برنامه درسی دو سوگرا با تمرکز به موضوع: تحقیق در باره ی آموزش تاریخ در استرالیا The ambivalence of subject-focused curriculum inquiry: the case of history education research in Australia

This paper investigates the problem of ‘curriculum’ in subjectfocused 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 case of History education research specifically is mostly autobiographic, given that this is the academic subject domain in which I have pursued my own curriculum inquiries. Though one might also expect History educators to be sensitive to the historical development of their research field/s, and thus have something to say about the field of curriculum inquiry. Certainly, the concerns expressed in this paper, and the vignettes I share, are part of my autobiographical journey as a ‘curriculum scholar’ (including the ambivalences I have experienced) writing, supervising, and examining in the field of (History) curriculum studies. These autobiographical examples are deliberate, signalling my own sympathies for the reconceptualist agenda in curriculum inquiry, and its well-known ‘definition’ of curriculum as the course of one’s educational experience. I also express a sympathy for the argument put forward by du Preez and Simmonds (2014), and Pinar (2007), that Curriculum Studies should not be a spectator sport, and requires participation in conversations about its disciplinarity for its intellectual advancement. I take up this provocation referencing some initial analysis I have made of publicly available Australian doctoral theses from the millennium to the present (2000–2016), that are concerned with History curriculum (or some aspect of it) as an object of study, to explore the ways in which curriculum inquiry is addressed within the subject-specific domain of History curriculum research. I will conclude by offering some thoughts on what appears to be challenges for scholars working within the enterprise called variously, curriculum studies, curriculum inquiry and curriculum theorising.