In higher education, ‘curriculum’ is a term that is as ambiguous in meaning as it is ubiquitous in use. However, few educational researchers have sought to trouble these differences in conceptions held by those working in higher education institutions, and even fewer have examined these differences among those working most closely with the curriculum: the academic staff responsible for teaching it. Often, when this topic has been examined, research has focused on conceptions of subject-specific curriculum rather than on curriculum as a broader concept. This paper examines the various conceptions held by instructional staff teaching in various fields and programs across four polytechnic institutions in Alberta, Canada. Polytechnic institutions occupy a unique space within the higher education sector in Alberta, Canada, offering a range of programs that include vocational, technical, and baccalaureate credentials. This broad range of programs requires an equally broad range of instructional staff credentials, from applied trades journeyperson certificates to technical diplomas and master’s and doctoral degrees. Phenomenographic analysis of transcripts from 18 interviews with instructional staff yielded a hierarchically structured, inclusive outcome space comprising five qualitatively distinct categories of conception that outline the different ways in which curriculum is conceptualized in this unique higher-education setting. Further qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that while there was no apparent relationship between the academic background or teaching experience of the instructional staff and the degree of complexity of the conceptions of their expressed curriculum statements, there were notable differences in their statements made when describing their teaching experiences than when making prescriptive statements about what curriculum should be. These differences indicate a lack of awareness of the breadth and complexity of curriculum amongst instructional staff, as demonstrated by the simplified and limited prescriptions they express when asked directly about curriculum. Formalized curriculum language, codified through curriculum policies and processes, is presented as a critical influence on instructional staff's conceptualizations of curriculum, acting as a barrier to developing a more complex understanding of curriculum and resulting in negative impacts on student learning and growth through a focus on simplified, prescriptive understandings of curriculum. Professional development directly related to curriculum theory and applied curriculum development is recommended to address this truncated understanding of curriculum.

Annala, J., Lindén, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2016). Curriculum in higher education research. In J. M. Case & J. Huisman (Eds.), Researching Higher Education (pp. 171–189). SHRE Society for Research into Higher Education & Routledge. Beres, J. (2025). Faculty Conceptualizations of ‘Curriculum’ in Canadian Polytechnics. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Lancaster University. Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (2012). Strategic curriculum change: Global trends in universities. Routledge. El-Astal, M. (2023). What is Curriculum? Building a Broader Understanding of the Term. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 12(6), 188–196. Fraser, S.P. & Bosanquet, A.M. (2006). The curriculum? That's just a unit outline, isn't it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284. Krause, K.-L. D. (2022). Vectors of change in higher education curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(1), 38–52. Le Grange, L. (2006). Curriculum: A neglected area in discourses on higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 189–194. Mäkinen, M., & Annala, J. (2010). Meanings behind curriculum development in higher education. Prime, 4(2), 9–24 Tight, M. (2023). The curriculum in higher education research: A review of the research literature. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 315–328.