The Full Professor Emilio López-Barajas. PHOTO: Manuel Castells

Emilio López-Barajas Zayas, Full Professor of the Universidad Nacional de Education a Distancia (UNED), gave a seminar at the University of Navarra under the degree scroll "Los paradigmas de research. Epistemological critique". The activity was organized by the group of research "Science, Reason and Faith".

Professor López-Barajas is Full Professor in Fundamentals of Scientific Methodology, of the area of Theory and History of the Education. He also directs the University Expert Course in training of Trainers of the UNED, of which he is also a professor.

What are the current paradigms of research?

Modern society is fundamentally the daughter of two paradigms: the scientific-technological and the critical-interpretative. Both have brought us positive things. The first, which is typical of modern science, has achieved important advances in fields such as medicine: antibiotics, vaccines... In the technological aspect, it has freed people from menial tasks that are now performed by machines, especially in the so-called developed countries. The second brings a greater knowledge of the psychological, sociological, emotional, human communication...

Do they have any deficiencies?

By the very definition of their methodology, they lack the essential: the fundamental and permanent values, which are the only thing that can stabilize the life staff of individuals and the collective life of any group or cultural community. These essential values are absent and they would not have to be; perhaps it is due to a prejudice of modernity with respect to the tradition, for understanding that this one demands to make a clean slate. It is ignored that by reducing everything to the contextual, to the emotional, to the sentimental, to the psychological, to the romantic or to the biological, issues as important as love, freedom or solidarity are left aside. These cannot be elucidated only with the empirical-experimental way, nor exclusively with the critical-interpretative way. The primary and basic human need to love and be loved is reduced in these two paradigms.

Today, it seems that only the research that leads to useful results is valued to the detriment of the Humanities... Is this the trend for the future?

American pragmatism is the American side of the scientific-technological paradigm. In this current, the purpose is utility. As the market is currently structured and conceived, the only value that exists is price. Hence, at least at present, values are relegated to this useful sense. On the other hand, it has happened that, by fleeing from the first Philosophy , we have been reduced to the sociological, the psychological and the emotional, even to the biological. We should rectify our course to avoid the storms that can threaten the life of staff and group. This does not imply abandoning science or the affective world and staff, but adding it to the substantive and essential of values. It is a matter of orienting at the level of staff the ship of our life and at the level of group the ship of the cultural and sociological towards a shore where there is room not only for utility, price and technology, but also for the primary need of humans: to be loved and to be able to love.

Is this the main challenge of the society of knowledge?

People and organizations move in a technological culture. Young people have a greater mastery of new communication and information technologies than the generations that preceded them. These tools are essential in a market-driven society, in the search for the economical and the useful. However, even though the practical is necessary, the development of the competences to work and produce, spaces are required where the sprouts of love can emerge. It is necessary to create these spaces so that young people do not feel disappointed and reduce their existence to what seems to be one of the trends in crescendo: the drift towards individualism and hedonism. It is a seemingly stable, but disintegrating status .

How important is the training continuum in a context of globalization and continuous change?

We are immersed in an accelerated technological change. This demands that at the same time that a citizen works, he/she has to catch up with new technologies. As there is no trend of change in sight, it seems necessary to keep up with a continuous learning exercise in order not to fall out of the system. It should be noted that, even in developed countries, the issue of citizens who are becoming marginalized from society, first occupationally and then socially, is growing. This is a consequence of a lack of foresight in lifelong learning at staff and group social level. But as it is also true that the market demands competitiveness on a permanent basis, there is a risk that this learning only goes hand in hand with skill. This would be a reductionism and an alienation in this direction that we should correct.

What solution do you propose?

We cannot isolate ourselves from the system: we have to keep up with new technologies. However, we have to find the balance between that and developing the genuine bud that each person has inside. This means devoting time to other aspects of training that are not limited to technology or to development skills, such as reading The Iliad or The Aeneid, for example. Universities should also take this into account to avoid becoming excessively pragmatic, bureaucratic and mercantilist institutions, which would kill what is most genuine in them.