40^th Anniversary of Curriculum Inquiry—Part II B: The Changing “Tradition” of Reviews in Curriculum Inquiry

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Notes

1 For additional information on the 1968–1981period, please see the editorial in Volume 40, Number 1 (Thiessen, Campbell, Gaztambide-Fernández, & Nigh, 2010).

2 F. Michael Connelly had been co-editor twice before, with Joel Weiss and John Herbert in 1972–1973, and with Roger Simon in 1980–1982.

3 In most cases, we do not indicate for what period of time a particular practice or appointment continued. Some initiatives or posts were in place for an extended period (e.g., the “Informal Section” appeared in the journal between 1969 and 1997). Some posts lasted for a shorter time. For example, William Pinar was one of two book review editors (with Robin Enns) or the only book review editor between 1977 and 1980. Other positions that appeared early in the history of the journal were discontinued for a time only to be reintroduced at a later point (e.g., there was an associate editor position from vol. 4, no. 1, 1973/74 until vol. 5, no. 3, 1974/75 and then not again until vol. 12, no. 4, 1982 with the appointment of four associate editors. CI continued with associate editors until 2005).

4 The “Critical Review” section first appeared in volume 9, number 1, 1979 and was part of most issues until volume 12, number 3, 1983. Another Critical Review was published in volume 14, number 1 (Glatthorn, 1984).

5 Schwab’s (1983) article was entitled, “The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to Do.”

6 Prior to 1983, most editorials were written by the editor. On occasion, an associate editor, a contributing editor, or a guest editor wrote or co-wrote the editorial (or Introduction), especially for special issues (e.g., Donmeyer, 1987; Goldstein, 2008; Kaufman, Berk, & Herbert, 1974; Rosario & Demarte, 1977). Between 1985 and 2005, most editorials were written by associate editors.

7 A series involved the publication of a set of articles published over a number of issues and years on a particular area or theme. In the 1982–2005 period, CI introduced seven series. The “run” of each series varied. The 1985 series edited by Mark Holmes (“Secondary Education”) published two articles and one Observation across three issues (vol. 15, nos. 1–3) while the 1988–1990 series edited by Michael Fullan published five articles (vol. 18, nos. 1–3 and vol. 19, no.1, and vol. 20, no. 2) and an editorial (vol. 20, no. 2) across five issues.

8 It is difficult to put an exact date on when editorials became more like editorial essays. Certainly in earlier years, the editors wrote editorials that were clearly essay-like about either the journal’s practices or the content of articles in the issue (e.g., Berk, 1976; Connelly, 1971; Simon, 1980, 1981; Weiss & Simon, 1978). By 1986, as associate editors assumed greater responsibility for writing the editorials, they also started to write and entitle these editorials in recognition of connections, threads, or themes that were common to two or more of the papers in the issue. For a sample of these engaging and sometimes provocative essay-like editorials, please see Aitken (1995), Conle (2005), Diamond (1999), Farrell (2001), Greenfield (1990), or Holmes (1992).

9 See review (Gronn, 1988a) and exchange (Gronn, 1988b; McLaren, 1988).

10 Combined sections also appeared in volume 27, number 1 (1997), volume 29, number 2 (1999), and volume 32, number 4 (2002).

11 From 1992 to 2005, one or more students are listed as book review editors. While no book review editor was listed in the journal after 1983, students had worked closely with the editor to coordinate the book review process. Marty Wood, an OISE graduate student, was identified as the book review editor in an editorial she wrote in the late 1980s (Wood, 1988).

12 See Villenas & Deyhle (1999). CI had published reviews of more than one book in the past (e.g., van Manen, 1978). Between 1999 and 2005, it significantly expanded this multiple book review practice.

13 The change in book review policy was initiated by the editorial group in place in 2005 and thus is included as one of the changes in the 1982–2005 period.

14 The journal began as the Curriculum Theory Network from 1968 to 1976, when it changed its name to Curriculum Inquiry. See volume 40, number 1 for additional information about the formative years of the journal (1968–1981). The “Dialogue” section was formally introduced in 1978. Earlier unnamed forms of Dialogue usually appeared in the “Informal” section or in papers labeled “Reply” (e.g., Nystrand, 1977), “Response” (e.g., Broudy, 1976), “Critique” (e.g., Walker, 1970–1971), or “Comments” (Smith, 1976).

15 Curriculum Theory Network was published by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education from 1968 to 1976. John Wiley & Sons published CI from 1976 to 1992, Blackwell Publishers from 1992 to 2008, and Wiley-Blackwell from 2008 to the present.

16 As of volume 14, number 4 (1984), the journal no longer published in the inside front cover a statement that described the areas for which it welcomed “informal and formal contributions.” Such a statement only appeared in promotional materials produced by the publisher.

17 We are grateful to Agnes Gajewski for her assistance in the compilation of the reviews published in CTN and CI. She took the lead in the development of the appendices in both editorial essays (vol. 40, nos. 1 & 2) and the bibliographic list of books, chapters, or articles reviewed by the journal, which appears at the end of this issue. Such work requires painstaking attention to detail. Any remaining errors, however, are the responsibility of the CI editorial team.

18 After 1990, the average number of reviews published per year and the average number of books reviewed per year in these reviews was close to double the number of reviews and books (or other texts) reviewed between 1968 and 1989.

19 The 14-member OISE editorial consultants group comes from all five departments at OISE. Their responsibilities include (a) periodic pre-review of manuscripts to assist the editorial team in the decision about whether to send it out for external review; (b) guest editorials; and (c) advice on the policies, practices, and future directions of the journal.

20 The membership of the15-person International Editorial Board is listed on the inside cover of the journal. Their responsibilities include (a) “ambassadors” of Curriculum Inquiry, representing CI in their respective regions and encouraging submissions to the journal; (b) advice on editorial polices and procedures; and (c) reviewers and writers for CI (e.g., manuscript, essay review, guest editorial).

21 Though not identical in roles, the current editors have many of the same responsibilities as the associate editors in the 1985–2005 period. The editor-in-chief and guest editors also write editorials.

22 A number of the journal’s current practices are similar to a number of the approaches introduced or tried during the 1968–1981 period (e.g., greater focus on articles; varied review formats; diversity in content).

23 A Dialogue is scheduled for publication in 2010.

24 See the editorial in the second issue of Curriculum Theory Network (Editors, 1969). We include a quote from the editorial in volume 40, number 1 (Thiessen et al., 2010, p. 3).

25 In the case of articles, CI has maintained a blind review process. Through the Dialogue section, responses to articles were published often followed by a rejoinder by the author of the article. Thus, for those articles that were further discussed in the Dialogue section, CI utilized both forms of review, a blind process to determine the suitability of the article for publication, and an open process to further the discussion and debate about the content of the article.

26 The chapter was first published as an article in Teachers College Record (Greene, 1971). Miller (2010) acknowledges the original publication, but cites the article as reprinted as a chapter in the edited collection by Pinar (1975) in her essay review.

27 The journal also reproduced texts published in an earlier time with or without substantial review or comment (e.g., Bode, 1975; Dewey, 1977; Snedden, 1977). As Leonard Berk (1977), one of the co-editors, noted: “We continue our reexamination of modern issues in ancient dress” (p. 1).

28 “In Brief” requires (a) a description of the publication/resource (e.g., structure or organization of the publication/resource, the theoretical orientation or perspective of the author(s), and the methodological approach or line of argument); (b) an overall evaluation of the publication/resource (strengths, weaknesses); and (c) one to two things that are especially noteworthy about its contribution to the field.

29 The “Book Review” requires (a) a brief description of the publication/resource (e.g., structure or organization of the publication/resource), the theoretical orientation or perspective of the author(s) and the methodological approach or line of argument); (b) an overall evaluation of the publication/resource (strengths, weaknesses); and (c) a critical analysis of the contribution of the publication/resource to the field (referring to other references in the field to substantiate these claims).

30 On occasion, editors or associate editors also wrote editorials to explain or discuss such matters as the procedures used to review manuscripts (Connelly, 1984) or the challenges of journal editing (Greenfield, 1985a,b; Simon, 1980).

31 Greenfield (1988) also described other instances when he asked authors to eliminate passages that “descended into purple prose, into prose that was sentimentalized clichéd, or overly emotive” (p. 248).