Curriculum Perspectives

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 77–80 | Cite as

The ambivalence of subject-focused curriculum inquiry: the case of history education research in Australia

  • Robert J. Parkes
Point and counterpoint

This paper investigates the problem of ‘curriculum’ in subject-focused inquiry. It explores, what appears to be, the ambivalent relationship between curriculum inquiry as a distinct field of research, and the study of school subjects (Englund 2015). The paper will focus on studies into school History education as its case. If the existence of a special interest group (SIG) in the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)—Australia’s peak ‘general’ body for educational research—represents a meaningful organisational unit for educational research in Australia, then the absence of a generic SIG for curriculum inquiry at AARE presents a clear justification for exploring curriculum scholarship within specific subject-area domains (which do exist as SIGs). It is acknowledged, of course, that the historical formation of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association (ACSA) may be the reason for there being no generic curriculum SIG in AARE.

The reason for selection here of the...


  1. Aoki, T. T. (2005). Toward curriculum inquiry in a new key (1978/1980). In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: the collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 89–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. du Preez, P., & Simmonds, S. (2014). Curriculum, curriculum development, curriculum studies? Problematising theoretical ambiguities in doctoral theses in the educational field. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Englund, T. (2015). Toward a deliberative curriculum. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 48–54.Google Scholar
  4. Goodson, I. F. (1992). Studying school subjects. Curriculum Perspectives, 12(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
  5. Gough, N. (2003). Intertextual turns in curriculum inquiry: fictions, diffractions and deconstructions. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Deakin University, Geelong.Google Scholar
  6. Green, B. (2018). Engaging curriculum: bridging the curriculum theory and English education divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Hamilton, D., & Gudmundsdottir, S. (1994). Didaktic and/or curriculum? Curriculum Studies, 2(3), 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holbrook, A., Ainley, J., Bourke, S., Owen, J., McKenzie, P., & Misson, S. (2000). Mapping educational research and its impact on Australian schools. In DETYA (Ed.), The impact of educational research (pp. 15–278). Canberra: Research Evaluation Program, Higher Education Division.Google Scholar
  9. Huebner, D. E. (1966/1999). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 101–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Joseph, P., Bravmann, S., Windschitl, M., Mikel, E., & Green, N. (2000). Cultures of curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893–1958. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Lather, P. (1995). Post-critical pedagogies: a feminist reading. In P. McLaren (Ed.), Postmodernism, post-colonialism and pedagogy (pp. 167–186). Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27(5), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O'Connor, K., & Yates, L. (2010). Classifying curriculum scholarship in Australia: a review of postgraduate theses 1975-2005. Aust Educ Res, 37(1), 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parkes, R. J. (2011). Interrupting history: rethinking history curriculum after ‘the end of history’. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Pinar, W. F. (2007). Intellectual advancement through disciplinarity: verticality and horizontality in curriculum studies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Popkewitz, T. S. (2001). The production of reason and power: curriculum history and intellectual traditions. In T. S. Popkewitz, B. M. Franklin, & M. A. Pereyra (Eds.), Cultural history and education: critical essays on knowledge and schooling (pp. 151–183). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Wright, H. K. (2000). Nailing jell-o to the wall: pinpointing aspects of state-of-the-art curriculum theorizing. Educ Res, 29(5), 4–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations