Curriculum Governance in the Professions: A Comparative and Sociological Analysis of Engineering Accreditation

Abstract

Professional education operates in a tension between its two key institutional homes – universities and professional bodies. Curriculum governance – the structures and processes for making decisions about the curriculum – is embedded in higher education but influenced by professional accreditation. This multiple paper thesis explores the implications of a worldwide shift in engineering towards outcomes-based accreditation. The study is framed by a comparative case study methodology, and empirical data is drawn from 78 interviews across the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, and South Africa. All four countries are signatory to the Washington Accord, a mutual recognition agreement that has been influential in helping to spread outcomes-based accreditation.This study is theoretically grounded in Bernstein’s pedagogic device, from the sociology of education, and regime theory, from international relations. At a global level, the key findings are that the Washington Accord has evolved into an explicit regime that shapes the behaviour of its 20+ signatories, as well as countries thinking about applying. From a power perspective, the regime disproportionately benefits its founding members, while newer signatories are scrutinized before being admitted. From a cognitivist perspective, the regime is under threat from a subtle shift in its purpose, from mobility to quality assurance. Drawing on the pedagogic device, the thesis finds meaningful differences across countries in the structure of the ‘recontextualizing field’ – comprised of the official field which sets accreditation policy, and the pedagogic field which interprets and implements the policy. Four archetypes, based on the four countries, are shown to explain some of the differences in uptake of outcomes-based accreditation. Within the ‘field of reproduction’, curriculum governance structures are shown to differ according to the type of university. Research-intensive universities are less invested in accreditation, more decentralized, and centrally control the curriculum less. Teaching-intensive universities depend on accreditation for legitimacy and invest more in a centralized approach to curriculum governance. Overall, this study highlights the importance of power differences between old and new signatories, between research-intensive and teaching-intensive universities, and between central faculties and their departments. These tensions represent an important area of research within professional education at large.