Liz Jackson

This project examines the critical reorientation toward gender in Philippine education and philosophy, situated at the intersection of institutional consolidation and critical inquiry. Drawing on domestic legislative mandates, such as the Magna Carta of Women and Gender and Development (GAD) frameworks, and global benchmarks like Sustainable Development Goal 5, it critically interrogates the paradoxical terrain where high global gender parity rankings coexist with persistent structural inequalities, epistemic marginalization, and symbolic erasure. Moving beyond procedural compliance and tokenistic quantitative metrics, the collection evaluates whether gender mainstreaming achieves substantive epistemic justice or succumbs to administrative domestication. The contributions span diverse domains, including basic and higher education, health care curricula, indigenous and decolonial feminist epistemologies, critical masculinities, and canonical revisions of Filipino philosophy. Finally, the project argues for a reflexive, contextually situated, and globally conversant philosophy of education that moves beyond merely mainstreaming gender to allowing gendered critique to transform the ethical, epistemic, and pedagogical foundations of education and philosophy themselves.

This collective writing was catalysed by a request from our Faculty Research Office for the School of Education to provide a list of journals that publish ‘quality research’ in education. Tasked with compiling this list, the first author invited all academic staff to name up to three journal titles that they considered fitted this description. The list was already well over 50 titles long, based on responses from fewer than half of the academic staff of the School, when emails of protest interrupted the process. Colleagues queried the value and validity of such a list, and its possible use in future redundancy rounds. In addition to halting the compilation of the list, the first author called a meeting to hear and discuss these concerns, and initiated the process of writing this article—positive ways to respond to what had become a fraught situation that threatened collegial harmony. This collective writing highlights forms of educational research that exceed traditional pseudo-scientific methods based on empirical data. We argue it is crucial that our universities understand the breadth of forms of educational research, in order to honour the potential for education to contribute to future human flourishing.

Philosophy of education can be described as a field, a mode of enquiry, and as a tradition. While not all philosophers of education recognise or appreciate philosophy of education specifically as a tradition, it is indisputable that it is a particular culturally embedded social practice that is carried out and developed across generations. This essay considers how philosophers of education view tradition, in the field and in education. I examine educational philosophy scholarship in relation to tradition in four sections here that reveal a spectrum of approaches. These approaches are, basically, that (1) traditions and conceptualising traditions matter; (2) traditions in philosophy of education matter, rather than the conceptualising of tradition(s); (3) traditions and the nature of tradition are of little to no interest or peripheral to the field; and (4) traditions should be regarded with suspicion. Overall, apart from a few exceptional thinkers, most philosophers of education reference tradition(s) in a thin, superficial sense rather than in a more deeply reflective or substantive sense. I reflect on the value of this examination and the potential for further explorations of tradition in the field in the conclusion.

This paper is a complete student-led, student-edited collective writing project (CWP) conducted virtually in Spring 2022 throughout the course Knowledge Socialism taught by professor Michael Peters for the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal university. The CWP involves 4 international, 5 domestic Ph.D. students, and 2 senior Western scholars as reviewers, revealing their thoughts, arguments, understanding, and criticisms towards the creative economy status in East Asian countries (Japan and China mostly) higher education as reflected in the knowledge socialism narratives. Xiyuan as the lead author, co-editing with Woraport and Stefan, assigned each section to other authors and successfully devoted themself to organizing, proofreading, and revising the paper. Through a month of collective work, the final version of the paper elaborates on the contribution of East Asian creative universities and the economy as a whole to the knowledge socialism through co(labor)ation, with implications to the creative labors cultivation and shifted roles of students.

This article is concerned with developing a philosophical approach to a number of significant changes to academic publishing, and specifically the global journal knowledge system wrought by a range of new digital technologies that herald the third age of the journal as an electronic, interactive and mixed-media form of scientific communication. The paper emerges from an Editors' Collective, a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals mostly in the fields of education and philosophy. The paper is the result of a collective writing process.

Taking credit for digitalization and platformization, China has initiated its open science infrastructure implementation and made an effort to focus on open access (OA) journals and data sharing over the past two decades. With the continuous development need, issues and concerns have caught in attention, including data accessibility, research transparency, general population awareness and communication of science, public trust in science, and scientific research and innovation efficiency. This paper has unfolded the maze of open science stance in China and elaborated on its current economy, openness and freedom extents, and future innovation potential towards a global open science community, within depth and scope of both the Chinese and Western scholars’ interpretations.

The inspiration for this collective writing project began with a digital conference entitled ‘Knowledge Socialism, COVID-19 and the New Reality of Education’ held at Beijing Normal University. In this conference and through this article, multiple researchers spread across six continents have engaged in the collaborative task of outlining emerging innovations and alternative contingencies towards education, international collaboration, and digital reform in this time of global crisis. Trends associated with digital education, knowledge openness, peer production, and collective intelligence as articulated by Michael A. Peters’ conception of Knowledge Socialism are given careful analysis and exploration. Some of the members of this collective endeavor to identify problems, others, begin to draw boxes around potential solutions. Overall, this article engages with real world challenges and innovations that look beyond dominant neoliberal trends in the knowledge economy to build bridges toward novel possibilities in this era of rapid digital change.

Marking the 50th anniversary of the Educational Philosophy and Theory journal, this book brings together the work of over two-hundred international scholars, who seek to address the question, 'What happened to postmodernism in educational theory after its alleged demise?'. Declarations of the death knell of postmodernism are now quite commonplace. Scholars in various disciples have suggested that, if anything, postmodernism is at an end and has been dead and buried for some time. An age dominated by playfulness, hybridity, relativism, and the fragmentary self has given way to something else --as yet undefined. The lifecycle of postmodernism started with Derrida's 1966 seminal paper 'Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences'; its peak years were 1973-1989; followed by uncertainty and reorientation in the 1990s; and the aftermath and beyond. What happened after 2001? This collection provides responses by over 200 scholars to this question who also focus on what comes after postmodernism in educational theory. This book was originally published as a special issue of the journal, Educational Philosophy and Theory.

Hong Kong, as a former colony of the United Kingdom, is characterised as a hybrid of East and West. Its colonial history is commonly seen as establishing many positive aspects of Hong Kong and shaping good qualities of its people, such as the value of rule of law, free speech, freedom of the press, and fluency in English. Yet the majority of people in both Hong Kong and China share Han Chinese ethnicity, which has been used by both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments to promote a blood-based idea of Chinese identity for decades. This paper explores “Chineseness", or Chinese identity, as promoted by the Hong Kong government. It first explores the concept of Chineseness, elaborating on a blood-based view that connects with ethnic-nationalism, in contrast with a pluralistic view of identity in the Hong Kong context. The paper then examines how Hong Kong government officials promote Chineseness through major outlets, on government websites and in speeches captured in media. As we show, the government tends to advocate a blood-based view of Chineseness akin to ethnic-nationalism. A more inclusive and pluralistic view which recognises the dynamic nature and multiple visions of Chinese identity better fits Hong Kong’s multicultural context.

In philosophical and psychological literature, gratitude has normally been promoted as beneficial to oneself and others and as morally good. Being grateful for what you have is conceived as virtuous, while acts expressing gratefulness to those who have benefited you is often regarded as morally praiseworthy, if not morally expected. However, critical interrogations of the moral status of gratitude should also frame the possible cultivation of gratitude in moral education. This article focuses on whether gratitude should be regarded as morally ideal, praiseworthy or expected in contexts marked by social inequity and injustice. It considers competing articulations of gratitude in philosophical and psychological research and how gratitude can be conceived in some cases as praiseworthy and in others as potentially problematic. Finally, it considers the implications of a multipronged view of gratitude for teaching for and about gratitude in social justice education.