Processes and patterns of responsiveness to the world of work in higher education institutions

Abstract

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.