Rhizomatic Education : Community as Curriculum

Below is my paper as it appears in Innovate – Journal of Online Education. Many, many thanks to the fine folks there for all their help.

Note: this journal has since gone ‘out of print’. the originals are still available at archive.org but i have adjusted the links here so that they continue to work.

The truths of which the masses now approve are the very truths that the fighters at the outposts held to in the days of our grandfathers. We fighters at the outposts nowadays no longer approve of them; and I do not believe there is any other well-ascertained truth except this, that no community can live a healthy life if it is nourished only on such old marrowless truths.

—Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People (1882/2000, IV.i)

The increasingly transitory nature of what is lauded as current or accurate in new and developing fields, as well as the pace of change in Western culture more broadly, has made it difficult for society in general and education in particular to define what counts as knowledge. The existing educational model with its expert-centered pedagogical planning and publishing cycle is too static and prescribed to accommodate the kind of fluid, transitory conception of knowledge that is necessary to understand the simplest of Web-based concepts. The ephemeral nature of the Web and the rate at which cutting-edge knowledge about it and on it becomes obsolete disrupts the painstaking process by which knowledge has traditionally been codified. Traditional curricular domains are based on long-accepted knowledge, and the "experts" in those domains are easily identified by comparing their assertions with the canon of accepted thought (Banks 1993); newer concepts, whether in technology, physics, or modern culture, are not easily compared against any canon. This lack of a center of measurement for what is "true" or "right" makes the identification of key pieces of knowledge in any of these fields a precarious task. In less-traditional curricular domains then, knowledge creators are not accurately epitomized as traditional, formal, verified experts; rather, knowledge in these areas is created by a broad collection of knowers sharing in the construction and ongoing evolution of a given field. Knowledge becomes a negotiation (Farrell 2001).

Knowledge as negotiation is not an entirely new concept in educational circles; social contructivist and connectivist pedagogies, for instance, are centered on the process of negotiation as a learning process. Neither of these theories, however, is sufficient to represent the nature of learning in the online world. There is an assumption in both theories that the learning process should happen organically but that knowledge, or what is to be learned, is still something independently verifiable with a definitive beginning and end goal determined by curriculum.

A botanical metaphor, first posited by Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus (1987), may offer a more flexible conception of knowledge for the information age: the rhizome. A rhizomatic plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of a number of semi-independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat (Cormier 2008). In the rhizomatic view, knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by constructivist and connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target.

On Knowledge

A clear definition of the word "knowledge" is difficult yet key to any search for shared understanding. Indeed, as Hinchley (1998) notes, "Like other cultural assumptions, the definition of ‘knowledge’ is rarely explicitly discussed because it has been so long a part of the culture that it seems a self-evident truth to many, simply another part of the way things are" (36). However, the concept of knowledge is fluid and subject to cultural and historical forces (Exhibit 1); as Horton and Freire (1990) argue, "If the act of knowing has historicity, then today’s knowledge about something is not necessarily the same tomorrow. Knowledge is changed to the extent that reality also moves and changes. . . . It’s not something stabilized, immobilized" (101). The word itself is thought to have multiple origins, drawing from forms of "to know," "to recognize," and the Old Icelandic knà, meaning "I can." The combination of these origins suggests a relationship of knowledge, power, and agency that is grounded in both the social and the political spheres. Knowledge represents “positions from which people make sense of their worlds and their place in them, and from which they construct their concepts of agency, the possible, and their own capacities to do” (Stewart 2002, 20).

Information is the foundation of knowledge. The information in any given field consists of facts and figures, such as may be found in the technical reference manuals of learning; in a nonrhizomatic model, individual experts translate information into knowledge through the application of checks and balances involving peer review and rigorous assessment against a preexisting body of knowledge. The peers and experts are themselves vetted through a similar sanctioning process that is the purview, largely, of degree-granting institutions. This process carries the prestige of a thousand-year history, and the canon of what has traditionally been considered knowledge is grounded in this historicity as a self-referential set of comparative valuations that ensure the growth of knowledge by incremental, verified, and institutionally authorized steps. In this model, the experts are the arbiters of the canon. The expert translation of data into verified knowledge is the central process guiding traditional curriculum development.

Changing Knowledge

New communication technologies and the speeds at which they allow the dissemination of information and the conversion of information to knowledge have forced us to reexamine what constitutes knowledge; moreover, it has encouraged us to take a critical look at where it can be found and how it can be validated. The explosion of freely available sources of information has helped drive rapid expansion in the accessibility of the canon and in the range of knowledge available to learners. Online access to thousands of primary documents may be provided via the Internet for less than it costs to provide far fewer examples in a traditional textbook package (Rosenzweig 2003). In addition to this increased accessibility of primary documents, a new breed of user-generated content has emerged on collaborative Web sites and in other online venues. Web sites such as EdTechTalk, The Webcast Academy, and the Open Habitat Project collate the work of a variety of professionals to create snapshots of the knowledge of a particular field as it is seen at a given time (Cormier 2008).

Thus the foundations upon which we are working are changing as well as the speed at which new information must be integrated into those foundations. The traditional method of expert translation of information to knowledge requires time: time for expertise to be brought to bear on new information, time for peer review and validation. In the current climate, however, that delay could make the knowledge itself outdated by the time it is verified (Evans and Hayes 2005; Meile 2005). In a field like educational technology, traditional research methods combined with a standard funding and publication cycle might cause a knowledge delay of several years. In the meantime, learners are left without a canonical source of accepted knowledge, forcing a reliance on new avenues for knowledge creation. For instance, a researcher exploring social software use must rely at least in part on online knowledge repositories because current information on the terminology used in these areas is simply not available in any exhaustive or definitive form in books or peer-reviewed articles (Nichol 2007). Information is coming too fast for our traditional methods of expert verification to adapt.

In fields frequently affected by the gatekeeping practices of the traditional publishing industry, professionals in fields such as the science of spectroscopy are turning to online community learning spaces or collaborative document holders such as wikis. The wiki, or any collaboratively constructed document for that matter, solves a number of issues inherent to the expert-driven model as it has the capacity to be more current than any expert-assessed content package or traditional publication can usually be. Wikis and similar tools offer a participatory medium that can allow for communal negotiation of knowledge.

Collaborative knowledge construction is also being taken up in fields that are more traditionally coded as learning environments. In particular, social learning practices are allowing for a more discursive rhizomatic approach to knowledge discovery. Social learning is the practice of working in groups, not only to explore an established canon but also to negotiate what qualifies as knowledge. According to Brown and Adler (2008), "The most profound impact of the Internet, an impact that has yet to be fully realized, is its ability to support and expand the various aspects of social learning" (18). Several communities on the Internet offer some idea of what can be accomplished in a participatory social learning environment where knowledge is being negotiated (Exhibit 2). Social learning is particularly valuable in fields where the parameters of knowledge are constantly shifting and a canon has not yet been solidified. Educational technology is one such field. Alec Couros’s graduate-level course in educational technology offered at the University of Regina provides an ideal example of the role social learning and negotiation can play in learning (Exhibit 3). Students in Couros’s class worked from a curriculum created through their own negotiations of knowledge and formed their own personally mapped networks, thereby contributing to the rhizomatic structure in their field of study. This kind of collaborative, rhizomatic learning experience clearly represents an ideal that is difficult to replicate in all environments, but it does highlight the productive possibilities of the rhizome model (Exhibit 4).

These changes have sparked two primary responses among purveyors of traditional educational knowledge. One has been to attack these new sources as flawed as has been the case in the history department at Middlebury College (Jaschik 2007). These critiques of collaborative knowledge verification, premised on assumptions of validity rooted in the traditional strictures of academic publishing, reveal an essential misunderstanding of the place of socially constructed models in the new knowledge landscape that challenges traditional notions of canon just as the influx of content about women and ethnic minorities challenged certain canons of traditional knowledge in the 1990s (Banks 1993). An alternative response to changing knowledge foundations has been to engage in a flurry of discussion about intellectual property rights, debating the merits of various Creative Commons licenses and trying to determine the means by which content creators’ intellectual property rights can be protected even as content is distributed freely (Wiley 2007; Downes 2007; Bornfreund 2007).

Both of these responses are inadequate: the first, obviously, because it denies the legitimacy of a rhizomatic knowledge-creation process that is already overtaking traditional models and the second because it relies on the old notion of knowledge as resident in a particular individual and frozen in time, reified by publication. However, if knowledge is to be negotiated socially, then the idea of individual intellectual property must be renegotiated to reflect the process of acquisition and the output constructed by that process. What is needed is a model of knowledge acquisition that accounts for socially constructed, negotiated knowledge. In such a model, the community is not the path to understanding or accessing the curriculum; rather, the community is the curriculum.

The Rhizomatic Model of Education

In the rhizomatic model of learning, curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs from experts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, and reconstructing itself and the subject of its learning in the same way that the rhizome responds to changing environmental conditions:

The rhizome is an antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots. Unlike the graphic arts, drawing or photography, unlike tracings, the rhizome pertains to a map that must be produced, constructed, a map that is always detachable, connectible, reversible, modifiable, and has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight. (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, 21)

With this model, a community can construct a model of education flexible enough for the way knowledge develops and changes today by producing a map of contextual knowledge. The living curriculum of an active community is a map that is always "detachable, connectible, reversible, modifiable, and has multiple entryways and exits":

If the world of media education is thought of as a rhizome, as a library à la Eco [in The Name of the Rose], then we need to construct our own connections through this space in order to appropriate it. However, instead of that solitary groping made by Brother William, we see as our goal the co-construction of those secret connections as a collaborative effort. (Tella 2000, 41)

In the practical example of Couros’s class, students created their own rhizomatically mapped curriculum by combining their blogs with information to which Couros pointed them and linking the combination to the particular knowledge that they discovered through discussions with key people in Couros’s professional community. In accessing Couros’s professional network, students had the opportunity to enter the community themselves and impact the shape of its curriculum as well as their own learning. The role of the instructor in all of this is to provide an introduction to an existing professional community in which students may participate—to offer not just a window, but an entry point into an existing learning community.


In a sense, the rhizomatic viewpoint returns the concept of knowledge to its earliest roots. Suggesting that a distributed negotiation of knowledge can allow a community of people to legitimize the work they are doing among themselves and for each member of the group, the rhizomatic model dispenses with the need for external validation of knowledge, either by an expert or by a constructed curriculum. Knowledge can again be judged by the old standards of "I can" and "I recognize." If a given bit of information is recognized as useful to the community or proves itself able to do something, it can be counted as knowledge. The community, then, has the power to create knowledge within a given context and leave that knowledge as a new node connected to the rest of the network.

Indeed, the members themselves will connect the node to the larger network. Most people are members of several communities—acting as core members in some, carrying more weight and engaging more extensively in the discussion, while offering more casual contributions in others, reaping knowledge from more involved members (Cormier 2007). This is the new reality. Knowledge seekers in cutting-edge fields are increasingly finding that ongoing appraisal of new developments is most effectively achieved through the participatory and negotiated experience of rhizomatic community engagement. Through involvement in multiple communities where new information is being assimilated and tested, educators can begin to apprehend the moving target that is knowledge in the modern learning environment.


Banks, J. A. 1993. The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher 22 (5): 6-7.

Bornfreund, M. 2007. Copyright licensing for learning objects. Paper presented at the Copyright/Copyleft: Issues of Education Conference, University of Manitoba, September. http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/conferences/copyright/Marcus_Bornfreund/Marcus_Bornfreund.html (accessed May 27, 2008).

Brown, J. S., and R. P. Adler. 2008. Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and Learning 2.0. Educause Review 43 (1): 16-32 http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/MindsonFireOpenEducationt/45823 (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XebnBMZ4.

Cormier, D. 2007. Membership, collaboration and the interwebs. [Weblog entry, March 24.] Dave’s Educational Blog. http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=95 (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XebgJkGU.

Cormier, D. 2008. Rhizomatic knowledge communities: Edtechtalk, Webcast Academy. [Weblog entry, February 29.] Dave’s Educational Blog. http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/02/29/rhizomatic-knowledge-communities-edtechtalk-webcast-academy/ (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XfE5yYAY.

Deleuze, G., and F. Guatarri. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: University of Minnesota Press.

Downes, S. 2007. Understanding me. [Weblog entry, October 14.] Half An Hour. http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/10/understanding-me.html (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5Xec3eUaX.

Evans, N., and J. Hayes. 2005. Review of Textbook of Endodontology. International Endodontic Journal 38 (12): 949.

Farrell, L. 2001. Negotiating knowledge in the knowledge economy: Workplace educators and the politics of codification. Studies in Continuing Education (23) 2: 201-214.

Hinchley, P. H. 1998. Finding freedom in the classroom: A practical introduction to critical theory. New York: Peter Lang.

Horton, M., and P. Freire. 1990. We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Ibsen, H. 1882/2000. An enemy of the people. Tr. R. Farquharson Sharp. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/aeotp10.txt (accessed May 27, 2008).

Jaschik, S. 2007. A Stand Against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed, January 26. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XecVR535.

Meile, L. 2005. Selecting the right OM textbook for the right course. Decision Line 36 (3): 16.

Nichol, H. 2007. Academia vs Wikipedia…again. [Weblog entry, October 24.] The Business of Knowing. http://thebusinessofknowing.blogspot.com/2007/10/academia-vs-wikipediaagain.html (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XsmiN7j1.

Rosenzweig, R. 2003. Scarcity or abundance? Preserving the past in a digital era.The American Historical Review, June. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/108.3/rosenzweig.html (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XeceCRlv.

Stewart, B. 2002. Techknowledge: Literate practice and digital worlds. New York Studies in Media Studies 7. http://www.egs.edu/mediaphi/pdfs/bonnie-stewart-techknowledge.pdf (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5Xed19AOc.

Tella, S. 2000. The concept of media education revisited: From a classificatory analysis to a rhizomatic overview. Media Education Publication 8. http://hrast.pef.uni-lj.si/~joze/podiplomci/FRI/mep8/Tella_mep8.pdf (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XedAvMUG.

Wiley, D. 2007. Misunderstanding Stephen. [Weblog entry, October 13.] Iterating towards openness. http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/381 (accessed May 27, 2008). Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5XedHwkrA.

Copyright and Citation Information for this Article

This article may be reproduced and distributed for educational purposes if the following attribution is included in the document:

Note: This article was originally published in Innovate (http://www.innovateonline.info/) as: Cormier, D. 2008. Rhizomatic education : Community as curriculum. Innovate 4 (5). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=550 (accessed June 2, 2008). The article is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, The Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova Southeastern University.

Author: dave

I run this site... among other things.

159 thoughts on “Rhizomatic Education : Community as Curriculum”

  1. Is it true that the number of years in academia directly impacts the number of words in any sentence? In that case, you are either are very entrenched academician or good jester.

    Knowledge is collective, forming connections with past prior learnings and with future intuitions. The past, present, and future all coincide to make up what you term fluid knowledge. Fluid implies to me something not easily grasped.

    Joining the rhizomatic collective (sounds like Star Trek)increases not only personal ways of knowing but the knowledge of the collective. Until we have all the stakeholders of any culture connecting, how can we claim to glimpse that collective knowledge?

    Our challenge now is to get parents, and hence taxpayers, to buy into a system that values ephemeral knowledge over granite canon. It is imperative that learners become adept at communicating, connecting, & collaborating in order for our nation to continue to be economically viable.

    Learners who can communicate, connect, & collaborate are able to think. This is the currency needed to participate. The old vanguard of canonical works = knowledge is both ridiculous and overruled.

    I better stop wagging at the mouth and go have some coffee!

  2. Great paper Dave – learning as an engaged cooperative endeavour – participation and negotiation – allowing more of us to contribute in progressivley meaningful efforts – I’m working in a similar vein – building and germinating online learning spaces that live within, without and beyond the institutionally controled learning phase – in the control of learners, and temporally facilitated by “instructors”. I’ve been meaning to get a paper on it – what I’ve coined pedagogical multiplicity – imnto Innovate for the last two months – maybe next issue.

  3. As a former science teacher with a current interest in virtual worlds and collaboration as well as a passion for education, I got nothing of substance from this. For me the point of an analogy is to help your reader understand your point. If the analogy you choose is outside the expected knowledge of many of your readership such that it then requires it’s own explanation there seems no point to it. Some of the article felt like it was edging dangerously close to the post-modern ‘no such thing as truth’. But I have to confess to not grasping it enough to be sure.

    Students should collaborate? Great, of course they should. Is there something more to this?

  4. Neil,

    No need to feel the danger, this paper is heavily informed by the postmodern perspective. I would add to your definition of ‘there is no such thing as truth’ with ‘there is no one Truth that overrides all other truths, things are true (small t) in a given context.

    Your own position is a perfect example of that. You say “for me the point of an analogy” and “there seems no point in it”. I can see, from your comments, how this is true for you. There have been several folks who feel that the analogy useful… their truth being different from yours.

    No. Student’s collaborating is not it. I’m suggesting that in certain special circumstances the curriculum that the students are studying is created by that collaboration.

  5. Great stuff, Dave, thank you very much for sharing not only the article but the list of references as well.

    Extremely helpful for this impressionable doctoral student looking for a dissertation topic.

  6. Pingback: dreig (dreig)
  7. Dave,

    I’m sorry to be so late coming to this discussion, but I’m also very happy to have arrived at last.

    Your essay seems to be addressing what, for me, has been the most problematic aspect of Deleuze and Guattari’s discussion of the rhizome: cartography and decalcomania, terms they use to describe new strategies for building useful maps for negotiating our way through the rhizome. The big rhizome, of course, is this universe, reality. This seems to cause most people problems.

    For thousands of years, we have built knowledge in hierarchical structures: from the general to the particular (deduction), or in reverse, from the particular to the general (induction). Deleuze and Guattari are recommending a new way to structure knowledge (along with all the other institutions and structures based on that knowledge), a rhizomatic way. This can be most disorienting and confusing.

    I find that many people are somewhat more comfortable with the rhizomatic ideas of connectivity, heterogeneity, multiplicity, and asignifying ruptures, but they become nervous when they lose the familiar sign-posts from an established canon of knowledge, their hierarchical maps, or tracings, in Deleuzianal terms (sorry, I couldn’t resist). You hear them asking, “If I can’t tell which way is north, definitively, then how can I construct a map to tell where I am, where I’m going, and where I’ve been?” Or in the terms of educators, “How can I measure the learning?” Most of us are very reluctant to give up our tried and true fictions.

    For me, the key question is quite practical: how do we map the rhizome? How do a group of people gather, form a working entity,scan and mine the rhizome (any rhizome: literature, math, physics, even business), and build a useful body of knowledge? As Chuen-Ferng Koh says in Internet: Towards a Holistic Ontology: “Rhizomatic links … are formed through mapping—or active construction based on flexible and functional experimentation, requiring and capitalizing on feedback. The map is not … a blueprint whose workability has to be taken on faith; the map is never fixed, but a changing flux of adaptation and negotiation.” This flexible and functional experimentation has not been a hallmark of our Western education system, at least not below advanced graduate school or in isolated pockets. Most of us don’t know how to engage reality through this constant experimentation with its feedback loops. We expect reality to stay put.

    To my mind, the practical techniques are being developed by those thousands of people working their personal learning networks, both f2f and online. And in those learning communities they are building not only the curriculum but also the methodologies, and it looks very rhizomatic to me.

  8. Will look forward to reading this. Wish you’d received a higher caliber of comments in response. I’ve got lots of refs. re. rhizome and epistemology, curriculum, subjectivation. Want me to scrounge up a list?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *