This paper is a part of the PhD project “Educational leadership and development processes at a study programme level”. The project aims to provide knowledge about study programme leaders' and students’ contributions to development processes in higher education (HE) and consists of three studies. This paper addresses study III in the project: “The student's voice in development processes in higher education: A qualitative study exploring how students experience involvement in development processes in health profession study programmes”.

Introduction

European guidelines for HE emphasises that students are crucial co-actors in shaping HE policy and practice (Borch, 2020; EHEA, 2015). Student involvement occurs at different organisational levels and comes in various forms. This study limits its focus to students’ involvement in development processes at the study programme level. More precisely, we (me as a PhD student and 3 supervisors) explore how students experience being involved in the development of the programme, including the various courses, the teaching and learning activities and ongoing educational development projects. Additionally, we examine how they experience student partnership with study programme leaders in these development processes.

Active participation and collaboration of students with study programme leaders and teaching staff in designing, implementing, and evaluating their education are essential for enhancing educational quality. Examples include developing comprehensive, coherent, and relevant programmes as well as increasing students' learning (Ashwin, 2014; Borch, 2020; EHEA, 2015; Ministry of Education and Research, 2017; Mulford et al., 2004; Stensaker et al., 2018). Previous research emphasises that study programme leaders play a key role in facilitating student involvement in such development processes, but it points out that there is a demand for more knowledge about how students experience being involved in these processes (Cahill et al., 2015; Frisk et al., 2021; Haugen et al., 2023; Stensaker et al., 2018). Additionally, gaining insight into how students experience collaboration with study programme leaders in such processes is required (Stensaker et al., 2018), as it can provide valuable perspectives for enhancing student learning, fostering inclusive environments, and developing high-quality study programmes (Gravett & Winstone, 2022; Lygo-Baker et al., 2019; Trowler, 2010).                                             

 The current paper explores how students participate in developing Norwegian health profession study programmes. Norwegian HE is internationally relevant, as it has undergone quality reforms in recent years as part of the Bologna Process, similar to other European countries (Stensaker et al., 2018). All study programmes in Norwegian HE conform to general European quality assurance principles and credit measurement systems (Elken and Stensaker, 2018; Tellmann et al., 2021; EHEA, 2015). Moreover, student involvement in development processes in health profession study programmes is interesting because these programmes admit varying numbers of students, ranging from 25 to 600, and have close ties to the field of practice and national/international networks (Tellmann et al., 2021). We assume that knowledge from the current study can be transferable to study programmes in general since health profession study programmes adhere to standard European HE guidelines (EHEA, 2015).

Given this introduction, this paper aims to describe and explore how students experience involvement in development processes in health profession study programmes. The following research question is addressed: How do students experience involvement in development processes in their health profession study programmes?

Theoretical perspectivesThis study utilises an inductive analysis approach, where theoretical perspectives will be selected after analysing the data thoroughly. We will then use these perspectives to explore and discuss our findings.

Design: This qualitative study employs a descriptive and exploratory design with a phenomenographic approach (Marton, 2007). We aimed to explore how students experience the phenomenon: students' involvement in development processes. Phenomenography is appropriate since it takes a second-order perspective, focusing on the various ways to understand the phenomenon (Dahlgren & Fallsberg, 1991; Marton, 2007). Participants: Altogether, 26 students were interviewed through five mono-professional group interviews. Variation was ensured through purposeful sampling. One university and one university college from different geographical areas of Norway, offering at least three health profession bachelor's programs (180 ECTS credits), were chosen. The inclusion criteria involved being a final year bachelor student in one of these institutions and having experience in development work during their study period, such as curriculum development or course evaluation. The sample represents variation concerning age (ranging from 21–45 years), gender (22 women and 4 men) and health profession (Bachelor's in Learning Disability Nursing, Nursing, Occupational Therapy and Radiography). Both full-time (three years) and part-time (four years) bachelor's degree programmes are included (providing 180 ECT). Data collection: Face-to-face group interviews were conducted with five student groups (five, four, seven, eight, and two students) from November 2021 to June 2022. Group interviews were chosen to capture various perspectives, allowing participants to share their unique experiences and viewpoints during group discussions. Together, they could reflect on how they understand, interpret and respond to the phenomena of interest (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). The first author had the primary responsibility for conducting the interviews. A senior researcher participated as a mentor. Open-ended questions were performed, such as "How did you experience the development processes in your study programme?" and follow-up questions, like "Can you please tell me more about it?" were employed to gain deeper insights. This way, the dialogue alternated between the student's reflection and the interviewers' questions. Data analysis: will be carried out during the spring of 2023, drawing inspiration from the steps proposed by Dahlgren & Fallsberg (1991) for analysing phenomenography studies: a) Familiarisation, b) Condensation, c) Comparison, d) Grouping, e) Articulating, f) Labelling, and g) Contrasting. Ethical approval: was obtained from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD, 2022: reference number 733507).

At present, we are in the first step of the analysis process: familiarisation (Dahlgren & Fallsberg, 1991). Based on where we are in the process, we have sorted out some preliminary interpretations (expected findings): - Varied descriptions of how student involvement takes place and how it works: from good examples to students experiencing it as useless. - Description of various experiences of student partnership with study programme leaders and the teaching staff in development processes: from lack of relationships to helpful dialogue. - What's in it for me? The students state that involvement in development processes must be meaningful. They describe varying experiences and examples of whether they are perceived as meaningful. - The students give concrete examples of how they think they can contribute to developing processes. - Some students say they avoid giving feedback due to fear of sanctions from the teaching staff. - What do study programme leaders do, and who are they? There are variations in how the students cooperate with the study programme leader. Some students say they do not know what a study programme leader is, and their responsibility and role in partnership with the students are unclear. In contrast, others have a regular dialogue with the study programme leader. - Where and to whom can we turn when communication with teachers breaks down and feedback does not lead to progress? There is different knowledge and experience about the students' options and reporting lines when they perceive not being heard. - Student representatives participating in reference groups to evaluate a course experience are important connectors between fellow students and the leaders in the programme. - Students emphasise the importance of relationships, availability and physical meetings in the dialogue with teachers and leaders in the programme. They have experienced that digital communication between students and teachers can create distance.

Ashwin, P. (2014). Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding in higher education. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 67(2) Borch, I. H. (2020). Lost in translation: from the university's quality assurance system to student evaluation practice. Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, 6(3). Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews : learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed. ed.). Sage. Cahill, J., Bowyer, J., Rendell, C., Hammond, A., & Korek, S. (2015). An exploration of how programme leaders in higher education can be prepared and supported to discharge their roles and responsibilities effectively. Educational Research, 57(3) Dahlgren, L.-O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of social and administrative pharmacy: JSAP, 8(4) Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area (ESG), (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) Frisk, S., Apelgren, B.-M., & Sandoff, M. (2021). Leadership for teaching and learning: Exploring a department-level educational leadership role at a Swedish comprehensive university. Educational management, administration & leadership, Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2022). Making connections: authenticity and alienation within students’ relationships in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2) Haugen, K., Tosterud, R. B., Wangensteen, S., & Honerød Hoveid, M. (2022). An interpretation of study programme leaders' mandates in higher education Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Lygo-Baker, S., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education:Diverse Perspectives and Expectations in Partnership (1st 2019. ed.). Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Palgrave Marton, F. (2007). Phenomenography: A Research Approach to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality. In R. R. Sherman, Rodman, B Webb (Ed.), Qualitative Research In Education. Routledge. (1988) Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). White paper 16. [Quality Culture in Higher Education]. Oslo Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. A. (2004). The Critical Role of Leadership for Organizational Learning and Improved Student Outcomes. In Educational leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes (pp. 1-22). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level – Enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), Stensaker, B., Frølich, N., & Aamodt, P. O. (2018). Policy, Perceptions, and Practice: A Study of Educational Leadership and Their Balancing of Expectations and Interests at Micro-level. Higher Education Policy. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1),