Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context

The aim of this piece is to critique Celia Whitchurch’s influential third space theory in cross-cultural context. Whitchurch first describes third space in a 2008 paper as an ‘emerging landscape of activity’ (p. 378) correlative with an ‘emergence of Third Space professionals’ (p. 377) in first wor...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Michael Begun
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE) 2025-01-01
Series:Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/article/view/1236
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832576301912817664
author Michael Begun
author_facet Michael Begun
author_sort Michael Begun
collection DOAJ
description The aim of this piece is to critique Celia Whitchurch’s influential third space theory in cross-cultural context. Whitchurch first describes third space in a 2008 paper as an ‘emerging landscape of activity’ (p. 378) correlative with an ‘emergence of Third Space professionals’ (p. 377) in first world anglophone higher education institutions. By theorising the emergence of third space from the activity of these so-called ‘third space professionals’, Whitchurch implicitly relies upon a concept first developed several decades earlier in cultural theory. Most notably, Homi K. Bhabha discusses his own conception of third space in response to questions about his ground-breaking 1988 essay ‘The commitment to theory’, in which he appears to first introduce the term ‘third space’ in a relevant context. Problematically, however, there appear to be substantial inconsistencies between Whitchurch’s and Bhabha’s third space theories. The three most significant of these are: 1) the key distinction, introduced by Bhabha, between cultural difference and cultural diversity; 2) the broader concepts of identity and identification upon which Whitchurch and Bhabha rely; and 3) their respective relations to the history of colonialism and corresponding commitments to divergent neo-colonial and postcolonial projects. Based on these discrepancies, I contend that, whereas Bhabha’s third space seems truly cross-culturally emergent, Whitchurch’s third space only appears to be so within a more limited cultural context. Accordingly, I conclude by proposing two further ways in which learning developers should uphold the commitment to a critical cross-cultural approach.
format Article
id doaj-art-c1a43e8de982481091bdc5002067324e
institution Kabale University
issn 1759-667X
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)
record_format Article
series Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
spelling doaj-art-c1a43e8de982481091bdc5002067324e2025-01-31T07:56:39ZengAssociation for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education1759-667X2025-01-013310.47408/jldhe.vi33.1236Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural contextMichael Begun0University of Portsmouth The aim of this piece is to critique Celia Whitchurch’s influential third space theory in cross-cultural context. Whitchurch first describes third space in a 2008 paper as an ‘emerging landscape of activity’ (p. 378) correlative with an ‘emergence of Third Space professionals’ (p. 377) in first world anglophone higher education institutions. By theorising the emergence of third space from the activity of these so-called ‘third space professionals’, Whitchurch implicitly relies upon a concept first developed several decades earlier in cultural theory. Most notably, Homi K. Bhabha discusses his own conception of third space in response to questions about his ground-breaking 1988 essay ‘The commitment to theory’, in which he appears to first introduce the term ‘third space’ in a relevant context. Problematically, however, there appear to be substantial inconsistencies between Whitchurch’s and Bhabha’s third space theories. The three most significant of these are: 1) the key distinction, introduced by Bhabha, between cultural difference and cultural diversity; 2) the broader concepts of identity and identification upon which Whitchurch and Bhabha rely; and 3) their respective relations to the history of colonialism and corresponding commitments to divergent neo-colonial and postcolonial projects. Based on these discrepancies, I contend that, whereas Bhabha’s third space seems truly cross-culturally emergent, Whitchurch’s third space only appears to be so within a more limited cultural context. Accordingly, I conclude by proposing two further ways in which learning developers should uphold the commitment to a critical cross-cultural approach. https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/article/view/1236cross-culturalpostcolonialneo-colonialcultural differenceidentitythird space theory
spellingShingle Michael Begun
Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
cross-cultural
postcolonial
neo-colonial
cultural difference
identity
third space theory
title Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
title_full Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
title_fullStr Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
title_full_unstemmed Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
title_short Truly emergent? A critique of ‘third space’ in cross-cultural context
title_sort truly emergent a critique of third space in cross cultural context
topic cross-cultural
postcolonial
neo-colonial
cultural difference
identity
third space theory
url https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/article/view/1236
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelbegun trulyemergentacritiqueofthirdspaceincrossculturalcontext