Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Humanising Pedagogies

Strategic, conceptual and practical road-mapping


July 2013

Introduction
Over the past few years, a range of key notions began to signal the shape, process and
content of the transformation project at the university. These are reflected in the
Vision 2020 Strategic Plan 1 around three sets of interrelated ideas: to define
NMMUs academic purpose and identity; revisit its strategic directional statements;
and determine [the following] strategic priorities that will secure the long-term
sustainability of the institution:
1. Formulate and implement an integrated strategic academic plan and
distinctive knowledge paradigm2.

Our Vision: To be a dynamic African university, recognised for its leadership in generating cuttingedge knowledge for a sustainable future. Our Mission: To offer a diverse range of quality
educational opportunities that will make a critical and constructive contribution to regional, national
and global sustainability. To achieve our vision and mission, we will ensure that: Our values inform
and define our institutional ethos and distinctive educational purpose and philosophy. We are
committed to promoting equity of access and opportunities so as to give students the best chance of
success in their pursuit of lifelong learning and diverse educational goals. We provide a vibrant,
stimulating and richly diverse environment that enables staff and students to reach their full potential.
We develop graduates and diplomates to be responsible global citizens capable of critical reasoning,
innovation, and adaptability We create and sustain an environment that encourages and supports a
vibrant research, scholarship and innovation culture. We engage in mutually beneficial partnerships
locally, nationally and globally to enhance social, economic, and ecological sustainability
2 See SARCHi proposal, 2012: The distinctive knowledge paradigm referred to in this priority area
requires critical thinking, open-endedness, and the primacy of rational discourse ...; it promotes
(t)he idea of the University as an open society of scholars committed to the production and
dissemination of knowledge that can have a liberating effect on our world; and includes a
commitment to the application of knowledge to advance democracy, social justice, public good and
liberation of the human condition from all forms of discrimination and injustice. The development of
this distinctive knowledge paradigm is critically linked to the pedagogy of those who teach. Thus it is
explicitly stated in V2020 that [w]e adopt a humanising pedagogical approach that respects and
acknowledges diverse knowledge traditions and engages them in critical dialogue in order to nurture a
participative approach to problem-posing and -solving, and the ability to contribute to a multi-cultural
society.
1

2. Create and sustain a responsive learning environment conducive to excellence


in teaching and learning and fostering holistic student success3.
3. Create and sustain an environment that encourages, supports and rewards a
vibrant research, scholarship and innovation culture.
4. Position NMMU as an engaged institution that contributes to a sustainable
future through critical scholarship.
5. Develop and sustain a transformative institutional culture that optimises the
full potential of staff and students.
6. Formulate and implement a financial growth and development strategy to
enhance long-term sustainability and competitiveness.
7. Improve institutional processes, systems and infrastructure to promote a
vibrant staff and student life on all campuses.
8. Maximise human capital potential of staff.

The strategic plan further elaborates on the multi-layered and complex spaces
within the university by arguing for an alignment between institutional strategic
planning and the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The establishment of an enabling transformative institutional culture.


Operational planning within the various divisions and faculties.
Resource allocation and budgeting models.
Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, including quality advancement and
performance management systems at all levels of the institution.
5. Academic, financial, infrastructural and human resources planning.

With respect to strategic priority 2, the principle of humanizing pedagogies emerges


as one of the signature concepts in relation to the strategic direction of the
university. The strategic goals and objectives are now formulated to develop an

Central to a humanising pedagogy is the responsibility of the individual to the wider society, as is
evident in the vision and mission statements of University as well as the Faculty of Education (see end
of this statement), and the Universitys stated values of responsibility, Ubuntu, and sustainability.
3

Vision 2020 goes on to specify that [b]y 2020, the teaching and learning environment at NMMU is
characterised by students and staff being challenged to strive for excellence and success through an
emphasis on a humanising pedagogy (emphasis added). Furthermore, it commits to Develop[ing]
an understanding of a humanising pedagogy and strategies to give effect to this approach (Strategic
Objective 2.1). The remaining four objectives of Priority #2 (2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5) further delineate
the teaching and learning challenges (i.e. effective teaching, learning and assessment practices;
seamless learning environments in and out of the classroom; professional and staff development; and
up-to-date learning teaching, and social environments) Each of these challenges fits within the
development of a theory and practice of humanising pedagogies and are obviously pieces of what the
Research Chair would undertake. Beyond this, however, and again in reference to Strategic Priority
#1, the Chair would strive to reach out to and learn from partners in schools, locally, nationally, and
internationally (see below under Partnerships for further details).

understanding and implement strategies to advance humanizing pedagogies4. The


centrality of humanizing pedagogies is confirmed in the 2013 prospectus of NMMU.
Thus, the principle of humanizing pedagogies is embedded within the strategic
architecture of NMMU which include specific strategic plans in the academic,
teaching and learning, research and innovation and engagement portfolios
buttressed by plans on infrastructure, transformation, finances, etc. As a conscious
design, humanizing pedagogies not only emerge as a transversal principle across the
universitys social, physical, financial, academic, management and human resources
landscapes. It is also fore-grounded as a research focus area among the following
Institutional Research Themes:
1. Biodiversity Conservation and Restoration
2. Coastal Marine and Shallow Water Ecosystems
3. Cyber Citizenship
4. Democratization, Conflict and Poverty
5. Earth Stewardship Science
6. Health and Wellbeing
7. Humanizing Pedagogies
8. Manufacturing Technology and Engineering
9. Nanoscale characterization and development of strategic materials
10. Science, Mathematics and Technology Education for Society
11. Strategic energy technologies
12. Sustainable human settlement development and management
13. Sustainable local economic development
There is no doubt that the notion and principle of humanizing pedagogies is having
a productive career at the university. It seems to resonate with national research
priorities relating social learning systems and human and social dynamics for
development and education. Importantly, it is viewed as a mechanism that can give
relevant social meaning to our academic endeavours in the Arts, Business and
Economic Sciences, Education, Engineering, the Built Environment and Information
Technology, Health Sciences, Law and the Sciences. Moreover, humanizing
pedagogies, in the understanding of the university community, may facilitate
processes and activities linked to all the strategic priorities of the university.
Needless to say, the conscious conceptualization and design of strategic and tactical
interventions to give expression to the principle of humanizing pedagogies requires
4

Page 32.

carefully considered academic and practical approaches that at once subject the
teaching and learning encounter (including supervision) to the demands of the
human; and, at the same time, de-authorise hierarchical knowledge systems within
the disciplines. Swartz (2011) is right to argue that NMMU operates against the
backdrop of new legal, employment and administrative arrangements, with little
attention given to the definitional parameters and nature of the academy and the
very idea of the University. This is probably true for most universities in South
Africa. The enkindled argument of Swartz (ibid) thus commits the academy to the
application of knowledge (across the disciplines) to advance democracy, social
justice, public good and liberation of the human condition from all forms of
discrimination and injustice. He, to my mind, is concerned about the
transformation of the social structure of the academic endeavour. These concerns
are shared by the university principals and communities of Fort Hare and the
Universities of the Free State and Stellenbosch, to name a few. It is interesting to
note that in all four cases, pedagogy emerges as a central leverage point; in the case
of Fort Hare and NMMU, humanizing pedagogies signal this position. Post-conflict
and reconciliation pedagogies do so at the UFS, whilst pedagogies of hope play a
similar role at SUN. In these cases the link between pedagogy and the academic,
engagement, intellectual and research project of universities is, at least at the level of
strategic intent, established. This is not the case in wider university communities
where so-called progressive discourses simply play themselves out as language
games; masking the real transformation required.

Pedagogy and institutional culture: Teaching, learning, research and


engagement

Freire, in his Pedagogy of Hope (1992: 9) captures one of the primary tasks of a
progressive educator as unveiling opportunities of hope which in the context of
critical theory, inhabits the space within contradictions that can only be exposed by a
reflexive dialectic. This is necessary, according to Freire (1993: xi) because we have to
recognize multiple constructions of power and authority in a society riven by
inequalities [and therefore] there must be a growing recognition of new forms of
subjectivity and new strategies of emancipatory praxis which are derived from non4

Western settings The teaching and learning encounter, in this scheme, is rooted in
the everyday-life of the university. Pedagogy thus exceeds the lecture rooms and
refers to educational, social and institutional encounters within and across all
university practices; inclusive of the curriculum as an institution. Jansens (2009)
notion of the curriculum as an institution in higher education suggest an
understanding of knowledge encoded in the dominant beliefs, values and
behaviours deeply embedded in all aspects of institutional life; the discursive
patterns that reflects an understanding by the institution dwellers of the particular
link between knowledge and authority, about who possesses knowledge to act on and
against others. The knowledge generation processes linked to research is in part the
formalised expression of embedded knowledge; which together with pedagogy
structures the universitys dispositions towards community engagement. If we add to
this an understanding of institutional culture as "the deeply embedded patterns of
organizational behaviour and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies
that members have about their organization or its work" (Peterson & Spencer, 1991,
p. 142), we are in a position to argue for a constitutive relationship between
pedagogy, institutional culture, teaching and learning, research and community
engagement.
Humanising Pedagogy
Humanizing pedagogy is a species of critical pedagogy (see xx, xx, xx), in the
Freirian tradition as intimated in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It is, today, located
amongst an infinite variety of pedagogies: pedagogy of hope; pedagogy of discomfort;
pedagogy of hospitality; pedagogy of hauntology; pedagogy of mourning; pedagogy of
reconciliation; pedagogy of possibilities; etc. In a sense, pedagogy is at risk of
becoming an empty signifier. However, if we think of pedagogy as embedded
practices across an institution, it escapes the narrow label with limits pedagogy only
to teaching and learning approaches, methodologies and techniques.
Salazar (2013) recently provided us with a thoughtful piece on humanizing
pedagogy, tracing its roots to Freires foregrounding of the notion of humanization.
She (Salazar: 2013) unearthed a number of movements within the literature on

humanizing pedagogy5. From her study it is evident that most authors focus on the
teaching and learning space as conventionally understood. She (ibid) identifies the
following five key tenets as prerequisites for the pursuit of ones full humanity
through a humanizing pedagogy:
1. The full development of the person is essential for humanization.
2. To deny someone elses humanization is also to deny ones own.
3. The journey for humanization is an individual and collective endeavour
toward critical consciousness.
4. Critical reflection and action can transform structures that impede our
own and others humanness, thus facilitating liberation for all.
5. Educators are responsible for promoting a more fully human world
through their pedagogical principles and practices.

The focus on the learning encounter in the literature reflects the intellectual
influences of Freire (xx) and that of the key proponents of critical pedagogy (Macedo,
McLaren, Giroux, xx). However, as some of the recent compilations (see McLaren, et
al. 2005) on critical pedagogy highlights: pedagogy is a much broader notion. In line
with this reasoning, we conceive of pedagogy as embedded practices linked to
teaching, learning, management, research, engagement, etc. This idea is supported
by one of the most intellectually pragmatic thinkers of our time, Martha Nussbaum.
In her work, Not for Profit (2010), she laments university education for not being
able to contribute to developing competent, knowledgeable, empathetic and
democratic citizens. The shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our
ability to criticize authority; reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and
different; and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems ... the
loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a
decent world. Nussbaum thus sees the universitys orientation as a space of
pedagogy that must cultivate humanity:
According to Nussbaum one cultivates humanity by developing three
capacities. The first is the capacity for critical self-examination and critical
thinking about ones own culture and traditions. The second is the
capacity to see oneself as a human being who is bound to all humans with
ties of concern. The third is the capacity for narrative imagination the
5

Freire, 1993; Bartolom, 1994; Huerta & Brittain, 2010; Keet et al., 2009; Parker-Rees & Willan,
2006; Rodriguez, 2008; Salazar, 2008; Schugurensky, 2011; Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Zinn &
Rodgers (2012).

ability to empathize with others and to put oneself in anothers place. As


one develops these capacities one becomes increasingly suited for world
citizenship (Martin Gunderson; 1999).
Nussbaum (2009: 1) distinguished between education for human development and
education for economic enrichment. Universities, she argues, focuses on the latter.
Enrichment educators, she contends, regards the students freedom of mind as
undesirable since such freedom does not fit the profile of the docile technician
required for accumulation. The shift away from an education aimed at challenging
historically formulated social injustices, is a function of our anxieties that students
critical thinking about the present will be prompted (ibid). That is, a focus on social
injustice in education for human development is one of the facilitating factors for the
development of critical thinking. This form of thinking is rejected by an education for
enrichment because it does not contribute to personal economic advancement. Thus,
an interest in social justice cannot take shape. In contrast, education for human
development must promote the human development of students on the one hand;
and promote an understanding of the goals of human development for all ... as goals
inherent in the very idea of a decent minimally just society and it must do this in
such a way that when they are empowered to make political choices, they will foster
these capabilities for all, not only for themselves (ibid). The departure point of such
education is equal respect for all human beings and an acknowledgment of equal
entitlement to a range of opportunities for all human beings across the world (ibid).
Human dignity, the concept emerging here, is a central organising theme of
Nussbaums work. It is, according to her (2011: 31) closely related to the idea of
active striving. It is also firmly linked to the notion of equality and the egalitarian
impulse of education for human development. For Nussbaum this approach to
education is rooted in a conception of social justice that asks: What does a life
worthy of human dignity require? She suggests ten central capabilities in response
to this question6.
6

Robeyns (2011): Nussbaum describes the capabilities approach as a new theoretical paradigm in the development and policy
world, which poses the questions: What are people actually able to do and to be? Put differently, the capabilities approach
asks which genuine opportunities are open to people. By starting from this question, we will shift the focus of policy and
development analysis from resources (incomes at micro-level, and GDP per capita at national level) to peoples capabilities: the
substantive freedoms or opportunities that are created by a combination of the abilities residing inside a person (like capacities
and skills) with their social, economic and political environment.
Nussbaum (2006) lists the central capabilities as follows: Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not
dying prematurely, or before ones life is so reduced as to be not worth living; Bodily Health. Being able to have good health,
including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter; Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely
from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities

Nussbaum provides a solid base to view pedagogies as embedded practices across


the university (this is the position taken in the NMMU strategic documents by
locating humanizing pedagogy as an academic focus area). She weaves the notions
of equality, materiality, emotions, imagination and integrity together with the
filament of equal respect for human dignity and thus adds to our understanding of
Freires project of humanization as an ontological vocation (xx). Both Nussbaum and
Freire are regarded as humanist (Salazar, 2013; Ball, 2010) and in both cases their
forms of humanism are traced back to Marxist humanism. Freires philosophy is
guided by the notion that humans are motivated by a need to reason and engage in
the process of becoming. Freires focus on humanism is centered on his curiosity in
the cognitive capacity of humans to shape their experiences and achieve personal and
collective self-actualization, thus developing their full humanity (Salazar, 2013).
Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed was published in 1968, followed by others such
as Apples Education and Power (1982), McLarens (1989) Life in Schools, and
Girouxs (1997) Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope and many others became major
reference texts on critical pedagogy, in addition to the many publication by Freire
himself. McLaren (2006: 13), after detouring into critical postmodern pedagogies,
rediscovered Marxist humanism in the late 1990s ... and reinvented his project as a
revolutionary pedagogy.
In Althussers favourite Marx, the anti-humanist, human agency disappears into
social formations and relations of productions determined by the economy, which
for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction; Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the
senses, to imagine, think, and to reasonand to do these things in a truly human way, a way informed and cultivated by an
adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to
use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of ones own choice, religious,
literary, musical, and so forth - Being able to use ones mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with
respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise - Being able to have pleasurable experiences and
to avoid non-beneficial pain; Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those
who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified
anger. Not having ones emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting
forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.); Practical Reason. Being able to form a
conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of ones life. (This entails protection for the liberty
of conscience and religious observance.); Affiliation. A. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show
concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another.
(Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also
protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.) B. Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being
able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin; Other Species. Being able to live with concern
for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature; Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities;
Control over Ones Environment. A. Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern ones life;
having the right of political participation and protections of free speech and association. B. Material. Being able to hold
property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek
employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to
work as a human being, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other
workers.

revived the structure-agency debate in sociology in the previous century. The poststructuralist movement that took shape in the 1960s, though critical of Marxism in
general, aligned with anti-humanist thinking ... human beings are culturally and
discursively structured (xx). The human as a category is an effect of discourse (in
the case of Foucault) or formed in text (in the case of Derrida). They are not the freethinking agents of the enlightenment project. Critical pedagogy, especially through
the work of McLaren (xx) and Giroux (xx), took on insights from poststructuralist
thinking without abandoning the notion of human agency (see also James, 2004). A
new group of post-poststructuralist thinkers are reshuffling the pedagogical
encyclopaedia (see Badiou, Ranciere, Nancy, Malabou, Laruelle, etc.) by taking a
distance from the organising paradigms of discourse, text and writing. The new
materialism presented by these thinkers reject both neo-liberal capitalist
arrangements as given, as well as the political ontology implicit in it. From a
pedagogical point of view, to return to Nussbaums argument, an education for
economic enrichment view students and academics ontologically as homo
economicus. Against this, this new group of thinkers have renewal and
regeneration in mind; returning us ultimately to the agency inherent in being
human; this agency, in the logic of Freire and Nussbaum, is a humanizing agency.
The main proposition emerging from the argument presented here is that human
agency, in a variety of ways, has been central to the pedagogical interpretations of
Marxism, critical theory, poststructuralist and postmodern thinking; even in the
schools of thought clustered under the anti-humanist label. The trick here is to avoid
utopian and romantic notions of the subject and agency; acknowledge the structural
strictures placed on human agency; and acknowledged the possibility, however
limited, of human agency resident in even the most embedded of social practices. In
Badious (xx) case agency is linked to the processes that make the actor emerges
from an autonomous chain of actions within a changing situation and becomes a
subject. Rancires agency focuses on new forms of democratic actions. And for
Malabou, the agency is pre-inscribed in the plasticity of the brain. The point here is
that the possibility for agency stalks all social practices. This point has been proven
by those working within the frameworks of cultural capital and wealth perspectives
(see Yosso, etc.)

Framework for research


A set of propositions drives this research framework:
1. There is a constitutive relationship between pedagogy, institutional culture,
teaching and learning, research and community engagement. The
knowledge generation processes linked to research is in part the formalised
expression of embedded knowledge; which together with pedagogy and
institutional culture structure the universitys disposition towards community
engagement.
2. The curriculum as an institution in higher education: This suggests an
understanding of knowledge encoded in the dominant beliefs, values and
behaviours deeply embedded in all aspects of institutional life; the discursive
patterns that reflects an understanding by the institution dwellers of the
particular link between knowledge and authority, about who possesses
knowledge to act on and against others (Jansen, xx).

3. The notion of humanization must disrupt pedagogy and de-authorise


knowledge: The principle of humanizing pedagogies requires carefully
considered academic and practical approaches that at once subject the
teaching and learning encounter (including supervision) to the demands of
the human; and, at the same time, de-authorise hierarchical knowledge
systems within the disciplines.

4. Knowledge-power: Higher Education Institutions are saturated with power.


Power-relations of a social, economic, cultural and political nature permeate
institutional structures and practices. This percolation of power constitutes
and are constituted by an institutional culture where both the subtleness and
brutality of power set up material coercions by paving the way for human
actions to play out it ways that reproduce existing patterns of advantage and
disadvantage.

10

5. Whiteness as Institutional Culture: Though, without any stretch of the


imagination, one can suggest that a new form of managerialism overarched
by neo-liberal thinking contributes substantially to what can be regarded as
institutional culture in South African higher education, at the same time,
what marks out much discussion of institutional culture in South Africa is the
extent to which it is necessarily permeated by the difficult questions presented
by racial identities in a post-apartheid, post-colonial society (Higgings,
2007). West and Schmidt (2010) define whiteness as that power-laden
discursive formation that privileges, secures, and normalises the cultural
space of the white Western subject7. The notion of whiteness, the literature
(see Higgins, 2007) shows, came to dominate discussion on institutional
culture in South African higher education. Universities, as the Soudien report
(2008) has argued, are furthering a white-project. This discursive project
adjudicates the mode by which knowing becomes knowable and conscious;
selects what knowledge is worth knowing; determines the character of and
approach to teaching and learning; formulates systems of performance and
reward; construct assessment regimes; and images the communities which
require engagement.
6. Curriculum as discourse: To begin to answer the question of transformation,
we need to treat curriculum as discourse: this refers to the relationships
between disciplines, curriculum, courses, vocations and the professional,
intellectual and institutional practices that create and maintain modes of
classification, control and containment that construct disciplinary and
professional identities along social, economic, cultural, racial and other faultlines already existent in society. Curriculum-as-discourse dictates that we
reflect on the legitimation of knowledge through which the dynamics of power
and embedded interests can be disclosed for questioning. This act of
questioning is the first step in curriculum renewal.

7. The disappearance of the black professor: What is of importance to the


transformation agenda in higher education is that curriculum-as-discourse

West, M. and Schmidt, J. (2010: 10).

11

will help to reveal, to disclose, those rules of formation that constructed


disciplines in ways where power-knowledge serves patterns of inclusion and
exclusion. Questions of why massive numbers of black students go through
law but few make it to senior council would be better understood. The same
goes for engineering, medicine, geology, psychology, OT, etc. It is no surprise
that by the time that we look for black professors across the disciplines, we say
that it is impossible to find them. The disappearance of the black professor
may partly be a consequence of curriculum ... the organisation of knowledge.
Few have the courage to pursue this logic.
8. It is difficult to transform the knowledge project: The reasons for this
blockage are captured by Gumport and Snydman (2002: 376) along the
following lines: First, postsecondary organizations are a primary societal
arena in which knowledge is developed. That is, universities and colleges
both reflect and reconstitute classifications of knowledge and in so doing
establish categories of expertise and knowledge worth knowing. Second,
organizational context plays a role in what comes to count as knowledge.
Influential factors range from the shared understanding of mission and
institutional legacies to the allocation of material resources (money, space,
etc.) across fields of study. Third, academic organizations tend to respond to
knowledge change with additive solutions, while the complete elimination of
structural units is rare. This is due in part to the proponents of academic
fields who actively work to promote their ideas and protect their turf.
Possible Research Foci and Outputs
1. Humanizing pedagogy as embedded practices

Developing a concept/ position paper to argue the case conceptually


and to provide practical direction

Study pedagogical orientations across faculties in the universities and


develop pedagogical topography/ typology of the NMMU landscape

Study [ex] changing pedagogies comparatively in higher education in


South Africa and abroad.
12

Humanizing pedagogy: theory and practice

Humanizing pedagogy and Africanisation

2. Humanizing pedagogies, curriculum renewal and the regeneration of


intellectual cultures

Explore how the linkages between curriculum and pedagogy finds


expressions across the university landscape

How does such expression formulate community engagement?

In what ways can curriculum renewal be steered by humanizing


pedagogies?

How can humanising pedagogies regenerate intellectual cultures?

3. Humanizing pedagogies, research and professional cultures

How can research across the disciplines take on a commitment to social


justice?

In what ways can humanizing pedagogy inform the social value and
relevance of research?

How can human pedagogies advance the professional cultures in the


university and the disciplines?

4. Humanizing pedagogies, social dynamics and institutional culture


How can we employ humanising pedagogy to study the social dynamics
of disrespect within the university space?
Is it possible for humanizing pedagogy to become an institutional
culture? How?

End
AK

13