Higher education worldwide is undergoing significant transformation, driven by massification (Trow, 1970, 1972, 1973; Pabian, 2008) and increasing expectations regarding graduate practical skills. Higher education institutions face the challenge of balancing academic knowledge with professional preparation to produce work-ready graduates (Gardner & Perry, 2023). Across countries, government policies and labor market needs promote transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication. Work-Integrated Learning (WIL), which has become a prominent feature of higher education over the past two decades (Ferns et al., 2025, p. 371), provides a pedagogical framework for integrating professional experience into curricula. In this context, it is essential to examine how different degree program profiles are reflected in curricula and how these choices influence graduates’ professional preparedness.

In several national contexts, including the Czech Republic, these debates have been institutionalized through formal distinctions between academically and professionally oriented degree programs. In the Czech case, this formal profiling (into academic and professional) was introduced by the 2016 amendment to the Higher Education Act. The legislation defines academically oriented programs as emphasizing theoretical knowledge and creative scholarly activity, while professionally oriented programs are expected to prioritize practical skills underpinned by essential theoretical foundations. Therefore, both profiles are defined as combining academic and professional components, differing primarily in their emphasis. This study examines whether the formal differentiation translates into substantively distinct curricula or remains largely symbolic, assessing the extent to which the system is conceptually coherent.

The present research; thus, addresses this issue by analyzing the intended curricula of selected bachelor’s degree programs to examine whether, and to what extent, declared program profiles are reflected in curriculum design. Intended curricula refer to the overt curricula articulated in policy statements as the goals that schools or other educational institutions aim to achieve (Kridel, 2010, p. 489). In this study, degree programs are understood in close relation to the concept of curriculum, which the scholarly literature often treats as a synonymous term (O’Neill, 2015, p. 8); however, the term degree program is used as an overarching label because it denotes a formally named and institutionally defined entity.

The following research questions are addressed:

RQ1: To what extent is the allocation of academic and professional components aligned with the formally declared academic or professional profile of bachelor’s degree programs?

RQ2: How do program guarantors perceive and interpret the differences between professional and academic degree programs based on their experience with program implementation?

The theoretical framework draws on Bernstein’s (1999) distinction between vertical discourse, characterized by abstract and hierarchically organized knowledge, and horizontal discourse, which is context-bound and oriented toward practical problem-solving. This distinction provides a basis for conceptualizing differences between academically and professionally oriented degree programs. These profiles are examined through the process of knowledge recontextualization (Bernstein, 2000), understood as the transformation of disciplinary knowledge into application- and profession-oriented forms. Professional orientation is further operationalized through the concept of Work-Integrated Learning (WIL), a pedagogical approach based on authentic, work-related learning experiences that integrate theory and practice (Zegwaard et al., 2023, p. 39). The theoretical background provides a basis for coding curriculum elements along an academic–professional continuum and assessing how declared program profiles are reflected in curriculum design.

The relevance of this research extends beyond the Czech context. Across Europe (and beyond), higher education systems face similar challenges related to program differentiation, massification and the growing emphasis on employability. By offering an empirically grounded analysis, the study contributes to international discourse on curriculum governance, policy implementation and the conceptual clarity of academic and professional pathways in higher education.

The study employs a mixed-methods research approach, centered on a content analysis of curriculum documents (Bos & Tarnai, 1999), examining the orientation (professional or academic) of selected curriculum elements at the course level. Curriculum documents consist primarily of study plans and course syllabi (Posner, 1992), acquired from accreditation materials and institutional information systems. The unit of analysis (Bryman, 2012, p. 68) is the individual course included in the intended curriculum. Following Rata (2021, p. 450), the course level is conceptualized as an intermediate level situated below the program and above the topic level; therefore, the course is understood as an organized body of content taught over a defined period. The sample consists of 40 bachelor’s degree programs systematically selected from the Czech Register of Accredited Degree Programs across three Fields of Education (Non-Teaching Pedagogy, Philology, Teaching). Programs with identical or highly similar names but differing in their declared profile (academic vs. professional) are paired to enable comparative analysis. The content analysis focuses on four curricular elements: (1) graduate profile, (2) thematic focus and nature of content, (3) assessment methods, and (4) learning outcomes. The orientation of these elements is assessed through systematic text coding (Bryman, 2012, p. 299) using a coding manual derived from the theoretical framework, which provides explicit criteria for identifying academic, professional, and mixed orientations. Coded segments are subsequently aggregated at the course level, assigning it an overall orientation on a three-point scale (1 = predominantly academic, 2 = mixed, 3 = predominantly professional). For quantitative comparison, a researcher-developed Orientation Index aggregates course orientations weighted by ECTS credits, producing an overall program-level score for each program within the academic–professional pair. This enables systematic comparison of degree programs with identical or similar names and assessment of whether their curricula exhibit substantive differentiation, as would be expected in a conceptually coherent system. Graduate profiles are coded at the program level only. Additionally, the volume of practical training is analyzed as a supplementary indicator. Coding reliability is ensured through independent double coding. To complement the content analysis, the qualitative component consists of semi-structured interviews (Bryman, 2012, p. 470) with program guarantors. Interview data are analyzed using open coding (Šeďová, 2007, p. 211), with the number of interviews determined by data saturation (Guest et al., 2006) – at least eight interviews with program guarantors, ensuring that each Field of Education is represented. This qualitative component supports data triangulation and deeper interpretation of the findings.

Preliminary findings from the content analysis (in response to RQ1) indicate that differences between academically and professionally oriented bachelor’s programs are less pronounced than implied by their formal classification. The results suggest that the primary distinction lies in the volume of formally designated practical training, while overall curriculum design and the balance of academic and professional components remain largely similar. The calculated Orientation Indices reveal only a modest average difference between academic and professional programs. Academically oriented programs: average index – 1.90 (values close to 1 indicate strong academic orientation). Professionally oriented programs: average index – 2.08 (values close to 3 indicate strong professional orientation). Observed distance: 0.18 (2.08 − 1.90). With a possible distance ranging from 0 to 2, the observed value of 0.18 indicates weak differentiation between curriculum models. Programs with identical names but different declared profiles often show very similar structures. Although professional programs include more compulsory practical training, this emphasis is usually limited to that component and rarely extends to other parts of the curriculum. As a result, professional programs often resemble only slightly modified versions of academic ones, though further analysis is needed to confirm these patterns. Although the qualitative phase has not yet been conducted, the findings already raise questions about the coherence and practical meaning of program profiling. The planned interviews with program guarantors will explore how differences between academic and professional programs are understood. Professional degree programs are also subject to lower requirements for academic staffing and research activity under the Czech accreditation standards. The reduced thresholds create the possibility that institutions might strategically select program profiles to simplify the accreditation process; this issue will be also explored through interviews with program guarantors and may contribute to broader discussions on quality assurance in European higher education.

•Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and Horizontal Discourse: An Essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. •Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (2nd Ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. •Bos, W., & Tarnai, Ch. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 659–671. •Bryman, A. E. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th Ed.). OUP. •Ferns, S. J., Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2025). Defining and designing work-integrated learning curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2399072 •Gardner, P., & Perry, A. L. (2023). Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future: Melding work and learning through the role of the T-professional. In K. E. Zegwaard, & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning (3rd Ed., pp. 492–509). Routledge. •Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. •Kridel, C. (2010). Intended curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 489–489). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958806.n262 •O’Neill, G. (2015). Curriculum Design in Higher Education: Theory to Practice. UCD Teaching & Learning. •Pabian, P. (2008). Od elitního přes masové k univerzálnímu terciárnímu vzdělávání: Koncepce Martina Trowa. AULA, 16(1), 31–40. •Rata, E. (2021). The Curriculum Design Coherence Model in the Knowledge-Rich School Project. Rev Educ, 9(2), 448–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3254 •Švaříček, R., Šeďová K., Sedláček, M., Novotný, P., Nedbálková, K., Miková, M., Janík, T., Kaščák, O., & Zounek, J. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogických vědách: pravidla hry. Portál. •Trow, M. (1970). Reflections on the Transition from Mass to Universal Higher Education. Daedalus, 99(1), 1–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20023931 •Trow, M. (1972). The expansion and transformation of higher education. Int Rev Educ, 18(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01450272 •Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. •Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., Rowe, A. D., & Ferns, S. J. (2023). Defining work-integrated learning. In K. E. Zegwaard, & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning (3rd Ed., pp. 29–48). Routledge.