Muller, J. & Young, M. (2019)
Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited
The Curriculum Journal 30(2), 196-214 · 10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292
Distinguishes 'powerful knowledge' (a non-rivalrous good, transferable to all) from 'knowledge of the powerful'; criticises policy uses of Hirsch/Core Knowledge via Schmidt et al.'s 'laundry list'/'splintered vision' coherence critique.
Used in Dossier 1, Dossier 2, Dossier 4
This critic is attached to the exact objection and inference it challenges, not merely to the topic.
D1 · O7 — Content matters does not select one common list · targets A8 I6 I7
D2 · O4 — Content quantity without disciplinary coherence can fragment knowledge · targets A7 A8 I6 I7
D4 · O3 — A list can be knowledge without system · targets A3 A7 I3 I6
Source provenance
full text readThe accepted-manuscript PDF in UCL Discovery was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from it.
Primary targets: P19 P21 P23 P24 P08
Availability: open access · full text read
The accepted-manuscript PDF in UCL Discovery was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from it.
Registry verification: yes
Availability: open access · full text read
The accepted-manuscript PDF in UCL Discovery was read directly; the registry positions were extracted from it.
Registry verification: yes
Positions (6)
Only 'powerful knowledge' (PK) is actually a kind of knowledge; 'knowledge of the powerful' (KOTP) instead describes who uses knowledge and to what end.
“Only one of them is a kind of knowledge, namely PK. KOTP is a way of referring to its use or origins, and the interests of those originators or users”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Powerful knowledge (PK), unlike knowledge-of-the-powerful, is a non-rivalrous good: infinitely transferable and potentially available to everyone who acquires it.
“In PK, by contrast, the power is potentially available to all who acquire it; it is a non-zero-sum property, a non-rivalrous good. Potentially, everyone can have this power, it is infinitely transferable”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Policymakers such as Nick Gibb (2015) explicitly drew on E.D. Hirsch and the Core Knowledge Foundation's work in shaping curriculum policy.
“as the use policy makers like Nick Gibb (2015) have made of the work of E. D. Hirsch and his Core Knowledge Foundation”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Content-list curricula built without an organising structure produce a 'laundry list' with no discernible order, yielding only a 'splintered vision' (quoting Schmidt et al.'s critique of the US math/science curriculum).
“This results in a 'laundry list' of topics and items with no discernible order, and yields only a 'splintered vision'”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
A content list without a systematic underlying logic is 'knowledge without system' -- coherence, not sheer amount of content, is the missing ingredient.
“This is knowledge without system ... The main consequence is to sacrifice depth for breadth. The missing ingredient for Schmidt and his co-workers (2005) is coherence.”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
A defensible content-rich curriculum must assume there is a logic or structure to systematic knowledge that the curriculum itself is obliged to respect.
“Schmidt assumes that there is a logic or structure to a body of systematic knowledge that the curriculum must respect”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books