The Matrix of Privilege: Transformative Curriculum in Context

English Version

We are often challenged to design curriculum that activates new knowledge in ways that might transform society. Yet, the availability of resources, coupled with institutional dynamics, can make curricular decisions toward this end difficult. Designing curriculum is, therefore, a highly politicized act that is not without its consequences. As Mazzei (2004) observed, such pursuits are especially problematic when we pursue knowledge differently from the status quo. In creating new visions for transformation, professors face an often overwhelming and difficult task when responding to issues of what is worthwhile to know and how best to present this knowledge. Do we support prevailing tenets, retain expected norms? Or, do we pursue academic freedom and have the courage to challenge views even when we know they counter those of others in the setting? Do we dare challenge students our colleagues even—to question their reality, to suspend the status quo in order to see their role in the maintenance of knowledge construction? Do we dare re-think, re-imagine all that we thought we knew, to go beyond the conventional wisdom of our peers?

While new approaches to curriculum can yield positive results, choosing this path can be a risky venture with far-reaching implications for both students and faculty involved. The process seems especially dangerous for new and untenured faculty who are often politically vulnerable within their new professorial roles. For example, the decision to pursue pedagogy that may be viewed by some as unorthodox in its design and/or presentation may create animosity among students, as well as peers, and result in institutional pressure to abandon such ideas. Underlying this dynamic are competing philosophies among those involved regarding what is worthwhile to know and possible legacy traditions regarding what it means to be a professor. The legitimacy of knowledge construction is therefore called into question and is a central concern when considering the redesign of curriculum. It seems critical to contemplate possible value clashes and opposing definitions for the meaning of success.

The ideas that personal concepts and generalizations influence curriculum and that success can be defined from a variety of perspectives are not new. Curricular and instructional decisions can (and often do) yield unexpected results, especially when they counter those of people in positions of power and authority. For some faculty, these results can do irrevocable harm, especially to their professional careers, making it difficult to retain jobs and acquire the cultural capital needed for long-term success (Wright & Dinkha, 2002). For example, negative reaction from both students and colleagues often seems to increase in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration when professors are of color and female (Carriuolo, 2003; Turner, 2002; Wright & Dinkha, 2002; Gregory, 2001). Given this, the curricular question becomes: Do we dare teach differently as women and professors of color within a high stakes, politicized environment that does not understand our pedagogical or scholarly concerns?

Journals for full download on the link below
<--- Download