As mentioned before, ontological change has rarely been the focus in education as epistemology was previously regarded as being more important (Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007, p. 679). Therefore, limited research has been done regarding the change in doctoral candidates when acquiring or generating new knowledge. When discussing ontology from an educational point of view, one needs to abandon the dichotomy between an educational reading and a philosophical reading. It is necessary to undertake a simultaneously educational and philosophical dual reading of writings which are defined by their
fundamental ambiguity, that is, by their reference to two social spaces, which correspond to two mental spaces (Bourdieu, 1975; 1991, p. 3).
A new area of discussion relating to universities and their role as knowledge institutions has emerged (Gibbons, 1994; Barnett, 2000b; Dall’Alba, 2005). Universities often focus on the transfer and acquisition of knowledge, to the detriment of a holistic understanding of the learning that takes place while knowledge is constructed (Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007, p. 682). If universities acknowledge the ontological influence of knowledge, support can be provided to doctoral candidates to facilitate the implementation of knowledge and eventual candidate success. Due to institutions’ prevalent focus on knowledge and skill acquisition, one can presume that they are sometimes unaware of the transformation within the candidate. This focus is inadequate in promoting candidate learning (Ramsden, 2003) as such a narrow focus treats learning not only as unproblematic but also as linear. Doctoral candidates are sometimes not assisted or supported in situating and localising knowledge within specific manifestations of practice or sometimes they have to integrate newly acquired knowledge into practice by themselves. This creates a challenge for the candidates and therefore it may affect their development and eventually their being, thus influencing ontological change.
According to Barnett (1997) and Barnacle (2005), knowledge institutions do not pay attention to transformation in the candidate as they tend to over-emphasise a narrow concept of the intellect (Barnett, 1997; Barnacle, 2005). Heidegger argues that as beings we are changing, therefore education must transform as well. Our understanding of education is made possible by the history of being. As our understanding of what beings are is changing historically, our understanding of what education is is transformed as well (Heidegger 1962, p. 56). Dall’Alba and Barnacle (2007) claim that ‘[a]lternative accounts of knowing can be mobilised by challenging the idea that mind and reason occupy a privileged and detached stance in relation to the body and world’. Knowledge, which leads to ‘knowing’, is always situated within a personal, social, historical and cultural setting, and knowledge transforms from the merely intellectual to something that is inhabited and enacted.
As knowledge influences one’s way of thinking, making and acting, knowledge is a way of being. This argument is closely linked to the previous mentioned discussion between epistemology and ontology as university teaching concentrates on ‘being in the world’ instead of on ‘knowing the world’. This approach appears to take a primary place in the conceptualisations of university teaching (Barnacle 2005; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). Learning in higher education needs to be transformed to include and acknowledge the ontological change in candidates. It is not only the transfer of knowledge that is important; it also needs to be understood as having been created, embodied and enacted. It can be seen as epistemology in service of ontology.
Higher education institutions have certain shortfalls which make it difficult to monitor ontological change or contribute to ontological change (Dall’Alba & Barnacle; 2007): these include the de-contextualisation of knowledges from the practices to which they relate; emphasis on a narrow conception of knowledge rather than learning; overemphasis on the intellect; a focus on epistemology and methodology at the expense of ontology. The task of such institutions is incomplete if they merely focus on knowledge acquisition. Supervisors of doctoral candidates should be aware of the importance of a candidate’s development outside the intellectual added value acquired during his or her studies (Barnett & Coate, 2005). They need to assist candidates in integrating knowing, acting and being. Dall’Alba and Barnacle (2007, p. 241) argue that becoming a researcher ‘involves entering into these ways (of ontological becoming) of thinking, acting and being’. Becoming is an open process as it is never complete and has to draw upon the aspects that assist learning (such as commitment, openness, wonder and passion) but it also has to deal with aspects that limit the learning (such as resistance, prejudice and anxiety). Ontological development influences the supervisor as well as the candidate and how supervisors can assist the candidate in their development towards becoming successful doctorates and becoming researchers.
In many candidates there seems to be a change from taking in knowledge to producing knowledge (Barnacle, 2005). According to Heidegger, our changing historical understanding of ‘education’ is grounded in the ‘history of being’, so we can extract from this notion that
the current move towards an ontological understanding of education is a logical development as our ‘being’ is constantly changing. We are more aware of the importance of ontology. It must be kept in mind that doctoral education in itself involves a certain transformation: it is about becoming doctorate (ASSAF, 2010, p. 40).
Due to globalisation in post-industrial economies of the West, there is not only a change in views about what knowledge is, but also the change about the conceptions regarding knowledge, including its purpose and role. Economic development is dependent on new knowledge (Gibbons, 1994). In many instances researchers therefore need to find opportunities to commercialise their research findings by establishing links between their studies and the relevant industry. Due to this role and the transformation of universities, the traditional role and values present flaws and limitations. There has been a greater emphasis on the acceptance of knowledge produced in the context of how we can use it (application) and this has led to an increase in the participation from the professions and applied disciplines in research degrees (Barnacle & Usher, 2003).
The outcome of a research degree is the body of knowledge that is created by a skilled knowledge worker who is capable of deploying new knowledge commodities within specific application contexts. The process of acquiring this knowledge may have an ontological influence on the doctoral candidate. Therefore, as the candidate is transformed by education, education must transform as well. As mentioned before, Heidegger argued that as beings we are changing; therefore education must transform as well (Thomson, 2001). There are two major elements of transformative learning: first, the critical reflection or critical self-reflection on assumptions which include the critical assessment of sources, nature and consequences of habits of mind. Participating fully and freely in dialectical discourse to validate a best reflective judgment (Illeris, 2009, p. 94) constitutes the second element.
An ontological focus in education is advisable in higher education (Barnacle, 2005; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007) as Heidegger, as early as 1911, diagnosed an ontological aspect related to higher education (Thomson, 2001; 2003). He was ahead of his time as he recognised an
ontological problem. According to Heidegger, the educational crisis lies with the ‘technological understanding of being’. Our ‘being in the world’ which is shaped by the knowledge we pursue, uncover and embody; thus existence is formed by knowledge as we constantly practise what we know. According to Heidegger, it is necessary to deconstruct our traditional educational institutions as we increasingly instrumentalise, professionalise, vocationalise, corporatise and technologise education. He maintains that the ‘history of being’ makes a better understanding of the historical development of educational institutions such as universities possible (Thomson, 2001, p. 246).
Modern universities appear to have lost sight of the shared goals with originally justified endeavours of the academic community as a whole and therefore its members have begun to look outside the institution for some purpose to give meaning to the lives of research (Thomson, 2001). The research results of several disciplines are receiving external support, and therefore disciplines are trying to present themselves in terms of user value. This mentality is also adopted by doctoral candidates who may see advanced education only as a means to an economic advancement.
The different disciplines at universities seem to have lost their unifying purpose and have developed internal standards which are only appropriate for their domain. These standards are becoming more disparate as the domains are increasingly specialised. This leaves the university not only with disciplinary fragmentation but also without common standards. Only through a revitalising reunification of the university will the ontological development of a candidate be accomplished. Heidegger states this as follows (in Peters 2002, p. 134):
We cannot understand education as the transmission of information, the filling of the psyche with knowledge as if inscribing a tabula rasa […] This understanding of education is false because we are thrown beings, always ready shaped by tradition we can never get behind and so we cannot be blank slates or empty containers waiting to be filled.
Our understanding of education, and advanced education in the form of doctoral studies in particular, needs a revolution of ‘re-ontoligisation’ (Heidegger, 1998; Thomson, 2001, p. 254). According to Heidegger (in Thomson, 2001), real education lays hold of the person and
transforms him or her in its entirety. Genuine education leads us back to ourselves, to the place we are, teaches us to dwell there and transforms us in the process. This transformative journey is reflexive and is revolutionary as it brings us full circle back to ourselves, first by turning away from the world in which we are most immediately immersed, then by turning us back to this world in a more reflexive way. This is also discussed in the work of Schön (1983, 2010) who argues that institutions of learning should be invented and developed as systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation.
However, Heidegger does not seem to suggest that a higher education needs to include ontological development or transformation but rather needs to be ontological, where candidates realise that knowledge entails more than mere resources and so becomes free to understand otherwise. The supervisor needs to facilitate this transformation. From this perspective it may be argued that education can or will never be complete(d).