Tensions between inclusion and change in worldview education: can Joe F. Kincheloe’s bricolage help teachers navigate them?

Figures & data

Figure 1. A tension model for WE. The two imperatives of inclusion and change, with their affiliated terms, pull in opposite directions. Pedagogical approaches to WE must heed both imperatives. In this paper, we investigate Joe L Kincheloe’s bricolage in light of these tensions.

Table 1. The table employed in the first part of analysis, one example of its use added.

Section	Page	Demarcating	Invitational	Excluding	Comments
‘My argument here is that we must operate in the ruins of the temple, in a postapocalyptic social, cultural, psychological, and educational science where certainty and stability have long departed for parts unknown’	179	x	x		Invitational towards anyone who accept this foundation, demarcating towards anyone who doesn’t.

Table 2. Invitational features of Kincheloe’s (2001, 2005b) conceptualizationconceptualisation conceptualisation of bricolage.

Inviting towards	Invitational terms/aspects
Difference and divergence in general	Cultivate difference Divergence as fruitful Fruitful conceptual collisions Sidestep liberal eclecticism
Disciplines and methods	Fundamental openness Employ and engage as many as possible
Traditional disciplines	Study positive features Usable, after critical engagement
Epistemologies of marginalised groups	Understanding Transcending
Foundational notions and perspectives	Knowledge is both discovered and constructed

Table 3. Excluding features of Kincheloe’s (2001, 2005b) contextualization contextualisation contextualisation of bricolage.

Excluding towards	Dismissive terms/aspects
Reductionism	Transcend Refuse Avoid
Set recipes for knowledge production	Escape limitations of Shackle human agency Emancipation from tyranny of Refuse Avoid Steer clear
Monological knowledge	Reduces human life Harms those with the least power Sidestep
Objectivism	Avoid
Pronouncements of final truths	Avoid
Determinism	Reject

Kincheloe, J. L. 2001. “Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 7 (6): 679–692. doi:10.1177/107780040100700601.

 Google Scholar

Kincheloe, J. L. 2005b. “On to the Next Level: Continuing the Conceptualization of the Bricolage.” Qualitative Inquiry 11 (3): 323–350. doi:10.1177/1077800405275056.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar