INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
Critical realism is a theory where the “real world existing independently from our
conceptions of it has exercised the minds of theorists and philosophers for the last two
millennia” (Scott & Morrison,2006,p193). The theory takes into account concepts that go
beyond observation and the scientific method. A thorough explanation of how knowledge is
constructed within Critical Realism will be highlighted. The differences between transitive
and intransitive knowledge will be discussed. An in depth discussion of the three definitions
of disciplinary knowledge according to Wheelahan will be emphasised. Critical Realism will
be applied to the schooling curriculum and a discussion of the implications Critical Realism
brings to the schooling curriculum will be underlined.
The theory of Critical Realism allows us to understand objects or concepts in the real world
that cannot necessarily be observed by our senses or studied using scientific enquiry. Within
Critical Realism knowledge is constructed through experience and social practice of the real
world (Wheelahan, 2010). Critical realism distinguishes knowledge in a variety of ways. In
order to understand the theory of Critical Realism the distinction between transitive and
intransitive dimensions of knowledge must be clarified.
Knowledge Construction within Critical Realism: The Distinction between Transitive and
Intransitive knowledge.
“Intransitive dimensions which refers to the existence of the real world” (Wheelan, 2010,
p74). Intransitive knowledge refers to the physical objects or social phenomena that exist in
the world in order to create knowledge (Sayer,2000). Intransitive knowledge exists
independent from human conception, meaning that there is no human interpretation of
knowledge and knowledge is presented as the world has created it (Wheelan, 2010). The
second distinction of knowledge is transitive knowledge. This knowledge constitutes of
human interpretation of objects in the real world. “The theories and discourse as media and
resources of science are part of its transitive dimension” (Sayer,2000). Theories of objects
constitutes as transitive knowledge. For example the physical existence of the brain will
constitute as intransitive knowledge but the study of the brain which is neurology will
constitute as transitive knowledge because there has been an attempt to have a deeper
understanding of the human brains therefore there is interpretation of the physical object.
Transitive knowledge may change as interpretations of the real world become richer to
researchers. This knowledge is not necessarily dependant on one another. As theories of the
physical world become more complex transitive knowledge can change but the presence of
1
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
intransitive knowledge will not (Sayer, 2000).The purpose of this distinction within Critical
Realism is to emphasise that knowledge cannot just be dependent on human interpretation
and the physical world. Other mechanisms of constructing this knowledge must be taken into
consideration (Sayer,2000). Critical realism must not be confused with Empiriscm which
only deals with the construction of knowledge using human senses. Critical realism is more
complex because it defines the real world as a separate entity of knowledge to human
interpretation of the world (Sayer,2000).
Knowledge construction within Critical Realism: The distinction between the real, the actual
and the empirical
There is further distinctions of knowledge within Critical realism. “Critical realism
distinguishes not only between the world and our experience of it, but between the real, the
actual and the empirical, defining these in a special way” (Sayer, 2000, p11). Critical realists
refer to the real world they are referring to any object or concept that exists in the physical
world. This does not necessarily mean that researchers can physically study the object. This
can either be within the natural sciences or the social sciences (Sayer,2000). The real world
takes into consideration the structure of the physical object and the influence of power within
a social phenomenon (Sayer,2000).The influence of power and structure contributes to the
change of transitive knowledge, powerful communities can influence what intransitive
knowledge should be taught and what should not (Sayer, 2000). Using the Marxist model
which Sayer uses in order to gain a better understanding of the influence social power.
“Bureaucracies can process large volumes of routine information very quickly, in virtue of
their structure (hierarchical organizations, specializations and filing systems, ect)”
(Sayer,2000). This is a prime example of how structure which is the hierarchical system and
power which are the bureaucrats, in the real world contribute to the construction of
knowledge within Critical realism. The real world allows Critical realist to establish “what
things must go together, and what could happen given the nature of the object” (Sayer, 2000,
p11).
The second distinction of knowledge within critical theory refers to the actual. “The actual
refers to what happens if and when those powers are activated” (Sayer, 2000,p12). The
actual emphasises the influence of power within the construction of knowledge. If the power
is activated or deactivated on a physical object a ceratin outcome will come of it. The
grouping of events will cause a certain outcome. This is known as a causal power. Sayer uses
2
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
the theory of Marxism, the labour of the working class would be a result of power from the
superstructure (Sayer, 2000).
The third distinction of power is the empirical. The empirical is anything that is observable
to humans is considered to be knowledge. Critical realists claim that observations allows
researchers to be more confident about the existence of knowledge but, not everything in the
physical world can be observed (Sayer,2000). “The existence of unobservable entities can be
made by reference to observable effects which can only be explained as products of such
entities” (Sayer, 2000,p12). Critical realists construct knowledge through the outcomes of
observable objects. Meaning that many other concepts have stemmed from a physical
observation of the real or actual world. This pertains to the natural and social sciences (Sayer,
2000).
The theory of Critical Realism discusses the concept of a stratified ontology oppose to a ‘flat
ontology’ (Sayer,2000). This the layering of the real, the actual and the empirical world in
order to construct knowledge (Sayer,2000). Stratified ontology allows the theory to explore
beyond what is not observable in the real world, it considers other factors that construct
knowledge. “Critical realism argues that the world is characterized by emergence”
(Sayer,2000,p12). According to Sayer emergence is defined as where a situation has two or
more factors that create new phenomenon. These factors are known as the properties of
emergence and relate to transitive domains of knowledge (Sayer,2000). Many properties are
contingent with one another in order to construct knowledge. Men and women have
biological properties but through these biological properties issues of gender inequality are
raised and this is a social property. A set concept of knowledge within Critical Realism can
bring many other set concepts stemming from one set concept.
An important aspect of how knowledge is constructed within Critical Realism is the one of
causation. “One of the most distinctive features of realism is its analysis of causation” (Sayer,
2000,p13). Critical Relists have a different perspective of causation to the positivist’s
approach. Positivists put forward that, if a particular event occurs numerous of times under
the same conditions, knowledge is more sound and accurate. According to the Critical
Realists “Explanation depends on identifying causal mechanisms and how they work, and
discovering if they have been activated and under what conditions” (Sayer, 2000, p14).
Critical realists are more concerned with causal mechanisms and how they constructed within
a structure and how this influences knowledge construction. Causal mechanisms are a
3
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
number of conditions or factors that are activated or deactivated by power relation within
physical structures of the real world which contributes to knowledge construction within
Critical Realism (Sayer,2000).
The three approaches to disciplinary knowledge according to Wheelahan.
According to Wheelahan Disciplinary knowledge can be seen in three different perspectives
within Critical Realism. The first approach is the distinction of intransitive knowledge and
transitive knowledge within Critical Theory. “This is an important distinction because it
demonstrates that objects and the knowledge we have are not the same”
(Wheelahan,2010,p74). This distinction of knowledge allows for an understanding that,
knowledge of the real world will not be interpreted the same and a variety of factors must be
taken into consideration in order for knowledge to be constructed. Intransitive knowledge is
knowledge about objects in the real. Transitive knowledge is human’s interpretation and
conception of objects and structures in the real (Wheelahan, 2010). Critical realists emphasise
that knowledge is constructed through humans practice within the real world (Wheelahan,
2010). This contributes to the construction of transitive knowledge. Disciplines such as
physics, chemistry, biology, psychology or sociology are seen as transitive knowledge.
Collier in Wheelahan claims that “Theories and knowledge are the raw materials of the
academic disciplines (rather than the end product) and this raw material is used to deepen
knowledge of the intransitive dimension” (Wheelahan, 2010,p75). Transitive knowledge
allows us to have a better and complex understanding of the real.
The second approach to what disciplinary knowledge is, involves the distinction between
everyday knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. According to Wheelahan knowledge for
academic use which is disciplinary knowledge is different to everyday knowledge
(Wheelahan, 2010). Everyday knowledge is gained by simply living life. This knowledge is
objective and there is no conception applied to this knowledge (Wheelahan,2010). Everyday
knowledge is unpredictable and it is produced by what activities or objects interest us
(Wheelahan,2010). There is no specific purpose to everyday knowledge. Whereas
disciplinary knowledge is structured and has a desired purpose. Physics, chemistry, biology,
psychology or sociology all these disciplines have a different purposes whether it is to have a
deeper understanding of the human body or animals. Disciplinary knowledge allows us to
have a deeper understanding of how society influences an individual’s behaviour.
Disciplinary knowledge is only accessible at a learning institution such as universities or
4
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
schools. “Methods of inquiry in all disciplines are systematic and consist of (more or less
shared) systematic social; practices” (Wheelahan, 2010, p76). Even though the purpose of
disciplinary knowledge may differ between disciplines but how knowledge is investigated or
constructed is similar in all disciplines (Wheelahan,2010).
The third approach to define disciplinary knowledge, is the distinction between abstract
knowledge and concrete knowledge. In Wheelahan, abstract knowledge is knowledge that is
constructed through experimentation, where one effect from a mechanism is isolated, this is
also known as a closed system where a certain condition is isolated from the event
(Wheelahan, 2010). “Disciplines are abstract sciences because (as in the case of physics,
chemistry and biology) they abstract particular structures and causal mechanisms to
demonstrate their action” (Wheelahan,2010, p80). Physics, chemistry, biology are seen to be
abstract disciplines because there is a singling out of conditions and outcomes from the event
in order to gain knowledge. ”Abstract sciences are individuated by the kinds of laws that they
discover” (Wheelahan, 2010, p80). Abstract knowledge is driven by the theories that were
constructed for that particular discipline. For example Mendel’s theory of genetics influenced
the concepts to study of genetics within plants and animals. Most natural sciences fall under
the category of abstract sciences. Wheelahan claims that concrete knowledge focuses on
many conditions or causal mechanism that cause a certain outcomes of knowledge. The way
knowledge is viewed in the concrete sciences differ from the abstract sciences. They differ
because objects being studied in the concrete sciences are complex and have multiple factors
to consider, and have different outcomes (Wheelahan,2010). Knowledge is constructed in
open systems meaning that un-experimental conditions and a variety of factors and causal
mechanism are taken into consideration for many outcomes (Wheelahan,2010). Concrete
knowledge aims to explain or have a deeper understanding of transitive objects, therefore
theories for knowledge are not given too much importance (Wheelan,2010). In order to have
a better understanding of transitive objects within the concrete sciences, knowledge from the
abstract sciences must be considered (Wheelahan,2010). Disciplines within education such a
sociology, philosophy, psychology are considered to be part of concrete knowledge This is
misleading because not all social sciences are part of open systems or concrete knowledge
(Wheelahan,2010) Some social science disciplines use methods of investigation from the
abstract sciences such as theorists like Skinner and Piaget (Wheelahan,2010). We must also
take into account that not all natural sciences belong to the abstract sciences, and some
disciplines take from the concrete sciences such as Astronomy (Wheelahan,2010).
5
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
Disciplinary Knowledge in the school curriculum
Disciplinary knowledge is found within a school curriculum, therefore there are undertones
of Critical Realism within the school curriculum. This results in implication within the school
curriculum. (Wheelahan,2010). According to Wheelahan the education curriculum’s main
purpose should strive to search for the truth within knowledge (Wheelahan,2010).In reality,
the curriculum focuses on knowledge that is incorrect or fallible and therefore is revised to
what is considered as the correct state of knowledge therefore, moving towards the truth
(Wheelahan,2010).Due to the fallibility of knowledge there cannot be a representation of
truth within the curriculum but, educators must work with available evidence of knowledge
in order to move towards the truth (Wheelahan,2010). All curriculums highlight that truth is
very important, but more authoritarian curriculums do not consider judgement rationality,
which is ongoing arguments in order to search for claims in reality. Wheelahan states that
judgement rationality should be encouraged within the school curriculum.
(Wheelahan,2010). “Curriculum cannot and should not present theoretical knowledge as
timeless truths that cannot be questioned” (Wheelahan,2010, p85). The curriculum must
provide learners with a domains where knowledge can be tested, and learners can critically
engage and make judgements of the knowledge. Wheelahan states that the curriculum should
encourage epistemological relativism. (Wheelahan,2010). Epistemological Relativism aids
teachers and learners to falsify knowledge within the curriculum. This allows teachers and
learners to make valid judgements of knowledge that is being presented in the curriculum.
Epistemological relativism encourages teachers and learners to use unconventional ways of
thinking. (Wheelahan,2010). Methods of enquiry within disciplinary knowledge provide a
good bases in where knowledge can be tested and therefore learners are able to explore other
ways of thinking (Wheelahan,2010). This allows for methods of enquiry within disciplinary
knowledge to be criticised because standards and rules of evidence are clear cut to teachers
and learners which results in, a better understanding and therefore can be criticised
(Wheelahan,2010).
The distinction between transitive knowledge and intransitive knowledge within Critical
realism is an important aspect because it allows us to understand the differences between the
real, the actual and the empirical. Transitive and intransitive knowledge plays an important
role in knowledge construction it gives rise to the concept of disciplinary knowledge.
Disciplinary knowledge can be explained in three different perspectives. The first is the
6
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
distinction between transitive knowledge and intransitive knowledge. The second is the
distinction between everyday knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. The third is the
distinction between abstract knowledge and concrete knowledge taking note that not all
natural sciences use abstract methods of enquiry and not all social sciences use concrete
methods of enquiry. The main implications critical realism has on the curriculum is that the
curriculums main goal must be to generate truth. Since knowledge can be fallible within the
curriculum this is not possible therefore the curriculum should encourage judgemental
rationality and epistemological relativism. Different ways of thinking should be encourages
and teachers and learners should be encouraged to falsify knowledge in order to search for
the truth.
7
INES DE ALMEIDA
3/6/14
CRITICAL REALISM
Reference List:
Sayer, A. (2000). Key features of critical realism in practice. In Realism and social science.
London: Sage
Scott, D & Morrison, M. (2006). Realism. In Key ideas in educational research.
London/New York: Continuum.
Wheelahan, L. (2010). The role of the disciplines in curriculum: a critical realist analysis. In
Why knowledge matters in curriculum. London/New York. Routledge.
8