Ways of Knowing and Higher Education

Russ Walsh¹ and David Danto²

Duquesne University
MacEwan University

Introduction

Long before beginning post-secondary education, all of us have experienced different ways of knowing. In our primary and secondary schooling we have moved between lectures and homework in math, sciences, social studies, literature, art and music – often within the same day – readily shifting from one way of thinking to another. In our social relationships we have also pursued different ways of knowing, addressing problems, projects and collaborative play that require understanding and engaging with multiple others in multiple ways. And to the extent that we’ve participated in religious or spiritual practices and communities, we have experienced knowing in yet other ways. We have in other words been fluidly engaged with multiple ways of knowing. Is this diversity evident in the academic world?

While our personal lives may still require a facility with multiple ways of knowing, our academic lives may corral us into discipline-specific discourses and ways of knowing. This results partly from the specialization that higher education facilitates – pursuing one field of study necessarily leaves others behind. And each field of study has its own history and set of viewpoints, such that to advance in one field is to acquire a particular way of thinking and talking. Higher education may also foster a discipline-specific identity. For example, a student studying computer science is called a computer science major, and it’s not all uncommon for that to become the first topic of conversation amidst undergraduate students (“what’s your major?”) as well as for graduate students and faculty. Hence, in studying sociology, one becomes a sociologist – a position with which one identifies, and through which one views their world. This indoctrination shapes one’s position with respect to knowledge.

We’ve used the word indoctrination because its history calls to mind two distinct aspects of post-secondary learning. To indoctrinate is to teach, and indoctrination is learning – at least those were the original meanings of the terms. An indoctrinated individual was a scholar with a depth and breadth of knowledge, typically across multiple disciplines. However, over time these words took on a negative connotation, with indoctrination taken to imply accepting a set of beliefs uncritically – a contraction rather than expansion of thought, with an indoctrinated individual seen as close-minded rather than receptive to alternative viewpoints (Lewin, 2022).

We’d suggest that today’s higher education holds both potentials. While we hope that our teaching opens students’ minds to new ways of thinking and understanding, lectures and exams often require students to memorize names, dates, and terms – facts deemed essential to a given topic or field. This form of knowing, while arguably building a foundation for more advanced learning within a discipline, may inhibit a broad or integrative mindset that can understand – or at least seek to understand – a phenomenon from multiple perspectives (Lawson, 2001).  And while academic research and scholarship ideally reflect a sensitivity to the complexity of knowledge, publishing often calls for a determined focus on a singular dimension or set of dimensions within a much broader field. Moreover, the demands of teaching and research often restrict opportunities for broader thinking outside of one’s area of expertise.

We run the risk here of painting with broad strokes and neglecting the nuanced ways in which many educators value and facilitate critical thinking. However, we wish to underscore the potential within higher education to maintain separate clusters of exclusive knowledge domains that, like occupants of the Tower of Babel, inhabit a shared space but cannot engage in conversation. A further risk is that this tower of separate discourses is also cut off from ways of knowing outside of traditional academic frameworks.

How can we facilitate greater openness and breadth? We think the answer calls for more thoughtful consideration of ways of knowing, and more explicit respect for – and integration of – this diversity throughout all levels of higher education systems. Diversity has become a necessary and appropriate touchstone in higher education, as well as in society more broadly, as we seek to create a more just and equitable world  (Guo & Jamal, 2007; Smith, 2020). One aspect of this turn particular to education has been an emphasis on the pedagogical value of diversity, highlighting the important role played by a diverse student body in facilitating awareness of and appreciation for the differing experiences and perspectives of others. At least implicitly, this acknowledges that there are multiple ways of knowing worth knowing.

To consider ways of knowing is to pose questions of epistemology (what counts as knowledge) and ontology (what count as valid objects of study), two philosophical terms that many academic fields – aside from philosophy– tend to avoid. While perhaps having addressed these to some degree in a required undergraduate philosophy course, many scholars rarely consider the relevance of these questions to the limits of their approach and prospect of interdisciplinary dialogue. And yet it seems to us that reflection on the horizons of one’s academic discipline as well as the prospect for communication across disciplines is possible only to the extent that epistemology and ontology are made explicit. Even within disciplines, debates that often focus on research methods and results are often situated in contrary assumptions regarding what counts as valid knowledge and what are deemed essential objects or qualities worthy of study.

The terms approach and horizon used above are drawn from two scholars – one a psychologist and one a philosopher – who explicitly addressed epistemology and ontology. Amedeo Giorgi (1970), arguably the founder of qualitative research in Western psychology, discussed the importance of recognizing one’s position with respect to the topic studied:

By establishing the category of approach we mean to take into account the researcher himself in the enterprise of science. By approach is meant the fundamental viewpoint toward man and the world that the scientist brings, or adopts, with respect to his work as a scientist, whether his viewpoint is made explicit or remains implicit” (1970, p. 126).

The above quote is noteworthy not only for its explication of the term approach, but also for the implicit features of the definition itself – what we can now see as an exclusionary language (man; himself) that at the time of Giorgi’s writing was simply the dominant, taken for granted format within which academic scholarship was presented. Hence Giorgi both defines and demonstrates the indelible role of one’s approach in both how one sees and how one communicates in academic discourse. While today we are presumably more sensitive to the risks of imposing gender in scholarly writing, we’d suggest that there are nonetheless other implicit features imbedded in the standard practices of any discipline (Bazerman, 1988).

Each discipline has its own vantage point, delimiting knowledge claims and methods. Martin Heidegger (who himself had a vantage point that has been critically scrutinized) used the term horizon (Horizont) to describe the language- and experience-based framework or boundary (Grenze) that both allows for and constrains one’s perspective (1927/1962). Using the metaphor of a forest, Heidegger spoke of the clearing (Lichtung) that is one’s area of focus – as with the saying that one “can’t see the forest for the trees”, an individual’s clearing opens up a space for understanding, but in doing so necessarily excludes other clearings, or approaches. This was presented not as a flaw to be corrected, but as an unavoidable feature of human knowledge. Indeed, Heidegger’s student Hans-Georg Gadamer (1960/2013) carried these ideas further, arguing that one’s historically and linguistically situated prejudice (Vorurteil) is the lens through which understanding is made possible. Hence one’s ability to understand another’s perspective requires recognizing the limits of one’s own perspective.

Communication within and between disciplines, if it is to be productive, must arise out of a respect for the wide range of epistemologies and ontologies from which any scholarly work proceeds. In our field of psychology, for example, longstanding tensions (if not outright hostilities) between quantitative and qualitative researchers reflect differences in what are considered valid data, the criteria for evaluating conclusions, and the fundamental elements of human nature. Indeed, these differences trail back to debates at the very start of the discipline, when Wilhelm Dilthey (1927/1977) mapped out two distinct paths: the natural sciences and the human sciences, each with different assumptions and desired outcomes. Beyond the field of psychology, these two paths track loosely with the academic divide between the liberal arts and the sciences (with the social sciences often straddling that divide). Whether or not the liberal arts and sciences are situated within a shared school (as in colleges of arts and sciences) or separately, the ways of knowing favored by each clearly reflect differing epistemologies and ontologies.

While interdisciplinarity is advocated at many institutions, in our experience it is rare to see initiatives that integrate across the arts and sciences. On the contrary, it seems far more common for curricular revisions within programs to exclude courses from the other side of this divide. This may result in part from increasing demands for more content and academic credits within departments or programs. But it is also likely a reflection of a lack of appreciation for the divergent approaches to knowledge outside of designated programs.

Any discussion of epistemology and ontology must include the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; Carastathis, 2016), meaning that our ways of knowing may have multiple sources that include a complex interplay of cultural values, historicity, and geographical locations – and oppression. Hence, thoughtful consideration of ways of knowing calls attention to the potential multitude of meanings within individuals as well as across them, as well as the oppressive potential of dominant discourses. As we noted at the start of this chapter, our lived experiences are comprised of overlapping and interwoven webs of meaning through which we engage with the world around us. Intersectionality underscores the ways in which, for many, these meanings may be minimized or silenced by taken for granted and dominant ways of knowing. Keeping this in mind can perhaps enhance our openness to the diverse, complex, and multilayered perspectives of others, particularly those whose perspectives fall outside of traditional academic mindsets.

Other Ways of Knowing

If higher education is to truly embrace divergent ways of knowing, it must pay particular attention to vantages beyond those of traditional academic epistemologies. While the concept of intersectionality invites this consideration, the oppressive impact of privileged ways of knowing warrants further discussion.

As a critical example, in Canada and the United States, over the last decade the topics of reconciliation and indigenization have been receiving increased attention. The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, published in 2015, called attention to Canada’s longstanding wrongdoing toward Indigenous Peoples – both historically and in ways that are ongoing. Residential School Survivors experienced the intentional application of processes that undermined Indigenous cultural identity and with this, Indigenous language, values, and of course, ways of knowing. These processes followed from a perspective of presumed Eurocentric elitism over the First Peoples residing in the territories now known as North America – a perspective that shaped the forms of knowledge evident across academic disciplines.

To demonstrate the impact of privileged ways of knowing within academic disciplines, we will focus on our field of psychology. As is true of other fields as well, the dominant epistemologies of psychology, as it is understood today, reflect the cultural assumptions and values of the era in which this field arose. As a result, Indigenous ways of knowing have been all but silenced in the psychology literature historically, and current approaches to scholarship and practice relating to Indigenous Peoples are likely to marginalize or harm members of the Indigenous community. This fact presents a significant problem for a field that prides itself on stringent and well-articulated ethical codes and standards.

As an example, imagine yourself as a clinical psychology student in Canada during the 1970’s. In all likelihood, outside of a history class in high school you would not have learned about Indigenous Peoples, and what you did learn would have suggested that through the mutually beneficial signing of treaties, Indigenous Peoples came to share their land with Western Explorers, who ‘discovered’ this place. You would have never heard of a territorial acknowledgement, the Residential School System, or the 60’s scoop. You would probably have been unaware that Indigenous People in Canada had been mistreated in any way.

As you entered university, you developed an interest in psychology, rather than history, anthropology, or political science. Likely therefore, you would not have had any further formal education about Indigenous People or legislation relating to First Peoples. The topic may have come up in graduate school in the context of working with Indigenous communities, but you would have been taught that the clinical treatment and assessment approaches to which you were exposed were largely applicable to all peoples. Had you done some digging, you would have found very few if any Indigenous participants were included in the samples that went into developing these methods and approaches.

If, after obtaining your professional degree, you found yourself travelling to a northern community to administer psychological assessments to determine an Indigenous person’s ability to parent a child, the methods you’d apply would presume Western styles of parenting and Western values. From this perspective, Indigenous understandings of family and well-being might be deemed deficient or pathological.

When you deliver psychological tests, they are developed to identify Western diagnoses, based on Western theories of mental illness and Western views of behaviour, problem solving, family dynamics etc. Therefore, what you find as a new mental health professional, is a disproportionate number of Indigenous patients, needing to be separated from family, administered more invasive treatments, etc. And cultural context – the fact that your patient has limited access to clean drinking water, has poor secondary school options at best, has no comprehensive hospital in commuting distance, and forever feels the weight of being governed by an occupying population that views them as inferior– are all details that are extraneous to your assessment, because they fall outside of the sphere of psychology. If you expand this singular example across the field of psychology to include almost every interaction between Indigenous people and the profession over the last 60 years or so, you may begin to comprehend the scale of this problem.

In its 2018 response to the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association published a treatise with objectives that sought to produce “recommendations and guiding principles that acknowledge and respect Indigenous concepts of the person, health, family, and ways of knowing”.  In 2023, the American Psychological Association followed suit, publishing a report that offered an apology to First Peoples in the United States, and acknowledging that “APA should elevate psychology’s understanding of and regard for Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies and research centered on Native persons, peoples, and communities.”

Indigenous epistemologies in and of themselves are complex and varied, and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to review in detail Indigenous epistemologies and other culturally grounded ways of knowing and their intersectionality. Nevertheless, again using our own discipline as an exemplar, the report from the Canadian Psychological Association outlines several general guiding principles – cultural allyship, humility, collaboration, critical reflection, respect, and social justice – that can serve as valuable touchstones in approaching divergent epistemologies or ways of knowing.

Cultural Allyship

One of the ways we can avoid the oppressive imposition of privileged ways of knowing is through developing a sense of cultural allyship. This principle guides us to learn about others and be concerned for their wellbeing as a cultural group. This is distinct from a more ‘objective’ stance of learning about a people in a reified or ‘thingified’ way. Allyship is about caring enough to try to develop some cultural competence so that you can increase your understanding of the cultural world of the people that you are working with and in so doing develop your sense of empathy with their perspective.

Humility

The second guiding principle is humility. Across many academic disciplines, Western epistemologies can be viewed as the ultimate authority on what counts as valid knowledge. However, across Indigenous communities Elders, Kohkums, and Knowledge Keepers may have an immense wealth of knowledge and wisdom, despite never having attended a single university class. Their kind of knowledge is different, and may be more useful, applicable, and broader in scope that what our academic training brings to bear on a situation. Therefore, we should approach other ways of knowing with modesty and curiosity.

Collaboration

The principle of collaboration is exemplified by the colloquial saying, ‘Not about us without us’ – in other words, that in trying to understand a person or people, we should include them, not only as participants from whom we extract data, but as true participants throughout the processes of posing questions, seeking tentative answers, and applying those answers in real world settings. In this way we work toward ensuring that what we are seeing is not a product of our own siloed ways of knowing and is relevant to the contexts and communities with which we are engaged. In our example from Psychology, established methods of assessment and clinical interventions were developed abstract from the diversity of people and experiences to which these forms of knowledge would be applied. As a discipline with a growing sensitivity to the significance of ways of knowing, this can no longer be acceptable practice. More broadly, efforts to recognize and address the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples should include them at every step.

Critical Reflection

The third guiding principle, critical reflection means that we look back at our training, our approaches and our practices and ask how our ways of knowing limit what can be seen. This takes real effort. The saying, ‘The fish is the last to discover water’ captures this idea, as does the recognition that for decade after decade well intentioned members of the population had a difficult time seeing the mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Critical reflection entails applying critical thinking to our own taken for granted assumptions and practices, allowing the potential friction between our ways of knowing and those of others to reveal more clearly the lenses through which we have viewed the world.

Respect

The principle of respect can assist us in attending to Indigenous ways of knowing in a few ways. First, like the principle of humility, respect reminds us that we should be attuned to the wealth of knowledge possessed by members of Indigenous communities, and the wisdom it provides. Second, we should be respectful of the experiences and hardships faced by First Peoples in Canada and around the world. These people have too frequently been subjected to genocide, forced conversion, impoverished conditions, and diminished health indicators, all at the hands of the dominant population, its policies, and laws. When we meet with others who have been impacted in this way, we should be mindful of those impacts. We should also affirm that, despite facing innumerable atrocities over centuries, Indigenous Peoples have nevertheless persisted and demonstrated resilience through adherence to culture, traditional knowledge, and language.

Social Justice

The principle of social justice, like allyship, calls attention to our Western academic value of ‘objectivity’. Some have referred to Psychology as being ‘scientistic’ rather than scientific because historically it has attempted to emulate the hard sciences. Although the scientific method may be often appropriate to address prejudices and problems in human perception when conducting rigorous inquiry, we should not shy away from advocating for others when we see that they are being treated in ways that are unjust. Historically, we have precisely done this, which is why in our example, it is unlikely that our young practitioner would have spoken up. To do so, would be to risk being called an ‘activist’ by peers and that would have been an implicit slight against the professional’s objectivity or merit as a scholar and as a scientist.

Implications for Higher Education

What we have highlighted here regarding the diverse ways of knowing among our Indigenous neighbors is relevant to many forms of diversity that our students express in and outside of the classroom – as well as the diversity between and among academic colleagues and disciplines. Recognizing and affirming this diversity can be informed by the general guidelines proposed by the Canadian Psychological Association’s response to the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Cultural allyship in an academic context applies to the unique experiences and practical wisdom of our students. While there is much that students do not know, they bring a diversity of life experiences and acquired knowledge that can inform and even challenge the canons of established disciplines. In our experience, openness to what students bring to the classroom enriches the learning experiences of teachers and students alike. Cultural allyship affirms this openness and adds a particular sensitivity to those students from historically and currently oppressed communities, whose voices can even now be minimized or silenced by dominant cultures and discourses. Hence, listening for, inviting, and affirming these perspectives is especially important for contemporary teaching and learning.

Humility in higher education can entail recognizing the limits of our knowledge, both individually and collectively, as well as striving to complement our bodies of knowledge with the wisdom of other forms of knowing. This follows from the principles of respect and collaboration, the latter being contingent on the former. As noted earlier, while interdisciplinarity is currently advocated in many university settings, in our experience this rarely crosses broad disciplinary boundaries such as liberal arts, sciences, and business. This fosters a dismissiveness of ways of knowing outside of established systems, which can be exacerbated in a climate of competition for recognition and resources. Broad interdisciplinary respect and collaboration must be encouraged, supported, and celebrated throughout higher levels of university administration if is to be demonstrated in practice as well as principle. This would require targeted initiatives that encourage crossing academic divides that would otherwise remain barriers to engagement and mutual respect.

Critical reflection in higher education, a corollary or concomitant of humility, requires looking at the ways in which our own disciplines – as well as higher education in general – have fostered or perpetuated exclusionary and oppressive practices. To the extent that these practices have marginalized particular cultures and peoples, this reflection is necessary if social justice is to be attained. While social justice initiatives are being undertaken and affirmed across many academic disciplines, facilitating critical reflection in the classroom poses challenges. Discussion of historical and current oppression can be difficult, as inviting students’ reactions and perspectives on these runs the risk of cultivating a classroom climate that is experienced by some as uncomfortable or offensive. However, avoiding these risks also avoids the kinds of critical reflection that demonstrates how recognizing and affirming diverse ways of knowing – despite their challenges – are essential, ethical aspects of learning.

Conclusion

We hope that this chapter has underscored the importance of appreciating ways of knowing and their relevance for higher education. Epistemology and ontology – foundational assumptions of what counts as valid ways and sources of knowledge – shape how each of us views the world, as well as how we introduce those views to students. As centers for intellectual growth and development, academic institutions are uniquely poised to affirm and cultivate diverse ways of knowing and the value of interdisciplinary respect and collaboration. We have tried to outline extant obstacles and challenges to this in practice, as well as potential pathways forward.

Our discussion necessarily addressed Indigenous ways of knowing and their neglect throughout higher education and beyond. Drawing upon the response of Canadian Psychological Association to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, we described the guiding principles of cultural allyship, humility, collaboration, critical reflection, respect, and social justice, and their implications for the treatment of Indigenous communities throughout Canada and the United States. These principles were then applied to contexts in higher education, with the suggestion that the CPA guidelines can inform academic practices to affirm and facilitate diverse ways of knowing in teaching, collaborative research, and education administration.

References

American Psychological Association. (2023). Report on an offer of apology, on behalf of the American Psychological Association, to First Peoples in the United States. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/indigenous-apology.pdf

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Canadian Psychological Association & Psychology Foundation of Canada. (2018). Psychology’s response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Report: A report of the Canadian Psychological Association and the Psychology Foundation of Canada. https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Task_Forces/TRC%20Task%20Force%20Report_FINAL.pdf

Carastathis, A. (2016). Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167 https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf

Dilthey, W. (1977). Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding (R. M. Zaner & K. I. Heiges, Trans.). Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Original work published 1927).

Gadamer, H. (2013). Truth and Method (Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing (Original work published 1960).

Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a Human Science: A Phenomenologically Based

            Approach. New York: Harper & Row.

Guo, S. & Jamal, Z. (2007). Nurturing cultural diversity in higher education: A critical review of selected models. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(3), 27-49.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (Original work published 1927).

Lawson, A. (2001). Ideology and indoctrination: the framing of language in twentieth-century introductions to linguistics. Language Sciences, 23(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00028-0

Lewin, D. (2022). Indoctrination. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 56(4), 612-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12668

Smith, D. G. (2020). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. JHU Press.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2105). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Government of Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-7-2015-eng.pdf