Exploring curriculum change using discursive institutionalism – a conceptual framework

Abstract

The article aims to explore to what extent and in what ways discourse institutionalism can contribute to the understanding and analysis of curriculum change in a globalized context. By focusing specifically on curriculum change, this article proposes how discourse institutionalism can contribute to the so-called 'crisis of curriculum theory' by addressing (i) the non-linearity of change, (ii) the process of the translation of ideas and (iii) actor agency. The text is structured in three sections. In the first section, we elaborate on the notion of curriculum change as a vital concept for the field of curriculum theory in a globalized context, focusing on processes of recontextualization and the translation of curriculum content. In the second, we elaborate on discourse institutionalism as a contributing approach to the analysis of such processes of curriculum change, constructing a conceptual framework. In the third and final section, we give some examples of how the conceptual framework can be used in analysing curriculum change, using the 2011 Swedish curriculum reform (Lgr 11) as an empirical reference, and the result shows that the conceptual framework offers a wide repertoire of possible approaches to analysing curriculum change, both vertically and horizontally.

Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform

“…Continuing fragmentation of the field is obvious. From a limited European perspective, North-American post-reconceptualist curriculum research increasingly focusing on identity seems to have lost sight of crucial parts of its empirical object, namely the societal discourse on curriculum as policy and policy initiative as well as the governance and leadership of these processes (see e.g., Fang He, Schulz, & Schubert, 2015;Nordin & Sundberg, 2018). From a NAT point of view, most of these initiatives contain valuable observations but are often limited for one reason or another.…”

“…In order to handle the (a) initiation phase and parts of the (b) implementation-enactment phase, discourse institutionalism as developed by Vivien Schmidt (2008) is fruitful as has been demonstrated by Nordin and Sundberg (2018). Regarding the pedagogical questions involved, that is, as a part of the curriculum reform activity and as the contents of the curriculum we naturally need educational theory to frame this research.…”

“…As seen, there are many ways to approach a multilevel, multicentered and multiprofessional educational governance system. As has been argued elsewhere (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017), NAT considers discursive institutionalism (DI), as developed by Schmidt (2008), as a fruitful complement to understanding how educational policies, ideas, and values (curriculum) relate to administrative processes at different levels beyond schools and municipalities, given the answers provided by a non-hierarchical view on the relation between politics and education as well as the non-affirmative approach to educational interaction (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017, p. 104f;Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018;Nordin & Sundberg, 2018). Following NAT, discursive institutionalism aims at understanding how cognitive ideas (problems identification) and normative ideas (values that legitimize problems) are developed and communicated across societal, philosophical, policy, and program levels.…”

Mixed metaphors, mixed messages and mixed blessings: how figurative imagery opens up the complexities of transforming higher education

“…Metaphors emerged too in the narratives of academic staff when characterising how evaluation within the meso-curricula (Nordin & Sundberg 2018) of higher education institutions relates to social reproduction (Belluigi & Thondhlana 2019). The phrase 'training the dog' was articulated by a participant to describe the assimilationist assessment literacy inherent to accelerated development programmes for black and women staff in an historically white institution in South Africa ).…”

Hybrid forms of education in Norway: a systems theoretical approach to understanding curriculum change

“…There is now a substantial amount of research that discusses the global convergence of accountability-policies and out-put and competency-based models for curriculum control, although variation exists in terms of explaining why such global ideas spread and what happens to them in the encounter with national and local curriculum contexts (Anderson-Levitt, 2008;Hilt et al, 2019;Nordin & Sundberg, 2018;Winter, 2012) Although the spatialized processes of curriculum making in a global, complex world seems to be a rather well-covered research theme, however, the temporal aspects of curriculum making is, except for a few recent studies (Bachmann et al, 2021;Hansen & Puustinen, 2021;Lee, 2021), a rather unexplored field of curriculum research.…”