During the 21th century Michael Young (2008) and others have argued that knowledge produced by science, because it is systematic, specialised, objective; have better claims to truth and can empower those who understand it, and therefore should provide the basis for the curriculum (Carlgren, 2020; Deng, 2018).  As has been discussed in the philosophy of science, since the first establishment of the modern scientific disciplines during the 19^th century; a discussion that was further deepened in the 20^th century, the natural and social worlds are characterised by different conditions of knowledge production. As stated by Young and (2008), the criteria of powerful knowledge (especially the objective and “true” criteria) seems to best to fit knowledge produced by the natural sciences. Young, however, has argued for that the concept of powerful knowledge can be applied to most knowledge, natural and social science, humanities and even art (Muller & Young, 2019). Future research will resolve if and in which ways PK can be a useful concept in relation to knowledge in various fields, this paper is limited to this question in relation to social science and socially oriented school subjects in a Swedish context (civics, geography, history, religion). 

The specific prerequisites of social science can be understood from a social realist perspective and the philosophy of science (Moore, 2008). The ontological and epistemological axioms of social realist perspective and its implications how knowledge and knowledge production are understood and what pupils should learn, has already been thoroughly described in the foundational texts on the theory of powerful knowledge in general (Young, 2008; Mueller & Young, 2016). It seems to me that there is a lack, however, of a theoretical discussion regarding the similarities and difference of powerful knowledge in different knowledge domains (natural, social, humanities, arts). This paper is limited to an attempt to discuss these issues in relation to social science, the main basis of societally oriented school subjects form a PK perspective, and thereby provide rationale for what knowledge, skills and attributes could be considered central for giving pupils access to powerful knowledge in socially oriented school subjects.

Michael Young in collaboration with Johan Muller (Muller & Young, 2016, 2020) has provided a criteria of the characteristics of powerful knowledge (PK) in general (distinct/abstract, systematic, specialised, objective, claims to truth, and empower the knower; Chapman, 2011); but there is less research in relation to the characteristic of powerful knowledge in relation to different knowledge domains (like natural and social sciences or the arts). The answer to the question, if or to what degree the knowledge produced in respective domain is in line with the criteria of PK arguably differs between natural science, social science and the arts. The first aim of this paper is to investigate of what the specific characteristics of powerful knowledge in relation to the knowledge produced by social science drawing from the philosophy of science. The second aim is to deduce what the answer of the first aim implies for what can be considered powerful knowledge in the four societally oriented school subjects (civics, geography, history, religion), in relation to the Swedish curriculum for the primary and lower secondary school as an empirical example.

1. What is the characteristics of powerful knowledge in social science?
2. Which, if any, aspects knowledge and capacities as described in the Swedish curriculum can be understood as related to powerful knowledge regarding the societally oriented subjects, civics, geography, history, religion?

The reserach questions will be answered through an anlysis of the above mentioned research that have discussed the question of knowledge in social science and the new curriculum for the Swedish compulsuary school, more specifically the course plans for the school subjects, civics, geography, history and religion (Lgr22). The theory of Powerful knowledge provides the basis for the analysis of the possiblity of powerful knowledge in social science and of the Swedish societal subjects curriculum. Using the distinct definition of PK provided by Chapman (2021, p. 9) as analytical concepts: • Distinct from everyday common-sense knowledge derived from experience; • Systematic – the concepts of different disciplines are related to each other in ways that allow us to transcend individual cases by generalising or developing interpretations; • Specialised – produced in disciplinary epistemic communities with distinct fields and/or foci of enquiry; • Objective and reliable – its objectivity arising from peer review; • Better claims to truth than other knowledge claims relevant to the issues and problems it addresses; • The potential to empower those who know and understand it to act in and on the world, since they have access to knowledge with which to understand how relevant aspects of the world work. These six analytical categories will be applied toboth research questions. As the first reserach question is theoretical it will be answered through engaging with the philosphy of social science, more specifically critical realism (Bhaskar, 1975, 1979) social realism (Moore 2009), and educational sociology (Bernstein, 2000). The second reserach question will be answered by analysing in which way the Swedish curriculum of social studies school subjects will be analysed using the same six analytical concepts. In each course plan the stated knowledge and skills the pupils should aquire is analysed in relation to the criteria of powerful knowledge. A comparision will be made betweens the subjects regarding the theoretical possiblities and limitations of pupils aquiring powerful knowledge in the light of the Swedish curriculum. A comparision of the course plans will be made in relation to what criteria of PK can be identified in each course plan.

An anlytical model will be constructed regarding the charachteristics of Powerful knowledge in social science. This model will describe if or which way knowledge in social science can understood as distinct/abstract, systematic, specialised, objective, true and empower the knower. The analysis of the course plans of civics, geography, history and religion in the Swedish curriculum will provide knowledge about to what extrent and in which way socailly oriented school subjects can be said align with the six critea of powerful knowledge. The results are intended to provide the basis for a model regarding what knowledge and skills pupils should aquire in an education inspired by the idea of powerful knowledge.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity Theory. Taylor and Francis. Bhaskar, Roy (1975): A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso. Bhaskar, Roy (1979): The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester. Carlgren, I. (2020) Powerful knowns and powerful knowings, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 323-336. Chapman, A. (2021). Introduction: Historical knowing and the ‘knowledge turn’. In Chapman, A. (eds.): Knowing history in schools. Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge, p. 1–32. UCL press. Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 691–710. Läroplan för grundskolan 2022. Skolverket: Stockholm. [Curriculum for the compulsorary school 2022. National Agency of Education: Stockholm] Moore, R. (2009). Towards the Sociology of Truth. Continuum. Muller, J. & Young, M. (2016): Curriculum and the specialization of knowledge: Studies in the sociology of education. Routledge. Young, M. & Muller, J. (2019). Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge revisited. The curriculum journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292 Young, M. (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Routledge.