I follow Garfinkel (1991) using the asterisk “*” to mark provisional terms. The analysis has to show whether the provisional concept is actually appropriate. Thus, event* denotes that we do not know with certainty what kind of event we are witnessing; question* denotes that a locution might be a question, but only the detailed analysis can reveal what has happened.
To Event: Toward a Post-Constructivist of Theorizing and Researching the Living Curriculum as Event*-in-the-Making†
Article first published online: 15 MAY 2013
© 2013 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Volume 43, Issue 3, pages 388–417, June 2013
How to Cite
Roth, W.-M. (2013), To Event: Toward a Post-Constructivist of Theorizing and Researching the Living Curriculum as Event*-in-the-Making. Curriculum Inquiry, 43: 388–417. doi: 10.1111/curi.12016
- Issue published online: 15 MAY 2013
- Article first published online: 15 MAY 2013
In this article, I (1) argue for approaching processes, events*-in-the-making, by means of process categories—to learn, to teach—not by means of categories that denote differences in state and (2) exemplify doing and writing research consistent with process philosophy. To understand process we must not think, research, and write them in terms of categories (etymologically, things specified by predicates) but in terms of movement itself. The unfinished and inherently open-ended event*-in-the-making indicates such movement and is associated with the disappearance of possibilities in its actualization (the event), openness toward the future, unpredictability, and excess of intuition over intention. I use empirical materials from a mathematics classroom to exemplify (give a body to) these categories and to ground my discussion. I conclude by discussing several implications that arise from the fact of theorizing and researching the living curriculum as unfolding, yet-to-be completed event.