Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1177/1532708603251809
Mirón • Cultural
Cultural Studies ↔
Images of Public
Critical Schooling • May 2003
Methodologies ARTICLE
203
schooling, in short, coming to terms with why these images are hegemonic,
may be an analytical key to more fully open the doors of what I would describe
as an emerging plurality in educational research. This is as it should be in a
democratic scholarly culture.
More ambitiously, this understanding may in a limited fashion disrupt the
power-knowledge relation, what Michel Foucault (1979) richly captured as a
“knot” (p. 27). Such an understanding ultimately points the way toward the
primacy of the aesthetic in educational research. What will hopefully result is a
move away from an understanding of the educational subject as object or subal-
tern (marginalized) subject (see below).
It appears that as a pluralistic society, we are inescapably bombarded with
multiple cultural images. These predominate in the mass media, the Internet,
and communications in general. Out of these appear to emerge what I call
“hegemonic images” that substantially affect public schooling and the myriad
of societal perceptions of academic success or failure. Especially in the arena of
public schooling, the responses to these cultural images from both elite groups
as well as classroom-level educators and students are of significance to research-
ers for their interpretive political meanings.
It is important to recognize that by no means do these hegemonic images
remain unchallenged. They are “scattered hegemonies” (Grewal & Kaplan, as
cited in Mahler, 1999). For example, the discourse of academic performance
theorized below has undergone serious challenge by both upper-middle-class
parents in Long Island as well as ethnic minority students and their families in
east Los Angeles. This hegemonic image is inextricably tied to the articulatory
practices of the establishment of state educational standards, standards-based
school reform, and “high stakes testing.” Following Appadurai (1997), perfor-
mance cultural images and discourses are prime examples of what we might
characterize as “representational hybridity.” As I will attempt to explain in
detail, such complexity has profound implications for research and of course
for the signification of hegemonic cultural images and the capacity to resist
them. Michael Peter Smith (2001) defined (cultural) hybridity—and the
capacity for political resistance—as the “recombinant possibilities of contem-
porary life” (p. 137; also see Marcus & Fischer, 1986, p. 122).
These cultural images emanate outside of public schooling. On a more
abstract level, these shifts in research paradigms signal an emerging
epistemological acceptance in the educational research community toward
multiple changing social realities of postmodernity (see definition below)
(Harvey, 1989). Perhaps the single best illustration of these conditions is the
mediating effects of communication technologies on educational research.
This movement in educational research toward postmodernity is still in transi-
tion and, as I argue in the third and final section of this article, optimally
should culminate in public schools and classrooms in Arnstine’s (1995) notion
of the “primacy of the aesthetic.”
The purpose of this article is to explore the dialectical, that is, interactive
relationships between the cultural images of public schooling and the research
traditions in the academy. The article is organized into three parts. Part 1 of this
article examines the hegemonic images of public schooling, especially in inner
cities. In Part 2, I argue that there is an emerging plurality in educational
research, a plurality that is symbolized by commonsense images, primarily
emanating from institutions. Finally in Part 3, I outline possible uses of aes-
thetics in public schools.
In numerous writings, Stuart Hall (1986, 1996, 1997) has argued that lan-
guage is the central medium through which meaning is produced, communi-
Generally speaking, the meaning of aesthetics has taken two distinct epi-
stemic paths. On one hand, it refers to the rather fixed interpretation of works
of art as objet d’art, that is, as inherently possessing universal value more or less
independent of interactions with the human subject (see Biesta, 1999). Viewed
from this perspective, aesthetics is not concerned with action; therefore, it is
not embedded in discourse practices (see Hall, 1997). Rather, aesthetics is an
ideology inextricably bound to art objects, which as Terry Eagleton (1990)
observed, “become commodities in the market place (that) exist for nothing
and nobody in particular, and can consequently be rationalized, ideologically
speaking, as existing entirely and gloriously for themselves” (p. 9). Here, aes-
thetics is not a cultural practice that both produces shared meaning and enacts
material consequences for the Other (see below). Rather, aesthetics is repre-
sented in objects that have a totalizing, that is, universal, meaning usually
restricted to the fine arts.
Thinking Modern
power, often upper-middle-class male and White, that comes to the rescue of
the ailing Other.
The modern cultural images are closely linked; the dynamics between them
effectively blur their demarcations. Discourses that emerge during the deploy-
ment of the medical image are illness and disease (“the school system is sick”).
The medical image functions like treatments in a hospital. The “patient” (the
student or public school system) is perceived as part of a biological system
whereby the architects of the system (elites and activist citizens) seek to achieve
continuous, and stable, homeostasis and apparently avoid disequilibrium at all
cost (see Martin, 1990). When applied to inner-city schools in particular, this
functional system is held as being in a chronic state of degenerative illness. The
biological system (like its engineering counterpart, below) is ill beyond organi-
zational surgery. Interestingly, the medical image operates discursively in clini-
cal terms; that is, the language used connotes a technical medical problem
(acute or chronic illness)—one that must be remedied by treatment. More
experimental portrayals of this cultural image that would spurn innovation in
public schooling are shunted for more immediately solvable “treatments.”
These convey the idea of “quick fixes.”
In this regard, medical images work in conjunction with engineering ones
(see below). I would prefer importing scientific experimental methods and the
sense of improvisation and innovation characteristic of the scientific method
rather than view educational illness as an evil to be eradicated like a violation of
nature. Put simply, viewing the school system as sick leaves little room for trial
and error. The consequence of a medical mode of thinking—given that an edu-
cational disease is merely metaphorical—is an abiding sense of crisis (Mirón,
1996).
Parallel to the medical image of public schooling is the engineering image,
in particular civil engineering, the profession of building bridges and the like.
Civil engineering images appear to resonate with the culture of North America.
Like the current call to save or fix social security in time for the retirement years
of the baby boomers, both education bureaucrats and politicians understand-
ably desire to “fix” failing schools. The assumption is that when the schools are
finally fixed (or cured, as in the medical image), the process is completed.
Rarely entertained is the notion that the work of school improvement is never
over. It is a continuous process. Finally, an unintended consequence of this
mode of thinking is the social reproduction of public schooling and other
forms of social inequalities in the inner city and in rural communities. It is rare
to learn of a failing school in the suburbs in need of engineering redesign, cer-
tainly not the affluent ones.
Closely linked to the civil engineering image is the industrial/business one.
Perhaps the most widely used of the cultural images emanating from moder-
nity, it is most embedded in capitalists’ social relations. The concern is with the
education “product.” Mirroring the growth in the global economy and in the
stock market, the focus is on the production of statistical gains from high-
performing schools. Those that fail to achieve at high levels or, worse, academi-
cally fail altogether are punished. This form of accountability is evident in Pres-
ident Clinton’s reform proposal to end federal funding to states that do not
improve failing schools and more recently in California Governor Gray Davis’s
educational reform initiative to rank order public schools from highest per-
forming to the worst performing school in the state.4
My last modern hegemonic image in public schooling is familiar to many
parents of athletes in the research community. This is the athletic image. The
assumption is that the education “race” is a zero-sum sport contest. That is,
there are clear winners and losers. Of course, in every zero-sum game the win-
ners come at the expense of the losers. As pointed out in the description of the
industrial/business image above, society rewards performance. There are no
rewards for failures. Collaboration, here the idea that gains can be made when
learning is mutual, tends to get lost. On the other hand, a more optimistic con-
ception of the education problem as an athletic contest potentially allows for
the setting of high academic standards.
Modern cultural images appear to implicitly wield a functional systems
approach. For example, the medical image embraces a biological system, the
civil engineering a mechanical system, and the athletic image a Darwinian
system of survival of the fittest. School reform efforts aimed at “fixing” the
broken system, for example within the image of medicine, apparently uni-
formly impose one model of reform on all schools, regardless of socioeco-
nomic structures, organizational dynamics, or levels of parental and commu-
nity involvement.
Transitional Postmodernity
and families perceive that access is unattainable. Within the family image,
the gamut of student needs is provided for—physical, emotional, social,
and academic. 6
In addition to the family, students’ individual needs can also be met in com-
munity. This leads to my last transitional postmodern image. Collaborative
learning models, for example, peer tutoring, can flourish. Respect and trust, in
addition to caretaking, are the social foci. The social relations embedded in the
contexts of the enterprise of public schooling are the analytical unit, the poten-
tial focus of research if you will. Thus, mutuality defines the quality of experi-
ence of schooling, and learning may be considered a potential by-product of
pragmatic collaboration between student and teacher, what Biesta (1994; see
also Maxcy, 1991, 1995) conceptualized philosophically as “practical
intersubjectivity.”
In summary, what primarily distinguishes a modern from a transitional
postmodern orientation in public schooling as expressed through the use of
cultural images is the concern of the former with the multiple problems of
teaching and learning—outcomes, organizational functionality and commodi-
fication, and the manner in which the learner is represented and the meaning of
learning is defined (Hall, 1997, pp. 1-13)—as product and educational perfor-
mance. By contrast, transitional postmodern images recall the human dimen-
sion, the learner himself or herself, whether encapsulated in psychological pro-
cesses or social relations. The focus is on the human subject and practical
intersubjectivity (Biesta, 1994), although paradoxically the subject is con-
ceived as “Other.” In the following sections, I extend the transitional
postmodern image of public schooling and its emphasis on understanding
schooling as a human enterprise into the realm of aesthetics. Before doing so, I
need to analyze the consequences of modern and transitional postmodern
images of public schooling.
Ultimately, the community image may hold the most promise in the transi-
tional postmodern camp, but students still lack voice and power. The sense of
community is what’s missing in contemporary society. Information technology
has significantly reduced the need for face-to-face interaction (see Poster,
1990). True, a sense of place and shared values that mark the experience of com-
munity are systematically being infused into schools through parent and com-
munity involvement (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
1998; California Department of Education, 1999; also see University of Cali-
fornia, Irvine, 1999). Parents and community members still hold the balance
of power. Students are seen as “rescued” or “saved” by community and business
partnerships (see Popkewitz, 1999; also Baum, 1997, personal communica-
tion, July 1999; Epstein, 1993). This move toward parental and community
empowerment is understandably appealing in that unequal power relations
may seem more balanced in favor of families and residents, but ironically, stu-
dents are frequently cast as the “Other” in public schools (Mirón et al., 2000).
Transitional postmodern images begin to more appropriately refocus9 our
scholarly and practical attention to human beings and human agency; to the
persons that are the hallmark of schooling and education, or at least should be;
as well as to the concrete differences these subjects make in the everyday lives of
public school students. Educational subjects, for example, superintendents
and building principals, can take action. However, these actions are not
“things” that lead to better products. They are, rather, discursive practices or
communicative actions (Habermas, 1970). As such, school-level actions
(reforms) are embedded in social relations marked by multiple discursive
spaces and subject positions (see Mouffe, 1988). Primary among these are the
interactions with students.
School agents can act. This is so because the subject who acts on educational
alternatives (see Hays, 1994) is historically contingent, that is, constituted in
language and forever reconstituted in discourse practices and social relations of
power (Butler, 1993). Objects are thus potentially recast as subjects in public
schooling. The hegemonic images of public schooling and corresponding edu-
cational research, thus, may reflect a larger historical-theoretical trajectory,
which ranges from viewing the student as an object in modernity to a consti-
tuted (yet marginalized) subject in transitional postmodernity. In Part 2, I pro-
vide the social and historical-theoretical contexts that give us insights into an
emerging plurality in educational research.
In 1998, Elliot Eisner laid out the parameters of what I am arguing in this
article as an emerging plurality in educational research.10 Eisner didn’t specify
any field within the generic category of educational research. Rather, his call
embraced, perhaps unintentionally, a transitional postmodern orientation,
that there is a necessary logical [italics added] connection, and not merely a con-
tingent or causal one, between the “social perspective” of a student of human
affairs and his standards of competent social inquiry, and in consequence the
influence of the special values to which he is committed. (p. 498)
Looking around some of these inner-city schools, where filth and disrepair were
worse than anything I’d seen in 1964, I often wondered why we would agree to let
our children go to school in places where no politician, school board president,
or business CEO would dream of working. (p. 5)
Aesthetic Teaching
The goals for the teacher within this framework are to create in the class-
room a climate that fosters high-quality learning experiences. In the following
passage, Arnstine (1995) illustrated this climate by providing specific dimen-
sions of aesthetic teaching, including engaging high-quality reflection, elimi-
nating routine activities, and allowing students a measure of social control over
their own learning. Arnstine’s statement is worth repeating at length.
When an experience is high in quality and also [italics added] involves thought, it
is aesthetic in quality. Teachers must focus on the elimination of routine activi-
ties [busy work] that go a long way toward maintaining control over students’
behaviors, but have the unintended effect of disengaging them from instruction
and therefore probably from learning as well. The overall purpose of developing
a classroom climate that embraces the primacy of the aesthetic is to treat our stu-
dents as active individuals, responsive to their social group yet growing in power
to make discriminating judgments. For this growth to occur, they need to act
thoughtfully in ways that are characteristics of experience when it’s aesthetic.
(pp. 69-70)
This climate set by the classroom teacher will in turn result in the learning of
“dispositions” (customs and affectations) (see Eagleton, 1990, pp. 13-31)
toward the acquisition of the practice of reflection. The underlying theoretical
and practical assumption is that of the community image, which contains the
idea of mutual respect and trust. In contexts such as inner-city schools, this
goal may be unreachable without deliberate attention to fostering such a
climate.
What produces thoughtful engagement reminiscent of the arts is the
teacher’s ability to foster confrontation in the student. Following Derrida
(1992), by confrontation I mean the emotionally violent collision with the
unexpected or, as Arnstine noted, “a discrepancy.” This involves the resolution
between what the student expected to learn based on prior experiences and
information and what is actually true based on empirical evidence or logic. For
example, the idea that Latino parents actually may want to participate as active
parents with their teachers in the learning process may come as somewhat of a
surprise to many Anglo students in teacher education courses, who cite empiri-
cal research that finds that such parents seemingly do not value education.
What students actually “do” with the discrepancy—how they do or do not
resolve it—is the intellectual labor of becoming a student and ultimately
becoming educated. This work is a process of practical intersubjectivity, which
Biesta (1994) has conceptualized as the practical-pragmatic interactive process
between teachers and students in the classroom.
An example from a second-grade classroom in Boston should make the pro-
cess clearer. Darby and Catterall’s (1994) lengthy illustration is worth noting:
used the book to give her visual clues on how to make a swan. I wish I had video-
taped Lanika making that swan, though I doubt I will ever forget it! I had never
seen her so focused. (p. 302)
This example vividly highlights the core of aesthetic teaching, which Arnstine
(1995, p. 73) argued provides students with a sense of sustained curiosity. It
concretely illustrates the artistry of teaching as performance (see Sarason,
1999). Here, teaching helps move this classroom into an aesthetic mold. How-
ever, the organizational context appears to be cast in functionalists terms, that
is, as “systems of reason” generally and “populational reasoning” in particular
(Popkewitz, 1998b). The effects of power appear to reproduce exclusionary
practices. What does this mean? Put simply, the classroom practice appears to
lack a “politics of the [aesthetic] performative” (Phelan, 1993) in that the hier-
archical discourses (see above) representing the identity of the students are cast
as Other (“special” education kids). But the procedural steps seem at least
pointed in the right direction.
Quality Learning
Concluding Observations
In this article, I have juggled back and forth between modernity and
postmodernity, attempting to strike a balance between them. For example, I
used the constructivist image in Part 1 and the embodied learning image in Part
3 to illustrate that transitional postmodern images of public schooling can,
almost fluidly, merge with aesthetic ones. I have shown that though related to
modern psychological views of enhancing self-esteem, academic confidence is
not primarily about instilling positive emotions. Above all, confidence con-
cerns the feedback students derive when they are academically successful. This
position recalls the language of modernity yet extends well beyond the perspec-
tive that learning is a commodified object. Educational researchers can more
fully capture the full range of care for students—emotional, social, safety, and
academic—by invoking an aesthetic image of public schooling. This cultural
image would juxtapose the family image alongside that of embodied learning.
Thus, the research community may realize gains for research and practice in
core areas of schooling: teaching, learning, and leading. These gains would be
more difficult to achieve with monolithic research designs that tend to be
devoid of an aesthetic conception of schooling.
What are the gains for research and practice with an aesthetic conception?
These can be conceptualized by recalling the definition of the aesthetic image
advanced above. In general terms, we can now understand the qualitative, mul-
tiple expressions of the meaning of teaching, learning, and leading for educa-
tional actors that result from the invocation of modern and postmodern
images. For example, in addition to realizing the qualitative interpretation that
the schools provide a context for meaning, we also know that the expressions of
this meaning (and underlying values) at times can be made only through artis-
tic representation (arts-based research) (see Mirón et al., 2000). Furthermore,
we can hypothesize that the discursive processes themselves carry material
effects of power (unintended consequences). Moreover, by recognizing that the
methodological move toward plurality is transitional, the largely dysfunctional
debate over which epistemology is “best” can be avoided. Practitioners benefit
because attention to action is foregrounded when the performative dimension
of aesthetics is invoked and the language employed to select and define the
research “problem” produces practical alternatives to problem resolution.
The following new kinds of research questions emerge when paradigms are
multiple and a conception of the aesthetic is employed. These can be grouped
around the following categories: normative, political, and performative ques-
tions. For example, what moral values underpin the identification of school-
level problems and the school administrator’s resolution of these (see Mirón
et al., 2000; Noblit & Dempsey, 1996)? Who controls access to legitimate
knowledge (Apple, 1993), and what is the technology that certifies acquisition
of such knowledge (see Constas, 1998)? What discourse practices are accessible
to school leaders in the pursuit of morality and virtue in the school (see Oakes,
Quartz, Ryan, & Lipton, 2000)? In what sense do these discourse practices
carry material effect, that is, constitute a lived social epistemology? Finally,
how does the societal reliance on graphic and cultural images of public school-
ing shape reform movements such as standards-based reform? How does the
enactment of school-based reform socially reproduce the status quo in schools
(see Oakes et al., 2000)? As researchers address these questions, the aesthetic
cultural image may become an intellectual vehicle to help bring the student as
person into the theoretical and practical foreground.
Notes
References
California Department of Education. (1999). Joining hands: Preparing teachers to make mean-
ingful home-school connections. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Capper, C. (Ed.). (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Capper, C. (1998). Critically oriented and postmodern perspectives: Sorting out differences
and applications for practice. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 34(3), 354-379.
Capper, C. (1999). (Homo)sexualities, organizations and administration: Possibilities for
in(queery). Educational Researcher, 28(5), 4-12.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 1: The rise of
the network society. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1999). The information city is a dual city: Can it be reversed? In D. A. Schön,
B. Sanyal, & W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low income communities. Boston:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Catterall, J. S. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Art Educa-
tion, 51(4), 6-11.
Constas, M. (1998). Deciphering postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher,
27(9), 36-42.
Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (Eds.). (2000). Advances in research and theories in school man-
agement and educational policy (Vol. 5). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Crue, C. A. (2000). Resisting a narrative: Deconstructing the lamanite: A performance text.
Cultural Studies: A Research Annual, 5, 47-57.
Darby, J. T., & Catterall, J. S. (1994). The fourth R: The arts and learning. Teachers College
Record, 96(2), 300-328.
Derrida, J. (1992). Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority.” In D. Cornell, M.
Rosenfeld, & D. Carlson (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice. New York:
Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch.
Eagleton, T. (1990). The ideology of the aesthetic. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Easthope, A. (1991). Literary into cultural studies. London: Routledge.
Eisner, E. (1998). “The vision thing”: Educational research and AERA in the 21st century—
Part 5: A vision for educational research and AERA in the 21st century. Educational
Researcher, 27(9), 34.
Epstein, J. L. (1993). A response to (ap)parent involvement. Teachers College Record, 94(4),
710-717.
Foucault, M. (1979). Power truth strategy. Sydney, Australia: Feral Publications.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ginsberg, R. (1997). Complexity science at the schoolhouse gate? Complexity, 2, 9-13.
Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
versity Press.
Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: Redrawing educational
boundaries. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Giroux, H. (1993). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York:
Routledge Kegan Paul.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative action. Inquiry, 13, 205-218.
Hall, S. (1986). The problem of ideology—Marxism without guarantees. Journal of Commu-
nication Inquiry, 10, 28-43.
Hall, S. (1996). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert,
& K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 184-227).
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural repre-
sentations and signifying practices (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1983). Instructional leadership and school socio-economic sta-
tus: A preliminary investigation. Administrator’s Notebook, 3(5), 1-4.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Characteristics of highly effective elementary school
reading programs. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 39-42.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Haskins, C. (1999). Review article. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18(4), 287-297.
Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory,
12(1), 57-72.
Hefland, D., Alexander, K., & Sahagun, L. (1999, July 25). How 3 schools raised test scores
sharply. Los Angeles Times (Orange County edition), p. A30.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester, UK: Man-
chester University Press.
Mahler, S. J. (1999). Theoretical and empirical contributions toward a research agenda for
transnationalism. In M. P. Smith & L. E. Guarnizo (Eds.), Transnationalism from below.
Comparative urban & community research (Vol. 6, pp. 64-103). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishing.
Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental
moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martin, E. (1990). Toward an anthropology of immunology: The body as nation state. Medi-
cal Anthropology Quarterly, 4(4), 410-426.
Maxcy, S. J. (1991). Educational leadership: A critical pragmatic perspective. New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Maxcy, S. J. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school order. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
McCarthy, C., & Crichlow, W. (Eds.). (1993). Race, identity, and representation in education.
New York: Routledge.
Meyer, J., & Jepperson, R. (2000). The “actors” of modern society: The cultural construction
of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 100-120.
Mirón, L. F. (1992). Corporate ideology and the politics of entrepreneurism in New Orleans.
Antipode, 24(4), 263-283.
Mirón, L. F. (1995). Pushing the boundaries of urban school reform: Linking student out-
comes to community development. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 1(1), 98-114.
Mirón, L. F. (1996). The social construction of urban schooling. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Mirón, L. F. (1997). Resisting discrimination: Affirmative strategies for principals and teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mirón, L. F., Biesta, G., & Bogotch, I. (1999, April). Moral-ethical leadership as everyday prac-
tice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, Montreal, Canada.
Mirón, L. F., Bogotch, I., & Biesta, G. (2000). In pursuit of the good life: High school stu-
dents’ constructions of morality and the implications of educational leadership. Cultural
Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 1(4), 490-516.
Mirón, L. F., & Inda, J. (2000). Race as a kind of speech act. Cultural Studies: A Research
Annual, 5(8), 83-105.
Mirón, L. F., & Lauria, M. (1998). Student voice as agency: Resistance and accommodation
in inner city schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 189-213.
Mirón, L. F., & St. John, E. P. (Eds.). (2003). Reinterpreting urban school reform: Have urban
schools failed or has reform failed urban schools? Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mouffe, C. (1988). Hegemony and new political subjects: Toward a new concept of
democracy. In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of cul-
ture (pp. 89-104). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. India-
napolis, IN: Hackett.
Nicholson, L., & Seidman, S. (Eds.). (1995). Social postmodernism: Beyond identity politics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Noblit, G. W., & Dempsey, V. O. (1996). The social construction of virtue: The moral life in
schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Nussbaum, N. (1990). Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools:
The struggle for civic virtue in educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Parsons, T. (1977). The evolution of societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Phelan, P. (1993). Unmarked: The politics of performance. London: Routledge.
Popkewitz, T. (1998a). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the social administration of the individual:
Constructivist pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(4), 535-570.
Popkewitz, T. (1998b). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of
the teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Popkewitz, T. (1999). Educational research as the production of memory/forgetting: Ethnogra-
phy and the politics of knowledge. Paper presented at “Reclaiming Voice II: Ethnographic
Inquiry and Qualitative Research in a Postmodern Age,” University of California, Irvine.
Poster, M. (1989). Critical theory and poststructuralism: In search of a context. Ithaca, NY: Cor-
nell University Press.
Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Poster, M. (1997). Cultural history & postmodernity: Disciplinary readings and challenges. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Poulantzas, N. (1969). The problem of the capitalist state. New Left Review, 59, 53-59.
Poulantzas, N. (1978). Classes in contemporary capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Sarason, S. B. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, M. P. (2001). Transnational urbanism: Locating globalization. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leader-
ship. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.
Starratt, R. J. (1993). The drama of leadership. London: Falmer.
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools.
London: Falmer.
Stone, L. (1999). Educational reform through an ethic of performativity: Introducing the
special issue. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 299-307.
Torres, R., & Mirón, L. F. (2000). Joint ventures between cities and schools: Implications for
community development. In R. Crowson & W. Boyd (Eds.), Advances in research and the-
ories in school management and educational policy (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Torres, R., Mirón, L. F., & Inda, J. (Eds.). (1999). Race, identity, and citizenship: A reader.
London: Basil Blackwell.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
University of California, Irvine. (1999). After school learning and safe neighborhood partner-
ships. Irvine: University of California Department of Education. Available from
www.gse.uci.edu/afterschool/ca
Weiner, L. (1999). Urban teaching: The essentials. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wimpelberg, R. K., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and
future of effective schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(1), 82-107.
Sydnor, S. (2012). Cultural Anthropology of the Penn State Tragedy. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 12 (4),
333-341.
In the article above, on page 335, the copyright permission information under two cartoons was published incorrectly.
1) Note. ROB ROGERS © 2011 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Reprinted by permission of Universal Uclick for UFS.
All rights reserved.
And
2) Note. From “Fishing With Darwin,” by Barry Boggs, Jr. Retrieved from http://www.fishingwithdarwin.com/
comic/penn-state/. Copyright © 2011 by Barry Boggs, Jr. Reprinted with permission.