University of the West of ScotlandScotland's new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) has been widely acknowledged as the most significant educational development in a generation, with the potential to transform learning and teaching in Scottish schools. In common with recent developments elsewhere, CfE seeks to re-engage teachers with processes of curriculum development, to place learning at the heart of the curriculum and to change engrained practices of schooling. This article draws upon well-established curriculum theory (notably the work of both Lawrence Stenhouse and A.V. Kelly) to analyse the new curriculum. We argue that by neglecting to take account of such theory, the curricular offering proposed by CfE is subject to a number of significant structural contradictions which may affect the impact that it ultimately exerts on learning and teaching; in effect, by ignoring the lessons of the past, CfE runs the risk of undermining the potential for real change. (Scottish Government, 2008a, p. 8). It signals a serious attempt to provide a coordinated approach to curriculum reform for the full age range 3-18, building on earlier reforms targeted at more restricted stages (Standard Grade,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) Higher Still) and taking account of anticipated future needs deriving from economic, technological and social changes. Notes on contributors MarkThe new curriculum is claimed to be distinctive in that it explicitly moves away from central prescription of curriculum, towards a model that relies upon professional capacity to adapt curriculum guidance to meet the needs of local school communities, drawing upon the arguably successful experience of prior initiatives such as Assessment is for Learning (AifL; see, for example, Hallam et al., 2004;Hutchinson & Hayward, 2005). Thus, CfE represents a major national curriculum innovation that has the potential to change the landscape of schooling in Scotland.The enactment of such a major policy innovation inevitably raises a series of questions relating to its translation from policy ideal to social practice. These 3 include issues of both methodology (i.e. the mechanisms through which teachers are engaged with the policy) and coherence (i.e. issues of workability that relate to the internal structure of the curriculum). This paper focuses on the latter issue, as we seek to analyse the underlying philosophy of the new curriculum. This analysis is framed against well-established curriculum theory; there is a rich vein of literature in the field of curriculum development, with roots in the early part of the 20 th century (for example, Dewey, 1938;Taba, 1962;Stenhouse, 1975;Kelly, 1986Kelly, , 1999. It is our belief that recent curriculum developments in Scotland have largely ignored this literature and the theoretical insights that it provides, and that the resultant curriculum is problematic as a result. Indeed much of our analysis draws upon literature from the 1970s and 1980s, perhaps reflecting the manner in which this particular branch of curriculum t...

The paper reports the findings of a small‐scale qualitative investigation into academic staff perceptions of research cultures across 10 English and Scottish university education departments. The study sheds light on four interrelated issues: the nature of research cultures, perceived facilitators, perceived constraints and the emotional landscape of working within a research environment. The findings indicate that perceptions vary according to staff academic and scientific capital, largely determined by career background and the type of university institution in which they work. While there is evidence of a culture of performativity and intensification, there is also evidence of widespread commitment to (and enjoyment of) educational research, especially where its value is broadly conceived to include outputs of applied research (including action research) as well as basic and strategic research. It is concluded that a broader policy conception of what constitutes value in research, coupled with a deeper understanding of the complex social and emotional factors that impact on academic well‐being, will be important to building both commitment and long‐term research capacity.

The starting point for this paper is the ongoing debate about the relation between research and policy in education. Recent developments in England and Scotland are reviewed in the context of political and academic arguments about the nature and function of research activity. The defensiveness of the research community in the face of professional and political attacks is examined critically. A case study of the Higher Still programme is used to illustrate the complexity of the relationships between evidence, ideology, values and professional practice. It is argued that the research community needs to become more politically sophisticated and to advance a clearer vision of its social function in advanced democratic societies if its potential contribution to educational development is to be realised. The dangers of a retreat to a narrow empirical role are highlighted.

No abstract

This paper critically examines some of the challenges to policy research in education posed by post-modernist and post-structuralist thinking. It starts by characterizing those modernist and structuralist assumptions which have been subject to attack, but suggests that they are still very much in the ascendancy in the official discourse of educational research (as expressed, for example, by the National Educational Research Forum). Thereafter, key features of the assault represented by the work of Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard are outlined and an account of their destabilizing effect on intellectual work, for individuals and institutions, is offered. Several possible responses are considered. It is argued that policy research poses particular problems because, notwithstanding the messiness of the policy process, there must always come a point of closure on options: decisions cannot be delayed until the epistemological status of educational research is resolved. Researchers must find ways of negotiating the shifting configurations in the relationship between research, policy and practice. This will require both theoretical sophistication and robust engagement with issues that matter to practitioners