. PIPs is at the stage where it has a very successful methodology which realises and expresses in practice the ideas that Hodge points to, along with the philosophy of education eluded to earlier and various other frameworks such as the Paul and Elder model of critical thinking.

So, we have the history and philosophical education from Socrates onwards, the comes a distillation of these ideas into a framework or model, which is where we find Piaget, Bloom, Paul and Elder, along with Hodge and others. These models then have to be cashed out in practice. At this point, we are now thinking about methodology, there is of course connection, influence and overlap with the history, philosophy and subsequent frameworks. Methodologies vary from being barely formed to being well formed and robust. I would say PIPs and CofE have a well formed and somewhat robust methodological practice. It has been well tested and critiqued for over 40 years in different countries, communities and contexts. It has stood the test of time with a good pedigree. Matt Lipman was a key figure in developing a methodology out of his research into philosophy of education and various frameworks/models. However the methodology he produced to deliver in practice was something of a prototype rather than the more fully formed, finished article. Through time and careful reflection people like R Sutcliffe and Karin Muris took Lipman's methods improved and polished them into the practice we see and use 40 years later. This is of course still developing along democratic and dialogic lines.

In the case of Edward De Bonno, Paul and Elder, Illich and Dewey we find some powerful insights, some partially formed models and some fully formed models but not that much guidance on how to implement these ideas. Yes, they provide some ideas and pointers on how to go about the realisation of these things in practice but methodology on the whole is pretty sparse. I guess it's a case of focussing on a specific group of concerns comes at the cost of other concerns, though, I don't want to take this too far and slip into zero-sum thinking. Anyway, based on limited understandings I'd provisionally put Hodge in this category of well formed model, limited methodology in terms of the nuts and bolts of how to best realise the model in practice.

Questions I'm left with:

Is the distinction between model and methodology a significant and useful one here - why? Yes/No, because...?

Given our current point of development and understanding, by doing what we do, are we already cashing out a good deal of the key ideas in Hodge's model?

Could we just clarify what Hodge's model is a model of?

Do I need some help in understanding Hodge better in terms of both 'model' and 'methodology'?

This isn't to say we should not draw inspiration and ideas or take time to explore and experiment with Hodge's model, just that I need to be clearer about what it is, what it's trying to do, how it is going to do it. Once more secure with this, I feel I'd be in a better position to make more competent judgements and recommendations about its uses and benefits.

Best wishes,

Rob

My reply:

Subject: Re: New PIP group!

Thanks for the messages - just caught up I think...

I wondered originally Mike - about your young philosopher's group and once established asking the group the questions that Rob has posed and responded to.

I'm seeking critique, not proposing that Hodges' model is adopted by PIP.

The questions posed by the model - might gainfully exercise younger minds, and provide me with some pointers - which I would make clear (from ethics / consent perspective).

I greatly appreciate Rob's thoughts*.

A question I have educationally is from what age (literacy level) which Hodges' model #h2cm might be taught (discovered?).

I'd be pleased to come through on the 25th Mike and Paul, arriving a bit earlier.

I'll get to Liverpool early a.m. train and make a day of it.

As per Rob, I'm still asking these questions of the model and enjoying the journey ... so, briefly in response:

There is no methodology associated with the model, it is 'agnostic' (whatever that means).

The model is situated - so clinically, the way the model is used is influenced by the patient, client, carer, student, manager ...

The model can provide a relational ontology - it incorporates several polarities, dichotomies, oppositions and instrumentally can facilitate dialectic engagement.

It can be applied (imho) for a variety of research and philosophical stances, standpoints - Qual , Quant, Mixed-methods ... all the -isms?

As you will no doubt appreciate, in education and health care (especially) we need *evidence-based* interventions.

In seeking possible theoretical underpinnings for #h2cm think (as Rob suggests) of the model as a giant conceptual corpus (drawing from Tim Berners-Lee's giant global graph).

The axes of the model represent the (conceptual) holistic bandwidth of the situation.

The model can wax and wane as per the context (scale, scope). In a reductive sense I see the four (care) knowledge domains as four 'conceptual spaces' (Gärdenfors).

h2cm can also find a 'home' in the semantic web and in education - the idea of 'threshold concepts' (Meyer and Land).

There is another tool, but this calls for a logician - if not a totally erroneous idea?

[ Note diametric oppositions in the model: e.g.

• public understanding of science;
• the extent of visualization in the humanities;
• mental health (the self) and the State (politics, law) current Psycho-Economic crisis. ]

*ROB - and all - I'd be pleased to post your thoughts / response on the blog, if this is appropriate with links and text on PIPs.

I hope this helps and look f/w to next week - thanks for your interest too.

Best to all.

Peter

====

Clearly not the last word. Look f/w to Wednesday and learning more.