Rethinking the Dimensions of Wisdom in Higher Educational Pedagogy: Grounded Theory Research

Abstract

Since the 1980s, wisdom as a concept, its dimensions, and its development have been researched intensively in many disciplines except in higher educational pedagogy. Owing to this theoretical gap in the literature, this paper asks, “What are the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy?” The research philosophy is interpretivism with an abductive approach. The methodology uses constructivist Grounded Theory. The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings revealed 352 wisdom-dimension-related keywords from 28 leading wisdom publications written by more than 60 authors in the educational philosophy and psychology literature. The findings culminate in an integrative framework of four dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy, namely, ‘knowing ourselves’, ‘connecting to others’, ‘knowing the world’, and ‘connecting to the world’ with their wisdom dimensions. This paper contributes to wisdom pedagogy research by addressing both theoretical and research gaps in the literature and by offering novel insights into the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy.

1. Introduction

There is an old story about the philosopher and teacher, Zeno of Elea (c.490–c.430 BC), and his student discussing knowing and not knowing. A student once asked Zeno, “Teacher, your knowledge is many times more than ours. The question you answered is correct, but why are you so humble?” Zeno drew one small and one big circle on the blackboard and said, “Our knowledge is like a circle. Inside the circle are things you know about, and outside the circle are things you don’t know. The area of the big circle is my knowledge, the area of the small circle is your knowledge, so my knowledge is more than yours. But outside these two circles are things you and I don’t know. The circumference of the big circle is larger than that of the small circle so that I may have more knowledge, but I also realize that there is still more I do not know. This is why I am humble” [1]. It is the wise answer of the teacher to his student in this legend that inspired the starting point of this paper. Indeed, knowing ourselves and realizing how little we know is the beginning of wisdom. If being in the ‘state of flow’ is the balance between the skills we have and the challenges we face [2], then wisdom could be considered as the balance between knowing and not knowing.

Wisdom is a complex, multidimensional concept that has been discussed throughout history. Ancient philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno the Stoic, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and many others have discussed the importance of wisdom as a leading virtue in our lives. The philosopher Russell [3] argued that wisdom requires the unity of cognitive and affective qualities of a person, and he wrote, “one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men whose knowledge is wide but whose feelings are narrow. Such men lack what I am calling wisdom” [3] (p. 174). Philosophers have also pondered if wisdom can be taught, and if yes, then how. Russell asked, “Can wisdom … be taught? And, if it can, should the teaching of it be one of the aims of education? I should answer both these questions in the affirmative… the world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before, and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now” [3] (p. 177).

According to Gugerell and Riffert [4], “during the last two, three decades one can observe a growing number of publications dealing with this topic; interestingly enough, there seems to be more interest in wisdom from the side of the social sciences—and here especially within psychology and education as well as the management sciences—than from the side of philosophy and religious studies” [4] (p. 226). Since the 1980s, wisdom research has gained momentum in psychology. Psychologists aimed to measure different dimensions of wisdom, and they created different models of wisdom [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. They wanted to identify what human qualities, traits, and personalities [14,15] predict wise thinking, wise feelings, wise judgments, wise actions, and wise reflections. Consequently, they measured different characteristics and dimensions of wisdom. However, psychologists argue that “although studies defining and measuring wisdom have contributed to our understanding of this concept … wisdom development has not been addressed in most current models of wisdom” [16] (p. 348, emphasis added). Sternberg [17] and Sternberg and Hagen [18] have even more critical voices, claiming that “schools—which are supposed to prepare young people for their later lives—largely emphasize not wisdom, but rather the transmission of knowledge and basic cognitive skills … Schools essentially provide no incentive for the development of wisdom-related skills” [18] (p. 373).

In both philosophy and psychology, wisdom researchers call for more wisdom research in education, and they express their concerns about the lack of current knowledge of how the wisdom of students could be fostered in education. “Schools and society in general, should develop virtues such as good character, active citizenship, compassion, and ethical leadership, as well as other important skills, including common sense, creativity, and wisdom—the use of one’s knowledge and skills to achieve a common good, by comprehending other people’s points of view and also by balancing in an ethical way one’s own interests with the interests of other people and the larger interests of society, as well as the entire world” [19] (p. 4).

Educating for wisdom and teaching for wisdom have become contemporary research topics [8,9,16,17,18]. In education, since the 2000s, wisdom pedagogy research has started to develop, and it has begun to grow exponentially since 2017 [20] (p. 423). In higher education, the number of wisdom publications has seen high growth since 2011 [21] (p. 165), and published articles on wisdom pedagogy have increased dramatically since 2018 [22] (p. 208). However, despite this exponential growth in wisdom research in education and higher education over recent decades, wisdom is still a very small research field. As a systematic literature review shows [22], there are still very few wisdom pedagogy articles that focus on higher education. Wisdom pedagogy in higher education is in its early development phase, and it has not yet become an independent discipline. Therefore, there is a need to develop a pedagogy that helps students live a flourishing life, and there is a need for a pedagogy that can foster students’ wisdom-related skills. This paper aims to address these needs by rethinking the dimensions of wisdom—which are already widely discussed in psychology—from a pedagogical perspective. The research question is as follows: What are the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy?

The research philosophy of this paper is interpretivism. The research approach is abductive; i.e., it is first deductive and then inductive. The data were analyzed with mixed methods, i.e., both qualitative and quantitative methods. The methodology uses constructivist Grounded Theory, which results in an integrative framework of four wisdom dimensions in higher educational pedagogy.

This paper has four sections. The Introduction Section identifies the gap in the literature and the need for a pedagogy to develop the wisdom skills of students. Next, the Materials and Methods Section reviews the literature, states the research question, and presents the methodology and methods. The Findings and Discussion Section presents the 352 keywords identified in the 28 key wisdom publications and shows how they are categorized along with the four dimensions of pedagogy, namely, knowing ourselves (thinking and feeling—97 keywords), connecting to others (feeling and purpose—100 keywords), knowing the world (acting and purpose—84 keywords), and connecting to the world (acting and purpose—71 keywords). Next, the keywords are quantitatively analyzed, and the findings are presented in word clouds. Finally, based on these findings, an integrative framework of wisdom dimensions in higher educational pedagogy is built. This section also presents a discussion on how this framework is related to transformative learning and emancipatory pedagogy. The Conclusions Section provides an answer to the research question and presents the main implications of the findings as well as an outline for future directions in wisdom pedagogy research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

This literature review aims to contextualize the research by identifying what is already known about wisdom dimensions in different disciplines. Wisdom as a complex concept and as a leading human virtue has been researched in philosophy, psychology, history, anthropology, sociology, culture, religion, and education. However, wisdom research in education is about 20 years late compared to other disciplines. Researchers have explored wisdom, developed their specific theories and views, and measured different dimensions of wisdom. The aim of this paper is not to cover the entire wisdom literature but rather to demonstrate the wide variety of wisdom dimensions by focusing on 28 sources which are the most influential philosophical, psychological, and management publications.

What is known about the dimensions of wisdom? We know that wisdom as a leading human virtue is connected to other virtues such as prudence, humility, courage, fortitude, temperance, and justice. We also know that wisdom is a personal characteristic. Wisdom is related to age, personal knowledge, culture, moral values, and beliefs. Wisdom is a dynamic concept as it develops and changes through time [4].

Since the beginning of the 1980s, wisdom research has started to flourish. Lopez et al. [23] (pp. 224–237) discuss the implicit and explicit theories of wisdom as the two distinct schools of thoughts. The implicit theories of wisdom focus on non-observable, psychological features of the concept of wisdom. Researchers have explored, for example, the three dimensions of wisdom, i.e., affective, reflective, and cognitive [24]; the six qualities of wisdom, i.e., reasoning, sagacity, learning, judgment, quick use of information, and perspicacity [25]; the three conceptualizations of wisdom, i.e., sophia, episteme, and phronesis [26]; the meanings of wisdom [27]; the features of wisdom [28]; the characteristics of a wise person [29,30]; and the cultural context of wisdom [31].

The explicit theories of wisdom focus on the more explicit, observable, behavioral, and performance characteristics of wisdom. This pragmatic approach is based on earlier theories such as personality theories, cognitive development theories, stage theory, and lifespan theories [32]. According to Lopez et al. [23] (pp. 228–231), in this group of theories, there are two main theories that “emphasize the organization and application of pragmatic knowledge” [23] (p. 229): the Balance Theory of Wisdom (BTW) [17,25,33] and the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (BWP) [34,35,36,37]. The BTW focuses on the moral decisions of a person, using their practical intelligence when facing real-life problems, personal values, and the role of the context when making wise decisions, and striving to achieve common good with the suggested solution. On the other hand, the BWP—proposed by researchers of the Max Planck Institute (PMI)—focuses on expertise in wise performance. This paradigm emphasizes that an expert considers their specific life situation and context, the cultural and social values of others, and recognizes and manages uncertainties by flexible thinking when proposing pragmatic solutions to problems. This expert view of wisdom has been criticized by Ardelt [29]. She argues that “the term ‘wisdom’ should be reserved for wise persons rather than expert knowledge” [29] (p. 281), and she proposes further research in the definition, operationalization, and measurement of wisdom because “a generally agreed-upon definition of wisdom does not yet exist” [29] (p. 258).

Wisdom has been researched by many authors who identified different characteristics and dimensions of wisdom. Ardelt [5] argues that wisdom has three main dimensions, namely, cognitive, affective, and reflective dimensions. Bachmann et al. [38] (p. 157) detected the following eight features of practical wisdom: action-oriented, integrative, normative, sociality, pluralism, personality, cultural heritage, and limitation-related. Bangen et al. [39] (p. 1257) analyzed twenty-four wisdom definitions and identified nine emerging characteristics of wisdom, namely, decision-making knowledge, prosocial attitudes, self-reflection, acknowledgement of uncertainty, emotional homeostasis, tolerance, openness, spirituality, and sense of humor. Bangen et al. [39] conclude that “the most commonly cited subcomponents, which appeared in at least half of the definitions, relate to social decision-making/knowledge of life, prosocial values, reflection, and acknowledgement of uncertainty” [39] (p. 1262). Brown [40] talks about eight dimensions of wisdom: self-knowledge, judgment, altruism, emotional management, life knowledge, life skills, willingness to learn, and leadership. Karami et al. [41] in their Polyhedron Model of Wisdom (PMW), focus on eleven dimensions of wisdom, namely, knowledge, moral maturity, reflectivity, self-regulation, openness, tolerance, dynamic balance, judgment, creativity, synthesis, and prosocial behavior. Kunzmann and Glück [42] focused on wisdom and emotions and created the MORE life experience personal wisdom development model. This model includes four dimensions of personal wisdom, namely, sense of mastery, openness, reflective attitude, and emotion regulation skills. According to Sternberg and Karami [43], the six Ps of wisdom are the purpose of wisdom; the environmental/situational press that produces wisdom; the nature of problems requiring wisdom; the cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and conative (motivational) aspects of persons who are wise; the psychological processes underlying wisdom; and the products of wisdom [43] (p. 4). They also note that the purpose of wisdom is an essential drive of wisdom [43] (pp. 6–8). Webster [44,45] developed his H.E.R.O.(E) model, which includes five dimensions of wisdom, namely, reminiscence/reflectiveness, emotional regulation, humor, critical life experiences, and openness to experience.

In brief, the literature review of this paper is based on 28 sources written by more than 60 authors. This section aims to draw attention to the diversity of wisdom dimensions researched and identified in the literature. The literature review reveals that the authors of these sources examined wisdom from different perspectives. However, the educational and pedagogical perspectives are missing. This evident theoretical gap revealed from the literature review forms the basis of the further research presented in this paper on wisdom dimensions from a pedagogical perspective.

2.2. Methodology and Methods

Based on the theoretical research gap identified from the literature review, the research question is formulated as follows: What are the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy? This question guides the research philosophy, methodology, and method selections. The research philosophy is interpretivism with an abductive approach. The methodology uses Grounded Theory.

There are discussions among scholars about what Grounded Theory is [46]. It could be considered as a research strategy for conducting research and as a research method for collecting and analyzing data. Grounded Theory was selected because of its incremental, iterative nature. At the same time, it is a systematic and emergent methodology [47,48,49,50]. Strauss and Corbin [49] defined the theory building method of Grounded Theory in a precise and very structured way. Later, Charmaz [51] developed a more flexible approach to Grounded Theory as a constructivist method. This method is based on systematic data collection, data categorization, data analyses, and the identification of relationships between categories which lead to a theory and framework that are grounded in data. This paper follows this constructivist approach to theory development.

The data were analyzed with mixed methods, i.e., both quantitative and qualitative methods. The research was conducted by the following steps: (1) selecting and analyzing 28 wisdom publications from educational philosophy, philosophy, psychology, and management disciplines; (2) identifying 352 wisdom-dimension related keywords; (3) categorizing the keywords according to the four wisdom dimensions in pedagogy, resulting in groups of 97, 100, 84, and 71 keywords; (4) conducting quantitative analyses of data; and, based on the findings, (5) building the integrative framework of wisdom dimensions in higher educational pedagogy.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1. Data Collection and Categorization

This is the first phase of Grounded Theory. Twenty-eight publications written by more than sixty authors from different disciplines were analyzed. The authors approached wisdom from diverse perspectives and disciplines such as philosophy [52,53,54], management [15,38], higher education [55,56], and psychology. The literature review identified multiple dimensions of wisdom and also showed that “a generally agreed-upon definition of wisdom does not yet exist” [29] (p. 258). In the 28 publications, 352 keywords related to wisdom dimensions were found. Then, the wisdom keywords were categorized according to the four dimensions of pedagogy: knowing ourselves (97), connecting to others (100), knowing the world (84), and connecting to the world (71).

Table 1. Wisdom dimensions in the literature and their categorization.

References	Perspectives	Knowing Ourselves (Thinking–Feeling)	Connecting to Others (Feeling–Purpose)	Knowing the World (Thinking–Acting)	Connecting to the World (Acting–Purpose)
[57] (p. 127)	Self-transcendence, 15 sources	Intrapersonal self-transcendence, spiritual transcendence, adult self-transcendence, alienation, values, emotional transcendence	Interpersonal self-transcendence, spiritual acceptance	Gerotranscendence	Universalism, benevolence
[5,29]	3 dimensions of personal wisdom, wise persons, and age	Cognitive, affective, self-examination, self-awareness, self-insight	Affective, reflective, sympathy, compassion, love for others, acceptance, positive emotions toward others	Understanding life, accepting unpredictability and uncertainty of life, willingness to understand the situation, ability to make decisions, positive behavior toward others	Desire to know the truth
[58] (pp. 613–614)	Wisdom and subjective well-being, based on 20 sources	Subjective well-being, happiness, mental health	Life satisfaction, positive affect, emotional well-being	General well-being	Subjective and general well-being
[52]	Philosophy	Episteme, scientific knowledge	Contemplative life, good spirit, happiness, welfare, well-being, eudaimonia, flourishing life	Episteme, scientific knowledge, techne, practical skills	Phronesis, practical wisdom, Sophia, search of truth, eudaimonia, flourishing life, well-being
[38] (p. 157)	8 features of practical wisdom: action-oriented, integrative, normative sociality, pluralism, personality, cultural heritage, and limitation-related	Being aware of the incompleteness of human existence, being humble in the face of one’s own achievements and capabilities	Integrating and balancing several often competing interests and emotions; considering the indispensable sociality of every human being; intertwining one’s own actions, interests, and goals with those of others; rediscovering transmitted cultural and spiritual heritage; openness; ability to adapt to new contexts	Complex realities, passing of judgment, balancing of tensions, critical reflection, rationalities, challenges, contexts, different kinds of knowledge, considering today’s multi-layered diversity in different parts of life and society	Realization in practice; transforms knowledge, beliefs, and decisions into action; acting appropriately and authentically in a self-aware manner in seeking right, credible, inspiring, and convincing goals; critical reflection toward practice; guidance of good life for oneself and for one’s community; orientating towards normative guidance of human flourishing
[36]	The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (BWP)	Factual knowledge	Relativism of values	Lifespan contextualism, awareness of uncertainty	Procedural knowledge, management of uncertainty
[59]	The Berlin School, 5 dimensions of expert’s wisdom	Rich self-knowledge: deep insight, heuristic growth	Self-regulation: deep social relations, emotions,	Aware of the contextual embeddedness of one’s behavior, tolerate ambiguity, developing from experience	Capacity to honesty, apprise one’s behavior, managing life uncertainty
[39] (pp. 1257–1261)	24 wisdom definitions (9 emerging characteristics)	Self-understanding	Prosocial values, emotional homeostasis, tolerance, sense of humor	Knowledge of life, openness to new experiences, acknowledgement of uncertainty	Decision making
[40]	8 dimensions of wisdom	Self-knowledge, judgment	Altruism, emotional management	Life knowledge, life skills, willingness to learn	Leadership
[16] (pp. 354–355)	17 wisdom definitions	Mental health, cognitive ability, creativity, discerning, objective, self-distancing, reflecting, self-knowledge, insightful knowledge, professional development, self-integrity, cognitive integrity, openness, reflectivity, sense of mastery, self-distancing, perspective shifting, self-understanding, self-concept, self-transcendence, self-knowledge, self-regulation, nonattachment, self-relativism, creativity, knowledge, dialectical reasoning, creative and critical reasoning, development of oneself, emotion regulation, personality traits, acting on self	Positive emotions toward others, value relativism, openness to experience, work context, respecting, empathy, engaging, multiple-perspective taking, interactions with others, understanding of others, emotional stability, affecting other people, work experience, social interactions, family, religion, affective, interactions, emotion regulation, searching for compromise, prosocial attitudes, emotional homeostasis, value relativism, tolerance, balancing emotion and reason, interrelating the self, integration, well-being of others, curiosity, open-mindedness, broad perspective, balancing (inter-, intra-, and extrapersonal) interests, dialogic reasoning, development of others, openness, humor, integration of ideas, acting on others	Ability to understand life, taking different perspectives, factual knowledge, lifespan contextualism, accepting and managing uncertainty, understanding the situation, ready to learn, life knowledge, willingness to learn, acknowledging uncertainty, life experiences, recognizing change, recognizing uncertainty, recognizing limits of knowledge, pragmatic knowledge of life, contextualism, life experience, tolerance of uncertainty, tolerance of ambiguity, well-being of society, love of learning, striving toward a common good, life experience	Reflection, positive behavior toward others, procedural knowledge, experiential contexts, engaging, decision making, experiencing, integrating experiences, life skills, ability to act, behavior, implementing ideals, searching for conflict resolution, prosocial behavior, social decision making, dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, using intelligence, selecting and shaping environments, modes of operation, embodiment, taking actions, realizing ideas
[60] (p. 326)	3 self-reporting scales and age	Knowing the answers to problems, avoiding situations, making rational decisions, decisiveness, knowing the answer, not trying to understand, curious about philosophy and religions, self-reflection	Reliance on leaders and experts, categorizing people (good or bad), feeling compassion for everyone, judgment about people, helping others, feeling of belonging to a generation	Extroversion, oneness with nature, being part of a greater whole	Solution orientation
[61]	“Common” model of wisdom	Epistemic humility	Balance of viewpoints, multiple perspectives	Context adaptability	X
[53] (p. 203)	Philosophical, non-Western (12 sources), Western (6 sources)	Intellectual humility	Balance of different cognitions/interests	Recognition of uncertainty and change, perspective taking, contextualism	Pragmatism, decision making, reflecting
[28]	Experts’ views	Recognition of one’s limits, realism	Generativity	Social cognition	Ability to give good advice
[41]	Polyhedron Model of Wisdom (PMW)	Knowledge, moral maturity	Reflectivity, self-regulation, openness, tolerance, dynamic balance	Judgment, creativity, synthesis	Prosocial behavior
[42]	Emotions, MORE model	Mastery, emotional competencies	Openness, reflectivity, emotional regulation, empathy	X	X
[55,56]	Higher education	Acquiring wisdom, wisdom inquiry	Realize what is of value in life for oneself and others, values	Practice	Solving real-life problems, wiser world, good, civilized world, wiser ways of living, public necessity
[15] (pp. 22–26)	Management, wise human action, philosophy, 5 plus 2 core elements of wisdom	Self-insight, moral maturation and judgment, self-efficacy	Value tolerance, emotional understanding and regulation, human agency, psychological ownership, means efficacy	Tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty	Balance of (fluid, crystallized, practical, or contextual) intelligences, responsibility and motivation to take moral actions, courage, moral commitment to act ethically
[33]	Theoretical, psychology	Personality characteristics, intelligence	Cognitive skills, knowledge, judgment, considering competing interests	Understanding of cultural context	X
[62]	Balance Theory of Wisdom	Intrapersonal interests, positive ethical values	Balancing different (interpersonal, intrapersonal, and extrapersonal) interests	Adaptation to existing environments, selection of new environments	Shaping of existing environments, seeking a common good
[43] (pp. 3–11)	6 (plus 1) Ps integrative (unified) wisdom framework: person, processes, press(ure), problems, products, purpose, and physicality	Absence of egotism, being gentle, observant, factual knowledge, intelligence, understanding, mastery, humility, modesty, insight, introspection, intuition, peacefulness, positive mindset	Altruism, competencies, compassion, empathy, concern for others, sociability, respect for oneself and others, education, embodiment, kindness, pragmatism, tolerance, balancing interests, reflective attitude, humor, treating people as worthy and equal, helping others, self-transcendence, learning	Multiple perspectives on problems, critical life experiences, understanding how the world works, awareness of uncertainty, environmental pressure, context adaptability, thinking about alternatives, creative solutions	Achieving and maintaining a satisfactory state of life, benevolence, managing uncertainty, spirituality, positive ethical values, doing the right things, contributing to society, communication of ideas, seeking a common good, striving for common good, seeking a truth, engagement with the real world, adapting, shaping, selecting environments
[63]	Neurobiology, measuring wisdom	Insight	Emotional regulation, tolerance for divergent values	Prosocial behaviors	Social advising, decisiveness
[44,45]	H.E.R.O. (E) model, 5 dimensions of wisdom	Reminiscence/reflectiveness	Emotional regulation, humor	Critical life experiences, openness to experience	X
[12] (pp. 302–304)	9 self-reporting scales, based on 5 sources	Self-transcendence, intellectual humility, warmth, spirituality, self-knowledge, insight, cognition	Dialectical thinking, others’ perspective, search for compromise, outsider’s vantage, harmony, humor, emotional management, emotional regulation, altruism, value relativism, openness, affection	Awareness of uncertainty, consideration of change, nature, judgment, life knowledge, willingness to learn, reminiscence, reflectiveness, reflection	Practical, problem solving, intelligence, problem-solving ability, leadership, decision making, life skills, social advice, prosocial behavior, decisiveness, experience
[54] (pp. 441–442)	Comparison of Western and non-Western conceptions of wisdom based on 8 sources and 8 criteria	Experience-based competence, attitude toward learning, knowledge, feedback, adjustment, reflection, introspection, modesty, serenity, modesty, introspective attitude, spiritual aspects of one’s life, positive mindset	Service and caring in interpersonal relationships, being compassionate to others, compassion, altruism, sociability, social engagement, education, being nonself, openness, profundity, treating all creatures as worthy and equal	Practical engagement, cognitive engagement, recognize the place of the self, understanding, judgement	Practical actions, problem solving, ideal implementation, determination, benevolence, positive results

below presents the findings of the data collection and categorization as the first phase of the Grounded Theory methodology.

3.2. Data Analyses

The next step in Grounded Theory methodology is data analysis. Based on the four categories (cf., Table 1) the analyses of wisdom dimension keywords—detected from the literature—were conducted with WordItOut [64]. Then, the most frequently used keywords (keywords with a minimum of two frequencies) were selected. The results of the data analyses are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

From 97 wisdom dimensions in this category, 16 wisdom dimensions, with a minimum of two frequencies, were identified: self-knowledge, self-understanding, self-distancing, self-transcendence, self-insight, insight, introspection, intelligence, intellectual humility, knowledge, factual knowledge, mastery, creativity, modesty, positive mindset, and mental health.

From 100 wisdom dimensions in this category, 17 wisdom dimensions, with a minimum of two frequencies, were identified: openness, altruism, empathy, compassion, value relativism, tolerance, reflectivity, sociability, humor, emotion, emotional management, emotional regulation, emotional homeostasis, positive emotions toward others, self-regulation, education, and helping others.

From 84 wisdom dimensions in this category, 9 wisdom dimensions, with a minimum of two frequencies, were identified: awareness of uncertainty, context adaptability, contextualism, lifespan contextualism, willingness to learn, judgement, life knowledge, life experience, and critical life experiences.

From 71 wisdom dimensions in this category, 9 wisdom dimensions, with a minimum of two frequencies, were identified: decision making, procedural knowledge, problem solving, prosocial behavior, leadership, decisiveness, life skills, benevolence, and seeking a common good.

3.3. Theory Building

The last phase in Grounded Theory is theory building, i.e., integration of the categories and showing relationships between the categories [48,50,51]. This phase results in a theory (i.e., integrated framework) that is grounded in the data collected, categorized (Table 1), and analyzed (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Figure 5 shows the integrative framework of wisdom dimensions in higher educational pedagogy. It shows the student or person in the middle of framework because the pedagogy that enhances students’ wisdom skills focuses on students as subjects with their personal purposes, as the purpose is an essential drive of wisdom [43] (pp. 6–8). The students have their own bodily perceptions of the world and of the context where they exist. They make their own judgements based on their cognitive and affective skills. In their actions, they combine cognitive and affective skills with critical reflections. This process is a transformative learning process of the self.

Merriam et al. [65], by referring to Mezirow [66], argue that ”transformative learning occurs when there is a transformation in one of our beliefs or attitudes (a meaning scheme), or a transformation of our entire perspective (habit of mind)” [65] (p. 133). They also claim that the four key components of transformative learning theory of Mezirow are experience, critical reflection, reflective discourse, and action. This research article makes arguments for these four components, which are shown in Figure 5:

• Experiencing the world and being in the world is the starting point of learning. Bodily experiencing the context we live in is necessary for learning, i.e., meaning making and deciding on actions. “Learning may be understood as the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or a revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action” [67] (p. 12).
• Critical reflection, and its cognitive, affective, and moral wisdom dimensions [7] in pedagogy, includes knowing ourselves, critical self-examination, and questioning our existing beliefs and assumptions.
• Reflective discourse, and its behavioral, affective, and moral wisdom dimensions in pedagogy, occurs when we connect to others and to the world. It is a change when the learner builds a new understanding by evaluating different arguments of others, making judgments, and challenges his or her own position based on value reassessment and ethical and moral purpose.
• Action, and its behavioral, affective, and moral wisdom dimensions in pedagogy, is about the realization of learning and skills toward moral purpose. It is being in the world and for the world.

The author believes that a higher educational pedagogy that focuses on these wisdom dimensions—shown in Figure 5—is an emancipatory pedagogy, which is the core of emancipatory education. Concurring with Mezirow, the author argues,

“Emancipatory education is about more than becoming aware of one’s awareness. Its goal is to help learners move from a simple awareness of their experiencing to an awareness of the conditions of their experiencing (how they are perceiving, thinking, judging, feeling, acting—a reflection on process) and beyond this to an awareness of the reasons why they experience as they do and to action based upon these insights. Taking action itself involves the significant and distinctive process of instrumental learning, which can become decisive for successful transformative learning. The job of adult educators is to help learners look critically at their beliefs and behaviors, not only as these appear at the moment but in the context of their history (purpose) and consequences in the learners’ lives” [67] (pp. 197–198, emphases in original).

Influenced by Jürgen Habermas and Paulo Freire, the sociologist Mezirow [67] writes about the transformative dimensions of adult learning. He presents the differences between intentional, instrumental, and communicative learning [67] (pp. 64–98). Based on Habermas’ philosophy and social theory, he argues that these learning approaches differ because they have different purposes: “learning to control and manipulate the environment (instrumental learning), learning to understand the meaning of what is being communicated (communicative learning), and learning to understand oneself and one’s perspectives (emancipatory or reflective learning)” [67] (p. xv). The author argues that a higher educational pedagogy that follows the four wisdom dimensions (Figure 5) combines the instrumental, communicative, and emancipatory learning, and this way, it leads to moral skills and the moral will of students. In the human development of students, the roles of teachers and the pedagogy applied in the transformative learning process of students are essential.

4. Conclusions

The aim of this research paper was to fill the theoretical and research gaps in wisdom research by rethinking the dimensions of wisdom in higher education. Regardless of the vital roles of education and pedagogy in human development, compared with other disciplines, these roles have been ignored for a long time in wisdom research [68]. Since the 2000s, wisdom and wisdom pedagogy research has started to develop, and during the last eight years, it has begun to grow exponentially [20,21,22]. However, it is still a small research field [69] that needs contributions.

In the 21st century, humanity is facing serious problems. According to the latest World Economic Forum Global Risks Report [70], in the short run, the top five global risks are: misinformation and disinformation, extreme weather events, state-based armed conflict, societal polarization, and cyber espionage and warfare. However, over a 10-year period, the top five global risks are extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, critical change to Earth systems, natural resource shortages, and misinformation and disinformation [70] (p. 8). To tackle these global risks, therefore, there is an urgent need to develop the wisdom skills of students in schools [18,19] and in higher education [55,56].

In this paper, therefore, the question “What are the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy?” is explored. In the literature review of 28 wisdom publications written by more than 60 authors (Table 1), 352 wisdom-dimension-related keywords were identified. This research paper rigorously followed the three steps of Grounded Theory: (1) collecting and categorizing data (Table 1), (2) analyzing data by categories (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4), and (3) building a theory by relating the categories to each other, i.e., building an integrative framework of wisdom dimensions in higher educational pedagogy (Figure 5).

Rethinking the dimensions of wisdom in higher educational pedagogy fills the theoretical gap in the literature. The integrative framework built in this paper contributes to wisdom research by focusing on pedagogy as a key educational practice in human development. However, for further research, we suggest exploring the most recent wisdom-related publications from the field of the philosophy of education. The contribution of this research to wisdom research might be a modest one. However, this study could have important practical implications for educational practitioners because this framework (Figure 5) could direct their practices to the four main dimensions of wisdom in pedagogy. Therefore, higher education teachers can

• focus on the whole person’s development during the educational process;
• treat their adult students as subjects who have their own personal purposes, when they engage in higher education;
• integrate students’ personal purposes with the purpose of education;
• facilitate students’ social skills, e.g., accepting and tolerating others in group work assignments;
• support the critical thinking and self-knowledge of students with learning diaries and self-reflection assignments;
• motivate students to connect to the real world with specific project assignments and learn how to deal with challenges, ambiguity, and contradictions;
• encourage students to act based on their personal values and moral principles for the betterment of the world.

Educational developers should think about switching their focus from transferring knowledge to fostering the flourishing life of their students [55,56,71]. Concurring with Biesta [72], the author argues that in the 21st century, there is a need for a world-centered education. “The idea of world-centered education is first of all meant to highlight that educational questions are fundamentally existential questions, that is, a question about our existence ‘in’ and ‘with’ the world, natural and social, and not just our existence with ourselves” [72] (pp. 90–91, emphasis original).