22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Connecting Research and Education in Universities of Applied Sciences: Behavioural Intentions of Lecturer-/Researchers, Education Managers and Research Managers
Sanne Daas, Didi. M.E. Griffioen
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Daas, Sanne
Around the end of the 1990’s, Universities of Applied Sciences (UASs) in Europe have seen a shift when the Bologna and Lisbon agreements resulted in different expectations from UASs (De Boer, 2017). To stimulate innovations in professional practice and to create a so-called value-adding ‘knowledge economy’, the European society was said to need more highly educated professionals to contribute to innovations (Griffioen, Ashwin and Scholkmann, 2021), and to deal with a growing and diverse body of complex knowledge (Brew, 2006). This line of reasoning resulted in the integration of research activities into UASs, which transformed these organisations from teaching-only institutions into institutions with two central processes: education and research.
In order to educate highly skilled professionals that are fit for today’s knowledge economy, research activities are being connected with the UASs’ educational processes. Research and education can be connected in a variety of ways, and on different levels throughout higher education organisations: on the level of the student, the employee, the curriculum, the department and at the organisational level (Jenkins and Healey, 2005; Trowler and Wareham, 2008). Previous work shows that UASs at the organisational level have formulated a variety of strategic aims they foresee to achieve through such research-education connections (Daas, Day and Griffioen, in review). However, it is presumed that research and education processes are not easily combined (e.g. Fox, 1992). For example, research and education processes have shown to bring along distinctive structures and systems (Brew, 2006), work patterns (Robertson and Bond, 2005) and require different competencies from employees to practice both activities at a high professional level (Griffioen, 2018). Enacting strategies to connect research and education in practice, and achieving strategic aims through these connections, might therefore not be an easy and straightforward endeavour.
The enactment of organisational strategies is the result of the collective action of an organisation’s employees (Mintzberg, 1990). In the case of research-education connections, employees need to ‘reinvent’ their own practices through adjusted behaviour. Collectively, their behaviour is at the steering wheel of strategy enactment. Considering the different levels throughout higher education organisations at which strategies to connect research and education can be executed, it is expected that a wide range of actors contributes to enacting these strategies, such as lecturers at the level of the curriculum (Van der Rijst, 2009), and managers at the level of the department and organisation (Jenkins and Healey, 2005). While previous studies focused on how research and education are connected at separate levels of higher education organisations, such as the individual level (Magi and Beerkens, 2016) and the department level (Durning and Jenkins, 2005), little is known about how employees within UASs collectively contribute to connecting research and education from an organisational perspective. In this study we focus on the behavioural intentions to connect research and education of actors that are directly involved in the processes of research and education, and the related first management level. The central question is: “What are the behavioural intentions of lecturers, researchers, research-managers and education-managers in connecting research and education and how are these intentions shaped?”
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer the research question, N=61 semi-structured interviews were conducted in three Dutch UASs with lecturers, researchers (note: lecturer/researchers with only teaching OR research tasks, as well as lecturer-researchers with both tasks), research-managers (i.e. applied professors that managed a research-group of 4 < lecturer-/researchers) and education-managers (i.e. team leaders or educational programme leaders that managed an educational team of 10 < lecturer-/researchers). Additionally, the respondents represented a variety of disciplinary fields.
The interviews considered the respondents’ behavioural intentions, as well as how these intentions were shaped. Behavioural intentions are defined as ‘anything a person does [has done, or intends to do] in response to internal or external events’ (Rubinstein, 2018, p.36). The interview topics about how the behavioural intentions were shaped, were designed in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (ToPB; Ajzen, 1991). The ToPB states that a person’s behavioural intentions are mainly shaped through three determinants: behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). Behavioural beliefs refer to a person’s conceptions about positive/negative outcomes of practising the behaviour. Normative beliefs consist of a person’s conceptions about whether others approve/disapprove of practicing the behaviour. Control beliefs are the experienced factors that could facilitate or impede a person in practicing the behaviour.
Data reduction was done through grounded coding (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) of (1) the behavioural intentions, and of (2) the beliefs in regard with the behavioural intentions. Two researchers developed a coding scheme in several rounds of coding in Atlas.ti 9. First, the data was organised in quotes that included behaviour in connecting research and education. Second, these quotes were open coded. Third, the open codes were combined using axial coding. Fourth, the axial codes were grouped into code groups using selective coding. Then a similar strategy was applied for the beliefs in regard with the behavioural intentions. The combined code scheme was applied to all data by one researcher, after which a second researcher conducted a cross-check of 10 percent of the coded quotes.
In January 2023, we have analysed the behavioural intentions (1) by qualitatively describing the code groups hereof, but the code groups for the beliefs in regard with the behavioural intentions (2) still need to be analysed. Therefore we now only draw conclusions about part 1.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary results show that the behavioural intentions in regard with connecting research and education discussed by the respondents can be divided over three categories that emphasise the direction of the behaviour: (1) involvement of education in research, (2) involvement of research in education, and (3) research and education coming together. All three categories contain both direct behaviour, as well as behaviour that is focussed on creating supportive conditions for the behaviour of others (i.e. supportive behaviour). Overall, the respondents mostly discuss behavioural intentions in regard with students/lecturers who participate in research (and the intention to support this behaviour) (category 1), followed by lecturer-/researchers integrating research results in curricula, research-managers/lecturer-researchers sharing research results with lecturers, researchers/research-managers participating in education, and students being taught a research-like attitude/abilities (category 2). It stands out that more behavioural intentions are focused on integrating something from research into education (e.g. research-results/competencies, participation from research-actors), and less on integrating something from education into research (only participation from education-actors).
The focus on how education might profit from research is also seen in previous studies (Brew, 2006; Visser-Wijnveen, 2013) and raises questions about the value of research-education connections for both research and education processes. Possibly, actors are less prepared to contribute to research-education connections on the long term if they experience little added value for their own activities. This is problematic as connections between research and education require actors from both processes to work towards connections between research and education. Therefore, it is important to look more detailed into how the behavioural intentions of actors to contribute to connections between research and education are shaped. During the conference, the additional insights into how the behavioural, normative and control beliefs of actors shape their behavioural intentions will be shared, as well the scientific and practical implications of these insights.
ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and Teaching: Beyond the Divide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Daas, S.R., Day, I.N.Z, & Griffioen, D.M.E. (in review). Mutual Enhancement or One-Way Street The Intended Synergy between Research and Education of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences.
De Boer, H. (2017). Strengthening Reseach at the Dutch ‘Hogescholen’, in H. de Boer, J. File, J. Huisman, M. Seeber, M. Vukasovic, and D. F. Westerheijden, Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education: processes and outcomes. Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
Durning, B., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Teaching/research relations in departments: The perspectives of built environment academics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 407–426.
Fox, M.F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Griffioen, D. (2018). Building Research Capacity in New Universities During Times of Academic Drift: Lecturers Professional Profiles. Higher Education Policy, 1–20.
Griffioen, D. M. E., Ashwin, P., & Scholkmann, A. (2021). Who ensures that society has the professionals it needs? Differences in the policy directions of three European countries. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(2), 158–173.
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional strategies to link teaching and research. In The Higher Education Academy. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id585_institutional_strategies_to_link_teaching_and_research.pdf
Magi, E., & Beerkens, M. (2016). Linking research and teaching: Are research-active staff members different teachers? Higher Education, 72(2), 241–258.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195.
Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2005). The research/teaching relation: A view from the “edge.” Higher Education, 50(3), 509–535.
Rubinstein, H. (2018). Applying Behavioural Science to the Private Sector: Decoding What People Say and What They Do. Springer Nature.
Trowler, P., & Wareham, T. (2008). Tribes, territories, research and teaching Enhancing the teaching-research nexus. In The Higher Education Academy.
Van der Rijst, R.M. (2009). Verwevenheid van onderzoek en onderwijs aan de Universiteit Leiden: Ontwerpprincipes voor curricula.
Visser-Wijnveen, G. J. (2013). Waarom onderzoek en onderwijs integreren? [Why integrate research and teaching?], in D. M. E. Griffioen, G. J. Visser-Wijnveen, & J. Willems (Eds.), Integratie van onderzoek in het onderwijs: effectieve inbedding van onderzoek in curricula [The integration of research in education: effective integration of reserach in curricula] (pp. 60-73). Noordhoff B.V.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Transversal competences of Higher Education students: Does their self-assessment match external evaluation?
Sandra Santos1,2, Carla Freire3, Sílvia Monteiro2, Ricardo Biscaia1,4
1CIPES - Research Centre for Higher Education Policies, Portugal; 2CIEd - Research Centre on Education, University of Minho, Portugal; 3School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Portugal; 4FEP – School of Economics and Management, University of Porto, Portugal
Presenting Author: Santos, Sandra
Transversal competences and their fundamental role for a fulfilling life and success in a professional career have been paid greater attention and widely discussed in the context of Higher Education (HE) institutions and the world of work. The HE institutions have been called to respond to the societal and labour market demands, as both employers (Barbosa & Freire, 2019) and graduates (and their families) expect that universities will prepare them for the future of work and question the value of the educational path, its relevance and profitability considering the time and money costs involved (Wolff & Booth, 2017). Following the growing digitalisation of work, the emergence of new technologies, changes in the markets and organizations and new societal interaction patterns, graduates have been requested to have the necessary competences to adapt to a volatile job market, such as being open minded and cultural aware (OECD, 2018). It is now common agreement that technical competences are the basis for the access to the job market, but transversal competences are inevitably a differentiating element between qualified job applicants (Tomlinson, 2008).
In this context, the assessment of HE students’ transversal competences, especially in the case of those which enhance graduates’ employability, is critical. The most commonly used instruments consist of self-report surveys (Pažur Aničić et al., 2022), but some flaws are pointed out as participants tend to over- or underestimate their competences (Fahrenbach, 2022). The use of different assessment methods and instruments to prevent a biased assessment has, therefore, been suggested.
This study derives from a broader project where the Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMI), a method widely used in the Health field (Pau et al., 2013), was adapted to assess transversal competences of HE students from different scientific fields. The objective of this study is, in this context, to compare the analysis of the assessment of transversal competences using two methods, one based on the self-assessment (self-report survey) and the other based on an external evaluation (MMI), to verify whether there is a (mis)match between the two.
The concept of transversal competences refers to a set of skills, attitudes and knowledge, and the ability to apply these appropriately, depending on the context (Clarke, 2017). These competences are considered as necessary in different scientific areas and professional activities (European Commission, 2019) and are frequently organized into three main categories: cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal competences (National Research Council, 2012). The competences analysed in this study derive from the adaptation of this theoretical framework (Santos et al., 2020) resulting in the addition of a fourth category, contextual competences. Cognitive competences include: problem solving and generation of novelty; Intrapersonal competences encompass: open mindset, learning to learn and positive professional attitude; Interpersonal competences comprise teamwork, effective communication and leadership, and; at the Contextual level, market orientation is included.
Students’ self-assessment seems to be influenced by different individual and contextual dimensions such as their gender (Huang, 2013) and study field (Anderman & Young, 1994). Additionally, aspects such as students’ expectations and a social response bias can interfere with the accuracy of the self-ratings, translating into a recognised tendency for students to inflate their own competence assessment (Panadero et al., 2015).
Taking this trend into consideration, this study seeks to contribute to a comparative analysis of students' self-assessment and the external evaluation of their transversal competences, based on gender and study field, and to analyse if there is a match between the assessments with those methods and if it varies according to gender and fields of study.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study was financially supported by national funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), within the scope of the project PTDC/CED-EDG/29726/2017 (S4F - Skills for the Future? The Value and Effectiveness of Competency-Based Higher Education), and the projects UIDB/00757/2020, UIDB/01661/2020 and UIDP/01661/2020. This study was approved by the Ethical Committees of the three universities involved in this project.
In this study participated 130 HE students (73.8% female), aged between 21 and 47 years old (Mage = 23.63, SD = 3.95), from three Portuguese HE institutions, enrolling in the 1st (46.2%) and 2nd year (53.8%) of Master degree programmes that were similar among the universities. Students were enrolled in courses from different education and training areas.
Self-assessment was performed through a Transversal competences Self-Report Survey, aimed at assessing students’ perceived level of the transversal competences on a scale ranging from 1 (highly incompetent) to 5 (highly competent), namely: Problem Solving, Generation of Novelty, Open Mindset, Learning to Learn, Positive Professional Attitude, Teamwork, Effective Communication, Leadership and Market Orientation. A description of each competence was provided to facilitate self-assessment, that was consistent with the competences’ descriptors used in the MMI.
The MMI method was adapted for the assessment of HE students’ transversal competences (Santos et al., 2020) and it was implemented remotely, via Zoom platform. This method includes six stations, each designated to assess three of the nine competences assessed through the self-report survey. At each station, a scenario is presented that comprises problem solving situations, a presentation, interviews, and collaborative tasks, and one of them requires a trained standardised character. The MMI method is implemented in a timed circuit where students have 2 minutes to read the scenario and 8 minutes to answer or solve the task, except in one scenario (12 minutes). No specific scientific content knowledge or prior knowledge is necessary. Rubrics were organised for raters to evaluate students’ performance using a 10-point Likert scale: 1 (Very weak) – 10 (Excellent). Every student was evaluated by two trained raters, one in a synchronous format, and the other asynchronously. This method presents good reliability (α = .91), and a significant degree of inter-rater reliability assessment.
Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the self-assessment and external evaluation scores. A comparative analysis of the differences according to gender and study field was carried out to determine the existence of a (mis)match and the differences between scores in both exercises were computed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results suggest that students of both genders consider themselves to be more proficient in the competence Adaptability and less proficient in Generation of Novelty and Leadership. Students involved in Arts courses have a significantly higher self-assessment of the Generation of Novelty competence than students from other subject areas.
In the external assessment, regardless of the students’ gender, the highest results were found in the assessment of the competences Learning to Learn and Positive Professional Attitude and the lowest results concerned the assessment of Problem Solving, Generation of Novelty and Adaptability. Students from Social and Behavioural Sciences-Management and Economics obtained the highest scores in the competences Learning to Learn, Positive Professional Attitude, and Market Orientation. Additionally, the highest scores in Problem Solving, Generation of Novelty, and Adaptability were obtained by Social and Behavioural Sciences-Psychology students. Finally, the highest scores in Effective Communication, Teamwork, and Leadership were obtained by Engineering and Manufacturing students.
The comparative analysis of the assessment of competences showed that Effective Communication is the only competence where there is a correspondence between self-assessment and external evaluation. There was also a trend towards overestimation of the Open Mindset competence and underestimation of the Learning to Learn and Leadership competences.
It is expected, with this study, to contribute to a deeper understanding of the methodologies for the assessment of transversal competences and to provide some reflections on how students with different characteristics and from different fields of study perceive their proficiency in several transversal competences and which competences emerge as more or less fostered in the different fields of study. This is particularly relevant for HE institutions seeking to enhance their graduates' transversal competences during the academic training, and, ultimately, to improve their career prospects and employability.
ReferencesAnderman, E.M., & Young, A.J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310805
Barbosa, I. & Freire, C. (2019). Portuguese employers’ perceptions on management undergraduates’ transferable competencies. Journal of Management Development, 38(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-07-2017-0244
Clarke, M. (2017). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923-1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152
European Commission (2019, May 4). Key competences for lifelong learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/297a33c8-a1f3-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1
Fahrenbach, F. (2022). A design science approach to developing and evaluating items for the assessment of transversal professional competences. Education + Training, 64(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2020-0056
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y
Monteiro, S., Almeida, L., & García-Aracil, A. (2019). (Mis)matched perceptions: Graduates and employers’ views about competencies in professional activities. 11th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 8662–8666.
National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13398
OECD (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.2012.02814.x
Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803-830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2
Pau, A., Jeevaratnam, K., Chen, Y., Fall, A., Khoo, C., & Nadarajah, V. (2013). The multiple mini-interview (MMI) for student selection in health professions training: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 1027-1041. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.829912.
Pažur Aničić, K., Gusić Munđar, J. & Šimić, D. (2022). Generic and digital competences for employability: Results of a Croatian national graduates survey. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00940-7
Santos, S., Freire, C., Barbosa, I., Figueiredo, H. & Costa, M.J. (2020). Assessing transversal competencies for the future of graduate work: An adaptation of the Multiple Mini-Interviews method. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds), ICERI2020 Proceedings (pp. 4112-4122). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.0922
Tomlinson, M., (2008). The degree is not enough: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01425690701737457
Wolff, R., & Booth, M. (2017). Bridging the gap: Creating a new approach for assuring 21st century employability skills. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(6), 51-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1399040
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
The Diversity of Knowers - Grounds or Excuses for Higher Education Curricula?
Johanna Annala
Tampere University, Finland
Presenting Author: Annala, Johanna
About 10-15 years ago, broadening access to higher education resulted in debates on what forms of knowledge should be provided in curricula for the diverse student population, especially in Australia and South Africa (e.g., Shay 2014; Wheelahan 2012; Winberg 2006). Diversifying higher education institutions (HEI), some with more research intensive and some more interdisciplinary and professionally oriented, brought along diverse qualities required from the faculty members (Guri-Rosenblit et al 2007). In the context of harmonised degrees in Europe, the question of diversity of the students, teachers, institutions, and degrees, and their relation to curriculum knowledge has not received much attention; instead, the learning outcomes and competencies have become key concepts in curriculum discussions (Petkute 2016). This study contributes the knowledge blindness (Maton 2014) in Europe, by focusing on the knowers. Here knowers refer to students and teachers; how they and their qualities are used as grounds or excuses in curriculum decisions on knowledge.
The interview study takes the perspective of teachers (N=26) who were involved in curriculum reforms in soft and hard sciences, with an aim to create shared curricula between two HEIs of different type; research-intensive and professionally oriented. The research questions are: 1) How the diversity of the knowers and their qualities are depicted in discussions on curriculum? 2) How do these qualities, assumed or real, emerge in decisions on curriculum knowledge?
This study builds on Karl Maton’s (2014; 2010) conceptualisations of knower structures in curriculum. Maton (2014, 66) states that paying attention to knower structures enables to avoid false dichotomies and to achieve greater understanding of how educational practices specialize identity, consciousness, and relations. Maton (2014) depicted an ‘ideal knower’ in traditional humanities and sciences, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, as a person from higher social class, cultivated ‘English gentleman’, who pursue studies ‘for the love of it’. This is very similar to what Newman (1996) already in 1899 depicted as the excellences of a gentleman, “a habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, of which the attributes are, freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom” which is “the special fruit of the education furnished at a University, as contrasted with other places of teaching or modes of teaching.” (p. 77).
Entering the field of humanities in 1950’s and 1960’s was highly selective and hierarchical, whereas entering the field of science was not (Maton, 2014). An ideal scientist had no relation to the social background but more relevant was the ability of actors coming from different trajectories and experiences, forming segmented knowers with specialized modes of thinking, and acting. In 1960s, the reproduction of elite was challenged even more with the democratization and massification of university education, with different kind of knowers (Burman & Landal, 2020).
Today, the formal qualities required from the students follow the qualification frameworks (e.g. EQF 2018); it is all about the agreed levels of knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy, which all the students should reach as learning outcomes, in all the disciplinary fields, in all types of HEIs in Europe. Still, diverse qualities are required from teachers in higher education. Higher education has growing number of regions, ie. interdisciplinary and professionally oriented degree programmes, instead of traditional subjects or disciplines (singulars). The ’habit of mind’ does not emerge in official discussions. When teachers from HEIs of different type create a shared curriculum, the implicit qualities of an ideal knower of today may become explicit. The analysis will focus on the discourses on the qualities of knowers in soft and hard sciences, and how they come visible in curriculum negotiations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedInterview data was collected from two cases, one representing the humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS) and the other representing the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which both have education in research universities and vocationally oriented universities of applied sciences (UAS) in Finland. These cases were involved in making a partially shared curriculum (80-120 cr out of 180-240 cr), one for STEM and other for HASS, across institutional boundaries. HEIs have different tasks regulated by legislation and are expected to provide different qualities in their education, resulting in different starting point in their curriculum knowledge practices. Also, faculty members are recruited based on distinct qualities, either emphasising research or professional qualities.
Interviews were implemented in four HEIs after the curriculum reforms. Narrative interviews (see Squire, 2013) were conducted with 14 teachers from STEM and 12 teachers from HASS. Half of the informants represent universities and half represent universities of applied sciences. The interviews followed a narrative of curriculum making from the start to the implementation phase. The aim was to listen to individual and collective stories of curriculum making. The recorded and transcribed interviews resulted in 287 pages (Times New Roman, font size 12, line space 1).
By now, two separate analysis based on this data, have been published (anonym A; anonym b). The first study explored curriculum knowledge from the perspective of institutional boundaries; the second study focused on disciplinary knowledge practices in curriculum making. During the analysis, I paid attention how the informants talked about the different qualities of people; students and faculty. This notion pushed towards this third study with focus on knowers.
For the present study, the analysis is in process, but the results will be available by the ECER conference in Glasgow. The data has been coded using the Atlas.ti software, searching for all types of empirical referents on knowers. The discourses will be analysed following the questions: how the students and faculty members are portrayed as knowers and how this is related to giving grounds – or excuses – for curriculum knowledge. The data will be explored further with theoretical and conceptual approach (cf. Maton 2014; Bernstein 2000).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary notions show that in regions, ie. professionally and interdisciplinary oriented degree programmes, the humanistic and scientific cultures portray knower structures in a new light compared with traditional academic cultures. In these cases, humanistic curriculum culture provides access to different forms of knowledge for knowers of different kind (horizontal knower structures) and access to various forms of knowledge is left for students to decide. In scientific curriculum culture, the institution decides the nature of the knowledge offered only for their own students (hierarchical knower structures). The strength of the boundaries seems to be connected not only to the qualities expected of the students, but also the qualities and different emphasis on teacher’s expertise in different HEIs. Implicit rules and disciplinary and institutional traditions guide the decisions at a local curriculum level. It seems to be that epistemic relations (knowledge) and social relations (knowers) are strongly intertwined.
This study is situated in Finland, but the results are of global relevance. The knowledge interests and practices of HEIs of different type, with different types of ideal knowers. This work approaches the European harmonization initiative from the perspective of diversity.
ReferencesBernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised edition. Orig. published in 1996. Lanham, US: Rowman & Littlefield.
Burman, A. & Landahl, J. (eds.) (2020). 1968 och pedagogiken. [1968 and pedagogy]. Södertörn Studies in intellectual and cultural history. Huddinge: Södertörn University.
EQF. (2018). The European Qualifications Framework: supporting learning, work and cross-border mobility. European Union. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&furtherPubs=yes&pubId=8071&langId=en&
Guri-Rosenblit, S., Šebková, H. & Teichler, U. (2007) Massification and Diversity of Higher Education Systems: Interplay of Complex Dimensions. High Educ Policy 20, 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300158
Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers. Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. London: Routledge.
Maton, K. 2010. “Segmentalism. The Problem of Building Knowledge and Creating Knowers.” In Knowledge, Pedagogy and Society. International Perspectives on Basil Bernstein’s Sociology of Education, edited by D. Frandji, and P. Vitale, 126–139. London: Routledge.
Newman, H. (1996). The Idea of a University. Originally published in 1899. Ed. F.M. Turner. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shay, S. (2014). Curriculum in Higher Education: Beyond False Choices. In: Gibbs, P., Barnett, R. (eds) Thinking about Higher Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03254-2_10
Squire, C. 2013. From Experience-Centred to Socio-Culturally-Oriented Approaches to Narrative. In Doing narrative research, edited by M. Andrews, C. Squire, and M. Tamboukou, 47–70. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781526402271.n3
Wheelahan, L. (2012) ‘Accessing knowledge in the university of the future: Lessons from Australia’ in Barnett, Ron (ed.) The Future University Ideas and Possibilities. London: Routledge.
Winberg, C. (2006) Undisciplining Knowledge Production: Development Driven Higher Education in South Africa. High Educ 51, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6378-5
|
