JME310557.qxd http://jme.sagepub.com/ Education Journal of Management http://jme.sagepub.com/content/33/1/99 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/1052562907310557 November 2007 2009 33: 99 originally published online 30Journal of Management Education Joy E. Beatty, Jennifer S. A. Leigh and Kathy Lund Dean Teaching Philosophies, Educational Philosophies, and Philosophy Philosophy Rediscovered : Exploring the Connections Between Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators can be found at:Journal of Management EducationAdditional services and information for http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://jme.sagepub.com/content/33/1/99.refs.htmlCitations: by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ http://jme.sagepub.com/content/33/1/99 http://www.sagepublications.com http://www.obts.org/ http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://jme.sagepub.com/content/33/1/99.refs.html http://jme.sagepub.com/ Journal of Management Education Volume 33 Number 1 February 2009 99-114 © 2009 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society 10.1177/1052562907310557 http://jme.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com 99 Philosophy Rediscovered Exploring the Connections Between Teaching Philosophies, Educational Philosophies, and Philosophy Joy E. Beatty University of Michigan–Dearborn Jennifer S. A. Leigh Gettysburg College Kathy Lund Dean Idaho State University Teaching philosophy statements reflect our personal values, connect us to those with shared values in the larger teaching community, and inform our classroom practices. In this article, we explore the often-overlooked foundations of teach- ing philosophies, specifically philosophy and historical educational philoso- phies. We review three elements of pure philosophy and five seminal educational philosophies to help readers ground their personal philosophies in both a theoretical and historical context. We illustrate how core elements of one’s teaching philosophy can influence course design and the classroom envi- ronment. We suggest that teachers can develop greater authenticity in the class- room by deepening their understanding of their own philosophical ideas and beliefs. Keywords: teaching philosophy; educational philosophy; philosophy; per- sonal development; authenticity; foundations The connection between philosophy, philosophy of education, and the work of a teacher has not always been recognized. One of the most hopeful signs, however, in the field of education today, is the growing conviction that every teacher needs a carefully formulated and intelligently criticized philosophy Authors’ Note: The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Thomas Hawk and con- structive feedback and support from editor Susan Herman. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joy E. Beatty, University of Michigan–Dearborn, 19000 Hubbard Drive FCS B-29, Dearborn, MI 48126; e-mail: jebeatty@umd.umich.edu. by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ 100 Journal of Management Education of education and that this philosophy of education must be rooted in philos- ophy itself. Van Petten Henderson, 1947, p. vii A statement of teaching philosophy is a narrative description of one’s con- ception of teaching, including the rationale for one’s teaching methods. It is seen as a place to voice holistic views of the teaching process, including one’s thoughts about the definitions and interaction between learning and teaching, perceptions of the teacher’s and student’s role, and goals and values of educa- tion (Chism, 1997-1998; Goodyear & Allchin, 1998). Many teachers are encouraged to draft their first formal teaching philosophy statement for func- tional reasons, as part of their teaching portfolio. Teaching philosophy state- ments therefore play an important role in initial job searches as well as promotion and tenure (Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan, 1991; Seldin, 1997). Beyond such instrumental benefits, teaching philosophy statements are also a tool to promote teachers’ ongoing personal development. The process of reflection required to create and periodically revise a statement is as impor- tant as, and sometimes more important than, the actual content of the end- product statement because it promotes self-awareness. Good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher and one’s ability to make these present in the classroom (Palmer, 1997). Over time, our teaching styles may become overlearned and automatic, allowing us to practice them without con- scious thought (Jarvis, 1992). Engaging in a formal reflection process about our philosophy allows us to remain mindful of our beliefs (Brookfield, 1995; Schön, 1983). As Ramsey and Fitzgibbons (2005) explain, Who we are, what we believe, and what assumptions we hold about students, the material, and the world significantly affect what we do in the classroom, no matter the course content or teaching style. This recognition provides the major impetus continually to question and rethink who we are in the world and what we want our relationship with students and the subject matter to be. (p. 345) The theoretical underpinning of philosophy is often overlooked when teachers draft their personal teaching philosophies. The most common approaches to writing a teaching philosophy offer descriptive lists of ques- tions regarding one’s beliefs about students, the role of the teacher, and the outcomes of higher education (for seminal examples, see those by Chism, 1997-1998, and Goodyear & Allchin, 1998). Yet as Pratt (2005) points out, “A philosophy of teaching statement should reveal the deeper structures and values that give meaning and justification to an approach to teaching” (p. 32). by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Any teaching philosophy may meet functional goals, but a more meaningful developmental teaching philosophy should be rigorous and well-grounded—as noted above in our opening quote from Van Petten Henderson. The opening quote was taken from a book on educational philosophies published in 1947 (notably not recent), and we included it as an aspirational goal for manage- ment educators. Our personal experiences drafting our own teaching philoso- phies and discussions with colleagues suggest there is ongoing opportunity for deeper development of one’s teaching philosophy. Van Petten Henderson’s quote offers a roadmap for developing a more rigorous and grounded teach- ing philosophy which entails grounding one’s teaching philosophy in “phi- losophy itself,” meaning the larger theoretical frameworks in general philosophy and historical educational philosophies. Following this roadmap, our inquiry in this article focuses on the “philos- ophy” part of teaching philosophy statements. Philosophy is a highly abstract concept which can seem distant and perhaps irrelevant to our daily concerns of teaching, yet we believe a greater understanding of the philosophical foun- dations of teaching philosophies offers practical benefits. Specifically, under- standing elements of philosophy and the kinds of questions pure philosophy addresses is helpful for thinking more deeply about one’s personal teaching beliefs. Understanding educational philosophies allows one to consider his or her teaching practice within the larger community of teachers, providing context and perspective. Because teachers enact their own ideas and beliefs about teaching in their daily practice, their differences in philosophical beliefs lead to differences in classroom practice. The process of explicitly naming these ideas and concepts makes visible philosophical choices that were for- merly taken for granted. Our goal in this article is to rediscover the philosophy in teaching philoso- phies, to illustrate the practical implications of teaching philosophies, and to explain why it is useful for teachers to reflect on their own teaching philoso- phies. We begin by discussing some concepts from basic philosophy, followed by a review of the major educational philosophies which highlights the con- nections with basic philosophy. We conclude with comments on the benefits of mindfully choosing and attending to one’s teaching philosophy. This theo- retical background supports a card sort exercise (see Beatty, Leigh, & Lund Dean [this issue]) designed to facilitate reflection on the educational and philo- sophical roots of personal teaching philosophies. Reclaiming the “Philosophy” in Teaching Philosophies Educators face philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge, edu- cation, schooling, and the methods by which schooling should occur: What is Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 101 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ real? How do I know? What is worthy and what do I value? Although these questions may not be directly addressed in the classroom, teachers’ beliefs and views on these questions form critical scaffolding for the teaching and learning experiences they create in the classroom. The field of philosophy has well-developed concepts for discussing these kinds of questions which pro- vide a critical framework for examining our teaching beliefs. In this section, we present three of them: metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology. What is real? Metaphysics examines the nature of ultimate reality. It offers views on the causes of events in the universe (cosmology), the nature of human beings (anthropology), the nature of divinity (theology), and the meaning of existence (ontology). For example, questions such as “Does order exist in the universe, or do humans create it?” “Who am I?” and “What am I?” (McKenna, 1995) are metaphysical ones. Is the world absolute and permanent, abstract and spiritual, or subjective and changing? A key learning goal in management education is to help students under- stand the perceptually based and constructed nature of “reality.” Thus, our views of metaphysics (along with those of textbook writers and curriculum committee members) will necessarily shape the content and methods of our teaching. We may convey that reality is objectively real or subjective and socially constructed; both views represent a metaphysical stance. If we con- vey the view that reality is subjective, we are enacting a metaphysics that is consistent with the educational philosophies of pragmatism, existentialism, and critical theory; in contrast, this view is at odds with the metaphysics of realism and idealism, which portray reality in more objective terms. We will discuss connections with educational philosophies in more detail later in this article. Our view of human nature, which is a metaphysical belief, shapes our view of education. Do we believe human nature has been constant throughout time and that proper knowledge is therefore timeless, or do we believe that human nature and basic problems change over time? Do we believe that people are inherently good and altruistic, or operating primarily from self-interest? The dilemma of free choice versus causality is also a metaphysical question commonly addressed in discussions of agency versus structure (McKenna, 1995). This idea might show up in our course design, for example, in the amount of order and structure teachers provide for a class and their expectations that students conform to the structure. It could show up in the causal explanations and solutions we offer about the busi- ness and social issues we discuss in class, for example, if we believe problems are caused more by social structures or individual agency. It 102 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ could also affect our explanations of self-assessment instruments our students take, such as Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control scale. How do I know what I know? The second philosophical concept is epis- temology, which literally means a theory or explanation of knowledge. It focuses on the origin, structure, and validity of knowledge (McKenna, 1995) or how we know what we know. Information can come from others such as parents and teachers or from personal sources such as reason and sensory experience. A seminal work by Hessong and Weeks (1991) suggests there are five ways of knowing: (a) by revelation from God; (b) by authority from an expert; (c) by the individual’s reasoning; (d) by the individual’s sensory perception; and (e) by the individual’s intuition. Note that epistemology is the most well-known term, and some writers use it to represent both meta- physical and epistemological ideas. Epistemological questions influence our teaching methods in critical ways. For example, do we teach scientific methods or use Holy texts to find knowledge? Do we encourage or discourage the use of intuition? What are our beliefs about the validity of knowledge from external authorities versus knowledge from the individual? The choices we make about our assign- ments, tests, and course design are epistemological statements. For example, research articles are based on a rational-analytic, positivist epistemology; case analyses demonstrate a greater tolerance for ambiguity and multiple sources of data; and personal reflection work which encourages the use of “I” honors an individualized epistemology. Multiple choice tests suggest there is one right answer, often the one put forth by the textbook or the teacher. Writing assignments which require application to a student’s per- sonal life imply that knowledge is more contextual and subjective. The use of teams and class discussion suggests that other people are a valid source of knowledge. One place teachers demonstrate their epistemological beliefs is in the standards of evidence they require on research assignments. Some teachers specifically require students to reference only academic articles, whereas others allow trade publications, Web searches, or the use of community- generated documents such as Wikipedia. Critics argue that Wikipedia does not count as “expert” knowledge; because content can be edited by anyone with Internet access, it lacks the formal peer review process in which recog- nized academic “experts” serve as gatekeepers to publication, protecting the dissemination of fallacies. They further argue that the process of open access devalues the notion of expertise itself (Read, 2006). This is an epistemolog- ical debate on the validity of sources of knowledge. Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 103 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ What are worthy as the right criteria for judgment? The third philosophi- cal concept is axiology, which addresses the nature of value, covering both ethics and aesthetics. The term is derived from the Greek word for “worthy,” and this branch focuses on how we evaluate choices. The major ethical frameworks covered in axiology are probably familiar to most management educators because they are often included in textbook sections on ethics. They are utilitarian ethics, justice ethics, virtue ethics, and care ethics. The first three frames assume rationality, universal criteria, and autonomy of the individual. In contrast, the ethic of care is contextual, nonuniversal, and relational. Our values can appear in the content materials of the course, such as the selection of cases and reading materials. Our views on morality, values, and right action, including whether and how these concepts should be taught, will shape our approach to teaching. In the classroom, we may be uncom- fortable with explicitly addressing values issues, believing our role is to present only “the facts” and allow students to create their own moral code. We may alternatively believe in offering more information and assistance in creating ethical students. Indeed, business schools are under increasing scrutiny to explicitly address the ethical training of our students. The literature on academic service learning provides an example of an axi- ological debate in management education. Some scholars such as Godfrey (1999) believe service learning is a moral project addressing social justice which helps “the private sector maintain the moral authority to set the social agenda” (p. 376), and it should be explicitly presented as such to students. Others such as Kenworthy-U’Ren (1999) advocate an “exposure-and- understanding” approach that explicitly avoids the social justice framing and allows students to reach their own value positions on service, social justice, and the role of business in society. Their debate is not about whether values should be discussed explicitly; after all, both are presenting strongly held val- ues-based positions. Rather, we suggest they are presenting contrasting value systems which reflect their personal teaching philosophies. Because their debate has been published, other management educators can reflect on and gain insight into their own values position on service learning. This example illustrates a major community benefit of making elements of one’s teaching philosophy public and open for discussion. Values also appear in aesthetics, which studies sensory experience and feel- ings aroused by these experiences. Steve Taylor (personal communication, July 18, 2006) discusses the relation to aesthetics in teaching when he writes: It is always an aesthetic choice for a teacher as to what they really value—is good critical thinking beautiful? Is being the sage on the stage and having the 104 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ students applaud at the end of your lecture beautiful? Or is it the sublime expe- rience of having a student realize something important about themselves that does it for you? These are fundamentally values that are aesthetic differences. Teachers who value aesthetics encourage learning through a variety of sen- sual experiences, using techniques that evoke different visual, auditory, and affective experiences rather than traditional teaching methods. For example, they may incorporate art and drawing, music, and performances of skits and plays to evoke learning through sensual experiences. The three conceptual areas from philosophy presented here are challeng- ing because they are highly abstract. Thinking about these and determining one’s own stance on these questions can be difficult and is likely an ongoing developmental journey that occurs over the course of one’s career. Additional resources to spur this development are available in the education literature, which contains the established philosophies of education. How have others answered these questions over time? The traditional philosophies offer frameworks demonstrating different “answers” to the abstract metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological questions. We discuss these educational philosophies in the next section. Shared Educational Philosophies The literature on teaching philosophies suggests that they are eminently personal, a reflection of the individual teacher’s identity. However, the liter- ature overlooks the importance of shared foundations: The building blocks for these personal statements are drawn from the lexicon of basic educa- tional philosophies, which are shared among the community of teachers. Teaching philosophies are rarely discussed in our daily practice, so this “sharing” occurs implicitly. When we do discuss them, there is a tendency to resort to a convenient shorthand or set of buzzwords, as if everyone knows what “a student centered community of learners” means and shares the same definition. Yet meanings can vary widely among individual teachers. The culture of teaching practice has become, paradoxically, both more diverse and more shared. Awareness of diverse teaching and learning meth- ods is increasing as schools focus on the scholarship of teaching and learn- ing (Boyer, 1990), and an increasing number of pedagogy publications are available to disseminate teaching knowledge. Challenges to a traditional lecture model or “sage on a stage” paradigm are widespread (e.g., The Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference) and have fundamentally altered the culture Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 105 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ surrounding innovative and effective teaching. But as approaches to teach- ing have become more diverse, it seems the language underpinning and sus- taining them has struggled to maintain its shared communal meaning. Furthermore, normative beliefs about teaching methods vary across disci- plines (Donald, 1995; Murray & Renaud, 1995). Terms from the lexicon may be invoked without an understanding of their relationship to traditional educational philosophies and the connections with and among other terms in that lexicon. Thus, the details that come from deeper familiarity with the philosophy may be forgotten over time. To illustrate how terms become disconnected from their historical context, consider the idea of “Teaching the Whole Person” which was the theme of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference in 2005. In the present era, the term “whole person” begs the question: “whole” as opposed to what? Looking at the history of this concept reveals an interesting controversy in educational philosophy regarding the goals of education. The whole person concept is derived from the whole child movement and the rise of progressivism, which occurred after 1918. In that year, the National Education Association issued an influential bulletin titled Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education outlining the goals of education. It focused on “complete living” and life adjustment and offered a wide interpretation of children’s needs in education, including rational thinking and the understanding of science, health, family life, ethics, the rights and duties of democratic citizenry, and wise consumer behavior and use of leisure. It advocated social, psychological, vocational, moral, and civic goals for education, in addition to traditional cognitive ones (Ornstein & Levine, 1997, p. 424). This philosophical position does not sound all that controversial in today’s world, but at the time it was a statement against the prevailing ide- ology. Whole child was developed as a response and reaction to the “mental discipline” approach, which dominated American education from the late 1800s. The mental discipline approach argues that the mind is strengthened through mental activities. Traditional subjects such as Latin, Greek, math, and physics were valued for their cultivation of the intellect. The more dif- ficult the subject was to learn, the more valuable it was as exercise for the mind. This approach created a curriculum hierarchy focused on academics and college preparation, but the social and psychological concerns of the learner were largely ignored (Ornstein & Levine, 1997). This example illus- trates how a phrase such as “Teaching the Whole Person” has a specific his- torical meaning. Understanding its context allows us to be better informed about its contemporary usage. In a similar way to this “whole person” example, establishing connections between one’s personal teaching philosophy and traditional educational 106 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ philosophies builds an understanding of the ancestry and lineage of one’s beliefs which we believe contributes to personal development. To explore the larger context of educational philosophies, we offer a brief overview of five major educational philosophies using the elements of philosophy presented earlier in this article (see Table 1). In chronological order, the philosophies are idealism, realism, pragmatism, existentialism, and critical theory. As used here, philosophies refer to “complete bodies of thought that present a world- view of which education is a part” (Ornstein & Levine, 1997, p. 383). They provide the foundation or “roots” for different educational theories. These descriptions are brief, offering broad classifications that emphasize distinctions between these philosophies and deemphasize the interconnect- edness inherent in these ideas. Although we have covered the major schools, there are others we have not covered such as phenomenological, hermeneu- tic, interpretive, and postmodern philosophies. We encourage readers to pur- sue a more extensive review of those educational philosophies that interest them. We recommend texts dedicated to teaching philosophies such as Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish (2003) or McKenna (1995). Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 107 Table 1 Elements of Philosophies of Education Philosophy Metaphysics Epistemology Axiology Idealism Reality is spiritual or Knowing is the Values are absolute and mental and rethinking of latent eternal unchanging ideas Realism Reality is objective, Knowing consists of Values are absolute and fixed, and is sensation and eternal based on composed of matter abstraction natural law and form Pragmatism Reality is the interaction Knowing results from Values are situational or of an individual with experience and use relative environment or of scientific method experience; always changing Existentialism Reality is subjective Knowing is to make Values should be freely personal choices chosen Critical theory Reality is politically, Knowing comes from Values are constructed in socially, and critical analysis of terms of power economically conflicts in society constructed Credit: Ornstein, Alan C. and Daniel U. Levine, Foundations of Education, Sixth Edition. Copyright 1997 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Used with permission. by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Idealism. This philosophy is considered to be one of the oldest and can be traced back to Plato. Idealist philosophers include Descartes, Georg Hegel, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and, more recently, the 20th century work of J. Donaldson Butler and Herman H. Horne. The main concerns for idealists are primarily metaphysical, focusing on “eter- nal concepts” like truth and honor. Idealists emphasize the “reality of the mind”—that the mental and spiri- tual are real—and see the universe as an expression of a universal mind. For their epistemology, idealists believe that ideas are latent in the mind, perma- nent and orderly; ideas are absolute and both prior to and independent of experience. Therefore, idealists draw on intuition, revelation, and rational- ism to develop knowledge. Idealists believe that when individuals examine their own mind, they discover a copy of the universal mind. The goal of an education informed by idealism is to help students discover this underlying knowledge, thus providing a broad and unified perspective of the universe. Idealist axiology suggests enduring values that are unchanging and univer- sal. Ethical conduct should mirror these enduring and permanent values. Instructors who have this perspective often expose students to the classics that have endured over time, such as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Realism. Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, founded this school of philosophy which is considered to be a reaction to idealism. Specifically, realism acknowledges the existence of the sensory world (e.g., Plato’s cave and the fire) in its own right separate from our conception of it (e.g., Plato’s privileging of the shadow). Other realist philosophers include Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Alfred North Whitehead. Realists’ metaphysics stress objec- tive knowledge and values that exist independent of the mind of the knower. Realists believe that every object is composed of matter which can be sensed. Their epistemology offers that knowing is based on sensory data, which the mind then abstracts and classifies, for instance in the creation of typologies. An important distinction between idealism and realism in their approach toward “truth” is that realists believe people can observe these laws from their study of reality, as opposed to their minds. The axiology of realism is the development of values based on natural laws, which are eternal and univer- sal. Like idealism, realism emphasizes eternal knowledge as guiding the education process. Teachers with realist philosophies will focus on subject- matter disciplines often in the natural and social sciences. Pragmatism. This philosophy is considered the United State’s contribution to philosophical thought. Pragmatism, also referred to as experimentalism and 108 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ instrumentalism, grew from a frustration with older philosophical systems that focused on absolutes. In contrast, the thinking of pragmatists like Charles Peirce, William James, George Herbert Mead, and John Dewey was informed by empirical science, the rapid social and cultural changes and their associated problems in the late 19th century, and nature. In the metaphysics of pragma- tism, reality is constructed through transactional experiences where humans interact with the environment, which is constantly changing. For its episte- mology, one knows things by examining his or her experience interacting with the environment. Therefore pragmatists believe knowledge is subject to review because of the ever-changing nature of the world. The axiology of pragmatism is that values are relative and situational, and as the culture changes so do its values. Teachers with pragmatist philosophies will focus on building con- structed, participative knowledge with students. They will rely on dialogue and critical examination and will be more comfortable with ambiguity. Existentialism. The initial development of this philosophy is associated with Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and in the 20th century in the works of Karl Jaspers, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, and Albert Camus. Existentialism is marked by three features. First, there is the resis- tance of its philosophers to classification as a distinct philosophical tradition. Second, these philosophers held a disdain for societal structures that robbed individuals of their humanity, such as modern industrialization in the early 20th century. Third, existential philosophers share a disregard for the remote- ness of traditional philosophy. Existentialists encourage deep personal reflec- tion on experiences of deep passion or times of heightened feeling because they believe reality is understood through these moments. Another key tenet is that individuals possess the freedom to make choices, and it is through the nature of these choices that people define themselves. The goal of education is to awaken people to this freedom to choose. In the metaphysics of existentialism, reality is existence grounded in the personal and subjective experience. For its epistemology, knowledge comes through the process of making choices; it is personal and nonscientific, created through the act of living one’s life. Similarly, in its axiology, values are those chosen by the individual; because there are no preexisting or universal values for existentialists, every choice is an act of value creation. Aesthetics play a greater role; as people explore others’ acts of making choices, they create their own standard of what is beautiful to them. Teachers with existentialist philoso- phies will reject “traditional” assignments such as research articles and multi- ple choice exams as irrelevant. They may use experiential learning techniques such as role-playing or service-learning that encourage action and affect. Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 109 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Critical social theory. Like existentialism, critical theory resists tradi- tional classification. Critical theory’s ideas can be traced to the works of Marx as well as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Antonio Gramsci, Jürgen Habermas, and the modern-day proponent Paulo Freire. The major concerns of critical theorists are critique of society, its structures, and their reproduction. Of particular interest is their belief that powerful groups con- trol societal structures and systematically impose their values on those who lack power. Its metaphysics are that reality is socially constructed through class struggle. Its epistemology rests on the study of conflict, dominance, and power in society. It explores power through deconstructing major works from the old order, and encouraging an epistemology based on one’s autobiographical experiences. Critical theorists advocate reform, and their axiology is grounded in “a strong ethical concern for the individual and a rejection of all possible excuses for hunger, domination, humiliation, injus- tices, and a longing for a better world” (Blake & Masschelein, 2003, p. 38). Teachers with critical social theory philosophies will lead students through deconstruction exercises that focus students’ attention on examining social relationships, including power, class, and motives. They might also include reflection assignments that encourage students to develop a heightened awareness of themselves in socially grounded roles and the demands placed on them therein. Although the philosophies discussed above occurred chronologically, it should be noted that the newer philosophies have not replaced the old ones; they have simply expanded the field. For example, we can find present-day “Great Books” seminars or curricula in which teachers emphasize universal truths presented in the great works of civilization, an idea consistent with the older philosophies of idealism and realism. Implications for Teacher Development and Management Education We believe that the “philosophy” part of teaching philosophies demands more attention. Our review of the pure philosophy terms of metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology establishes the philosophical roots of teaching philosophies and offers a conceptual framework to think about philosophi- cal ideas as they apply to teaching. Our review of the classic educational philosophies illustrates how these elements have been combined at differ- ent times to result in very different beliefs about and approaches to teach- ing. These educational philosophies and concepts also provide the shared but often implicit teaching lexicon. 110 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Developing teaching philosophies grounded in philosophy and educa- tional philosophies offers a number of benefits to our teaching practice, our personal development, and the community of management education. At the most practical level, being mindful of our values in our teaching practice can guide our decision making in course design and in coping with inevitable teaching dilemmas. Choices about assignments and projects, testing, and classroom dynamics should ideally be consistent with elements of one’s teaching philosophy. Philosophical views, examined or not, will come into play as teachers cope with cases of academic dishonesty, imploding student teams, critical classroom incidents, and negative feedback on their teaching. As teachers embark on the kind of study and reflection of their teaching philosophy that we propose in this article, they may find areas where their classroom practice is inconsistent with their espoused philosophy. When this occurs, teachers can explore this inconsistency to determine whether it is their philosophy or their classroom practice that should be revised. Addressing such inconsistencies allows the teaching philosophy statement to serve as foundation for ongoing development. Revisiting one’s teaching philosophy statement regularly then becomes a tool to create and maintain a clear and authentic identity as a teacher. Authenticity in teaching requires self-awareness, awareness of others, rela- tionships with learners, awareness of context, and a critically reflective approach to practice (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004). The development of a teaching philosophy grounded in traditional philosophy and educational philosophy contributes to value clarification, personal awareness, and con- textual understanding. It provides the ability to “critically question that which is right for us from the [teaching] literature, develop our own per- sonal style, and thereby communicate with students in a genuine way” (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004, p. 6). Being personally centered as a teacher helps us remain present to the emergent learning in each classroom, creat- ing “being moments” in which students and teachers are mutually respon- sible for learning outcomes (Ramsey & Fitzgibbons, 2005). Although we have used the term teaching philosophy in keeping with common semantics of the field, we acknowledge that this terminology over- looks a key constituency in the teaching endeavor, the learners. The philos- ophy teachers enact in the classroom is integrally connected to the students’ beliefs and behaviors. This is especially true for teachers who adopt a socially constructed view of metaphysics (such as pragmatists, existential- ists, and critical theorists). Because their worldview says that reality is cre- ated in social interactions, these teachers are likely to see themselves as Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 111 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ co-learners with their students. Even for teachers holding more objective metaphysical views, the beliefs and attitudes of their students are likely to influence a teacher’s teaching philosophy. For example, students who see themselves as customers and the teaching encounter as a service transaction are likely to bring different attitudes about learning than students who see themselves as junior partners (Ferris, 2002). Thus a more accurate descrip- tion of the teaching philosophy concept would be the term “teaching/learning philosophy.” Future studies should explore how students’ deeply held beliefs about the teaching/learning encounter interact with teachers’ views of the same encounter. At a community level, more thoughtful teaching philosophies can con- tribute to our larger mission in higher education in general and business edu- cation in particular. First, being aware of the heritage of one’s ideas reinforces the connection to the shared values of the teaching community that crosses all disciplinary boundaries. Second, as business education has come under increasing criticism for promoting an amoral stance (Donaldson, 2002; Ghoshal, 2005; Giacalone, 2004), having a well-grounded teaching philoso- phy is consistent with the project to make values more visible in our teach- ing. The content of the specific values we teach may vary widely, as illustrated in our earlier example about the debate in academic service learning between Godfrey and Kenworthy-U’Ren. Our argument is one for the importance of the reflection process, and of making one’s teaching philosophy public. In sharing and discussing our philosophy statements publicly, they become focal documents that link the individual to the professional community and the goals of the institution. They create a basis not only for accountability (Hutchings, 1996) but also for the development and support of institutional values. When each faculty member makes his or her teaching philosophy statement available for public discussion, it becomes possible to examine common ground and differences in philosophy across faculty in a department, college, or across institutions. These discussions must be held with safety, respect, and an attitude of open inquiry as opposed to a critical attitude that seeks to convert others to a “preferred” or “more enlightened” philosophy. Because one’s teaching phi- losophy is such a core element of one’s identity as a teacher, direct criticism of one’s teaching philosophy is akin to a direct assault on the self and will shut down any kind of learning dialogue. Still with careful framing, a shared discussion of personal teaching philosophies can help build community within our departments and universities. 112 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Conclusion For teaching to be considered a scholarly activity, professors should develop a conception of pedagogy that more closely matches the rigor of scholarship in the disciplines themselves (Grasha, 1996). Such rigor includes a more explicit analysis of one’s beliefs about teaching. A well-articulated teaching philosophy statement can surface assumptions and values which are easily taken for granted, offering the opportunity to examine critically the bases for those assumptions and values as well as the consideration of alternatives. A consideration of concepts from philosophy makes possible a deeper understanding of our philosophical roots. References Blake, N., & Masschelein, J. (2003). Critical theory and critical pedagogy. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of edu- cation (pp. 38-56). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (Eds.). (2003). The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chism, N. Van Note. (1997-1998). Developing a philosophy of teaching statement. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 9, 1-2. Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity in teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 55, 5-22. Donald, J. G. (1995). Disciplinary differences in knowledge validation. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 96-106. Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the schol- arship of teaching. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education. Ferris, W. P. (2002). Students as junior partners, professors as senior partners, the B-school as the firm: A new model for collegiate business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 185-193. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91. Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 415-420. Godfrey, P. C. (1999). Service learning and management education: A call to action. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 363-378. Beatty et al. / Philosophy Rediscovered 113 by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ Goodyear, G., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements of teaching philosophy. In M. Kaplan & D. Lieberman (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 17, pp. 103-122). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance. Hessong, R. F., & Weeks, T. H. (1991). Introduction to the foundations of education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1996). Making teaching community property: A menu for peer collabo- ration and peer review. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. (1999). Management students as consultants: An alternative perspective on the service learning “Call to action.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 379-387. McKenna, F. R. (1995). Philosophical theories of education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Murray, H. G., & Renaud, R. D. (1995). Disciplinary differences in classroom teaching behav- iors. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 31-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (1997). Foundations of education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Palmer, P. J. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pratt, D. D. (2005). Personal philosophies of teaching: A false promise? Academe, 91(1), 32-35. Ramsey, V. J., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (2005). Being in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 29, 333-356. Read, B. (2006). Can Wikipedia ever make the grade? Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(10), A31. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein- forcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(609), 1-28. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and pro- motion/tenure decisions (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker. Van Petten Henderson, S. (1947). Introduction to philosophy of education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 114 Journal of Management Education by guest on June 19, 2011jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com/ << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Ornaments /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-Roman /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /AssemblyLightSSK /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Garamond-Antiqua /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /Goudy-ExtraBold /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /Helvetica-Oblique /HelvLight /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Lithos-Black /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaMath-Symbol /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description << /FRA /JPN /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /ITA /NOR /SVE /ENU >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice