










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

1 
 

Philosophy in the (Gender and the Law) Classroom 

 

Associate Professor Stella Tarrant, The University of Western Australia 
Dr. Laura D’Olimpio, The University of Notre Dame Australia 
 
 

ABSTRACT: To engage not only with what one thinks but also how one thinks, is to think 
philosophically.  A student’s capacity to think philosophically strengthens their ability to learn and the depth 
of her or his understanding. This praxis research project was aimed at developing students’ capacities to 
‘think philosophically’. The Community of Inquiry is a pedagogy developed by Matthew Lipman in the 
discipline of Philosophy that facilitates collaborative and democratic philosophical thinking in the context of 
teaching philosophy in schools.  We introduced a Community of Inquiry module into teaching at tertiary 
(post secondary) level in the context of gender and the law studies. This field of study was an appropriate 
context in which to introduce the Community of Inquiry because ‘philosophical thinking’ is required to 
understand gender relations and their impact on laws. Here we provide a practitioner reflection on an 
exploratory approach to teaching in a tertiary setting, with a view to setting an agenda for more systematic 
research into the incorporation of philosophical method into substantive fields of tertiary study.  
 
Keywords 
Gender; Law; Philosophy; Community of Inquiry; Reflexive Thinking 

 
Introduction 

 
ender and the Law is a third year elective subject at the University of Western Australia 
(UWA). It forms part of the undergraduate, Law and Society major in a Bachelor of Arts 
degree and can also be taken by students undertaking other undergraduate degrees, either for 

interest or to fulfil the UWA requirement to complete a certain number of ‘broadening units’. Many 
of the students enrolled in Gender and the Law intend to apply to study a postgraduate, professional 
law degree (the Juris Doctor) after completing their undergraduate degree. This article reflects on the 
‘Philosophy and Gender’ project, which involved trialling the pedagogical technique known as the 
‘Community of Inquiry’, a method of inquiry developed within the discipline of Philosophy, within 
the Gender and the Law unit. In an informal sense Gender and the Law was already based on 
‘philosophical inquiry’ due to the philosophical nature of the set readings and the encouragement of 
discussion within the seminars. This project, undertaken in 2015, formalised the link between the 
Gender and the Law unit and the discipline of Philosophy. The Community of Inquiry is a pedagogy 
that facilitates collaborative and democratic philosophical thinking, developed by Matthew Lipman 
(1977) in the context of teaching philosophy in schools. Our aim was to see if this pedagogy could 
advance two key objectives in Gender and the Law at undergraduate university level. The objectives 
we focussed on were what we have called ‘reflexive thinking’ and ‘standpoint thinking’. We conclude 
that the Communities of Inquiry we undertook influenced the development of students’ ‘reflexive 
thinking’ significantly and appeared to have had limited influence on the development of ‘standpoint 
thinking’. Here we provide a practitioner reflection on this exploratory new approach to teaching 

G 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

2 
 

Gender and the Law in a tertiary (post secondary) setting, with a view to setting an agenda for more 
systematic research in the future. 
 

Gender and the Law 
 

The pedagogical approach in Gender and the Law (GAL) developed incrementally and is based 
on the expertise of those designing the course; that is, expertise in teaching doctrinal law (Criminal 
Law and Evidence) and feminist legal theory. GAL was taught for the first time in 2014 but developed 
from its predecessor, a later-year elective subject in the LLB law degree at UWA called ‘A Feminist 
Analysis of Law’, taught 15 years earlier. GAL is taught over a 13 week semester, structured in two 
main parts. The first half covers gender theories presented as an historical survey, with foundational 
and illustrative readings for each theoretical approach. Examples of the readings include: Mary 
Wollstonecraft ([1792] 1974) (liberal feminisms); Carol Gilligan (1982) (cultural feminisms); Nancy 
Hartsock (1983) (Marxist/Socialist feminisms); Catharine MacKinnon (1993) (radical feminisms); 
Larissa Behrendt (1993) and Honni von Rijswijk (2012) (postmodern feminisms); and Sarah Zetlein 
(1995), R.W Connell (2005) and NSW Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie [2014] High 
Court of Australia 11 (masculinities and LGBTI theories). The second half of the course examines 
particular gender-equality issues within the fields of gender and violence, the ‘economic life of 
women’, women in leadership and Aboriginal women and the law. Readings for the later weeks are, 
in the main, empirical social studies but the design of the course is to examine these issues through a 
continued reference to the theoretical materials introduced in the first part of the course. There are 
three hours of classes per week, with an attendance requirement: students must attend the equivalent 
of 10 of the 13 weeks of classes through the semester.  
 

There were two key aims of GAL to which we were interested in applying the CoI method. They 
are the development in students of two kinds of thinking: 

1. Reflexive thinking; and 
2. Standpoint thinking. 

The remainder of this section explains these two aims of GAL. 
 

‘Reflexive thinking’, in the context of GAL, refers to the idea that we, as thinkers, play a part in 
determining the substantive thoughts – and the truths or knowledge – we arrive at. This is the 
equivalent of the idea of reflexive investigation underpinning other social sciences – an awareness of 
the impact of the researcher on the object of research (Keller 1985, 150; Writing Cultures, 1986). And 
insofar as gender is constructed through ideas, ideas themselves are the objects of study. Therefore, a 
reflexive approach includes considering the effect of the thinker on their own ideas. This is 
foundational to feminist theory; it is inherent in Simone de Beauvoir’s iconic claim that, ‘One is not 
born but rather becomes a woman’ (de Beauvoir [1949]; and see MacKinnon [1993], 443). Moreover, 
to be aware that we are thinking (about gender), and that this will itself have an effect on what we 
understand gender to mean, is empowering. It can empower a thinker to comprehend their own 
agency and opens up a choice to be responsible, intellectually. The aspect of the course most directly 
related to this aim is the assessment option: a ‘diary of a learner’. This requires the student to write 
diary entries that observe their own processes of learning, studying and experiencing the unit. A series 
of three ‘response papers’ also permit, and require, a personal engagement with the ideas the student 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

3 
 

selects to explore. Instructions to students include: ‘The papers are to be your ideas and thoughts 
about the required readings .... the tight, sequential structure of a research paper is not required .... 
[t]he emphasis is on engagement, response and original thinking. ... The papers are designed so that 
you can develop skills of critical analysis and enjoy the opportunity to explore ideas - those in the 
articles and your own.’ (Emphasis in original) 
 

The idea of ‘standpoint thinking’ in this context is derived from Nancy Hartsock’s concept of a 
feminist standpoint which she, in turn, derives from the Marxist notion of a proletarian standpoint. 
(Hartsock 1983, 285-288). The central idea relied on here is Hartsock’s concept of a standpoint as 
something more than an individual’s opinion or perspective; that entire constructs of thinking and 
experience may be different from our own. What we call ‘standpoint’ thinking amounts to an 
understanding that: inequalities arise from systemic social relations, rather than intentional 
individual subjectivities alone; knowledge and truths are associated with context, including one’s own 
systemic position amongst social and economic relations (286); and, therefore, there is 
knowledge/experience that each of us does not have access to automatically. That is, there are some 
things we cannot know unless we actively seek effective mechanisms (of thought and communication) 
that allow some understanding. As Hartsock wrote (288), a standpoint is ‘achieved rather than 
obvious, a mediated rather than immediate understanding’. It follows that what we have called 
standpoint thinking urges the recognition of ‘lack’ where it exists – lack of experience/knowledge – 
and the need for communicative effort (work) if understanding is to be approached. It can open the 
way to a deeper understanding of difference, and its social and political implications. 
 

So, why this ‘philosophical inquiry’ approach?’ Why these thinking skills? These aims are 
motivated by feminist and gender theory, and feminist legal theory, itself. A fundamental tenet of 
feminist theory is that process, or method, is indispensable to content. In order to know what gender 
and gender-inequality is, the processes by which they are continuously made and understood also 
need to be examined. Epistemologies – or ways of thinking and arriving at truths – are the foci of 
much feminist and other gender theory (see e.g., Discovering Reality [1983]; Bartlett [1990]; Tarrant 
[2002]); they are in many instances the ‘content’ of what is taught. Catharine MacKinnon (1983, 640) 
for example, writes: ‘Feminism comprehends that what counts as truth is produced in the interests of 
those with power to shape reality.’ To put this in another light, it is specifically feminist to teach in a 
way that is feminist, as well as to seek to impart a body of knowledge that is ‘feminism’.  One of the 
well-known feminist expressions of this approach is the concept of ‘consciousness raising’. Lived 
experience, as opposed to acquired, abstract ideas, is identified by feminisms as a primary source of 
knowledge and expertise. (Bender 1988, 8; MacKinnon 1993, 440.)  Thus, the ‘philosophical inquiry’ 
approach in GAL was aimed not only at acquiring knowledge but at the experience of studying the 
unit itself. 
 

The Community of Inquiry 
 

The community of inquiry (CoI) is a pedagogy that facilitates collaborative and democratic 
philosophical thinking. It was designed as a student-centred educational methodology by Matthew 
Lipman, the founder of the ‘Philosophy for Children’ (P4C) movement. American pragmatist Charles 
Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) was first to realise the strength of bringing together two independent 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

4 
 

notions of inquiry and community into the single transformative concept of community of inquiry 
(Lipman 2003, 84). Lipman realised the educational implications of the CoI and placed it as the 
central pedagogy by which to teach philosophy in primary schools (Lipman 1977). Influenced strongly 
by the work of pragmatist John Dewey (1997; 2004), the aim of philosophy for children is to teach 
students to think for themselves and to empathise with others. P4C commenced in the 1970s in 
primary and high school classrooms, and has since been introduced at the tertiary (post secondary) 
level, primarily in the context of courses on philosophy (Shapiro 2013). 
 

Supporters of P4C believe that philosophy needn’t be confined to the domain of the academy. 
The term was coined by Matthew Lipman who wanted to encourage reasonableness in citizens, and 
figured the best way to do that was to teach critical thinking skills from an early age. Lipman defines 
critical thinking as ‘thinking that (1) facilitates judgment because it (2) relies on criteria, (3) is self-
correcting, and (4) is sensitive to context.’ (Lipman 1991, 116). Yet critical thinking skills alone aren’t 
enough, and Laurance Splitter and Ann Sharp highlight ‘caring’ and ‘creative’ thinking as equally 
important skills children should be encouraged to develop (Splitter & Sharp 1995; Lipman 1998, 
277). Lipman and others have argued that these critical, creative and caring thinking skills will 
encourage students to be reasonable and democratic, to treat others fairly and to reflect upon their 
own ideas (Lipman 2003; Burgh, Field & Freakley 2006). In this way the critical thinker won’t just 
know what the right thing to do is, they’ll also know how to go about achieving that action while 
being sensitive to the context. 
 

In a CoI, participants are seated in an inward-facing circle and the teacher facilitates a discussion 
based on the students’ own questions. In order to generate the students’ questions, teachers may 
firstly read an age-appropriate stimulus text, or bring in pictures or objects that can be used to 
generate questions. Phil Cam (2006) discovered that facilitating an activity using a question quadrant 
(Figure I) helped to produce better quality questions, specifically, the open, philosophical questions 
that are required as a focal point for a CoI. The CoI is radical in that the role of the teacher shifts 
from being the ‘one source of all knowledge’ to a facilitator that allows the students’ line of inquiry to 
dictate the course of the dialogue. In a CoI, thinking is individual as well as collective as participants 
reflect upon their ideas as well as those of others, and build upon or challenge the ideas and 
questions that are explored. 
 

Empirical studies published by Topping & Trickey (2007a & 2007b) have demonstrated that 
children who study philosophy are more likely to achieve better academic results and they also have 
additional social benefits such as better self-esteem and the demonstration of empathy for others. 
There is also said to be less bullying in the schoolyard and less behaviour management issues 
(Golding, Gurr, & Hinton 2012; Millett & Tapper 2012). Developing the students own questions is a 
central component of the CoI and the aim is to seek knowledge and uncover truth for its own sake as 
per the Socratic tradition in philosophy. As Laurance Splitter explains:  
 

Participating in a CoI allows students, individually and collaboratively, to develop their 
own ideas and perspectives based on appropriately rigorous modes of thinking and against 
the background of a thorough understanding and appreciation of those ideas and 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

5 
 

perspectives that, having stood the test of time, may be represented as society’s best view of 
things to date (Splitter 2011, 497). 

 
It is this contextual application of knowledge and the transferable thinking skills that leads Sharp 

to claim that the rituals involved in the practice of P4C in a CoI classroom setting can lead to the 
cultivation of wisdom (Sharp 2007, 13). The thinking skills developed in a CoI are transferable once 
internalised (Lipman 1998, 277) but this depends on the quality of the conversation. Lipman notes 
that the CoI is aiming at dialogue, not simply discussion, as, “what was needed was not merely 
teaching for thinking, but teaching for critical thinking” (Lipman, 2003, p. 31). When it is 
functioning well, evidence can be seen of ‘distributed thinking’ whereby members of the CoI answer 
each other’s questions, build upon one another’s answers and provide examples to support points 
made by others participating in the discussion (Lipman 1998, 277). It is distributed thinking that 
Lipman believes is evident in higher-quality democracies.  
 

Education plays an important role in giving students an opportunity to develop and practice the 
kinds of thinking skills that result in empathetic and critically engaged citizens. Winstanley claims, 
‘The argument is that philosophy is a powerful subject and that philosophising, or philosophic 
enquiry, is the optimum pedagogy for fostering the essential skills and dispositions of critical 
thinking’ (2008, p. 85). This is because, “Philosophy is the best possible subject for helping children 
to become effective critical thinkers. It is the subject that can teach them better than any other how to 
assess reasons, defend positions, define terms, evaluate sources of information, and judge the value of 
arguments and evidence.” (Winstanley 2008, 95). It is for these reasons that we decided to use the 
CoI as a pedagogy within the GAL classroom in order to explore complex concepts such as gender, 
beauty, feminism, suicide and terrorism.  
 

Description of the Project Pedagogy 
 

We had five weeks in which to explore how the CoI worked in the GAL tutorial seminar 
sessions. We had two groups for 45 minutes sessions and we ran the same activity with each group. In 
the first week we commenced the tutorial with an icebreaker in which students introduced themselves 
and explained what they hoped to get out of the unit. We then introduced the theory behind the CoI 
method. Dr D’Olimpio started with a 15 minute lecture on the P4C approach and the CoI 
methodology that comes out of classical Western Philosophy (Socratic dialogue) via the Pragmatism of 
Peirce and Dewey. We then used the second half of the lesson to play a concept game based on the 
concept of ‘gender’. 
 

The concept game was structured so that students were divided into groups of four- or five- 
people and one representative of each group was asked to come and choose three images from a 
selection we had printed out in colour of men and women who may or may not fit the stereotypical 
ideal of being considered feminine or masculine. The students then discussed amongst themselves 
whether or not the images fitted into the categories ‘feminine’, ‘masculine’ or ‘?’, and then gave their 
reasons for their categorisation to the whole group. Other students could ask questions or challenge 
the classification, and the person representing the small group that made the classification had the 
opportunity to alter the category if they were convinced of another’s reasoning. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

6 
 

 
In the second week, we decided to use the same set of images in order to explore Cam’s (2006) 

question quadrant (Figure I). We wanted to take time to generate interesting questions that would 
then become the focal questions for the first CoI in the third week. Cam created the Question 
Quadrant in order to improve the quality of the discussion in the CoI. By using the Question 
Quadrant, students have the chance to formulate their questions prior to delving into the 
philosophical discussion itself. This was deemed useful as Cam observed in a CoI setting, ‘the 
problem is that all too commonly students ask questions that are not very deep and do not readily 
lead to the kind of discussion that is desired’ (Cam 2006, 32). Using a Question Quadrant as a 
preceding pedagogy to the CoI, Cam explains that it ‘almost immediately improves the quality of their 
questions and thereby provides a much more productive basis for discussion’ (Cam 2006, 32). The 
two sections of the quadrant entitled ‘use your imagination’ and ‘questions about real life’ are 
inherently philosophical. These open questions can form the basis for the CoI discussion. As 
facilitators, we picked the most interesting or common questions from these sections as a basis from 
which to commence the CoI in the third week.  
 

In week three, we decided to run a CoI including the entire class. The discussion centered on 
images of women and their depictions in the media, including the photo-shopping of our printed 
images and the political messages associated with these images of ‘femininity’. Topical key events were 
discussed including the Kim Kardashian ‘Break the Internet’ cover shoot for Paper magazine, and the 
recent Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst. Realising we had a fairly quiet group in both classes, we 
decided to split the following two weeks’ CoIs into two groups within each class, thereby making each 
CoI smaller, in an effort to encourage more discussion and critical dialogue.  

 
In week four the stimulus text was on women and terrorism: another topical issue. Two of the 

quieter students were chosen to read aloud a newspaper editorial on three British teenagers who were 
females who seemingly left the country in order to join the Islamic State (ISIL). Each text was read 
aloud twice, each time by a different reader, to encourage deep listening. The final week, week five, 
was on male suicide. The same technique as week four was followed with a text on the topic being 
read by two students. We shortened the week five CoI to 25 minutes instead of the usual 40 so as to 
allow enough time for the students to complete a feedback form. We gave them 15 minutes to fill out 
the form so that they had time to write down considered responses to the questions asked. The 
feedback form is included at Figure 2. 
 

Results of the Community of Inquiry Project 
 

Our inquiry, then, was whether introduction of CoIs into the GAL classroom would advance the 
course’s aims of promoting ‘reflexive thinking’ and ‘standpoint thinking’. In assessing this we have 
relied on the students’ written reflections on the Cols (35 responses) in their feedback forms and our 
teacher observations of both the five Philosophy and Gender tutorial seminars and the written 
assessment pieces set for the course (response papers and a Final Paper). 

 
Did the Communities of Inquiry Advance ‘reflexive thinking?’ 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

7 
 

As explained, our reference to ‘reflexive thinking’ means thinking that encompasses a 
consciousness of one’s own influence on the generation and modification of ideas. We believe this 
form of thinking was influenced significantly by the CoIs. This was reflected in the students’ 
comments about the ‘personal’ nature of their engagement in the sessions and their engagement after 
the sessions with ideas that had been generated. It also appeared in their observations on how their 
thinking had been modified by hearing others. 
 

The dominant themes in the student reflections on the CoIs were that they were beneficial 
because students felt comfortable and confident in contributing their ideas and that they enjoyed and 
benefitted from hearing others’ views. To a lesser extent, students commented on their own ideas 
changing as a result of the sessions. In answer to the question: ‘What (if anything) did you gain 
personally, from participating in the CoIs?’ eight of the 35 students identified feeling comfortable and 
an increased confidence in communicating in a group or in their own ideas. For example, one 
student wrote: ‘I gained the ability to communicate my opinion’, and another, ‘I think I gained 
confidence in communicating. I’m a rather quiet person but I do have many ideas and CoIs 
encourage you to talk and it provides a comfortable environment where people do not judge me.’ All 
students were final year undergraduates and would be familiar with the traditional tutorial format, so 
it would seem these students experienced CoIs, specifically, as a form that facilitated their confidence. 
The most prominent theme in students’ reflections about the sessions was their experience of hearing 
a variety of ‘perspectives’, ‘opinions’ or ‘views’ from fellow students. Again, in response to the 
question asking what, if anything, they had gained from the Cols, 23 of the 35 students referred to 
this idea. For example, students wrote: ‘I was reminded of the extent of views present in each topic’; ‘I 
loved listening to other people’s opinion’; and ‘I gained insight into others opinions as they brought 
up ideas I never thought of’. Students (10/35 responses) also commented on their own ideas 
changing or being challenged by hearing others’ perspectives and opinions. Students wrote: 
‘Challenges to my ideas assisted me to develop and reconsider them’; ‘It has encouraged me to look at 
my own stereotypical views (put on me by society) and challenge them. [I looked] at things through 
the eyes of other students and [saw] how society is changing and adapting’; and ‘I liked having gained 
the skills of being more aware about my thoughts and that of others, being able to listen more 
critically and in a focused manner.’ 

 
Beyond observations about hearing and responding to others, a number of students commented 

on the ‘personal’ nature of the sessions in various ways. The ‘informal’ or ‘free flowing’ nature of the 
sessions compared with other university classes was, they felt, positive for their learning. For example: 
‘I think there was a really personal aspect to the sessions because you heard other people’s stories’.  

 
There were also comments from five students that suggest the sessions could have been more 

effective for them with respect to the exchange of ideas, if more students had participated consistently 
in discussions, instead of ‘the same few’. In most cases, these comments suggest the reluctance to 
speak was perceived to be a lack of confidence and that the smaller groups worked much better in this 
regard because they were more ‘intimate’, and less ‘intimidating’. Two students made comments that 
indicated the sessions didn’t engage them. They were critical of the choice of topics, at least within 
the setting of the CoIs, because of the political or personal sensitivities associated with them or 
because they were ‘only very loosely’ about gender and the law (this is discussed further below). The 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

8 
 

students’ reflections that bear on reflexive thinking accord with our observations as facilitators of the 
CoIs and teachers of other aspects of the course. In our teaching experience when students ‘come 
across’ an awareness that thinking is reflexive, it is accompanied by an excitement about their learning 
and a desire to engage further with the topic and their discussants. In our experience of these CoIs 
students, generally, were in one of two groups: the majority of students seemed to look forward to the 
sessions and although at times appeared uncertain about what was expected, were engaged and 
contributing thoughtfully. Another, much smaller, group, it appeared to us, was not easily engaged, at 
least in every session. There appeared to be a reticence to contribute to the Inquiries and although 
this was the case with only a few students, we felt at times it affected the mood of the groups as a 
whole. We were, therefore, somewhat surprised that the written reflections were overwhelmingly 
positive and the number of students who indicated they were disengaged or uninterested was very low 
(two or three students).  
 

Our observation is that students’ reflexive thinking skills developed distinctly through the course 
and that the CoIs made a significant contribution to this. As explained, the written, assessed 
‘response papers’ are designed to allow students to engage personally with ideas of authors without 
merely expressing unfounded opinions. Students are encouraged to grapple with the author’s 
arguments, extrapolate their key ideas and then consider how those ideas were evident in their own, 
lived lives. The quality of the response papers of those students who attended classes regularly, 
improved distinctly over the semester, and the improvements related to this capacity to explore the 
application of presented ideas to their own experiences. In the first (of three) response papers 
students tended to demonstrate their understanding of the article they had chosen and then ‘take a 
position’ in relation to the ideas – giving reasons why they agreed with or were critical of the author’s 
theories. In the second and third papers, the students increasingly explored their own ideas, building 
on those of the author, and often using open questions to initiate a new direction in their response. 
The papers were clearly more intellectually creative as the semester progressed. 

 
The Final Paper, which students submitted at the end of semester, was in some ways a 

development from the response papers. Students were required to identify an ‘event’, which had 
occurred within the last three years in the public domain or in their private lives, and analyse that 
event, utilising selected theories and ideas covered in the course. In this instance a structured piece of 
academic writing was required. Students chose a wide variety of events, for example: Caitlyn Jenner’s 
transition; Olympic Games regulation of the dress code for women beach volleyball players; the rape 
and murder of Jyoti Singh Pandey; and the personal experiences of: witnessing a husband put his 
hand on his wife’s back at a party; attending a tutorial in another university course; living near a 
school and watching mothers come to pick up their children; and, as a (white) shop assistant, being 
directed by a supervisor to covertly follow two young Aboriginal women. 

 
The general standard of the papers was high, particularly with regard to their direct engagement 

with the event they had identified and the ideas they drew on in their analyses. Confidence in their 
own ideas, compared with the start of semester, was evident. A few students made distinct ‘leaps’ in 
this regard, choosing personal experiences as their events; one student combined poetry and prose in 
her analysis.  

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

9 
 

The CoI sessions appear to have influenced these developments in students’ work significantly. 
In the first five weeks of the course the main two-hour class was conducted as seminar discussions but 
from then on they were lecture-style deliveries by guest lecturers. And the remainder of the tutorials 
were conducted traditionally with a greater focus on content and were teacher-led. The response 
papers themselves may have developed students’ skills in reflexive thinking but we observed that it 
was those students who attended classes regularly who made obvious improvement. Of those who did 
not meet the attendance requirement, some nevertheless demonstrated considerable academic skills 
insofar as they understood authors’ abstract ideas and could compare different conceptual 
frameworks. But they did not demonstrate the same engagement with or questioning of their own 
ideas, or the same depth of analysis by applying authors’ ideas to lived experience. 
 
 
Did the Communities of Inquiry Advance ‘Standpoint Thinking’? 
 

As explained, standpoint thinking involves the recognition that knowledge is contextual and 
therefore that, without some ‘extra’ intellectual work, some knowledge is inaccessible. This involves 
seeing that others have a profoundly different ‘take’ on the world, not only that they have arrived at 
different conclusions within shared parameters.  

 
There were numerous comments, as discussed, about the benefits of hearing fellow students’ 

perspectives but the tenor of those comments did not encompass a realisation of the kind of 
difference relevant to standpoint thinking. They were more reflective of an appreciation of different 
ways of explaining a topic, from individuals sharing a basically similar frame of reference. There were, 
however, a few reflections by students that made observations about this more fundamental idea of 
socio-political ‘difference’. Some comments made reference to how the CoIs had advanced the 
student’s awareness of gender as a social construct; as having meaning beyond an individual 
perception. Some students used the idea of gaining ‘understanding’ of issues that contrasted with just 
the giving of different views. For example, a student wrote that they gained a ‘[g]reater appreciation of 
the discrete and almost subconscious role gender plays in society’, and another wrote that s/he 
enjoyed the first CoI (based on the images of Kim Kardashian and Conchita Wurst) most, because ‘I 
had never thought in depth about these issues previously. I just saw the pictures for their face-value, 
not what they might represent or mean to society’. And another student thought the purpose of a CoI 
(which they thought had been achieved in these CoIs) is ‘to: see other perspectives; stimulate ideas; 
gain extra knowledge; gain greater understanding’ (emphasis in original). 

 
The few comments that most reflected standpoint thinking related to the second CoI, based on a 

media text about three young women leaving their homes in the United Kingdom apparently to join a 
proscribed terrorist organisation. A number of students reflected a consciousness of their lack of 
knowledge, as a significant component of the CoI. On the one hand, a few students felt they gained 
some understanding of a situation profoundly different from their own and so the CoI may have 
facilitated standpoint thinking. Four other students expressed concern about the potential dangers of 
inquiring into topics where there was a lack of knowledge or information. Three of these students 
commented on the ‘Women and Terrorism’ CoI and one more generally. One comment concerned 
the student’s own lack of knowledge, two were ambiguous and one was a concern about the lack of 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

10 
 

others’ knowledge. It was this alert to the dangers of ignorance that most reflected standpoint 
thinking but there is no indication that these students felt their thinking was advanced by 
participation in the CoIs. 

 
Again, as with reflexive thinking, the students’ comments relating to standpoint thinking accord 

with our experience of facilitating the CoIs. In our experience, when students ‘come across’ the 
experience of ‘seeing’ another worldview, it is an ‘ah ha’ moment for them. There is a profoundly new 
way of viewing not just one or more ‘issues’, but how the world is organised, and it is accompanied by 
a kind of surprise: the new standpoint was not apparent before; one’s usual vision of how society 
works was partial or untrue. The CoIs we conducted didn’t appear to advance this kind of thinking. 
In our observation students seemed somewhat hesitant to raise controversial ideas which may have 
been a fear of being, or appearing to be, sexist or racist.  

 
There was evidence that students’ standpoint thinking advanced through the course, however, we 

think this development was probably a result of other aspects of the course, rather than the CoIs. If 
this is so, why didn’t the CoIs advance standpoint thinking? Three students thought the groups 
lacked ‘diversity’ or members had ‘similar perspectives’ or ‘just agreed’ with others. They attributed 
the fact that an Inquiry didn’t explore issues in as much depth as they would have liked, to this 
similarity in backgrounds. However, although all students were privileged at least to the extent they 
were enrolled at UWA, there were many different ethnic backgrounds represented, first and later 
generation Australians and different gender identities. In our observation it is unlikely to have been 
lack of diversity itself that inhibited an advance in standpoint thinking. We are inclined to think 
other factors were at play, and these are discussed below. 

 
Two further observations 

 
There are two further matters that arose during the project that are worthy of discussion: the 

question, ‘in what way is the CoI different from a regular tutorial’; and a resistance to entering into 
Inquiries that we perceived on the part of some students. 

 
The CoI and university tutorials 
 

In many ways the CoI and a university tutorial are similar. The CoI is derived from the Socratic 
method, as are tutorials, with a teacher promoting learning through inquiry and exchange in a less 
formal setting that that of a lecture. In previous years GAL was run as three hours of seminars with 
the whole group as one class. In those seminars discussion was often vibrant and inquiring. In many 
ways these past seminars and the CoIs were similar. The seminars allowed students to explain their 
understanding of a text and be challenged by others’ views. Students’ perspectives, not just the 
teacher’s, directed the course of discussion. A central aim of both was to extend students’ capacities to 
think and discuss and both sought to do this through energetic and intellectually stimulating 
exchange. However, there was a key difference between the CoIs on the one hand and the seminars 
and regular university tutorials on the other: the CoIs involved ‘handing over’ discussion to students 
to a greater degree. Seminar discussions were closely guided by the teacher, even though in a skillfully 
led class this may not be obvious. The CoI as a pedagogical form involves a more radical relinquishing 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

11 
 

of authority by the teacher. The form and process of the class is determined and the stimulus text was 
selected (though not the questions) but the authority to determine the direction of the inquiry lies 
with the group (D’Olimpio 2015). The CoIs we conducted in GAL involved this shift in authority 
and was, in our experience, the key difference from other, conventional forms of university pedagogy. 
As one student commented, ‘we all talk to each other rather than talk to the tutor’. 

 
Resistance to entering into Inquiries 
 

A surprising aspect of the project was what we perceived as a resistance on the part of a few 
students to entering into the CoI fully. This took the form of not staying on task (during the first 
tutorials before we undertook a CoI), being reluctant to move desks and chairs to form the CoI circle, 
and sometimes minimal participation in the CoI itself. These students didn’t seem to see the 
challenge inherent in the CoI and appeared to think of the exercise as intellectually facile. This 
resistance, which arose apparently from scepticism, contrasted with an intense engagement by other 
students but it influenced the tenor of the CoIs somewhat. Though by no means entirely so, the 
inquiries were to some extent ‘blocked’ within the concept discussed by Sharp (1993) and Burgh and 
Yorshansky (2011). 

 
Burgh and Yorshansky write of the importance of the relationships between members of a group 

in developing a well functioning CoI:  
 
In a well functioning community of inquiry participants move from considering themselves 
and their accomplishments as all important. They become conscious of other members’ 
contributions and allow themselves to transform themselves, eventually becoming part of an 
interdependent whole. However, in order for this to happen, trust and care of the community 
must be in place. The absence of care and trust often result in a blocked inquiry in which 
some members are overpowered by fear and other emotions that keep them from sharing their 
views and ideas with the community. (2011, 445) 
 

The CoI can build trust amongst members of a group but also relies on trust to reach its potential 
(D’Olimpio 2015, 8-9). There appeared to us an element of mistrust in the CoIs; both what appeared 
to be a lack of trust in the process, producing the scepticism we’ve described, and hesitation amongst 
some members of the group to trust each other, producing a reticence to explore more contentious 
ideas.  
 

We observed these group dynamics early and made adjustments to facilitate communication. For 
example, we: divided each group into two and facilitated a smaller group each; talked openly to the 
students about the impossibility of being ‘wrong’ and encouraged exploration of ideas, rather than an 
endeavour to arrive at conclusions; and played the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ to model a critical 
perspective. These adjustments did encourage more engagement but the Inquiries nevertheless 
remained relatively subdued. 

 
A group dynamic is complex, determined by multiple factors. However, on reflection, we 

speculate that the competition built into the course and the compulsory attendance requirement may 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

12 
 

well have been significant factors. A CoI aims for valuing the dialogue for its own sake and pursuing 
truth and seeking wisdom. GAL, as a university course, requires students to be assessed and so all 
learning is framed by judgement of achievement. This is different from a CoI conducted in primary 
schools. Although school students are increasingly assessed and their progress monitored, there is 
limited awareness of each classroom activity contributing directly to that assessment. University 
students, on the other hand, are keenly aware that their performances will be judged. In this regard 
no part of GAL’s assessment framework involved classroom performance; this was a considered 
decision, aimed at leaving students free to explore and learn in class in the absence of judgment. 
Nevertheless, we became aware of two significant pressures on students that could have contributed 
to the reticence we observed. 

 
First, as noted, students were required to attend 10 of the 13 weeks of classes, including the 

philosophy sessions. Despite the aim of the simple attendance requirement being to reduce 
performance pressure, we believe it became for some students a source of frustration. It appeared to 
be perceived by those students as something that was required without the end of achieving a portion 
of their grade. This compulsory element, being required to inquire, may well have worked against the 
aims of free Inquiry.  

 
The second source of pressure on students that we believe could have underpinned the reserve 

were the high-stakes on the grade they achieved in this unit. Many students wanted to apply for 
postgraduate studies at the end of the year, in particular the JD (law degree). Entrance to these 
courses depended on students’ Grade Point Average (GPA) over the course of their undergraduate 
degree and they were keenly aware of the GPA requirements for the courses for which they intended 
to apply. Many students discussed this with us informally during the semester. Moreover, graduate 
course entry is competitive (i.e. GPAs are ranked and so even achieving the minimum GPA does not 
guarantee a place), and there is a profiling, or scaling, requirement applied within the Faculty to GAL. 
That is, the students were in competition with each other for what they saw as a vitally important life 
opportunity in the following year. This embedded competition may not be impossible to overcome 
but we believe it needs to be addressed in some way for the CoI to reach its potential in the 
University setting. 
 

Conclusion 
 

The Philosophy and Gender Project introduced a series of Communities of Inquiry into a third 
year elective at UWA. The Community of Inquiry is a pedagogy that develops collaborative and 
democratic philosophical thinking, and the elective was an inquiry into gender and the law. We 
observed that the Communities of Inquiry we introduced facilitated students’ ‘reflexive thinking’. 
They encouraged students’ intellectual creativity and an awareness of themselves as thinkers. They did 
not appear to have a significant effect on students’ ‘standpoint thinking’. We speculate that the 
competitive pressures experienced by university students may work against the effectiveness of this 
pedagogy and conclude that these pressures need to be considered further in order for the 
Community of Inquiry to reach its full potential in the tertiary education setting. 
 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

13 
 

References 
Bartlett, Katharine. 1990. “Feminist Legal Methods.” Harvard Law Review 103: 829. 
Behrendt, Larissa. 1993. “Aboriginal Women and the White Lies of the Feminist Movement:  

Implications for Aboriginal Women in Rights Discourse.” The Australian Feminist Law Journal 
1: 27-44. 

Bender, Leslie. 1988. “A Lawyer’s Primer on Feminist Theory and Tort.” Journal of Legal Education 38:  
3-37. 

Bleazby, Jennifer. 2013. Social Reconstruction Learning: Dualism, Dewey and Philosophy in Schools. London:  
Routledge. 

Burgh, G and Yorshansky, M. 2011. “Communities of Inquiry: Politics, power and group dynamics.”  
Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(5). doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00389.x 

Cam, P. 2006. 20 thinking tools: Collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Camberwell, Vic: ACER  
Press. A modified version of the Question Quadrant retrieved from: 
http://www.philosophyineducation.com/resources/Question+Quadrant.pdf 

Connell, Raewyn. 2005. Masculinities. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1988 (first published 1949). The Second Sex. London: Pan Books. 
Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra  

Harding and Merrill Hintikka. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 
D’Olimpio, L. 2015. “Trust, Well-being and the Community of Philosophical Inquiry” He Kupu 4(2)  

Special Issue ‘Well-being in Early Childhood Education’ 
http://www.hekupu.ac.nz/Journal%20files/Issue2%20October%202015/LauraDOlimpio.pd
f 

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge,  
MA: Harvard University Press. 

Golding, C., Gurr, D., & Hinton, L. 2012. Leadership for Creating a Thinking School at Buranda  
State School. Leading and Managing 18(1): 91-106. 

Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically  
Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology and 
Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka, 283-310. Dordrecht: D. 
Reidel. 

Jacobson, Kirsten. 2013. Philosophy Across the Ages: Some Observations on Content and Strategy.  
In Sara Goering, Nicholas J. Shudak and Thomas E. Wartenberg (Eds), Philosophy in 
Schools: An Introduction for Philosophers and Teachers. London: Routledge (pp. 244-256). 

Keller, Fox Evelyn. 1985. A Feeling For the Organism: The Life and Works of Barbara McClintock. W.H.  
Freeman.   

Lipman, M. 1988. Philosophy Goes to School. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
Lipman, M. 1991, 2003. Thinking in Education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 
Lipman, M. 1998. Teaching Students to Think Reasonably: Some Findings of the Philosophy for  

Children Program. The Clearing House 71(5): pp. 277-280. 
Lipman, Matthew 1977. Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1993. “Feminism. Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory”.  

In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by Kelly Weisberg, 437-453. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press. 

http://www.philosophyineducation.com/resources/Question+Quadrant.pdf
http://www.hekupu.ac.nz/Journal%20files/Issue2%20October%202015/LauraDOlimpio.pdf
http://www.hekupu.ac.nz/Journal%20files/Issue2%20October%202015/LauraDOlimpio.pdf


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

14 
 

MacKinnon, Catharine. 1983. “Feminism, Marxism. Method and the State: Towards a Feminist  
Jurisprudence.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 8(4): 635-658. 

Millett, Stephen and Tapper, Alan 2012. Benefits of Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry in Schools.  
Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(5), 546-567. Available from: DOI 10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2010.00727.x 

Millett, Stephen and Tapper, Alan. 2013. Philosophy and Ethics in Western Australian Secondary  
Schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Retrieved from: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.771444  

NSW Register of Births Deaths and Marriages v Norrie [2014] High Court of Australia 11. 
SAPERE. 2010. Philosophy for Children. from http://www.sapere.org.uk 
Siegel, H. 1988. Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education. London:  

Routledge. 
Siegel, H. 1990. Must thinking be critical to be critical thinking? Reply to Finocchiaro. Philosophy of  

the Social Sciences, 20(453): 453 - 461.  
Shapiro, David A. 2013. Engaging Students of Any Age – in Philosophical Inquiry: How Doing  

Philosophy for Children Changed the Way I Teach Philosophy to College Students. In 
Philosophy in Schools: An Introduction for Philosophers and Teachers edited by Sara Goering, 
Nicholas J. Shudak and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 168-178. London: Routledge. 

Sharp, Ann. 1993. “The Community of Inquiry: Education for Democracy.” In Thinking Children and  
Education, edited by Mathew Lipman, 337-345. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 

Splitter, L. 2011. Identity, Citizenship and Moral Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 43(5),  
484-505. 

Splitter, L. & Sharp, A. M. 1995. Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry.  
Melbourne: ACER. 

Sharp, Ann Margaret 2007. ‘The Classroom Community of Inquiry as Ritual: How we can cultivate  
Wisdom’. Critical and Creative Thinking 15(1): 3-14. 

Tarrant, Stella. 2002. “Something is Pushing Them to the Side of Their Own Lives: A Feminist  
Critique of Law and Laws.” In Gender and Justice, The International Library of Essays in Law and 
Legal Theory (Second Series), edited by Ngaire Naffine. Routledge. 

Topping K. J. & Trickey, S. 2007a. Collaborative Philosophical Enquiry for School Children:  
Cognitive gains at two-year follow-up, British Journal of Educational Psychology 77(4): 787–796. 

Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. 2007b. Impact of Philosophical Enquiry on School Students’ Interactive  
Behaviour, Thinking Skills and Creativity 2(2): 73–84. 

von Rijswijk, Honni. 2012. “Towards a Feminist Aesthetic of Justice: Sarah Kane’s Blasted as  
Theorisation of the Representation of Sexual Violence in International Law.” The Australian 
Feminist Law Journal 36: 107-124 

Winstanley, C. 2008. Philosophy and the Development of Critical Thinking. In M. Hand & C. 
Winstanley (Eds.), Philosophy in Schools. London: Continuum (pp. 85-95). 
Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1974 (first published 1792). Vindication of the Rights of Women. NY: Garland. 
Writing Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. 1986. Edited by James Clifford and George  

Marcus. University of California Press.  
Zetlein, Sarah. 1995. “Lesbian Bodies Before the Law: Chicks in White Satin.” The Australian Feminist  

Law Journal 5: 48-63. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.771444
http://www.sapere.org.uk/


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

15 
 

 
 

 
 

FIGURE 1 

Below is a representation of the Question Quadrant: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cam, 2006, p.34). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask an expert Questions about the text 

CLOSED 

OPEN 

Use your imagination Questions about real life 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 38, ISSUE 1 (2017) 

  
 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 2 

GENDER AND THE LAW REFLECTION WORKSHEET 
 

We have completed five weeks of Gender and Philosophy. In the past three weeks created a 
‘Community of Inquiry’ based on three different topics: images of Kim Kardashian and Conchita 
Wurst, women and terrorism and male suicide. This is the first time we have incorporated a 
Community of Inquiry method in Gender and the Law. We would be grateful for your feedback 
about the sessions in your responses to these seven reflection questions - and any other general 
comments you’d like to make. 

1. In your understanding, what is a Community of Inquiry (CoI)? 

2. What do you think the purpose of a CoI is? 

3. Do you believe that the CoI achieves this purpose? 

4. Did participating in the CoI raise further ideas and/or questions for you? Did you continue to 
consider the topic under discussion further, after the end of the class and after the CoI 
finished? 

5. Which aspects of the CoI would you alter and why? 

6. What (if anything) did you gain, personally, from participating in the CoIs? 

7. Which CoI did you enjoy most and why?  

 First CoI: based on images of Kim Kardashian and Conchita Wurst 

 Second CoI: based on women and terrorism text 

 Third CoI: based on male suicide text. 

Do you have any further comments? 
 
Address Correspondences to:  

Associate Professor Stella Tarrant, Faculty of Law 
The University of Western Australia 
35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, Western Australia, AUSTRALIA 6009 
Phone: +61 8 6488 2944   
Email: stella.tarrant@uwa.edu.au / ORCID: 0000-0003-0882-9174 

 
Dr Laura D’Olimpio 
The School of Philosophy and Theology 
The University of Notre Dame Australia 
PO Box 1225, Fremantle, Western Australia, AUSTRALIA 6959 
Phone: +61 8 9433 0143 
Email: laura.dolimpio@nd.edu.au / ORCiD ID: 0000-0003-0797-6623/ Twitter: @Lauradol4 

mailto:stella.tarrant@uwa.edu.au
tel:%2B61%208%209433%200143
mailto:laura.dolimpio@nd.edu.au

