In the inaugural issue of Studies in Higher Education, Michael Thompson (1976) articulates two contrasting ideologies underpinning curriculum design. The dominant collection curriculum is associated with Homo Hierarchicus, characterised by hierarchical relationships and strong disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the integrated curriculum aligns with Homo Aequalis, emphasising more egalitarian teacher–student relations and blurred disciplinary divisions. Nearly fifty years later questions of power, equity and the organisation of disciplinary knowledge within curricula remain pressing. What has changed, however, is the societal and global context in which these questions are posed. Massification, international harmonisation, and policy-driven funding regimes have reshaped higher education values and priorities (Alves and Tomlinson 2021; Brøgger 2019). These shifts are manifested in curriculum reforms, which reveal what is deemed valuable and worth preserving, and what is targeted for change, also reflecting changing conceptions of the educational purpose of higher education (Ashwin, 2022; Kandiko and Blackmore 2012; McArthur 2011). The curriculum is inherently value-laden and shaped by educational and political epistemological choices and power relations (Barnett 2009; Barnett and Coate 2005; Bernstein 1996). How the curriculum is researched offers insights into how higher education is influenced, transformed or made resistant to change by educational and political actors. This paper analyses curriculum-related research published in Studies in Higher Education over five decades, from 1976 to 2025. A longitudinal thematic review is conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of curriculum topics and trends across different decades, paying particular attention to how they reflect the educational task of higher education, past debates and future directions. The main research question is: What does research on the curriculum tell us about higher education? The thematic review includes 62 articles approached through linguistic ethnography, exploring what we can learn from scholars’ interpretations of the curriculum in what they write about higher education. The results highlight the breadth of research on the curriculum. The employability, skills, and work readiness agenda has received more attention over the years, but the critique of narrow and technical approaches to the purpose of higher education has also increased. Most articles appear to have local and limited knowledge of theoretical curriculum approaches, and students’ perspectives are often ignored. Broader societal aims, including an inclusive and sustainable society, students’ growth through the curriculum, a decolonising perspective and uniting multiple purposes like employability and sustainability, emerge as new openings in curriculum research.

Alves, M. G., and M. Tomlinson. 2021. “The Changing Value of Higher Education in England and Portugal: Massification, Marketization and Public Good.” Higher Education Policy 34 (2): 171–191. DOI: 10.1177/1474904120967574 Ashwin, P. 2022. “The Educational Purposes of Higher Education: Changing Discussions of the Societal Outcomes of Educating Students.” Higher Education 84: 1227–1244. Barnett, R. 2009. “Knowing and Becoming in the Higher Education Curriculum.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (4): 429–440. DOI: 10.1080/03075070902771978 Barnett, R., & K. Coate. 2005. Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Education. Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Brøgger, K. 2019. “How Education Standards Gain Hegemonic Power and Become International: The Case of Higher Education and the Bologna Process.” European Educational Research Journal 18 (2): 158-180. DOI:10.1177/1474904118790303 McArthur, J. 2011. Reconsidering the Social and Economic Purposes of Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development 30 (6): 737–749. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.539596