Mapping The Complexity of Public Pedagogy Scholarship 1894-2010 - Sandlin, O'Malley and Burdick

http://rer.aera.
net
Research
Review of Educational
http://rer.sagepub.com/content/81/3/338
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.3102/0034654311413395
July 2011
2011 81: 338 originally published online 18 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jennifer A. Sandlin, Michael P. O'Malley and Jake Burdick
2010 Mapping the Complexity of Public Pedagogy Scholarship : 1894
Published on behalf of
American Educational Research Association

and
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Review of Educational Research Additional services and information for
http://rer.aera.net/alerts Email Alerts:
http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.aera.net/reprints Reprints:
http://www.aera.net/permissions Permissions:
What is This?
- Jul 18, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Aug 22, 2011 Version of Record >>

by Petra Kupsjak on October 2, 2012 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from
Review of Educational Research
September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 338375
DOI: 10.3102/0034654311413395
2011 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
338
Mapping the Complexity of Public Pedagogy
Scholarship: 18942010
Jennifer A. Sandlin
Arizona State University
Michael P. OMalley
Texas State University-San Marcos
Jake Burdick
Arizona State University
The term public pedagogy first appeared in 1894 and has been widely
deployed as a theoretical construct in education research to focus on pro-
cesses and sites of education beyond formal schooling, with a proliferation
of its use by feminist and critical theorists occurring since the mid-1990s.
This integrative literature review provides the first synthesis of public peda-
gogy research through a thematic analysis of a sample of 420 publications.
Finding that the public pedagogy construct is often undertheorized and
ambiguously presented in education research literature, the study identifies
five primary categories of extant public pedagogy research: (a) citizenship
within and beyond schools, (b) popular culture and everyday life, (c) infor-
mal institutions and public spaces, (d) dominant cultural discourses, and (e)
public intellectualism and social activism. These categories provide research-
ers with a conceptual framework for investigating public pedagogy and for
locating future scholarship. The study identifies the need for theoretical spec-
ificity in research that employs the public pedagogy construct and for empir-
ical studies that investigate the processes of public pedagogy, particularly in
terms of the learners perspective.
KEYWORDS: public pedagogy, informal learning, public intellectuals, cultural
studies, popular culture.
The term education research has historically described the study of what hap-
pens in, around, and to schools and the people therein. However, a subgenre of
inquiry has emerged that is concerned with educational activity and learning in
extrainstitutional spaces and discourses. This form of education, commonly known
as public pedagogy, has been largely constructed as a concept focusing on various
forms, processes, and sites of education and learning occurring beyond formal
schooling and is distinct from hidden and explicit curricula operating within and
RER413395RER10.3102/0034654311413395Sandlin et al.Public Pedagogy Scholarship
Public Pedagogy Scholarship
339
through school sites. It involves learning in institutions such as museums, zoos,
and libraries; in informal educational sites such as popular culture, media, com-
mercial spaces, and the Internet; and through figures and sites of activism, includ-
ing public intellectuals and grassroots social movements (Sandlin, Schultz, &
Burdick, 2010). Public pedagogy theorizing and research have been largely under-
girded by the contributions of cultural studies as well as various arts-based
approaches to examining learning in the public sphere. This inquiry emphasizes
both the socially reproductive and the resistant dimensions of these various peda-
gogical sites. The term itself is given a variety of definitions and meanings by those
who employ it, with educational scholars most frequently emphasizing its femi-
nist, critical, cultural, performative, and/or activist dimensions. Some strands of
public pedagogy inquiry also seek to broaden and deinstitutionalize conceptualiza-
tions of teaching, learning, and curriculum across the discipline of education.
Despite the variety of research sites and theoretical framings scholars have
brought to their work on public pedagogy, however, this project was born of our
consternation with the widespread practice of authors citing the term without ade-
quately explicating its meaning, its context, or its location within differing and
contested articulations of the construct. This dynamic enhances conceptual confu-
sion and also prevents distinct theorizations from informing, extending, or chal-
lenging one another. As such, the purpose of this article is to trace the use of the
term and its divergent meanings via a thorough review of the literature using the
phrase public pedagogy. In so doing, we provide education researchers with a
historically and theoretically rigorous analysis of the construct that will support
informed conceptual and empirical inquiry involving pedagogys intersections
with culture, media, informal sites of learning, democratic education, and social
activism. If education research fails to address the pedagogical force of popular
and public culture, Pinar (2006) argues, it risks operating under the false assump-
tion that schools are closed systems, with learning occurring only within a pre-
scribed pedagogical processa position theorists such as H. A. Giroux (2000) and
Ellsworth (2005) challenge.
Within our review we derived five conceptual categories as a means to organize
the literature into more meaningful, pragmatic, and relational groupings, as well
as to provide a framework for this article. Our analysis begins with a brief histori-
cal review of the earliest usages of public pedagogy in the educational literature,
in which the term was used to describe citizenship education within and beyond
schools. The next three categories address sites of learning through which public
pedagogy is enacted, including popular culture and everyday life, informal institu-
tions, and dominant cultural discourses. The final category addresses the nature of
the public intellectual as a pedagogical agent. Through this process of categorizing
the literature by themes, four overarching tensions arose, centered on issues of
theoretical undergirdings, empirical data, methodology, and conceptualizations of
pedagogy, which we explicate in the discussion section of this article.
Method
We conducted an integrative literature review, a process that involves review-
ing, critiquing, and synthesizing relevant literature to come to new understandings
of a topic (Torraco, 2005). Scholars in disciplines within and beyond education
have been using the term public pedagogy in their research and writing in earnest
Sandlin et al.
340
since the early 1990s; others have been drawing on the ideas of public pedagogy,
if not always specifically using that term, since the 1960s and 1970s. However,
there has been little attempt to synthesize this literaturewe did not locate a single
review on the topic. We thus undertook this research to provide a synthesis of what
has been done in this area and to provide guidance for future research, believing
that this body of literature would benefit from a holistic conceptualization and
synthesis of the literature to date (Torraco, 2005, p. 357).
To understand how scholars have explored the topic, we searched the phrase
public pedagogy in multiple databases, including ProQuest, EBSCOHost, ERIC/
CSA, JSTOR, Education Full Text, and Google Scholar. Although other literature
focuses on some of the same themes addressed in the public pedagogy literature
such as public intellectualism, popular culture as educator, social activism within
civil society, and out-of-school curriculumwe limited our analysis to scholarly
works that actually use the term to reduce the number of hits to a manageable size
and to center on the uses of this particular term in a broad range of disciplines. We
did, however, make deliberate exceptions and included additional sources (Cremin,
1976; Ellsworth, 2005; Lacy, 1995; Schubert, 1986) that do not specifically use the
term public pedagogy but that are widely cited in the public pedagogy literature
and thus can be considered foundational texts. Spanning the years 1894 to 2010,
the total number of academic works included in our final sample was 420, which
includes 15 masters theses, 28 dissertations, 3 working papers, 254 journal arti-
cles, 6 conference papers, 69 book chapters, 1 encyclopedia entry, and 44 books
(one of these books was the recently published Handbook of Public Pedagogy
[Sandlin et al., 2010], which we counted as one book rather than 65 individual
chapters). Duplicate and low-relevance articles, such as those including the term
only in a references title, were omitted from our final sample. We also excluded
book reviews to promote an emphasis on original scholarly work. Figure 1 repre-
sents the findings from our searches by year of publication (18942010), illustrat-
ing the increased use of the term over time.
We conducted a thematic analysis of these sources to structure the review and
organize our representation of the literature. The categories derived from this anal-
ysis of all 420 sources include (a) citizenship within and beyond schools, (b) pop-
ular culture and everyday life, (c) informal institutions and public spaces, (d)
dominant cultural discourses, and (e) public intellectualism and social activism. In
2009 and 2010 two new themes emerged, methodological issues and overview/
omnibus (which contains work that provides an overview of various ways the
concept has been used). There were only one or two pieces of literature in each of
these categories, so we do not have separate sections of this literature review
devoted to these themes. In the discussion section of this article, however, we do
briefly address these categories as newly emerging issues in the field that we urge
researchers to continue paying more attention to. Each source in the sample was
assigned to one category, based on independent coding of the manuscripts primary
thematic focus by each of the three authors. Discrepancies, which were minimal,
were resolved through a collaborative review of the source in question. Drawing
on Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilbers (1998) method for categorizing qualita-
tive data, we assert that the concept of objective categories capable of definitively
locating each literature source is, at best, a hypothetical construct. The researchers
work in reading and interpreting the texts shaped the categories that emerged and
341
the identification of texts with a particular category. Our goal is not to argue that
other categories are not possible, but rather to make a transparent case for the
categories we identified across the sample. Thus, we both provide a preliminary
but needed methodologically rigorous organizing schema for reviewing and theo-
rizing public pedagogy and welcome alternate perspectives.
The categories we derived, and the work that composes them, are detailed in the
following sections. As we discuss these various categories we also provide an
indication of how much of our sample was represented by each category. In addi-
tion, as we explain more thoroughly below, the public pedagogy literature has been
influenced by the work of Henry Giroux, as his scholarship represents roughly
15% of the entire sample. Giroux was an especially large influence during the
years 2001 to 2005, when his scholarship consisted of more than one third of the
published work during that time period. Also, Girouxs work accounted for
approximately one third of the publications in the Dominant Discourses category
across all time periods, reflecting his prolific publishing on the theme of neoliber-
alism as public pedagogy.
1
Citizenship Within and Beyond Schools: Historical
and Contemporary Meanings
One of the most unexpected facets we observed in this review was the appear-
ance of public pedagogy as early as 1894. Although the context and meaning of the
term differ in early sources from current parlance, in some ways the general
FIGURE 1. Number of academic works using the phrase public pedagogy from 1975
to 2010. Five works published from 1894 to 1975 were omitted from this figure because
of their dispersed publication dates. In addition, it should be noted that H. A. Girouxs
contributions account for more than one third of the sample for 2001 to 2005.
Sandlin et al.
342
axiological import remains consistentthe term in its earliest usage implied a
form of educational discourse in the service of the public good. We identified
approximately 5% of our sample in this category. Chamberlain (1894) provides the
first English-language use of the term via a translation of D'Arvert's (1893) discus-
sion of Parisian schooling practices. DArvert describes schools' efforts towards
educational ends that cannot be met by either the family or the church. It is an
education that, as its explicit aim, leads to the development of national identity and
citizenship. Thus, the use of the term public refers not to a physical site of educa-
tional phenomena but rather to an idealized outcome of educational activity: the
production of a public aligned in terms of values and collective identity.
Exemplifying this historical theme, Small (1917) uses the term to describe how
educational systems naturalize national identity and bring cohesion to members of
a body politic. In The Elementary School Teacher (Anonymous, 1909), public
pedagogy describes the intentional and overarching social mission of American
public schools at the time of their rapid growth (technical and vocational education
are specifically noted as points of public interest). Sutherland (1962) uses the term
to describe the aim of public education as it contrasts with attempted nonsecular
incursions into the schools at the time of his writing. We also located more recent
evidence of this concept of public pedagogy as education for the public good.
Although Brotherton (1996) uses the term in a similar fashion to other proponents
of the school as the manufacturing space for an anticipated public, Kerr (1999)
locates pedagogy within the act of public speech itself (as opposed to private
thought). These authors pose a multidimensional understanding of education and
its function in a democratic society, as they draw on an idea of public education
related to the development of the ideological social-political nation within the
consciousness and lived practices of that nations citizenry.
The debate over the American curriculum since the advent of public schooling
has centered on what values are fulfilled via schooling, with particular attention to
two vectors: the good of the public or the needs of the market economy (Kliebard,
2004; Willis, Schubert, Bullough, Kridel, & Holton, 1994). Several curriculum
scholars, including Cremin (1976) and Schubert (1986, 2010a), would take up this
argument of how best to serve the public interest in their writing on education
occurring beyond the borders of the traditional institution of schooling. Although
neither Cremin nor Schubert (until recently) explicitly use the term public peda-
gogy, their theoretical contributions have clear connections to contemporary dis-
course on the topic. Schubert (2010a), for example, has been describing outside
curriculum since 1981 as occurring in families, homes, peer groups, nonschool
organizations, communities, and mass media (p. 71). His earliest work in this area
(Schubert, 1981) asserts that to be effective, school curricula must relate to per-
spectives students acquire from other curricula (p. 186). Schubert (2010b) offers
possibilities for engaging curriculum lenses, such as Tylers curriculum categories,
to interpret outside curricula. Historically, his conceptualization tends toward
locating outside curricula in relation to improving school curriculum. He sees
inquiry in this area as advancing a public curriculum in which participants become
their own curriculum coordinators. This trajectory has been taken up in much work
on public pedagogy, critical media studies, and arts-based modes of educational
activity as a means of responding to oppressive aspects of cultural life. A related
strand in the literature focuses on how teachers incorporate popular culture into
343
their classrooms and has focused on using popular culture in teacher training
courses, specifically addressing how the cultures of teaching and learning are rep-
resented in popular culture (Tillman & Trier, 2007), fostering critical media liter-
acy in classrooms (Kellner & Share, 2007), and using popular culture in graduate
classrooms to illustrate theoretical concepts (Tisdell, 2008).
The idea that public pedagogy has its roots in formal schooling has also been
invoked by scholars who see schools as spaces in which to inculcate critical values with
the intent that these values will be translated to publicly pedagogical acts. As such,
these individuals view, and use, schools as incubation sites for the development of an
engaged, critical citizenry, a purpose that links this line of thinking to Deweys (1916)
formulations of educations relationship to democracy. Scholars and teachers working
in the intersections between formalized schoolings means and extrainstitutional ends
have used the classroom for staging youth activism (Schultz, 2008; Schultz &
Baricovich, 2010), for producing critical poetic literacies (Ayers, Hodge, & Casal,
2010; Coval, 2010), for engaging sexual equality and heterosexism in critical and
holistic ways (Sears, 2009), and for developing means of understanding and resisting
the dominant pedagogies that are anathema to democratic citizenship (H. A. Giroux,
2004e; Tavin, Lovelace, Stabler, & Maxam, 2003). These articulations mirror the
understanding of public pedagogy forwarded by the aforementioned historical sources
as these scholars view schools not as sites of individualistic aims but as spaces in which
the citizenry, and by proxy the nation, is produced. However, by inflecting this concep-
tual structure with Deweys (1916) notions of the intrinsic relationship between educa-
tion and democratic ideals, as well as the resistant aims of critical pedagogy (H. A.
Giroux, 2003b), these educators depart from the maintenance of a particular social
order via education and seek to influence their students toward transgressive and gen-
erative pedagogical acts.
Popular Culture and Everyday Life as Public Pedagogy
Despite the several very early instances of the term noted above, widespread
use of public pedagogy did not begin until the early 1990s, when scholars grew
increasingly interested in the educational force of popular culture. We identified
about 35% of the sample in this category. Increased use of the term as a way to link
cultural and media artifacts to processes of social domination originates largely in
the turn toward cultural studies in education research. Specifically, the lens of
cultural studies has offered education researchers a way to critically investigate
public and popular culture spaces for their pedagogical aspects and for the ways
these spaces reproduce or challenge commonsensical and oppressive configura-
tions of reality. Gramscis (1971) often-cited notion that every relationship of
hegemony is an educational one (p. 350) provides the terrain on which much of
the popular-culture-focused inquiry into public pedagogy resides. In this section
we focus on early feminist engagements with public pedagogies of popular culture
and everyday life, then discuss work focused on popular culture as a space where
oppressive ideologies are contested but ultimately reproduced and review work
examining public pedagogy as a site of resistance.
Feminist Constructions
The earliest references we found linking public pedagogy with popular culture
came in the 1990s from feminist scholars C. Luke (1994), K. Carrington and
Sandlin et al.
344
Bennett (1996), Brady (1998), and Dentith and Brady (1998, 1999), who sought to
understand popular culture and everyday living as sites of pedagogy. C. Luke
(1994, 1996) appears to have introduced the idea of popular culture and everyday
life as public pedagogy to an education research audience, asserting that the teach-
ing and learning inherent within daily life can be both oppressive and resistant. In
C. Lukes (1996) edited volume Feminisms and Pedagogies of Everyday Life,
contributing scholars addressed how gendered identities are constructed and cir-
culated through a variety of sites and activities that constitute everyday life, as
well as how those identities are negotiated by individuals within these various
sites. Contributors focused on popular culture such as computer games, television,
childrens toys, parenting magazines, and food marketing, examining how identity
formation is connected to the ways gender, family, childhood, parenting, and
mothering are represented and reproduced in those sites. While identifying popular
culture as a site of public pedagogy, C. Luke (1996) also broadened the term to
include everyday life itself as a pedagogical project and focused on arenas such as
womens friendships and parenting. This strand of everyday practices has been
taken up in more recent work, although not under the theoretical auspices of fem-
inism, including Alexanders (2004) research on the performative act of buying
condoms and Hickeys (2006) work on the street as a site of learning.
Working within a feminist politics of ethics, curriculum theorists Brady (1998,
2006) and Dentith (Dentith & Brady, 1998, 1999) presented public pedagogy in
the mid to late 1990s as a curricular practice oriented toward subverting dominant
ideologies. Aware of the processes of cultural reproduction inherent within media
representations, Dentith and Brady (1998) asserted that media also could circulate
liberatory discourses and help produce among women and other marginalized
populations collective identities oriented toward social justice activism. Requiring
critical examination of daily experience and the complex interactions of govern-
ment, media, and popular culture, public pedagogy creates sites of struggle in
which images, contradictory discourses, canonical themes and stories, and com-
mon sense versions of reality are disputed (Dentith & Brady, 1999, p. 1). Dentith
and Brady (1998) thus express interest in public pedagogy as a feminist, grassroots
phenomenon that fosters movement from positions of social inequality to ones of
informed activism (p. 2) and that pursues concrete advances in neighborhoods,
health and social services, and education. Newer work taking up this feminist
stance includes Piepmeiers (2009) analysis of grrrl zines (zines written by women
and girls) as feminist participatory media.
Popular Culture as a Site of Contestation That
Facilitates Social Reproduction
The now-common use of public pedagogy within both education and other
fields to refer to the hegemonic power of the mediaa strand of scholarship that
has, in various forms, dominated the genre since the mid to late 1990sreveals
the significant influence of H. A. Girouxs (1998, 2000) work on the study of pub-
lic pedagogy. Departing from feminist constructions of public pedagogy as a
project oriented toward collectively subverting dominant ideologies, Giroux draws
on cultural studies literature that focuses on popular culture as a site of socializa-
tion and an arena in which hegemony is reproduced as well as challenged. Although
Giroux since the mid-1980s had been exploring popular culture as educational, the
345
specific term public pedagogy first appears in his work in a 1998 article titled
Public Pedagogy and Rodent Politics: Cultural Studies and the Challenge of
Disney. Herein, Giroux examines Disney as a teaching machine (p. 256) and
urges educators to critically analyze cultural products and processes as important
enactments of pedagogy.
H. A. Giroux (2000, 2001d) uses the theoretical work of Hall (1997), Gramsci
(1971), and Freire (1973) to understand how popular culture acts as a political and
pedagogical site of struggle over identities; to illustrate that popular culture does not
automatically reproduce dominant ideologies, but exists as a site of negotiation
where hegemony is struggled for yet not always necessarily won; and to understand
how the cultural realm can help create a democratic politics that addresses the rela-
tions of power between youth and adults (H. A. Giroux, 2001d, p. 33). Giroux
(2000), in a discussion of the relationship between culture and politics, critiques both
right- and left-wing theorists who reject inquiry into culture as tangential to any real
political curriculum. Instead, he takes up Halls (1997) notion of culture as central to
political discourse, observing that when scholarship rejects the study of culture, it
not only fails to recognize how issues of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and
class are intertwined, it also refuses to acknowledge the pedagogical function of
culture in constructing identities, mobilizing desires, and shaping moral values (p.
349). Giroux argues that inquiry into culture provides theorists with a possibility for
locating political agency within totalizing institutional structures. However, this pos-
sibility is tempered by the hegemonic moves of culture, which provide a limited, yet
normalized, language and imagination for political citizenship.
Much work on popular culture as public pedagogy is grounded in this view that
possibilities for resistance occur within popular culture. To illustrate this point
H. A. Giroux (2001a) posits that some Hollywood films can be critical, dealing
with racism or challenging homophobia, whereas others provide provocative rep-
resentations that address the themes of war, violence, masculinity, sexism, and pov-
erty (p. 591). Scholars also point to digital popular cultures as spaces of possible
resistance, arguing that these spaces are an important resource for kids to develop
their own cultural identities and sense of social agency (H. A. Giroux, 2001d, p. 23).
However, while drawing theoretically from Gramsci (1971), especially his insights
regarding popular culture as a site of both domination and contestation, much of the
literature examining popular culture as public pedagogy tends to focus more on the
oppressive aspects of popular culture. Although we found very few authors who
allowed no room for resistance or active negotiation of meaning by audiences, schol-
ars have argued that popular culture often fosters culturally dominant values and
practices such as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and violence (Mayo,
2002). This work has focused on a variety of forms of popular culture, including
childrens consumer culture, sports, film, television, and technology.
Critiques of childrens consumer culture, for example, describe how it imparts
oppressive ideologies of race, class, gender, heterosexism, and consumerism (H. A.
Giroux, 1998, 1999; A. Luke, Carrington, & Kapitzke, 2003; Trifonas, 2006a).
Giroux (1999) provides an analysis of gender and racial stereotyping in Disney
films such as The Little Mermaid and The Lion King and explores how dominant
visions of national identity are perpetuated through films such as Good Morning,
Vietnam. His analysis hinges on explicating how Disneys nostalgic pedagogy of
innocence (p. 124) is enacted through strategies of escapism, historical forgetting,
Sandlin et al.
346
and repressive pedagogy (p. 127), which strip public memory of its historical,
social, and political context (p. 127). A. Luke et al. (2003) also focus on how Disney
and other forms of childrens popular culture such as Barbie and Teletubbies teach
children that democracy equates with the freedom to make consumer choices.
Scholars have also examined how sporting spectacles and industries are public
pedagogies bolstering patriotic, nationalistic, racist, and neoliberal ideologies
(Falcous & Silk, 2006; Henricks, 1991; Newman, 2007; Trifonas, 2006b). Falcous
and Silk (2006), for example, explore how sport perpetuates political agendas of
neoliberalism through an examination of how Aboriginal Muslim Australian boxer
Anthony Mundine was condemned in the Australian press and sanctioned by world
boxing authorities when, after 9/11, he criticized Australias involvement in the
Iraq war. Critical analyses of film, television, digital media, and popular music
often describe potentially productive aspects of particular films, TV shows, web-
sites, or musicians work, but also expose how representations of youth, consumer
culture, race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality in these media perpetuate unequal
power relations and ignore structural inequalities (H. A. Giroux, 2002a, 2002c; S.
S. Giroux & Giroux, 2007; Hill, 2009b; Middleton, 2007; Walton & Potvin, 2009;
Yin, 2005). In this mode, Tillman and Trier (2007) explore how the TV show
Boston Public reinforces dominant ideologies of racism, sexism, and classism and
perpetuates the White teacher as savior mythology. Walton and Potvin (2009)
explore how Spike TV perpetuates hegemonic masculinity through its valorization
of sex, sports, and violence. Nunley (2007) argues that the film Crash is productive
in that it disrupts myopic and monolithic notions of race and ethnicity but ulti-
mately reveals its critical limitations through its creation of an ethos of tolerance
(p. 337), which ignores asymmetrical and structural power relationships that
uphold white privilege. Other analyses have focused on how consumerism is per-
petuated through television shows such as Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
(Jacobson, 2008). H. A. Giroux (2001b) applauded the film Fight Club for its
staunch critique of consumerism, but found the films alternative discourse, hyper-
violent masculinization, to be severely wanting. Finally, R. A. Luke (2005)
explored how Web portals shape online participation, construct user experiences,
and socialize learners to be digital citizens within the prevalent discourses of
neoliberal capital (p. 26).
Popular Culture as Cultural Resistance
Apart from feminist inquiry, the literature on popular culture as public peda-
gogy focuses more on the reproduction of inequality than on how political resist-
ance might be engaged. However, many authors repeatedly argue that resistance is
possible. Some scholars (Brady, 2006; Mayo, 2002; Sandlin & Milam, 2008) have
argued that research on popular culture as public pedagogy should expand beyond
what Savage (2010) calls its enveloping negativity, a cynical, miserable, and
myopic view of Western culture (p. 109). Savage suggests, in an argument that
does not take up feminist articulations of public pedagogy, that scholars fail to
provide space for resistance, and thus public pedagogy scholarship glosses over
the myriad grey areas of power struggles, and perhaps more importantly, fails to
recognize the powerful role everyday cultural texts and discourses can play as
dynamic, dialectic, and political vehicles of resistance (p. 109).
347
A small but growing number of scholars have begun focusing more on popular
culture as a terrain of contestation. Although some researchers use the term public
pedagogy to refer to such resistance, others use the term critical public pedagogy,
explaining that they are explicitly conceptualizing popular culture as a site where
domination is fought against and are framing popular culture as a critical and eman-
cipatory pedagogy. We found work focusing on the critical possibilities of maga-
zines, zines, and graphic novels (Bashford & Strange, 2004; Espiritu, 2006;
Piepmeier, 2009); music (Anijar, 2001; Guillory, 2005; Hill, 2009a); film, television,
and radio (H. A. Giroux, 2002a; Hladki, 2006; Hornsey, 2008b; Wright, 2007; Wright
& Sandlin, 2009); digital technologies (Hickey-Moody, Rasmussen, & Harwood,
2008; Ritter, 2008); and culture jamming (Sandlin & Milam, 2008; Stasko, 2009).
This work explores how popular culture can decode and interrupt dominant ideolo-
gies of race, class, gender, sexuality, militarism, and neoliberalism.
Bashford and Strange (2004), for example, focus on mass-circulation womens
magazines and how these media operated as public pedagogy to facilitate critical
sex educationthat was unfiltered by established social institutions like the mil-
itary or the school (p. 77)in the first half of the 20th century. The advice col-
umns included advice on miscarriage, breastfeeding, artificial insemination,
abortion, impotence, masturbation, and homosexuality and generally worked to
counter prudish attitudes of Australians towards sex education (p. 80). The ways
in which digital spaces and cultures provide possibilities for resistance and for the
democratization of knowledge are taken up by Freishtat and Sandlins (2010) work
on Facebook, Hayes and Gees (2010) work on videogames such as the Sims and
Second Life, and Kellner and Kims (2009) work on YouTube. Additional investi-
gations into popular culture as resistance examine topics such as Art Spiegelmans
graphic novel about 9/11, In the Shadow of No Towers (Espiritu, 2006), the hip
hop pedagogies of black women rappers such as Missy Elliott and Eve (Guillory,
2005), and the music and person of Selena as an object of veneration that
informs and sustains a sense of agency among many in the TejanoChicano
Mexican American community (Anijar, 2001, p. 88). Other authors focus on the
resistant possibilities in mainstream films and television shows (Hornsey, 2008b;
Wright, 2007), whereas others focus on independent and art films (H. A. Giroux,
2002a; Hladki, 2006). For example, Hornseys (2008b) work focuses on the main-
stream British film The Lavender Hill Mob. Hornsey relates how male homosexu-
ality in the 1950s was seen to have its own particular geography, ways of using the
city that were deeply incompatible with those being imagined (p. 40) by the new
architects of urban space who, after World War II, sought to demarcate the legiti-
mate uses of urban space (p. 40). The film disrupts these normalizing attempts
through its portrayal of a gay couple and their criminal antics as it celebrates
precisely those queer urban choreographies that were becoming more generally
problematic at the time of the films release (p. 40). Wright (2007) examines the
influence of the mainstream British television show The Avengers, arguing that it
facilitated critical feminist consciousness among the young women who watched
the show in the 1960s. Wrights work is particularly significant because it is one
of a limited number of empirical studies that investigate processes of public peda-
gogy from the perspective of the learner, a point we return to in the discussion
section of this article.
348
Informal Institutions and Public Spaces as Sites of Public Pedagogy
Scholars in a broad range of fields including education, anthropology, commu-
nications, performance studies, history, and even some of the sciences have wid-
ened the meaning of public pedagogy beyond popular culture to include other
informal, yet institutionalized sites as spaces of learning, including museums, pub-
lic monuments, public artworks, cemeteries, and public parks. We identified about
15% of our sample within this category. This work is frequently informed by the
theoretical constructs of cultural studies; however, other scholars working in this
area embrace a range of perspectives, including a/r/t/ography, postcolonialism, and
queer theory. As Ellsworth (2005) argues, learning occurs in diverse sites and
modalities, in ways that we may not consider pedagogy, for lack of a broader
understanding of that words possible meanings. Within these informal sites, learn-
ing often takes on a subtle, embodied mode, moving away from the cognitive rigor
commonly associated with education and toward notions of affect, aesthetics, and
presence. Scholars exploring informal sites of learning explicate their pedagogies
and their role in developing learners relationships to their world and lives. We use
the term institutionalized to indicate that these sites have been consciously created
with pedagogical ends in mind. Therefore, although some of these sites do not
espouse a formal institutional affiliation, they produce a specific educational space
within the public domain. Finally, although some informal spaces reinforce domi-
nant culture, others create counterinstitutional spaces in which the educational
activity of artwork, performative display, and other pedagogical modes contrasts
with the established culture.
Although neither employs the term public pedagogy, two texts outside of our
sample have been cited in ways that shape public pedagogy theory, practice, and
inquiry focused on the learning enacted in counterinstitutional spaces. The writers
within Lacys (1995) edited collection Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art
call for a political reconstitution of public art spaces that espouses the activist pos-
sibilities of artistic engagement to shift the idea of innocuous artworks in the pub-
lic to the production of transgressive artworks for the public. Lacy historicizes the
revolutionary aims of new genre public art as emerging in the United States during
the Vietnam War, growing out of the general militancy of the era. She further
explains that
women and ethnic artists began to consider their identitieskey to the new
political analysiscentral to their aesthetic in some as yet undefined manner.
Both groups began with a consciousness of their community of origin as their
primary audience. (p. 26)
Although these historical origins of new genre public art have clear connections to
the community-oriented public resistance discussed below (Brady, 2006; Dentith
& Brady, 1998, 1999), the emphasis on aesthetics and the production of artistic
texts and artifacts centers the work in Lacys text on particularized sites of peda-
gogical engagement and the ways in which they encourage critical public dialogue.
This view is supported by later authors, such as Moisio and Suoranta (2006), who
call for public art spaces that foster public debate regarding the meaning of these
spaces and the political possibilities they produce.
349
Gabliks (1995) contribution is particularly instructive to this perspective. In
discussing the role of connective aesthetics in political public art, she writes that
art is rooted in a listening self, that cultivates the intertwining of self and Other,
suggests a flow-through experience which is not delimited by the self but extends
into the community through modes of reciprocal empathy (p. 82). Here, art pro-
vokes public discourse as it seeks to transform the individual, didactic pedagogue
of both dominant and critical education into an emergent, performative, tenuous,
and co-constructed pedagogical experience. The artworks presented in the collec-
tion interrupt dominant cultural scripts and resist explanation via their commit-
ment to aesthetic and embodied forms of knowing and learning. Scholars
producing and studying aesthetic public pedagogies have taken up these concepts
in various ways, and Lacys collection is cited in the literature (see Carpenter &
Tavin, 2009; Fryd, 2007) as a way to understand how activists might repurpose
public spaces toward educational ends.
Ellsworths (2005) Places of Learning: Media, Architecture, Pedagogy has
shaped much of the dialogue on learning in nonschool sites, with its most clear
influence over this informal genre of public pedagogy research. The book reframes
both pedagogy and learning to account for the multitude of anomalous places
and ways in which they might occur. Resisting notions of teaching and educational
content that conceptualize knowledge as a fixed, predetermined, finite, largely
cognitive object to be attained, Ellsworth focuses on pedagogical exchange, which
is enacted in experiential relationships whose meanings are fluid, inexhaustible,
and always becoming (p. 28). Ellsworth thus implores teachers and scholars to
develop understandings of teaching and learning that challenge the commonsensi-
cal, ubiquitous meanings these terms have taken on within the public imagination
of education. Ellsworth explores various sites as examples of anomalous forms of
learningthe architecture of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, the theatrical work of
Anna Deveare Smith, and the Braveheart: Men in Skirts exhibit at the Metropolitan
Museum of the Artsas transitional spaces, drawing from Winnicotts (1989)
theory of transitional objects. These sites use their ambiguous forms of pedagogy
to address the learning self as an emergence (p. 57). These public spaces of
display have been crafted toward an educational end, but one that is conscien-
tiously decentered and improvisational, dependent on the learning subject as much
as on the spaces design.
Public Artistry and Performance
Following the influence of Lacy (1995) and Ellsworth (2005), scholars have
taken interest in the educational aspects of public art sites and genres, including
found public spaces and artifacts, such as graffiti (Christen, 2010; Harris, 2006)
and urban architecture (Hornsey, 2008a), as well as sites that have been produced
as an element of the research at hand (Irwin et al., 2009; Leaos, 2010). McKay
and Keifer-Boyd (2004) worked with preservice art teachers to translate the
Dynamite Museuma collection of provocative signs displayed in public
spaces throughout Amarillo, Texas. These authors, via a collective interpretive
process with their students, highlight the semiotic nature of public pedagogy,
claiming that cultural signifiers create metaphors that teach the public common-
sense ways of viewing reality. They explain that the public/collective memory
(the signified) is entrenched by the forms (i.e., public pedagogy/signifiers)
Sandlin et al.
350
mediated by signs. Politicized public pedagogy is to recognize that the signifiers
and signs are negotiated agreed upon meanings, not truths (p. 30). However, one
student involved in this study questioned the pedagogies enacted via the creation
of anonymous public critique, noting the sarcastic voice behind the [artwork] has
complete liberation and no responsibilityan artists dream (p. 32). Troubling
some expressions of the pedagogy valorized by Lacy (1995) and Ellsworth (2005),
this criticism regarding the possible detachment of an artifact-based public peda-
gogy echoes arguments around the need for and nature of a pedagogue to teach the
public, an issue we return to in the discussion section of this article.
In her study of Lacys work, Fryd (2007; also see Berelowitz, 2004) describes
political public performance art as expanded public pedagogy, noting the works
capacity to inform and engage diverse audiences with issues relevant to their lives
[and] . . . transform its viewers into participants, even collaborators, with activist
art (p. 23). Performance-based public pedagogy has been the subject and medium
of much of Denzins (2003) work, which draws on H. A. Girouxs notion of culture
as inherently pedagogical, but extends this distinction by suggesting that the peda-
gogical is rooted in the performance of cultural scripts. Here, both cultural domi-
nation and the potential for resistance lie in the enactment of everyday life and in
the transgressive work of critical performance ethnography (see similar work by
Alexander, 2006, and Martin & DAgostino, 2004).
Museums
A vibrant subgenre within the informal terrain of public pedagogy involves
educative sites of memorialization (Kridel, 2010)which include museums and
similar spaces such as cemeteries (Yeoman, 2000) and monuments (Carrier,
2006)and how their structure, historicity, and arrangement act pedagogically.
This work stems largely from the cultural studies approaches taken by Bennett
(1997, 2004; also see Youngquist, 2003) in his work on how the museum shaped
civic life through casting cultural differences among groups of people as evolu-
tionary. For Bennett, this scientific overlay to cultural artifacts suggested that
the dominant culture in which the museum resided was constructed as the apex of
social and cultural evolutionary principles, whereas other cultures were considered
less developed. Similar empirical work on contemporary museum curation and
its role in indigenous identity formation has been taken up by Trofanenko (2006).
Weiner (1994) centered his inquiry on corporate museums sponsored by Coca-
Cola, Jack Daniels, and Hershey to illustrate how they use historical discourses to
associate their products with the notion of democratic communities, and Sandlos
(2004) views film curation as a psychoanalytically driven form of pedagogy in and
of itself. Still others see memorialization as a powerful critical pedagogy that
works within and on historical memory to highlight present-day injustices. Soudien
(2006) and Chidester (2008) both work in the context of post-apartheid South
Africa and seek to recall the traumatic history, as well as to bring about present
change in race relations via public memorialization. Similarly, Yeomans (2000)
inquiry into a Quebecois slave cemetery disrupts the conciliatory narratives of
Canadas involvement in slavery. Authors in this area of public pedagogy draw
attention to public memory, the ideological nature of display, and how historical
forces shape epistemological standpoints. Scholars also focus on forms of learning
beyond the dominant focus on language, elevating body, position, and affect to
351
serve as direct modes of address, rather than as tangential learning styles that
merely accompany the real education inherent in language.
Historical Sites
A final subset of scholarship on informal sites examines the educative potential
of certain historical sites of public discourse, including South African university
gardens that educate about and preserve natural flora (Van Sittert, 2003); the
YMCAs incorporation of film into its social welfare programs of the 1920s
(Greene, 2005); the racist overtures of the 1904 Olympic games inclusion of
anthropology days to evidence White superiority (Darnell & Murray, 2008); and
Georges Cuviers Galerie dAnatomie Compare, a 19th-century public site for
education into the typologies of natural history (Eigen, 1997). In addition to these
historical analyses, Hoffmanns (2006) research on the sleeping beauties of the
19th- and 20th-century fairground (female formsreal or sculptedin a death-
like sleep, encased in glass and used as display pieces and attraction objects for
enticing would-be customers to various fair attractions) highlights the intersection
of several threads of informal public pedagogies. Hoffman notes that the female
body situated between death and sleep highlighted in these displays was found in
other public spaces: the museum, the ethnological display, the scientific model,
and artistic works. These sleeping beauties inhabited a realm of strange imagina-
tion and shifting roles, where touts and professors were hard to tell apart, strollers
changed into payers and peepers, and female bodies slipped among the realms of
fantasy, pedagogy, commerce and art (p. 155). They help us understand historical
constructions of femininity, the body, and death; and are a pedagogical device in
their own right, as they potentially served to (re)produce these concepts meanings
in their historical moment of the early 20th century.
Dominant Discourses as Public Pedagogy
The capacity for dominant cultural discourses to exhibit educational functions
is another thread in public pedagogy literature. About 20% of the literature in our
sample related to this concept of public pedagogy, which seeks to identify peda-
gogical aspects of the cultural milieu, such as public policy, political discourse,
widespread cultural values, and economic determinism, to explicate how these
various elements ascribe and reinforce specific forms of citizenship as well as
reproduce individual and collective identities. Public policy and the larger political
dimensions of social life are understood as having an efficiency beyond their legal
and economic functionality, serving as both enabling and delimiting constructs
(re)producing epistemological and ontological boundaries on cultural life. Similar
to the previously described school-based public pedagogy inquiry, scholars in this
genre view these cultural discourses as technologies for the widespread determina-
tion of how the public is constituted as well as a specified range of dispositions
toward civic life. This work consistently described problematic aspects of domi-
nant discourses, including racism and economic disparity, often concluding with
the authors expressed intention of developing counterdiscursive strategies and
critical pedagogical interventions. Scholarship in this category will likely expand
in the future as a response to the politically contentious U.S. climate that emerged
following Obamas election. Sustained critical work on public representations of
race and nationalityconsidering the national immigration debates, the rise of the
Sandlin et al.
352
birther movement, and the exceedingly contentious claims that culture has
become postracialappears to be a particularly germane element of public
pedagogy research and theorizing in the current milieu.
We created two subcategories for this literature; however, these categories are
neither discreet nor tidy in their division. The first, Public Policy as Pedagogy,
includes work on how broadly communicated governmental, legal, and medical
discourse and policymaking act as pedagogical outlets for the construction of spe-
cific public and private identities. Our second category, Neoliberalism, could be
considered a type of public policy. However, the authors herein suggest the emer-
gence of global capital and the dominance of market ideology have almost com-
pletely eclipsed discourse in the public sphere. For these reasons, and to account
for the wealth of work H. A. Giroux has devoted to neoliberalism, we maintain
these subcategories as separate, but related, entities.
Public Policy as Pedagogy
Larsen and Pich (2007) discuss how government justifications and public
acceptance of post-9/11 Canadian security measures create a public pedagogy that
favors a form of national security while paradoxically sacrificing the rights of a
targeted group of citizens. Similarly, Salmon (2005) identifies how policy address-
ing fetal alcohol syndrome among Canadian aboriginals has created negative
effects for aboriginal populations, and Bravo (2009) identifies how climate policy
marginalizes indigenous communities in ecological decision making. Miron and
Ward (2007) analyze how news media manufacture ideological frameworks
through an examination of post-Katrina political discourse that forwards classist
and racist perspectives. Other authors (Deflem, 1999; Hattam & Atkinson, 2006)
explore how policy discourse can be leveraged to foster national unification and
cultural identity. Understanding these discourses as pedagogical texts opens up
new sites of inquiry into how citizenship, identity, and cultural performances are
taught and learned via public transmission. However, as we detail below, Marxian
perspectives on culture insist that all public policy, regardless of origin, is always
shaped by the economic context of its production.
Neoliberalism, Global Capitalism, and Public Pedagogy
Although still located in a project reminiscent of critical media literacy, and
still concerned with examining the reproductive effects of popular culture,
H. A. Girouxs (2003a, 2003c, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005, 2007)
more recent work has shifted away from close readings of popular culture texts
toward a focus on neoliberalism. This shift can be seen, for example, in Girouxs
(2003a) analysis of the film Ghost World, in which he argues that the grim eco-
nomic prospects for U.S. youth, exacerbated by neoliberal policies, should have
been communicated in the film. The overarching concern in Girouxs more recent
work is the articulation of the global, extensive operation of neoliberalism as a
public pedagogy that reproduces identities, values, and practices, all under the sign
of the market. Giroux argues that the political trajectory in the United States
directly preceding and, more virulently, following 9/11 engendered a dramatic
resurgence of the neoliberal agenda, one that functions as public pedagogy in a
radically refigured cultural politics (H. A. Giroux, 2004e, p. 107; also see Desai,
2009). Within neoliberalism the public is under consistent attack and subject to
353
continual appropriation by the private sphere, and the pedagogical discourses
therein relegate agency to consumer choice, subsume political action under capital,
and reduce public spaces (Mills, 2002) to commercial centers. Despite shifting his
attention to this seemingly totalizing discourse, Giroux retains hope for the pos-
sibility of social change. His idea of interrogating public pedagogies as an inter-
ventionist educational practice largely located within schools (H. A. Giroux,
2003b) takes on different analytical strategies without changing its underlying
premises: The violence of neoliberalism can be explained through the existential
narratives of those who experience its lived relations as well as through conceptual
analyses provided by intellectuals (H. A. Giroux, 2004e, p. 145). Girouxs (2003a)
discourse of public pedagogy maintains its emphasis on classroom interventions,
yet does so without naming specific sites or artifacts of culture. Instead, Giroux
(2004e) targets the amorphous and vasta powerful ensemble of ideological and
institutional forces whose aim is to produce competitive, self-interested individu-
als vying for their own material and ideological gain (p. 106)to understand how
culture is produced and performed within the public, a stance that, despite its
critical potential, has been criticized as totalizing (Savage, 2010).
H. A. Girouxs conceptualization of neoliberal ideology as a (mis)educative
arrangement of both capital and power structures has influenced understandings of
pedagogy within the field of education and also understandings of neoliberalism
within a wide array of disciplines. In our search, many of the articles we catego-
rized under neoliberalism used Girouxs theoretical construct as a baseline for
their inquiry into either pedagogy or economic cultural relations. Purcell (2008)
and Bobulescu (2008) draw on this construct of cultural politics to describe the
destitution of human life under the wages of late capitalism. Empirically, scholars
have also discussed how such diverse arenas as schools public signage (Austin &
Hickey, 2008), the effects of globalization on rural American life (Edmondson,
2003), the destruction of urban French housing (Windle, 2008), and even the mag-
azine AdBusters, a self-described site of resistance against corporatization (Haiven,
2007), have been aligned with market ideology. To these authors, what is at stake
under the auspice of a public pedagogy of neoliberalism is the capacity to concep-
tualize a meaningful sense of the public itself, rather than the already-privatized
simulacra of public life and resistance that serve market ideologies.
Of the authors utilizing H. A. Girouxs schema, Edmondson (2003) and Windle
(2008) both also posit public pedagogy as a possible site of resistance to and cri-
tique of the onset of neoliberal policy and privatization. Edmondson calls for a
critical public pedagogy that instructs threatened rural groups in mobilizing
against state and federal agendas [in the service of the market] that work to wrest
control away from local peoples (p. 115). Windle, in a bricolage of Girouxs and
Ellsworths contributions, describes the production of public memory sites that
document the destruction and appropriation of urban communities via the drive of
profit motives. Public pedagogy as a site and practice of resistance to neoliberal-
ism also appears in Mayos (2003) proposal for educational reform in a late capi-
talist social system. Finally, Austin and Hickeys (2008) response to the
encroachment of neoliberalism into public schooling involves modes of aesthetic
display similar to those employed by scholars and artists working within the infor-
mal strand described above.
Sandlin et al.
354
Although H. A. Girouxs work is clearly important to understanding public
pedagogy research into the modern economic and cultural landscape, a small num-
ber of authors in our review did not incorporate his writing into their own. Falk
(2005), for example, uses the term public pedagogy in a causal manner to describe
how an educational force might be able to instill a law-based perspective into
foreign policy. Miller (1994), however, references cultural studies scholar Meaghan
Morriss (1992) identification of the public pedagogy of neocorporatism [italics
added] (cited in Miller, 1994, p. 277) and her use of this terminology to describe
the economic situation of late-1980s Australia. Reading Miller and Morris against
contemporary scholarship on neoliberalism, we might see neocorporate ideologies
as a predecessor to the contemporary moment described by Giroux, one marked
by the presence of state regulation over capitalism but, mirroring Reaganomics and
Thatcherism, an eventual surrender of that authority to business oligarchs. The
work of Miller and Morris, combined with Girouxs use of Hall, Williams,
Castoriadis, and Said, again reveals cultural studies influence on public pedagogy
scholarship, an influence that broadens the scope of what can be considered peda-
gogical and raises questions regarding the power inherent in these pedagogies.
Though relatively recent, scholarship on neoliberalism as public pedagogy has
been both prolific and helpful in developing a greater understanding of the social
and economic context of both schools and the broader notion of education.
Conceptualizing market forces in this fashion forces educational inquiry into
extrainstitutional spaces to examine both the predatory nature of culture (McLaren,
1995) as well as cultures capacity to foster the same set of (killer) instincts into
its participants. The work of scholars in this area is to find spaces where counter-
publicsunderstood as parallel discursive arenas through which contesting ideas
can be formulated (Fraser, 1990; also see Norths (2006), explication of Frasers
work, especially her conceptualization of social justice and the public sphere)
might be theorized, cultivated, and mobilized in defense of democratic ideals.
Empirical inquiry into the processes of neoliberalism or counterpublics as well as
theoretical and empirical work on the educational mechanisms of this form of
learning are less evident in the literature, however, and needed in future research,
a point we return to in our discussion.
Public Pedagogy, Public Intellectualism, and
Performative Social Activism
The notion of agency emerges as a significant and contested construct within
theorizations of public pedagogy, one that is frequently positioned as work carried
out by public intellectuals. Some scholars emphasize an intellectual tradition stem-
ming from the work of literary critic Edward Said (1994; H. A. Giroux, 2004e), who
viewed public intellectuals as academics or other individuals in positions of cultural
or economic power, with the capacity to translate social issues for a public audience
and the public good. Other scholars focus on communitarian, largely feminist,
aspects of collective, decentered action and intellectual work. This feminist con-
struction is not antithetical to understanding the productive agency of institutionally
located public intellectuals, but it does resist a singular articulation that privileges the
institutionally identified public intellectual over other extrainstitutional expressions
of the concept. About 25% of the literature relates to this construct.
355
The Individual as Public Intellectual
Early representations in the literature linking public pedagogy to public intel-
lectuals in larger society focus on a need for an intelligentsia to educate the public
in some form of disciplinary or political knowledge. An early instance of this dis-
course (Long, 1969) examines the U.S. president as a teacher who utilizes pres-
idential pedagogy and who develops and sustains the sense of purpose in the
government and in the public (p. 448). In the mid-1970s, the Institute for Research
in History defined its work in public pedagogy as the communication of research
to non-academic audiences (Cobb, 1980, p. 83) and sought to link academics and
media professionals to this end. In these ways, public pedagogy and its implied
public intellectuals disseminate expert knowledge to the general public for par-
ticular purposes (Fulcher, 1999). Robrt, Daly, Hawken, and Holmberg (1997), for
example, present public pedagogy within sustainable development as educating
the public about how the world works (p. 80), recognizing that the voting pub-
lic (p. 80) lacks an understanding of scientific principles related to sustainable
development. Such pedagogy is linked to democracy and social changethe
authors state that the distribution of knowledge is at least as critical for democ-
racy as the distribution of income (p. 80)with the view that a public educated
in the appropriate knowledge will influence the adoption of public policy oriented
toward sustainability.
V. Carrington and Luke (1997) take up a similar identification of the implied
public intellectual with democracy and social change through their advocacy of a
public pedagogy that educates community, business, and political interests about
the powers and limits of literacy in achieving critical economic, social, and cultural
change. Likewise, Castree (2006) identifies public intellectuals within the field of
geography as those capable of intervening authoritatively in public debates
about globalization, neoliberalism, and capital. In Castrees (2004) conceptualiza-
tion, the geographer as public intellectual is one of many producers rather than
guardians of knowledge and engages ordinary people with the capacities for
responsible citizenship (p. 84). There is also a significant amount of scholarship
identifying a need for a public pedagogy through which intellectuals or communi-
ties might engage wider audiences in transformative enterprises but which neglects
to theorize that public pedagogy with any degree of specificity (Eley, 1988; Silk &
Andrews, 2006).
To counteract the hegemony of popular culture and neoliberalism, H. A. Giroux
(2004a, 2004c, 2004e) emphasizes the role of educators and other cultural workers
as oppositional public intellectuals acting to create democratic public spaces that
transform social problems. In this work, resistance and agency are the province of
Gramscis (1971) traditional intelligentsia, who are charged with explaining and
theorizing neoliberal discourse and its potential ruptures. This perspective is also
evident in the work of scholars who embrace Girouxs notions of public intellectu-
als. Jenlink (2005), for example, characterizes public pedagogy as socially engaged
citizenship through which the teacher as intellectual provides public outreach (p.
254) to marginalized groups and works to liberate the public by initiating,
enabling, and sensitizing students (p. 261). This critical public pedagogy com-
bines with nonviolent disobedience to promote democracy through changed rela-
tions of power (H. A. Giroux, 2001c), echoing Habermass view of the intellectual
Sandlin et al.
356
as essential to creating a public sphere where citizens are politically engaged
(Marks, 2003).
Saids (1994) metaphor of the exile also becomes central in H. A. Girouxs
(2004a, 2004e) work on public intellectualisma figure who transcends the dis-
cursive boundaries of public and academic spheres and, in doing so, is no longer
at home in either (also see He, 2010, on exile pedagogy). Girouxs public
intellectual is thus centered around but not confined to the classroom, forming
alliances beyond the classroom with students, parents, and community organizers
to link critical imagination with public activism (H. A. Giroux, 2004c). Modes of
public intellectual work might include creative writing (Ryan, 2005), drama and
Boals theater of the oppressed (Borg & Mayo, 2006), and other forms of engaging
intersections of culture and neoliberalism as a political and pedagogical site (H. A.
Giroux, 2000). Within this frame, agency is located with the institutionally or
professionally identified pedagogue, and the unresolved question remains, On
whose terms? (Mayo, 2002, p. 201).
Decentered and Communitarian Public Intellectualisms
S. Robbins (1998) provides a fracture in the construction of the public intel-
lectual as an institutionally identified individual by critiquing what she terms the
academic literacy-sharing model in which university intellectuals transmit
knowledge to an insufficiently informed public. Working with preservice teachers
and universityschool partnerships, Robbins historicizes the literacy-sharing
model within the cold war and post-Sputnik context that prioritized the transfer of
university knowledge to public school students. In turn, she calls for mutual col-
laborations that recognize and engage the public intellectual work done by second-
ary schools. Such implications have been evident in the literature for decades,
although often in vague and undertheorized ways. In the 1970s, for example, the
Federation of Public Programs in the Humanities (Smith & Weiland, 1980) empha-
sized public pedagogys participatory and dialogic character while also acknowl-
edging the nearly insurmountable debate arising with any attempt to define the
term public pedagogy. However, the federations conceptualization equated par-
ticipation with pedagogy central to traditional instruction (p. 2) and correlated
its audience-based project with developing a public counterpart to the classroom.
Likewise, drawing on Berlants (1997) construct of diva citizenshipwherein
members of subaltern groups enact counterhegemonic pedagogies in public
spacesAbowitz and Rousmaniere (2004) propose a model of citizen leadership
within schools framed as transgressive interruption of oppressive structures and as
coalition building. Their feminist model focuses on leadership possibilities for
women and other excluded populations emerging from the community, in contrast
to positions assigned by institutional hierarchies.
Others locate their work at the intersection of public intellectualism as an indi-
vidualized practicewhether that individual is located in the academy or subaltern
communitiesand the notion of intellectual work as a collective engagement.
Couldry (2004) advocates for a public pedagogy in which cultural studies academ-
ics support broader, sustainable dialogues that link private narratives with repro-
ductive and resistant dimensions of public culture, with attention to elements of
community. Furin (2007) examines a Pennsylvania school districts response to
neo-Nazi activity, which he views as a public pedagogy engaging the community
357
as a living classroom. Furins analysis sees district educational leaders as institu-
tionally located public intellectuals who initiate a larger community pedagogy and
also identifies a form of transition to collective and decentered activism where
community coalitions take ongoing ownership of the pedagogical project through
structural steps such as the creation of an independent foundation. Wells (2006)
shifts the focus by locating the intellectual work of public pedagogy with queer
secondary school students who embody Weis and Fines (2001) notion of possi-
bilities for interruption through school-based activism for safe schools and antiho-
mophobic initiatives, including an unexpected alliance with the Christian Club.
Community-building activities within grassroots festivals are also presented as
informal sites of learning and public pedagogy, organized around communal food
preparation, common living, volunteerism, and interactive performance (Lewis &
Kahn, 2009).
Related visions of public pedagogy and public intellectualism view this work
in terms of collective efforts that enact strategies such as constructing alternative
discourses focused on alliances across differences and recognize critical self-
examination as integral to democratic social action (Brady, 2006). Brady (2006)
suggests such research efforts should take seriously the pedagogical nature of sites
that neither necessarily employ nor require the intervention of an institutionally or
hierarchically located public intellectual. For example, in advancing public peda-
gogy as a challenge to neoliberalism that is oriented toward democratic projects
and politically engaged communities, Brady (2006) focuses on community groups
as public pedagogues who enact critical public engagement to collectively inter-
rupt inequality and hegemonic forms of discrimination in public and private
institutions and within everyday practices (p. 59). In developing this understand-
ing, OMalley and Roseboro (2010) frame public pedagogy as a collective
interruption of hegemonic discourses and material structures via a location of
meaning in difference and agency for justice. . . . We associate public peda-
gogy with the disruption and transformation of dominant and constraining
cultural, political, economic, historical, linguistic, theological, and ecological
configurations and consider hegemonic pedagogical moves in media and
popular culture to be distinct from public pedagogy. (p. 641)
Such a project calls for integrated intellectual and activist work and refigures edu-
cational and community leadership as grassroots, counterhegemonic, collective
activism.
A growing number of education scholars are exploring the performative and
activist dimensions of public pedagogy as possibilities for advancing democratic
projects, and in so doing continue to locate the public intellectual in collective
alliances formed beyond defined institutional roles and structures, in spaces such
as grassroots organizations, neighborhood projects, art collectives, and town
meetingsspaces that provide a site for compassion, outrage, humor, and action
(Brady, 2006, p. 58). Examples include Sandlin and Milams (2008) study of the
anticonsumerist activist interventions of Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop
Shopping; OMalleys (2009) exploration of Chilean secondary school students
2006 nationwide strike for educational equity; Roseboro, OMalley, and Hunts
(2006) study of the pedagogical possibilities of organized parent resistance to edu-
cational inequity in the East St. Louis, Illinois, School District; and Bradys (2002)
Sandlin et al.
358
analysis of the Guerrilla Girls, self-identified as a group of anonymous females
who expose sexism and racism in politics, art, film, and culture at large through
activist interventions within public space. These groups provide a democratic
vision to challenge inequality in both public and private institutions and everyday
practices (Brady, 2006, p. 58), and these studies represent an initial although
limited body of empirical research investigating processes of public pedagogy.
Public pedagogy via public intellectuals interrupts processes of injustice and
creates opportunities for the expression of complex, contesting, and subaltern
perspectives (p. 58). Public pedagogy is thus linked to activist dissent that also
seeks to educate (Ocampo Gomez, 2009).
This perspective extends and contrasts with H. A. Girouxs (2003c) Saidian and
Gramscian notions of public intellectuals who lead students in discovering their
own sense of political agency (p. 104). Thus, proponents of decentered forms of
public intellectualism echo Ellsworths (1990) critiques of critical pedagogy
wherein she questions the capacity of the individual as an instrument of liberation
and specifically invokes the problematic issues of awareness and the limits of
individual knowledge, a tension we take up again in our discussion. Savage (2010),
for example, critiques the view that the impetus for social change lies with the
critical pedagogue as public intellectuala view that bestows the public intellec-
tual a glamorized and disproportionately powerful role (p. 110). Thus, the means
of the institutionally located public intellectual as interlocutor can be read as being
at odds with the ends of collective democracy. Contrasting feminist articulations
of public pedagogy do not negate the possibility of institutionally identified and
located public intellectuals, as is evident in Bradys (2006) call for engaged schol-
arly communities, but they do carefully extend the possibility of the public intel-
lectual into other decentered and communal configurations. For example, critical
feminist public pedagogy might consider how students act as public intellectuals,
as in the case of the Chilean secondary school student protests of 2006, in which
more than 800,000 students went on strike and subsequently occupied hundreds of
schools to protest inequities in the Chilean educational system that students say
disadvantage low-income students. In a culturally and politically unanticipated
inversion of roles, the student protestors of Chile become understood as public
intellectuals who create a social space within which they engage the larger society
in learning about equity, accountability, and democracy (OMalley, 2009; OMalley
& Roseboro, 2010). From this decentered standpoint, the potential for expanding
democratic possibility via public intellectualism is engaged when public intellec-
tualism is theorized as both within and beyond formal sites of learning, as well as
congruent with and wholly distinct from persons and actions traditionally identi-
fied with the role of public intellectual.
Discussion
As a result of this review we suggest the term public pedagogy has been used
in mythologizing and totalizing ways (Savage, 2010, p. 103), diminishing its
usefulness as a sensitizing concept for researchers interested in learning and edu-
cation outside of schools. We have analyzed the findings for each of the five pri-
mary categories presented above, both individually and in relation to the other
categories. This analysis relied on a coding process methodologically similar to
that applied to the literature sample (Lieblich et al., 1998), and in this case sought
359
to identify both points of clarity and limitations across the reported categories in
the articulation of public pedagogy as a construct capable of informing ongoing
education research. Specifically, we argue that education researchers should attend
to the following: (a) Theoretical underpinnings of public pedagogy should be care-
fully specified in any scholarship that deploys the concept, (b) scholars should
engage in more empirical research focusing on the process of public pedagogy and
on the experiences of learners should be expanded, (c) researchers should engage
in more discussion of methodological and ethical issues in researching public
pedagogy, and (d) theorists ought to explore the issue of why this concept is called
public pedagogy and not public curriculum, particularly in light of curriculum
studies establishment as a field of research.
First, throughout our review, the meaning of the term public pedagogy became
increasingly vague because of a general lack of clarity among many authors
regarding how they are theorizing the term. Across the literature, authors fre-
quently claimed that a specific cultural item or process under investigation was a
form or site of public pedagogy, yet many did so without the use of theoretical
frameworks to describe how or why these pedagogies were being enacted. As we
have shown, those authors who are clear about their theoretical framings draw
from a wide variety of theoretical work, including cultural studies, a/r/t/ography,
postcolonialism, queer theory, and many others. Ellsworth (2005), for example,
explicates how she draws from Winnicotts theory of transitional space and
Rancieres notion of emancipated spectatorshipamong othersto help her
articulate her own theoretical contributions about how critical learning occurs in
informal places of learning. Denzin (2003) clarifies his theoretical groundings in
Garoian and Gaudeliuss theories of critical performance studies and embodied
pedagogies of war and in Boals and Freires pedagogy and theater of the oppressed.
H. A. Giroux (2000, 2001d) draws on the cultural studies and critical pedagogy
theories of Hall, Gramsci, and Freire. Dentith and Brady (1999) integrate critical
feminist and cultural studies frameworks to conceptualize public pedagogy as a
communal, extrainstitutional, social-justice-oriented phenomenon. We urge
researchers to explore the variety of theoretical traditions that others studying pub-
lic pedagogy employ and to be more explicit in their own work about which per-
spectives they are, in turn, using.
Related to these theoretical concerns, we argue that the development of more
robust theories of public pedagogy must occur in parallel with a heightened atten-
tion to empiricism in the inquiry process. The literature we reviewed largely devel-
ops robust analytical accounts of the sites studied, drawing on sociology,
anthropology, cultural studies, and the arts as frameworks for these illustrations.
Frequently absent, however, are studies of how these educational sites and prac-
tices actually work to teach the public and how the intended educational meanings
of public pedagogies are internalized, reconfigured, and mobilized by public citi-
zens. We thus argue that more work needs to be conducted investigating how the
various sites, spaces, products, and places identified as public pedagogy actually
operate as pedagogy. We urge researchers studying all forms of public pedagogy
to analyze more specific spaces or forms of pedagogies and to more clearly articu-
late their informal pedagogical processesthat is, to examine what makes them
pedagogical (Savage, 2010, p. 109). We did find some authors who explicate the
intended or imagined pedagogies of particular sites in their work (see Anderson,
Sandlin et al.
360
2006; Bates, 2007; Hladki, 2006; Nieland, 2008; Sandlin & Milam, 2008) and
some who have also been clear in connecting their explications of processes of
pedagogical address in specific sites to broader theorizations of public pedagogy
(see Ellsworth, 2005; H. A. Giroux, 1999, 2001a, 2001d, 2002a; Savage & Hickey-
Moody, 2010). In addition, we located a few publications from the past year (see,
e.g., Hickey-Moody, Savage, & Windle, 2010; Sandlin et al., 2010) that specifi-
cally attempt to theorize the notion of public pedagogy itself and to begin to grap-
ple with the variety of ways the concept has been used. We believe this new
direction in the literature will help make public pedagogy a more useful, sensitiz-
ing concept.
With regard to the processes of pedagogy, Anderson (2006), for example,
focuses on how music is used in the film Casablanca to foster nationalism and
justify the war effort. He examines what music is used (with a particular focus on
the singing of the Marseillaise and Time Goes By), when it is featured, which
characters participate in the songs and which are excluded, and how the music
brings together private romantic relationships and nationalistic patriotism (p. 485).
Bates (2007) offers another example, arguing that the film White Mans Burden
uses the strategy of inversionsetting a portrayal or advocacy on its head to
show the limitations of the advocacy (p. 193) to encourage European Americans
to process and reflect on their constitution as racialized subjects (p. 193). He
posits that developing White racial identity can lead to critical subject positions,
but also has the danger of encouraging a racist White identity and allowing view-
ers to justify racist beliefs and practices (p. 193). H. A. Giroux (2001a) has also
been helpful as he discusses how power is mobilized in Hollywood films through
the use of use images, sounds, gestures, dialogue, and spectacle to help structure
everyday issues around particular assumptions, values, and social relations (p.
591592). Giroux (2002c) also notes that films operate pedagogically through the
kinds of common sense assumptions they embody, the affective investments
they mobilize, and the absences and exclusions that limit the range of meanings
and information available to audiences (p. 539). Furthermore, culture as peda-
gogy is enacted through the ways in which it represents otherness, deploys power,
and produces categories through which individuals fashion their identities and
organize their ideologies and politics (p. 552). Despite these and other helpful
examples, we find explicit explorations of the pedagogical work of public peda-
gogy lacking in much of the literature.
One specific tensionechoing similar issues in competing constructions of
public intellectualism, discussed aboveinvolves clarifying the roles of the facil-
itator and the learner in the pedagogical process. Some authors posit that learners
who interact with public pedagogies can engage in critically transformative
moments without the help of facilitators (Anijar, 2001; Bashford & Strange, 2004;
Espiritu, 2006; Guillory, 2005; Hickey-Moody et al., 2008; Hladki, 2006; Hornsey,
2008b; Ritter, 2008; Sandlin & Milam, 2008; Wright, 2007). However, a majority
of the literature posits that the work of engaging in critical transformational learn-
ing from sites of public pedagogy occurs most optimally with the help of an educa-
tor of some kind, either in formal classroom settings or in some vaguely defined
public space (Bates, 2007; H. A. Giroux, 2001a, 2001d, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c;
Middleton, 2007; Nunley, 2007; Tisdell, 2008; Yin, 2005). For example, H. A.
Giroux (2001a) argues that although popular culture operates as public pedagogy
361
by placing particular ideologies and values into public conversation (p. 588),
popular culture as a reproductive device can be disrupted via close readings and
thus reclaimed and repositioned as a productive site of cultural analysis.
Furthermore, he conceptualizes the deconstruction of popular texts as taking place
within classrooms. Thus, critical pedagogical moments occur when progressive
educators (p. 588) enact interpretation as intervention [italics added] (p. 588).
In this view, educators are the critical link between dominant culture and critical
awareness of that culture as marginalizing; they foster critical dialogue and help
learners understand the power and politics at work within culture, thus creating the
classroom as the site of critical intervention (Bates, 2007; Middleton, 2007;
Nunley, 2007; Schubert, 1981; Yin, 2005). These approaches to public pedagogy
and intellectualism employ a Saidian view (Said, 1994), emphasizing the role of
the intellectual as a heroic (Crocco, Munro, & Weiler, 1999; Pinar, 2009) response
to an oppressive economic and cultural landscape, a response often rooted in an
educator located within the institution. Public pedagogy thus occurs both when
culture socializes us into dominant ideologies and as critical educators intervene,
engaging students in critical discussions about how culture works to instill domi-
nant values.
2
Conceptualizations of public pedagogy reflective of feminist episte-
mological perspectives tend to extend critical pedagogical agency beyond
institutionalized spaces and roles to prioritize grassroots, collective phenomena
(Brady, 2006).
We found little empirical research addressing the relationship between educator
and learner in developing this critical awareness, apart from Tisdells (2008) find-
ing that adult learners engaged in deeper, more critically transformative learning
experiences with popular culture when they were able to discuss films in critical
media classes than without facilitated discussions. However, Wrights (2007)
research on women who watched The Avengers found that viewers developed
critical feminist consciousness and engaged in transformational learning without
the intermediary of the identified intellectual. These conflicting findings raise
questions about the roles of the educator, culture, experience, and learner position-
ality in critical learning experiences through public pedagogy. Although in Tisdells
study, with its critical media literacy framing, the engine for transformation is the
acquisition of a set of at least somewhat predetermined critically pedagogical cri-
teria, Wright proposes that the learning subject produces this transformative capac-
ity locally, in negotiation with her or his own cultural position and meanings.
These positions are representative of greater arguments within public pedagogy
scholarship, with Tisdell echoing H. A. Girouxs (2000) critical-theory-informed
work on public intellectualism and Wright taking up Ellsworths (2005) feminist
constructions of learning as a performative, intersubjective phenomenon.
Related to this, we argue that more attention is warranted in exploring what
public pedagogies mean and do from the viewpoint of their intended audiences.
Although some researchers studying popular culture (see Crowley & Rasmussen,
2010; Grummell, 2010; Sandlin, 2010; Tisdell, 2008; Wright, 2007) have collected
compelling accounts of how individuals receive and utilize public pedagogies, this
practice has not been widely applied to the majority of other informal sites of
learning identified in the literature. Although these critiques have previously been
leveled at H. A. Girouxs body of work (see C. G. Robbins, 2009), other authors
such as Ellsworth (2005) and Lacy (1995) also limit their analyses of public spaces
Sandlin et al.
362
of learning to the perspective of the researcher or the site itself. In calling for
researchers to explore more fully the pedagogical processes of public pedagogy,
we are not calling for public pedagogy research that utilizes empirical data as proof
toward positivistic truth claims; rather, we argue for research that articulates a
multitude of interpretations and that draws on psychoanalytical, phenomenologi-
cal, existential, and poststructural understandings of learning to develop an empir-
icism that honors the complexity and ambiguity inherent in the mechanisms and
processes of public pedagogy. Such work would simultaneously complicate and
enrich the theoretical basis of public pedagogy as well as begin to demythologize
more monolithic understandings of culture as a learning process (Savage, 2010).
Third, our review revealed a need for sustained discussion regarding the meth-
odological issues inherent in dislocating education research from its primary and
historical site of practice; authors have only just begun explicitly addressing meth-
odological issues in the past few years, and this work is represented by only a few
pieces of literature (see, e.g., Burdick & Sandlin, 2010; Savage, 2010). Traditional
approaches to education research share an interest with public pedagogy inquiry
in developing expanded understandings of educational mechanisms, phenomena,
and meanings. However, the shift from spaces that are governed by institutional
metaphors and hierarchies to spaces in which education and learning take on more
performative, improvisational, subtle, and hidden representations potentially calls
for researchers and theorists to examine their methods, epistemological and onto-
logical assumptions, and language to avoid the synecdochical association of edu-
cation as schooling. OMalley and Roseboro (2010) argue from feminist, critical,
postcolonial, queer, and literary frames to assert that researchers interested in pub-
lic pedagogies must situate themselves within the tenuous border spaces between
understanding and overwriting the individuals and events with whom or with
which they produce meaning. We agree that researchers must attend to their insti-
tutional commitments throughout the inquiry process if they hope to honor the
projects they study, asking questions such as, What does it mean for research to
be constructed by and within grassroots struggles and activism? and, disquiet-
ingly invoking the possibility of damaging the very projects this inquiry seeks to
understand, What does betrayal of our activist collaborators look like? (OMalley
& Roseboro, 2010, p. 646). Alexander (2008), working through queer and postco-
lonial notions of researcher identity, writes, [I]ssues of voice, power, context, and
theory are contingencies of human social relations that dictate the known and the
knowing, histories and futures, and the quality of human existence that makes new
histories and emergent identities possible (p. 106). We feel these same contingen-
cies should be points of concern for researchers working on pedagogies that exist
beyond educational institutions, as these institutions and the social imaginary they
produce prefigure educational activity within confined spaces of the known and
the knowing. Attention must be paid to researchers positions within the academy,
the lenses with which public pedagogies are studied, and the venues for and pur-
poses of representing public pedagogy if this genre of inquiry is to remain a viable
site for enhancing educational meaning and democratic possibilities. Without this
attentionand the vexation it is likely to producepublic pedagogy as a concept
and a site of inquiry will likely become politically and educationally domesticated,
losing both its contrapuntal character and its otherness as a site of educational pos-
sibility (Burdick & Sandlin, 2010).
363
Finally, given public pedagogys historical relationship not only with cultural
studies but also with scholars identified as curriculum theorists (Brady, 2006;
Dentith & Brady, 1998; Schubert, 2010b), it becomes important also to ask why
the construct has become identified as pedagogical rather than curricular. Schubert
(1981), for example, has argued clearly for the possibilities of engaging specifi-
cally curriculum categories and frameworks to interpret out-of-school curricu-
lum, although recently he has also opted to relate school curriculum to other
public pedagogies (Schubert, 2010b). However, there has been little apparent
attempt in the public pedagogy literature to reconcile or distinguish these overlap-
ping constructs, nor to theorize a rationale for emphasizing one term over the
other.
3
H. A. Giroux and Giroux (2004) do assert in a discussion of public peda-
gogy that pedagogy is a performative and embodied practice and implies that
learning takes place across a spectrum of social practice and settings (p. 94). And
Savage (2010) argues that pedagogy seeks to actually teach [italics original]
(p. 109) within particular contexts, thus forwarding Ellsworths (2005) notion of
pedagogical addressivity, and is therefore more specific than totalizing visions of
media socialization. Savage (2010; also see Hickey-Moody et al., 2010) critiques
public pedagogy as relying on notions of pedagogy that are too vague to be useful
and overly determined by reproductive mechanisms without adequate inclusion of
resistive dimensions. At the same time, Savages critique does not access contest-
ing critical feminist articulations of public pedagogy as grassroots activism. Taken
as a whole, these observations point to a need for further inquiry that seeks to
understand the theoretical distinctions that exist among and within conceptualiza-
tions such as outside curriculum, societal curricula (Gay, 2002), and public peda-
gogy. Such inquiry is likely to be most fruitfully pursued through oral history
research involving those most central in originally advancing public pedagogy as
a contemporary education research construct.
Conclusion
Despite the critical needs we have identified for future work, the authors we
reviewed in this article collectively make a compelling case for increased efforts
by researchers, activists, artists, and practitioners to take up questions around edu-
cations that exist outside of institutional purview. For these efforts to thrive, how-
ever, colleges of education, education research organizations, and the researchers
they support will need to reevaluate some of the disciplinary boundaries that define
the field. A lingering tension in public pedagogy scholarship as well as in our
experiences of presenting and publishing on this concept centers on developing a
distinction between public pedagogy and schooling. Although public pedagogy is
often conceptualized as something other than institutional, much of the literature
still rigidly posits its relation to schooling, evaluates extrainstitutional pedagogies
via an institutional lens, or pulls learning that could be accomplished in public sites
back to the classroom; we view this stance as potentially problematic, as we feel
public pedagogy could lose some of its conceptual significance if its definitional
boundaries are not maintained. This is not to say that all scholars and practitioners
working on the intersection of formal schooling and public pedagogies reenact
these problematic constructs. Rather, important work conducted by Schubert
(2010b), Schultz and Baricovich (2010), and others illustrates how the boundaries
Sandlin et al.
364
between formal schooling and critical public pedagogies can be made porous,
allowing educators to pose questions about schools, curricula, and the impact of
education on life outside of academia.
Perhaps one of the problems inherent in locating pedagogy in popular and pub-
lic culture is that our very frameworks for understanding what pedagogy is and
looks/feels like extend from our own cultural constructs of what counts as teaching
and learning in institutional settingsconstructs that reify traditional forms of
intellectual activity as the only possible mode of critical intervention (Burdick &
Sandlin, 2010). As Ellsworth (2005) cogently notes,
Pedagogical anomalies . . . are difficult to see as pedagogy [italics original]
only when we view them from the center of dominant educational dis-
courses and practicesa position that takes knowledge to be a thing already
made and learning to be an experience already known. (p. 5)
Although we believe that there are crucial aspects of learning that need to be
unpacked in these anomalous spaces, we maintain that scholars working within a
public pedagogy conceptual framework must be aware of how the enactment of
curriculum and pedagogies within those spacesas well as how their own fram-
ings of those spacesmight reproduce certain elements of formal schooling, such
as teacherstudent binaries and expert-constructed curricula. Offering this review
as a point of departure, we posit that scholars should work to illuminate the ways
in which educational elements within these spaces diverge from, problematize,
disrupt, or oppose the practices and performances of formal schooling. Taken in
this light, both empirical and theoretical analyses into pedagogy might raise impor-
tant questions regarding how, where, and when we know teaching, about the rela-
tionship between H. A. Girouxs version of public pedagogy and a reconsidered
perspective that addresses decentered sites of resistance, and about the species of
pedagogy occurring in public spaces that might still elude our vision. In this man-
ner, public pedagogy inquiry, coupled with Girouxs approach of integrating cul-
tural studies into the study of pedagogies, could provide scholars with new ways
of understanding education itself, both within and outside traditional schooling.
Notes
1
As we explain in the Popular Culture and Everyday Life section of this article, H.
A. Giroux was also responsible for popularizing the usage of the term public pedagogy
to refer to the educational aspects of popular culture. His work is least represented in
the Informal Institutions and Public Spaces category, and his conceptualization of
the public intellectual has been influential to certain strands of the literature catego-
rized in the Public Intellectualism and Social Activism section of this article. The
methodological dilemma we encountered in representing Girouxs work involves ten-
sions between overemphasizing the perspectives of a prolific and highly productive
scholar and recognizing the impact his work has had as evidenced by its extensive cita-
tion in other scholarly work addressing public pedagogy. Cognizant of this dilemma
and faced with space constraints, we have opted to redact his references to selected
representative citations and to provide this contextual information. For an extensive
treatment of Girouxs body of work, see C. G. Robbinss (2009) excellent review.

2
The kinds of critical analyses of texts that Giroux and other authors perform for
both academic (e.g., most of the pieces of literature were reviewed for this study) and
365
more general audiences (e.g., through books like H. A. Girouxs, 1999, The Mouse That
Roared and his appearances in documentaries about popular culture such as Mickey
Mouse Monopoly [Sun & Picker, 2001]) also become enactments of public pedagogy,
a point we take up more fully in the public intellectualism section of this article.

3
The related issue of what public means is also mostly unexplored in the literature.
Savage (2010) argues that the use of the term public obscures the fact that there are
multiple and disparate publics (p. 104) and fails to acknowledge how individuals in
various stratified and unequal social locations according to geography, class, race,
gender, sexual orientation, and so on have differential access to various forms of so-
called public knowledge and therefore encounter very different socio-cultural, and
thus educative, worlds (p. 105). In addition, Savage questions the use of the term
public when referring to what are largely products, processes, and sites of private,
corporate culture. Anticipating the argument that the term public refers simply to the
culture that is out there and encountered by the public, Savage argues that popu-
lar corporate products such as videogames, movies, music, and so on are not equally
available to all and states that to speak of such media forms as public pedagogies may
therefore conceal the reality that young people in different social spaces engage differ-
ently, and with different kinds, of popular-corporate discourses (p. 107).
References
Abowitz, K. K., & Rousmaniere, K. (2004). Diva citizenship: A case study of Margaret
Haley as feminist citizen-leader. Initiative Anthology: An Electronic Publication
About Leadership, Culture, & Schooling. Retrieved from http://www.units.muohio
.edu/eduleadership/anthology/OA/OA04001.pdf
Alexander, B. K. (2004). Bu(o)ying condoms: A prophylactic performance of sexuality
(or performance as cultural prophylactic agency). Cultural Studies Critical
Methodologies, 4, 501525.
Alexander, B. K. (2006). Performance and pedagogy. In D. S. Madison & J. Hamera
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of performance studies (pp. 253260). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Alexander, B. K. (2008). Queer(y)ing the postcolonial through the West(ern). In N. K.
Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous
methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, P. A. (2006). The world heard: Casablanca and the music of war. Critical
Inquiry, 32, Spring, 482-515.
Anijar, K. (2001). SelenaProphet, profit, princess. In E. M. M. Mazur (Ed.), God in
the details: American religion in popular culture (pp. 83102). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Anonymous. (1909). Notes and news. Elementary School Teacher, 9, 435438.
Austin, J., & Hickey, A. (2008). Signing the school in neoliberal times: The public
pedagogy of being pedagogically public. International Journal of Learning, 15,
193202.
Ayers, R., Hodge, C., & Casal, R. (2010). Refusing to submitYouth poetry activism
in high school. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of
public pedagogy (pp. 381394). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bashford, A., & Strange, C. (2004). Public pedagogy: Sex education and mass com-
munication in the mid-twentieth century. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 13,
7199.
Sandlin et al.
366
Bates, B. R. (2007). Race, inversive performance, and public pedagogy. In L. M. Cooks
& J. S. Simpson (Eds.), Whiteness, pedagogy, performance (pp. 193212). Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Bennett, T. (1997). Regulated restlessness: Museums, liberal government and the his-
torical sciences. Economy and Society, 26, 161190.
Bennett, T. (2004). Pasts beyond memory: Evolution, museums, colonialism. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Berelowitz, J. O. A. (2004). Family, sexuality, gender, art. Genders. Retrieved from
http://www.genders.org/g39/g39_berelowitz.html
Berlant, L. (1997). The queen of America goes to Washington City: Essays on sex and
citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bobulescu, R. (2008). Popularising the new international political economy: The
ATTAC movement. Policy Futures in Education, 6, 176186.
Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (2006). Challenges for critical pedagogy: A southern European
perspective. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6, 143154.
Brady, J. F. (1998). Critical feminist ethics in the multicultural debate. Cultural Circles,
2, 107116.
Brady, J. F. (2002, February). Public pedagogy: The democratic vision and practice of
Guerrilla Girls. Paper presented at the Qualitative Inquiry Conference, College
Station, TX.
Brady, J. F. (2006). Public pedagogy and educational leadership: Politically engaged
scholarly communities and possibilities for critical engagement. Journal of
Curriculum & Pedagogy, 3(1), 5760.
Bravo, M. T. (2009). Voices from the sea ice: The reception of climate impact narra-
tives. Journal of Historical Geography, 35, 256278.
Brotherton, D. C. (1996). The contradictions of suppression: Notes from a study of
approaches to gangs in three public high schools. Urban Review, 28, 95117.
Burdick, J., & Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Inquiry as answerability: Towards a methodology
of discomfort in researching critical public pedagogies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16,
349360.
Carpenter, B. S., & Tavin, K. (2009). Art education beyond reconceptualization. In E.
Malewski (Ed.), Curriculum studies handbook (pp. 244258). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Carrier, P. (2006). Holocaust monuments and national memory cultures in France and
Germany since 1989. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Carrington, K., & Bennett, A. (1996). Girls mags and the pedagogical formation of
the girl. In C. Luke (Ed.), Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life (pp. 147166).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carrington, V., & Luke, A. (1997). Literacy and Bourdieus sociological theory: A
reframing. Language and Education, 11, 96112.
Castree, N. (2004). Environmental issues: Signals in the noise? Progress in Human
Geography, 28, 7990.
Castree, N. (2006). Geographys new public intellectuals? Antipode, 38, 396412.
Chamberlain, A. F. (1894). Psychological literature. American Journal of Psychology,
6(2), 285.
Chidester, D. (2008). Unity in diversity: Religion education and public pedagogy in
South Africa. Numen, 55, 272299.
Christen, R. S. (2010). Graffiti as a public educator of urban teenagers. In J. A. Sandlin,
B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 233243).
New York, NY: Routledge.
367
Cobb, N. K. (1980). Necessity was the mother: The Institute for Research in History.
Public Historian, 2(3), 7785.
Couldry, N. (2004). In the place of a common culture, what? Review of Education,
Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 26, 321.
Coval, K. (2010). Louder than a bomb: The Chicago Teen Poetry Festival and the
voices that challenge and change the pedagogy of class(room), poetics, place, and
space. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public
pedagogy (pp. 395408). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cremin, L. A. (1976). Public education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Crocco, M. S., Munro, P., & Weiler, K. (1999). Pedagogies of resistance: Women edu-
cator activists. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Crowley, V., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2010). After dark in the antipodes: Pedagogy, place
and queer phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
23, 1532.
Darnell, R., & Murray, S. O. (2008). Series editors introduction. In S. Brownell (Ed.),
The 1904 Anthropology Days and Olympic games: Sport, race, and American impe-
rialism (pp. xviixviii). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
DArvert, F. (1893). Leducation nationale. Revue internationale de lenseignement,
13th year, Vol. 26, 308-320.
Deflem, M. (1999). Ferdinand Tonnies on crime and society: An unexplored contribu-
tion to criminological sociology. History of the Human Sciences, 12(3), 87-116.
Dentith, A. M., & Brady, J. (1998, October). Girls on the strip: Constructing a critical
feminist pedagogy of difference in Las Vegas, NV. Paper presented at the AERA:
Research on Women and Education SIG Conference, East Lansing, MI.
Dentith, A. M., & Brady, J. (1999, October). Theories of public pedagogies as possi-
bilities for ethical action and community resistance: A curricular notion. Paper pre-
sented at the AERA: Research on Women and Education SIG Conference,
Hempstead, NY.
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics
of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desai, D. (2009). Imagining justice in times of perpetual war: Notes for the classroom.
Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 6(2), 626.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Edmondson, J. (2003). Prairie town: Redefining rural life in the age of globalization.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Eigen, E. A. (1997). Overcoming first impressions: Georges Cuviers types. Journal of
the History of Biology, 30, 179209.
Eley, G. (1988). Nazism, politics, and the image of the past: Thoughts on the West
German historikerstreit 19861987. Past and Present, 121, 171208.
Ellsworth, E. (1990). The question remains: How will you hold awareness of the limits
of your knowledge? Harvard Educational Review, 60, 396405.
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Espiritu, K. (2006). Putting grief into boxes: Trauma and the crisis of democracy in
Art Spiegelmans In the shadow of no towers. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies, 28, 179201.
Falcous, M., & Silk, M. (2006). Global regimes, local agendas: Sport, resistance, and
the mediation of dissent. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41,
317338.
Sandlin et al.
368
Falk, R. (2005). Recovering normative consciousness. International Relations, 19,
7990.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actu-
ally existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 5680.
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.
Freishtat, R. L., & Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Facebook as public pedagogy: A critical
examination of learning, community, and consumption. In T. T. Kidd & J. Keengew
(Eds.), Adult learning in the digital age: Perspectives on online technologies and
outcomes (pp. 148162). Hershey, PA: Information Sciences Reference.
Fryd, V. (2007). Suzanne Lacys Three weeks in May: Feminist activist performance
art as expanded public pedagogy. NWSA Journal, 19, 2338.
Fulcher, J. F. (1999). The composer as intellectual: Ideological inscriptions in French
interwar Neoclassicism. Journal of Musicology, 17, 197230.
Furin, T. (2007). Confronting a neo-Nazi hate group. School Administrator, 64(10),
3236.
Gablik, S. (1995). Connective aesthetics: Art after individualism. In S. Lacy (Ed.),
Mapping the terrain: New genre public art (pp. 7487). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53, 106116.
Giroux, H. A. (1998). Public pedagogy and rodent politics: Cultural studies and the
challenge of Disney. Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies, 2, 253266.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Giroux, H. A. (2000). Public pedagogy as cultural politics: Stuart Hall and the crisis
of culture. Cultural Studies, 14, 341360.
Giroux, H. A. (2001a). Breaking into the movies: Pedagogy and the politics of film.
JAC, 21, 583598.
Giroux, H. A. (2001b). Brutalized bodies and emasculated politics: Fight Club,
consumerism, and masculine violence. Third Text, 53, 3141.
Giroux, H. A. (2001c). Cultural studies as performative politics. Cultural Studies
Critical Methodologies, 1, 523.
Giroux, H. A. (2001d). Stealing innocence: Corporate cultures war on children. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giroux, H. A. (2002a). Breaking in to the movies: Film and the culture of politics.
London, UK: Blackwell.
Giroux, H. A. (2002b). Democracy, freedom, and justice after September 11th:
Rethinking the role of educators and the politics of schooling (10871). Teachers
College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
Giroux, H. A. (2002c). From manchild to baby boy: Race and the politics of self-
help. JAC, 22, 527560.
Giroux, H. A. (2003a). Neoliberalism and the disappearance of the social in ghost
world. Third Text, 17, 151161.
Giroux, H. A. (2003b). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on
a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35,
516.
Giroux, H. A. (2003c). Utopian thinking under the sign of neoliberalism: Towards a
critical pedagogy of educated hope. Democracy & Nature, 9, 91105.
Giroux, H. A. (2004a). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of
intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1, 5979.
Giroux, H. A. (2004b). Education after Abu Ghraib. Cultural Studies, 18, 779815.
369
Giroux, H. A. (2004c). Pedagogy, film, and the responsibility of intellectuals: A
response. Cinema Journal, 43, 119126.
Giroux, H. A. (2004d). Public pedagogy and the politics of neo-liberalism: Making the
political more pedagogical. Policy Futures in Education, 2, 494503.
Giroux, H. A. (2004e). The terror of neoliberalism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Giroux, H. A. (2005). The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cul-
tural politics. College Literature, 32, 119.
Giroux, H. A. (2007). Beyond neoliberal common sense: Cultural politics and public
pedagogy in dark times. JAC, 27, 1161.
Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Giroux, S. S., & Giroux, H. A. (2007). Dont worry, we are all racists! Third Text, 21,
745759.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York, NY: International.
Greene, R. W. (2005). Y movies: Film and the modernization of pastoral power.
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 2, 2036.
Grummell, B. (2010). Filtering informal learning in everyday life: Invoking ordinari-
ness and moving to civic engagement. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
29, 565579.
Guillory, N. A. (2005). Schoolin women: Hip hop pedagogies of Black women rap-
pers. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3167093)
Haiven, M. (2007). Privatized resistance: AdBusters and the culture of neoliberalism.
Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 29, 85110.
Hall, S. (1997). The centrality of culture: Notes on the cultural revolutions of our times.
In K. Thompson (Ed.), Media and cultural regulation (pp. 208238). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, K. (2006). Graffiti as public pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe & K. Hayes (Eds.),
Metropedagogy (pp. 97114). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Hattam, R., & Atkinson, S. (2006). Reconciliation as a frame for rethinking racism in
Australia. Social Identities, 12, 683700.
Hayes, E. R., & Gee, J. P. (2010). Public pedagogy through video games: Design,
resources, and affinity spaces. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.),
Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 185193). New York, NY: Routledge.
He, M. F. (2010). Exile pedagogy: Teaching in-between. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz,
& J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 469482). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Henricks, T. S. (1991). Disputed pleasures: Sport and society in preindustrial England.
Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.
Hickey, A. (2006). Street smarts/smart streets: public pedagogies and the streetscape.
M/C Journal, 9(3). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0607/08
hickey.php
Hickey-Moody, A., Rasmussen, M. L., & Harwood V. (2008). How to be a real lesbian.
In S. Driver (Ed.), Queer youth cultures (pp. 123138). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Hickey-Moody, A., Savage, G. C., & Windle, J. (2010). Pedagogy writ large: Public,
popular and cultural pedagogies in motion. Critical Studies in Education, 51,
227236.
Sandlin et al.
370
Hill, M. L. (2009a). Bringing back sweet (and not so sweet) memories: The cultural
politics of memory, hip-hop, and generational identities. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 355377.
Hill, M. L. (2009b). Scared straight: Hip-hop, outing, and the pedagogy of queerness.
Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 31, 2954.
Hladki, J. (2006). Strategic approximation: Independent videographers revise the
Hollywood classic. Feminist Media Studies, 6, 4765.
Hoffmann, K. A. (2006). Sleeping beauties in the fairground. Early Popular Visual
Culture, 4, 139159.
Hornsey, R. (2008a). Everything is made of atoms: The reprogramming of space and
time in post-war London. Journal of Historical Geography, 34, 94117.
Hornsey, R. (2008b). The queer (spatial) economies of The lavender hill mob. Journal
of British Cinema and Television, 5, 3852.
Irwin, R., Bickel, B., Triggs, V., Springgay, S., Beer, R., Grauer, K., . . . Sameshima, P.
(2009). The city of Richgate: A/r/tographic cartography as public pedagogy.
International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28, 6170.
Jacobson, K. J. (2008). Renovating the American womans home: American domestic-
ity in Extreme makeover: Home edition. Legacy, 25, 105127.
Jenlink, P. M. (2005). Editorial: Public pedagogy and the intellectual work of teachers.
Teacher Education and Practice, 18, 252264.
Kellner, D., & Kim, G. (2009). YouTube, critical pedagogy, and media activism: An
articulation. In R. Hammer & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical
approaches (pp. 615636). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a
twenty-first-century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5, 5969.
Kerr, D. H. (1999). Voicing democracy in an imperfect world: Toward a public peda-
gogy of nurture. In F. Smith & G. D. Fenstermacher (Eds.), Leadership for educa-
tional renewal: Developing a cadre of leaders. Agenda for education in democracy
(Vol. 1, pp. 127154). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum 18931958 (3rd ed.).
Kridel, C. (2010). Places of memoryforms of public pedagogy: The Museum of
Education at University of South Carolina. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J.
Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 281290). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lacy, S. (Ed.). (1995). Mapping the terrain: New genre public art. Seattle, WA: Bay
Press.
Larsen, M., & Pich, J. (2007). Incarcerating the inadmissible: KIHC as an excep-
tional moment in Canadian federal imprisonment (YCISS Working Paper 45).
Retrieved from http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/whatsnew/documents/WP45-Larsen
andPiche.pdf
Leaos, J. J. (2010). Intellectual freedom and Pat Tillman. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D.
Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 313317). New
Lewis, T., & Kahn, R. (2009). Exopedagogies and the utopian imagination: A case
study in faery subcultures. Theory & Event, 12(2).
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading,
analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Long, N. E. (1969). Reflections on presidential power. Public Administration Review,
29, 442450.
371
Luke, A., Carrington, V., & Kapitzke, C. (2003). Textbooks and early childhood liter-
acy. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy
(pp. 249257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Luke, C. (1994). Childhood and parenting in popular culture. Journal of Sociology, 30,
289302.
Luke, C. (Ed.). (1996). Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Luke, R. A. (2005). The hidden curriculum of Web portals: Shaping participation in
online networks. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. NR22059)
Marks, J. (2003). Models of the intellectual in contemporary France and Germany:
Silence and communication. In W. Niven & J. Jordan (Eds.), Politics and culture in
twentieth-century Germany (pp. 245262). Rochester, NY: Camden House.
Martin, M., & DAgostino, L. (2004). Having a field day: Managerialism, educational
discourse and the fifth province of Ireland. International Journal of Educational
Management, 18, 180187.
Mayo, P. (2002). Public pedagogy and the quest for a substantive democracy.
Interchange, 33, 193207.
Mayo, P. (2003). A rationale for a transformative approach to education. Journal of
Transformative Education, 1, 3857.
McKay, S. W., & Keifer-Boyd, K. (2004). Steal this sign: A semiotic expedition into
Dynamite Museums public pedagogy. In D. L. Smith-Shank (Ed.), Semiotics and
visual culture: Sights, signs, and significance (pp. 2534). Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Middleton, J. I. (2007). Talking about race and Whiteness in Crash. College English,
69, 321334.
Miller, T. (1994). Culture with power: The present moment in cultural policy studies.
Asian Journal of Social Science, 22, 264282.
Mills, K. (2002). Cybernations: Identity, self-determination, democracy, and the
Internet effect in the emerging information order. Global Society, 16, 6987.
Miron, L., & Ward, R. (2007). Drowning the Crescent City: Told stories of Katrina.
Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 7, 154168.
Moisio, O.-P., & Suoranta, J. (2006). Education and the spirit of time. Rotterdam,
Netherlands: Sense.
Newman, J. I. (2007). Army of Whiteness? Colonel Reb and the sporting Souths cul-
tural and corporate symbolic. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 315339.
Nieland, J. (2008). Feeling modern: The eccentricities of public life. Champaign:
University of Illinois Press.
North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of
social justice in education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 507536.
Nunley, V. L. (2007). Symposium: Crash: Rhetorically wrecking discourses of race,
tolerance, and White privilege. College English, 69, 335346.
Ocampo Gomez, E. (2009). Educating for prosperity: An historical analysis of educa-
tion as the panacea for poverty. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (Publication No. NR51233)
OMalley, M. P. (2009, September). Reconstituting the imagined community in Chile:
Ethnographic inquiry into a public pedagogy of the 2006 student protests and dic-
tatorship era desaparecidos. Paper presented at the International Association for the
Sandlin et al.
372
Advancement of Curriculum Studies Triennial Conference, Cape Town, South
Africa.
OMalley, M. P., & Roseboro, D. L. (2010). Public pedagogy as critical educational
and community leadership. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.),
Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 639
647). New York, NY: Routledge.
Piepmeier, A. (2009). Girl zines: Making media, doing feminism. New York, NY: NYU
Press.
Pinar, W. F. (2006). Relocating cultural studies into curriculum studies. Journal of
Curriculum Theorizing, 22(2), 5572.
Pinar, W. F. (2009). The worldliness of a cosmopolitan education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Purcell, M. (2008). Democracy: Neoliberalization and the struggle for alternative
urban futures. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ritter, K. (2008). E-valuating learning: Rate my professors and public rhetorics of
pedagogy. Rhetoric Review, 27, 259280.
Robbins, C. G. (2009). Searching for politics with Henry Giroux: Through cultural
studies to public pedagogy and the Terror of neoliberalism. Review of Education,
Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 31, 428478.
Robbins, S. (1998). Linking the secondary schools and the university: American stud-
ies as a collaborative public enterprise. American Quarterly, 50, 783808.
Robrt, K. H., Daly, H., Hawken, P., & Holmberg, J. (1997). A compass for sustainable
development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
4, 7992.
Roseboro, D. L., OMalley, M. P., & Hunt, J. (2006). Talking cents: Public discourse,
state oversight, and democratic education in East St. Louis. Educational Studies, 40,
623.
Ryan, M. (2005). Creative writing as public pedagogy: A short history of my life in the
movies. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27, 287299.
Said, E. W. (1994). Representations of the intellectual: The 1993 Reith lectures. New
York, NY: Pantheon.
Salmon, A. (2005). Beyond guilt, shame, and blame to compassion, respect and
empowerment: Young Aboriginal mothers and the First Nations and Inuit Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome/Fetal Alcohol Effects Initiative. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. NR10436)
Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Learning to survive the Shopocalypse: Reverend Billys anti-
consumption pedagogy of the unknown. Critical Studies in Education, 51, 295311.
Sandlin, J. A., & Milam, J. L. (2008). Mixing pop [culture] and politics: Cultural
resistance, culture jamming, and anti-consumption activism as critical public peda-
gogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 38, 323350.
Sandlin, J. A., Schultz, B. D., & Burdick, J. (2010). Handbook of public pedagogy.
Sandlos, K. (2004). Curating and pedagogy in the strange time of short film and video
exhibition. Moving Image, 4, 1733.
Savage, G. (2010). Problematizing public pedagogy in educational research. In J. A.
Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy
(pp. 103115). New York, NY: Routledge.
Savage, G. C., & Hickey-Moody, A. (2010). Global flows as gendered cultural pedago-
gies: Learning gangsta in the Durty South. Critical Studies in Education, 51,
277293.
373
Schubert, W. H. (1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. Educational
Forum, 45, 185199.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Schubert, W. H. (2010a). Journeys of expansion and synopsis: Tensions in books that
shaped curriculum inquiry, 1968present. Curriculum Inquiry, 40, 1794.
Schubert, W. H. (2010b). Outside curricula and public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B.
D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 1019). New
Schultz, B. D. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an
urban classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schultz, B. D., & Baricovich, J. E. (2010). Curriculum in the making: Theory, practice,
and social action curriculum projects. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(2).
Retrieved from http://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/193/81
Sears, J. T. (2009). Interrogating the subject: Queering elementary education, 10 years
on. Sex Education, 9, 193200.
Silk, M., & Andrews, D. L. (2006). The fittest city in America. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 30, 315327.
Small, A. W. (1917). Americans and the world-crisis. American Journal of Sociology,
23, 145173.
Smith, J. P., & Weiland, S. (1980). The extracurricular curriculum: Academic disci-
plines and public humanities programs. Minneapolis, MN: Federation of Public
Programs in the Humanities.
Soudien, C. (2006). Memory and critical education: Approaches in the District Six
Museum. Africa Education Review, 3, 112.
Stasko, C. (2009). A pedagogy of holistic media literacy: Reflections on culture jam-
ming as transformative learning and healing (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://
hdl.handle.net/1807/18109
Sun, C., & Picker, M. (Director & Producer). (2001). Mickey Mouse monopoly [DVD].
Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.
Sutherland, A. E., Jr., (1962). Establishment according to Engel. Harvard Law Review,
76, 2552.
Tavin, K., Lovelace, L., Stabler, A., & Maxam, J. (2003). From Bucktown to Niketown:
Doing visual cultural studies (Chicago style). Journal of Social Theory on Art
Education, 23, 6088.
Tillman, L., & Trier, J. (2007). Boston Public as public pedagogy: Implications for
teacher preparation and school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 121
149.
Tisdell, E. J. (2008). Critical media literacy and transformative learning: Drawing on
pop culture and entertainment media in teaching for diversity in adult higher educa-
tion. Journal of Transformative Education, 6, 4867.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples.
Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356367.
Trifonas, P. P. (2006a). Engaging the Disney effect: The cultural production of escap-
ism and utopia in media. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. P. Trifonas (Eds.),
The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 11071119). New
York, NY: Springer.
Trifonas, P. P. (2006b). Public pedagogy as spectacle: The case of professional wres-
tling. In S. R. Steinberg, P. Parmar, & B. Richard (Eds.), Contemporary youth cul-
ture: An international encyclopedia (pp. 454460). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sandlin et al.
374
Trofanenko, B. (2006). Displayed objects, indigenous identities, and public pedagogy.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37, 309327.
Van Sittert, L. (2003). Making the Cape Floral Kingdom: The discovery and defence
of indigenous flora at the Cape ca. 18901939. Landscape Research, 28, 113129.
Walton, G., & Potvin, L. (2009). Boobs, boxing, and bombs: Problematizing the enter-
tainment of Spike TV. Spaces for Difference: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 314.
Weiner, M. (1994). We are what we eat; or, democracy community, and the politics of
corporate food displays. American Quarterly, 46, 227250.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2001). Extraordinary conversations in public schools. Qualitative
Studies in Education, 14, 497523.
Wells, K. (2006). Learning through the struggle: Queer young adults, outlaw emotions,
and the fight for social justice. In 2006 national conference proceedings online:
Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education. Retrieved from http://www
.oise.utoronto.ca/CASAE/
Willis, G., Schubert, W. H., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Kridel, C., & Holton, J. T. (1994). The
American curriculum: A documentary history. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Windle, J. (2008). In remembrance of things past? Strategies of public pedagogy for
urban renovation. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 30, 377
398.
Winnicott, D. W. (1989). Playing and reality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wright, R. R. (2007). The Avengers, public pedagogy, and the development of
British women. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 115, 6372.
Wright, R. R., & Sandlin, J. A. (2009). Cult TV, hip-hop, shape-shifters, and vampire
slayers: A review of the literature at the intersection of adult education and popular
culture. Adult Education Quarterly, 59, 118141.
Yeoman, E. (2000). Je me souviens: About the St. Armand Slave Cemetery, memory,
counter-memory and historic trauma. Topia, 12, 924.
Yin, J. (2005). Constructing the other: A critical reading of The Joy Luck Club. Howard
Journal of Communications, 16, 149173.
Youngquist, P. (2003). Monstrosities: Bodies and British romanticism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Authors
JENNIFER A. SANDLIN is an associate professor in the School of Social Transformation
at Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874902, Tempe, AZ 852874902; email: jennifer
.sandlin@asu.edu. Her research focuses on the intersections of education, learning, and
consumption, as well as on understanding and theorizing public pedagogy. Her recent
work investigates sites of public pedagogy, informal learning, and anticonsumption
social activism that question the norms of consumption, create resistance to consumer
culture, and focus on unlearning consumerism. Her current projects include an explora-
tion of how Chick religious cartoon tracts have depicted the Other since the 1960s and
how these tracts perform a paranoid pedagogy. Her work has been published in Journal
of Consumer Culture, Teachers College Record, Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy,
Adult Education Quarterly, Qualitative Inquiry, and Curriculum Inquiry. She recently
edited, with Peter McLaren, Critical Pedagogies of Consumption: Living and Learning
in the Shadow of the Shopocalypse (2010); and, with Brian Schultz and Jake Burdick,
Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning Beyond Schooling (2010).
MICHAEL P. OMALLEY is an associate professor of educational leadership at Texas State
University-San Marcos; email: mo20@txstate.edu. He is also a former secondary school
375
principal and a visiting scholar with innovative educational leadership programs at
Universidad Alberto Hurtado in Santiago de Chile and the Massachusetts College of
Liberal Arts. His research interests include curriculum theory and leadership, public
pedagogy, leadership for educational and social equity, and pedagogy of human soul. His
recent projects involve secondary school student protests for educational equity in Chile,
inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity issues in educational leadership preparation
across the United States, analysis of educational and fiscal accountability initiatives in an
urban school district, and addressing dilemmas and opportunities of critical participatory
research with youth involving difficult or contested issues. His recent publications are in
Sociology, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Urban Education, Teaching Education, and
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.
JAKE BURDICK is a doctoral candidate in the curriculum studies program at Arizona State
University; email: steven.burdick@asu.edu. His research focuses largely on public and
popular sites of education, psychoanalysis, and narrative inquiry. His work has been
published in The Mississippi Review (creative nonfiction), The Sophists Bane, Curriculum
Inquiry, and Qualitative Inquiry. He is also the coeditor of two collections, Handbook of
Public Pedagogy (2010) and Complicated Conversations and Confirmed Commitments:
Revitalizing Education for Democracy (2009). Currently, he is developing a narrative
study of the pedagogical aspects of grassroots social justice movements and organiza-
tions, as well as methodological pieces on critical storytelling and authorial presence in
research texts.

Mapping The Complexity of Public Pedagogy Scholarship 1894-2010 - Sandlin, O'Malley and Burdick

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping The Complexity of Public Pedagogy Scholarship 1894-2010 - Sandlin, O'Malley and Burdick

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://rer.aera.

American Educational Research Association

http://rer.aera.net/alerts Email Alerts:

- Jul 18, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 22, 2011 Version of Record >>

You might also like