Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping ... · interview (Gillham, 2005). The edited transcripts were approved by participants before they were used for analysis

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc

Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education

Volume 33

Refereed papers from the 33rd HERDSA Annual International Conference

6–9 July 2010 Melbourne, Australia

Govers, E. (2010). Program design practice in a New Zealand polytechnic: Caught in a language trap? In M. Devlin, J. Nagy and A. Lichtenberg (Eds.) Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education, 33 (pp. 301–312). Melbourne, 6–9 July, 2010. Published 2010 by the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc PO Box 27, MILPERRA NSW 2214, Australia www.herdsa.org.au ISSN 0 155 6223 ISBN 0 908557 80 9 This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets DIISR requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence and they reviewed the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Papers were reviewed according to specified criteria, including relevance to the conference theme and sub-themes, originality, quality and presentation. Following review and acceptance, this full paper was presented at the international conference. Copyright © 2010 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 2005, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers at the address above.

Annual Conference 2010

Program design practice in a New Zealand polytechnic: Caught in a language trap?

Elly Govers Eastern Institute of Technology Hawke’s Bay, Napier, New Zealand

[email protected]

This paper describes a research project aimed at understanding the ideological values and beliefs that influence program design practice in New Zealand polytechnics. This project identifies five interpretative repertoires that participants draw on to communicate the meanings of ‘program’ and ‘program design’ in relation to ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’. This paper characterises the identified repertoires in terms of metaphors: a consumable product, a production process, a guided tour, a guided adventure, and a mission. The differences and tensions between the metaphorical types are explained in terms of political-economic and educational ideological discourses. The paper proceeds to show how current educational language either compromises or excludes ideologies. It keeps educators captured within the discourses and practices that are favoured by policy-makers, and limits the opportunities for change and innovation.

Keywords: program design, ideological discourses, metaphor

Introduction This paper seeks to understand and characterise the conceptual paradigms that underpin program design in the New Zealand polytechnic sector. To do so is important, because, as Kuhn (1970) observes, one’s position in a particular paradigm defines one’s priorities. Educational paradigms thus ultimately determine the nature of educational programs and practice, as illustrated by the following statements:

Students should have a good experience in tertiary education. Programs should be flexible. Students should be able to achieve a qualification at the end of their studies.

Many tertiary educators will recognise these statements, but how many ask why they are important? Program design guidelines such as these influence decision-making, but they are often taken for granted, and seldom critically assessed by practitioners. As a result, the values and beliefs underpinning educational practices and decisions remain unquestioned, potentially blocking change and innovation. What then, are the values and beliefs that influence current program design practice? This project sought to answer this question through understanding the values and beliefs that lie implicit in organisational educational discourses. The locus of this study was a New Zealand polytechnic. Polytechnics such as this offer a wide range of vocationally oriented study programs to people over the age of 15. The length of most programs varies from 12 weeks to three years, and they range from foundation studies to undergraduate degrees. Some polytechnics also offer postgraduate programs.

301

Research and Development in Higher Education Volume 33


Participants in this project appeared to draw on different interpretative repertoires (Potter & Wetherell, 1990) to link ‘programs’ and ‘program design’ to ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’. This paper characterises these repertoires as ‘metaphors’ and explains how they embody differing educational and political-economic ideologies; and how the tensions they create may influence the ongoing work of tertiary educators. Literature review Contemporary program design theories for tertiary or adult education appear to be mostly variations on the Tyler Rationale (for example, Boone, Safrit & Jones, 2002; Caffarella, 2002; Sork & Newman, 2004; Tyler, 1949). They are essentially ‘how-to guides’ to develop a program, explaining how to develop program intentions, structure, instructional strategies, administration, resources, assessment, evaluation, development process, and analysing contextual influences. The centrality of management by objectives in the Tyler Rationale and its variants promotes and reinforces a rationalist and industrialist paradigm that was introduced to education (and other sectors) in the early 20th century (Tuxworth, 1989). As a consequence, organisational discourses on program design rarely acknowledge the values locked into educational planning and design. They treat the activities and the decisions as being value-free, and ignore how design decisions are related to paradigmatic beliefs about education (Cherryholmes, 1988). Attempts to question discourses in program design for higher education have only just started to emerge (for example, Barnett, Parry & Coate, 2001; Slaughter, 1997). Literature around ideologies and ideological discourses that influence program design appears to consist of two groups. From the educational perspective, four types of ideological discourses have dominated: liberal; behaviourist; progressive/ humanistic/ learner-centred; and radical/social action discourses (for example, Bradshaw, 1995; Elias & Merriam, 1995; Sork & Newman, 2004). Whereas different authors have identified variations and overlaps between these ideologies, Schiro (2008) confirms their pre-eminence, drawing on more than a century of literature on compulsory education. He also provides a useful description of the implications of each for curriculum, learning and teaching. A second group of ideologies that has strongly influenced tertiary education in many countries, including New Zealand since 1989, includes neo-liberalism and human capital theory (for example, Abbott & Doucouliagos, 2004; Harris, 2007; Olssen, Codd & O’Neill, 2004). The distinct influences of these political-economic discourses cannot be ignored when studying program design practice. The above two bodies of literature seem disconnected. Neither of them is able to explain the complex interaction – and tensions – between the ideological discourses that underpin and inform program design practice; nor can they explain how these tensions are manifest in everyday work discourse about program design. The research presented in this paper aims to be a first step towards understanding these interactions and tensions. Methodology This research project was carried out as an interpretive case study of a New Zealand polytechnic. Methodologically, it sought to attain what Weber (1968) called verstehen, an understanding of decisions and values that was in tune with those of the actors. In terms of

302


validity, the study thus sought to be analytically “adequate on the level of meaning” (Weber, 1968, p. 11). In order to achieve this, the study explored how understandings of program design shaped - and were shaped by - practitioners’ contexts (Bloome & Clark, 2006; Holstein & Gubrium, 2008). Therefore, the research focus was upon the meanings embedded in practitioners’ own conceptions of their program design practices (Baker & Johnson, 1998). To unravel these meanings, the study examined both ‘discursive practice’ – that is, what information was provided – and ‘discourses-in-action’ – that is, how the practitioner provided the information, or which resources people drew upon for their constructions (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008). Potter and Wetherell (1990) referred to these resources as interpretative repertoires, that is, “broadly discernible clusters of terms, descriptions, common-places […] and figures of speech often clustered around metaphors or vivid images and often using distinct grammatical constructions and styles” (paragraph 24). The understanding of practice follows from the analysis of the interplay between discursive practices and discourses-in-action (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008). To study program design practice across all programs in the institution, eight decision-makers at the institutional level (ID) were interviewed. In addition, the Academic Statute and Quality Management System (QMS) were analysed, for these documents tended to influence program design practice in the institution significantly. Furthermore, five existing programs (identified as A to E) across the institution’s five faculties were selected. Relevant people involved in design practice of these programs were interviewed. Only programs leading to local sub-degree qualifications were included. These were considered typical for a polytechnic in New Zealand, and were governed by the polytechnic itself. Across the five programs, eight managers (M), nine teachers (T), four program-coordinators/teachers (P), two representatives from standard-setting bodies, and one program design advisor were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and covered the main aspects of program design as listed in the literature review. For each aspect, participants were asked what they found important when making decisions, and why. Decision-makers at the institutional level and in program A were interviewed about design at both program and course level. From these interviews plus the QMS analysis, initial findings were developed. Programs B to E were only studied at course level or program level. They were used to either amend or confirm the initial findings, thus allowing some analytical generalisation (Yin, 2003). Informed consent was gained for the interviews and the use of the QMS. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and edited. The latter involved summarising the transcript by identifying the substantive elements that would contribute to meaning-making, in the participant’s own words, so the summary would continue to validly reflect the actual interview (Gillham, 2005). The edited transcripts were approved by participants before they were used for analysis. To code the data, terms and descriptions were identified from reading and re-reading the transcripts that participants, including the QMS, had used to communicate constructions of program design, teaching, and learning. All coherent text pieces that included these terms and expressions were coded. Using NVivo® to help cluster the codings into themes, slowly five interpretative repertoires emerged. These repertoires appeared to be able to be represented as metaphors, that is, “conceptual simile[s] some aspects of which are used, some are not” (Maassen & Weingart, 2000, p. 31). Each metaphor showed a different conceptualisation of a program, with a unique view on teaching and learning. Using metaphors allowed the

303



researcher to step away from the data and to reflect on the findings from a more analytical level (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Five metaphors for a program This section uses quotes from the data. They were chosen on the basis of how well they represented the repertoires, implicit ideologies and pedagogical preferences of the participants. Obviously the choice was in some degree subjective, but in the spirit of verstehen analysis (Weber, 1968) care was taken to include only those that reflected the intended meanings. A program is a consumable product A program is a product developed by the institution to satisfy students-as-customers:

we’ve got some customers who are prepared to pay and they’ve got needs, and we’ve got to develop some courses and programs, which are products and services to meet their needs (ID-1).

Learning is presented as receiving content, being a passive process. Alternative terms found in the data included consuming, absorbing, and picking up. Teaching means delivering this content to the customers:

We try to deliver the content to ensure that the students get the full amount of learning within the time given (P-1).

It is important that the customer can choose which product they purchase and how it is delivered to them:

I find choice for students important in the program. It is not just about flexibility of delivery, it is also about flexibility of the way that someone can build the study program they want to have (ID-2)

Flexibility in building the study program the customer wants is achieved by splitting the program into courses, which can be purchased individually and independently:

All programs should be in discrete courses which should wherever possible be easily adapted to a fully modularised program structure (QMS-1).

To encourage customers to purchase multiple courses, they are given a qualification once their purchases accumulate to a set number of credits at a required level:

For qualification requirements we tend to count the credits and the level and see if it is sufficient (ID-3).

A program is a production process A program is a process that produces graduates to satisfy the industry-as-customer:

[Bodies like the local industry] don’t care how we put that capability into the student, [...] they want the finished product. They run their business and care

304


about their own primary concern and they wish us to run our business and produce an end product that suits their needs (M-2).

Learning is equivalent to being taught. Teachers are operators in the production process, moulding the student into the graduate:

with the 12 months you have time to work with them, you can see their changes, you can mould their attitudes, the way they address problems, the way they attend (P-2).

Responsibility to the industry limits the flexibility for the teacher:

flexibility to me says that I can adjust it, as long as the end result is they have the understanding they need to master that task in industry. The word flexibility is that I have licence to change as long as I keep within the guidelines and the rules (T-1).

Teaching is carefully structured, to ensure students will be able to meet the industry’s quality criteria at the end:

It has to be really lock-step stuff, getting basic concepts into them. We have to get this piece into their head and then step to this piece, and this piece, all the way along. You can’t teach it generically. It has to be very structured along the way (T-2).

Graduates receive a certificate when the production process is complete, to demonstrate to the industry-as-customer that they are of required quality:

we require a measure of the student’s learning that has taken place, and then that becomes a way of reporting to future employers, or a student that they have received a certain level. [...] Somehow the other party has to know what they’ve got or not got in a general sense (ID-5).

A program is a guided adventure A program as a guided adventure is the student’s journey towards personal growth:

[...] whatever qualifications the students may achieve at the end of this course I don’t even care. What I do care about is their growth personally (T-3).

The student directs her/his own journey, during which s/he may encounter unforeseen or unpleasant situations. The teacher is a guide who provides advice and support:

Literally I let them explore. [...] They can get stuck in it, and I have had many students lost [...] We do try and keep an eye on them [...] but sometimes they cannot stop. I monitor it in class, and ask how the project is getting on, but a lot of them are secretive too (T-5)

Teaching requires trust and is highly adjusted to who the students are:

305



[...] you have to be aware of who [the students] are, their backgrounds, what’s their hopes and dreams and all that sort of thing so I spend a lot of time just talking to them, getting to know them, gaining trust (T-4).

Only students themselves are able to judge their progress:

I don’t think it is important that we assess learners. It is us making judgment on them. I think learners are the best judges of themselves (ID-6).

A program is a guided tour A program as a guided tour is also a journey, but closely supervised and carefully planned, leading to a destination that is chosen by the institution-as-tour-organiser. The institution’s prime interest is that the student, as tour participant and customer, has a good experience:

Our responsibility is to try and do our bit for the customers. I believe that if they have a great experience that will lead to more customers (ID-7).

It is also important for the institution that students are able to reach the destination. For this reason attainable steps, in the form of a series of courses, have been developed to mark the route for students to follow.

I use the study guides for the courses as a map how to get to your destination. [...] That’s probably the biggest thing: here’s where you’ve got to get to; and that’s where that flexibility thing comes in: however you get there is up to you (T-6).

Learning is equivalent to doing activities during the tour. Participating in activities is the student’s choice, but if they don’t participate, they may not be able to reach the destination. Therefore, activities are designed to entice the student to engage:

The program should be structured in a way that enables the students to have a number of different kinds of activities and different ways of learning, to cater for the different styles. That can be the choice of electives, or other kinds of assessment tools, or use of different technology tools engaging the students in the most effective ways (ID-8).

The teacher is the tour guide who encourages the students and assists with the activities by providing support, organising resources, and keeping an eye on their progress:

My job is not to stop people from learning, my job is to encourage them, and if students want to race ahead they can, because I give them all the materials that I have available. [...] It stops them being bored [...] and the slow ones stay with me (T-7).

When students have completed the tour, the tour organiser acknowledges the occasion by rewarding them with a qualification:

The qualification is important [...] to [the students] because a lot of them like to know they’ve got a piece of paper saying they can do something, that’s almost a pride thing, that they’ve done it, they’ve finished (P-5).

306


A program is a mission A fifth metaphor was identified from the data, but with little evidence. A program as a mission intends to teach what the institution or the teachers find important for the development of society, irrespective of the particular needs of students or the industry. The following are examples of evidence for this metaphor:

The most important stuff for myself is sharing with these students the beauty of this [Māori] culture. [...] it is bringing the two people together. Even in this modern day and age we’re still, as far as cultures go, relative strangers; understanding how people think, why things are done, it’s small things (T-8).

The core [of the program] should be things like walking the talk, it’s about sustainability in terms of environmental practice. Perhaps it’s about [...] [the institution] having a primary focus on its strengths in the region [...] (M-5).

Comparison between groups of decision-makers Table 1 shows the number of text pieces that were found per decision-maker group and per metaphor. The aim of this table is to enable identification of patterns across the decision-maker groups. The table confirms that people draw on a limited number of repertoires, despite their constructs being person, as well as situation, dependent (Potter and Wetherell, 1990; Reis and Roth, 2007). Table 1: References to each metaphor per group of decision-makers; n = number of decision-

makers per group; m = total number of identified references per group

Percentage of references to each metaphor per decision-maker group

Metaphor ID (n=8;

m=209)

Statute/ QMS

(m=68)

Prog. A (n=8;

m=223)

Prog. B (n=5;

m=108)

Prog. C (n=3; m=59)

Prog. D (n=4; m=87)

Prog. E (n=4; m=69)

Overall (n=33; m=823)

Consumable Product

27% 25% 29% 13% 2% 8% 16% 21%

Production Process

34% 43% 55% 46% 2% 48% 45% 42%

Guided Adventure

8% 6% 41% 2% 3% 6%

Guided Tour

32% 26% 16% 39% 44% 40% 36% 30%

Mission 2% 12% 1% 1%

As explained in the methodology section, the initial findings were developed from the interviews with institutional and program A decision-makers and from the QMS analysis. This resulted in four metaphors being identified, with the “production process”, “guided tour” and “consumable product” metaphors being dominant, as Table 1 shows. Only a few references related to the “guided adventure”. The analysis of the interviews with Program B–E decision-makers confirmed this pattern, except for program C. The program C interviews revealed a completely new metaphor, which was only sporadically referred to by some other decision-makers. This may be related to Program C having been developed and being taught from a different cultural context compared to the other programs. Additionally, Program C

307



was not bound by requirements set in other programs or by external agencies like the other four programs to some extent. Understanding the metaphors The metaphors show how programs are conceptualised in different ways through the language that educators use. They also show how program design is intimately connected with views on teaching and learning. The research literature about ideological discourses in education referred to earlier has helped develop an understanding of: (1) how the metaphors reflect beliefs about education that underpin program design practice; and, (2) why only these five metaphors were identified, and not others. Both the “consumable product” and the “production process” metaphors express neo-liberalist discourses. Within these discourses, the “worth of an education is judged by consumers, that is, parents and industry, in terms of the marketability of the knowledge” (Olssen, et al., 2004, p. 181), where, for tertiary education, it makes sense to read “student” instead of “parent”. The inherent tension in these discourses, of trying to satisfy the wants of students and industry simultaneously, surfaced as two distinct metaphors in this study. While the “consumable product” metaphor lets students-as-customers judge the marketability of knowledge, the “production process” metaphor seems to be an expression of human capital theory. This theory argues that investment in education increases people’s knowledge and skills, thus increasing the productivity of the workforce and the competitive advantage of the nation (Olssen, et al., 2004). This explains the strong influence of industry on the “production process” metaphor. This metaphor is further influenced by behaviourist discourses in education (Schiro, 2008), with its focus on moulding behaviour and structured teaching, as the data showed. The ‘guided adventure” metaphor mirrors adult learning theories related to self-direction and transformation (for example Candy, 1992; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Many of these theories originate from humanist discourses within education, fostering personal growth and self-actualisation (Elias & Merriam, 1995). The fundamental differences between these ideological discourses surface as three different metaphors. This may explain the emergence of a “guided tour” metaphor as a bridge between the dominant political discourses in New Zealand and the humanism-oriented beliefs and values of many adult educators. The following examples illustrate how this bridge reveals itself in compromises between the “consumable product”, the “production process” and the “guided adventure” metaphors. See Figure 1. To whom does the institution feel responsible? Within the “consumable product” metaphor the institution expresses responsibility to the student-as-customer, allowing students to choose what they want to learn. In contrast, the “production process” metaphor is characterised by an institutional responsibility to the industry-as-customer, relying on the industry to advise what students should learn. The “guided tour” compromises the two. On the one hand, it expresses responsibility to the student-as-customer by letting students choose which tour to participate in. On the other, it leaves space for the industry-as-customer to influence the tour and its destination.

308


What is learning? In the “guided tour” metaphor, learning is active. It is doing activities that are pre-defined by the institution. This is a middle way between the “consumable product”, where learning is receiving and passive, and the “guided adventure”, where learning means doing, but students have to create their own activities. During a “guided adventure” students are only guided when they ask for it. Conversely, during a “production process” students only respond when the teacher asks for it. Again, the “guided tour” sits in between, with the teacher only guiding students when they need it, but monitoring them to avoid them running off-track. How is flexibility implemented? Within the “consumable product” metaphor flexibility means free choice: between the courses on offer and how these are delivered. The “guided adventure” understands flexibility as students taking full control over their journey. Due to the industry requirements the “production process” does not allow flexibility for students. The “guided tour” has characteristics of all three: students can choose activities, must take responsibility for doing them, but are restrained by a prescribed destination. What is the meaning of a qualification? The “production process” metaphor describes a qualification as a quality indicator for graduates and an accountability instrument towards the industry. Quite differently, a qualification in the “consumable product” metaphor is a reward for loyal customers who have purchased a certain number of courses. In between, the “guided tour” metaphor also explains a qualification as a reward, but for reaching some predetermined standard, that is, the tour destination. In a “guided adventure”, only students know their destination, and other people will be unable to tell whether they have reached it. This makes the notion of a qualification redundant. The total percentage of references to the four metaphors in Table 1 seems to indicate that the bond between them leaves hardly any space for alternative discourses. The very limited evidence to only one other metaphor – the mission – demonstrates this. The mission seems to stem from social activist and radical discourses, which aim at changing society (Elias & Merriam, 1995; Schiro, 2008). Nothing in the data indicated how it was connected to the other metaphors, hence its separation from the others in Figure 1. In fact, both human capital theory and humanism might dispute any need for a Mission metaphor. According to human capital theory, higher productivity will lead to higher earnings for the individual, which in its turn will impact positively on society (Olssen, et al., 2004). Alternatively, humanists might argue that if all people in society have the freedom and opportunities to fully develop themselves, society will change for the better (Elias & Merriam, 1995). However, the essential difference between the mission and the other four metaphors is that it develops awareness of valuable knowledge for the common good, which may never be taught if decision-makers continue to be concerned only with what the student or the industry wants.

309



Figure 1: Relationships between the five metaphors for a program Implications The “guided tour” as a bridge between “consumable product”, “production process” and “guided adventure” forms a stronghold that seems to keep policy-makers and educators at peace. It allows policy-makers to continue to enforce neo-liberalist and behaviourist discourses onto program design practice, while leaving some space for educators to implement humanist views on adult education. The high percentages of references to the “guided tour” in Table 1 suggest that this space is only allowed if it is compromised with the market ideology in education, treating the student and/or the industry as customer. The limited references to the “guided adventure” indicate that humanist discourses outside this compromise are marginalised. Another consequence of the stronghold is that ideological discourses which do not include responsibility to individual students or to the industry are at risk of being excluded from influencing program design practice. The very few references to the mission metaphor signal this risk. The potential implications for educators and education are serious. Any educator in the institution, irrespective of their role, will be drawn into those dominant metaphors. The documents they have to work with, the language spoken during meetings, conversations with

310


colleagues, they will all continuously reinforce the idea of the student and/or the industry as customer. A serious risk is that this will be the only educational language they learn. It will define their program design practices, and any improvement they make runs the risk of not being more than fine-tuning within the limited language resources they have available. How will they be able to teach students critical thinking, or dealing with unknown situations and an unknown future, if the customers have not asked for this and the educators are unable to speak the language required? How can educators integrate intentions related to, for example, sustainability, internationalisation, digital literacy, or biculturalism into programs, if the customers have not asked for these and the necessary language is foreign to educators? Limitations While the metaphors probably make sense to many educators in terms of their own practice, they may not emerge in the same way in other contexts. The differences between program C and the other decision-maker groups in this study suggested that the cultural context influenced which metaphors emerged from the data. In addition, other countries will have different political contexts, and other educational institutions’ roles will differ from those of polytechnics. For instance, a university context may reveal metaphors indicating responsibility to a particular discipline. Further research would be required to confirm this. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Professor Mark Neal, Lani Morris, Dr Cynthia Prince and Gerard van de Ven for their valuable comments and discussions on drafts of this paper. References Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, H. (2004). A long run appraisal of the economics of government provided tertiary

education and training in New Zealand. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.crie.org.nz/ Baker, C. D., & Johnson, G. (1998). Interview talk as professional practice. Language and Education, 12(4),

229–242. Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualising curriculum change. Teaching in Higher Education,

6(4), 435–449. Bloome, D., & Clark, C. (2006). Discourse-in-use. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook

of complementary methods in education research (pp. 227–241). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Boone, E. J., Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual programming model (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Bradshaw, D. (1995). Criteria for ‘good practice’ in adult education curriculum. National Bulletin of Good Practice in Adult and Community Education, no. 3.

Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Candy, P. (1992). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism. New York: Teachers College Press. Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. (1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger

Publishing Company. Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing: The range of techniques. Maidenhead, Berksire: Open University

Press. Harris, S. (2007). The governance of education: How neo-liberalism is transforming policy and practice.

London: Continuum. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2008). Interpretive practice and social action. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 173–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maassen, S., & Weingart, P. (2000). Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. London: Routledge.

311



Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neill, A. M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship & democracy. London: Sage Publications.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1990). Discourse: Noun, verb or social practice. Philosophical Psychology, 3(2/3), 205218.

Reis, G., & Roth, W. M. (2007). Environmental education in action: A discursive approach to curriculum design. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 307327.

Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Slaughter, S. (1997). Class, race and gender and the construction of postsecondary curricula in the United States:

social movement, professionalization and political economic theories of curricular change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 130.

Sork, T. J., & Newman, M. (2004). Program development in adult education and training. In G. Foley (Ed.), Dimensions of adult learning (pp. 96118). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Tuxworth, E. (1989). Competence based education and training: background and origins. In J. W. Burke (Ed.), Competency based education and training (pp. 1025). London: Routledge.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster Press. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Copyright © 2010 Elly Govers. The author assigns to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive license to HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime site and mirrors) and within the portable electronic format HERDSA 2010 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

312

Documents

Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping ... · interview (Gillham, 2005). The edited transcripts were approved by participants before they were used for analysis