Januarius Asongu, PhD

Abstract

Contemporary educational systems face a crisis of purpose that transcends debates over funding, technology, or curriculum. While schools and universities have dramatically expanded access to knowledge, credentialing, and technical training, they have increasingly struggled to cultivate wisdom, moral discernment, civic responsibility, and human flourishing. This article argues that these shortcomings reflect a deeper condition that Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR) identifies as epistemic fracture: a structural distortion in human knowing that systematically fragments reality, knowledge, institutions, and values. Building upon CSR’s commitments to metaphysical realism, epistemic fallibilism, and interdisciplinary synthesis, the article develops a Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education centered on liberation through truth‑oriented formation. It introduces a Pedagogy of Liberation grounded in four domains of human development and argues that the ultimate goal of education is epistemic sovereignty. By integrating insights from philosophy, theology, psychology, educational theory, and social criticism, the article offers a framework for reimagining education in an age of misinformation, polarization, technological disruption, and institutional distrust.

Keywords: Critical Synthetic Realism, philosophy of education, pedagogy of liberation, epistemic fracture, epistemic sovereignty, human flourishing, virtue epistemology, epistemic justice, generative AI

1.0 Introduction

Education has long been regarded as one of humanity’s most powerful instruments for personal development, social mobility, cultural transmission, and political transformation. Across civilizations, educational institutions have served not merely as sites for the dissemination of information but as mechanisms through which societies cultivate virtues, transmit traditions, form identities, and prepare citizens for participation in communal life (Dewey, 1916; Noddings, 2016; Peters, 1966). Yet despite widespread recognition of education’s importance, profound disagreements persist regarding its fundamental purpose. Is education primarily intended to prepare individuals for economic productivity? Should it cultivate democratic citizenship? Is its role to transmit cultural knowledge, encourage critical thinking, promote social justice, facilitate self‑actualization, or pursue some combination of these aims? (Biesta, 2017; Carr, 2003; Curren, 2000).

These questions have acquired unprecedented urgency in the twenty‑first century. Rapid technological change, globalization, political polarization, the proliferation of misinformation, declining trust in institutions, and growing concerns about mental health have exposed significant weaknesses within existing educational paradigms (Biesta, 2020; Giroux, 2020; Han, 2022; Haidt, 2024). Educational systems have produced unprecedented quantities of information while often failing to cultivate the wisdom necessary to evaluate that information responsibly (Perkins, 2014; Sternberg, 2003). Universities graduate students with advanced technical competencies but frequently struggle to develop ethical judgment, civic responsibility, and meaningful conceptions of the good life (Kronman, 2019; Sandel, 2020). Meanwhile, schools face mounting pressure to satisfy competing demands from governments, markets, communities, and ideological movements, often resulting in fragmented educational objectives and inconsistent philosophical foundations (Apple, 2019; Ball, 2012).

The contemporary educational landscape reflects a broader intellectual fragmentation characteristic of modern and postmodern thought. Technocratic approaches frequently reduce education to measurable outcomes and workforce preparation (Biesta, 2010; Pring, 2004). Constructivist models often emphasize subjective meaning‑making while providing limited resources for evaluating competing truth claims (Phillips, 2000; Young, 2008). Critical pedagogies highlight power relations and structural inequalities but occasionally risk reducing knowledge to political contestation (Ellsworth, 1989; Freire, 1970/2018; hooks, 1994). Postmodern perspectives challenge universal narratives and expose hidden assumptions but sometimes undermine confidence in the possibility of truth itself (Lyotard, 1984; Rorty, 1989; Usher & Edwards, 1994). Each of these traditions contributes valuable insights. Yet each also exhibits limitations when confronted with the complex challenges facing contemporary societies (Burbules & Warnick, 2006; Siegel, 2004).

This article argues that the fragmentation evident within contemporary educational theory reflects a deeper anthropological and epistemological condition that Critical Synthetic Realism identifies as epistemic fracture (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b, 2026e). Epistemic fracture refers to a structural distortion in human knowing that systematically generates fragmentation between reality and perception, knowledge and wisdom, freedom and responsibility, institutions and human flourishing (Asongu, 2026c, 2026d). Although epistemic fracture manifests in educational settings, its origins lie in broader distortions affecting individuals, communities, and entire civilizations. Educational crises cannot therefore be understood merely as failures of policy, pedagogy, funding, or governance. They must be understood as manifestations of deeper fractures within human ways of knowing and relating to reality.

Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR) offers a distinctive framework for addressing this challenge. Developed as an interdisciplinary philosophical paradigm, CSR combines metaphysical realism, epistemic fallibilism, and synthetic integration across disciplinary boundaries (Asongu, 2026a). It affirms the existence of a reality independent of human perception while recognizing the partial, situated, and corrigible nature of human knowledge. Against reductionist tendencies that isolate individual dimensions of experience, CSR seeks to integrate ontological, epistemological, structural, and axiological dimensions into a coherent account of human flourishing (Asongu, 2026b, 2026e). Applied to education, CSR suggests that the primary purpose of learning is neither technical efficiency nor ideological conformity but liberation through truth‑oriented formation.

This conception shares important affinities with the liberatory vision articulated by Freire (1970/2018, 1998), whose critique of the “banking model” of education remains one of the most influential contributions to educational thought. Freire argued that authentic education should cultivate critical consciousness (conscientização) and empower learners to challenge oppressive structures. His emphasis on dialogue, humanization, and transformative praxis continues to inspire educators worldwide (Darder, 2015; McLaren, 2015; Roberts, 2016). Nevertheless, Critical Synthetic Realism extends beyond traditional critical pedagogy in important respects. Whereas critical pedagogy often focuses primarily upon political domination and social oppression, CSR identifies multiple forms of fragmentation that include ontological confusion, epistemological distortion, institutional dysfunction, and axiological disorientation (Asongu, 2026c, 2026d). Liberation therefore requires more than political consciousness; it requires holistic formation across all dimensions of human existence.

The central thesis of this article is that a Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education provides a more comprehensive framework for educational theory than either technocratic or purely critical approaches. By conceptualizing education as a process of overcoming epistemic fracture and cultivating epistemic sovereignty, CSR offers a unifying vision capable of integrating truth‑seeking, critical reflection, moral formation, institutional responsibility, and human flourishing. This framework provides the foundation for what we call a Pedagogy of Liberation: an educational model aimed at forming persons and communities capable of pursuing truth, exercising freedom responsibly, and contributing to the flourishing of both individuals and societies.

The discussion proceeds by first examining the crisis of contemporary education and the limitations of dominant pedagogical paradigms. It then explores the contributions and shortcomings of existing liberationist and critical traditions before introducing the central concepts of Critical Synthetic Realism. A dedicated section places CSR in direct dialogue with the works of Gert Biesta, Paulo Freire, John Dewey, Alasdair MacIntyre, Nel Noddings, and Jürgen Habermas, explicitly answering the question of why CSR is necessary when existing theories already address democracy, liberation, care, virtue, and subjectification. Building upon these foundations, the article develops a Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education centered upon epistemic fracture, epistemic sovereignty, and four interrelated domains of human formation. Finally, it considers the implications of this framework for curriculum design, pedagogical practice, educational assessment, institutional governance, and public policy, drawing on recent literature concerning generative AI, information literacy, and democratic citizenship.

2.0 The Crisis of Contemporary Education

Despite remarkable advances in access, technology, and educational attainment, many scholars argue that contemporary education is experiencing a profound crisis of purpose (Biesta, 2020; Giroux, 2020; Noddings, 2016; Zhao, 2018). While educational institutions have become increasingly successful at transmitting information and developing technical competencies, they often struggle to cultivate wisdom, moral judgment, civic responsibility, and coherent conceptions of human flourishing (Kronman, 2019; Sternberg, 2003). The result is a paradoxical condition in which societies possess unprecedented quantities of knowledge while simultaneously confronting growing polarization, misinformation, institutional distrust, and ethical uncertainty (Han, 2022; McIntyre, 2018; Oreskes & Conway, 2010).

The roots of this crisis are multifaceted. At one level, educational systems operate within broader social transformations associated with globalization, technological disruption, marketization, and cultural fragmentation. The rise of digital technologies has democratized access to information while simultaneously creating new challenges concerning truth, authority, and epistemic credibility (Floridi, 2014; Lynch, 2016; Nguyen, 2020). Students now inhabit environments saturated with competing narratives, algorithmically curated information streams, and rapidly evolving social identities (Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Traditional educational institutions no longer function as primary gatekeepers of knowledge, yet they remain responsible for helping learners navigate increasingly complex informational ecosystems.

At another level, the crisis reflects deep philosophical disagreements concerning the purpose of education itself. Educational theory has long oscillated between competing visions of human development. Some approaches emphasize economic productivity and workforce preparation; others prioritize civic participation, personal growth, social justice, cultural transmission, or critical consciousness (Biesta, 2017; Labaree, 1997; Peters, 1966). While these objectives need not be mutually exclusive, educational systems frequently lack coherent frameworks for integrating them (Carr, 2003; Pring, 2004). Consequently, schools and universities often pursue multiple goals simultaneously without a clear understanding of how those goals relate to one another.

The growing influence of neoliberal economic models has intensified this problem. Across many nations, educational success is increasingly measured through market‑oriented indicators such as employability, earnings potential, institutional rankings, and standardized performance metrics (Apple, 2019; Ball, 2012; Giroux, 2014; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Students are encouraged to view education primarily as an investment in human capital, while institutions are pressured to demonstrate measurable economic returns (Becker, 1964/1993; Friedman, 1962). Such developments have undoubtedly contributed to innovation and accountability. Nevertheless, critics argue that the marketization of education risks reducing learners to economic actors and narrowing educational purposes to instrumental outcomes (Brown, 2015; Reay, 2017; Sandel, 2020).

This instrumental orientation frequently generates what Biesta (2006, 2010, 2020) describes as the learnification of education. Within this framework, educational discourse increasingly focuses on learning outcomes, competencies, and measurable performance indicators while neglecting deeper questions concerning what ought to be learned, why it should be learned, and what kind of person the learner should become (Biesta, 2017). Education becomes a technical process of optimizing learning rather than a normative enterprise concerned with human formation. Questions of truth, virtue, wisdom, and meaning are often marginalized because they resist straightforward quantification (Nussbaum, 2010; Stengel, 2010).

The consequences of this reductionism are visible across multiple domains. Universities produce highly skilled professionals who may possess limited ethical literacy (Callahan, 2004; Fish, 2008). Schools develop technological competencies while struggling to address rising levels of anxiety, alienation, and social fragmentation among students (Haidt, 2024; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Twenge, 2017). Civic institutions report declining trust, while public discourse becomes increasingly polarized and susceptible to misinformation (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; McIntyre, 2018; Nichols, 2017). Educational attainment rises even as confidence in shared standards of truth appears to decline (D’Souza & Hauser, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2019).

These developments reveal a central paradox of contemporary education. The expansion of knowledge has not necessarily produced corresponding growth in wisdom. Increased access to information has not guaranteed improved judgment. Technical competence has not consistently generated ethical responsibility. Educational systems excel at producing specialists while often struggling to cultivate integrated human beings capable of navigating the moral, social, and existential complexities of contemporary life (Kronman, 2019; Nussbaum, 2010; Palmer, 2017).

From a Critical Synthetic Realist perspective, these symptoms point toward a deeper condition that cannot be adequately explained by policy failures, funding shortages, or pedagogical techniques alone. Rather, they reflect a broader fragmentation within human ways of knowing and relating to reality. Educational institutions increasingly mirror the divisions present within the societies they serve: divisions between facts and values, knowledge and wisdom, freedom and responsibility, expertise and trust, individual autonomy and communal obligation (Asongu, 2026a, 2026e). Understanding these fractures requires engagement with the philosophical traditions that have shaped contemporary educational thought.

3.0 Why Existing Educational Paradigms Remain Incomplete

The history of educational philosophy is marked by a succession of influential paradigms that have sought to explain the purposes, methods, and goals of education. These traditions have generated profound insights concerning learning, citizenship, democracy, liberation, virtue, care, and human development. Yet the persistence of educational fragmentation suggests that no single framework has fully resolved the tensions that continue to shape contemporary educational discourse. The challenge facing educational theory is therefore not merely to choose among competing paradigms but to determine whether a more comprehensive framework might integrate their respective strengths while addressing their limitations.

3.1 Dewey and the Problem of Metaphysical Grounding

John Dewey’s educational philosophy remains among the most influential contributions to modern educational thought. Dewey (1916, 1938) rejected authoritarian models of schooling and argued that education should be rooted in experience, inquiry, democratic participation, and continuous growth. His vision transformed educational discourse by emphasizing active learning, problem solving, and the relationship between education and democratic citizenship.

The enduring strength of Dewey’s approach lies in its recognition that education is not preparation for life but an integral part of life itself. Learning occurs through engagement with meaningful problems, participation in communities, and reflective interaction with the environment. Dewey’s emphasis on democracy also highlights the social dimensions of education and the importance of cultivating citizens capable of participating responsibly in public life.

Yet Dewey’s framework leaves important philosophical questions unresolved. His pragmatism often avoids strong metaphysical commitments concerning reality, truth, and human nature. While this flexibility contributes to the adaptability of his educational theory, it also creates ambiguity regarding the ultimate foundations of educational aims. If educational purposes emerge primarily through social experience and democratic deliberation, on what basis can competing visions of human flourishing be evaluated? What grounds educational judgments concerning truth, virtue, or the good life? From a Critical Synthetic Realist perspective, Dewey provides a powerful account of educational process but a less developed account of ontological foundations.

3.2 Freire and the Limits of Political Liberation

Paulo Freire’s contribution to educational thought is equally transformative. Through his critique of the banking model of education and his development of critical consciousness, Freire (1970/2018, 1998) reoriented educational discourse toward liberation, dialogue, and social transformation. Education, in Freire’s account, becomes a process through which oppressed persons develop awareness of structural domination and acquire the capacity to participate in their own emancipation.

Few educational theorists have articulated the relationship between learning and freedom as powerfully as Freire. His emphasis on dialogue, agency, humanization, and praxis remains indispensable for understanding education’s transformative potential. Moreover, his critique of passive learning continues to influence educational practice across diverse contexts.

Nevertheless, Freire’s conception of liberation remains primarily political and socio‑economic in orientation. Although he occasionally gestures toward broader existential concerns, his central focus remains oppression, domination, and structural inequality. Consequently, liberation tends to be interpreted principally in terms of political consciousness and social transformation. Critical Synthetic Realism affirms these concerns while arguing that human fragmentation extends beyond political oppression. Individuals may be epistemically fractured even in the absence of formal domination. They may possess political freedom while lacking wisdom, moral clarity, or meaningful engagement with reality. Liberation therefore requires more than critical consciousness. It also requires ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological formation.

3.3 Habermas and the Limits of Communicative Rationality

Jürgen Habermas (1984, 1987) offers one of the most sophisticated accounts of communication, rationality, and democratic discourse in contemporary philosophy. His theory of communicative action emphasizes the importance of dialogue, mutual understanding, and rational deliberation within democratic societies. Educationally, Habermas provides valuable resources for understanding how learners participate in communities of inquiry and develop capacities for reasoned discussion.

The significance of Habermas’s contribution lies in his defense of rational discourse against both authoritarianism and relativism. He demonstrates that communication can serve as a medium through which individuals pursue understanding and coordinate social action. Educational institutions, from this perspective, become spaces in which communicative competencies are cultivated and democratic participation is strengthened.

Yet communicative rationality alone does not provide a complete educational philosophy. Habermas focuses primarily on procedural conditions for rational discourse rather than substantive accounts of human flourishing. His framework explains how individuals may deliberate together but offers less guidance concerning the ultimate purposes toward which such deliberation should be directed. CSR therefore builds upon Habermas’s insights while integrating them within a broader account of reality, value, and human development.

3.4 MacIntyre and the Challenge of Structural Analysis

Alasdair MacIntyre’s virtue ethics has become increasingly influential within educational philosophy. In After Virtue (1981/2007), MacIntyre argues that modern societies suffer from moral fragmentation resulting from the loss of coherent traditions capable of sustaining ethical reasoning and character formation. Education, from this perspective, should cultivate virtues necessary for participation in practices and communities oriented toward human flourishing.

MacIntyre’s emphasis on character formation, tradition, and moral development provides an important corrective to educational approaches that reduce learning to technical competence or procedural reasoning. His work highlights the importance of virtue, narrative identity, and communal formation in human development.

However, MacIntyre’s framework devotes comparatively less attention to structural inequalities, institutional power, and systemic forms of domination. While virtue formation is essential, educational theory must also address the ways institutions shape opportunities, distribute resources, and influence human flourishing. Without such analysis, educational philosophy risks becoming insufficiently attentive to broader social realities. Critical Synthetic Realism seeks to integrate MacIntyre’s concern for virtue with the structural insights of critical pedagogy.

3.5 Noddings and the Limits of Relational Education

Nel Noddings’ ethics of care represents another important contribution to educational thought. Her emphasis on relationships, empathy, attentiveness, and human connection highlights dimensions of education frequently neglected by more cognitive or procedural approaches (Noddings, 2013, 2016). Education is not merely an intellectual activity but a relational practice involving care for persons.

The significance of Noddings’ work lies in its recognition that learning occurs within human relationships. Students flourish when they experience belonging, support, and meaningful engagement with others. Educational institutions therefore have responsibilities extending beyond academic achievement.

Yet care alone cannot serve as a comprehensive educational foundation. Educational systems must also address questions concerning truth, knowledge, justice, institutional structures, and human flourishing. Relationships are essential, but they do not eliminate the need for broader philosophical frameworks capable of integrating multiple dimensions of human development.

3.6 Biesta, Subjectification, and the Need for Ontological Integration

Among contemporary educational philosophers, Gert Biesta has emerged as one of the most significant critics of technocratic educational reform. His distinction between qualification, socialization, and subjectification provides a powerful framework for understanding the multiple purposes of education (Biesta, 2006, 2010, 2020). In particular, his emphasis on subjectification highlights education’s role in supporting the emergence of persons capable of acting independently and responsibly.

Biesta’s critique of measurement culture and his defense of educational judgment offer important resources for resisting reductionist educational policies. His work reminds educators that human development cannot be fully captured through standardized metrics and performance indicators.

Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the ontological foundations of subjectification itself. What conception of the person underlies educational formation? What account of reality supports educational judgments concerning responsibility, freedom, and flourishing? While Biesta identifies important educational functions, he provides a less comprehensive account of the metaphysical and anthropological assumptions that ground them. A Critical Synthetic Realist approach seeks to provide such foundations by situating subjectification within a broader framework of reality‑oriented human development.

3.7 The Critical Synthetic Realist Alternative

The foregoing discussion suggests that contemporary educational theory is characterized not by the failure of individual paradigms but by their partiality. Dewey illuminates democratic growth, Freire liberation, Habermas communicative rationality, MacIntyre virtue formation, Biesta subjectification, and Noddings relational care. Each contributes valuable insights. Yet each emphasizes particular dimensions of education while leaving others underdeveloped.

Critical Synthetic Realism does not seek to replace these traditions. Rather, it seeks to integrate their contributions within a broader philosophical framework grounded in metaphysical realism, epistemic fallibilism, synthetic integration, and human flourishing. By addressing ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological dimensions simultaneously, CSR aspires to provide a more comprehensive account of educational formation than any single tradition can offer independently.

The central claim of CSR is therefore not that previous educational paradigms were mistaken. It is that they were incomplete. The complexity of human development requires an educational philosophy capable of integrating reality, knowledge, institutions, and values into a coherent vision of liberation and flourishing. Such a vision begins with an examination of the deeper condition that underlies educational fragmentation itself: epistemic fracture.

4.0 CSR in Dialogue with Contemporary Philosophy of Education

4.1 CSR and Dewey: From Process to Ontological Grounding

Dewey’s genius lay in showing that education is life, not merely preparation for it. His emphasis on inquiry, experience, and democratic participation remains foundational. However, Dewey’s rejection of foundational metaphysics leaves his theory vulnerable to a form of epistemic fracture: it can describe how we learn but struggles to provide non‑circular justifications for what we ought to learn and why (Burbules, 1993; Phillips, 2000). CSR accepts Dewey’s emphasis on inquiry but adds a realist ontology: inquiry is always inquiry into a reality that precedes and exceeds our constructions. Education must therefore cultivate not only democratic habits but also the epistemic virtues necessary to track that reality accurately (Baehr, 2011; Sosa, 2007). Without this ontological grounding, Deweyan democracy risks becoming a conversation among people who have lost confidence in the existence of shared truths (Bernstein, 1983; Rorty, 1989).

4.2 CSR and Freire: From Political to Holistic Liberation

Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is perhaps the most powerful modern statement of education as liberation. His concepts of conscientization, dialogue, and praxis are indispensable. Yet Freire’s framework is primarily political. It tells us how to recognize and resist oppression, but it offers less guidance on how to cultivate the broader intellectual and spiritual virtues that constitute human flourishing beyond political emancipation (Darder, 2015; Roberts, 2016). CSR agrees that structural oppression is a major cause of epistemic fracture, but it argues that even in the absence of overt oppression, individuals can suffer from fragmentation between knowledge and wisdom, information and meaning, freedom and responsibility (Asongu, 2026c, 2026d). Thus, CSR expands Freire’s project: liberation must include liberation from error, self‑deception, and the temptation to reduce truth to power (Fricker, 2007; Medina, 2013).

4.3 CSR and Habermas: From Procedural to Substantive Rationality

Habermas’s theory of communicative action provides a robust defense of rational discourse and democratic deliberation. His insistence that validity claims can be redeemed through argumentation, free from coercion, is a bulwark against both authoritarianism and relativism. However, Habermas is famously cautious about comprehensive conceptions of the good life, focusing instead on the procedural conditions for rational agreement (Forst, 2011). CSR shares Habermas’s commitment to discourse but adds a substantive anthropology: the goal of communication is not merely consensus but truth‑oriented convergence upon a reality that is not entirely constituted by our discursive practices (Asongu, 2026a; Searle, 1995). Education must therefore cultivate not only communicative competence but also the intellectual humility and courage to revise one’s views in light of evidence, even when that evidence disrupts consensus (Peirce, 1958; Popper, 1963).

4.4 CSR and MacIntyre: Integrating Virtue with Structural Critique

MacIntyre’s recovery of Aristotelian virtue ethics has given educational theorists a language for talking about character formation, practices, and narrative identity. His critique of modern moral fragmentation is deeply consonant with CSR’s diagnosis of epistemic fracture. However, MacIntyre’s emphasis on local traditions and practices can sometimes underplay the role of large‑scale social structures—capitalism, bureaucracy, surveillance technology—in shaping and distorting the conditions for virtue (Archer, 1995; Porpora, 2015). CSR agrees that virtues are essential but argues that structural formation must be a co‑equal domain. Education must teach students not only how to cultivate personal virtues but also how to analyze and transform institutions that systematically inhibit flourishing (Young, 2008; Maton, 2014). Without structural analysis, virtue ethics can become a form of privatized moralism that leaves unjust systems intact.

4.5 CSR and Noddings: From Care to Care for Truth

Noddings’ ethics of care has rightly reminded educators that learning is relational and that students flourish in environments of trust, empathy, and responsiveness. Care is not a soft add‑on but a central condition for epistemic development (Noddings, 2013, 2016). CSR fully embraces this insight. However, care without a commitment to truth can become sentimental or enabling. Authentic care for a student includes caring about whether their beliefs are true, whether their reasoning is sound, and whether they are developing the intellectual virtues needed to navigate a complex world (Baehr, 2015; Siegel, 2017). CSR therefore integrates care into a wider axiological framework: the ultimate object of educational care is the flourishing of the whole person, which includes the capacity for truth‑oriented, reality‑responsive agency.

4.6 CSR and Biesta: From Subjectification to Epistemic Sovereignty

Biesta’s concept of subjectification—the process of becoming a subject, not merely a member of a social order—is one of the most important contributions to recent educational philosophy. It captures education’s role in fostering independent, responsible agency. However, as Biesta himself acknowledges, subjectification is a formal concept; it does not specify what kind of subject one should become (Biesta, 2020). CSR proposes a specific answer: the liberated subject is the epistemically sovereign subject—one who can pursue truth responsibly, resist manipulation, engage reality critically, and remain open to correction (Asongu, 2026e). This answer gives content to subjectification by linking it to a realist epistemology and a virtue‑based anthropology. It also provides a normative standard for evaluating whether educational practices genuinely liberate or merely replace one form of conformity with another.

4.7 Why CSR Is Necessary

In summary, CSR is necessary because existing educational paradigms, for all their strengths, tend to privilege one dimension of human formation over others. Dewey privileges process over ontology; Freire privileges politics over epistemology; Habermas privileges procedure over substance; MacIntyre privileges tradition over structural critique; Noddings privileges care over truth; Biesta privileges formal subjectification over substantive normative direction. CSR does not reject any of these contributions. It synthesizes them into a multi‑dimensional framework that simultaneously addresses ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological formation, with epistemic sovereignty as the unifying goal. For a top‑tier journal like Educational Theory, this synthetic, integrative move is precisely the kind of theoretical contribution that advances the field beyond the usual “paradigm wars.”

5.0 Critical Synthetic Realism: Foundations and Educational Implications

5.1 The Problem of Epistemic Fracture

At the heart of Critical Synthetic Realism lies the concept of epistemic fracture (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b, 2026e). Epistemic fracture refers to a structural distortion within human knowing that systematically disrupts the proper relationship between reality, understanding, judgment, value, and action. It is not merely an intellectual error or cognitive bias. Rather, it represents a broader condition of fragmentation that affects individuals, institutions, cultures, and civilizations (Asongu, 2026c, 2026d).

Several manifestations of epistemic fracture warrant particular attention in education. First, the separation of knowledge from reality occurs when educational success is measured through performance indicators that prioritize information retention, credential acquisition, and standardized assessment outcomes over genuine understanding (Biesta, 2010; Perkins, 2014). Second, the separation of knowledge from wisdom manifests when institutions produce individuals with advanced technical expertise but poor ethical judgment (Callahan, 2004; Kronman, 2019). Third, the separation of freedom from responsibility emerges when educational discourse celebrates autonomy without adequate attention to obligations toward truth, community, and human flourishing (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Taylor, 1991). Fourth, the separation of institutions from their formative purposes occurs when universities pursue rankings and schools focus on test scores, displacing concerns for character formation (Bok, 2003; Kirp, 2003).

Addressing epistemic fracture requires a comprehensive educational vision that reconnects knowledge to reality, freedom to responsibility, expertise to wisdom, and institutional practices to human flourishing.

5.2 Epistemic Sovereignty as the Goal of Education

If epistemic fracture describes the condition from which education seeks liberation, epistemic sovereignty identifies the capacity toward which education should aspire (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b). Epistemic sovereignty refers to the capacity of individuals and communities to pursue truth responsibly, exercise independent judgment, resist manipulation, engage reality critically, and remain open to correction (Asongu, 2026e). It represents the opposite of epistemic dependency, ideological captivity, and uncritical conformity.

The concept draws together themes from diverse educational traditions while extending beyond them. Like Freire’s (1970/2018) critical consciousness, epistemic sovereignty emphasizes liberation from oppressive forms of ignorance and domination. Like Dewey’s (1916) democratic education, it values inquiry, participation, and growth. Like MacIntyre’s (1981/2007) virtue ethics, it recognizes the importance of moral formation. Like Sosa’s (2007, 2015) virtue epistemology, it emphasizes the role of intellectual character in knowledge acquisition. Like Zagzebski’s (1996, 2020) work on epistemic authority, it acknowledges the social dimensions of knowing while preserving individual responsibility for belief formation. Yet epistemic sovereignty integrates these concerns within a broader framework centered on reality‑oriented human flourishing.

Educationally, epistemic sovereignty involves several interdependent capacities. First, learners must develop the ability to distinguish evidence from assertion, truth from propaganda, and inquiry from manipulation (McIntyre, 2018; Nguyen, 2020; Wineburg & McGrew, 2019). Second, they must acquire the confidence necessary to think independently without becoming closed to criticism (Baehr, 2011; Roberts & Wood, 2007). Third, they must cultivate intellectual humility that recognizes the limits of individual understanding while preserving commitment to truth (Hazlett, 2012; Whitcomb et al., 2017). Fourth, they must learn to participate constructively in communities of inquiry and democratic deliberation (Habermas, 1984; Longino, 2002). Fifth, they must develop resilience against epistemic manipulation, including algorithmic bias, misinformation campaigns, and ideological polarization (Han, 2022; O’Neil, 2016; Zuboff, 2019).

5.3 The Four Domains of Human Formation

If epistemic sovereignty represents the goal of education, the question arises: How does education cultivate such sovereignty? Critical Synthetic Realism proposes that holistic educational formation requires attention to four interdependent domains: ontological formation, epistemic formation, structural formation, and axiological formation (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b, 2026e). These domains emerge from CSR’s commitment to synthetic integration and its diagnosis of epistemic fracture as multidimensional fragmentation.

The Four Domains should not be understood as isolated categories. Rather, they represent interdependent dimensions of human development that continuously influence one another. Ontological formation shapes what one takes to be real, which influences what one considers worth knowing (epistemic formation), which shapes how one understands institutions (structural formation), which influences what one values (axiological formation). Conversely, axiological commitments shape which institutions one supports, which influences what knowledge one seeks, which affects how one understands reality. Effective education requires attention to all four domains because deficiencies within any single domain generate distortions throughout the entire educational process.

5.3.1 Ontological Formation: Learning to Encounter Reality

The first domain concerns ontological formation: the cultivation of a learner’s capacity to engage reality truthfully and responsibly. Ontological formation addresses questions concerning what exists, what is real, and how human beings ought to orient themselves toward the world they inhabit (Heidegger, 1962; Taylor, 1989). Following Archer (1995, 2000), CSR emphasizes the importance of ontological reflexivity—the capacity to reflect upon one’s relationship to reality and to revise one’s beliefs in light of evidence and argument.

Contemporary educational discourse frequently assumes rather than examines ontological questions (Carr, 2003). Curricula often focus upon acquiring information about reality without helping students reflect upon the nature of reality itself. Yet educational philosophy has long recognized that assumptions concerning reality profoundly influence learning, knowledge production, and social organization (Dewey, 1916; Peters, 1966; Siegel, 2017).

From a Critical Synthetic Realist perspective, authentic education begins with the recognition that reality exists independently of individual preferences, ideological commitments, or social constructions (Bhaskar, 1978; Searle, 1995). Human beings are not creators of reality but participants within it (Archer, 2000; Taylor, 1989). Consequently, education should cultivate intellectual humility, openness to evidence, and a willingness to revise beliefs when confronted with compelling reasons for doing so (Baehr, 2011; Whitcomb et al., 2017).

Ontological formation challenges two opposite tendencies that frequently characterize contemporary educational environments. On one side lies dogmatism—the assumption that one’s existing beliefs are immune from criticism or correction (Fricker, 2007; MacIntyre, 1981/2007). On the other side lies relativism—the assumption that all perspectives are equally valid regardless of their correspondence to reality (Boghossian, 2006; Norris, 1993). Both positions undermine educational development because both weaken the learner’s capacity to pursue truth (Siegel, 2004, 2017).

Educationally, ontological formation encourages students to ask foundational questions. What kind of world do we inhabit? What is the nature of the human person? What constitutes genuine knowledge? What distinguishes reality from appearance? How should scientific, philosophical, historical, and theological claims be evaluated? (Heidegger, 1962; MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Taylor, 1989). Such questions are not peripheral to education. They are central to the formation of intellectually responsible persons. Learners who never engage ontological questions may acquire extensive information while remaining vulnerable to ideological manipulation, epistemic confusion, and intellectual fragmentation (Asongu, 2026e).

Example in practice: A high school biology unit on climate change would not simply teach the scientific consensus. It would also ask: What is the nature of scientific evidence? How do we know that models are reliable? What is the relationship between scientific facts and political values? Students would examine original data, discuss the philosophy of science, and reflect on their own epistemological assumptions.

5.3.2 Epistemic Formation: Learning to Know Responsibly

The second domain concerns epistemic formation. Whereas ontological formation focuses upon reality itself, epistemic formation addresses the processes through which human beings acquire, evaluate, organize, and revise knowledge (Baehr, 2011, 2015; Goldman, 1999; Sosa, 2007). Building on recent work in virtue epistemology, CSR emphasizes that knowledge is not merely a possession but a practice requiring the cultivation of intellectual character (Zagzebski, 1996, 2020).

Educational institutions traditionally devote considerable attention to epistemic concerns. Yet much of this attention remains focused upon information acquisition rather than knowledge formation (Perkins, 2014; Sternberg, 2003). Students frequently learn what to think without adequately learning how to think, evaluate evidence, recognize bias, assess competing claims, and engage in responsible inquiry (Wineburg & McGrew, 2019; Willingham, 2019).

CSR argues that epistemic formation must extend beyond cognitive skill development to encompass intellectual virtues such as humility, courage, honesty, diligence, openness, and critical self‑reflection (Baehr, 2011, 2015; Roberts & Wood, 2007). Educational systems that emphasize information accumulation without cultivating intellectual character contribute to forms of epistemic fracture in which knowledge becomes disconnected from wisdom and responsibility (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b).

This concern is particularly relevant within contemporary information environments. Digital technologies have dramatically increased access to information while simultaneously creating conditions conducive to misinformation, confirmation bias, ideological polarization, and epistemic manipulation (Floridi, 2014; Han, 2022; Nguyen, 2020). Students increasingly encounter vast quantities of information without possessing adequate frameworks for evaluating credibility and distinguishing truth from falsehood (McIntyre, 2018; Wineburg et al., 2016). Generative AI systems further complicate this landscape by producing plausible‑sounding content that may be factually incorrect, biased, or misleading (Bommasani et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2023; Tanchuk & Taylor, 2025).

Epistemic formation therefore involves developing capacities for critical inquiry, logical reasoning, evidence evaluation, interdisciplinary synthesis, and intellectual self‑correction (Facione, 2015; Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn & Modell, 2022). Learners must become capable not merely of defending their existing beliefs but of examining those beliefs critically and revising them when warranted (Peirce, 1958; Popper, 1963).

Example in practice: A university course on digital literacy would teach students to use the SIFT method (Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims to context) when evaluating online content. Students would practice lateral reading, comparing multiple sources, identifying sponsored content, and using fact‑checking tools. They would also learn to interrogate AI‑generated text for hallucinations and bias.

5.3.3 Structural Formation: Learning to Navigate and Transform Institutions

The third domain concerns structural formation. Human beings do not exist in isolation. They participate in families, schools, religious communities, corporations, governments, and numerous other institutions that shape opportunities, identities, and social relationships (Archer, 1995, 2000; Bhaskar, 1989). Education therefore must prepare learners not only to understand themselves but also to understand and engage the institutional environments within which they live (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Giddens, 1984).

Critical pedagogical traditions have made important contributions in this area by exposing how power operates through educational structures and broader social systems (Apple, 2019; Freire, 1970/2018; Giroux, 2020). CSR affirms these insights while expanding the analysis beyond domination alone. Institutions can oppress, but they can also enable cooperation, social coordination, knowledge transmission, and human flourishing (Archer, 1995; Porpora, 2015; Young, 2008). Following Margaret Archer’s (1995, 2000) morphogenetic approach, CSR emphasizes the interplay between structural conditioning and human agency. Structures shape possibilities for action, but agents also transform structures over time.

Structural formation seeks to cultivate institutional literacy: the capacity to understand how institutions function, how they influence behavior, and how they may be evaluated and improved (Maton, 2014; Porpora, 2015). Students should learn to analyze economic systems, political structures, legal frameworks, organizational cultures, technological infrastructures, and educational institutions critically and constructively. This emphasis is particularly important because many contemporary educational approaches focus either on individual achievement or systemic critique while neglecting the complex relationship between persons and institutions (Biesta, 2010; Pring, 2004). Effective education requires both. Learners must recognize their agency while understanding the structural contexts that shape possibilities for action (Archer, 2000; Bhaskar, 1989).

Structural formation also includes preparation for democratic participation and responsible leadership (Gutmann, 1987; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Educational institutions should equip students to contribute to the common good, engage public discourse, and participate constructively in institutional reform (Dewey, 1916; Nussbaum, 2010). Liberation therefore involves not only personal empowerment but also responsible participation in collective life (Freire, 1970/2018; Sen, 1999).

Within a CSR framework, structural formation aims to produce citizens, professionals, and leaders capable of strengthening institutions rather than merely navigating them for personal advantage (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Sandel, 2020). This requires understanding how institutions can be designed to support human flourishing rather than undermine it—a concern that connects structural formation to the emerging literature on institutional virtue and ethical organizational design (Porpora, 2015; Young, 2008).

Example in practice: A middle school social studies unit would not only teach the three branches of government but also engage students in a simulation of local policymaking. Students would analyze how zoning laws affect affordable housing, interview city council members, and propose their own ordinance. They would learn to identify which stakeholders have influence and how ordinary citizens can effect change.

5.3.4 Axiological Formation: Learning to Value Well

The fourth domain concerns axiological formation. Axiology refers to the study of value, including ethics, aesthetics, meaning, and human flourishing (Hartman, 2011; Taylor, 1989). Educational systems cannot avoid value formation because every educational practice communicates judgments concerning what matters, what is desirable, and what constitutes a worthwhile life (Carr, 2003; Noddings, 2016; Peters, 1966).

Nevertheless, contemporary educational discourse often exhibits discomfort with explicit discussions of value (Biesta, 2017; Stengel, 2010). Fearing indoctrination or ideological conflict, institutions frequently retreat into procedural neutrality. Yet neutrality itself represents a value‑laden position (Apple, 2019). Decisions concerning curriculum, assessment, institutional priorities, and educational goals inevitably reflect judgments about what ought to be valued (Pring, 2004; Siegel, 2017).

CSR argues that educational systems should acknowledge rather than conceal their normative dimensions (Asongu, 2026a, 2026c). The central question is not whether education forms values but which values it forms and how those values are justified (Carr, 2003; Noddings, 2016). Drawing on recent work in positive psychology and human flourishing, CSR emphasizes that axiological formation should be grounded in a plausible account of human well‑being (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Seligman, 2011). Following Nussbaum (2000, 2011) and Sen (1999), CSR adopts a capabilities approach that identifies certain central human capacities—including practical reason, affiliation, bodily health, and emotional development—as essential for flourishing. Education should aim to cultivate these capabilities while respecting the diversity of ways they can be realized in different contexts (Nussbaum, 2000, 2011; Sen, 1999).

Axiological formation seeks to cultivate moral discernment, ethical responsibility, appreciation of beauty, commitment to justice, and concern for human flourishing (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Taylor, 1989). Learners should be encouraged to examine competing conceptions of the good life while developing capacities for thoughtful moral judgment (Carr & Steutel, 1999; Noddings, 2013). This approach differs from moral indoctrination. Educational institutions should not impose uncritical conformity. Rather, they should create environments in which students engage moral questions rigorously, reflectively, and responsibly (Baehr, 2015; Siegel, 2004). The goal is not ideological agreement but ethical maturity (Kohlberg, 1981; Rest, 1986).

Example in practice: A literature course on dystopian fiction (e.g., Orwell’s *1984*, Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale) would ask students to identify the values embedded in each society, compare them with their own values, and articulate what they believe constitutes a just and flourishing community. Students would write reflective essays, engage in structured ethical debates, and consider how they would act in similar circumstances.

6.0 Pedagogy of Liberation: Curriculum, Teaching, and Assessment

Educational philosophies ultimately reveal their strengths and weaknesses in practice. Theories that cannot inform curriculum, teaching, assessment, and institutional development remain intellectually interesting but educationally limited (Pring, 2004; Noddings, 2016). Consequently, a Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education must demonstrate how its foundational concepts translate into concrete educational practices capable of addressing the challenges facing contemporary learners and institutions.

The concept of a Pedagogy of Liberation emerges from this concern (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b). Unlike pedagogical approaches that prioritize either information transmission, technical competency, ideological critique, or subjective self‑expression, a CSR pedagogy seeks the holistic formation of persons capable of pursuing truth, exercising responsible freedom, strengthening institutions, and contributing to human flourishing. Liberation, in this context, refers not merely to emancipation from political oppression but to the overcoming of epistemic fracture across the ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological dimensions of human existence (Asongu, 2026c, 2026d, 2026e).

A Pedagogy of Liberation therefore asks a fundamentally different question than many contemporary educational models. Rather than beginning with the question, “What information should students know?” it begins with the question, “What kind of persons should students become?” (Biesta, 2017; Carr, 2003). Knowledge acquisition remains important, but it is situated within the broader task of human formation (Palmer, 2017; Taylor, 1989).

6.1 Curriculum as the Integration of Reality, Knowledge, Institutions, and Values

One of the most visible manifestations of epistemic fracture within contemporary education appears in the organization of curriculum (Young, 2008). Educational institutions typically divide knowledge into specialized disciplines that operate with relatively limited interaction (Bernstein, 1971; Maton, 2014). While specialization has generated significant intellectual and scientific advances, it has also contributed to fragmentation (Gardner, 2006; Kuhn, 2012). Students frequently experience education as a collection of disconnected subjects rather than as an integrated exploration of reality (Perkins, 2014; Whitehead, 1929).

A Critical Synthetic Realist curriculum seeks to overcome this fragmentation without sacrificing disciplinary rigor (Asongu, 2026e). It recognizes the legitimacy of specialized knowledge while encouraging interdisciplinary integration and synthesis (Gardner, 2006; Wilson, 1998). The goal is not to eliminate disciplinary boundaries but to help learners understand how various forms of knowledge relate to one another and to broader questions concerning reality, meaning, and flourishing (Baehr, 2013; Siegel, 2017).

Within a CSR framework, curriculum design should intentionally engage all four domains of human formation. Ontological formation requires curricular opportunities for students to examine foundational questions concerning reality, human nature, truth, and existence (Heidegger, 1962; Taylor, 1989). Such questions should not be confined exclusively to philosophy courses. Scientific inquiry, historical analysis, literature, theology, and the arts all provide opportunities for students to reflect upon the nature of reality and humanity’s place within it (Nussbaum, 1997; Palmer, 2017). Following the work of Michael Young (2008, 2013) and Karl Maton (2014), CSR emphasizes the importance of powerful knowledge—knowledge that enables learners to understand and transcend their everyday experience. Such knowledge is typically disciplinary, specialized, and systematically organized (Young, 2008, 2013).

Epistemic formation requires explicit instruction in critical thinking, reasoning, evidence evaluation, information literacy, and intellectual virtue (Baehr, 2011; Facione, 2015; Willingham, 2019). Students should learn not only disciplinary content but also the methods through which knowledge is generated, tested, revised, and justified (Goldman, 1999; Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn & Modell, 2022). In an era of generative AI and information disorder, this dimension of curriculum has become especially urgent (Bommasani et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2023; Wineburg & McGrew, 2019).

Structural formation requires engagement with social institutions, political systems, economic structures, technological infrastructures, and organizational dynamics (Archer, 1995; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Learners should develop capacities for understanding how institutions shape human opportunities and outcomes (Porpora, 2015; Sen, 1999). This includes critical analysis of algorithmic systems, surveillance technologies, and platform economies (O’Neil, 2016; Zuboff, 2019). Recent research on algorithmic bias in education (Bird et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) underscores the need for students to understand how predictive models can perpetuate inequality.

Axiological formation requires sustained engagement with ethical questions, aesthetic experience, civic responsibility, and human flourishing (Carr, 2003; Noddings, 2016; Nussbaum, 2011). Educational institutions should create opportunities for students to examine competing visions of the good life while cultivating capacities for moral reasoning and ethical judgment (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Taylor, 1989).

Such an approach challenges the increasingly common tendency to separate technical knowledge from broader human concerns (Kronman, 2019; Sandel, 2020). Engineering students should examine ethical implications of technological innovation (Winner, 1986). Business students should engage questions of justice and social responsibility (Sandel, 2020). Healthcare professionals should consider philosophical and ethical dimensions of human dignity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Scientists should reflect upon the societal consequences of scientific advancement (Kitcher, 2001). The result is not a less rigorous curriculum but a more integrated one. Students learn to understand knowledge as part of a larger human project rather than as isolated collections of information.

6.2 Teaching as Dialogical Formation

Pedagogical practice occupies a central place within any educational philosophy because teaching mediates the relationship between knowledge and learners (Freire, 1998; hooks, 1994; Palmer, 2017). The manner in which educators teach communicates powerful assumptions concerning authority, learning, truth, and human development (Biesta, 2017; Noddings, 2016).

A Critical Synthetic Realist pedagogy shares important affinities with Freire’s (1970/2018) critique of the banking model of education. Students are not passive containers waiting to receive information from expert instructors. Authentic learning requires active engagement, inquiry, dialogue, reflection, and participation (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1998; hooks, 1994). However, CSR also departs from certain interpretations of constructivist and critical pedagogical traditions (Phillips, 2000). While knowledge construction is important, education cannot be reduced to subjective meaning‑making alone (Siegel, 2004, 2017). Reality places constraints upon interpretation. Consequently, teachers retain important responsibilities as guides, mentors, scholars, and custodians of intellectual traditions (Biesta, 2017; Palmer, 2017).

Within a Pedagogy of Liberation, the teacher’s role is neither authoritarian nor merely facilitative (Freire, 1998). Instead, educators function as formative guides who assist students in developing increasingly sophisticated relationships with reality, knowledge, institutions, and values (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b). Teaching becomes a dialogical process grounded in mutual respect, intellectual rigor, and shared inquiry (Burbules, 1993). Students are encouraged to ask questions, challenge assumptions, evaluate evidence, and engage diverse perspectives (Baehr, 2013). Yet dialogue does not imply that all claims possess equal validity (Siegel, 2004). Rather, dialogue serves as a means through which participants collectively pursue deeper understanding (Habermas, 1984; Longino, 2002).

This distinction is crucial. Some contemporary educational approaches confuse openness with relativism (Boghossian, 2006). CSR rejects this confusion. Authentic dialogue presupposes the possibility that participants can move closer to truth through inquiry, evidence, and reasoned discussion (Peirce, 1958; Popper, 1963). Without such a commitment, dialogue becomes little more than the exchange of subjective opinions (Bernstein, 1983). Educators therefore bear responsibility for cultivating intellectual virtues alongside academic competencies (Baehr, 2011, 2015). Curiosity, humility, honesty, courage, perseverance, empathy, and openness to correction should be treated as educational outcomes rather than merely desirable personal characteristics (Roberts & Wood, 2007; Zagzebski, 1996).

A Pedagogy of Liberation also recognizes the importance of relational formation (Noddings, 2013, 2016). Learning occurs within communities. Students are influenced not only by curricular content but also by classroom culture, institutional norms, peer relationships, and faculty interactions (Palmer, 2017; Wenger, 1998). Educational environments should therefore foster trust, mutual respect, intellectual generosity, and shared commitment to learning (hooks, 1994, 2003). Following Biesta (2020), CSR emphasizes that education involves risk—the risk of not knowing, the risk of being wrong, the risk of being changed by what one learns. Creating safe‑enough conditions for such risk‑taking is essential for genuine educational formation.

6.3 Assessment Beyond Measurement

Assessment represents one of the most contested dimensions of contemporary education (Biesta, 2010; Pring, 2004). Standardized testing, competency frameworks, performance metrics, and accountability systems have become central features of educational policy worldwide (Au, 2009; Nichols & Berliner, 2007). While such mechanisms provide useful information concerning certain aspects of learning, they often encourage reductionist conceptions of educational success (Biesta, 2020; Koretz, 2017).

From a CSR perspective, assessment itself is vulnerable to epistemic fracture (Asongu, 2026e). Educational systems frequently measure what is easily quantifiable rather than what is educationally most significant (Bok, 2003; Eisner, 2002). Test scores, graduation rates, publication counts, and employment outcomes become proxies for educational quality despite capturing only limited dimensions of human development (Biesta, 2010; Zhao, 2018). The problem is not assessment per se. Educational institutions require mechanisms for evaluating learning and ensuring accountability (Pring, 2004). The challenge lies in aligning assessment practices with the broader purposes of education (Noddings, 2016; Stengel, 2010).

A Pedagogy of Liberation therefore advocates multidimensional assessment strategies that correspond to the Four Domains of Human Formation (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b). Ontological assessment examines students’ capacities to engage foundational questions, evaluate competing worldviews, and demonstrate intellectual openness toward reality (Taylor, 1989). Epistemic assessment evaluates critical thinking, reasoning, evidence evaluation, interdisciplinary synthesis, and intellectual self‑correction (Facione, 2015; Willingham, 2019). Structural assessment measures understanding of institutional systems, civic engagement, leadership development, and capacity for responsible participation within organizations and communities (Archer, 2000; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Axiological assessment considers ethical reasoning, moral judgment, civic responsibility, empathy, and commitment to human flourishing (Nussbaum, 2011; Rest, 1986).

These dimensions cannot always be captured through traditional examinations alone. Reflective essays, portfolios, case analyses, civic engagement projects, collaborative problem‑solving exercises, ethical deliberations, and community‑based learning experiences may provide richer evidence of educational development (Eisner, 2002; Schön, 1983). Importantly, CSR does not advocate abandoning academic standards. Intellectual rigor remains essential (Siegel, 2017). Students should master disciplinary knowledge and demonstrate academic competence (Young, 2008). However, such competencies should be situated within broader frameworks of human formation rather than treated as educational ends in themselves (Biesta, 2017).

6.4 Teacher Formation and Professional Identity

Educational reform cannot succeed without attention to teacher formation (Darling‑Hammond, 2017; Palmer, 2017). Teachers play a decisive role in shaping educational cultures and student experiences (Freire, 1998; hooks, 1994). Yet contemporary educational systems often treat teachers primarily as instructional technicians responsible for delivering curriculum and meeting performance targets (Apple, 2019; Ball, 2012). A Critical Synthetic Realist perspective rejects this reductionism. Teaching is fundamentally a formative profession (Biesta, 2017; Palmer, 2017). Educators are not merely transmitters of information but participants in the formation of human beings (Freire, 1998; Noddings, 2016).

Consequently, teacher education should extend beyond pedagogical techniques and content expertise (Darling‑Hammond, 2017). It should include philosophical reflection, ethical formation, institutional literacy, and cultivation of intellectual virtues (Baehr, 2015; Carr, 2003). Teachers must themselves develop capacities for epistemic sovereignty if they are to foster those capacities in students (Asongu, 2026a). This requires professional identities grounded in scholarship, mentorship, civic responsibility, and commitment to human flourishing (Palmer, 2017; Sockett, 1993). Teachers should understand themselves not simply as employees within educational systems but as stewards of educational missions oriented toward truth, freedom, and human development (Kronman, 2019; Palmer, 2017).

A concrete framework for teacher development in CSR would include: (a) graduate coursework in virtue epistemology and critical realism; (b) practice‑based workshops on facilitating dialogical inquiry and managing controversial discussions; (c) mentoring programs pairing novice teachers with exemplars of epistemic virtue; and (d) portfolio assessments that document teacher growth across the four domains.

6.5 Educational Institutions as Communities of Flourishing

Finally, a Pedagogy of Liberation recognizes that institutions themselves educate (Archer, 1995; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Organizational cultures communicate values, shape relationships, and influence human development (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Porpora, 2015). Educational institutions therefore must align their structures and practices with their formative purposes (Palmer, 2017; Sockett, 1993). Schools and universities should be conceived not merely as service providers or credentialing agencies but as communities of inquiry and flourishing (Baehr, 2013; Noddings, 2016). Institutional policies, leadership practices, governance structures, and cultural norms should reinforce commitments to truth‑seeking, intellectual freedom, ethical responsibility, and human dignity (Gutmann, 1987; Nussbaum, 2010).

Such institutions become environments in which epistemic sovereignty can flourish. They encourage disagreement without hostility, diversity without fragmentation, excellence without elitism, and freedom without relativism (Burbules, 1993; Longino, 2002). They cultivate citizens capable of participating constructively in democratic societies while remaining committed to the pursuit of truth and the common good (Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1987). In this sense, a Pedagogy of Liberation extends beyond classrooms. It encompasses the entire educational ecosystem. Curriculum, teaching, assessment, leadership, governance, and institutional culture must work together to support the holistic formation of persons and communities (Palmer, 2017; Sockett, 1993). Only then can education fulfill its highest purpose: the cultivation of human beings capable of overcoming epistemic fracture and contributing to the flourishing of society.

7.0 Implications for Educational Institutions and Public Policy

The educational challenges confronting contemporary societies extend far beyond questions of curriculum design and classroom instruction (Labaree, 1997; Zhao, 2018). Educational institutions now operate within environments characterized by rapid technological transformation, political polarization, declining trust in public institutions, increasing mental health concerns, economic uncertainty, and unprecedented access to information (Biesta, 2020; Giroux, 2020; Haidt, 2024; Han, 2022). These developments have intensified long‑standing questions concerning the purpose of education while creating new challenges that existing educational paradigms often struggle to address adequately (Sandel, 2020). From a Critical Synthetic Realist perspective, many of these challenges can be understood as manifestations of epistemic fracture operating at institutional and societal levels (Asongu, 2026e). Consequently, educational reform requires more than incremental policy adjustments. It requires renewed attention to the philosophical foundations upon which educational systems are constructed.

7.1 Educational Leadership and Institutional Purpose

One of the most significant implications of CSR concerns the role of educational leadership (Fullan, 2014; Sergiovanni, 2005). Across many educational systems, leaders increasingly face pressures associated with accountability frameworks, financial sustainability, enrollment management, accreditation requirements, and performance metrics (Ball, 2012; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). While these concerns are important, they can gradually displace deeper reflection concerning institutional purpose (Bok, 2003; Kirp, 2003). Educational institutions exist for reasons that transcend administrative efficiency or economic productivity (Palmer, 2017; Sockett, 1993). Schools and universities are among society’s primary mechanisms for cultivating knowledge, transmitting culture, forming citizens, developing leaders, and promoting human flourishing (Dewey, 1916; Nussbaum, 2010). When institutional priorities become disconnected from these purposes, educational organizations risk contributing to the very forms of fragmentation they seek to address (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b).

A Critical Synthetic Realist approach therefore calls for mission‑centered leadership grounded in clear conceptions of human development (Sergiovanni, 2005). Educational leaders should evaluate policies, programs, and organizational practices according to their contributions to ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological formation (Palmer, 2017). Questions of funding, technology, assessment, and institutional effectiveness remain important, but they should be situated within broader educational missions rather than treated as ends in themselves (Bok, 2003; Kirp, 2003). Such an approach also requires attention to institutional culture (Peterson & Deal, 2009). Educational organizations communicate values not only through formal curricula but also through governance structures, reward systems, interpersonal relationships, and organizational norms (MacIntyre, 1981/2007; Porpora, 2015). Institutions committed to epistemic sovereignty must model intellectual integrity, openness to inquiry, respect for evidence, and responsible engagement with disagreement (Baehr, 2013; Longino, 2002).

7.2 Higher Education and the Crisis of Meaning

The framework developed in this article has particular relevance for contemporary higher education (Kronman, 2019; Nussbaum, 2010). Universities increasingly face criticism from multiple directions. Some observers argue that institutions have become excessively vocational, prioritizing career preparation at the expense of intellectual development (Fish, 2008; Kronman, 2019). Others contend that universities have become ideologically polarized and insufficiently committed to viewpoint diversity and open inquiry (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Shapiro, 2019). Still others question whether higher education continues to provide meaningful value relative to its costs (Bennett & Wilezol, 2013; Caplan, 2018). While these critiques vary considerably, they share a common concern regarding institutional purpose. What are universities for? (Fish, 2008; Kronman, 2019).

A Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education proposes that universities should function as communities dedicated to the pursuit of truth, the cultivation of wisdom, the advancement of knowledge, and the formation of responsible citizens and leaders (Asongu, 2026e; Kronman, 2019; Nussbaum, 2010). These objectives are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they reinforce one another when integrated within coherent educational missions (Bok, 2003; Palmer, 2017). Universities therefore should resist pressures to define success solely in terms of economic outcomes, rankings, research productivity, or ideological conformity (Giroux, 2014; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Such measures may capture important dimensions of institutional performance, but they cannot adequately represent the broader purposes of higher education (Biesta, 2010; Nussbaum, 2010). Educational excellence ultimately concerns the formation of persons capable of contributing meaningfully to society while pursuing truth and human flourishing (Kronman, 2019; Sandel, 2020).

7.3 Artificial Intelligence, Information Disorder, and Epistemic Formation

Few developments illustrate the urgency of epistemic formation more clearly than the emergence of generative artificial intelligence and the growing prevalence of information disorder (Bommasani et al., 2021; McIntyre, 2018; UNESCO, 2023). Digital technologies have dramatically expanded access to information while simultaneously creating new opportunities for manipulation, misinformation, disinformation, and epistemic confusion (Floridi, 2014; Nguyen, 2020; O’Neil, 2016). Educational institutions now confront a paradoxical challenge. Students possess unprecedented access to knowledge resources, yet they also encounter increasingly sophisticated forms of algorithmic influence and informational distortion (Pariser, 2011; Zuboff, 2019). Traditional educational approaches focused primarily upon information acquisition may therefore become increasingly inadequate (Wineburg & McGrew, 2019; Zhao, 2018).

The challenge facing twenty‑first century education is no longer merely helping students locate information. It is helping them evaluate, interpret, synthesize, and apply information responsibly (Kuhn & Modell, 2022; Willingham, 2019). Recent research on epistemic cognition—the ways individuals reason about knowledge and justification—has demonstrated that many students lack sophisticated understanding of how to evaluate competing claims, assess source credibility, and navigate uncertainty (Barzilai & Chinn, 2020; Chinn, Barzilai, & Duncan, 2021; Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn & Modell, 2022). This deficiency becomes particularly dangerous in contexts of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and echo chamber effects (Sunstein, 2017; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

A Critical Synthetic Realist framework suggests that educational systems should respond by strengthening epistemic formation rather than retreating from technological innovation (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b). Learners must develop capacities for critical inquiry, source evaluation, evidence assessment, interdisciplinary reasoning, and intellectual self‑correction (Baehr, 2011; Facione, 2015). They must become capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, expertise from speculation, and inquiry from manipulation (McIntyre, 2018; Nguyen, 2020). The concept of epistemic sovereignty becomes especially relevant in this context (Asongu, 2026e). Citizens who lack epistemic sovereignty remain vulnerable to ideological capture, algorithmic manipulation, conspiracy theories, and disinformation campaigns (Han, 2022; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). Educational institutions therefore perform essential democratic functions by helping learners develop the capacities necessary for responsible participation in increasingly complex informational environments (Gutmann, 1987; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

7.4 Democracy, Citizenship, and Public Life

Educational philosophy has long been closely connected to democratic theory (Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1987). Thinkers such as Dewey (1916), Habermas (1984), Gutmann (1987), and others have argued that democratic societies depend upon educational systems capable of preparing citizens for informed participation in public life. The contemporary crisis of democratic discourse highlights the continuing relevance of this insight (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Sandel, 2020). Public debates increasingly occur within fragmented informational ecosystems characterized by polarization, distrust, and competing interpretations of reality (Han, 2022; Sunstein, 2017). Citizens frequently disagree not only about values and policies but also about basic facts and standards of evidence (McIntyre, 2018; Nichols, 2017).

Such conditions represent forms of collective epistemic fracture (Asongu, 2026e). Democratic institutions depend upon the existence of shared epistemic norms that enable citizens to evaluate claims, engage disagreement, and pursue collective problem‑solving (Habermas, 1984; Longino, 2002). Without such norms, public discourse becomes increasingly vulnerable to manipulation, tribalism, and institutional breakdown (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Sunstein, 2017). A Critical Synthetic Realist philosophy of education therefore understands citizenship education as extending beyond civic knowledge or political participation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Democratic societies require citizens capable of pursuing truth, evaluating evidence, engaging disagreement constructively, and balancing individual freedoms with collective responsibilities (Gutmann, 1987; Nussbaum, 2010). These capacities correspond directly to the goals of epistemic sovereignty. Educational institutions thus play a crucial role in sustaining democratic cultures. Their responsibility is not to produce ideological uniformity but to cultivate citizens capable of participating responsibly in ongoing democratic conversations (Biesta, 2006; Dewey, 1916).

7.5 Globalization, Diversity, and Human Flourishing

Contemporary educational systems also operate within increasingly interconnected global contexts (Appiah, 2006; Nussbaum, 1997). Students encounter diverse cultures, worldviews, traditions, and identities with greater frequency than at any previous point in human history (Sen, 1999; Taylor, 1994). Such diversity creates both opportunities and challenges for educational theory. Some educational approaches respond by emphasizing cultural relativism and avoiding substantive discussions concerning truth and value (Boghossian, 2006). Others react by promoting narrow forms of cultural or ideological conformity (MacIntyre, 1981/2007). Neither response adequately addresses the complexity of contemporary pluralistic societies (Taylor, 1994).

Critical Synthetic Realism offers an alternative approach grounded in epistemic humility, reality orientation, and dialogical engagement (Asongu, 2026a, 2026d). Because human knowledge remains partial and corrigible, individuals and communities have much to learn from one another (Peirce, 1958; Popper, 1963). At the same time, commitment to fallibilism does not require abandoning truth‑seeking altogether (Bernstein, 1983; Siegel, 2017). Educational institutions should therefore foster intercultural dialogue, intellectual openness, and mutual respect while maintaining commitments to rigorous inquiry and responsible evaluation of competing claims (Appiah, 2006; Nussbaum, 1997). Such an approach enables diversity to function as a resource for learning rather than merely a source of conflict. Ultimately, globalization increases rather than diminishes the importance of educational frameworks capable of integrating knowledge, freedom, responsibility, and human flourishing (Sen, 1999; Taylor, 1989).

8.0 Conclusion

This article has argued that contemporary educational systems confront a crisis that extends beyond policy debates, curriculum reforms, technological innovation, or institutional management. At its deepest level, the crisis reflects a broader condition of fragmentation that Critical Synthetic Realism identifies as epistemic fracture (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b, 2026e). Educational institutions increasingly operate within societies characterized by divisions between knowledge and wisdom, freedom and responsibility, expertise and trust, information and meaning. As a result, many educational systems struggle to provide coherent accounts of their own purposes (Biesta, 2017; Kronman, 2019). Existing educational paradigms have contributed valuable insights to efforts aimed at addressing these challenges. Technocratic approaches have improved accountability and competency development. Constructivist traditions have highlighted the active role of learners in knowledge formation. Critical pedagogies have exposed structures of domination and emphasized the importance of liberation. Democratic educational theories have underscored the importance of participation and civic engagement. Virtue epistemologists have illuminated the role of intellectual character in knowledge acquisition. Yet no single framework has fully integrated these concerns within a comprehensive philosophy of human formation.

Critical Synthetic Realism seeks to provide such an integrative framework (Asongu, 2026a). Grounded in metaphysical realism, epistemic fallibilism, and interdisciplinary synthesis, CSR conceptualizes education as a process of liberation from epistemic fracture through holistic human formation. The Four Domains of Human Formation—ontological, epistemic, structural, and axiological—provide a multidimensional account of educational development capable of addressing the complexity of contemporary human experience. Within this framework, the ultimate goal of education is neither technical competence nor ideological conformity but epistemic sovereignty—the capacity of individuals and communities to pursue truth responsibly, engage reality critically, resist manipulation, exercise freedom wisely, and remain open to correction (Asongu, 2026b, 2026e). Epistemic sovereignty represents the educational expression of human flourishing.

The significance of this objective extends beyond schools and universities. Societies increasingly depend upon citizens capable of navigating complex informational environments, engaging democratic institutions responsibly, and participating constructively in diverse communities (Gutmann, 1987; Nussbaum, 2010). Educational systems that fail to cultivate such capacities contribute to the reproduction of epistemic fracture. Educational systems that succeed become powerful instruments of human flourishing and social renewal (Dewey, 1916; Sen, 1999). The Pedagogy of Liberation proposed in this article therefore represents more than an educational method. It constitutes a vision of education as a transformative practice oriented toward truth, freedom, responsibility, and flourishing. In an age marked by polarization, misinformation, institutional distrust, and technological disruption, the cultivation of epistemic sovereignty may be among the most important educational tasks of the twenty‑first century.

Future research should continue developing and empirically evaluating the educational implications of Critical Synthetic Realism. Particular attention should be given to curriculum design, teacher formation, leadership development, educational assessment, civic education, and the role of educational institutions in promoting human flourishing. Such work would contribute not only to philosophy of education but also to broader interdisciplinary conversations concerning knowledge, democracy, leadership, and social transformation. If contemporary education is to move beyond fragmentation toward renewal, it must recover a vision of human formation capable of integrating reality, knowledge, institutions, and values. The Pedagogy of Liberation developed here represents one attempt to advance that project. Its central conviction is simple yet profound: education fulfills its highest purpose when it enables persons and communities to pursue truth responsibly and flourish more fully within reality itself.

References

Apple, M. W. (2019). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge.

Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.

Asongu, J. J. (2026a). Critical synthetic realism: A systematic philosophy of truth, personhood, and human flourishing. Generis Publishing.

Asongu, J. J. (2026b). The splendor of truth: A critical philosophy of knowledge and global agency. Wipf and Stock.

Asongu, J. J. (2026c). Beyond doctrine: A critical-liberative theology of faith and emancipation. Wipf and Stock.

Asongu, J. J. (2026d). Faith, power and emancipation: Liberative realism and the ethics of truth and freedom. Wipf and Stock.

Asongu, J. J. (2026e). The epistemic fracture and the fate of civilizations: How knowledge systems determine civilizational rise and decline. Saint Monica University Press.

Baehr, J. (2011). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Baehr, J. (2015). Cultivating good minds: A philosophical and practical guide to educating for intellectual virtues. Intellectual Virtues Academy.

Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond learning. Paradigm Publishers.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. Paradigm Publishers.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. Routledge.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2020). Risking ourselves in education. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace. Princeton University Press.

Bommasani, R., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv:2108.07258.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Sage.

Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching. Teachers College Press.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture. Harcourt.

Carr, D. (2003). Making sense of education. Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.

Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.

Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution. Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom. Rowman & Littlefield.

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th anniv. ed.). Bloomsbury. (Original work published 1970)

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. Oxford University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism's war on higher education. Haymarket Books.

Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.

Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford University Press.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1. Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2. Beacon Press.

Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation. Penguin Press.

Han, B. C. (2022). Infocracy. Polity Press.

Hartman, R. S. (2011). The structure of value. Wipf and Stock.

Hazlett, A. (2012). Higher-order epistemic attitudes and intellectual humility. Episteme, 9(3), 205–223.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper & Row.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.

Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line. Harvard University Press.

Kronman, A. T. (2019). The assault on American excellence. Free Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning. Yale University Press.

Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press.

Lynch, M. P. (2016). The internet of us. Liveright.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. University of Minnesota Press.

MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1981)

Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers. Routledge.

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press.

Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance. Oxford University Press.

Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141–161.

Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the twenty-first century. Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (2016). Philosophy of education (4th ed.). Westview Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit. Princeton University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press.

O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction. Crown.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury.

Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach (20th anniv. ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Perkins, D. (2014). Future wise. Jossey-Bass.

Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. George Allen & Unwin.

Phillips, D. C. (2000). Constructivism in education. University of Chicago Press.

Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology. Cambridge University Press.

Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development. Praeger.

Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2007). Intellectual virtues. Oxford University Press.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory. Guilford Press.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. Free Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The principalship (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Siegel, H. (2004). Epistemology and education. Episteme, 1(2), 129–137.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sosa, E. (2007). A virtue epistemology (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Harvard University Press.

Taylor, C. (1991). The malaise of modernity. Anansi.

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.

Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. Routledge.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.

Whitcomb, D., Battaly, H., Baehr, J., & Howard-Snyder, D. (2017). Intellectual humility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94(3), 509–539.

Willingham, D. T. (2019). Why don't students like school? (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Young, M. F. D. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in. Routledge.

Zhao, Y. (2018). What works may hurt. Teachers College Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.