Curriculum Inquiry is a diverse field. This edition of Curriculum Perspectives represents this diversity in terms of topics, curriculum site, and national interests. In doing so, the edition reflects the renewed mission of Curriculum Perspectives to enhance the voices of the Global South in the field. Represented in this edition are Country (used here as Australian Indigenous concept), the Middle East, the Asia–Pacific and Europe. The edition also expands the often-assumed boundaries of curriculum inquiry, all too often associated with the institutions of schools. The increased narrowing of assumed meanings of curriculum is one of the ongoing challenges of the field, making this collection of papers an exciting reminder of the diversity of the field. Our field faces several challenges related to changing policy approaches, particularly in relation to teacher preparation, public policy, and notions of public accountability. Over the last decade narrow perspectives, with narrow measures of evidence, and the focus on effectiveness have reshaped the public perception of curriculum and how future curriculum workers understand their work. The historical field of curriculum inquiry uniquely speaks to these concerns with decades of research, innovation, and insight. Through scholarship published in Curriculum Perspectives, we continue to remind the emerging field and policy actors of the affordances of thinking curriculum at a larger scale and scope.

In the first article in this edition, Cunningham and Gibson make the case for rethinking curriculum from the perspective of the Arts. In doing so, they use the recent pandemic as evidence of the interconnection between the arts and student wellbeing and cognitive development. It was, they recount, to the Arts that schools turned in the pandemic to create a sense of connection and to support student wellbeing. It is often in a crisis that we realise what we truly value, and in the pandemic, the arts played an important, and unique, role that is often sadly overlooked in the pursuit of a narrow range of measures of effectiveness.

What we choose to value in contemporary Eurocentric scientistic conceptions of education in response to the increasing recognition and appreciation of Indigenous knowledges and knowledges of, and for, the global south is an area Curriculum Perspectives has a responsibility to continually highlight and challenge. Spillman and colleagues bring a new perspective on issues in Indigenous education, namely the perspective of Country. Challenging Eurocentric notions of where, and with whom, knowledge resides Spillman and colleagues note that “for tens of thousands of years, Country has been acknowledged as primary knowledge-holder and teacher”. This perspective asks profound curriculum questions and disrupts dominant, and narrow, discourses of the global north. In making this case, they focus on the experience of teachers as they initiate their own “relating with Country” practice and begin the process of repositioning country, and other knowledges.

Decentring hierarchical knowledge assumptions is also the focus of Lubicz-Nawrocka’s contribution examining curriculum co-creation in higher education in Scotland. Referencing the historical curriculum tradition of negotiating the curriculum, Lubicz-Nawrocka shows how this is applicable to the higher education context, and the challenges and opportunities the approach affords. In doing so, the contesting positions of “university knowledge”, students’ knowledge and their learning intention and the role of academics are highlighted. Just what the role of university education is when it doesn’t necessarily meet the needs of the students opens a curriculum inquiry discussion for higher education. This contribution provides a helpful example of curriculum inquiry in the higher education sector as it draws upon many theoretical traditions and a wide body of related literature in the field. This is a further area Curriculum Perspectives aims to encourage contributions from, however, to date a very high proportion of submissions with a higher education focus do not make it through initial review being essentially teaching and learning approaches and not situated in curriculum inquiry.

The edition also contains two articles that reinforce that the scope of curriculum can, and should be, beyond the traditional academic curriculum and the credentialing role of schools. In one article, Ram links biosecurity issues with the curriculum in the island nation of New Zealand. Highlighting the significance of historic, and more recent, biosecurity scares and the potential impact on the nation’s environment and economy, Ram suggests that the curriculum has a role in developing shared understandings of the significance of biosecurity. This would seem an extension of the role often attributed to curriculum in developing values and other competencies, and something indeed reinforced by the recent pandemic. In a further article, Canlas and Karpudewan links scientific literacy and disaster risk reduction in the Philippine basic education program. For a nation that experiences frequent natural disasters, and arguably will be subject to worse because of climate change, enhanced population level appreciation of scientific advice and decision making is critical to saving life and maintaining the nation’s economy. Again, the recent pandemic reinforces the importance of scientific literacy.

In the final article in the edition, Alkandari examines the shift to a competency-based curriculum and the role of teacher readiness self-efficacy as critical pre-conditions for curriculum enactment aligned with the curriculum intent. The link between professional development, psychological concept of self-efficacy in effective curriculum change and innovation are examined. Indeed, this alignment is critical for all effective curriculum change and innovation.

Point and counterpoint

In the Point and Counterpoint, the (new) editorial team each outline their perspective on curriculum inquiry and why they are involved in the field. As this team has assumed custodianship of the journal at this time, we felt it important to share our understandings of the field and why we associate with it. We do this in the interests of transparency and in recognition that our custodianship represents a generational change. We have each developed our understandings and dispositions in the field from reading, and being supervised in our doctoral studies or mentored by, many of the writers in this journal who have themselves contributed perspectives on curriculum inquiry in articles and Point and Counterpoint published in Curriculum Perspectives. This is not to suggest that prospective authors should feel a need to reproduce these perspectives. Our responsibility is to oversee the academic quality and significance of articles published in the journal and to build the field through the journal.

A prominent theme that emerges through this Point and Counterpoint is the question of knowledge and the engagement with theory to address concerns for equity and justice. As would be expected of the editorial team, a broad knowledge of the field is evident through the pieces. This provides a degree of guidance for prospective authors as the main reason submissions do not proceed to review is that they do not engage with theory related to curriculum and/or knowledge in curriculum from the international field. These submissions tend to be studies of small program implementation and their evaluation, or fidelity studies, with no connections to the broader field. Typically, the word curriculum carries an assumed meaning, often unstated, akin to content or skills. It therefore appears that Curriculum Perspectives has been chosen for submission because of the word “curriculum” in the title with no reference to “perspectives”—we take “perspectives”, as articulated in the journal aims and scope, very seriously in the initial screening process.

The editors are also working to build the book review section. In this edition, a review of a recent book based on a research project examining literary knowledge and English teachers’ knowledge and identity is included. Book reviews are an important element of generating conversations about the latest research and keeping the curriculum community informed of new publications. We invite authors to share news of their upcoming curriculum books with us, and those interested in doing reviews to also get in touch. The editors are also considering how we can best share updates on the most recent innovative research published as Dissertations.

Philip Roberts

Editor in Chief

University of Canberra