Rationale for Our Courses:

Philosophy: Ontological Underpinnings

In Being and Time Heidegger conceives of phenomenology as a method of ontological research (1927/1962, p.49-55) and carefully sets out a framework to support his enquiry into "…the principles of the question of Being" (1927/1962, p.48).  Clearly Heidegger's aim is to explicate the essence of ontological Being, 'being' with a capital 'B'. However, in this pursuit he, of necessity, has to deal with instances of ontic being (being with a small b).  His phenomenological examination of both Being and being, as well as everything else that impinges on these, gives a solid outline of the philosophy underpinning the practice of the centre and that of the course design.

It must be understood that speaking of the separation of Being and being into two district categories is a linguistic and cognitive necessity that allows us to examine and come to some understanding of the phenomenon.  In actuality there can be no separation of the components of human being.  For Heidegger, Being cannot be transcended, it is not an entity amongst others but "…is the transcendens pure and simple" (1927/1962, p.62).  This perspective established existential phenomenology with the ontological 1 oriented entity, 'Dasein', (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.32) as the essential locus of human existence. For Heidegger then, there is no 'I', separable from it (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.78-90), Being-in-the-world is "…a state of Dasein" (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.79, 93).

Heidegger gives a number of explanations of the use of the word 'world'.  One explanation that is important for understanding the theoretical underpinnings of the centre shows 'the world' as signifying the environment "….'wherein' a factical Dasein as such can be said to 'live' (1927/1962, p.93).  In this conceptualisation Dasein cannot be comprehended in absence of the world since 'world' is "…a characteristic of Dasein itself (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p. 92).  However, ontically, the world as environment where Dasein has 'being' is a spatial dimension composed of entities and 'other' Dasein (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.65-107).  Since the world and Dasein are inseparable and, since this Being-in or 'existence' is the only standpoint possible, there is no actual subject-object dichotomy of the world and Dasein.  Decause of this, 'the world' is not able to be bracketed or objectified (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.87) and hence the researcher cannot stand outside of her or his research. – By the same token the midwife cannot stand outside of the birthing event that the mother is undergoing.

Although Dasein is thus 'connected' to the world in the most essential manner, is actually a structural unity that "…cannot be torn apart" (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.402), there is no connectedness between Dasein and entities encountered 'in' the world.  On the other hand, because Dasein constitutes the worldhood of the world, has ontological awareness and pre-ontological 'dealings' in the world (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p. 96-102),  Dasein cannot be seen as merely an entity amongst others 'in' the world.  Heidegger's conception of subject-object dichotomy arises only in this separateness of Dasein from entities encountered in the world (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.95-102).  Thus, people are inseparably 'in' and 'part of' the 'world'; human being is being in the world.  Human being is also a unity of Being, there is no separateness between this phenomenon, no distinction between instances or events; neither in space nor time.  Nevertheless, the lived, ontic experience of being gives the impression of separateness, of individuality.  For Heidegger, this 'feeling', 'belief' or 'awareness' of individuality arises from the socio-cultural construction of being that rises from the lived perspective that each person is 'thrown' into.  Since it is the ontic appearance or 'feeling' of individuality that urges each of us towards an understanding of 'others', an awareness of the ways in which the appearance of distinctiveness is constructed is necessary.  This construction I sounded in our 'thrownness'.

Heidegger uses the words 'thrown' to denote the lived experiences that begin from the moment of birth when the person is 'thrown' into a specific environment.  This concept of 'thrownness' is Heidegger's way of revealing and expressing the existential experience of Dasein.  In the perspective of individuality it affords, it is also shown to be responsible for Dasein's construction of the concept of self and other.  Heidegger (1927/1962, p.435) expresses this concisely when he says: 'as thrown [Dasein] has been submitted to a 'world', and exists factically with Others".

'Thrownness' is a 'heritage" that Dasein "takes over" when thrown (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.435 and which determines the character of the entity that is Dasein (Heidegger, 1927/1962).  This 'thrownness' is the spatial and temporal environment that one is cast into at the moment of birth.  It involves the language, culture, ideology and other beliefs that have been constructed within this environment and it containes a certain horizon of existential possibilities.  This environment is one that has been constructed over time by the 'idle talk' and supposition of the public mass, which is composed of those thrown into this environment.  From within this thrown environment Dasein tends not to question the 'reality' or 'truth' constructed but 'goes with the flow' to let "…itself be carried along solely by the looks of the world" ()Heidegger, 1927/1962, p.216).  From this it follows that since an environment is specifically constructd of beliefs and truths that are unlike that of other environments, an awareness of the existence of other environments will lead to construction of the concept of 'us; and 'them' and, as an extension of this, 'self' and 'other'.  Clearly Dasein is ontically aware of its thrown environment, because the possibilities constructed by the thrown environment are revealed in Dasein's mind as the facticity of being (Heidegger, 1927/1962, op.174).  In short, the thrown environment is perceived as the one and only reality and the beliefs constructed within this environment a are perceived of as the one and only truth.  Because of this the ontological essence of Being is 'veiled' or hidden.  Only if Dasein purposely turns towards an ontological investigation may the veiled nature of Being and "thrownness" b known.  It is very like the Platonic metaphor of the cave 2; one has to purposely turn away from the comfort, safety and familiarity of all that one has known; turn away from watching shaows on the all of the 'world' to look elsewhere for a different interpretation of reality and, perhaps to move outside of the cave to see the light.  It is frightening to move, to break the shackles of known existence and to trouble oneself in order to turn from where one has always been, to turn away from all that is known.

The Meaning of Heidegger's Ontology for the Diploma in Natural Childbirth

Ontologically speaking them, people are inextricable bound in a web of Being that unites and binds all humanity with each other 'in' the world and 'as' the world.  However, at birth we are 'thrown' into an ontic environment that is a socio-cultural 'reality' whose meaning is constructed by the 'public mass' comprised of our particular socio-cultural group.  This lays down for us a pre-constructed point of view that permeates our existence.  From this point of view ontological understanding is veiled and we perceive only through the lens of our socio-cultural "throwness".  From this perspective we tend to categorise and rationalise, and think of ourselves as individuals and of the world as separate from us.

From this platform we interact with 'the world' and 'others,' perhaps even appearing to study them 'objectively'.  This type of interaction appears to be valid but we may fail to realise that this seemingly 'objective' stance is impossible to achieve because it is situated within a socially constructed reality.  Our 'objective' collection and interpretation of data can never be objective because we cannot remove ourselves from the web of Being.  Thus the apparent objective stance of scientific research is actually built on layers of meanings that were ontically constructed over time and are so entrenched in our socio-cultural understanding that they recede from our view as constructs "…into an understnding which does not stand out from the background" (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p. 191).

An understanding of this ontic veiling of our Being is important for it underpins the central mode of operation of the centre and the course of study it proposes.  Those working at the centre and those studying at the centre have a basic requirement to engage with the world view and the socially constructed 'reality' that this imbues.  This entails knowledge exploration on a number of levels including: reading, talking, interacting and writing.  These activities are built into the course in several ways.  The two theoretical components of the course (units 1 and 2) are underpinned by experiential and critical reasoning exercises that direct the student towards exploration ontology and epistemology.  These exercises are required components of each unit but ar not 'assessed'.  The exercises are focused by the explanation of the theoretical framework of the course and the centre's assumptions about 'being' and 'knowing'.  This explanation forms a natural challenge to students who critique the assumptions in the light of their world experiences and the further reading done for the exercises that are embedded in the two units.  The ontological and epistemological knowledge developed in the two theoretical subjects is crucial to midwifery practice.  This is because it is vital in natural birthing midwifery for midwives to be attuned to the pregnant, birthing and postnatal mother in the most fundamental yet flexible manner. In natural birthing midwifery, the midwife often needs to practice within socially constructed realities that are different to that of her own and, especially during the birthing event, it is necessary for the midwife to interact with and support the mother when she is in the most vulnerable, primal mode of existence.  A midwife who has not examined or understood ontological Being is rarely able to facilitate the natural birthing event in a safe and competent manner.

The assumptions arising from Heidegger's philosophy are listed below to help clarify the underpinning framework of the graduate diploma in natural birth:

·                     I cannot stand as an objective observer of others because there is no objective world to examine which is set apart from human experience of it.

·                     Human 'realities' are multiplicity.

·                     Human 'realities' are constructed in the socio-cultural-linguistic environment that we are thrown into at the moment of birth and that gives us our point of view.

·                     Human interaction with the 'world' is thought to be possible because of an artificial distinction between 'world' and 'human Being'.  This distinction is constructed linguistically by our attempts to share experiences and our attempts to express the experiences gained from our thrown perspective, which gives the perspective of singularity.

·                     Human Being is existence.  Existence is the world that is part and parcel of human beings.  The 'world' is us, flows into 'us' and joins us.  Individuals appear to exist but this individuality is constructed linguistically and socially by people who describe different attributes to others in such role terms as: 'wife', 'son', 'sister', 'academic', 'writer', 'banker'.  These different attributes vary with different knowledge.  Although there may be many combinations, which feed into the different attributes of people, individuality remains an artificial concept because human Being is communality: an holistic web of Being that 'links' all Being.

·                     Community is modified by knowledge.  Knowledge derives from experiential dealings with equipment and things in the environment, by communication and by interpretation.

·                     Human experience is accessible and knowledge of human experiences can be shared through communication.

Philosophy: epistemological Underpinnings

The epistemology underpinning the course is in line with Heideggarian ontology and is based on principles of constructivist education.  Constructivism is an important and powerful concept for adult education  (Bolton & Unwin, 1995; Hacker & Harris, 1992; McLachlin & Smith, 1998).  It is also well argued that a constructivist framework provides nurse/midwifery education with an ideal opportunity to enhance student learning towards the practice situation (Peters, 2000).

The fundamental principles of a constructive approach to midwifery education are based on the premise that: (i) learners utilise prior knowledge to modify and integrate new learning (Cohern, 1993; Rogers, 1993; Shuell, 1986; Yager, 1991) and that (ii) professional (midwifery) knowledge and practice are socio-politically constructed (Raferty, Allcock & Lathlean, 1996).  This socially produced knowledge develops and evolves by means of negotiation within professional discourse communities, who hold powers of influence (Praawat & Floden, 1994; Tobin & Tippins, 1993; Tobin, Tippins & Gallard, 1994; von Glaserfeld, 1993).

In line with this, the proposed course will acknowledge students' prior experiences and will support the student's use of existing knowledge in order to negotiate and integrate their new learning.  Students will not be 'dictated to' by the learning packages/course materials within the course but will be guided in a manner that allows personal choice with regard to: speed of advancement through the package, preferred learning methods, and personal development of practice competencies.  This will be achieved by use of integrated learning processes that draw on input from real midwifery cases.

References

Bolton, N. & Unwin, L. (1995).  Apprenticeship in distance learning.  Open Praxis, 2, 11-13.

Cobern, W. (1993).  Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science.  In K Tobin (Ed).  The practice of constructivism in science education (pp.61-69).  Washington: AAAS.

Hacker, R.G. & Harris, M. (1992).  Adult learning of science for scientific literacy:  Some theoretical and methodological perspectives.  Studies in the Education of Adults, 24(2), 217-224).

McLachhin, B,/n & Smith, C. (1998).  Designing for dialogue at a distance: Reflections on how to create and maintain an effective teaching-learning relationship with students.  Journal of Distance Learning, 4(1), 11-22.

Peters, M. (2000).  Does constructivist epistemology have a place in nurse education?  Journal of Nursing Education, 39 (4), 166.

Prawat, R. & Floden, R. (1994).  Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning.  Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 37-48.

Rafferty, A.M., Allcock, N. & Lathlean, J. (1996).  The theory/practice 'gap': Taking issue with the issue.  Journal of Advance Nursing, 23, 685-691.

Rogers, A. (1993).  Adult learning maps and the teaching process.  Studies in the Education of Adults, 25(2), 199-220.

Shuell, T.J. (1986).  Cognitive conceptions of learning.  Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436.

Tobin, K, & Tippins, D. (1993).  Constructivism as referent for teaching and learning.  In K Tobin (Ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education.  (pp.33-21) Washington: AAAS Press.

Tobin, K.I., Tipping, D., & Gallard, A. (1994).  Research on instructional strategies for teaching science.  In D. Gavel (Ed.).  Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93).

New York: Macmillan.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1993).  Questions and answers about radical constructivism.  In K .Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23-38).  Washington: AAAS Press.

Yager, R.E. (1991).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes