Conclusiones del capítulo

In this next section I explore how dialogue has been used in the teaching of RE and how it can be compared to the process taking place within the experience of SR. Vaughan argued for the potential for using SR in schools (Vaughan, 2015) and suggested that the educational philosopher Burbules (1993) holds considerable relevance. In the previous Chapter we encountered the work of Burbules who highlighted the importance of encountering difference. For Burbules, dialogue is described as an “inquiry” which consists of a group of participants working together to address a common issue or purpose to come to a shared understanding. The inclusivity and collaboration of

members of the group is more important than consensus. He, like Wegerif (2012), argues for the importance of holding together a diversity of opinions to explore and develop meaning.

A key philosophical feature is that from a dialogic perspective, difference is a necessary condition of meaning rather than something to be overcome. (Wegerif, 2012: 14)

Learning through the process of dialogue stems back to the time of the Ancient Greeks. Socrates believed that wisdom and understanding were to be found within us, and the best way to realise this understanding was through structured conversation. He outlined two different styles of dialogue. The first he described as “dialectical”: this applied

structured, rational, systematic debate to explore an issue of truth and reach a shared consensus. It is this type of question and answer discourse that is widely used in law where a shared consensus of the truth is worked out together. The second he described

as “dialogical”. This approach encourages an exploration through debate considering different possible interpretations.

The type of dialogue used in SR resonates more with this second style of dialogue, referred to as the “Socratic Circle” method. Through shared discussion and collaborative endeavour, the participants learn from each other whilst not making judgements about truth claims. The aim of the discussion is not for one side to win an argument as might be the case through a systematic debate, or to combine understanding to create new truths; but rather to come to a shared understanding of each other.

An early advocate for this type of interaction is Brenda Watson who applied an approach to religious education which encouraged an honest exploration of different beliefs

through a process she described as a “Critical Affirmation.” She outlined a “four-fold

openness” towards faith traditions that did not require a bracketing out of belief but allowed faith to enhance religious encounters:

…openness to fresh evidence; openness to the experience of others; openness to the needs of others as people; and openness to the possibility that we can be deluded. (Watson, 1987: 44)

For Watson it was possible to both affirm and confirm the value of a belief whilst still applying a critical judgement: being open was the attribute of importance. I propose that

this “Critical Affirmation” can be aligned with the practice of SR as discussed in the previous Chapter.

A recent development built on a dialogical approach which is being widely used in primary schools can also be seen in the Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme. It

draws on pupils’ beliefs and experiences to reflect on and debate some of life’s most

difficult questions.

The underlying principle is for children and young people to experience rational and reasonable dialogue about things that matter to them and their teachers. All participants work together in

a ‘community of enquiry’. The aim for each child is not to win an argument but to become

clearer, more accurate, less self-contradictory and more aware of other arguments and values before reaching a conclusion. (P4C, 2018)

These approaches are based in the experience of faith but do not necessarily address completely the issues surrounding the interfaith dialogue on which SR is based.

Some may question whether interfaith dialogue is possible or even an appropriate thing to do in mainstream secular schools and argue that the place for interfaith dialogue should be within the faith communities outside of the school curriculum. There have been growing networks of charities developing this interfaith work in the public sphere. Organisations such as “The Feast”, a Birmingham-based charity, engage in promoting interfaith dialogue through churches, mosques, schools and community engagement. However, these types of initiatives have been also used within secular school settings. Since 2004, the “Building Bridges Project” has been delivering an interfaith dialogue project as part of an extra-curricular program within mainstream education in Australia. It was based on an interfaith, experiential, interpretive educational project that brings together secondary school pupils to discuss and share their faith. The effectiveness of this program has been the subject of recent research between the years of 2009 and 2012. (McCowan, 2017). The findings suggest that interfaith dialogue did promote religious literacy, challenged prejudice and stereotypes and encouraged social and community cohesion.

But it is the work of Ipgrave (2002) in her research on interfaith dialogue in an inner city primary schools in Leicester which is perhaps the most relevant to my own research. In it she highlights the potential that primary-age children to engage with difference through a faith-based project in a secular setting. She recognised:

… the creativity of the children's religious thinking when their perspectives are brought into dialogical relationship with the viewpoints of others. (Ipgrave, 2002: 3)

She has subsequently suggested that interfaith dialogue facilitates engagement with others holding different worldviews that require a process of translation, an idea that is reflected in Moyeart’s work on SR and fits well with the notion of intercultural communication. She states:

“Paul Ricoeur’s paradigm oftranslation and concept of ‘linguistic hospitality’ have useful

relevance to inter faith dialogue (Ricoeur, 2006). He offers insights into the processes by which people, separated by language, culture and religion, come to relate to one another in

understanding and hospitality. Those involved in inter faith dialogue are engaged in a task of

translation, a necessary process if mutual understanding is to be achieved. The translator’s task

is not to produce a perfect translation, however, but to offer one that remains faithful and hospitable to both sides across the linguistic divide. (Ipgrave, 2015: 133)

Whilst the Building Bridges project was based in a secondary school context and demonstrated outcomes in line with SR, Ipgrave’s work suggests that similar outcomes might be possible within a primary school setting. This research considers the possibility of using interfaith dialogue to explore religious and cultural difference and develop Competence to communicate across the difference. There are few contexts in which primary pupils are systematically taught how to relate well across lines of cultural demarcation, this is one of the identified gaps that this research seeks to close.