At the Curriculum Studies Table

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Notes

1 Of course, it is also important to consider who is not at the table and what is not discussed at the table, and to appreciate the impact of these omissions on the understanding and advancement of curriculum studies. I leave this for readers to contemplate.

2 Hlebowitsh (2005a) has written the lead papers for two stimulating dialogues in earlier CI issues, one in 2005 (the last one published before this issue) on generational ideas in the history of curriculum studies (with responses from Ian Westbury [2005] and Handel Kashope Wright [2005] and a rejoinder by Hlebowitsh [2005b]) and the other in 1999 (1999a) on the challenges new curriculum scholars must address in their project of reconceptualization (with responses from Ian Westbury [1999] and William Pinar [1999] and a final comment from Hlebowitsh [1999b]).

3 The Curriculum Canon Project was proposed by William Pinar in March 2007 at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (AAACS). It represented a call to advance the field of curriculum studies through disciplinarity, with a specific focus on mapping the key texts that constitute the intellectual history of the field. A list of 32 texts were published on the AAACS Web site in February 2010. In 2008, AAACS also sponsored the State of Curriculum Studies Project. Under the direction of Madeleine Grumet, the project is a survey of course outlines and materials used in curriculum studies courses.

4 Malewski is the editor of a book entitled, Curriculum Studies Handbook: The Next Moment (2010a), a provocative collection of papers first presented at the 2006 Purdue conference, “Articulating (Present) Next Moments in Curriculum Studies: The Post‐Reconceptualization Generation(s).” For further comments on his notion of proliferation, see the “Preface,” introduction (“Introduction: Proliferating Curriculum”), and concluding essay (“The Unknown: A Way of Knowing in the future of Curriculum Studies”) (Malewski, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d) in this edited volume.

5 In the lead essay, Hlebowitsh argues that to deliberate about canons, we need to be like Schubert, that is work with the mind of a hedgehog and the heart of a fox. Later in the same essay, he accepts that “to be a hedgehog, one also has to be a fox.”

6 Malewski refers to Snaza’s (2010) “Thirteen Theses on the Question of State in Curriculum Studies” as “new openings” (p. 522) into the nature and direction of curriculum studies. In the Curriculum Studies Handbook: The Next Moment,Malewski (2010c, 2010d) also describes seven “through‐lines” which he sees as “new sensibilities in the field: (1) flux and change; (2) hybrid spaces; (3) reading differently; (4) divergent perspectives; (5) different contexts; (status questions; and understudied histories” (p. 536). In both cases, these openings and sensibilities are syntheses in the service of fostering further proliferation.

7 In his rejoinder, Hlebowitsh acknowledges Malewski’s claim that reconceptualist scholarship has addressed the challenges of schools and schooling. However, Hlebowitsh still sees that reconceptualist scholars could do more to generate “more heady insight on matters related to on‐the‐ground concerns in schools” (p. 528).

8 Kim may have a different perspective on how qualitative research is insinuated into the history of reconceptualized discourse comments. Qualitative studies seem to have a greater prominence in the reconceptualist tale in South Korea and includes a wider range of research traditions, as illustrated in the references to various forms of ethnography and to narrative inquiry.