| Summary: | Philosophiae Doctor - PhD === The rationale for the topic flows out of education policy and societal pressures worldwide which are calling for an ever greater responsiveness from higher education to the workplace in the twenty-first century. Responsiveness to Work (i.e. the world of work) requires collaborative and integrative work between communities of academic and non-academic practitioners. Differences between knowledge and
practices at Work and within the academy are broadly acknowledged in the literature, yet the ensuing nature and complexity of interactions between these two communities in curriculum design 'on the ground' is poorly understood. A key point is to recognize that integration as such cannot be the goal: the differences remain, but have to be turned into productive collaboration and joint development, for example, of a curriculum. Productivity here is not used in the sense of the ratio between output achieved and inputs needed, but rather refers to the activity theorists' concept of zones of potential development between two different, interacting activity systems (their way of conceptualizing communities of practice). Productivity is then a measure of the extent to which new hybrid knowledge emerges in the interactive zone with positive outcomes for both systems. Ideally, the integrated curriculum elements look to both Work and academic knowledge. Such productivity involves the acknowledgement of pre-existing boundaries and differences between types of knowledge and the subsequent actions of actors in crossing these boundaries. After sketching the policy backdrop to the issues of responsiveness to Work "on the ground", the first part of the thesis discusses theories of curriculum development, and of boundaries, differences, boundary crossing and maintenance. Inspired by the work of Nooteboom, a model is outlined for optimal difference allowing for innovative and productive curriculum development. The processes and patterns of responsiveness of higher education to the needs of 2 re studied empirically at two interconnected levels: The meso-level of the design of curriculum units; and the micro-level of face-to-face interactions between
representatives from Work and the academy as they negotiate how to implement responsiveness. The curriculum units examined are those in which universities have attempted to design units which include aspects of Work. The face-to-face interactions are those between lecturers and Work representatives as they attempt to negotiate what sort of knowledge should be taught in the academy to meet both Work needs and those of the academics. At the meso-level, different cases (in different countries) were studied which together spanned the spectrum of differences between academic knowledge and workplace knowledge. At the micro-level, the focus was on the actual boundary work, and how it might set productive developments in motion. The processes involved are those of the mutual presentation of knowledge difference
between work and the academy followed by knowledge transformations. These transformations are in tum enabled by the representatives' actions and their mobilisation of structures to enable bridging between the different types of knowledge. Difference between work and academic knowledge matters. Firstly, difference needs to be recognised and identified, not as a stumbling block to further developments, but as a resource. Secondly, an optimal degree of initial difference, rather than no difference at all, is an enabling factor, in concert with actor strategies, in the development of hybrid work/academic curriculum objects. The insights in micro-interactions can be combined with the analysis of meso-level curriculum development to create a model for productive work towards integration of Work and higher education. This model is supported by the literature discussed in the first part of the thesis, and can actually be used more broadly, for example for
productive development and implementation of policy (in this case, for responsiveness to Work).
|
|---|
