W. A. LANDMAN
ECLECTIC THINKING AND
ECLECTICISM:
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES*
ABSTRACT
A particular reader can classify the findings of
educationists as:
1.
acceptable;
2.
acceptable with certain
reservations; or
3.
unacceptable.
A closer look at the findings
that have been classified as “acceptable” show that they derive from a variety
of theoretical backgrounds. If the reader is the victim of a
method-monistic training he or she will feel uneasy whenever a result is
selected from outside his or her monistic field.
The educationist who is confronted with
epistemological guilt feelings can either suppress these feelings and continue
selecting acceptable pronouncements or enter an epistemological paralysis that
promotes a lack of productivity.
However, there is a third possibility, which is
to look critically at the possibilities offered by eclectic thinking without
falling into eclecticism.
This means that the reader must be attuned to:
1.
searching for commonalities;
2.
sharing problem-oriented
meanings;
3.
questioning theoretical
purism;
4.
noting
strong points.
1.
ORIENTATION
2.
ECLECTIC
THINKING: IMPLICATIONS OF SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
2.1
Reader’s
Digest Universal Dictionary
2.1.1
Etymologies
2.1.2
Present (lay before) [Voorlê]
2.1.3
Explicate and consider [Daarlê and oorle]
2.1.4
The interpretive
(hermeneutic) conversation
2.2
Philosophical
dictionary. W. Brugger
2.2.1
Interpretation
2.2.2
An essence-disclosing
attunement
Dictionary of Psychology. H. C. Warren
2.3.1
Interpretation
2.3.2
The definition-integration
method
2.4
Philosophical
dictionary. H. Schmidt
3.
ECLECTIC
THINKING AS A SEARCH FOR COMMONALITIES
3.1
Dissatisfaction
with rigidity
3.2
Commonalities
3.2.1
Educative reality
3.2.2
Methodologies
3.2.3
Research methodologies:
stating the problem
3.2.4
Research methodologies:
empirical research
4.
ECLECTIC THINKING AS SHARING PROBLEM-ORIENTED
MEANINGS
4.1
Increasing
openness and regard
4.2
Designing
meanings
4.3
Sharing
meanings
5.
ECLECTIC
THINKING AS QUESTIONING THE SENSE OF THEORETICAL PURISM
5.1
Method
choice and aims
5.2
Methodological
purism
5.3
Epistemological
myths
5.4
Separating
theory and method
6.
ECLECTIC
THINKING AS NOTING STRONG POINTS
7.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
8.
REFERENCES
ooOOOoo
1. ORIENTATION
The
scientist (researcher) usually is attuned to receive and assimilate criticism
of his work if the criticism is well intended, positive, constructive and free
of false reasoning. One accusation that
a scientist finds difficult to swallow and against which he strongly and
sometimes less strongly revolts is the accusation, motivated or unmotivated,
that he has acted unscientifically. There is a particular form of being
unscientific to which each scientist is allergic and this is any allegation
that he is uncritical (without criteria), subjectivistic (“because I hold it
and it fits in with what I think and believe”), doesn’t verify (“it seems
correct”) and unoriginally borrows from the written reports of other
scientists. No scientist wants to be
guilty of eclecticism.
On the other
hand, each scientist is on guard against being accused of tunnel vision, that
he approaches reality with epistemological blinders. Tunnel vision, blind thinking, easily can
occur when there is a falling into a method-monism, i.e., when a specific
method is declared to be the only method.
This often is done with pronouncements such as “in my soul I am a through and through
phenomenologist who has no fundamental
criticism whatever of the phenomenological method. No scientist wants to be guilty of rigidity
and dogmatism.
The scientist who wants to avoid a laissez-faire eclecticism, on the
one hand, and a paralyzing rigidity, on the other, must be keenly on guard
against not become imprisoned in the “golden mean”. It is incorrect to assume that scientific
activities are valid merely because they are the middle way between two extreme
possibilities. The safety of the middle
way can provide a false sense of security that can consume the scientist.
Refusal to
search for an authentic third possibility can lead to stagnation in
thinking. The third possibility that is
free of eclecticism and rigidity is the way of eclectic thinking which is explicated in the following pages.
2. ECLECTIC THINKING: IMPLICATIONS OF SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
2.1 Reader’s Digest. Universal Dictionary
2.1.1 Etymologies
* eclectic: choose from what appears to be the best from a variety
of sources, systems or styles. Greek eklektikos from eklektos, selected, from eklegein,
to except
ek = out + legein = select
An eclectician
is someone who uses the eclectic method
* eclecticism is a system or method
The eclectician practices legien (Landman,
1974: 1-15). A choice is made: legein is practiced. Legien is found
again in legen (lay) that refers to the following activities:
- voorle (lay before, present) = someone
presents something, discusses something with someone.
- daarle (lay out, explicate) = something is
explained (elucidated, clarified).
-oorle (turn over, consider) = something
is deliberated.
2.1.2 Voorle (lay before,
present)
Lay before means to bring into unconcealedness. It is a disclosing as letting the essentials,
the real essentiality appear. Legen (lay)
further refers to the fact that something is compiled and this requires:
- noticing
“somethings” that must be compiled, thus must be brought by each other. These “somethings” are real essences.
- identifying
the place where they are made and brought by each other. It is this place (these places) where the
“somethings” noticed are. Real essences can be compiled there where
they are and this is in the best possible text.
- separating
essentials from non-essentials. The
essentials belong with each other as fundamentals and the non-essentials belong
with each other as ignorable because they do not make a substantial
contribution to understanding. It is the
essentials that are chosen to be compiled (and preserved).
2.1.3 Daarle and oorle (explicate and consider)
Explicating and considering refer to elucidating (interpreting) what
must be discussed and talked through.
Discussing refers to dialoguing (conversing) and talking through refers
to reflecting radically (essence-disclosing reflection). In summary, these refer to an interpretive
conversation. As soon as the real
essences are extracted from the best possible text(s), compiled and elucidated,
they are discussed. The sharpest form of
elucidation is defining because then precise describing,
formulating, arguing, explaining and interpreting in which emphasis especially
is placed on meanings become possible (Landman & Le Roux, 1992:
396-403).
2.1.4 The interpretive (hermeneutic) conversation
Communication
is the activity of shared understanding (Gadamer). It is the intersubjective sharing of
meanings. Hermeneutics emphasizes
understanding through communicating (Desilet, 1991: 152-157). A group of persons in conversing (with each
other or with a text) are in a position to disclose richer meanings than what
an individual is able to do alone. In a
conversation meanings are set free and this is what is meant by interpretation
(McBrien, 1990: 424-425). A hermeneutic
dialogue has to do with the interplay of interpretations, but with the
awareness that final interpretations are not possible, and since the
subjectivity of the interpreter is central there cannot be only one correct
interpretation. The group
(interpretation-conversation) must counterbalance alternative interpretations
against each other. There must be an interplay of meaning-bound interpretations (Smith &
Blasé, 1991: 6-21).
2.2 Philosophical Dictionary. W. Brugger (Ed.)
2.2.1 Interpretation
Eclecticism is
a spiritual attitude of the thinker who directs his thought to studying the
outcome of the thinking of others with the aim of selecting (picking out) what
for him is true and valuable. If the
selection occurs without verification there is mention of syncretism (mixing
concepts).
2.2.2 An essence-disclosing attunement
If what is
true and valuable is equated with essentials, the eclectician must reflect on
them with an essence-disclosing attunement.
The essences must be extracted from a particular text, separated from
the non-essentials and then defined. The
phenomenologist will exercise particular phenomenological actions as steps of
verification. The defined essences that
survive these verifications will be retained for scientific conversation or
argument. Anyone who uses the following
verification steps, verifies them in light of a
particular criterion, namely being truthful to reality:
| Action | Brief description |
| 1. Thinking away | If some matter or other regarding a proposed (thought out) situation can be thought away and that situation does not change, then such a matter indeed can be ignored. |
| 2. Acting away | If some matter or other regarding an actual situation can be acted away and that situation does not change, then such a matter indeed can be ignored. |
| 3. Separating | When it is determined which matters are important and which are not, and the unimportant matters are eliminated, then the important matters can glitter (shine, glow) more clearly (will be clearer in their being). |
| 4. Contradicting | For every matter its opposite is stated as a possibility and its negativity (or the positive) is indicated so thet the positive (or the negativity) of the relative matter can glitter (shine, glow) more clearly. |
| 5. Hermeneutic questioning | The following question is asked of every meaningful matter that is relevant: what purpose is served by its realization? or: What is the significance of its realization? |
| 6. Awakening life | A matter permissible by a philosophy of life (life-view) is an enlivened (animated) matter (it has been awakened to life). |
| 7. Becoming practice | A matter that can be part of a specific practice (especially in order to improve that practice) is a significant matter. |
| 8. Determining categorial status | A matter that can be applied as an illuminative way of thinking, i.e., in terms of which reflection can be meaningful, is a significant matter. |
2.3 Dictionary of Psychology. H. C. Warren (ed.), 1934.
2.3.1 Interpretation
Eclecticism is
the selection of essential features from incompatible theories or worldviews,
explicating them and integrating them into a comprehensive system. If this selection occurs with “being truthful
to reality” as a criterion, the demand of integrative possibility also can be
met where this involves the integration of essential features (essences) into a
system that already is accepted as being true to reality. The following is an illuminative
possibilitity:
2.3.2 The definition-integration method (La Roux, 1984: Chapter 3)
A particular
way of implementing the integration of definitions is the
definition-integration method. The fact
that the definitions true to reality can be integrated indicate that a first
defined essence has something particular to do with the second defined essence,
namely that together they more clearly describe reality.
Such a method
can be justified in light of the following pronouncements:
1.
There
are various approaches to the real facts of being human and these facts
manifest themselves in various forms.
Such approaches and ways of manifestation are called perspectives and
indeed a perspective is a particular standpoint from which one tries to
understand facts. Perspectives with
justified claims to results true to reality as defined ought to be able to be
integrated with a resulting increasing flow of knowledge.
2.
There
is not a single method (way of disclosing) that on its own can adequately bring
to light and verify essential characteristics.
Various methods can be used as complementary possibilities. Each complement can make a contribution and
if each contribution is true to reality its integration is possible and the
definition-integration method can be applied.
When various scientists are involved in the same
reality (e.g., the reality of educating) and their approaches to it are true to
reality, congruencies in findings ought to be able to be integrated into the
outcomes with the expansion of knowledge as a gain.
These scientist fulfill the
demands of being true to reality and integratability (possibility of
integration).
2.4 Philosophical Dictionary. H. Schmidt (ed.), 1969.
Eclecticians
(from the Greek eklegein, select out)
are not those who try on the basis of unity-creating principles to design a
philosophical system and they also are not focused on a few philosophies. What “appears right” is taken from various
systems (schools of thought) and is reconstituted to form a unity. Eclecticisms often are described as lacking
originality and creativity.
3. ECLECTIC THINKING AS A SEARCH FOR COMMONALITIES
3.1 Dissatisfaction with rigidity
Eclectic
thinking is characterized by a dissatisfaction with rigidity that leads to a
firm imprisonment in the shackles of coercive rules, laws and prescriptions so
that thinkers are going to purposefully and critically cross borders in search
of commonalities (Prochaska) in order to conquer a narrow dogmatism (Mahalik,
1980: 666).
3.2 Commonalities
Some examples
of commonalities (Landman & Swart, 1992: 403-405):
3.2.1 Educative reality
The common of
all Education (Pedagogics), in the first place, must be the aspect of reality
that is going to be placed in the scientific spotlight and this is the
educative phenomenon that is observable in the form of the educative event in
educative situations. Thinkers who
involve themselves with other phenomena do not qualify to be called
educationists (pedagogicians).
In this
connection, the eclectic thinker will not cause trouble regarding the following
two possibilities:
i.
the
assumption (presupposition, paradigm) that the perceivable being-there of the
reality of educating (educative phenomenon as educative event) is the
educational calling to reflective and also deliberate thinking about it; and
ii.
the conviction (paradigms) that the educative reality is a particular God
created reality that the educationist himself is called to study.
3.2.2 Methodologies
Scientific
activities regarding the educative reality must be methodical, i.e., occur with
methodological accountability.
The educative
reality is a particularly involved reality.
Its complexity compels the educationist not to fall into a
method-monism, but to apply a variety of methods that are true to reality. Then educationists in pedagogic
conversation(s) can compare with each other the results from applying the various
methods and reflect on their possible integration, i.e., of the knowledge of
the reality of educating that has been disclosed.
The common in
education indeed can be threatened if
(i)
the
existence of numerous perspectives (methodological grounds) on the complex
educative reality are not recognized;
(ii)
the
right to exist of methods other than the specific (chosen) method is denied;
and
(iii)
suspicion and disdain of other methods occur
subjectivistically (and sometimes emotionally).
3.2.3 Research methodologies: Stating the problem
The researcher
(Masters, Doctoral student, faculty) selects articles with the help of key
words in his theme (title of research project, paper, thesis, dissertation).
Below are
stating the problem studies undertaken as follows:
1.
define
the stated problem in each article (as the first commonality);
2.
reduce
each stated problem to clear questions where each question concerns only one
matter;
3.
place
similar questions with each other (second commonality);
4.
select
those questions that directly have to do with the research themes (third
commonality);
5.
state questions that:
5.1
are not asked and that must be (are going to be) answered by the unique
research. The originality of the
research resides in this, and it is a meaningful beginning to a unique contribution;
and
5.2
weak (inadequate) questions are stated and improved (sharpened) so that
adequate answers can be sought.
3.2.4 Research methodologies: Empirical research
1.
Identify
the section and each article that describes the application of the research
procedures;
2.
put
the descriptions of the same procedures by each other, e.g., questionnaires
(first commonality);
3.
put
agreements in the descriptions by each other and pay attention to additional
information that is provided (second commonality);
4.
search the descriptions for reasons for using the research
procedures that are selected for the unique research (third commonality).
Eclectic
thinking in the form of identifying commonalities has scientific and research
significance.
4. ECLECTIC THINKING AS SHARING PROBLEM-ORIENTED MEANINGS
4.1 Increasing openness and regard
Today
regarding the human sciences there is mention of an increased methodological
openness and regard for alternative perspectives and paradigms. There is mention of an increased
intermingling of epistemologies and procedures, sometimes with a re-attunement
of the phenomenology of being human (Borgen, 1989: 90-97).
An eclectic
strategy might be a logical step in a more flexible handling of various
perspectives (i.e., paradigms).
4.2 Designing meanings
Reality
manifests itself phenomenologically through an interaction with the individual
thinker. This leads to the construction
(design) of meanings as a creative process (event) (Duncan, Parks &
Rust, 1990: 165-166).
Highlighting
the meaningful has to do with a flexible, eclectic strategy to order
(structure) one’s own perceptions and experiences. A structure arises from the interaction among
thinkers (Mahalik, 1990: 167). This
means that eclectic thinking is done to form a synthesis among one’s own
perceptions and experiences and the integratable findings of other (co-)
thinkers. This integration cannot occur
on the basis of “I adhere to that finding because it corresponds to mine” but a
specific finding is selected because it:
i.
allows
my own perception and experience to appear more clearly and their being true to
reality is broadened; and
ii.
it is scientifically evaluated just as ones own experience is (Landman,
1989: 308-310).
4.3 Sharing meanings
It seems that
it can be scientifically meaningful to first structure one’s own experience
before hermeneutic conversations are carried out with other conversational
partners (via conversation and literature studies). In this way shared findings (“shared constructs”)
arise (Mahalik, 1990: 167-168) on the basis of meanings that are shared. It can be particularly fruitful when meanings
are shared in light of a problem for which the best possible solution is
sought. The following then is a
particular eclectic action: interpersonal interaction and meaning construction
(union of meaning) that is organized around a problem (Mahalik, 1990:
168). Among other things, this requires
problem directed text study.
5. ECLECTIC THINKING AS QUESTIONING THE SENSE OF THEORETICAL PURISM
5.1 Method choice and aims
Eclectic
thinking is the natural result of the fact that no one model or theory is the
most effective for problem solving (Nance & Myers, 1991: 119-130). Each theory/method (approach) only is a
part-perspective on the human world (Simon, 1991: 112-118).
Among other
things, this means that a scientist’s choice of method is determined by his
aims:
Method Aim
Phenomenological
method Disclose
essential characteristics
Hermeneutic
method Interpret
essential characteristics
and meaningful relationships
Dialectic
(triadic) method Disclose
meaningful relationships
(always among possibilities)
Contradictory
method Verify
essence status by stating
contradictions as possibilities
Statistical
methods Numerically explore quantifiable
essential characteristics and
meaningful relationships
Literature
study Describe
the context of a
problem by evaluating existing
problem statements, hypothesis
formulations and problem
solutions
Experimental
method Determine the dependence and
independence of essential
characteristics and meaningful
relationships
Autobiographical
method Determine and
evaluate personal
lived experiences and experiences
Definition-integration
method Integrate definitions with the
aim
of a sharper description of reality
Definition-in-question
form With
the aim of more sharply
method formulating
and refining the
statement of the problem
Argument-analysis
method Determine the
logic of an
argument and freedom from
false reasoning
Problem-historical
method Determine the
cultural-historical
context in which the original
authors had found themselves.
Also:
historical development of
problem solutions
Transcendental
critique method Specific
questioning of
predconditions and fundamental
motives. Determine
the
philosophy of life permissibility
of cientific (including research)
activities.
5.2 Methodological purism
Thinkers who
cling to one approach (theory, methodology) often view other possibilities as
“invalid” rather than only as different views.
Too much faith in one approach can lead to a prejudiced avoidance of
other possibilities. Energy that can be
applied to the search for new and better alternatives might be squandered in
the justification of one’s own standpoint.
The question is: what approaches will be superior in the particular
situation or for attaining specific aims?
The only time
that a puristic approach will work is when it has to do with the problem area
or stated aim in which the specific approach can offer the most adequate
problem solution(s). The approach that
will be chosen will vary as the problem area (the problematic and the aim)
varies. More than one theoretical
perspective/
methodology
can be applied in order to understand various stated problems as aims. Theoretical (i.e., methodological) purism
cannot be more important than a solution to the problem being sought (Nance
& Myers, 1991: 122-127).
5.3 Epistemological myths
The role of
eclectic thinking is the systematic organization and coordination of different
theoretical approaches (orientations) without giving preference to one
particular possibility and without stringing together the various theories
(methodologies, approaches) in order to form a unity. The task is to provide guidelines on the
basis of which a choice can be made regarding which approach is most
appropriate for a given situation (problematic). In this way the thinker’s potential
effectiveness is sharpened (Nance & Myers, 1991: 127-128).
Myths:
The myth of universal superiority: There is no irrefutable evidence that
one approach is superior with respect to the global problematic.
The myth of equality: The fact that one approach is not
superior to another possibility does not mean that all approaches are
equal. The one theory (methodology) is
better than another in certain cases but decidedly is weaker in other cases
(problem areas) (Nance & Myers, 1991: 128).
5.4 Separating theory and method
It is possible
that thinkers can use techniques (procedures) without subscribing to the
theories (philosophies, paradigms) underlying them (Lazarus, A.A., Multi-modal
Therapy). This is possible because
techniques and methods can be effective for reasons other than those given by
their creators for their success.
Methods and techniques are used with regard to persons and not theories
(Lazarus). Studying the results of
applying various methods really is a study of their effectiveness (Mahalik,
1990: 663).
6. ECLECTIC THINKING AS NOTING STRONG POINTS
A discontent
of many thinkers with the limitations that are placed on them by an inflexible
paradigmatic attunement “fueled the eclectic fires” and led many thinkers to investigate
the contributions of other directions of thinking. The investigation might not be random but
must occur on the basis of a “consistent rationale” (Mahalik, 1990: 655). This means that particular criteria must be
met for the choice of findings that are going to be made from the various
approaches and for their integration.
Eclectic
thinking requires an attunement that encourages thinkers to concentrate on the
strong points of different approaches (Mahalik, 1990: 658). This point of departure assumes that there
will be a way (method, criterion) in terms of which strong points can be
identified. Contributions to an
authentic understanding of the pedagogic can be such a criterion. Noticing strong points and verbalizing them
can be a meaningful (eclectic) contribution.
The scientist
(researcher) who is attuned to noticing the strong points of different
approaches and then chooses to apply the identified strong points in his own
scientific practice and research can study writings (books, articles, reviews)
that deal with methodological criticism.
Most publications that discuss various methodologies point out strong
and weak points.
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Eclectic
thinking can be scientifically acceptable providing eclecticism has been
overcome because the following criteria have been met:
* The
criterion of concentrating on real essentiality.
* The
criterion of separating essentials and non-essentials.
* The
criterion of intersubjective verification in interpretive conversations.
* The
criterion of true to reality definition-integration.
* The
criterion of identifying and focusing on commonalities.
* The
criterion of sharing problem oriented meanings.
* The
criterion of questioning the sense of theoretical purism.
* The
criterion of eliminating epistemological myths.
* The
criterion of noting strong points.
* The
criterion of being dissatisfied with rigidity.
o-O-o
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Borgen FH. 1989. Evolution of eclectic
epistemology. The Counseling
Psychologist 17 (1).
Brugger, W (Ed). 1967. Philosophisches Worterbuch.
Desilet, G. 1991. Heidegger and Derrida: the
conflict between hermeneutics and deconstruction in the context of rhetorical
and communication theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech
77 (2).
Duncan, BL, Parks, MB & Rusk,
GS. 1990.
Eclectic strategic practice: process constructive perspectives. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy 16 (1).
Le Roux, K. 1984. Evaluering van
die skool as pedagogiese situasie.
Unpublished D. ED. dissertation,
Mahalik, JR. 1990.
Systematic Eclectic Models. Counseling Psychologist 18
(4).
McBrien, PJ. 1990. Conversation: a discipline for
studying and teaching Sunday lectionary.
Religious Education 85 (3).
Nance, DW & Myers, P. 1991. Continuing
the eclectic journey. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling 13 (1).
Reader’s Digest. 1987. Universal Dictionary.
Schmidt, H (Ed). 1969. Philosophisches Worterbuch.
Simon, GM. 1991. Theoretical eclecticism: a goal we
are obliged to pursue. Journal
of Mental Health Counseling 13 (1).
Smith, JK & Blasé, J. 1991.
From empiricism to hermeneutics: educational leadership as a practical and
moral activity. Journal of Educational Administration 29
(1).
Warren, HC (Ed). 1934. Dictionary of Psychology.
o-O-o