[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-597194-105":59,"doc-detail-597194-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","rejoinder-convergence-and-divergence-a-rejoinder-to-john-huckle","Rejoinder - Convergence and Divergence - A Rejoinder to John Huckle","","Rejoinder responding to John Huckle’s reply to a position paper on socially critical environmental education. The author affirms the relevance of critical theory combined with constructive postmodern thought, emphasizing critical appraisal of interrelated social, environmental, and educational dimensions in view of personal and social transformations. The text clarifies the meaning of “conceptual framework” versus “theoretical framework,” addresses key agreements and divergences, and highlights how strong sustainability and critical education intersect while remaining subject to interpretive limits.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":15,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literature/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/rejoinder-convergence-and-divergence-a-rejoinder-to-john-huckle/597194/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/rejoinder-convergence-and-divergence-a-rejoinder-to-john-huckle/597194.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rainbow Cat","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main purpose of the text?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It serves as a rejoinder to John Huckle’s reply, continuing a discussion on socially critical environmental education and related theoretical positions.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the author distinguish “conceptual framework” from “theoretical framework”?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"“Conceptual framework” is treated as different from “theoretical framework,” because concepts are elements of a whole theoretical system, while concepts alone may not constitute the complete system, especially in early stages of theory development.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the author say about sustainability as a basis for educational theory?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The author indicates that they may disagree with concepts of sustainable development, sustainability, or sustainable future as a relevant basis due to conceptual, ethical, and cultural problems, while agreeing with many other key concepts used by proponents of “strong sustainability” as long as they are interpreted without the reductive concept of sustainability.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},597194,1792672379,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":14,"category_name":15,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":19,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":29},962090769181,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Rejoinder  \nConvergence and Divergence: A Rejoinder to John Huckle  \nLucie Sauvé, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada  \nI am pleased with John Huckle’s reply to my position paper. I appreciate his work and I share most of his/her theoretical proposal. With John Fien, Ian Robottom, Annette Greenall and others who contributed, each in his/her own way, to develop the socially critical environmental education current, he is one of the authors who enriches the reading program of my graduate students. I agree that the inputs of the critical theory, reviewed in light of a constructive postmodern thought, give an essential dimension to environmental education: that of a critical appraisal of the interrelated social, environmental and educational aspects of phenomenons and issues of our lives, in the perspective of personal and social transformations towards optimal environmental relationships. Without this critical stance, environmental education would lose most of its relevance. And it is precisely this critical standpoint that underlies the discussions of this colloquium. It is a matter of challenging old and new orthodoxies while inviting us, each one starting from his own referential framework, to go further . . . clarifying, consolidating, enriching or changing our initial positions.  \nFirst, I wish to specify that based on my research background, the expression “conceptual framework” has a different meaning than “theoretical framework.” Concepts are elements of a theoretical system; they should ideally be coherent with the other elements of the whole system, in which they should find an explanatory integrated framework. But concepts do not constitute the entire system and it may happen that in an initial developmental stage of a theory, the different elements of the global construct do not fit together perfectly. In this sense, it is possible for me to disagree with concepts of sustainable development, sustainability or sustainable future as relevant basis for educational theory (because of the conceptual, ethical and cultural problems they convey), and at the same time agree with most of the other key concepts used by the proponents of “strong sustainability” (following Huckle’s expression), such as “transformative education,” “critical pedagogy,”“democracy,” and so on. I also agree with most of their theoretical framework (with its axiology and its strategical and  \nCanadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, Summer 1999 46  \nexplicative aspects), as long as it can be interpreted without reference to the reductive concept of sustainability.  \nThen, there will be no surprise if I say that I agree with most of the arguments found in John Huckle’s reply. Among others:  \n• Global capitalism (associated to excess of liberalism) is a feature of modernity, and is at the roots of our main social and environmental contemporary disorders. In very few lines, I presented the principal characteristics of modernity and postmodernity; I acknowledged the complexity and diversity of these sociocultural trends without insisting on this aspect, which seems to be a well known evidence amongst most environmental educators. I preferred to underline the epistemological, ethical and cultural roots of global capitalism. In his remark, John Huckle offers relevant complementary elements of analysis.  \n• Critical education, which finds an appropriate (but not the only) strategy in participative action research, is central to a constructive postmodern project (in rupture with modernity, but also with total relativism and nihilism) .  \n• The socially critical versions of environmental education and education for sustainability (those “worthy of attention and advocacy”) have many convergences. These, as well as their differences, should be clarified.  \n• The model of three interpenetrating spheres I used to illustrate the zones of interactions at the basis of human development is totally inadequate to conceptualise sustainability: I did not intend t","cbCairCnFTXiijHS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairCnFTXiijHS","pdf",51410,"English","# Rejoinder\n## Response and shared theoretical grounds\n## Conceptual framework versus theoretical framework\n## Points of convergence in Huckle’s reply\n## Notes on disagreements and interpretive limits","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the text?\",\"answer\":\"It serves as a rejoinder to John Huckle’s reply, continuing a discussion on socially critical environmental education and related theoretical positions.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author distinguish “conceptual framework” from “theoretical framework”?\",\"answer\":\"“Conceptual framework” is treated as different from “theoretical framework,” because concepts are elements of a whole theoretical system, while concepts alone may not constitute the complete system, especially in early stages of theory development.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the author say about sustainability as a basis for educational theory?\",\"answer\":\"The author indicates that they may disagree with concepts of sustainable development, sustainability, or sustainable future as a relevant basis due to conceptual, ethical, and cultural problems, while agreeing with many other key concepts used by proponents of “strong sustainability” as long as they are interpreted without the reductive concept of sustainability.\"}]","Rejoinder - Convergence and Divergence - A Rejoinder to John Huckle | PDF",1792084577]