Futures for Australian curriculum studies: metaphors, genres and complicated conversations

My specific brief for the conference presentation on which this essay is based was to speak from the standpoint of a \u27curriculum theorist\u27. However, I rarely use the terms \u27curriculum theory\u27 or \u27curriculum theorising\u27 other than in the company of US and Canadian colleagues. I prefer to speak of \u27curriculum inquiry\u27 or \u27curriculum work\u27 and I think of my work as a university teacher and researcher as being directed towards understanding curriculum. From this standpoint I interpret the theme of this Point and Counterpoint, \u27Futures for Australian Curriculum\u27, as a focus for speculation on the possible and desirable ways in which the arts of curriculum inquiry can be developed, tested and renewed. In other words, how can we sustain rigorous, vigorous and generative forms of curriculum work?I will respond to this question by referring to three artefacts of Australian curriculum studies, the first two of which come from the AustralianCurriculum Studies Association\u27s (ACSA) own material history; the third is (arguably) the major synoptic text of North American \u27curriculum theory\u27 published during the past decade. I will use these artefacts to illustrate three key issues concerning futures in curriculum inquiry, namely:• the significance of metaphor; • questions about genre and a renewed role forthe arts in our work;• the idea of \u27complicated conversation\u27.