TC 1 was one of the first events showcasing the postmodern movement in family therapy. While critiques of the limits of research and science (objectivity, grand narratives, normative values, etc.) provided some of the rationale for this movement, any benefits of research also became suspect. Indeed, there was almost no mention of research or science at the conference. A gap between practitioners and researchers, (which preceded TC 1) widened. Our paper invites a re-evaluation of this disdain towards research: noting postmodern research that can be useful to practitioners, and articulating a bridge (centered on the discursive turn) connecting practitioners and researchers. Suggestions on how inquiry (and research) can inform clinical practice are presented, and while no final words on the topic are offered, new and constructive curiosities are encouraged.In art we are continually judging our work, continually tracking the patterns we create and letting our judgments feed back into the ongoing development . . . That's how we produce art rather than chaos.-S. Nachmanovitch (1990, p. 134) For many readers of the Journal of Systemic Therapies, Therapeutic Conversations 1 (TC 1) was like our Woodstock, a spontaneous gathering of innovative thinkers in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was a collaborative zeitgeist fueled by postmodern and social constructionist ideas, offering new horizons teeming with idealistic possibilities for a better world. We had our therapist stars, too: White, de Shazer, Weiner-Davis, O'Hanlon, Freedman and Combs, Tomm, and Epston, to name a few. TC 1 brought them together in the same venue and helped to consolidate a sense that a new wave of therapies had arrived. However, for a wave of therapies that encouraged and emphasized client curiosity, surprisingly little systematic investigation had been turned