Based on case study research in the Irish Technological University sector, Moran (2023) identified two factors within the control of a Higher Education Institute that contribute to student persistence. They are the provision of an enabling learning environment and appropriate programme design.The student should be at the centre of programme design decisions, which ultimately influence the student experience in the classroom (Tinto, 1975, 1993, 2012, 2017,2018). This paper seeks to investigate the manner in which appropriate programme design and an enabling learning environment are achieved in practice, by exploring the perceptions and experiences of lecturers and academic support staff in achieving these objectives.

Academic lecturing staff represent a significant collective body of knowledge, both formal (or explicit) and tacit, which is a key resource in programme design decisions. Among other factors such as HEI history and development, lecturer social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1988; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) influences and informs the type of programmes that are created and provided in Higher Education. Marginson (2008, p. 303) describes HE as a ‘relational environment that is simultaneously global, national and local. Programmes are therefore required to align with HEI Institute policy, the European Standards and Guidellines (ESG), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a myriad of national HE policies and objectives. This means that the creation of a curriculum that is student-centred, while meeting national and international HE objectives, can be challenging. 

The provision of centralised Teaching and Learning Centres in HEIs supports the the process of programme design, as well as informing academic staff about best practice, and embedding the broader requirements that programmes should meet. 

This research studies the interface between academic lecturing staff and Teaching and Learning staff who create and disseminate teaching, learning and assessment resources in line with international, national and Institute policies. It investigates the extent to which academic lecturing staff use the programme design supports and resources that are provided by their HEI, seeking to gain an insight into the factors that enable or inhibit their use. 

The research questions are:

How do academic staff use their cultural and social capital in the programme design process, and by extension, the provision of an enabling learning environment?

To what extent are the formal resources of the HEI (Policy, Data, Teaching and Learning Centre, programme development software) used to inform programme design and re-design; what are the enablers and barriers to their use?

The paper uses the theoretical perspective of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1984, 1988; Grenfell, 2014; Grenfell and James, 1998) to study the role of lecturer cultural and social capital in the context of HE habitus and field. For Bourdieu, field describes a social space in which interactions and events take place, and the context in which previous knowledge about the field was generated, must be taken into consideration.Habitus describes a way of being and the relationships that exist between agents in a field (Maton, 2005); this interaction produces (and can reproduce) the social world and underpins the culture and practice that develops within the field. Bourdieu’s concept of field (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) provides a framework for considering how existing knowledge about the field of HE is used and enhanced in the HEI, and informs programme design and classroom practices.

The research is employing semi-structured individual and small group interviews with academic staff and academic support staff in the TU sector. For the semi-structured interview, a schedule was developed to guide the discussion (Whitaker and Atkinson, 2019) and allow exploration of complex topics and issues. A separate schedule was developed for academic lecturing staff and support staff as they were likely to have different perspectives on programme design. Questions were developed to seek the lecturing research participants views about their experiences of programme design, employing their own cultural and social capital, as well as the resources available in the HEI. The questions for the research participants from the academic support staff were focussed on the development of resources for programme design, and their dissemination and use by programme teams and individual lecturers. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2019) is being employed in the interpretation of interview data from both groups of research participants.

The expected outcomes are an enhanced understanding of the role of formal and tacit knowledge in programme design, and alignment with HE Institute programme design policy. It also and the potential subsequent impact on the student experience. The research is also expected to provide an insight into the interface between programme teams or lecturers and academic support staff in the programme design and re-design process. It is anticipated that it will identify some of the challenges associated with the need for HE programmes to meet multiple objectives, driven by national and international HE policy. Teaching, learning and assessment are the pillars on which programmes are developed, and the resources that are available to support programme design place significant emphasis on these core areas. However, there are also additional requirements to evidence wider programme objectives, which require and perhaps challenge the cultural and social capital of HEI staff, and which require the type of supports that are provided centrally in the HEI environment.

Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. (Collier P. trans.), Oxford, Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. (4). Sage. Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, and Polity, Cambridge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 328- 352. Culver, K. C., Braxton, J., & Pascarella, E. (2019). Does teaching rigorously really enhance undergraduates’ intellectual development? The relationship of academic rigor with critical thinking skills and lifelong learning motivations. Higher Education, 78(4), 611-627. Grenfell, M. J. (Ed.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts. (2nd Ed.) Routledge. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (Eds). (1998). Acts of Practical Theory. Bourdieu and Education. Routledge Falmer. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (2004). Change in the field—changing the field: Bourdieu and the methodological practice of educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 507-523. Moran, M. (2023). Why Are You Here? A Case Study of Persistence in Higher Education. (Thesis) TARA, TCD http://hdl.handle.net/2262/102578 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research. American Educational Research Association 45 (1), 89-125. Tinto, V. (2012). Completing College. Rethinking Institutional Action. The University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on Student Persistence, Student Success, 8 (2) ISSN: 2205-0795 Tinto, V. (2018). A Theory of Student Retention: A Background Paper Prepared for Staying on Track: New Perspectives and Sustainable Solutions to Educational Dropout of Young Adults, A Conference sponsored by Arhus University, Campus Emdrup. November 28, 2019. Vaccari, V., & Gardinier, M.P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents. International journal of development education and global learning, 11 (1), 68- 86. Walsh, S., Flannery, D., & Cullinan, J. (2018). Analysing the preferences of prospective students for higher education institution attributes. Education Economics, 26 (2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1335693