With enhanced student mobility opportunities through the European Credit Transfer & Accumulation System (ECTS), increased internationalisation, and greater diversity and inclusion of non-traditional learners, current student profiles of European Higher Education Institutions hold significant potential to be truly transformative learning environments. The curricular focus of formal programmes of study and informal learning of the hidden curriculum shape these environments within which student engagement and relationship development are critical. This doctoral research examines collegiality perceptions and experiences of third-level graduates and questions how student collegiality as a peer-to-peer engagement process can be supported throughout undergraduate business degree programmes.

Commitment to inclusive practices in higher education are increasingly associated with systemic change, for example with the development of the university for all (Fleming et al., 2023) and critique of learning strategies to engage diverse student groups (Sanger, 2020, Thomas, 2016, Trees, 2013).  A curricular context emerges that prioritises the relational nature of learning and recognises the connectedness between pedagogy and assessment. Social cognitive theory consequently informs the theoretical framework underpinning this research aimed at extending a plurality perspective of higher education that matches the diversity of the student body. Curriculum is thus conceptualised as encounter, largely influenced by the seminal contributions of Maxine Greene’s expansive orientation for curriculum with a call to give voice to those silenced, to expand and deepen shared beliefs (Greene, 1993), to broaden perspectives to seize new meanings (Greene, 1977) and particularly her theorising of curriculum as always emerging “out of an interplay among conceptions of knowledge, conceptions of human beings, and conceptions of social order” (Greene, 1993: 216).

This interplay is as relevant in Europe today, where the contextuality of time and place where encounters occur is one of the complicating factors, as is the individuality, prior knowledge, and interest or disinterest, of those involved. This complexity and the consequent reimagining of curriculum as “lived experience” instead of planned programmes, is the underlying rationale for Pinar’s preference for the verb currere, to reflect the active running of the programme where curriculum is “experienced, enacted and reconstructed” (Pinar, 2011: 1). Curriculum as encounter includes individuals and groups or bodies, essentially all social actors, and extends to interaction between multiple players at the five sites of curriculum making identified by Priestley et al. (2021).  Curriculum making is therefore, integrated and complex, occurring through constant interaction between these multiple sites with their inherent power dynamics, and in context-specific ways to produce unique social practices (Priestley and Philippou, 2018). While recognising the interplay of all five sites, for the purpose of this research the focus on collegiality will primarily be at the nano level (between student peers) embedded within one micro context (one academic department) to highlight the interconnected dynamics and importance of encounter between knowledge, human beings, and social order in curriculum enactment.

Collegiality as a concept holds significant potential to elucidate agentic relationships in curricular encounters in higher education. While collegiality has been studied primarily from a faculty perspective (Burnes et al., 2014, Elton, 2008, Macfarlane, 2016), this research seeks to examine perceptions of student collegiality amongst graduates to ascertain if collegiality can be supported. The work of Fielding (1999) in conceptualising a more inclusive radical collegiality points in this direction as does the work of Brown (2021) distinguishing four typologies of professional, intellectual, social, and emotional collegiality amongst doctoral students. Furthermore, the use of group assessment as the context for examining student collegiality contributes to the necessary problematisation and naivety of the assumption that successful completion of a group project or task can be equated to successfully working collectively as a group (Channon et al., 2017).

This interpretivist research recognises that there is no universal reality in answering this exploratory research question while the underlying constructivist epistemology, where knowledge is jointly and socially constructed between researcher and participants (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016), ensures that the research is participant-led and serves to continuously challenge and question the assumptions of the researcher as an insider (i.e. a lecturer who uses group assessment extensively). A single case study methodology of one academic department within the Technological University of the Shannon (TUS) in Ireland included current students and graduates of three Level 8 undergraduate programmes with yearly variances from 4% to 48% of total ECTS credits examined through group assessment. This paper focuses solely on the graduate participant cohort and their reflections on student collegiality over the duration of their business programme. Data collection included a graduate survey using the CollegialityComp Scale (Koskenranta et al., 2022) developed to measure collegiality amongst social and healthcare educators which was adapted to measure collegiality amongst student peers. This adapted research instrument includes a 36-item, five-point psychometric scale, in addition to eight open-ended questions. Comparative findings from the three programmes’ graduate responses (n=60) including statistical analyses and reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021) of open answers are presented and critically analysed. Furthermore, follow-up phenomenological interviews were conducted with ten recent graduates, as embedded cases, with inclusion criteria based on their responses to the graduate survey. Graduate interviewees’ perceptions and experiences of collegiality in completing group assessments during a four-year programme and their relevance to postgraduate study or career path provided a basis for more detailed theory development. Interpretative phenomenological analysis of graduates’ reflections of the collegial values of respect, reciprocity, and shared responsibility enabled an in-depth exploration of meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of collegiality by graduates.

Collegiality is assumed though not formally addressed, implicitly valued though not explicitly understood in higher education. This research aims to address this gap and explores the concept of collegiality to develop an extended theory that includes students. Theoretically, this research positively contributes to the conceptualisation of student collegiality through curriculum encounter. Practically, this research aims to build a framework of supports for collegiality over four-year undergraduate business programmes. Initial analyses of graduates’ responses show evidence that collegiality resonates with students as much as with faculty with high agreement levels throughout all CollegialityComp scale items. In particular, respondents recognise collegiality as a key differentiator between study in second-level and higher-level education contexts, while collegiality values of respect, reciprocity and shared responsibility are recognised as being significantly important to postgraduate career development. The need to scaffold student collegiality throughout undergraduate programmes is evident as is the potential that a more focused, concerted, and systematic approach holds. While there are significant benefits for the individual and their personal development, the true reward for enhancing student collegiality for higher education institutions may be in its potential to expand inclusivity, to foster diversity, to develop and deepen shared experiences and beliefs. Such an educational philosophy was recognised by Greene (1993: 213) as “never reaching a final conclusion, always incomplete, but richer and more densely woven, even as it moves through time”. While challenging, it seems clear that if collegiality can be supported in such refocused, open, communicative, and deliberative learning institutions, students may have a more enriching university experience and be better equipped to contribute more positively to a multicultural and intersectional world after graduation.

BRAUN, V. & CLARKE, V. 2021. Thematic analysis: a practical guide, SAGE PUBLICATIONS. BURNES, B., WEND, P. & BY, R. T. 2014. The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in higher education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 39, 905-926. CHANNON, S. B., DAVIS, R. C., GOODE, N. T. & MAY, S. A. 2017. What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 22, 17-41. ELTON, L. 2008. Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt's relevance to British universities today. Higher education quarterly, 62, 224-236. FLEMING, B., KELLY, A. M. & PADDEN, L. 2023. Making Inclusive Higher Education a Reality: Creating a University for All, Taylor and Francis. GREENE, M. 1977. The Artistic-Aesthetic and Curriculum. Curriculum inquiry, 6, 283-296. GREENE, M. 1993. Diversity and Inclusion: Toward a Curriculum for Human Beings. Teachers College Record, 95, 211-221. KOSKENRANTA, M., KUIVILA, H., PRAMILA-SAVUKOSKI, S., MÄNNISTÖ, M. & MIKKONEN, K. 2022. Development and testing of an instrument to measure the collegiality competence of social and health care educators. Nurse Education Today, 113, 105388. MACFARLANE, B. 2016. Collegiality and performativity in a competitive academic culture. Higher Education Review, 48. MERRIAM, S. B. & TISDELL, E. J. 2016. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand. PINAR, W. F. 2011. Introduction. In: PINAR, W. F. (ed.) The Character of Curriculum Studies: Bildung, Currere, and the Recurring Question of the Subject. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. PRIESTLEY, M., ALVUNGER, D., PHILIPPOU, S. & SOINI, T. (eds.) 2021. Curriculum making in Europe : policy and practice within and across diverse contexts, Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. PRIESTLEY, M. & PHILIPPOU, S. 2018. Editorial: Curriculum making as social practice: Complex webs of enactment. The Curriculum Journal, 29, 151-158. SANGER, C. S. 2020. Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education: Lessons from Across Asia, Singapore, Springer Nature. THOMAS, L. 2016. Chapter 9 - Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups. In: SHAH, M., BENNETT, A. & SOUTHGATE, E. (eds.) Widening Higher Education Participation. Chandos Publishing. TREES, K. 2013. Effectively teaching diverse student groups : a reflection on teaching and learning strategies. Australian journal of adult learning, 53, 234-252.