student-expert (knowledge-constitutive) relation. he drew the potential knower's interest toward the experts' ideas in an ideological (or ideas-centred) interpersonal relation:
Many of you will be pleasantly surprised just how relevant these theories are to an understanding of [issues] today. The more you can appreciate the question [the theorists] are grappling with, the more insight you will get into
contemporary problems .... After coming to grips with these writers you will be transformed: ... [and] 'travel with a different view'.
Lecturer 13 An empathetic form of educational mediation required the teacher to negate their personal social constitutive relation with the student by backgrounding their own presence. In this way Lecturer 1 3 presented to the students, the possibility o f claiming this expert's knowledge as their own, rather than his own. Not once did he make reference to himself in his discussion, instead maintaining an objectified teacher-student distance. In clearly distinguishing the expert-student knowledge constitutive relation from the teacher-student social-constitutive relation, and in prioritising the former, he drew the expert and student into the possibility of a 'conversation'. His own mediation was used directly for the enhancement this epistemic relation between the expert's knowledge and the student's ways of knowing. While it would take more than an overturning of the dominance between these two educational relations to create a scholar of the student, no other lecturer so clearly distinguished these two relations from one another. In fact, the mediation of these other teachers was practically all centred in the sociality of the teacher-student social-constitutive relation.
The educational relation between knowledge and coming to know, is negatively mediated by a forefronted enhancement of the social-constitutive relation (between themselves and students) and consequent backgrounding of the knowledge-constitutive relation (between experts and students). All the other twelve lecturers had attempted to make their courses 'user-friendly' (or socially dependent?) by directly enhancing the social relations between themselves and the student(s). As this social relation was forefronted, the expert's course knowledge became further socially distanced from the potential knower, and the difficulties of this objectification factor were now compounded in a four-fold way for these adults. First - 'study skills' had been separated from the course content; second - epistemological explanation of expected ways of reasoning was markedly absent from behaviourally-manifested study skills advice; third - rather than enhance the experts relation with the student, these teachers foregrounded their own relation with the student, and fourth - 'the knowledge' was already objectivated in their correspondence text anyway.
Fnhancing the social-constitutive relation at the cost of the knowledge-constitutive relation seemed to be based upon a non-reciprocated form of sympathy and other-dependence rather than on empathy. These teachers who enhanced the social relation between themselves and their students
'£pisumoCogica£ e;rpCorations ...
Pt.ll Cn.7
episumoCogy to course conunt
did SO by such methods as introductory welcomes,421 personal mail and with humour when, for instance, study guides were delayed.422 However, without negating the value of relaxing the
students, this bond of friendship was often perplexing, since the informal intersubjectivities of
'you' or 'us' in one paragraph might soon followed by objectified references to 'the students' and 'they' in following ones.423 The double message in this confused form of address was reciprocated by the students who soon referred to their lecturers as 'they'. Thus, in spite of the teachers'
contrary attempts, the relations between student and teacher were apt to become formally objectified rather than intersubjectively enhanced, by the students themselves. This did not worry Noah who was not seeking her teacher'S friendship anyway, but Wyna would find this situation somewhat difficult because she wanted to subjectify her 'social contact' with her lecturer. If she had met him, she probably would not have found Lecturer 13's self-objectification particularly 'helpful'.
Subjectifying the knowledge-constitutive relation for the students provided a base point so that they could move their ways of reasoning from common-sense to academic-sense. Having subjectified the knowledge-constitutive relation between student and expert first, Lecturer 1 3 now moved on to develop the depth of their reasoning, but he did not impose the expectation of an answer or the end point. In epistemological terms, he did not impose standards of legitimation or particular forms of truth on his first year students. He appeared to recognise legitimating as a second-stage purpose of knowing. Rather, Lecturer 13 required the student to concentrate more on disciplining their own ways of knowing:
Begin by reading [Theorist 'x'] .... He sets out a view ... (not the only
possible view) .... For this course you do not have to take the discussion about the theories too seriously. It is sufficient to . .. f get} insight .... Do not worry too much about ... but take careful note of ... Finally, read ... to get a general idea .... Now in a relaxedfashion read .... Do not try to understand the details ... That will come later. Try to 'get a feel for' ...
(XlI211-2)
By forefronting knowledge rather than truth, along with the common-sense notion of 'generalising' (rather than 'theorising'), students may be coaxed beyond the trepidations of a terror of error. In fact, implicit in this teacher's statement was a realisation that coming to know ought not to be rigidified and dichotomised into what was right and what was wrong, but should accept 'truth' and 'error' as part and parcel of coming to know. Lecturer 13 reflected to the students the value of theorising legitimately rather than legitimating theoretically. This absolved the everyday adult from the tension of certain teacher expectations. Lecturer 13 did not expect his students to search for one
421 "Welcome to the course .... We look forward to helping you through the year"(YI/1/l); and "Welcome. I'm (Joe Bloggs) and I he4d a team ... (XI.l.l)
422 "Study guide will be laJe ... For some o[you this will be a welcome reprieve ... So do nol despair - Jceep remtniiing yourself that like a fibre diet it is good for you. "(X2)
423 the many examples was this one: "Our course ... para I ... What do students need so they can thinJc ...
para ... Our is that as students become familiar they will ... para 3 ... There has been no effort to fnaJce up your you ... para 5" (y1.1.2)
�CoratWns ...
Pt.ll Cfr..7
to course content
particular point of view or a single truth. He was implying the possibility of multiple viewpoints and its corollary was that his was not the only valid judgement He did reflect himself as 'the expert' to the students.
Inherent in building and strengthening the epistemological standpoint of this preferred knowledge constitutive relation, was a concurrent devaluing of the myths of privilege surrounding social constitutive relations. Lecturer 13 attempted to negate the objectification which, for instance, was
part of Luisa's belief in 'keeping a respectful distance' between herself and her teachers and experts. To do this he reinforced the idea that teachers were not the only judges of truth(s) when he included the decision-making of unknown others in an everyday, opinionated fonn. This act in itself reflected and forefronted the 'commonality' of reasoning whether in a common-sense or academic-sense mode:
Its probably fair to say tJuu I the expert's) social blueprint has not impressed many. Its vagueness has annoyed even those who feel some sympathy with his social critique.
(Xl/218)
Strengthening the knowledge-constitutive relation between experts (as knowledge-makers) and students (as potential knowledge-makers) involved the educator in the relativism of a constructivist philosophy. This world-view negated the boundaries between knowledge and coming to know. By lessening the epistemic tensions of 'rigorous' legitimations, Lecturer 13 was calming the fears of students and enabling them to ask their own questions; letting their own inquisitiveness and curiosity motivate them into seeking a deeper understanding of the course content In this way the teacher was acknowledging not only the possibility of the existence of relative fonns of 'truth', but also the pluralistic relativism involved in different ways of 'seeing things'.
Grounding educational practices by starting from the standpoint of a student's personal epistemology, enabled the intending knower to 'move from' as well as 'move beyond' the supposed limits of common-sense. In effect, Lecturer 1 3 was cajoling the student to develop the habits of their 'personal epistemology' further ( 'get a feel for' ). This continued use of 'the personal' would create what has been called, 'a feeling of being connected'4'2A in an educational
space which is more complex and holistic in nature.42S Researchers have confinned426 that the use
of a student's 'personal method' of common-sense reasoning can enable the student to reflect and
4'2A Davies. 1979.
425 Gibbs. 198 1. Belenky et. al .• 1986. At this moment education begins to centre as a discipline -
and if the teacher carried on (or subjectifying) this relation between students personal
and the then formal education could be seen as an epistemic development was the development a university lO achieve. for in Australasia over a long of time. a period of experience (whicn experience and habituation)
been seen as advantageous to in terms having students complete a degree. (Eg. Thomas. Beeby and Oram. 1939:1 12; Foster. Eaton, 1980.)