Frequently Asked Questions

**Click here to access the article: Andreotti, V., Souza, L. (2008) Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1(1):23-36

**Click here to access a recommended bibliography.

Why is the focus on ‘indigenous knowledges’?
TOE is about engaging with difference. Poststructuralist and postcolonial theories point to the tendency of universalist ways of seeing (also the general tendency of ‘modern’ ways of seeing) of ‘appropriating’ what they see as different into their own universal frame that is based on a specific notion of time, history and progress. In this act of appropriation and framing the ‘other’, difference tends to be constructed as a deficit or something ‘exotic’ to be preserved for ‘entertainment’ or ‘study’ purposes. TOE attempts to challenge this tendency by prompting a confrontation with ‘radical’ difference: ways of seeing that conceptualise reality, identity/personhood, time, history, knowledge, development, wealth, education etc. based on very different premises from the ones that are the basis of modern thought (which are widely available to the majority of formally ‘educated’ people). Other perspectives could also have been used (e.g. of travellers, of specific social movements, of some diaspora or intentional communities, etc.). Another reason for choosing indigenous knowledge systems was to move the focus of the learning process away from the target audience’s immediate context in order to facilitate the development of critical literacy.

What is the empirical evidence that indicates a need for this resource?
This question depends on the conceptualisation of ‘empirical’ and who decides what counts as ‘evidence’. TOE was based on scholarly work carried out by its authors in the field of postcolonial studies: in this field there is an extensive body of literature engaging with education, the media, literature, politics, etc. showing that particular forms of colonialism have attempted to universalise the project of modernity (based on enlightenment ideals) with a high degree of success (check the bibliography). The results of this violent process of universalisation can be seen in the way our institutions are organised and in what is taught in formal education. From this conceptual analysis, the need for TOE is evident. From an empiricist point of view, an analysis of resources available in DE could answer part of the question, but if the question is related to data collected in schools (on pupils’ and teachers’ views, for example), it becomes more complicated as anti-racist research is notoriously difficult to carry out, especially within educational research ethics that currently tend to protect the research subjects (and the reputation of schools) through informed consent: what is the reliability of your data if you have to inform your subjects that you are looking for racist statements? On the other hand, research carried out through the OSDE project indicated that, in terms of the scope of access to different perspectives, participants tended to be more familiar with critical perspectives based on Marxist critiques than with other ontologies/epistemologies. This analysis has strongly influenced the choice of focus within TOE.

Are you trying to establish a clear binary between Western and Indigenous views? And why didn’t you include a ‘middle ground’ perspective in the ‘different logics’ section?
Within a context that tends to see difference as deficit in relation to a ‘norm’ that is projected as universal (e.g. the idea that everyone has the same needs and wants), TOE’s intention is to draw attention to the fact that different epistemological and ontological assumptions (about the nature of knowledge and reality) simply ‘exist’ and make sense! A huge challenge in this project that we faced, as authors, was to try to do this without losing sight of diversity and complexity inherent and external to these different logics. In the section ‘different logics’ we chose to represent a ‘business’ (neoliberal) view of one  end of the spectrum of perspectives that could be considered ‘Western’ in contrast with a construction of a ‘different logic’ based on the interviews we carried out with indigenous participants. However, the ‘other’ view is NOT presented as ‘indigenous’ in the resource (we are aware it is our interpretation), nor is there any indication that these are the only two views that are possible. Participants are asked to engage in depth with two different views and explore the implications and LIMITATIONS of BOTH perspectives. TOE’s framework is based on the notion that any solution to a problem is context dependent and will create different problems as well, therefore we don’t propose a universal solution (i.e. the adoption of indigenous perspectives). What we do propose is that, by engaging with perspectives other than our own, we should become:a) aware of other possibilities for thinking, b)more equipped to make better informed choices and c)more open to establishing ethical relationships with those who disagree with us. The pedagogical justification for only including two perspectives in the ‘different logics’ section is the explicit intent to cause discomfort, conflict, deep learning and the development of critical literacy. A middle ground perspective could work as an easy and comfortable excuse for participants not to have to think deeply about the differences. A more detailed discussion of this pedagogical issue can be found in the article Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’ available here.

Are you romanticising indigenous views?
From the perspective of the indigenous people who reviewed the resource, we are far from that! They emphasised that there was not enough critique of colonial or mainstream discourses to support the ‘whitestream’ to understand the implications of their worldviews and violent practices. From our perspective, as authors of this resource, we intended to address the complexity and inherent diversity of worldviews enacted in different contexts. However, different parts of the resource do different things in the learning process, and each unit needs to be read as a whole: section one introduces the process of reflection; section two draws attention to the diversity within ‘our’ context; section three compares one aspect of ‘ours’ and a possible ‘theirs’; section 4 analyses what that could mean ‘for them’ (but presents different understandings of the logic presented in section 3); section 5 focuses on the complexity of the clash of perspectives performed in a context (and here there are always more than one ‘indigenous’ perspective represented); section 6 asks participants to reach their own conclusions. There is no set worldview that the project is trying to promote apart from the idea that we need to question our own convictions to engage in dialogue and to be open to the perspective of others. However, the resource and learning process can be understood in different ways, so the perspective that the resource romanticises indigenous knowledges could be valid (and partial) in the same way that, from another perspective (of an indigenous reviewer) the resource downplays the effects of the violence of non-indigenous people (which can be interpreted as romanticisation of non-indigenous knowledges). This illustrates precisely the point TOE is trying to make. This issue is further discussed in the article Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’ available for download here.

What was the criteria for choosing the indigenous views presented?
We had three criteria for our choice of informants: they had to be fluent in their mother language, they had to have been through some ‘mainstream’ education and they had to have chosen to work for their communities in the protection of their ways of knowing. In that sense, we were looking for participants/informants with a double vision: a lived experience and critique of being ‘schooled’ and a deep investment in the understanding of their communities’ views, aspirations and of the issues affecting their communities as a result of colonialism. The rationale was that we wanted to focus on the differences between epistemological choices and their implications in the lived realities of these communities, and these participants could make these connections more easily. A more detailed discussion of the issue of representation can be found in the article Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’ available for download here.

Are you trying to encourage a guilt trip?
No. We are trying to encourage better informed practices when living with difference, contingency and complexity. Having said that, part of the process of engaging with our own social and historical contexts is to become aware and acknowledge our complicities and privileges (which, very often, have its origins in historical violences) and take responsibility for what we do after that. Guilt trips in that sense tend to be a reflection of a person’s desire for a way of exercising agency/power without the need to account for his/her own social and historical situatedness. In the pedagogical process, this could be a stage that people go through when they are ‘unlearning’. TOE was designed to support people to move beyond that into learning to listen, to learn and to reach out (i.e. to work without guarantees and to be able to deal with conflict and complexity). However, it is important to point out that, from the perspective of many indigenous people who reviewed the resource, TOE does not critique Western thought and the violences of colonialism enough, so we need to ask the question: if we really want to listen to 'them', are we prepared to be accused of historical harm? Or do we only want to listen if what is being said is not going to unsettle us? What are the implications of always ‘protecting’ learners from discomfort and conflict (if these exist in the real world)? When are learners going to learn to negotiate conflict in dialogue with others? We believe educational processes should offer the space for those skills to be developed – that was one of the intentions of TOE.

Why didn’t you include more perspectives from the West? Who are the authors of the perspectives in the ‘engaging with the mainstream’ section?
The methodology for the design of the ‘engaging with mainstream perspectives’ section (in the equality, poverty and education units) was ‘conceptual mapping’. The aim of this section was to draw attention to the diversity/heterogeneity within what we call ‘West’, so we mapped a range of perpectives based on humanist, pragmatist, liberal, anarchist and marxist thinking in order to show that there is diversity, resistance, power, critique, conflict and contradiction within what is known as the 'West'. The aim of this section was not to represent every perpective possible, but to indicate that the 'West' is not homogeneous.

Is TOE neutral? Is TOE balanced?
TOE is based on a poststructuralist framework that questions the idea of neutrality, so: no. Every educational practice is rooted in theoretical/philosophical assumptions with frames of reference that are embedded within specific cultural logics (i.e. that are culturally specific). These references define what can be considered real or ideal; a problem or a solution. If an educational practice is presented as ‘neutral’ it is either: not aware of its theoretical/philosophical roots (and hence uncritical and unaccountable); or projecting its theoretical/philosophical roots as universal (and ‘shutting down’ other possibilities).  TOE is a ‘situated’ initiative: it makes explicit its theoretical/philosophical basis and sees this basis as embedded in a specific context (which makes it partial, contestable and provisional). Theoretical (internal) consistency in pedagogical design was a major preoccupation in this project and a very difficult goal given the different stakeholders involved in this initiative. A discussion of these issues can be found in the article Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’ available for download here.

Who is the target audience of TOE?
The main target audience of TOE was ‘student teachers in England’. This specific choice was determined by funding and practical constraints ( see the IJDEGL article for a more detailed discussion). However, we have attempted, whenever possible, to make TOE relevant to other areas as well. But above all, our intention was to provide a sound and theoretically informed methodology that can inspire the creation of other resources, in other areas, for other target audiences. We are aware that more resources are needed and we are aware that the area itself needs to ‘raise its game’ in terms of theory, critique and pedagogy – this is a huge task. TOE and OSDE have been our situated contribution. What part of this process are you going to play? What is your call?

How should TOE be used in initial teacher education?
TOE can be used in many different ways: as a classroom activity where the tasks are performed in small groups; as a classroom activity where learners perform the tasks individually and have discussions at specific points; as a mixture of class activity and ‘homelearning’, where one unit is modelled in class and other units are set as distance learning or when students are asked to complete the units on their own and bring their journals to the class for discussions; as distance learning where learners send their learning journals to their tutors or lecturers; as examples of adult level enquiry processes that can inspire different classroom practices; or as ‘extra activities’ for those learners who are interested in these issues. The TOE flyer for ITE presents more practical ideas.

How does TOE encourage dialogue?
TOE encourages dialogue by supporting the learning process that precedes ethical dialogue, but we see the process of encouraging the enactment of dialogue to be a responsibility of those who use the resource in their contexts. However, in the distance programme, we have built in a database where learners are exposed to different perspectives (of other participants). Given the constraints in terms of moderation and web space, we opted for not creating a process where participants could interact with one another on the website itself, but we have created a Facebook community and a TOE google group for those who would like to network around this initiative.

What evidence is there of TOE’s effectiveness?
TOE was piloted extensively in different Initial Teacher Education contexts during the development process and after the publication of the resource. The preliminary analysis of the data collected so far suggests that TOE helps most learners to realise that there are different perspectives and to clarify their own perspective. It also suggests that, depending on the level of political and critical awareness of participants at the start of the learning process, TOE will be more or less effective in developing self-reflexivity (i.e. prompting learners to deconstruct their own worldviews). Once the analysis of the data is published, it will become available on this website.

Are there complementary resources that could be used in conjunction (or after) TOE?
We recommend OSDE as a complementary resource, however, we would like to encourage educators to move away from the 'resources' mentality in order to engage with discussions at a higher analytical level. Therefore we have created a recommended bibliography that accompanies this resource. This move from a focus on practice to a focus on theory AND practice is necessary if we are to develop a critical network who will be able to engage critically with different resources, understand their gifts and limitations and adapt them in their contexts. Without those skills, people will tend to always look for 'recipes' and off-the-shelf activities. We understand that educators are overworked and underpaid and therefore need to maximise their planning time, but this pattern of work is not sustainable in terms of changing the system or promoting the 'deep thinking' that may improve our professional profile. We need to raise our game.

How does TOE help to address and resolve development and environmental issues?
By helping ‘raise the game’ within development and global education. TOE intends to support a pedagogical process to move people move away from simplistic, uncritical and patronising practices in development and global education that tend to reproduce inequalities in power relations, dialogue and the distribution of resources and labour. This shift in thinking is necessary if we want to create a context where our future is negotiated in dialogue with others and the cultural roots of historically created inequalities in power, representation and the distribution of resources and labour are addressed. This issue is also addressed in the first and last parts of the article Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’ available for download here.