About 10-15 years ago, broadening access to higher education resulted in debates on what forms of knowledge should be provided in curricula for the diverse student population, especially in Australia and South Africa (e.g., Shay 2014; Wheelahan 2012; Winberg 2006). Diversifying higher education institutions (HEI), some with more research intensive and some more interdisciplinary and professionally oriented, brought along diverse qualities required from the faculty members (Guri-Rosenblit et al 2007). In the context of harmonised degrees in Europe, the question of diversity of the students, teachers, institutions, and degrees, and their relation to curriculum knowledge has not received much attention; instead, the learning outcomes and competencies have become key concepts in curriculum discussions (Petkute 2016). This study contributes the knowledge blindness (Maton 2014) in Europe, by focusing on the knowers. Here knowers refer to students and teachers; how they and their qualities are used as grounds or excuses in curriculum decisions on knowledge.

The interview study takes the perspective of teachers (N=26) who were involved in curriculum reforms in soft and hard sciences, with an aim to create shared curricula between two HEIs of different type; research-intensive and professionally oriented. The research questions are: 1) How the diversity of the knowers and their qualities are depicted in discussions on curriculum? 2) How do these qualities, assumed or real, emerge in decisions on curriculum knowledge?

This study builds on Karl Maton’s (2014; 2010) conceptualisations of knower structures in curriculum. Maton (2014, 66) states that paying attention to knower structures enables to avoid false dichotomies and to achieve greater understanding of how educational practices specialize identity, consciousness, and relations.  Maton (2014) depicted an ‘ideal knower’ in traditional humanities and sciences, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, as a person from higher social class, cultivated ‘English gentleman’, who pursue studies ‘for the love of it’. This is very similar to what Newman (1996) already in 1899 depicted as the excellences of a gentleman, “a habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, of which the attributes are, freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom” which is “the special fruit of the education furnished at a University, as contrasted with other places of teaching or modes of teaching.” (p. 77).

Entering the field of humanities in 1950’s and 1960’s was highly selective and hierarchical, whereas entering the field of science was not (Maton, 2014).  An ideal scientist had no relation to the social background but more relevant was the ability of actors coming from different trajectories and experiences, forming segmented knowers with specialized modes of thinking, and acting. In 1960s, the reproduction of elite was challenged even more with the democratization and massification of university education, with different kind of knowers (Burman & Landal, 2020).

Today, the formal qualities required from the students follow the qualification frameworks (e.g. EQF 2018); it is all about the agreed levels of knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy, which all the students should reach as learning outcomes, in all the disciplinary fields, in all types of HEIs in Europe. Still, diverse qualities are required from teachers in higher education. Higher education has growing number of regions, ie. interdisciplinary and professionally oriented degree programmes, instead of traditional subjects or disciplines (singulars). The ’habit of mind’ does not emerge in official discussions. When teachers from HEIs of different type create a shared curriculum, the implicit qualities of an ideal knower of today may become explicit.  The analysis will focus on the discourses on the qualities of knowers in soft and hard sciences, and how they come visible in curriculum negotiations.

Interview data was collected from two cases, one representing the humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS) and the other representing the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which both have education in research universities and vocationally oriented universities of applied sciences (UAS) in Finland. These cases were involved in making a partially shared curriculum (80-120 cr out of 180-240 cr), one for STEM and other for HASS, across institutional boundaries. HEIs have different tasks regulated by legislation and are expected to provide different qualities in their education, resulting in different starting point in their curriculum knowledge practices. Also, faculty members are recruited based on distinct qualities, either emphasising research or professional qualities. Interviews were implemented in four HEIs after the curriculum reforms. Narrative interviews (see Squire, 2013) were conducted with 14 teachers from STEM and 12 teachers from HASS. Half of the informants represent universities and half represent universities of applied sciences. The interviews followed a narrative of curriculum making from the start to the implementation phase. The aim was to listen to individual and collective stories of curriculum making. The recorded and transcribed interviews resulted in 287 pages (Times New Roman, font size 12, line space 1). By now, two separate analysis based on this data, have been published (anonym A; anonym b). The first study explored curriculum knowledge from the perspective of institutional boundaries; the second study focused on disciplinary knowledge practices in curriculum making. During the analysis, I paid attention how the informants talked about the different qualities of people; students and faculty. This notion pushed towards this third study with focus on knowers. For the present study, the analysis is in process, but the results will be available by the ECER conference in Glasgow. The data has been coded using the Atlas.ti software, searching for all types of empirical referents on knowers. The discourses will be analysed following the questions: how the students and faculty members are portrayed as knowers and how this is related to giving grounds – or excuses – for curriculum knowledge. The data will be explored further with theoretical and conceptual approach (cf. Maton 2014; Bernstein 2000).

The preliminary notions show that in regions, ie. professionally and interdisciplinary oriented degree programmes, the humanistic and scientific cultures portray knower structures in a new light compared with traditional academic cultures. In these cases, humanistic curriculum culture provides access to different forms of knowledge for knowers of different kind (horizontal knower structures) and access to various forms of knowledge is left for students to decide. In scientific curriculum culture, the institution decides the nature of the knowledge offered only for their own students (hierarchical knower structures). The strength of the boundaries seems to be connected not only to the qualities expected of the students, but also the qualities and different emphasis on teacher’s expertise in different HEIs. Implicit rules and disciplinary and institutional traditions guide the decisions at a local curriculum level. It seems to be that epistemic relations (knowledge) and social relations (knowers) are strongly intertwined. This study is situated in Finland, but the results are of global relevance. The knowledge interests and practices of HEIs of different type, with different types of ideal knowers. This work approaches the European harmonization initiative from the perspective of diversity.

Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised edition. Orig. published in 1996. Lanham, US: Rowman & Littlefield. Burman, A. & Landahl, J. (eds.) (2020). 1968 och pedagogiken. [1968 and pedagogy]. Södertörn Studies in intellectual and cultural history. Huddinge: Södertörn University. EQF. (2018). The European Qualifications Framework: supporting learning, work and cross-border mobility. European Union. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&furtherPubs=yes&pubId=8071&langId=en& Guri-Rosenblit, S., Šebková, H. & Teichler, U. (2007) Massification and Diversity of Higher Education Systems: Interplay of Complex Dimensions. High Educ Policy 20, 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300158 Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers. Towards a Realist Sociology of Education. London: Routledge. Maton, K. 2010. “Segmentalism. The Problem of Building Knowledge and Creating Knowers.” In Knowledge, Pedagogy and Society. International Perspectives on Basil Bernstein’s Sociology of Education, edited by D. Frandji, and P. Vitale, 126–139. London: Routledge. Newman, H. (1996). The Idea of a University. Originally published in 1899. Ed. F.M. Turner. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shay, S. (2014). Curriculum in Higher Education: Beyond False Choices. In: Gibbs, P., Barnett, R. (eds) Thinking about Higher Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03254-2_10 Squire, C. 2013. From Experience-Centred to Socio-Culturally-Oriented Approaches to Narrative. In Doing narrative research, edited by M. Andrews, C. Squire, and M. Tamboukou, 47–70. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781526402271.n3 Wheelahan, L. (2012) ‘Accessing knowledge in the university of the future: Lessons from Australia’ in Barnett, Ron (ed.) The Future University Ideas and Possibilities. London: Routledge. Winberg, C. (2006) Undisciplining Knowledge Production: Development Driven Higher Education in South Africa. High Educ 51, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6378-5