I was drawn to the educational domain of “critical pedagogy” because I saw the great hope it offers those of us who have been poor and oppressed our entire lives. My true mission began when I encountered Joe Kincheloe’s work; it is the most complete critical theory today and it is the most promising theory for the future because it exposes and addresses the social issues the oppressed face now and may face in the future, and it guides us with finding solutions that will work for us during these increasingly complex and changing times. There is also a spiritual dimension to his work but it is married soundly to a science dimension in spite of what some people might think; there is much research and exploration yet to do in this area. I have experienced it profoundly, but because I am a “novice” bricoleur, I am still struggling with understanding and communicating all that I experience. Even though very few people relate, there are increasing numbers of people who do, and I cannot help but see the enormous potential Kincheloe’s bricolage has to offer. This, for me, is one of the most exciting applications of his formulation of bricolage and I am looking forward to the amazing growth in knowledge that will emanate from it. As he has put it, it is just the beginning of a "perpetual revolution." To top it all off, as I discuss in my dissertation, Kincheloe has based his theory and bricolage research and learning process on the foundation of the most powerful love. 

We all have agendas. What is mine? I’ll be right up front with my agenda: It’s to do whatever I can to get Joe’s work out to the world in ways that everyone who wishes to can understand and apply it. I love Joe. We have been working together spiritually for eternity.  And I have shown empirically in my work (in my dissertation, Chapter 4, which only highlights a very small amount of the data) that Joe and I must have known each other at a higher level of consciousness before we even met. It is WHY we met.

But our purpose, of course, is to demonstrate in some concrete ways -- and yes, empirical ways -- the reality of these connections so that more people will come to understand that as human beings we have been entrapped. We are only functioning at the lowest levels of our potential for awareness. We stay in the lower dimensions of reality “by design” and the education system as it operates today works overtime to keep us at these lower levels of consciousness. This is presented and discussed in great detail and depth throughout all of Kincheloe's writings.

As I have learned first-hand, those  individuals in the higher echelons of education who have the greatest power over dictating who can and cannot partake in real knowledge or knowledge production, can take on quite extreme psychopathic qualities toward those of us who stay persistent in speaking out. This is something that must change and it is changing as more of us take back our power. We must stop contributing to the psychopathic, dehumanizing, emotionally debilitating nature of education. We do not need to participate in institutions that operate without ethics or care toward students coming through their doors. We can withdraw from any association with schools and universities that focus on dumbed down education and indoctrination for the purpose of unrestrained profit, power, and control of the people.

It takes serious and sustained work to rise in consciousness enough (and to be able to stay there long enough) by rigorously applying Joe’s theory so that we begin to see what there is to see; how we are lied to, how our very perception is in lockdown, how we are molded, controlled, and steered even when we think we are free and making our own choices. Yes, it’s a lot of work to even begin to get to that point and it also requires facing our own vulnerabilities and how we lie to ourselves. Emotionally, it’s not easy to have to face the facts about our own ignorance, but I can attest to the fact that being blessed beyond belief is worth the effort. I have much work yet to do, but I am already blessed in ways that I cannot begin to describe.

Thus, my agenda is to see that Joe’s work gets out to people in ways they understand and unfettered by those who would have opposing agendas. But it’s not easy to put truth out about Joe’s work when I see that those who supposedly loved him, cared about him, or otherwise had some kind of professional relationship with him seem to almost intentionally set out to destroy his Great Work. I cannot sit on the sidelines and watch this happen without calling it out the way I see it. And how I see it is a display that is utterly disrespectful and disgraceful, and the epitome of hypocrisy. I am saddened that these things happen in reputable textbooks that millions of student-researchers reference while they are trying to learn how to research.

Thus, as a message to new critical bricoleur/researchers, I want to emphasize the absolute imperative need to question everything, even if it seems to come from high authority or respected experts. This includes even questioning whether in fact someone actually authored a specific piece. We must become detectives, just as Kincheloe has advised.

As a case in point, I will discuss briefly the chapter “Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research: Moving to the Bricolage” by Joe Kincheloe (allegedly), Peter McLaren, and Shirley R. Steinberg in the 2011 edition  of the SAGE Handbook for Qualitative Research, Fourth Edition, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. I will point out just a few observations about this chapter, which, by my analysis is a move away from providing new bricoleurs with an understanding of bricolage, especially Joe L. Kincheloe’s multidimensional critical complex bricolage.

First, Joe passed away in 2008. How is it that he was able to write this article in 2011? This should immediately raise a red flag, but then most students are not aware that Joe is deceased. This provides impetus for researching all authors we reference in our work (an important component of bricolage and something I will also need to become more conscious about). Even a quick search on Wikipedia, which, in my analysis is a worthy source for quick, general, and background information, will reveal this basic information about various authors, musicians, and other people you are researching.

Secondly, copy-and-paste, out-of-context excerpts have been taken from Kincheloe's 2005 article about bricolage and incorporated into this chapter, without being properly quoted or cited. In fact, in some cases, it appears these excerpts have been attributed to someone else or to no one at all (other than the "three" authors of the chapter). As just one example, the second paragraph on page 169 which states, “In the critical concern . . .” is the second paragraph from page 344 of Kincheloe's 2005 “On to the Next Level” article, yet there is no citation indicating as such even though this paragraph goes on to discuss Kincheloe (how can this be if he is the author?), stating, “Kincheloe has taken seriously. . . “ Why? If this is written BY Kincheloe why is Kincheloe not using first person dialogue? Also, again, at the end of the paragraph the author(s) is speaking about Kincheloe, stating, “In response, Kincheloe maintained. . . .“  even though, again they have copied word-for-word text out of his article for the first part of the paragraph. This makes it clear that whoever pieced this together was not Kincheloe because when he speaks about himself in multiple-authored articles, he uses “I (Joe)” to clarify it is he who is speaking and he does not reference himself in the manner that was done for this paragraph (eg., see The Stigma of Genius: Einstein, Consciousness, and Genius, 1999 with Tippins & Steinberg). Thus, this paragraph (as well as other paragraphs within the chapter) appears to be plagiarized -- something students are drilled not to do or there will be extreme penalties and yet here it is in a student textbook.

As an additional note, Kincheloe had moved away from doing articles and books "with" people in a manner that would confuse the reader who was doing the writing. He has written his own chapters for books he has written with other people (e.g., Reading, Writing, Thinking with P. L. Thomas and Rigor and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage with Kathleen Berry). The chapters are clearly delineated by author. I will need to do more analyses as to when this began, but it appears to have been about 2001. My sense (based on the literature as well as some of the comments in his work and dedications of his work) is that, while he wished for working together with people, he found it had not worked out well. It may also relate to the tendency of people to attach particular labels to him, one being the "postmodernist" label which he had to ultimately write his way out of -- which he did successfully. (And if one reads his work, they will see clearly that he was never a "postmodernist" whatever that may be).

Third, Kincheloe left Freire behind and in the dust and yet, in this article, Freire is propped up and deified. My personal view is that Freire offered nothing new and his theory is stuck in dualism, sexism, and is tainted by Marxism and other ideologies that harm people; Joe’s critical complex pedagogy went in entirely new directions and to whole new dimensions. That he continued to give Freire credit for things that others have said just as well and perhaps better in the past – even the ancient past – is testimony to how Joe loved everyone and knew how to filter out the bad ideas while focusing on the good ideas without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I encourage people to get other perspectives of Freire’s work and ask themselves why it’s being pushed on teachers today (and recently, it has been the topic of teacher professional development classes here in the United States; why?).  I do think we need to do much deeper critical analyses of his work rather than throw it to the public the way that's being done today.

Rich Gibson (1994) wrote an interesting dissertation that provides a deeper analysis of Freire’s political involvement, motivations, and how they may have influenced how he “politicized” education for the oppressed. I encourage reading this for another view outside the Freire fan club. “Freire as the initiator of a pedagogy for liberation could become the point person in the creation of a wider market for education theories which merely build hegemony--and comfortable yet apparently socially conscious careers--in more sophisticated ways,” Gibson (1994) had observed (The Promethean Literacy, Chapter One). This can be even more clearly seen today. As Gibson points out, Freire’s work has not been thoroughly historicized, not even yet today, in spite of it being widely applied. Much as Kincheloe detached himself from the hegemonic, nihilistic proponents of what was being labeled as postmodernism, he has also pulled Freire’s work out of the muck by leaving most of it behind. It is time to give credit where credit is due.

Fourth, Kincheloe did not subscribe to Marxism, yet in this article his work is tainted with an emphasis on Marxist theory. Apparently, from Kincheloe's perspective, there are no babies to save in the Marxist bathwater, and yet the authors (McLaren & Steinberg) took it upon themselves to make statements I do not believe Joe would have agreed to, making it appear that he did agree, e.g., propping up and listing Karl Marx first as having provided “inspiration” to “critical traditions” (p., 163). Another example, and one which completely counteracts the entire philosophical foundation of Kincheloe’s bricolage is the statement that, “We assert that the insights of Marx and those working within the broad parameters of the Marxist tradition are foundational for any critical research” (p. 165). Who is this "we"? This statement is someone else’s agenda; it is not a part of Kincheloe’s formulation of bricolage and I question whether he would have signed off on this article.

Kincheloe's theory is a generous theory (it's too bad that more people do not follow his lead). His theory allows for looking at issues from many vantage points and it does not ascribe to any one particular ideology as “foundational.” His theory maintains a sense of tentativeness and evolution (i.e., there will always be more to learn; more voices to incorporate; more changes). He also did not throw out the desires of people to analyze from their "Marxist perspectives" and had even invited Peter McLaren to critique his early concepts of bricolage.

Thus,  Kincheloe's work, as I have demonstrated in my dissertation, is based on a highly developed philosophical foundation, which he had presented as a "unified world view" in his book, Critical Constructivism. Again, he took epistemological liberties with this term which might be better represented as a "multidimensional critical complex constructivism." He acknowledged the many voices, including the many voices of Marxism and critical pedagogy; he in no way shut people down. However, the way Marxism is highlighted in this article that he allegedly has had a hand in writing does exactly that: by making Marxism the foundation of bricolage, many voices are essentially disregarded and shut down. For example, as I state on page 64 of my dissertation:

Sandy Grande (2004) raises important questions in relation to Marxists and their “socialist commitment” [citing  McLaren & Frahmandpur, 2001, p. 306)], including questions about assuming that “the ‘egalitarian distribution’ of colonialized lands constitute greater justice for Indigenous peoples” and how it can be considered “liberatory for American Indians” as long as “power, exchange, and labor remain tied to whitestream notions of property” (p. 49). As much as Kincheloe has stressed Indigenous perspectives, it seems blatantly wrong to form a quilt of his work by juxtaposing out-of-context “cut-and-paste” excerpts from his critical bricolage articles alongside Marxist dialogue that is fixated on Western notions of property, economics, and materialism, as has been done with his work after his death.

Do the true authors of this chapter about bricolage in Denzin and Lincoln's Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Handbook understand Kincheloe's work, or do they not care? They certainly are not helping new bricoleurs come to understand bricolage, much less Kincheloe's conceptualization. They seem to have their own agenda, one of which suspiciously appears to be to cloud Kincheloe’s work. This is all interpretation, of course and I do not know what goes on behind the closed doors of the education publishing business, but one thing is certain: students will not understand Kincheloe’s critical complex bricolage from reading this article and they may even come away with the message that bricolage is "copy-and-paste." And what's even more distressing is that this very same article has been published in at least three works relating to research, demonstrating the tactic, if it's said enough times, people will believe it.

My advice, with a concept as important and complex as this is to go to the primary source - Kincheloe and Berry's works. I've included more information and direct links to Kincheloe's seminal articles here on this website. I will clarify that my writing about Kincheloe's work is, of course, my own interpretation as supported by text from his writings and based on my research.

Kincheloe’s purpose was to work toward solving the social ills, providing a quality education to everyone, and alleviating suffering. In this article/chapter under discussion, his purpose has been fettered with, diminished, and counteracted -- and the article does not begin to provide readers with an understanding of critical bricolage; it has clouded and confused what critical bricolage research involves. The way Kincheloe's Great Work has been diminished, in my view, is a most debased form of oppression; he can hardly defend himself from where he is – but sadly, it also seems to be an accurate representation of the true Janus face of education today. And this very type of behavior has been going on for thousands of years; even the Bible was changed to serve an elite King. 

Education today is especially psychopathological and harmful -- and it must change. It is time to take action and join in on Kincheloe's "perpetual revolution."

Last time I discussed the issue with squeezing an innovative, improvisational, knowledge-producing form of research, the multidimensional critical complex bricolage, into the rigid, template-form of proposal recipes so many universities expect today based on their corporate servitude for producing reductionistic forms of inquiry. Of course, they require that researchers spell out their research questions and, in many cases, even project what the answers might be. However, as both Kincheloe and Einstein have been noted as stating, “If we knew what we were going to find we wouldn’t be calling it research.” Kincheloe has clearly theorized that we don’t even know what the real questions are--those “Level 3” questions that get revealed during the deep layers of implicate-order investigations and fourth dimension research (Kincheloe, 2001). 

So, sometimes researchers just have to “wing it.” That should go over well with the elite research community. Seriously, though: follow your heart. What do you feel passionate about changing? What are you passionate about learning more about? Consider what you want to become “one” with, because, believe me, if you do multidimensional critical complex bricolage rigorously as Kincheloe recommends, you will become one with your subject/object of research! And you will change things!

This is totally new territory in case you have not figured it out. My original research proposal is available as just one example of how I handled the dilemma of fitting a round peg into a square hole (as I put it in my last blog). I think it will be exciting to see how the new, upcoming, and very innovative research bricoleurs will handle this. Can we change things? Yes, we can! According to Kincheloe’s philosophy, nothing is more powerful than LOVE – er, I mean BRICOLAGE.

And just wait until we (the true “powers-that-be” which would be “us” not the evil and greedy cabal within the belly of the beast)* fully develop our new form of PHD for future education – the PHE!! It will make the current, deified but very deficient PHD look quite stupid, indeed. That is new information that was just provided to me yesterday during my fourth dimension research.  There will be the new PHE, or maybe we will call it the PhDE. And who do you suppose has power to decide if we, ourselves, have enough knowledge in any given area to grant ourselves one? That’s a loaded question.

Onward and Upward!

Vanessa Paradis, PhDE

*This dot-us website does not in any way represent the United States from the perspective presented on this website. It stands for us—“we the people of the world.” The U.S. needs to get over itself -- and quickly!

References
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting Beyond the Facts: Teaching Social Studies/Social Sciences in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe has provided us some excellent general guidance: The Research Questions for Bricolage. 

So how do we fit a Multidimensional Critical Complex Bricolage proposal into those square, precisely delineated and quantified specifications that universities love so much? It’s a dilemma, and each bricolage proposal is going to be different. For my own proposal, I bowed to the university's  “way” (to a degree) because I wanted to get it past the initial gate (little did I know how many more contrived gates there were yet ahead; some of them even seemed to have manifested out of thin air). Thus, in looking at Chapter 1 in the Table of Contents of my dissertation, it pretty much adheres to the nondescript titles the university enforces. All of their proposals look the same and, while you can find out what page the “important” elements (according to them) are on, the titles tell you nothing whatsoever about the topic of the dissertation itself or give you clues as to why the research is important.  

So what you have in the Table of Contents are such things as Introduction to the Problem, Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Rationale for the Study, Research Questions, Nature of the Study, and Significance of the Study. While I did deviate only so slightly by including a “Prologue: Epistemological Road Trips” and a section about Joe’s “Critical Constructivism,” the rest of the sections of Chapter 1 really tell readers nothing whatsoever about the study. They simply provide page numbers.

As if that’s not bad enough, I found that, as a result of trying to fit the holistic, round peg of the multidimensional critical complex bricolage into the overly defined and formulaic recipe, there turned out to be a lot of redundancy. That’s redundancy I will want to take out of any future book written about my research, but at the same time, perhaps since Joe's theoretical work is so cutting edge, the redundancy is a good thing.

With bricolage we can expect redundancy (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). However, with bricolage it makes sense! We are exploring the same concepts, the same phenomenon/a, in multiple contexts. The redundancy of research proposals that some universities require, like idioms of the past, do not make sense to me. In the future bricoleurs will find much more creative ways to write great proposals.

P.S. I know, I know: I have the round peg/square hole idiom "backwards" (so they say). . . . although, with Joe's critical complex epistemology, we have the power to change things.

References
Kincheloe & K. Berry (2004) Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage. New York: Open University Press.

That was a title that was telepathically “handed down” to me a couple of days ago. I didn’t listen at the time. I mean, I heard it in the form of one of those “epiphanic moments” and I did listen to it, but I didn’t take action on it or even write the title down or write the article that was meant to go with the title. Action is always required when you engage in Kincheloe’s Nine-Step Dance. You must take a step if you’re serious about dancing, so when I didn’t, it was given to me again yesterday morning during my regular “conversations” (often “lesson plans”) through transmitted writings. This is just one of many processes I use to “enact” my own idiosyncratic interpretation of Kincheloe’s “fourth dimension” research. This process of learning to write to “dead people” was one I learned in the very first publication I had read written by Kincheloe.

He had included his “lesson” in the introductory chapter of Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, a book he had edited with Peter McLaren, and it was the very first writing of Kincheloe’s I had encountered during my studies in education. As he had framed it, when he explained writing letters to his beloved deceased Aunt, “Some folks see dead people; I write to them” (Kincheloe, 2007, p. 11). The sentence literally shouted out at me right off the page of the book the first time I had read it and even though I had never ever considered writing to dead people, it stayed in the back of my mind.

I’m glad I paid attention to that sentence because following just this one suggestion for fourth dimension research has led to the emergence of far more creative ideas than I can ever possibly follow through with during an entire lifetime. It has also been what’s led to the many, almost daily, “magical” experiences that are real, but many people have a hard time believing and would rather assign me a label representing something other than being highly in tune with a much greater and expansive reality than they are able to perceive. It’s quite amazing what “emerges” during the fourth dimension bricolage research process when bricoleurs actively engage with those people on the other side of the curtain. And so I get to pick and choose from a nearly infinite supply of creative ideas, adjust them however I wish, and sometimes, when they’re especially important, I get written reminders from beyond the curtain like I did yesterday.

I love the title, actually. Kincheloe was an adept dancer and his dance steps are complicated and fun! I learned that during our interactions on his website. He was conscious; I was not, but I danced the best I could. We all have to start somewhere and the best place is where we are in the moment.

To simplify his bricolage dance process, or to at least bring it down some so that more people can relate to it, (he did not like having to simplify things and neither do I) he had presented nine “dimensions of research,” which I refer to here as his “Nine-Step Dance.” Of course, as typical with all of Kincheloe’s work, it’s not really that simple! Each of the nine dimensions is comprised of many more dimensions and on top of that, you never know which step you need to take next! I have listed the nine dimensions on the Home page of the website dedicated to his work (www.joekincheloe.us) and on the website I will be presenting much more detail based on my research to help new bricoleurs begin to conceptualize how they might form their own unique dance using his dance steps. I will even be presenting how children can learn the dance, and believe me, children love it! Every dance is different and just to ensure new bricoleurs are prepared for the future: after learning the nine steps, there will be more! (That doesn’t surprise you does it?)

Of course “nine steps” is a gross oversimplification of the true complexity (we might have more than a million steps for one dissertation or research paper or special creative project), but we have to begin somewhere. And even with 9 steps that gives us two-to-the-ninth-power possibilities. Calculated out, that’s 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 512 possibilities for the next step.  Which step will it be for you?

This is all just metaphoric speaking, of course. But I do know Joe loved to dance and that he considered his engagement in research and the presentation of his bricolage in his books and articles as metaphorically performing a dance.

The concept of polysemy, in which words take on different meanings in different contexts and are ideologically inscribed, provide just one such opportunity for dancing through the labyrinth of dimensions. He presents the example of how politicians use this feature to impart ideological meanings to divergent groups of people for “winning their consent to oppression,” even their own oppression (Kincheloe, 2004e, p. 94). People interpret things the way they wish and politicians know how to leverage this and so they purposely choose words that have one meaning for one group of people and another meaning for another group of people. That way they get more votes since each group will interpret it to mean what’s best for them. They also might assign new meanings to words and phrases such as they have done in education with the “No Child Left Behind Act.”

Elite educators at the top of the chain also use polysemy to speak to each other in their scholarly literature beneath the awareness of “outsiders.” (And believe me, we are ALL outsiders to THEM). They have entire conversations going on within an “implicate order of reality,” as you will discover when you become skilled with bricolage. Joe Kincheloe calls this out and refers to it as “Janus speak” and “obfuscation.”  (Janus was the “two-faced” god). No one could keep secrets from Joe Kincheloe!  And he did not believe in keeping secrets. He clarifies how bricoleurs can use polysemy for more positive purposes such as to uncover those multidimensional layers of meaning so that they can find ways to reclaim personal power. It is also a process for keeping their own interpretations open so that they don’t become just another “cog in the engine of the mechanisms of dominant power that harm people in all of our communities and around the world” (Kincheloe, 2008b, p. xi).

He states:

Bricoleurs frequently use polysemy in a hermeneutic context to challenge the meanings given to certain texts and social artefacts by experts in the dominant culture. My book, The Sign of the Burger, presents polysemous resistant readings of the social role of McDonald’s. Not content with perspectives positioning McDonald’s as little-company-made-good achieving the American Dream, I wanted to present interpretations of McDonald’s that questioned the socio-political effects of McDonald’s American success story.

My effort was not to prove that McDonald’s is not an American success story – it is. Instead, I provided other interpretations that might cause readers to rethink the meaning of such a story. Throughout the book these diverse meanings of McDonald’s engage in a dance. My hope as the author is that the dance, like a hula dance, tells a story. As a bricoleur I want it to enrich our understanding of McDonald’s as a socio-political and pedagogical phenomenon in a way that leads to progressive social action. Bricoleurs employ polysemy to keep discussion open around particular phenomena, knowing that authoritarianism operates best when analysis is finalized (Ceccarelli, 1998; Marcum, 1998). (Kincheloe, 2004e, p. 95)

In other words, bricoleurs don’t proclaim a final truth about complex social and educational issues or that they're an "authority" or "expert" – just that they have put forth an effort toward greater understanding from looking at many angles, acknowledging that their work is always "in progress." However, the more connections bricoleurs uncover the greater possibility and probability that intelligent solutions will emerge for solving complicated social problems.

The improvisational bricolage dance truly can be a lot of fun as we explore our chosen topic from many different angles and employ polysemy, along with other dimensions of analysis and interpretation. Bricoleurs quickly learn to keep an eye open to see what surprises emerge from interacting with different dance partners. And trust me: you will be surprised and sometimes even caught off-guard with what emerges. Bricoleurs always consider, of course, who benefits from any given dance step and how new steps might move us closer to serving the social good.

Although I must admit, due to social conditioning, FIDUROD, and what-have-you, it can be easy for new bricoleurs to take a step backward when they should take a step sidewise – and they may even get tripped up from time-to-time. Nevertheless, bricoleurs do not plan the sequence of dance steps – that would take the complexity and excitement out of the dance – and besides, there’s a lot of assistance, often J.I.T. (just in time), when “symbiotic hermeneutics” gets added to the mix and unseen entities arrive on the scene to “save the day” (Kincheloe, 2004d., p. 67). Bricoleurs don’t need to worry about being a perfect dancer, either, because as long as they put forth a sincere effort to dance well they always know there will the next dance and maybe even one “last dance” with their someone special as they journey joyfully forward on their Dancing Quest -- and as all bricoleurs will come to know -- the ending is ”just the beginning” (Kincheloe, 2008c, p. 227).

References

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004a). Preface. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. ix–xii). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004b). Introduction: the power of the bricolage: Expanding research methods. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 1–22). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J.L. (2004c). Redefining rigor and complexity in research. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 23–49). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J.L. (2004d). Questions of disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in a changing world. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 50–81). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004e). Redefining and interpreting the object of study. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 82–102). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2007b). Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century Evolution for survival. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical Pedagogy. Where Are We Now? (pp. 9-42). New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008b). Critical pedagogy ( 2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. (2008c). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Amsterdam: Springer.

I will be posting articles that clarify Kincheloe's work on this site now that I've finished my nearly five-year-long research project and dissertation.