Aristotelian-Ignatian in All Things

Aristotelian-Ignatian “In All Things,”

Praxis Based Theory Building

Abstract

While Ignatian teaching epistemology is relatively well developed, it is less so for theory building epistemology within the social sciences and professional schools. This issue is particularly important for research universities and research oriented professors where teaching and research are much more closely joined, particularly in Ph.D. and some masters level programs. A three moment Ignatian teaching epistemology is: (1) inductive attention to “God in all things;” (2) hermeneutic interpretation of meaning; and, (3) loving praxis. This is similar to the first three moments of a four moment Aristotelian praxis based theory building epistemology of: (1) inductive experience based attention to the good, the true, and the beautiful that is naturally and potentially in all things; (2) hermeneutic interpretation (what Aristotle referred to as theoria and is different from the fourth moment theory building); (3) ethical praxis, service to others; and, (4) praxis based theory building. That fourth theory building Aristotelian moment can be integrated with the three moment Ignatian process. This integration can be considered from both a theological “In All Things” perspective and a philosophical “In All Things” Aristotelian perspective. Within social science based dialectic change theory, conflict transformation, socioeconomic development, organization development, action learning, positive psychology, and positive organizational studies, this four moment Aristotelian theory building epistemology is often implicitly used. This article compares an Ignatian “In all things” based pedagogical epistemology with an Aristotelian praxis based theory building epistemology and suggests a theory building integration of Aristotelian and Ignatian methods. It then considers examples of explicitly Ignatian influenced and other social scientists who have used this four moment epistemological process. Implications for research and theory building within Jesuit colleges and universities are considered.

Richard P. Nielsen, Professor

Department of Management and Organization

Boston College

Fulton Hall 436

Carroll School of Management

Aristotelian-Ignatian “In All Things,”

Praxis Based Theory Building

Abstract

Richard P. Nielsen, Professor

Department of Management and Organization

Carroll School of Management

Boston College

Fulton Hall 436

Aristotelian-Ignatian “In All Things,”

Praxis Based Theory Building

Abstract

1. Introduction

Colleges and universities can be compared and identified with respect to relative emphases on production of relatively new knowledge and distribution of relatively old knowledge, in short, the teaching vs. research university (McCormick & Zhao, 2005).There is a large literature on Ignatian pedagogical epistemology that for the most part focuses onundergraduate pedagogy that is particularly applicable to teaching and knowledge distribution oriented colleges and universities (e.g., Korth, 2008). However, there is a potential problem here with respect to research and knowledge production universities where teaching is closely related to research and research focused on theory building, particularly in Ph.D. programs and some masters programs.

There is also some data to suggest that in the U.S. about 10% of professors produce about 90% of research in the top research journals and most of those professors are located withinthe top 100 research universities out of a U.S. population of some 2,000 plus colleges and universities. Most Jesuit universities within the U.S. are ranked as and generally considered, perhaps unfairly, more teaching than top 100 research and theory building universities. A partial solution to this problem and potential opportunity is an extension of Ignatian pedagogical epistemology to include an Aristotelian theory building moment that could help link Ignatian pedagogical epistemology with research and teaching interests of research oriented professors and universities.

This article proceeds as follows. First, a common Ignatian “In All Things” teaching oriented epistemology that does not include a theory building moment is described. Second, a four moment Aristoelian praxis based theory building epistemology is described. Third, an extension of this Ignatian teaching oriented epistemology to include an Aristotelian praxis based theory building moment is suggested. Fourth, a detailed example in the work of an explicitly Ignatian influenced scholar, Andre Delbecq, who used this type of combined Ignatian “In All Things” and praxis based Aristotelian theory building epistemology is considered. Fifth, the work of other Jesuit influenced scholarsand other social scientists who do this type of work is referred to. Fifth, conclusions are considered. The detailedand explicitly Ignatian influenced example considered is from the participatory organizational leadership theory building work of the late Professor Andre Delbecq of Santa Clara University.

It is suggested that Jesuit teaching and research oriented universities consider expanding their Ignatian teaching oriented epistemologies to include the research oriented theory building moment that might better join Ignatian teaching epistemology with both the research and knowledge production dimensions, particularly in Ph.D. and some masters programs. Research oriented professors, students, and universities can benefit from a better integration rather than compartmentalization and separation of Ignatian teaching epistemology from theory building epistemologies, and an integrated teaching and research epistemology.

2. A common articulation of an Ignatian pedagogical epistemology

Common descriptions of Ignatian pedagogical epistemology can be found within Jesuit University “Vision and Value Statements.” For example, within the Boston College Vision and Value Statement that is included in the Boston College web site, it is explained that “Jesuit education … can be described in terms of three key movements [or moments]:

1. Be Attentive [Moment 1, What Aristotle referred to as an experience based inductive moment]….Conscious learning begins by choosing to pay attention to our experience – our experience of our own inner lives and of the people and the world around us. When we do this, we notice a mixture of light and dark, ideas and feelings, things that give us joy and things that saddenus….Ignatius was convinced that God deals directly with us in our experience. This conviction rested on his profound realization that God is ‘working’ in every thing that exists. This is why the spirit of Jesuit education is oftendescribed as ‘finding God in all things’.

2. Be Reflective [Moment 2, A hermeneutic interpretive moment, what Aristotle referred to as ‘Theoria’]….We need…to see the patterns in our experience and grasp their significance. Reflection is the way we discover and compose the meaning of our experience. Figuring out our experience can be an inward-looking activity – identifying our gifts and the future they point us towards or confronting the prejudices, fears, and shortcomings that prevent us from being the kind of people we want to be – but it can also mean looking outward – at the questions that philosophy and theology pose to us, at subjects like biology and finance and economics and the different ways they organize and interpret the world and help us understand ourselves.

3. Be loving [Moment 3, what Aristotle referred to as praxis which requires ethical action to be considered praxis]….Being loving requires that we look even more closely at the world around us. It asks the question: How are we going to act in this world?....This is a question about what we are going to do with the knowledge and self-understanding and freedom that we have appropriated by reflections ….For him [Ignatius] growing in love is the whole purpose of the spiritual life. He suggests two principles to help us understand love. One is that love shows itself more by deeds than by words. Action is what counts, not talk and promises….This is why Jesuit education is so often said to produce ‘men and women for others’.”

3. Aristotle’s Epistemology of praxis based theory building.

There are four moments in an Aristotelian epistemology of praxix based theory building: (1) inductive experience based attention to the good, the true, and the beautiful that is at least potentially in all things and all people; (2) hermeneutic interpretation (what Aristotle referred to as theoria and is different from the fourth moment theory building); (3) ethical praxis; and, (4) praxis based theory building (Nielsen, 2017).

For Aristotle, induction is the key first moment. In the Nicomachean Ethics (Books 1 and 6) Aristotle explains that: “These variable facts are the starting-points for the apprehension of the end, since the universals are reached from the particulars…Practical wisdom … involves knowledge of particular facts, which become known from experience.” As Donald Monan, S.J. (1968:71) found, for Aristotle “universal moral knowledge both originates in the singular variety and also is oriented toward evaluations of singular cases of conduct.”For Aristotle, happiness was very much related to paying attention to, looking for, and working with and co-creating with the good, the true, and the beautiful that was at least potentially in all people as a natural phenomena, but being able to do so very much depended upon the quality of our formal and informal experience based education and formation.

With respect to the second moment of reflective, hermeneutic interpretation, what Aristotle referred to as “theoria,” Bernstein (1971: 34) explains that “Theoria … is the articulation of the rationality ingredient in praxis. There is then an ultimate harmony of theory and practice – theoria and praxis – not in the sense that philosophy guides action, but rather in the sense that philosophy is the comprehension of what is; it is the comprehension of the logos ingredient in praxis…There is an ultimate unity of theory and practice…in its self-reflective form, theoria.”

The third moment in the process is ethical praxis. For Aristotle, praxis is foundationally appreciative, normative, and critical. Aristotle discussed the idea and phenomenon of praxis in the Protrepticus, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle considered praxis as action that developmentally changes both the actor and the external world. Praxis is action that makes the actor a better person and the world a better place. It is service to the world, to others, and to oneself through developmental praxis.

This is both an appreciative and critical dialectic behavior. That is, dialectic development requires an appreciative understanding of the natural good, truth, and beauty in all things and a qualitatively critical understanding of a former status quo in relation to a potential better state that almost by definition is critical of a previous condition. The good is affirmed, the not so good is negated, and there is a transformation through reflective action to a potentially better developed state.

The fourth moment ispraxis based theory building which is different than normal social science.A typical epistemological process in much of normal social science based theory building is as follows: (1) a deductive literature gap or contradiction is identified based on a tracing of an intellectual history of an idea; (2) propositions and hypotheses for extending or developing a better idea are developed based on deductive reasoning from the literature; (3) data is collected from a convenient data site to test the proposed extended or new idea; (4) theory building is developed based on the data’s confirmation or negation of the proposed propositions and hypotheses for theory building; and, (5) potential applications to practice are considered (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Curle, 1990; Eikeland, 2008; Nielsen, 2016, 2017). In normal social science, knowledge is first produced by scholars and then academics educate/persuade practitioners to use that knowledge to accomplish ends that might not be critically examined. The process of discovery is clearly separated from the process of instrumental application.

There are two problems here. One has to do with basing theory development on a literature that might be loosely tied to the real world phenomena and needs of practiceand practitioners and not produced with the idea of service to the practitioner as opposed to what is of interest to academic colleagues (Delbecq, 2004; Nielsen, 2010; 2016, 2017). The second problem has to do with the separation of ethics from science (Weber, 1902; Veblen, 1919; Nielsen and Massa, 2013).

With respect to the first issue, praxis based theory building bases its theoretical contributions on how the results of the praxis have provided advances to the theories used in the hermeneutic interpretation of the practice with respect to the needs of the practitioner. That is, the scholar finds literature gaps with respect to what is needed to better serve the practitioner which may be a very different literature advancement that what was of a prioriinterest to scholars.

With respect to the second issue concerning separation of ethics from social science, praxis does not do that separation, it integrates. Further, for Aristotelian method, there can be no praxis without ethics. Praxis without ethics is technique, “techne”, and the person doing that can not be a professional since a profession requires integration of ethics with practice.

4. An Ignatian“In all Things” based theory building fourth moment.

The philosophers William James (1902), Aldous Huxley (1945), Douglas Steere (1982) and the Catholictheologians Karl Rahner, S.J. (1964), Harvey Egan, S.J. (1982), and Clodovis Boff (1987) recognized that there are religious mystics and naturalistic philosophical mystics. Ignatius has often been considered a mystic (Egan, S.J., 1987). Somewhat similarly, Ignatian epistemological methodcan be interpreted from both theological and naturalistic Aristotelian philosophical perspectives.

As referred to above a common articulation of Ignatianepistemology from a theological perspective is: (1) In our experiences, choose to be attentive to and look for “God In All Things”; (2) Reflect on the meaning of looking for and finding “God In All Things; (3) Be loving and do service to others because “God is working in all people.” These three moments can also be interpreted from an Aristotelian perspective where the “God In All Things” might be interpreted as a naturalistic Aristotelian goodness, truth, and beauty in all things, or at least potentially in all things (Gadamer, 1989; Eikeland, 2008; Reeve, 2012).

That is, and as referred to above, the three moments might be interpreted from a philosophical perspective as: (1) inductive experience based attention to the good, the true, and the beautiful in all things; (2) hermeneutic interpretation (what Aristotle referred to as theoria and is different from the fourth moment theory building); and, (3) ethical praxis.

A fourth theory building moment can be added from both theological and philosophical perspectives. From an Aristotelian philosophical perspective this fourth moment is: (4) praxis based theory building (Nielsen, 2017). That is, theory is advanced by noting the limitations of the literature we considered in the second hermeneutic moment with respect to serving, explaining, and guiding action for practitioners in the real situations practitioners and partner academics are working in, learning from the third moment of ethical praxis with practitioners why and how different actions are more appropriate, and then articulating how what we learned from praxis can also provide theoretical insights that can be further tested and developed in a continuing feedback process of combined praxis and theory building and theory testing. This theory building moment can also serve the academic theory building community. From an Ignatian theological perspective this might be articulated as co-creating with that of God in all things in both the praxis moment, and then co-creating theoretical insights based on what we learned from the loving praxis as a fourth epistemological moment.