approach to research, and we are back where Husén (and Johannes Sandven in
Norway) started, with the belief that reality can be grasped in full.
This is why the modern education researcher is concerned with concrete and
visible results, with the consequence that psychology, yet again, becomes a role
model. Not only does the researcher seek to reach certain knowledge, but also that
which is considered as useful. Everything that falls outside of the scope of use-
fulness, are therefore considered to be useless. For example, discussions on atti-
tudes and values have little or no value when it comes to the positivist way of
thinking. Rather, the researcher sticks to the belief that research data can depict
reality, whereupon these data can be translated directly into practical pedagogical
situations. The thinking turns into an instrument or a tool, in which measures, often
combined with efficient organization, can anticipate and control the (predetermined)
future. As a result of the enormous focus on utbildning/utdanning and
utbilningsvetenskap/utdanningsvitenskap, the schools have been governed by
non-pedagogical issues, which are based on homogeneity and quantity, as shown
through the overarching question of today’s education: How to educate from
immature to mature state/child to adult/non-graduate to graduate?
Such questions are bound by a concept of time characterized by measurement
and extension but if we take a close look in the rear-view mirror we may see that
pedagogik(k) from the very beginning, as for example, perceived by Herbart in
Germany and Hammer in Sweden, was not particularly concerned about such
questions. They did not relate to time conceived as a straightforward line of
development, as does developmental psychology or progressive education. Right
up to the present time, many have believed that the task of education has consisted
in an upbringing towards something specific, for example democracy, as if the
student initially lacked something, of which the teacher—through educational
processes—is supposed to give this not-yet-mature individual. But this has not
always been the concern of pedagogik(k).
Way back to Rousseau’s time pedagogik was related to a different understanding
of time, i.e. time as quality and heterogeneity. Instead of taking for granted that the
students lack something, the teacher may, for example, assume that something
ought to be removed. Therefore, the teacher puts more emphasis on disruptions and
unforeseen events; in short, everything that interferes with existence, in a surprising
and non-calculable way. At the same time, one turns away from psychological,
sociological and philosophical questions, where the main concern often is to evolve
and improve, climbing towards perfection, presumably in an epistemological and
moral perspective. In fact, this so-called educational idea is similar to the basic idea
of sports, where the athletes are constantly practicing to develop and improve their
skills. As already mentioned, this has not always been the concern of pedagogik(k).
Pedagogik(k) has also focused on that which could bring students away from
prejudices, delusions, egocentric desires, etc., and thereby challenge the students,
without knowing what the outcome will be (Saeverot 2013 ). In this sense, peda-
gogik(k) is related to a different concept of time than the homogeneous one, which
probably is needed in certain situations, but not as an overarching concept, as
utbildningsvetenskap/utdanningsvitenskap proposes.
12 Doing Harm to Educational Knowledge: The Struggle over Teacher... 189