Call for Papers for both events and publications.
CFP: Interdisciplinary special issue on ‘Difficulty’
Deadline: Jun 30, 2022
Following preliminary discussions with the editors of a prominent journal of critical theory, we seek theoretically orientated submissions from a range of disciplines for a full proposal on the following topic, with a view to publication in early 2024:
This interdisciplinary special issue will explore how conceptions of difficulty determine the transmission and reception of knowledge across a range of contemporary domains — for example arts and culture, education, politics, or digital media —, as well as associated questions of access, equality, and participation.
Contemporary analyses of difficulty often stress its social and relational constructedness, thereby challenging its perceived inherence to topics, objects, or approaches. In a discussion of literary texts, for example, Diepeveen frames difficulty as a ‘reading process [that] manifests itself socially’ and highlights difficulty’s intimate connection to cultural elitism and social and educational hierarchies (2003). Constructivist appraisals of difficulty foreground questions about access, equality, and participation: who determines which materials, subjects, or debates are appropriate for whom, and according to which pedagogic, developmental, political, cultural, or ethical principles? Why are some subjects cast as too difficult for some readers or audiences? Conversely, which assumptions, attitudes, or investments underpin conceptions of ease or accessibility? A point of departure, here, might be the work of Jacques Rancière ( 1991), which takes to task the explanatory authority of the teacher. His work would constitute one starting point for thinking about how difficulty, in a range of contexts, might be reframed from a fundamental idea of radical equality.
As well as eliciting reflection on the hierarchies and inequalities engendered by difficulty — either as property or construction —, we also encourage thinking around the productive forms of disturbance that difficulty can engender, its associated risks (e.g., boredom, disorientation, anxiety, failure, disengagement), as well as its (trans)formative capacities. What value might reconceptualisations of difficulty hold for the contemporary era? To what extent do conceptions of difficulty map on to shifting forms of knowledge consumption and transmission? How might they relate, for example, to analyses of (in)attention in the digital age (Citton  2017)? In the domain of education, theorists such as Gert Biesta have critiqued emphases on facilitating learning that serve to neutralise experiences of difficulty, challenge, or frustration. Relatedly, recent valorisations of ‘unlearning’ as an educational ethos can be seen to return difficulty and attendant forms of experience to the centre of the educational encounter (Seery and Dunne 2016).
Are difficulty’s disturbances to be feared, neutralised, or embraced? Which approaches — be they aesthetic, educational, technological, institutional, political, relational, or otherwise — might take account of the dislocation or disturbance that difficulty can provoke? How might conceptions of difficulty be used to theorise contemporary intersections between culture, ethics, and politics? For example, how might institutional and disciplinary approaches to decolonization be informed by thinking around difficulty? In relation to contemporary ethical and political imperatives, should difficulty be mediated or attenuated, or are its attendant effects – discomfort, unease, anxiety — not precisely to be encouraged? How in that case, might difficulty be granted its full ethical and political force?
We encourage, then, contributors to theorise difficulty as it relates to the unfamiliar, disorientating, or affectively or ethically charged; to propose transversal conceptualisations of difficulty in the present moment; to explore the cultivation of an ‘experimentalist’ mindset in the face of difficulty (Bowie  2008); to challenge its associated hierarchies of access and engagement. We are especially interested in theoretically orientated readings of difficulty pertaining to:
cultural competency/intercultural exchange/culture shock
Bowie, Malcolm ( 2008), Mallarmé and the Art of Being Difficult (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Citton, Yves ( 2017), The Ecology of Attention, trans. by Barnaby Norman (Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press).
Diepeveen, Leonard (2003), The Difficulties of Modernism (New York: Routledge).
Rancière, Jacques ( 1991), The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation, trans. by Kristin Ross (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Seery, Aidan and Éammon Dunne (2016), The Pedagogics of Unlearning (Punctum Books).
CFP: NZJTW - The who and what at the centre of education
Deadline: Sep 15, 2022
New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work
At the turn of the last century, we have seen a slow shift away from teacher-centred and curriculum-centred towards student-centred approaches of teaching in schooling contexts. The teacher as the ‘sage on the stage’ and ‘keeper of knowledge’ has arguably been dethroned and replaced with the ‘learner’ as the focus of pedagogy and educational practice. This shift has seen a turn in language that served to further reduce the role of the teacher to a mere ‘facilitator of learning’; a turn in language that Gert Biesta (2014) has termed “learnification” – the centrality of the learner, the facilitation of learning, and the acquisition of ‘learnings’. Biesta, however, while not wanting to advocate for a return to the old teacher-centred classroom approach, critiques this shift as going too far in its reduction of the role of the teacher in the pedagogical relationship between teacher, student and content. Biesta points out the importance of the teacher as someone who can lead the student to questions and understanding they never knew existed. As such, the teacher is more dynamic than simply the facilitator of learning, pedagogy is more complex than enabling the consumption of knowledge, and the content of curriculum broader than simply that deemed most profitable for the student’s economic future in the spirit of neoliberal consumerism. In his latest book, Biesta (2022) goes even further to question both the centrality of the child/learner/student, and the centrality of a predefined curriculum to argue for a world-centred approach to education. Similarly, William Pinar (2011) coined the term ‘currere’ (verb) rather than ‘curriculum’ (noun) to suggest that education should be responsive to the encounter of individual/student with their environment, the world.
What exactly is or should be at the centre of education? And how can and should the relationship between teacher, student, and curriculum be negotiated and re-negotiated? In a country with a complex ethnic and political make up, like Aotearoa New Zealand, this question has ethical and political dimensions that have not, traditionally, been explored in terms of pedagogy or curriculum. For this upcoming issue of New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, we seek contributions that engage with these and related fundamental questions of teachers’ work.
NZJTW is inviting contributions to this special topic in the form of:
• Opinion pieces
• Research overviews of ongoing projects
• Teacher reflections, and
• Book reviews
Submission deadline for the special topic is 15 September 2022. (Planned publication November/December 2022.)
NZJTW is also inviting contributions on any other topics that may be of interest to teachers and researchers across the education sector from early childhood to tertiary education.