Reprovincializing Reconceptualist Curriculum Studies: The AERA Critical Issues in Curriculum and Cultural Studies SIG

• In Event: A Decolonized Curriculum Future: Toward Geopolitical Traditions of Educational and Cultural Criticism

Abstract

Objectives
In this synoptic rendering, we seek to contextualize and document the intellectual production of the group that is presently called the AERA Special Interest Group on Critical Issues in Cultural and Curriculum Studies or, as abbreviated here the CIC&CS. Using the documentarian methods of the synoptic rendering, we contextualize and critique the CIC&CS’s activities drawing on frameworks that include 1960s inconformity and the coloniality of knowledge.

Perspective(s) or Theoretical Framework
Our frameworks include discussions of 1960s anarchic inconformity (e.g., Author 2, Huebner, 1976/1999) along with recent notions of the coloniality of knowledge (e.g., Paraskeva, 2016) to read and situate both the advancements of the reconceptualist curriculum field yet also critique reconceptualists for limits and errors in praxis. The language of anarchic inconformity helps articulate the intentions of reconceptualist scholars, and the coloniality of knowledge aides in analyzing the gifts and errors of working through discourses.

Methods, Techniques, or Modes of Inquiry
Working from the documentarian perspective of intellectual history (Author 2), we use the methodology of the synoptic rendering (Author 2, Pinar, 2006) in narrating the history of the CIC&CS within historical context. As part of this documentarian perspective, we reviewed and analyzed curriculum studies archival documents.

Data Sources, Evidence, Objects, or Materials
Our analyses focused on newsletters, program information, correspondence, and archival documents. As our analyses unfolded, we found it important to contextualize archival documents within notions of anarchic inconformity conditioned and critiqued through the coloniality of knowledge embodied in expanding discourses.

Findings
From our analyses of primary documents, we found that the reconceptualization of curriculum studies
1. Emerged in the CIC&CS and was never a coherent “movement” as purported in other recounting (e.g. Jackson, 1992; Pinar et al. 1995);
2. Moved quickly through competing paradigms or modes on inquiry still considered “new” or developing (race, class, gender, sexuality);
3. Provided “gifts” of critical and cultural relevance that are inscribed broadly in educational foundations but faltered in responding to 1960s inconformity’s broader failures.

Scholarly significance
Our synoptic rendering, which contextualized the reconceptualization within notions of 1960s anarchic inconformity and coloniality of knowledge, helps us better understand a field that Miller (2010) has aptly termed a community without consensus but also situates the US field within US-centered, Anglophone, and whitened histories.

References

Huebner, D. (1999). Curriculum: Its wake and our work. In Huebner, Hillis, & Pinar (Eds.), The lure of the transcendent (pp. 241-257). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Original work published 1976.)

Jackson, P. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of research on curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Miller, J. (2010). Response to Rubén A. Gatzambide Fernandez: Communities without consensus. In E. Malewski’s (Ed.), Curriculum studies handbook: The next moment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Paraskeva, J. M. (2016). Curriculum epsitemicide. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pinar, W. F. (2006). The synoptic text today and other essays. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Pinar, W. F.: Reynolds, W.; Slattery, P.; & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Authors

• James C. Jupp, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

• William (Bill) H. Schubert, University of Illinois at Chicago