In considering the cognitive development of adults, two major perspectives have emerged—dialectical and contextual. Dialectical thinking is characterized by discussion and reasoning to make sense of the contradictions and complexities that adults must continually deal with. It argues that “thinking in a dialectical sense allows for the acceptance of alternative truths or ways of thinking about similar phenomena that abound in everyday adult life” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 342). Dialectical thinking is a logical thought process by which adults can reasonably take what may on the surface seem like contradictory positions. In quoting Kegan’s work on dialectical thinking, Merriam et al. (2007, p. 344) point out that one important method for resolving these contradictions and complexities is to move away from trying to “win” one’s position but rather to recognize that “the other side will not go away, [and] probably should not.”
The contextual approach considers “how social, cultural, economic, and political forces shape the development of adult thinking” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 347). It argues that these contextual factors may be what influences an adult’s cognitive development. To take on a contextual perspective involves considering these social, cultural, economic, and political factors rather than chronological ones as guideposts for comparison. For example, in comparing adults’ beliefs on DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders, the contextual approach would argue for exploring a group of people who have had loved ones involved in a serious medical emergency (where resuscitation was needed) versus those who have not; it might also argue for considering those who have the economic means to sustain someone on life support versus those who do not. Contextual approaches would also argue not to evaluate behavior on its surface, but rather to consider the contextual factors that have influenced and/or may lend meaning to those behaviors. Goldberger’s examples of silence in different cultures are an excellent example of contextual factors in action (as referenced in Merriam et al., 2007, pp. 348-349).
Dialectical and contextual thinking are similar in that they both attempt to explain how adults process the complexities of decision-making and belief formation. As adults, we must come to accept “that all knowledge is incomplete and subjective. However, [we also] recognize that [we] must act despite the limits of [our] knowledge” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 327). On the other hand, dialectical and contextual thinking differ significantly in how dialectical thinking takes a linear progression with the end result being dialectical thought process, versus contextual thinking that encourages a more cyclic and fluid process of reflection and subjectivity. Dialectical thinking weighs in strongly on logic and reasoning versus contextual thinking that favors relative, affective considerations.
Focusing on the contextual approach, epistemology teaches us that truth is subjective (Locke, 1689; James, 1907; Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)). So to is knowledge. As Davenport and Prusak argued in providing their definition of knowledge, “Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (1998/2000, p. 5). As adults, we are often faced with needing to take action even though we may not know everything we would like to about the subject. Think about when we are confronted with a new challenge at work our must act quickly to respond to a child’s or loved one’s needs. We act based on our knowledge at that given time. But, how many times does further life experience show that another course of action would have been better? Our beliefs (and our actions) are also influenced by our previous life experiences—the contextual factors of our previous social, cultural, economic, and political experiences. Think about how the knowledge and beliefs held by young adults often change in one’s middle and later adult years—that’s the contextual factors of social, cultural, economic, and political influences at play.
In reflecting upon my own learning experiences, I believe that contextual approaches have had more impact. While dialectical thinking has had a role—and certainly more so when I was younger—my tendency is to approach complex questions with “it all depends” and “what if.” Perhaps acknowledging dialectical thinking’s role is reflective of my own experience of contextual thinking—as Merriam et al. (2007, p. 349) argue, “contextual factors [can] limit or expand our ways of knowing and allow us to speak of different uses or even meanings of each of the ways of knowing.” My personal aim is to ensure that I employ these contextual considerations in an expanding, and not limiting, way.
References
Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. In Women's way of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (Paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject
Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/locke_understanding.html
Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Robin
http://www.perfassocinc.com
