A genealogy of media studies

This paper seeks to explain why the subject media studies looks and sounds the way it does today through the production of a genealogy of the subject. The questions addressed are first, why was this subject introduced into the curriculum in the 1970s? Secondly, how has knowledge in the subject been defined and contested, how and why has it changed in the course of the subject’s history? Thirdly, which knowledge attains the status of truth and becomes the accepted definition of what the subject is about?The theoretical perspective adopted in this study draws from both postmodernist critiques and sociologies of subject knowledge. It presents a critical sociology of knowledge that draws insights from both social historians of school subjects and the work of Michel Foucault. The study draws a distinction between knowledge as defined by formal educational authorities (articulated in syllabuses) and knowledge defined by those practising the subject (teachers and curriculum advisors).     

Heroism and science education reform

In this study, we use a cultural framework to examine two important science curriculum changes in a large Australian state during the 1960s and 1970s. In particular, we describe the activities of two prominent science educators who presided over these curriculum reforms against a backdrop of significant changes in the school system of the time. We represent the actions of these persons as heroic Drawing on interview data from these and other members of the community, we describe how the Heroes shaped, modified and united the culture through referents, rituals and artefacts. We speculate on the importance of heroic activity in supporing curriculum change.     

Until somebody hears me: parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making

When a family finds out their child has a disability, they enter the world of special education which has its own terminology, rules, settings and personnel. In addition to grappling with the meaning of their child's special needs, families are also thrown into the role of principle advocate for their child. The research study reported here presents the findings from focus groups conducted in the United States of America with 27 diverse families on their efforts to obtain the best educational outcomes for their children. In this article, Robyn Hess, Amy Molina and Elizabeth Kozleski bring their collective past experiences, as a school psychologist, bilingual counsellor and special education teacher respectively, to bear on this topic and frame the issue from a systemic perspective. They argue that engaging in conversation with families around their needs, as well as assisting them in their efforts to advocate for their child, is the first step in creating more equal partnerships between parents of children with special needs and educational professionals.     

Power,consent and resistance: an autoethnography of competitive rowing

This study builds upon existing socio-cultural work into sports coaching by probing the meanings and varieties of the shared coach–athlete experience. Specifically, the paper utilises an autoethnographic approach in an attempt to chart the complex and dynamic relationship that existed between me, the principal author, as a rowing coxswain and my coach during the preparation for a national rowing championship. Data were drawn from a training diary, emails (both sent and received) and memories during the six months I spent with Coach. The data are presented through three separate yet inter-related stories. Here, the plot of the tale hinges on the tension between my personal perceptions of effective coaching and those employed by Coach. The findings are principally theorised through Nyberg's and Giddens’ concepts of power and resistance, as a fruitful relationship between Coach and me (and the crew) soon turned into a dysfunctional one. The conclusion emphasises the importance of recognising the power-ridden nature of coaching and the value of the autoethnographic genre in exploring it.     

Expertise and the PhD: Between depth and a flat place

Expertise is under sustained interrogation. We see it in so‐called edu‐scepticism and pessimism about graduates’ apparently diminishing employment prospects, challenges to the role of Higher Education institutions as arbiters of knowledge and post‐truth rhetoric more broadly. This paper examines how the PhD is being discursively positioned in this context. We ask what these changing conceptions of expertise, education and work mean for how PhD‐level expertise is understood. Drawing on a range of sources, from the scholarly to the wider media, we draw together five exemplar models of expertise to expose the transforming ratio between generalist, transferable skills and specialist knowledge. The evident diminution of specialisation raises numerous issues for the PhD as it is increasingly called upon to serve multiple and potentially contradictory needs: an innovation society on the one hand and the discipline on the other. Reconciling the tension between depth and breadth is an important issue for a degree whose hallmark is—or at least has been—depth.