This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 08 October 2013, At: 02:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Transforming university curriculumpolicies in a global knowledge era:mapping a “global case study” researchagendaLesley Vidovich a , Thomas O’Donoghue a & Malcolm Tight ba Graduate School of Education, The University of WesternAustralia, Nedlands, Australiab Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University,England, UKPublished online: 13 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Lesley Vidovich , Thomas O’Donoghue & Malcolm Tight (2012) Transforminguniversity curriculum policies in a global knowledge era: mapping a “global case study” researchagenda, Educational Studies, 38:3, 283-295, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2011.598681

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598681

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

Transforming university curriculum policies in a global knowledgeera: mapping a “global case study” research agenda

Lesley Vidovicha, Thomas O’Donoghuea* and Malcolm Tightb

aGraduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia;bDepartment of Educational Research, Lancaster University, England, UK

(Received 5 February 2011; final version received 17 June 2011)

Radical curriculum policy transformations are emerging as a key strategy of uni-versities across different countries as they move to strengthen their competitiveposition in a global knowledge era. This paper puts forward a “global casestudy” research agenda in the under-researched area of university curriculumpolicy. The particular curriculum policies to be investigated point to potentiallynew forms of liberal education, and they resonate in varying degrees with con-temporary patterns in Europe as well as longer standing patterns in the UnitedStates. This research agenda stands to make a unique contribution with its“whole curriculum” approach to: the examination of the relationship betweencurriculum content, pedagogy and assessment; the tracking of curriculum policyborrowing across different jurisdictions extending between global and local lev-els; and the investigation of historical antecedents of contemporary curriculumpolicy patterns. In particular, the proposed agenda features a rare combination ofspatial and temporal dimensions of university curriculum policy flows. Thisresearch agenda will provide a strong empirical evidence base for extending the-ory building about university curriculum policy development, as well as policy“learning” for policy makers, practitioners and scholars – globally.

keywords: curriculum policy; university; global knowledge era; research agenda;global case study

Introduction

Curriculum policy research throughout much of the English-speaking world hascentred mainly on the schools’ sector (Elmore and Sykes 1992). More recently, ithas expanded to include studies in tertiary education. Such work, however, is stillvery much in its infancy, particularly in the case of university education (Rizvi andLingard 2010). This deficit now needs to be addressed, especially as universities areincreasingly seen as playing a central role in the development of a global knowl-edge society (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)2008). One of a large suite of university curriculum policy research projectsdemanding attention is the need to develop a base of empirical knowledge, as wellas theory, to inform the decision-making of those universities engaging in radicalcurriculum policy transformations as a key strategy to strengthen their competitiveposition in a global knowledge era (De Wit 2010; Wildavsky 2010). This is not to

*Corresponding author. Email: tom.odonoghue@uwa.edu.au

Educational StudiesVol. 38, No. 3, July 2012, 283–295

ISSN 0305-5698 print/ISSN 1465-3400 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598681http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

argue for the immediate construction of a grand plan that would encompass all ofthe various questions that merit attention within such an investigation. To do sowould be premature since, in the absence of a wide range of in-depth empiricalstudies, it is not even clear what many of these questions are. Rather, progressneeds to be made on a number of fronts simultaneously so that, in the fullness oftime, a substantive body of knowledge can be generated which can be synthesisedand provide the basis to develop a framework for a comprehensive research agendato guide the activities of scholars, policy makers and practitioners working in thefield.

This paper indicates one front on which inquiry should proceed at this point intime. It has its origins in the observation that, internationally, “radical” transforma-tions are taking place in “whole” curriculum policies in particular research-intensiveuniversities in the British tradition. These transformations appear to encompassaspects of the Bologna curriculum reforms in Europe which lay out structureswithin which undergraduate degrees should be articulated with masters and doctoraldegrees, and also aspects of the long-standing “general education” approach charac-teristic of many undergraduate programmes in the United States (US). Together,these changes are radical for the universities in question because of the extent towhich they involve a significant departure from their prior curriculum history.

We hold that a major advance in the emerging field of policy studies in highereducation would be to undertake an analysis of “whole curriculum” policy in thisset of universities through a multi-sited, multi-national project, thus taking a firststep in building a “global case study” which could lead ultimately to a “globaltypology” of radical university curriculum transformations. The remainder of thepaper develops our position in this regard. It is in three parts. First, it indicates anumber of key under-researched areas in university curriculum policy which can beaddressed by focusing on those particular research-intensive universities in theBritish tradition which we have identified as engaging in radical curriculum trans-formations. Secondly, an overarching conceptual framework based on theories ofglobalisation, and emphasising the properties of “space”, “place”, “time” and “pol-icy flows”, is proposed for structuring the associated research agenda. Thirdly, aroute for making advances based on this research agenda towards building a “globalcase study”, and ultimately a “global typology” of curriculum policy transforma-tions, is indicated through a consideration of the nature of what is entailed in sucha study and the research questions that need to be pursued. The conclusion high-lights the potential contributions of this research agenda to the field.

Addressing key under-researched areas of university curriculum policy

University curriculum policy is an under-researched area (Rizvi and Lingard 2010).It is only in recent years that any significant engagement in university curriculumpolicy studies has emerged, and it is now expanding to include such issues as con-testations over core knowledge in particular disciplines, the establishment of US-style graduate schools in a number of European countries (Powell and Green 2007),the spread of the strongly-embedded US civic engagement practice to universitiesfurther afield (Watson 2007), and initiatives on internationalising the curriculum(Jones and Killick 2007; OECD 2008). What associated policies have in commonis a focus on introducing curriculum innovations within existing university curricu-lum structures and content. Just over a decade ago, however, Bridges (2000) also

284 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

drew attention to policies on the deconstruction of the traditional university subjectthrough modularization, the cross curricular key skills movement, and competence-based developments, being adopted right across the academy. These highlight issuesof “whole curriculum” change as promoted by educational theorists like Scott(2003) and Gleeson (2010). What is meant by this is that they are changes thatrelate to the range of curriculum objectives sought by an institution; the nature ofassociated values and beliefs; the extent to which various objectives are prescribedfor some, or for all, students; the pattern of components into which the whole cur-riculum is divided and how lecturers and students are grouped in relation to this;the nature of the content, the pedagogical approaches and the modes of assessmentoutlined; and methods used to evaluate the success of the curriculum.

Focusing, now, on the domain of whole curriculum policy in universities, thereare a number of specific areas that call for close attention as they are the mostneglected within the existing body of literature. In particular, we identify three mainareas that urgently need to be addressed: the relationship between content, peda-gogy and assessment in university curriculum policy; the increasing interconnected-ness between university curriculum policy developments in different jurisdictions(especially internationally); and historical patterns of changes in ideological under-pinnings of university curriculum policy. The latter two research themes focus onthe dynamics of university curriculum policy over different places and times, thushighlighting the need to consider the dimensions of both “place” and “time” inwhole curriculum policy analysis; an integrating theme in the research agenda pro-posed here.

The first neglected research area is on the relationship between curriculum con-tent, pedagogy and assessment. It is true that considerable attention has been givento each of these areas on their own. A whole curriculum approach, however, empha-sises that these three “message systems” should be seen as being in symbiotic rela-tionship with each other (Bernstein 1977). Such an integrated approach tocurriculum has received little attention in education policy studies, particularly inhigher education (Rizvi and Lingard 2010). For example, while testing and account-ability in university education has been receiving increased attention of late, theapproach is often one confined to individual disciplines. Furthermore, it is often onewhich implies that curriculum and pedagogy should be organised to conform to whatcan be easily measured, rather than recognising that certain objectives, content andteaching approaches are worth pursuing even if what is sought does not easily lenditself to being articulated in the form of clearly stated behavioural outcomes. Thewhole curriculum initiative presented in the research agenda we are proposing aimsto address university curriculum policy underpinned by this disjointed perspective.

The second neglected area is research on the increasing interconnectedness ofcurriculum policy transformations across different jurisdictions from global to locallevels. This interconnectedness is manifest in a number of different ways. In partic-ular, attenuated international policy “borrowing” has been a significant feature ofthe 2000s (Ertl 2006; Phillips and Schweisfurth 2007; Tanako 2005). In particular,international flows of university curriculum policy between Europe, the US andAustralia have been identified in recent literature. For example, while some haveargued that the Bologna process of curriculum policy “harmonisation” across theEuropean higher education space simply represents direct policy borrowing fromUS universities, others hold that a Europe-wide higher education perspective is nowhaving a powerful influence in shaping policy parameters in other jurisdictions,

Educational Studies 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

especially the US and Australia (Australian Government 2006; Hartmann 2008;Robertson and Keeling 2008). The mechanisms of such curriculum policy borrow-ing across different jurisdictions require detailed study. Further, the notion ofhybridity in curriculum policy as a result of policy borrowing warrants furtherinvestigation, especially given Hartmann’s (2008, 217) contention that “a new formof global hegemony is taking shape as a hybrid of a US and European Empire”.

In addition to policy borrowing, increasing global interconnectedness of curricu-lum policy is also evidenced with moves towards “internationalising the curricu-lum”. While it is true that there is a burgeoning literature on this phenomenon (e.g.Jones and Killick 2007; Knight 2004), internationalising the curriculum is oftenconsidered in isolation from other parts of the curriculum, as an “add-on” or supple-ment to international content, rather than as an integral part of the whole curricu-lum. For example, the OECD has characterised “internationalising the curriculum”in terms of “strengthened foreign languages teaching and enhanced internationalperspectives in the substantive content of tertiary curricula” (OECD 2008, 257).We, however, would want to add internationalisation of pedagogy and assessmentacross the whole curriculum. Also while there has been a nascent interest in interna-tionalisation through pedagogical innovations, such as “inclusive pedagogy”, theassessment component has barely registered on the agenda. Another related researcharea of interest is the changing role of the OECD as an increasingly powerful cur-riculum policy actor in a globalising education policy community (Henry et al.2001), as it potentially forges convergence of curriculum policy across differentjurisdictions from global to local levels.

The third neglected area is research on historical patterns of ideological changesunderpinning university curriculum policy over extended periods of time. Thisrequires, in the first instance, a clear mapping of change historically in universitywhole curricula internationally. Some pioneering work has been undertaken byFrank and Gabler (2006), Friedman (2000) and Lattuca (2006), while more specificvaluable studies by MacIntyre (2009) and Leslie (2011) have appeared recently,highlighting historical trends in the extent to which professional education has beenoffered at the graduate school level in the US, as opposed to at the undergraduatelevel within universities in the British tradition. Overall, however, work in this sub-field is still very much in its infancy. One area ripe for research is the cyclicalswings between ideological polarities of generalist or “liberal-humanist” curriculaon the one hand, and vocationally-oriented, instrumental or “neo-liberal” curriculaon the other. While one might point to evidence of recent shifts after three decadesof neoliberal-inspired emphasis on useful curricula throughout much of the Westernworld towards possible new paradigms of liberal education (Mulcahy 2008), theresearch base is still not strong enough to deduce the extent to which this relates toother swings over the greater course of time. Hence, research on changing ideolo-gies in curriculum policy historically will facilitate an understanding of where cur-rent transformations sit on a “liberal humanist” – “neo-liberal” continuum, if at all,and the consequences for the positioning of different universities within the globalarena.

286 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

Focusing on research-intensive universities in the British tradition undertakingradical whole-curriculum reform

This account so far of a number of significant gaps in the research literature on uni-versity curriculum policy points to the need for each to be investigated in its ownright. Specifically with regard to those universities which are our focus of interestin the short term, however, namely, those research intensive universities within theBritish tradition engaged in radical whole-curriculum change, it also points to thepotential to locate the study of their curriculum policy transformations within a sin-gle comprehensive framework embracing both place and time. To date, three“types” of such universities have been identified and they constitute an ideal groupof case study institutions with which to commence a multi-sited, multi-national pro-ject as a first step in building a “global case study”. Their policies, which all featureengagement with whole curriculum reform at the undergraduate level based on gen-eral principles of a liberal humanist nature (albeit suggestive of a possibility of theemergence of new paradigms for liberal education) also have the following featuresin common:

� a focus on internationalising the curriculum;� a commitment to students engaging with a range of disciplines to obtain a

“well-rounded” liberal education;� an increase in curriculum breadth and depth through placing a stronger empha-

sis than previously on research, communication skills, community service andstudy abroad components; and

� a major emphasis on interdiscipliniarity and integrating knowledge across differ-ent disciplines.

The first “type” of university to be considered is represented by two universities inAustralia which are moving away from having any professional degree programmesat the undergraduate level (Trounsen and Rowbotham 2009). Of these, The Univer-sity of Melbourne is well into the “implementation phase”, having commenced itsnew “Melbourne model” in 2008 (The University of Melbourne 2009), while TheUniversity of Western Australia will enrol its first cohort of students in 2012, underits “New Courses” framework (The University of Western Australia 2009). The sec-ond “type” of university to be considered is represented by The University of Aber-deen (2008), which commenced a process of phasing-in its curriculum changes in2009, and The University of Hong Kong (2009), which decided to adopt an incre-mental approach to introducing its new compulsory undergraduate “Common CoreCurriculum” between 2010 and 2012. Both of these universities have taken a differ-ent approach to the two Australian universities in creating generalist compulsorycore programs which run in parallel with specialist and professional education atthe undergraduate level. The third “type” of university to be considered is theNational University of Singapore (NUS). In April 2011 it was announced that NUSwould work with Yale University in the US to establish a joint campus in Singa-pore in 2013 to expand Western-style liberal arts education in Asia (Barta 2011).

Similarities and differences are highlighted in the five universities identified.Preliminary investigations also reveal evidence of policy learning between theseuniversities, as well as from new European curriculum models and longer standingapproaches in the US. For example, The University of Aberdeen (2008) consulted

Educational Studies 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

with the University of Melbourne and the University of Hong Kong (as well aswith Harvard and Yale) in making its curriculum policy decisions, and The Univer-sity of Western Australia has closely followed developments at the University ofMelbourne (Trounsen and Rowbotham 2009). This brings us back to a point madeearlier, namely, that it is important to take cognizance of place and time in studiesof such developments. In turn, we hold that since the spatial and the temporal arekey dimensions of globalisation, this suggests that our research agenda should beframed by a context of globalisation. Such a framing is based on the notion that theincreasing interconnectedness and mobility which characterises a competitive, mar-ket-driven global knowledge era means that curriculum developments in one regioninevitably influence developments in another.

Theories of globalisation as an overarching conceptual framework for theresearch agenda

Global-local dynamics form the terrain for the proposed research agenda which con-sists of a multi-sited, multi-national comparative study of university curriculum pol-icy transformations in selected case study universities. This global-to-local span ofanalysis is more appropriate for contemporary globalising times than the “methodo-logical nationalism” or “parochialism” (Rizvi and Lingard 2010, 64) which focuseson individual nation-states, and which often characterises education policy studies.Globalisation is a complex and contested concept which points to the greater inter-connectedness of the world – economically, socially, culturally and politically – toname just a few (Bottery 2006). On this, Rizvi and Lingard (2010, 24) identifythree main facets of globalisation:

. . .as an empirical fact that describes the profound shifts that are currently taking placein the world; as an ideology that masks various expressions of power and a range ofpolitical interests; and as a social imaginary that expresses the sense people have oftheir own identity and how it relates to the rest of the world, and how it implicitlyshapes their aspirations and expectations.

Within these general parameters our approach to policy analysis is one which high-lights the potential for the agency of policy actors to actively engage with policy –interpreting, transforming and resisting – at all levels from global to national tolocal. The suffix “isation” means a process of change, and globalisation involvesboth spatial (place) and temporal (time) changes. We would argue that it is impor-tant to understand spatial dimensions because global policy patterns play out in dis-tinctive ways in the localised contexts of different jurisdictions; that is, “globalpolicy agendas come up against the existing priorities and practices” (Ozga andJones 2006, 2). Likewise, it is important to understand temporal dimensions becausepolicy does not emerge in a vacuum. Therefore we need to investigate historicalpolicy antecedents and how they have influenced contemporary policies and prac-tices in globalising times. That is, our research agenda is concerned with developingan understanding of the nature of policy flows from other places and other times.

In relation to the spatial dimension of globalisation, Rizvi and Lingard (2010)draw a distinction between the concepts of space and place, with “space” being amore abstract concept associated with compression of distance in an era of globali-sation, and “place” being a more specific construct relating to a core of personal

288 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

and community experiences. They see this space/place distinction as relevant toeducation policy analysis. Also, for the purposes of the research agenda outlinedhere we would also want to distinguish globalised “spaces” from localised “places”in specific university settings. Marginson suggests that it is “place” which is “theplatform on which human agency is erected” (2010b, 124). His earlier work withRhoades (Marginson and Rhoades 2002) highlights the potential for agency of pol-icy actors (organisations and individuals) in negotiating their own higher educationpolicy directions, despite apparent global policy convergence. Their “glo-na-calagency” heuristic provides a useful framework to analyse the two-way interactionsbetween policy actors at “global”, “national” and “local” levels of policy processes.These global to local spaces and places are “mutually constitutive” (Marginson2010a, 8). The “glo-na-cal agency” heuristic facilitates the identification of patternsof power and influence between policy actors through the dimensions of “reciproc-ity”, “strength”, “layers and conditions” and “spheres”. “Reciprocity” refers to thenotion that influences flow in more than one direction. “Strength” indicates both themagnitude and the directness of influence, in addition to resources at the disposalof agencies and agents. “Layers and conditions” refers to resilient historical struc-tures and practices of institutions, systems and countries which have an impact ontheir influence and activity. Finally, “spheres” indicates the scope of influence (geo-graphical and functional) of agents and agency.

Marginson and Rhoades’ (2002) “glo-na-cal agency” heuristic has been recogni-sed in the literature as a valuable device for analysing the processes of globalisa-tion, especially in relation to the multiple levels of higher education policy activity(Cantwell and Maldonado-Maldonado 2009; Valimaa 2004). Their heuristic can alsoaccommodate intermediate levels, such as the regional level, which has been a pow-erful site of policy production in Europe. For this research agenda we are propos-ing, the “glo-na-cal agency” heuristic can form an overarching framework toexamine global and local policy patterns simultaneously; that is, university curricu-lum policy transformations can be tracked between global “spaces” and localised“places”.

We are interested, then, in policy “flows”, a concept which captures the essenceof the fluid interconnectivity which characterises globalisation. According to Marg-inson (2010c, 202), “global flows constitute lines of communication and lines ofeffect that are relatively visible”. What we are proposing is a research agenda tobetter understand both inter- and intra-national policy flows, (often referred to aspolicy “borrowing”, as outlined earlier in the paper). However, we are not only con-cerned that there should be an examination of such policy flows across differentgeographically dispersed sites, but also over time. In other words, for each “place”which is a research site, we advocate an examination of historical policy patterns asthe precursors of contemporary university curriculum policies. On this, some com-mentators believe that with globalisation a sense of space/place has assumed domi-nance over a sense of time, such that there has been “a transition from ‘tempo toscale’, from ‘the chronometric to the cartographic’” (Rizvi and Lingard 2010, 65).We would argue, though, that education policy flows can, and do, occur betweendifferent time periods. Therefore the comprehensive understanding of university cur-riculum policy processes that we are advocating requires a research agenda withtemporal (time) as well as spatial (place) dimensions. Furthermore, we hold that thespatial and temporal dimensions of globalisation are so closely interwoven that it is

Educational Studies 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

difficult to consider one without the other, as reflected in the concept of “space-time” (Marginson 2010b, 126).

Towards developing a “global case study” of university curriculum policytransformations

The previous section provided an overarching conceptual framework for structuringa research agenda on radical university curriculum policy transformations extendingbetween global and local levels. This section now outlines a route for makingadvances based on the proposed research agenda. It explains an emerging “globalcase study” methodology, outlines the approach to policy analysis to underpin theagenda, and presents a series of research questions to guide its implementation.

Building a “global case study”

The notion of a “global case study” strategy emerges from recent work in the fieldof sociology on new methodological approaches “in the global age” (Chirico 2010).Our proposed policy research agenda is located within the more specific domain ofpolicy sociology. Thus, is lends itself to the application of sociological methodolo-gies emerging as appropriate for globalising times. The essence of a policy sociol-ogy approach is to ask “how policy is made, why, when and for whom, as well asthe effects of policies (on groups) and its impact on a given problem [as well as]values, assumptions and ideologies at stake in the policy process and content”(Simons, Olssen, and Peters 2009, 29). We maintain that the research agenda pro-posed here can be significantly advanced with the building of a “global case study”of university curriculum policy transformations, so that such key questions can beaddressed on both a global scale and a local scale, simultaneously.

Individual case studies in selected universities across different national and uni-versity contexts form the first stage of building the “global case study”. The case-study method is in accord with growing calls for detailed “situated case studies”(Marginson 2007) to better understand the dynamics of globalisation in higher edu-cation. A case-study research strategy entails the investigation of a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context (Yin 2009). Within each case study weadvocate an approach to data collection and analysis which is consistent withCreswell’s (2005) recommendation that multiple sources of evidence be employedin a case-study design. Thus, the combined use of documents, interviews and sur-veys in case-study sites would allow for triangulation of data and deep penetrationof the investigation of curriculum policies and practices throughout the universities,from senior management to academics in classrooms.

After the collection and analysis of data within the individual case-study univer-sities, cross-case analysis to compare and contrast the findings between multi-sited,multi-national cases would constitute the foundation for a “global case study”. Themeta analysis on a global scale would then facilitate the construction of a “globaltypology” of different forms of radical university curriculum policy transformationsemerging in contemporary times. While the findings would not be directly transfer-able from the particular case-study institutions to other specific university contexts,“theoretical generalisability” (Walford 2001) – enhanced through the “global casestudy” methodology – would be expected to support theory building and contribute

290 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

broader insights into global-local dynamics of radical university curriculum policytransformations.

A policy trajectory approach

One analytic tool which is ideally suited to translate the concept of a “global casestudy” into a comprehensive and detailed analysis of university curriculum policy isthe “policy trajectory” approach developed by Stephen Ball (1994, 2006; see alsoRizvi and Lingard 2010). A “policy trajectory” approach is neither linear, nor top-down. It incorporates a continuous cycle of policy influences, texts, practices andoutcomes. An early criticism of Ball’s (1994) original “policy trajectory” was itsconceptualisation within a single nation-state, which was increasingly seen as lim-ited in a context of globalisation (Vidovich 2007). However, combining the differ-ent levels of Marginson and Rhoades’ (2002) “glo-na-cal agency” heuristic (whichforms the theoretical framing) with the “policy trajectory” approach, overcomes thisproblem by facilitating policy analysis across multiple international sites in whichthere are complex multi-directional interconnections between policy processes span-ning global to local levels.

Research questions

The research agenda that we have mapped to this point can be translated into thefollowing series of research questions which are structured around the policy trajec-tory approach outlined above. This includes curriculum policy influences, policytexts, practices/effects and outcomes. The questions incorporate both spatial andtemporal dimensions, for reasons explicated in the previous section on theories ofglobalisation:

1. What are the key influences from global, national, regional and local levelcontexts which impact on curriculum policy transformations in each casestudy university?:� What have been the relative influences internationally?(spatial influences

across different jurisdictions)� What have been the changing patterns of influences over time?(temporal/

historical influences)2. What are the local level curriculum policy texts and practices/effects in each

case-study university?:� Where, when and why have the changes occurred?(locating the transfor-

mations)� Who are the key players, what are the key changes and how were the

changes brought about?(detailing the transformations)

3. How do curriculum policies and practices in the case-study universities com-pare with each other, and with wider trends over place (spatially) and time(temporally/historically)?(cross-case international and historical comparative analysis)

4. What are the likely outcomes of these new curriculum policies and practicesfor each case-study university and for inter- and intra-national policy learning?(meta analysis, including theory building)

Educational Studies 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

Each of these four research questions could be applied in studying each chosen uni-versity separately. A cross-case analysis could then be undertaken which wouldmake comparisons and contrasts across the multi-sited, multi-national span of theresearch. Through such comparative analysis, a “global case study” could be built.This, in turn, could become the basis for a “global typology” of radical universitycurriculum policy transformations. Thus, the combination of temporal and spatialanalysis extending across global to local levels would facilitate a more holisticunderstanding of the curriculum policies under investigation.

Concluding comments: contributions of this research agenda

The purpose of this paper was not to present findings from a particular researchproject, but to map a proposed research agenda in the area of higher education cur-riculum policy. This research agenda stands to make a significant contribution bytaking a holistic approach to the under-researched field of university curriculum pol-icy (Rizvi and Lingard 2010), enabling important gaps in the higher education liter-ature to be addressed. Within a “whole curriculum” approach, it focuses on threeparticular areas which require urgent attention. First, the agenda prioritizes examina-tion of the symbiotic relationship between the trilogy of curriculum content, peda-gogy and assessment, rather than treating them as separate domains. Pedagogy andassessment are particularly under-researched areas of university curriculum policy.Second, the agenda prioritizes examination of the interconnectedness of universitycurriculum policy across different jurisdictions around the globe. In tracking policyborrowing, both inter- and intra-nationally, the research proposed here spans globalto local levels, investigating the degree to which there is fidelity to, modification of,or rejection of different conceptualizations of “whole curriculum” policy at differentuniversities. This global-to-local policy trajectory includes the micro level of univer-sity classrooms to seek the perspectives of university teachers on curriculum policy-in-practice. There is also potential to extend the research by adding perspectives ofother stakeholders such as students, community groups, businesses and govern-ments, and then to triangulate their perspectives. Third, the agenda prioritizesexamination of historical antecedents of emerging curriculum policy patterns, withan emphasis on cyclical ideological swings between “liberal-humanist” and “neo-liberal” underpinnings of curriculum policy.

The dual spatial and temporal dimension of this research agenda is a rarity incontemporary education policy studies, and it can offer more finely nuanced con-ceptualisations of the complex dialectics of university curriculum policy flows fromother places and times. The approach proposed here could well provide a model fora comprehensive spatial and temporal analysis of other education policies in theglobalising context of the twenty-first century. This research agenda is framed bytheories of globalisation, in particular Marginson and Rhoades’ (2002) “glo-na-calagency” heuristic which highlights the potential “agency” of policy actors (institu-tions and individuals) in negotiating policy parameters at all levels. The proposedresearch will put the nature and extent of this agency under empirical pressure andtherefore, in turn, it can contribute to theory building. The proposed agenda willprovide a springboard for future empirical investigations, especially the use of a“global case study” methodology‘, which will then form the foundation for subse-quent extended theorisation in the field of university curriculum policy. The findingsfrom such a research agenda will inform curriculum policy decision-making within

292 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

the case study universities (policy makers and practitioners), as well as provide“food for thought” in other institutions engaging with curriculum transformations.Further, the findings should be of considerable interest to the higher education pol-icy elite in governments as well as policy scholars – internationally.

To conclude, we would like to draw attention to the concept of policy “learning”in distinction to the more commonly used concept of policy “borrowing” (see alsoDale 1999; Lange and Alexiadou 2010). Uncritical borrowing of education policiesacross different jurisdictions, with little consideration of local relevance, has led toeducation policy “pandemics” (Vidovich 2009); a hyper version of policy “epidem-ics” (Levin 1998) where policy borrowing expands across contexts with very differ-ent historical, cultural, political and economic circumstances. Education policypandemics have been sweeping the globe on the back of neo-liberal ideology accom-panying globalisation. In our view, one step in resisting the hegemony of neo-liberalideology in education policy is to critically examine policies and practices from otherplaces and times, and therefore to learn about policies before importing them. Theactive agency of policy actors in negotiating site-specific policies and practices thatcharacterises policy “learning” is consistent with the “agency” underpinning Margin-son and Rhoades’ (2002) “glo-na-cal agency” heuristic which frames the proposedresearch agenda. Policy “learning” is a more dialectic construct than policy “borrow-ing” and it may well offer a way forward which is more empowering for local educa-tion policy players in a global knowledge era.

Notes on contributorsLesley Vidovich is a professor of education at the University of Western Australia. Herprimary research focus is education policy, in both schooling and higher education sectors.Her research extends from macro (global) trends to micro level practices within educationalinstitutions. She has conducted and published research in a number of different countriesacross Europe, Asia, North America and Africa, as well as Australia. While she haspublished on a wide range of policy domains, her largest volume of work is concerned withpolicies on curriculum, accountability, quality, equity and internationalisation.

Thomas O’Donoghue is professor of education at The University of Western Australia. He isalso an elected Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. He specialises inhistorical and policy research in education, with particular reference to faith-basededucational institutions across the English-speaking world. He has published numerousbooks, book chapters and scholarly papers on education in Australia, Ireland and PapuaNew Guinea.

Malcolm Tight is professor in higher education in the Department of Educational Research,Lancaster University, where he is director of the Doctoral programme. He has a wide rangeof research interests in the field of higher and post-compulsory education. He is editor of‘Studies in Higher Education’ and of a book series on ‘International Perspectives in HigherEducation’. He has published numerous books, book chapters and scholarly papers in suchareas as changing patterns of academic work, the nature of the academic experience, and thehistory and meaning of higher education.

ReferencesAustralian Government. 2006. The Bologna process and Australia: Next steps. Canberra:

DEST.Ball, S. 1994. Education reform: A critical and poststructural approach. Buckingham: Open

University Press.Ball, S. 2006. Education policy and social class. The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London:

Routledge.

Educational Studies 293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

Barta, P. 2011. Yale brings the Ivy League to Singapore. The Australian Higher EducationSupplement, 13 April, 27.

Bernstein, B. 1977. Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmis-sions. Vol. 3 London: Routledge and Kogan Paul.

Bottery, M. 2006. Education and globalization: Redefining the role of the educational profes-sional. Educational Review 58, no. 1: 95–113.

Bridges, E. 2000. Back to the future. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 1: 37–55.Cantwell, B., and A. Maldonado-Maldonado. 2009. Four stories: Confronting contemporary

ideas about globalization and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation,Societies and Education 7, no. 3: 289–306.

Chirico, J. 2010. Sociological research exercise for the global age. London: Sage.Creswell, J. 2005. Educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Dale, R. 1999. Specifying globalization effects on national policy: A focus on the mecha-

nisms. Journal of Education Policy 14, no. 1: 1–17.De Wit, H. 2010. Internationalisation, teaching and learning and strategic partnerships. In

Internationalising learning and teaching in academic settings, eds. F. Waugh, andL. Napier, 12–35. Sydney: The University of Sydney.

Elmore, R., and G. Sykes. 1992. Curriculum policy. In Handbook of research on curriculum,ed. P. Jackson, 185–215. New York: Macmillan.

Ertl, H. 2006. Cross national attraction in education. Oxford: Symposium.Frank, D., and J. Gabler. 2006. Reconstructing the university. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-

versity Press.Friedman, R. 2000. Integration and visibility. Oslo, MN: University of Oslo – forum for uni-

versity history.Gleeson, J. 2010. Curriculum in context. New York: Peter Lang.Hartmann, E. 2008. Bologna goes global. Globalization, Societies and Education 6, no. 3:

207–20.Henry, M., B. Lingard, F. Rizvi, and S. Taylor. 2001. The OECD globalization and educa-

tion policy. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Jones, E., and D. Killick. 2007. Internationalisation of the curriculum. In Internationalising

higher education, eds. E. Jones, and S. Brown, 109–119. London: Routledge.Knight, J. 2004. Internationalization remodeled. Journal of Studies in International Educa-

tion 8, no. 1: 5–31.Lange, B., and N. Alexiadou. 2010. Policy learning and governance of education policy in

the EU. Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 4: 443–63.Lattuca, L. 2006. Curricula in international perspective. In International handbook of higher

education, eds. J. Forest, and P. Altbach, 39–64. New York: Springer.Leslie, W. 2011. The curious tale of liberal education, professional training and the Ameri-

can college. History of Education 40, no. 1: 83–96.Levin, B. 1998. An epidemic of education policy: What we can learn from each other? Com-

parative Education 34, no. 2: 131–41.MacIntyre, S. 2009. The same under different skies. Journal of Australian Studies 33, no. 3:

353–69.Marginson, S. 2007. Global position and position taking: The case of Australia. Journal of

studies in international education 1, no. 1: 5–32.Marginson, S. 2010a. Introduction. In Global creation: Space, mobility and synchrony in the

age of the knowledge economy, eds. S. Marginson, P. Murphy, and M. Peters, 1–17.New York: Peter Lang.

Marginson, S. 2010b. Space, mobility and synchrony in the knowledge economy. In Globalcreation: Space, mobility and synchrony in the age of the knowledge economy, eds.S. Marginson, P. Murphy, and M. Peters, 117–49. New York: Peter Lang.

Marginson, S. 2010c. Higher education as a global field. In Global creation: Space, mobilityand synchrony in the age of the knowledge economy, eds. S. Marginson, P. Murphy, andM. Peters, 201–28. New York: Peter Lang.

Marginson, S., and G. Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets and systems of highereducation: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43, no. 3: 281–309.

Mulcahy, D. 2008. The educated person: Towards a new paradigm for liberal education.NY: Rowman.

294 L. Vidovich et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008. Tertiary educationfor a knowledge society. Paris: OECD.

Ozga, J., and R. Jones. 2006. Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge trans-fer. Journal of Education Policy 21, no. 1: 1–17.

Phillips, D., and M. Schweisfurth. 2007. Comparative and international education. NewYork: Continuum.

Powell, S., and H. Green. 2007. The doctorate worldwide. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Rizvi, F., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing education policy. London: Taylor and Francis.Robertson, S., and R. Keeling. 2008. Stirring the lions: Strategy and tactics in global higher

education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 6, no. 3: 221–40.Scott, D. 2003. Curriculum studies. London: Routledge.Simons, M., M. Olssen, and M. Peters. 2009. Re-reading education policies. In Re-reading

education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century, eds.M. Simons, M. Olssen, and M. Peters, 41–102. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Tanako, M. 2005. Educational policy borrowing. Oxford: Symposium.The University of Aberdeen. 2008. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/curriculumreform/documents/

Curriculum_Report.pdf.The University of Hong Kong. 2009. http://commoncore.hku.hk.The University of Melbourne. 2009. Growing esteem. http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/

about/refining_our_ strategy.The University of Western Australia. 2009. Future framework. http://www.futureframework.

uwa.edu.au.Trounsen, A., and J. Rowbotham. 2009. UWA, Sydney plan revamp. The Australian Higher

Education Supplement, 9 September, 1.Valimaa, J. 2004. Nationalisation, localization and globalization in Finnish higher education.

Higher Education, no. 48: 27–54.Vidovich, L. 2007. Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practi-

cal possibilities. Educational Review 59, no. 3: 285–98.Vidovich, L. 2009. You don’t fatten the pig by weighting it: Contradictory tensions in the

‘policy pandemic’ of accountability infecting education. In Re-reading education poli-cies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century, eds. M. Simons,M. Olssen, and M. Peters, 575–94. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Walford, G. 2001. Site selection within comparative case study and ethnographic research.Compare 31, no. 2: 151–64.

Watson, D. 2007. Managing civic and community engagement. Maidenhead: Open Univer-sity Press.

Wildavsky, B. 2010. The ‘great brain race’: How global universities are reshaping theworld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Yin, R. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Educational Studies 295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

02:

15 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

013