There has been a global revolution of accountability in higher education policy agendas for more than a decade, placing particular emphasis on performativity, high-stakes outcomes and market competition which ultimately harshly impacts on the curriculum (Hursh, 2008; Cochran-Smith, Piazza & Power, 2013). As termed by Lingard, Martino and Rezai-Rashti (2013, p. 540), a new wave of ‘global panopticism’ is being witnessed at supra level with the rise of accountability infrastructures where educational systems are positioned within the global market space and regulated in terms of policy as numbers in the educational policy field commensurate as a space of measurement. International agencies like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its protrusive comparisons of performance particularly via PISA functions as a regulatory mechanism for nations, inciting countries to benchmark their policies against others, permeating notions of what the curriculum is and how it should be conceptualised (Elstad, 2009; Yates & Young, 2010).

The connections between globalisation and knowledge are closely related to the processes of curriculum development and enactment. Curriculum framing and implementation is highly sensitive to such external pressures where the need for a more skilled, flexible and competitive workforce and the importance of targets, audits and accountability in aiming for improvements are emphasised in terms of quantitative performativity metrics (Humes & Priestley, 2021). Drawing upon Foucauldian perspective, it is contended that neoliberal governmentality at macro site has strengthened the role of accountability in international education policy (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Jankowski & Provezis, 2014; Winter, 2017), transitioning from a disciplinary society to a controlled society living through relentless measurement and assessment (Jankowski & Provezis, 2014) by the introduction of intense ranking and testing regimes (Yates and Young, 2010). 

Despite contestations about its effectiveness in achieving the intended goals in education,  literature criticising accountability deficits has mainly focused on descriptive arguments. (Conway & Murphy, 2013; Ehren & Hatch, 2013; Jankowski & Provezis, 2014; Kavanagh & Fischer-Ari, 2020; Lolich, 2011; O’Neill, 2013; Winter, 2017). This study addresses such concerns by providing conceptual and empirical means to contextualise curriculum policy enactment at various sites (macro, meso, micro and nano) within higher education in Ireland and the comprehensive effects of accountability from a socio-political perspective that will help elucidate the perplexities involved. The overarching research question is: What is the impact of contemporary regimes of accountability on the curriculum policy-practice process at higher education in Ireland?

The overall purpose of the research is to critically evaluate the impact of accountability regimes on the curriculum in the context of higher education in Ireland to gather evidence on the curriculum policy-outcome linkage with potential explanatory values as well as impediments. Within the operational domains of the higher education system involving interactions of policy actors where interpretation and translation of curriculum policy elements take place, the fidelity of curriculum policy is challenged through recontextualisation. The intent is to develop a framework to interpret the influence of the accountability phenomenon in terms of curriculum actors and processes at multi-levels while adding to the knowledge base through the proposal of an enhanced model of the Irish higher education accountability system.

Based on previous conceptualisations of the curriculum, this research presents an alternative definition of curriculum as “the continuous process of deliberation, analysis and communicative practices that occurs within social assemblages tangled in an intricate web of policy discourses and constituting of a complex amalgamation of interconnected domains through which education is developed, enacted and assessed.” To illuminate the complex dynamics of the curriculum enactment process, Actor Network Theory is used.

The research draws on a pragmatic paradigm that holds a worldview which focuses on research outcomes including the actions, situations and consequences of inquiry, aiming for constructive knowledge that is useful for action (Creswell, 2012). An embedded single case study design as identified by Yin (2009) is used in which more than one unit of analysis (multiple sites of curriculum representations) is integrated into the case study design of a higher education institution where various data collection methods are adopted to investigate the case. Both views of external reality and varied perceptions of this reality in the minds of social actors are being investigated (Maarouf, 2019). While the experiences of curriculum actors are being interpreted via semi-structured interviews, external reality is being evaluated through desk-based research of literature and policy document analysis. Data is initially explored through scoping of the literature surrounding discourses of accountability and its impact on the curriculum along with in-depth desk-based research of macro policy documents and contextual analysis of the higher education institution to inform the semi-structured interviews. A reputational snowball sampling strategy (Farquharson, 2005) is used for the recruitment of interview participants which is representative of policy actors from different sites of curriculum representation (macro, meso and micro). Field notes are also recorded alongside the interviews for use in data analysis where both empirical and contextual data is extracted from participants in the form of ‘rich data’. Depending on emerged data from the interviews (currently ongoing), a focus group with students (nano site) or a descriptive analysis of secondary data drawing from previous surveys will be carried out as triangulation to increase the credibility and validity of research findings in mapping the current curriculum landscape under the influence of accountability. A framework will be developed to interpret the influence of accountability on the curriculum in terms of actors and processes at multi-levels. Further, findings will be presented on how accountability regimes are being implemented in curriculum making and enactment, the experiences and perceptions of curriculum actors within the accountability-infused system and how accountability throughout the policy-practice process affect curriculum outcomes. Additionally, a refined model of accountability systems for higher education will be proposed.

The research is on-going and therefore, an overview of accountability structures will be presented from literature and policy analysis along with some tentative interview findings. Accountability regimes are perceived differently by curriculum enactors in a social assemblage at multiple sites of implementation situated within different contexts, influencing their behaviours which becomes evident in practice, constructing new contexts with disparate outcomes. To date, all interview participants have acknowledged the importance of targets, audits and accountability in aiming for improvements and as discussed by Simons (2006), are of the view that all educational institutional processes and actions of citizens are accountable as regulation of the population under neoliberal governmentality as a way to manage risk because educational institutions are situated in a political sphere where external demands for accountability occur within a market-driven environment. However, some also felt that their professionalism was being challenged at the same time by intense administrative procedures in evaluating the validity of curricular knowledge. They felt that they were striving to maintain a desired level of quality in the process of delivery which leaves limited time for any innovations. State funding also appears to be a pivotal theme of the interviews that advances competition and an excessive audit culture in higher education and hence nurtures a paradox of accountability regimes. While on one hand, accountability regimes imply acceptance of responsibility for honest and ethical conduct in the delivery of high quality education by educational institutions with a decreased influence of the state, on the other hand, there is a dependency on the state engagement through funding. The overall findings of this research will be of multinational interest as they are significant for the tensions between envisioned and enacted practices and will offer insights in informing curriculum policy-making and redesigning of accountability systems for education.

Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P. & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: assessing teacher education in the united states. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6-27. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. Ehren, M. C. M., & Hatch, T. (2013). Responses of schools to accountability systems using multiple measures: The case of New York City elementary schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(4), 341–373. Elstad, E. (2009). Schools which are named, shamed and blamed by the media: school accountability in Norway. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 173-189. Farquharson, K. (2005). A different kind of snowball: identifying key policymakers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(4), 345-53. Humes, W. & Priestley, M. (2021). Curriculum making: a conceptual framing. In Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. & Soini, T. (Eds.), Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice within and Across Diverse Contexts, (pp. 1-28). Emerald Publishing Limited. Hursh, D. (2008). High-Stakes Testing and the Decline of Teaching and Learning: The Real Crisis in Education Policy and Politics. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Jankowski, N., & Provezis, S. (2014). Neoliberal ideologies, governmentality and the academy: An examination of accountability through assessment and transparency. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(5), 475–487. Kavanagh, K. M., & Fisher-Ari, T. R. (2020). Curricular and pedagogical oppression: contradictions within the juggernaut accountability trap. Educational Policy, 34(2), 283–311. Lingard, B., Martino, W. & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments, Journal of Educational Policy, 28(5), 539 – 556. Maarouf, H. (2019). Pragmatism as a supportive paradigm for the mixed research approach: Conceptualizing the ontological, epistemological and axiological stances of pragmatism. International Business Research, 12(9). O’Neill, O. (2013). Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 4–16. Simons, M. (2006). ‘Education through research’ at European universities: Notes on the orientation of academic research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(1). Winter, C. (2017). Curriculum policy reform in an era of technical accountability: ‘fixing’ curriculum, teachers and students in English schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 55–74. Yates, L. & Young, M. (2010). Knowledge, globalisation and curriculum. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 4-10. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.