This article presents an historical analysis of the development of research and research methodologies in an Australian context. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy was chosen as the site of the analysis. The first section of data consists of the articles that represent themselves as ‘research’ in the period from 1979 (the journal's inception) to 2000. These texts have been analysed using bibliometric analysis. The second section of data consists of commentary articles about research in family therapy. This data has been analysed using discourse analysis. Overall, I have been interested in how family therapists have defined ‘research’; how family therapists have chosen to inquire; representations of the researcher in Australian family therapy; associations between theoretical or clinical developments and the methodologies that have been chosen for inquiries. Findings from the study reveal very limited representations of research in the journal for the period under review, and an apparent struggle for family therapists to undertake a discussion about what research actually is. Questions are raised around how this has occurred, and some ideas are presented as to how research knowledges can be included in debates around theory diversity in family therapy.

In 1983 the Fourth Australian Family Therapy Conference had the theme ‘Merging the Streams — Integrating Trends in Family Therapy’. In his keynote address Brian Stagoll outlined concerns regarding the nature of family therapy as it was then developing in Australia. This article revisits some of these themes to see where we have come from, where we are heading and which topics continue to be ignored. Evidence is drawn from articles that stood out for me in the Australian Journal of Family Therapy (later the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy) and selected relevant papers from the 1983 conference itself. Finally, I speculate upon possible reasons for the absence of discussion on certain issues, most strikingly: systemic influences upon indigenous Australians, farm families, working with children in families, certain aspects of gender, the systemic implications of addiction; and environmental impacts on families now and for the future. The danger for family therapy is becoming stuck in a closed system that ignores the wider system.

This article presents a series of ‘snapshots’ of the history of the journal now known as the ANZJFT (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy). While a full, detailed history of the journal from its inception is beyond the scope of this paper, the authors offer glimpses of the journal at key points in its 25-year history, and from these, readers can reconstruct some of the changes that have occurred, and the continuities in values and attitudes that the ANZJFT has attempted to preserve, throughout its existence. The authors comment, from their own recent experience, on particular dilemmas, which they have faced, and use their own data to update a bibliometric survey of the journal originally carried out by Davis and Lipson (1996).