The Burdens of the New Curricularist

Abstract

A community of scholars in a field is renewed by its common history, its common basis of skills, and its examination of commonly held problems. The expression of commonality does not eliminate debate or disagreement, but it does set a foundation for divergences. This is what it means to be a field. But in recent years, a new critical element has emerged that has openly rejected the historic legacy of the curriculum field in the interest of proposing a vastly new project for curriculum scholars. The effect has been schism. I argue that a new orientation in the field cannot be accepted until it is properly reconciled along the lines of the inherited traditions of the field. These are the burdens of the new curricularists, the traditions that they manifestly reject without scholarly engagement. Increasingly, it is clear that the field has not undergone a reconceptualization at all, but instead has been subjected to ideologically inspired criticism that has resulted in miscasting the history and the tradition of the field for the purposes of appropriating it.

Curriculum as a Discourse: Using Critical Discourse Analysis to Revive Curriculum Reconceptualists' Thought

“…Although he brilliantly explained what he called "the four Rs" (Richness, Recursion, Relations and Rigor), Hok-chun (2002) argued that Doll's approach is ambiguous and not clear. Hlebowitsh (2004) put it clearly: "(reconceptualists) have to find a way to transcend their own proclivity toward criticism and protest, and frame a useful theory of conduct that could endure their own style of criticism" (p.269).…”

Bringing Curriculum Studies andPadägogikTogether

“…It has been declared no longer relevant to contemporary curriculum work (Hlebowitsh 1999). In the 1970s a reconceptualist movement was launched to reconstruct the curriculum field, with "understanding curriculum" as the primary focus of curriculum inquiry (see Pinar et al 1995).…”

Curriculum Development and Sustainable Development: practices, institutions and literacies

“…For example, the answer to the questions,`does marketisation of education serve educational purposes?' (Hlebowitsh, 1999a;Westbury, 1999) and`does marketisation (of just about anything) promote sustainable development?' is clearly, and firmly,`Yes' and`No' in both cases.…”

“…In a recent paper Hlebowitsh (1999a), after noting that some contemporary theorists have declared curriculum development dead, goes on to describe`a field now largely in schism' (Hlebowitsh, 1999a, p. 350). Westbury (1999, p. 355), in a direct response to Hlebowitsh, begins by agreeing that`the contemporary ª fieldº of curriculum studies has little, if any, coherence'.…”