December 2024 will be remembered for the beginning of mass protests in Serbia and blockades of all public universities and some private faculties by their own students. Students have decided to stop attending classes and exams due to the state of affairs in their country and society, and they are determined to hold the state government institutions accountable and to insist that they act in accordance with state legislation. The Serbian streets are filled with banners carrying various messages, but particularly interesting are those with inscriptions such as ‘Students are now teaching’, ‘This is the most important exam we will all pass’, ‘Students lecture on democracy now’ etc. Therefore, if we stand with messages which represent that social activism is seen as ‘real education’ and ‘the most important exam’, what have we been doing in classrooms all this time?

The concepts of ‘Open pedagogy’, ‘Education for social justice’ and ‘Students as partners practice’ all address opening the curriculum to society and its matters of concern. Schooling should be obligated to actively eliminate the oppression of social groups, as manifested in curriculum, educational policies and practices, school structures, and norms (Young, 1990 cited in Cochran-Smith, 2010). As Healey (2024) argued Students-as-partners practice has the potential to contribute to social justice efforts in higher education by challenging traditional hierarchies and power structures in institutions, focusing on breaking down barriers that prevent equitable opportunities and engagement. A socially just education should support students to take an active role in their education (Hackman, 2005 cited in Healey, 2024) and to systematically analyse societal problems and participate in collective action for change (Hytten and Bettez, 2011 cited in Healey, 2024). Therefore, if students in Serbia are currently taking an action towards achieving social justice goals, we should ask ourselves is it desirable, or even possible, to go back after protests to classrooms and continue the traditional teaching setting - teachers giving lecture, students listening and studying for exams? Werth and Williams (2022) stressed that education is most meaningful to students when traditional power structures are disrupted and voices which are frequently marginalized by the very structure of academia are heard. As Fullan argued, the structural changes must be accompanied by changes in the culture (Datnow et al, 2023). If we take protests as a (future) change in culture of living in Serbia, maybe it is time to make structural changes of education as well. Are Serbian universities ready to dive into a process with uncertain outcomes, rather than a predetermined achievement (Healey, 2024)?

These uncertain times currently omnipresent in Serbia open a space for rethinking and reconceptualizing traditional practices. In that manner, questions which open up, regarding higher education, are: (1) How do university teachers perceive the current Higher education curriculum? and (2) How do university teachers envision Higher education after the student blockades and what is their stance on Open curriculum concept applied to higher education in Serbia? 

The research type best for this study is a qualitative research. To gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena of this research study the Focus group discussion will be applied. Focus group discussion is a technique where a researcher gather a group of individuals to discuss a specific topic, aiming to understand and explore the complex personal experiences, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of the participants through a moderated interaction (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Hayward, Simpson, & Wood, 2004; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Kitzinger, 1994; Morgan, 1996; O.Nyumba et al, 2018). More specifically, the data will be analyzed by applying Thematic analysis. This method enables researcher to identify and analyze themes occurring within data, providing insightful interpretations of various perspectives shared among group participants (Hecker and Kalpokas, 2025). The focus group discussion will be held in online setting due to the fact that the researcher currently lives in a country other than participants in a focus group discussion. With the previously made agreement with participants, the discussion will be recorded by the researcher. Participants of the focus group are university professors from different faculties that are blocked in Serbia. The researcher is interested in opening a space for university professors to discuss and jointly rethink the organization of the university education and its curriculum. Considering that the aim of the research study is to gather perspectives on the topic from professors teaching in different academic fields (humanities, social sciences, medicine, natural sciences, etc), the sampling is judgemental/purposive and the number of participants will be between 4 and 7 university professors.

Having in mind the nature of the research questions and the methodology chosen for the research study, it is difficult to predict any exact result, or to make any conclusions in advance. What is expected is gathering different ideas, experiences and suggestions on higher education curriculum by university professors teaching in different academic fields. This research study can be seen as a foundation for future research in this filed or even as one of the sources used for the creation of education policy documents. Hopefully, results of this research study will open new questions which will be a motivation for university professors to reflect on their own teaching practice, and to try some new methods and ways of organizing and implementing a curriculum.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2010). Toward a Theory of Teacher Education for Social Justice. In: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D. (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_27 Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 14, 1667–1676. Datnow, A., Yoshisato, M., Macdonald, B., Trejos, J., & Kennedy, B. C. (2023). Bridging Educational Change and Social Justice: A Call to the Field. Educational Researcher, 52(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221138837 Hayward, C., Simpson, L., & Wood, L. (2004). Still left out in the cold: Problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis, 44, 95–108. Healey, Ruth L. (2024). Bringing a Social Justice Lens to Matthews’ Five Propositions for Genuine Students-as-Partners Practice: A Narrative Review. Social Sciences 13: 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13110577 Hecker, J. and Kalpokas, N. (2025). Thematic Analysis for Focus Groups. https://atlasti.com/guides/thematic-analysis/thematic-analysis-focus-groups Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of Focus Groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152. O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., Mukherjee, N., & Geneletti, D. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2022). The why of open pedagogy: a value-first conceptualization for enhancing instructor praxis. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00191-0