Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:12 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
03 SES 02 A: Powerful Knowledge, Curriculum Theory and Knowledge Selection
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper Review of Critique of Powerful Knowledge: Making Essential Remarks or Missing the Point? University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:Since its inception around 2007, the concept of powerful knowledge has received both keen interest and harsh criticism. During the last decade, the concept has been influential particularly in the sociology of education, curriculum studies, and lately in subject didactics (see Muller, 2025). A central aim of powerful knowledge has been to emphasize the role of knowledge in education. According to Young and Muller (2016), if it is possible to differentiate better knowledge from worse, it is just that all young people have access to the best possible, reliable knowledge, usually produced by scientific disciplines. Powerful knowledge has been an attempt to describe what kind of powers all young people can gain when they have access to specialized disciplinary knowledge. The concept of powerful knowledge has evolved in the Anglophone context but has become influential in the recent years also around Europe, especially in the Nordic countries. It stems from social realist theoretical framework (e.g. McPhail et al., 2025; Wheelahan, 2010; Young, 2008), which draws from social constructivist theories but challenges the relativist conceptions of knowledge inherent in some of its variations. Social realism continues the work of British socio-linguist Basil Bernstein (2000). The essential question is how the society is reproduced through educational institutions, and more specifically, how disciplinary knowledge is transformed to curricular knowledge and how that process is regulated. Powerful knowledge aims to show, how socialisation to the disciplinary cultures can provide tools for the young generations to reproduce the society with alternative directions. Therefore, in addition to analysing what kind of power relations influence the regulation of curriculum making, powerful knowledge underlines the powers young people can gain through the stories curricula are telling. This presentation conducts an integrative literature review of the critique of powerful knowledge (Torraco, 2016). It identifies different kinds of critiques and aims to distinguish essential remarks from critiques that go off target or can be responded to with the idea of powerful knowledge itself. It is hoped that some unnecessary contradictions could be dismantled, and crucial points could be taken seriously when the theory building and empirical research applying the concept of powerful knowledge is conducted in the future. The concept of powerful knowledge was first used in a publication be Leesa Wheelahan (2007). At the same time, Michael Young was developing the concept (Young, 2021), and has refined it further on especially with his colleague Johan Muller (e.g. Muller & Young, 2019). Some of the critics of the concept include Young himself (Duoblys, 2022), who has acknowledged powerful knowledge more as a slogan than a scientific concept. Other critiques include the claim that powerful knowledge has its focus on knowledge itself, thus missing the questions of the purpose of education. It has been accused of ambiguous theorization. The concept has been criticized for both being overly political and for neglecting the political, especially the colonial nature of knowledge. It has been interpreted as a return to old-school pedagogical practices, reducing the task of schooling to the transmission of knowledge. Further, powerful knowledge has been criticized for overlooking other knowledge than scientific knowledge, including young people’s experiences and knowledge in the arts and humanities. These and other critiques will be analysed in the presentation. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs integrative literature review as its method (Torraco, 2016). The purpose of such a review study is to build an overview of the literature, which helps to navigate scholarly discourse and create shared meanings. Many of the pitfalls in the discussion arise from researchers understanding concepts differently, which makes it difficult for the discussion to progress. Therefore, the review aims to clarify the meaning of the concept of powerful knowledge, so that scholarly disputes do not arise merely from linguistic confusion (Wittgenstein, 1958). A systematic review builds a synthesis of the research literature, which enables a critical examination of the material and the formulation of new research questions. The first task of the review is to understand and categorize the critique of powerful knowledge. That is done through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, individual critique points are captured, then the points are arranged to the form of a thematic map that condenses the points of critique into major categories. In addition to integrating the perspectives found in the literature into an understandable whole, the idea of integrative literature review is to discuss with the literature theoretically (Torraco, 2016). The review is also evaluating the critique presented. The review examines whether the critique presented is valid, and what kind of further attention is especially needed. The aim is to distinguish well grounded criticism from critique that is rather based on misunderstandings or narrow conceptions of powerful knowledge. The research material consists of approximately 50 journal articles or book chapters published in English, which are explicitly critical of powerful knowledge. The papers published mostly in academic publications, but some in other magazines, date from 2008 up to the present. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The literature review produced four major categories of critique of powerful knowledge: 1) conceptual distinctions, 2) scholarly deficiencies, 3) overemphasis of disciplines, and 4) politics and power. Conceptual distinctions refer to dualisms that powerful knowledge relies on that many scholars find problematic. The dualisms include one between epistemology and ontology, everyday knowledge and disciplinary knowledge, curriculum and pedagogy, skills and knowledge, and between disciplines and school subjects. Scholarly deficiencies mean, first, that the critique Young and Muller do not interpret other theories correctly. These theories include pragmatism, the standpoint theories, the practice-based theories, and Vygotsky’s psychology. Second, a common critique seems to be that it is not clear what powerful knowledge actually means. Overemphasis of disciplines means that many critics think that powerful knowledge steers the focus too much on academic knowledge, which is seen as valuable in itself. More specifically, the critics think that the excessive focus on disciplines make powerful knowledge useful when analysing science education, but much less when applied to other fields such as arts and humanities. Overall, the focus on disciplines has caused powerful knowledge theorists to overlook the purpose of education. The fourth major category, politics and power, points in multiple directions. It has been blamed for being rather a “sexy sounding phrase” than an academic concept (Brown & White, 2012). Therefore, powerful knowledge has been seen more as a policy concept than a systematic theory of education. As powerful knowledge emphasises the need of specialised knowledge, school subjects are one entity whose interests the concept seeks to promote, although some critics point out that specialisation does not necessarily lead to the truthfulness of knowledge. The traditional organisation of school subjects reflects also the traditionalism inherent in the concept. For some critics this also means maintaining colonialism that reflects mainly the British values. References Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Brown, M., & White, J. (2012). An Unstable Framework – Critical perspectives on the Framework for the National Curriculum. The Expert Panel for the National Curriculum Review. Duoblys, G. (2022). Michael Young: What we’ve got wrong about knowledge and curriculum. TES. https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/michael-young-powerful-knowledge-curriculum McPhail, G., Pountney, R., & Wheelahan, L. (Eds.). (2025). Emerging Perspectives from Social Realism on Knowledge and Education: Curricula, Pedagogy, Identity, and Equity. Routledge. Muller, J. (2025). The palimpsests of knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 57(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2397981 Muller, J., & Young, M. F. D. (2019). Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited. Curriculum Journal, 30(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292 Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606 Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency-based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701505540 Wheelahan, L. (2010). Why Knowledge Matters in Curriculum: A Social Realist Argument. Routledge. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe (Trans.); 2nd ed.). Basil Blackwell. Young, M. F. D. (2008). Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Routledge. Young, M. F. D. (2021). Powerful knowledge or the powers of knowledge: A dialogue with history educators. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Knowing History in Schools: Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge (pp. 234–259). UCL Press. Young, M. F. D., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge: Studies in the sociology of education. Routledge. 03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper Resilience of Educational Knowledge in Times of Crisis: Computer Science Teaching as a Case of Curriculum Knowledge Selection Nazarbayev Intellectual school, Karaganda, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Background and Rationale Across contemporary education systems, conditions of crisis and uncertainty - ranging from technological transformation and global instability to shifting labour and knowledge landscapes - have become increasingly salient. Within educational discourse, the concept of resilience has gained prominence and is most often framed as the capacity of systems, institutions, or individuals to adapt to change. Far less analytical attention, however, has been directed towards the resilience of educational knowledge itself. Curriculum constitutes a central mechanism through which educational knowledge is selected, legitimised, and transmitted. Prior to any assessment-related decisions, curriculum structures determine which forms of knowledge are made available for teaching and learning and which are rendered peripheral or excluded. Under conditions of crisis, curriculum decision-making becomes particularly consequential, as education systems are required to negotiate tensions between continuity and change, stability and responsiveness, and tradition and innovation. Methodologically, this paper approaches curriculum not as a static artefact or neutral container of content, but as a dynamic and contested space of knowledge negotiation. From this perspective, resilience is not understood as the preservation of fixed content elements, but as an emergent property of curriculum processes through which knowledge is selected, prioritised, framed, and justified over time. Computer Science teaching provides a productive analytical case for examining these processes. As a rapidly evolving subject area, Computer Science is characterised by unstable knowledge domains, frequent curriculum revisions, and close entanglements with digital technologies and societal change. These characteristics render visible the tensions that shape curriculum knowledge selection, particularly in contexts marked by uncertainty. In this paper, Computer Science teaching is examined not as pedagogical practice, but as a curriculum site in which educational knowledge is stabilised, reconfigured, or displaced prior to assessment. Objective The objective of this paper is to analyse how educational knowledge is selected, stabilised, and reconfigured through curriculum discourses and justificatory narratives in Computer Science education under conditions of crisis. Resilience is conceptualised as a property of curriculum knowledge rather than as a pedagogical or assessment-related attribute. Research Questions The paper addresses the following research questions:
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework The paper is grounded in curriculum theory that conceptualises curriculum as a socially and historically situated process of knowledge selection and legitimation. Within this framework, resilience is understood as the capacity of curriculum knowledge to endure, adapt, or transform in response to crisis. Rather than functioning as a normative demand placed on teachers or learners, resilience is analysed as a curriculum logic that structures how educational knowledge is framed, justified, and sustained over time. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used he study adopts a conceptual-theoretical methodology situated within curriculum studies. It does not involve empirical data collection and does not aim to analyse assessment practices, measurement procedures, or classroom pedagogy. Instead, it focuses on curriculum knowledge as a socially constructed and historically contingent object of analysis. The analysis proceeds in three interrelated stages. First, dominant curriculum discourses in Computer Science education are examined, with particular attention to how curriculum aims, rationales, and intended learning outcomes are articulated in relation to crisis, uncertainty, and future orientation. Curriculum documents and policy-related texts are treated as conceptual artefacts that reveal underlying assumptions about what constitutes valuable and legitimate knowledge. Second, the study analyses how different forms of knowledge are positioned in relation to stability and change within Computer Science curricula. This includes examining tensions between foundational concepts and rapidly evolving technological content, as well as between technical knowledge and broader epistemic dimensions of the subject. These tensions are interpreted as curriculum-level negotiations rather than pedagogical challenges. Third, the paper develops a theoretical synthesis that links curriculum knowledge selection in Computer Science to wider debates on the resilience of educational knowledge. Rather than proposing curriculum reforms, the analysis clarifies how resilience operates as a curriculum concept and how it shapes understandings of educational knowledge under conditions of crisis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper makes three contributions to curriculum research. First, it offers a conceptual clarification of resilience as a property of educational knowledge rather than as an individual disposition or pedagogical competence. By foregrounding curriculum knowledge selection, the analysis demonstrates how resilience is embedded in decisions about which forms of knowledge are stabilised, reconfigured, or displaced in times of crisis. Second, the study advances curriculum theory by showing how rapidly evolving subject areas such as Computer Science can serve as analytical lenses for examining broader curriculum dynamics of knowledge adaptation. The analysis highlights the ways in which curriculum processes mediate tensions between continuity and change, thereby shaping how educational knowledge is made resilient over time. Third, the paper contributes to discussions of future-oriented education by emphasising the role of curriculum as a primary site in which responses to crisis are articulated through knowledge selection. It argues that understanding curriculum knowledge resilience is essential for maintaining the epistemic integrity of education without reducing resilience to short-term adaptability or instrumental demands. References Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 1. Routledge. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What Is Curriculum Theory? Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2019). Ideology and Curriculum. Routledge. Biesta, G. (2015). Good Education in an Age of Measurement. Routledge. Williamson, B. (2021). Education, technology and the datafication of curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(2), 1–17. 03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper Producing and Governing Curricular Knowledge in Specialised Arts Education: Autonomy, Evidence and Educational Inequality 1: Center for Research in Education, University of Madeira, Funchal, Portugal; 2: The Conservatory – School of Arts of Madeira; 3: CeiED, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal Presenting Author:This paper examines the production, legitimation and governance of curricular knowledge in specialised arts education, using Classical Guitar teaching in public music conservatories as a critical case through which to interrogate broader questions about knowing and acting in education research. It addresses how educational knowledge is generated, validated and mobilised in contexts that operate at the margins of dominant evidence regimes characterised by standardisation, performativity and data-driven governance. The study is guided by the following research question: How is curricular knowledge produced, legitimised and enacted in specialised arts education systems operating under conditions of high institutional autonomy and weak national regulation? This question responds directly to contemporary concerns regarding the changing conditions of education research, particularly the growing tension between locally situated professional knowledge and increasingly centralised expectations for policy-relevant, standardised evidence. The paper is theoretically grounded in curriculum studies that conceptualise curriculum as socially organised knowledge (Young & Muller, 2016), combined with critical and post-critical perspectives that foreground power, legitimacy and professional agency in curricular decision-making (Apple, 1979; Pinar, 2004). These frameworks are mobilised to question narrow epistemic hierarchies that privilege quantifiable and comparable forms of knowledge while marginalising practice-based, contextual and professionally grounded curricular expertise. From this perspective, curriculum is approached not merely as a technical instrument, but as a site of cultural negotiation and political regulation. Empirically, the paper draws on a qualitative multiple case study conducted in seven public music conservatories located in different Portuguese regions, selected to ensure institutional and territorial diversity. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with school leaders and Classical Guitar teachers, questionnaires administered to students, and systematic analysis of curricular, regulatory and institutional documents. The analysis combined thematic content analysis with cross-case comparison, enabling the identification of patterns and divergences in how curricular knowledge is constructed and justified across institutional contexts. The findings indicate that curricular knowledge in specialised arts education is predominantly produced at the local and professional level, relying heavily on tacit norms, shared artistic traditions and teacher–performer identities. While this locally embedded knowledge supports pedagogical autonomy and artistic specificity, it also generates significant disparities between institutions, limits student mobility and weakens the transparency and public accountability of curricular decisions. The study further shows that educational research knowledge is frequently mobilised instrumentally, either to legitimise pre-existing practices or to symbolically comply with external evaluation demands, rather than functioning as a driver of reflective curricular development. By situating these findings within wider European debates on the governance of education research, the paper argues that specialised arts education exposes key limitations of dominant knowledge-production models based on standardised indicators and scalable evidence. At the same time, it demonstrates the potential of qualitative, curriculum-oriented research to generate policy-relevant insights without reducing educational complexity. In this sense, specialised arts education is positioned not as an exception, but as a revealing site for examining how education research can meaningfully bridge professional practice, institutional autonomy and public accountability. The paper contributes to the ECER 2026 theme by advancing a context-sensitive understanding of how educational knowledge is produced and enacted under changing conditions marked by decentralisation, epistemic pluralism and educational inequality. It argues for the recognition of curricular knowledge as a legitimate form of situated expertise and calls for research approaches capable of addressing the current poly-crisis in education while safeguarding academic autonomy and methodological rigour. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The paper is grounded in a qualitative and interpretative research design, framed as a multiple case study (Yin, 2014; Stake, 2006), developed within a doctoral research project on curricular construction in specialised arts education. This methodological approach was selected to enable an in-depth and context-sensitive examination of how curricular knowledge is produced, legitimised and enacted in institutional settings characterised by high autonomy and weak national regulation. The study was conducted in seven public music conservatories operating within the Portuguese system of specialised artistic education. The cases were purposefully selected to ensure institutional, geographical and territorial diversity, including schools located in different regions of mainland Portugal and the Autonomous Regions. This sampling strategy sought to capture both shared structural conditions and locally specific configurations of curricular practice. Data collection combined three complementary sources. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with pedagogical leaders and Classical Guitar teachers, focusing on curricular decision-making processes, professional rationales and perceptions of autonomy and regulation. Second, questionnaires were administered to students in order to access their experiences of curricular coherence, assessment practices and mobility between institutions. Third, a systematic documentary analysis was undertaken, examining curricular plans, internal regulations, assessment frameworks and relevant policy documents. This multi-source design enabled triangulation across actors, methods and institutional artefacts. Data analysis followed the principles of thematic content analysis (Bardin, 1977), supported by iterative coding procedures that combined inductive category construction with theoretically informed interpretation. Analysis was conducted in two complementary phases: intra-case analysis, aimed at preserving the integrity and specificity of each institutional context, and cross-case comparison, designed to identify patterns, divergences and structural tensions across cases. Particular attention was given to how curricular knowledge was justified, stabilised and transmitted in the absence of explicit national curricular reference frameworks. Ethical considerations were integral to the research design. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, anonymity and confidentiality were ensured, and the study received formal ethical approval from the relevant institutional bodies. While the present paper foregrounds analytical and interpretative findings related to knowledge production and governance, these insights are firmly anchored in this rigorous qualitative research design, ensuring methodological transparency and analytical credibility. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings of this study show that curricular knowledge in specialised arts education is predominantly produced, stabilised and transmitted at the local and professional level, rather than through formalised national reference frameworks. In the case of Classical Guitar education in public conservatories, curricular decisions are largely grounded in tacit professional norms, shared artistic traditions and teacher–performer identities, which operate as influential, though often invisible, mechanisms of curricular regulation. While this locally embedded mode of knowledge production supports pedagogical autonomy and artistic specificity, the study demonstrates that it also generates significant institutional and territorial inequalities. In the absence of shared curricular reference points, disparities emerge in learning expectations, assessment practices and access to collective and performative experiences. These differences limit student mobility between institutions and weaken the transparency and public accountability of curricular decisions. The analysis further reveals a complex relationship between educational research knowledge and curricular practice. Research-based knowledge rarely functions as a driver of reflective curricular development; instead, it is often mobilised instrumentally to legitimise pre-existing practices or to respond symbolically to external policy and evaluation demands. This finding highlights a broader tension between dominant evidence regimes, which privilege standardised indicators, and the situated, practice-based knowledge characteristic of specialised arts education. From a theoretical perspective, the study reinforces conceptions of curriculum as socially organised and politically governed knowledge rather than as a neutral technical artefact. In relation to the ECER 2026 theme Knowing and Acting, the paper positions specialised arts education as a revealing site for examining the changing conditions of education research, demonstrating both the limits of standardised knowledge-production models and the potential of qualitative, curriculum-oriented research to inform policy without reducing educational complexity. References Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge. Bardin, L. (1977). L’Analyse de Contenu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What Is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Torres, C. A. (2015). Education and Neoliberal Globalization. New York: Routledge. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the Specialisation of Knowledge: Studies in the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge. | ||