SpringerLink
Log in

Can we escape the program? Inventing possible∼impossible futures in/for Australian educational research

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay brings together two lines of inquiry. Firstly, I revisit research on futures in education conducted during the 1980s and re-examine some of the propositions and principles that this research generated about “the future” as an object of inquiry in education. Secondly, I argue that the language of complexity invites us to rethink education in terms of emergence, and potentially destabilises the instrumentalist rationality that “programs” educational systems to privilege orderly and predictable processes culminating in stable output, a potentiality that may be undermined by a pervasive politics of complexity reduction. I conclude by drawing upon these two lines of inquiry to outline some strategies that might resist complexity reduction and catalyse emergence in Australian educational research as preconditions for inventing possible∼impossible futures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, J. (2010, 7 April). Quality criteria have no standing in law.The Australian. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://tiny.cc/q47le

  • Angus, M., Olney, H., & Ainley, J. (2007).In the balance: The future of Australia’s primary schools. Kaleen, ACT: Australian Primary Principals’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, P. (2010). Foreword. In J. A. Weaver,Educating the posthuman: Biosciences, fiction, and curriculum studies (pp. vii-xii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, E. (2000). In defence of ideas, or why “what works” is not enough.British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008).Australian and New Zealand standard research classification. Retrieved 27 November, 2008, from http://tiny.cc/tp1fq

  • Barlow, J. P. (1996).A Declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Retrieved 1 June, 2010, from http://tiny.cc/0bju5

  • Beare, H., & Millikan, R. (Eds.) (1988).A report of the project “Skilling the Australian community: futures for public education” sponsored by the Australian Teachers’ Federation and the Commission for the Future. Parkville: University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beare, H., & Slaughter, R. (1993).Education for the Twenty-first Century. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, G. A. (1968).Curriculum theory (2nd ed.). Wilmette, IL: The Kagg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, M. A. (1997). Weak emergence. In James Tomberlin (Ed.),Philosophical perspectives 11: Mind, causation, and world (pp. 375–399). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, M. A. (2008). Is weak emergence just in the mind?Minds and Machines, 18(4), 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2004). “Mind the gap!” Communication and the educational relation. In C. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.),No education without relation (pp. 11–22). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2006).Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work. Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit of educational research.Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education.Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2010). Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.),Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5–14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G., & Osberg, D. (2010). Complexity, education and politics from the insideout and the outside-in: An introduction. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.),Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 1–3). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research.Quality and Quantity, 25(2), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, G., & Lucas, C. (2008).What are universities for? Leuven: League of European Research Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, R. (1953). The Murderer. InThe golden apples of the sun (pp. 49–57). New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, R. K., & McGaw, B. (1974). Research in progress: Delphi teacher education policy study.Australian Journal of Education, 1(2), 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussey, M., Inayatullah, S., & Milojevic, I. (Eds.) (2008).Alternative educational futures: Pedagogies for emergent worlds. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capek, K. (1923).R.U.R. (P. Selver, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, B. (2009).Map of complexity science. Retrieved 2 June, 2010, from http://tiny.cc/58wu6

  • Castellani, B., & Hafferty, F. (2009).Sociology and complexity science: A New field of inquiry. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti, J. L. (1997).Would-be worlds: How simulation is changing the frontiers of science. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherryholmes, C. (1987). A social project for curriculum: post-structural perspectives,Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherryholmes, C. (1988).Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (1998).Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (2010). Acknowledging complexity: A foreword. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.),Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. vii-viii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. C. (1962).Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible. London: Victor Gollancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colander, D. (Ed.) (2000).The complexity vision and the teaching of economics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1989). Psyche: Inventions of the other (C. Porter, Trans.). In W. Godzich & L. Waters (Eds.),Reading de Man reading (pp. 25–65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1992a). Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority” (M. Quaintance, Trans.). In D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld & D. G. Carlson (Eds.),Deconstruction and the possibility of justice (pp. 3–67). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1992b).The other heading: Reflections on today’s Europe (P.-A. Brault & M. Naas, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. E. (1986). Prigogine: A new sense of order, a new curriculum.Theory into Practice, 25(1), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a post-modern curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. E. (1993).A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhl, L. (2001). The future, complexity, death and surprise.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55(4), 218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1987).Australian attitudes to science and technology and the future. Melbourne: Commission for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1988).Casualties of change: The predicament of youth in Australia. Melbourne: Commission for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1997). Portraits of youth: Understanding young people’s relationship with the future.Futures, 29(3), 243–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, H. W. (1973). A mark II survey and critique of future research teaching in North America.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 4(4), 387–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Frontier Foundation (1990).Formation documents and mission statement for the EFF. Retrieved 1 June, 2010, from http://tiny.cc/araxl

  • Emery, F., Emery, M., Caldwell, G., & Crombie, A. (1974).Futures we’re in. Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, M., & Purser, R. E. (1996).The Search Conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, F. (1988).21 Years of Australian Frontier: An extraordinary organisation for extraordinary times, 1962–1983. Melbourne: Australian Frontier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, C. D. (1992). Reconceptualizing learning as a dynamical system.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1963). Paradigms for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),The handbook of research on teaching (pp. 94–141). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1985).Hard gains in the soft sciences. Bloomington IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989.Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, W. (1982, July). Burning chrome.Omni, 4, 72–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, W. (1984).Neuromancer. New York: Ace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillard, J. (2010, 3 March).Media release: Government to introduce “My University” website. Retrieved 5 March, 2010, from http://tiny.cc/sceio

  • Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues.Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, 1(1), 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1981). Futures study in teacher education.South Pacific Journal for Teacher Education, 9(2), 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1986). Futures in curriculum.Curriculum Perspectives, 6(2), 53–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1988). Futures in curriculum: The anticipatory generation of alternatives.Melbourne Studies in Education, 29(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1989). Seven principles for exploring futures in the curriculum. In R. A. Slaughter (Ed.),Studying the future: An introductory reader (pp. 51–59). Melbourne: The Commission for the Future and The Australian Bicentennial Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1990). Futures in Australian education: Tacit, token and taken for granted.Futures, 22(3), 298–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (1991). Coyote, crocodile, chaos and curriculum: Premodern lessons for postmodern learning. In J. H. Baldwin (Ed.),Confronting environmental challenges in a changing world: Selected papers from the twentieth Annual Conference of the North American Association for Environmental Education (pp. 114–117). Troy OH: North American Association for Environmental Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2004). Narrative experiments: manifesting cyborgs in curriculum inquiry. In J. A. Weaver, K. Anijar & T. Daspit (Eds.),Science fiction curriculum, cyborg teachers, and youth culture(s) (pp. 89–108). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2007). Changing planes: Rhizosemiotic play in transnational curriculum inquiry.Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(3), 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2008). Narrative experiments and imaginative inquiry.South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 335–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2009). No country for young people? Anxieties in Australian society and education.Australian Educational Researcher, 36(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2010a). Lost children and anxious adults: Responding to complexity in Australian education and society. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.),Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 39–55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N. (2010b). Performing imaginative inquiry: narrative experiments and rhizosemiotic play. In T. W. Nielsen, R. Fitzgerald & M. Fettes (Eds.),Imagination in educational theory and practice: A many-sided vision (pp. 42–60). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. (2010). The (im)possibility of the project.The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(3), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). Governing chaos: postmodern science, information technology, and educational administration.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 25(2), 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P. (1986).Predicted futures and curriculum change. Melbourne: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, B. M. (1964).The managing of organizations: The administrative struggle. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (1989).Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, D. H. (1996).Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. [Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture] London: Teacher Training Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, D. H. (1997). In defence of research for evidence-based teaching: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley.British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 405–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, H. J. (1965). Bureaucracy, rationality, and educational innovation.The Clearing House, 40(1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (1990).Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (1994). Boundary disputes: Homeostasis, reflexivity, and the foundations of cybernetics.Configurations: A Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology, 2(3), 441–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (Ed.) (1991).Chaos and order: Complex dynamics in literature and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, M., & Thomson, P. (Eds.) (1980).Future directions, 1980 conference report. Melbourne: Australian Frontier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2008). A futures perspective: lessons from the school room. In M. Bussey, S. Inayatullah, & I. Milojevic (Eds.),Alternative educational futures: Pedagogies for emergent worlds (pp. 75–89). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., & Slaughter, R. (Eds.) (1998).Futures education. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A., & Tamkin, P. (1998).Excellence in research on schools. London: Institute For Employment Studies for the Department for Education and Employment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. (1992). Teachers with vision and visions of teaching: The role of futures studies and research in post-graduate teacher education.Futures Research Quarterly, 8(4), 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunkins, F. P. (1980).Curriculum development: Program improvement. Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, F. P. (1996).Educating beyond violent futures. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, A. (1932).Brave new world. London: Chatto and Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, S., Bussey, M., & Milojevic, I. (Eds.) (2006).Neohumanist educational futures: Liberating the pedagogical intellect. Tamsui and Taipei: Tamkang University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, S., & Gidley, J. (Eds.) (2000).The university in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of the university. Westport CT and London: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. O. (1982).Sleepers, wake! Technology and the future of work. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence.Philosophical Studies, 95(1–2), 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (1991).Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Guin, U. (1984). The author of the Acacia seeds and other extracts from the Journal of the Association of Therolinguistics. InThe compass rose (pp. 11–19). London: Grafton Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, A. (1999). Methodological triangulation, or how to get lost without being found out. In A. Massey & G. Walford (Eds.),Explorations in methodology (pp. 183–197). Stamford: J A I Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, R. R., & Driebe, D. J. (Eds.). (2005).Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, R. R., Jordan, M. E., & Fleeman, B. F. (2003). Surprise, surprise, surprise! A complexity science view of the unexpected.Health Care Management Review, 28(3), 266–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaw, B., Browne, R. K., & Rees, P. (1976). Delphi in education: Review and assessment.Australian Journal of Education, 20(1), 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milojevic, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2003). Futures dreaming outside and on the margins of the western world.Futures, 35(5), 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochelle, R. (1986). Future choice: an environment design approach.Curriculum Perspectives, 6(2), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. (2009). Bureaucracy and its limits: accountability and rationality in higher education.British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(6), 683–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M. (Director). (2000).No maps for these territories [Motion picture]. UK: Docudrama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyce, P. (Ed.). (1986).Futures in education: Conference report. Melbourne: Hawthorn Institute of Education and the Commission for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, P. W. (1976). Futures research in education.Australian Journal of Education, 20(1), 46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1949).Nineteen eighty-four. London: Secker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, D. (2010). Taking care of the future? The complex responsibility of education and politics. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.),Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 157–170). Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2007). Beyond presence: Epistemological and pedagogical implications of “strong” emergence.Interchange, 38(1), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world citizens: toward multinational curriculum development.American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 117–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., & White, P. S. (Eds.). (1985).The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W. F., & Reynolds, W. M. (1992). Appendix: Genealogical notes — the history of phenomenology and post-structuralism in curriculum studies. In W. F. Pinar & W. M. Reynolds (Eds.),Understanding curriculum as phenomenological and deconstructed text (pp. 237–261). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, D. (1980).Curriculum: Design and development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1980).From being to becoming. San Francisco: W. W. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984).Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. (1994).The Chicago gangster theory of life: Nature’s debt to society. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., & Caley, M. T. (1985). Dissipative structures: New metaphors for becoming in education.Educational Researcher, 14(3), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased?Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum.School Review, 78(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic.School Review, 79(4), 493–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum.School Review, 81(4), 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellers, W. (2008).Picturing currere towards c u r a: Rhizo-imaginary for curriculum. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. A. (1986). Critical futures study: A dimension of curriculum work.Curriculum Perspectives, 6(2), 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. A. (1992). Australia’s Commission for the Future: The first six years.Futures, 24(2), 268–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. A. (1999).Futures for the third millennium: Enabling the forward view. St Leonards NSW: Prospect Media Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. A. (Ed.). (1989).Studying the future: An introductory reader. Melbourne: The Commission for the Future and The Australian Bicentennial Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1957).Fundamentals of curriculum development (Rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, D. (2009). Complexity and the phenomenological structure of “surprise”.Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 11(2). Retrieved 11 June 2009, from http://tiny.cc/f1k7b

  • Stenhouse, L. (1975).An Introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. (1985).Schismatrix. New York: Ace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. (1987).The artificial kid. New York: Ace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. (1989).Islands in the net. New York: Ace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. (1990).Crystal express. New York: Ace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004).The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1947).Scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers. (Original work published 1911)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (2010). Evidence began in 1998.Research Intelligence: News from the British Educational Research Association, (109), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrift, N. (1999). The place of complexity.Theory Culture and Society, 16(3), 31–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1970).Future shock. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998).Educational research: A critique. London: Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tydeman, J. (1987).Futures methodologies handbook: An overview of futures research methodologies and techniques. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service for the Commission for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009).A third window: Natural life beyond Newton and Darwin. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (1993). Ignorance in educational research: Or, how can younot know that?Educational Researcher, 22(5), 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, J. A. (2010).Educating the posthuman: Biosciences, fiction, and curriculum studies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, W. (1948). Science and complexity.American Scientist, 35, 536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1948).Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, N. (1987). The state of the planet and of young people’s minds.Ethos (Annual Journal of the Victorian Association of Social Studies Teachers), 9–13.

  • Worster, D. (1993).The wealth of nature: Environmental history and the ecological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worster, D. (1995). Nature and the disorder of history. In M. E. Soulé & G. Lease (Eds.),Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction (pp. 65–85). Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Trobe University, Australia

    Noel Gough

Authors
  1. Noel Gough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gough, N. Can we escape the program? Inventing possible∼impossible futures in/for Australian educational research. Aust. Educ. Res. 37, 9–42 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216935

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216935

Keywords

Search

Navigation