Curriculum research has been keen on exploring genealogies of the curriculum field internationally (e.g. Pinar, 2003, 2013) or comparing  Anglo-American and continental European Curriculum Studies (e.g. Autio, 2006; Gundem, 2010; Gundem & Hopmann, 2002; Hudson, 2007; Westbury, Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000). For example, in the Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Kridel, 2010) there are distinct ‘continental overviews’ for African, Asian and European Curriculum Studies as well entries for American, Canadian, International and World organisations or associations devoted to the study of curriculum, instruction, teaching and pedagogy. In the International Handbook of Curriculum Research there are 34 studies for 28 countries (Pinar, 2003) and 39 studies for 34 countries (Pinar, 2013). Such research has been seeking to “internationalise” the field in the sense of nurturing diversity (see Pinar, 2009), also cautioning against the dominance of certain theoretical and analytical traditions over others. Drawing on and building upon a previous study which explored the ways in which ‘curriculum’ has been used and translated in curricular documents in the Greek language, published and used in Greece and/or Cyprus (Author, 2014), this paper moves from the official to the pedagogic recontextualisation field (Bernstein, 1990), to analyse academic writing on ‘curriculum’ written in Greek, in the form of three academic/university textbooks which have been extensively used in teacher education programmes in Cyprus and Greece.  In order to explore how “curriculum” and “curriculum studies” as an academic concept and field respectively have been translated in Greek academic literature, the study draws analytically from the sociology of curriculum and comparative education. Firstly, ‘context’ is seen as a field of Bernstein’s (1990) pedagogic device, as the study involves an exploration of the use of terms and concepts in the field of  recontextualisation, which lies and mediates between the field of production of knowledge (university, academic disciplines) to the field of reproduction of knowledge (school, school subjects). From this perspective, recontextualisation occurs both within the official recontextualising field (ORF) of policy making, curriculum development and so on and within the pedagogical recontextualising field (PRF) of teacher education and research institutions.  These distinctions are mobilized in this study to acknowledge how ‘curriculum’ is a fluid notion as it is contextualised and recontextualised from one field to another  and how educational phenomena are complex, meaning-making interactions of the people involved as active agents: thus ORF is viewed as the field wherein curriculum documents are produced (and which have been analysed in a previous study; Author, 2014); and the PRF as the field wherein ‘Curriculum Studies’ is shaped and re-shaped in a number of ways, including through the publication of the academic books, which is the focus of this paper. Secondly, ‘context’ is seen as sociocultural and spatial from a comparative education perspective and its description and interpretation of the transfer, translation and transformation of education and educational ideas, institutions or phenomena across local, national, international and global levels. This analytical take was considered necessary in addition to the first one, because the concept of curriculum (and related concepts of ‘bildung’ and ‘didaktik’) as well as curriculum studies as a distinct academic field emerged as such outside Cyprus and not in the Greek language.  

Autio, T. (2006). Subjectivity, curriculum and society: between and beyond German Didaktik and Anglo-American Curriculum Studies. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baker, B. (2010). Provincializing curriculum? On the preparation of subjectivity for globality. Curriculum Inquiry, 40 (2), 221-240. Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse: Vol. IV, Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge. Gundem, B. (2010). European curriculum studies, continental overview. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (pp.354-358). California: Sage Publications, Inc. Gundem, B. & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (2002). Didaktik and/or curriculum, an international dialogue. American University Studies: Series 14, Education. Vol. 41. New York: Peter Lang. Hudson, B. (2007). Comparing different traditions of teaching and learning: what can we learn about teaching and learning? European Educational Research Journal, 6 (2), 135-146. Kridel, C. (Ed.) (2010). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pinar, W.F. (Ed.) (2013). International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pinar, W. F. (2009). Bildung and the internationalization of curriculum studies. In E. Ropo & T. Autio (Eds.), International conversations on curriculum studies; subject, society and curriculum (pp. 23-42). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Pinar, W.F. (Ed.) (2003). International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schubert, W.H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (Eds). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition. Studies in curriculum theory series. New York and London: Routledge.