Expanding Curriculum Research and Understanding: A Mytho-Poetic Perspective

by Nelson L. Haggerson

Expanding Curriculum Research and Understanding discusses the use of multiple research approaches (paradigms) to inquire into all aspects of curriculum (the knowledge base of schooling), with the goal of understanding the processes and the substantive dimensions of curriculum. The Mytho-Poetic approach, which is an overarching research approach/perspective (paradigm), considers the spiritual aspects of curriculum as well as scientific, interactive (pragmatic), phenomenological, and critical approaches to curriculum inquiry. Mytho-Poets, such as Dr. Haggerson, report research findings and discoveries in numerous ways, such as narratives, stories, poetry, visual art, music, symbols, dramas, autobiographies, and biographies. Section I of this book provides the theoretical research underpinnings while Section II contains examples of research using the Mytho-Poetic perspective.

267 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2000

Reviews

[Ioana · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a collection of articles/works of Haggerson's that covers the span of his career... Though some points are valuable, overall this is not a coherent, worked out philosophy of mythopoetics in education, but a series of meditations. As such, it is not a particularly rigorous work (i.e., it frequently does not even quote philosophers directly, but does the "quoted in...")

Even as a series of meditations, this work is fairly repetitive and autobiographical to an extent that turned me off (to some degree, Haggerson's point *is* autobiographical, however his tone is everything BUT mythopoetic, hence Haggerson comes off as preachy and quite conceited at times).

And lastly, really, is this: if this is not a worked out, coherent, detailed philosophy of mythopoetics, then AT LEAST it should be "mythopoetic" in tone. However, Haggerson fails miserably in this task: though he peppers his essays with poems, his narrative tone is nothing like Aoki's (whom he obviously tries to imitate, i.e., see the chapter in which he converses with Aoki). He is explicit in a way mythopoetics would never be (i.e., dryly, technically explicit, not poetically inspired)... he does not write "phenomenologically", but technically (though he does make some attempt to overcome this by writing some chapters as dialogue. To me, that was poorly done and did NOT overcome the linearity of the work).