Curricular Studies & Perspectives
ISSN (Online): 3108-6772

Research article    |    Open Access
Curricular Studies & Perspectives 2026, Vol. 2(1) 59-85

The Saturated Curriculum: Institutional Logics and The Governance of Higher Education

Frank Atta Kaytu

pp. 59 - 85   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2026.1433.5

Publish Date: April 30, 2026  |   Single/Total View: 2/0   |   Single/Total Download: 2/0

PDF Download

Abstract

Curriculum is a central governance instrument in contemporary higher education systems. Expanding regimes of accountability, regulation and strategic coordination increasingly shape curriculum design. These regimes position pedagogy with market outcomes, inclusion mandates and institutional legitimacy. This paper introduces the concept of ideological curriculum saturation to explain how plural institutional logics reshape curriculum purpose and structure. Drawing on institutional logics theory and a qualitative comparative multi-case analysis of higher education in England and Ghana, the study examines how regulatory demands, market rationalities, developmental priorities and academic traditions converge in curriculum artefacts. The findings demonstrate that curriculum functions as governance infrastructure from which institutions translate and stabilise competing external expectations. Saturation emerges from five mechanisms: compliance encoding, purposive expansion, documentation layering, strategic mediation and identity scripting. These mechanisms generate dense curriculum architectures that carry multiple legitimacy claims simultaneously and strain pedagogical coherence. The study advances a theoretical model of ideological curriculum saturation and reframes curriculum as an institutional phenomenon shaped by governance density and plural legitimacy regimes.

Keywords: curriculum governance, educational policy, higher education, ideological curriculum saturation, institutional logics

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Kaytu, F.A. (2026). The Saturated Curriculum: Institutional Logics and The Governance of Higher Education. Curricular Studies & Perspectives, 2(1), 59-85. https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2026.1433.5

Harvard
Kaytu, F. (2026). The Saturated Curriculum: Institutional Logics and The Governance of Higher Education. Curricular Studies & Perspectives, 2(1), pp. 59-85.

Chicago 16th edition
Kaytu, Frank Atta (2026). "The Saturated Curriculum: Institutional Logics and The Governance of Higher Education". Curricular Studies & Perspectives 2 (1):59-85. https://doi.org/10.29329/csp.2026.1433.5

References
  1. Addai-Mununkum, R., & Setordzi, S. (2023). Implementing curriculum change in Ghana: Exploring teachers’ experiences with enacting 21st-century pedagogies. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13660 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Aksom, H. (2022). Institutional inertia and practice variation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(3), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2021-0205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Adu-Gyamfi, S., & Anderson, E. (2021). History education in Ghana: A pragmatic tradition of change and continuity. Historical Encounters, 8(2), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.52289/hej8.201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Adu-Gyamfi, S., Donkoh, W. J., & Addo, A. A. (2016). Educational reforms in Ghana: Past and present. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(3), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n3a17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Adusei, A. (2025). Quality assurance in higher education: KNUST's quality assurance trajectory. Journal of Education and Practice, 16, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP/16-5-06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Alexander, E. A., Phillips, W., & Kapletia, D. (2018). Shifting logics: Limitations on the journey from ‘state’ to ‘market’ logic in UK higher education. Policy & Politics, 46(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X15052077338233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Amoako, G. K., Ampong, G. O., Gabrah, A. Y. B., de Heer, F., & Antwi-Adjei, A. (2023). Service quality affecting student satisfaction in higher education institutions in Ghana. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2238468. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2238468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Anderson, S., McLaren, E., & Mio, C. (2025). Mapping curriculum in higher education: Unveiling alignment, complexity, and ideology. Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.56230/osotl.110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Bell, S. (2025). Understanding the competing logics of district education office work: The case of Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development, 113, 103219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103219 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Bennett, D. (2019). Graduate employability and higher education: Past, present and future. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 5(1), 31–61. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bertels, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2016). Organizational responses to institutional complexity stemming from emerging logics: The role of individuals. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016641726 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Bévort, F., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Scripting professional identities: How individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Blackledge, J. (2021). Thoughts on the future of higher education in the UK: A personal view with a historical context. Education Sciences, 11(9), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090474 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Blair-Walcott, K. (2023). Comparative analysis. In Varieties of qualitative research methods: Selected contextual perspectives (pp. 79–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Boateng, F. (2010). State–higher education relationship dynamics in Ghana in historical and contemporary perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo. [Google Scholar]
  16. Boadu, G. (2021). Developments in history education in Ghana. Yesterday & Today, 25, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17159/2223-0386/2021/n25a5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Brady, P. (2020). Internationalisation of post-1992 UK universities: The good, the bad and the ugly. Anthem Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and being a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Bridgstock, R., & Jackson, D. (2019). Strategic institutional approaches to graduate employability: Navigating meanings, measurements and what really matters. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(5), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1646378 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Burgess, C., Thorpe, K., Egan, S., & Harwood, V. (2022). Learning from country to conceptualise what an Aboriginal curriculum narrative might look like in education. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00164-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Burnett, C., Merchant, G., & Guest, I. (2021). Destabilising data: The use of creative data visualisation to generate professional dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3688 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627–1651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Caughie, B. D. (2016). The perceived impact of the layered curriculum instructional model on student engagement (Doctoral dissertation, Holy Family University). [Google Scholar]
  25. Cilesiz, S., & Greckhamer, T. (2020). Qualitative comparative analysis in education research: Its current status and future potential. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 332–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X2090734 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Cooney, J. W., & Cohen, M. I. (2024). Multiple logics of curriculum leadership: How a large public school district manages institutional complexity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(1), 74–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231217987 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Corbett, A., & Hantrais, L. (2023). Higher education and research in the Brexit policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(11), 2397–2420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2181854 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Crowley, C. B. (2021). Curriculum ideologies. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Damoah, O. B. O., Peprah, A. A., & Brefo, K. O. (2021). Does higher education equip graduate students with the employability skills employers require? The perceptions of employers in Ghana. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(10), 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1860204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Daubney, K. (2022). “Teaching employability is not my job!”: Redefining embedded employability from within the higher education curriculum. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-07-2020-0165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Dockery, A. M., Koshy, P., & Li, I. W. (2022). Parental expectations of children’s higher education participation in Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3786 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Dumez, H. (2015). What is a case, and what is a case study? Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 127(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106315582200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Durand, R., & Thornton, P. H. (2018). Categorizing institutional logics, institutionalizing categories: A review of two literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 631–658. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Edjah, H., Adu Henaku, E., Okrah, A. K., Sakata, N., & Yates, C. (2025). Collaboration between stakeholders in the design of a context-based curriculum in Ghana. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 27(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICE-03-2024-0014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Ejjami, R. (2024). The future of learning: AI-based curriculum development. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(4), 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  37. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020982866 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Ellison, M. (2017). Through the looking glass: Young people, work and the transition between education and employment in a post-Brexit UK. Journal of Social Policy, 46(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279417000356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Erickson, M., Hanna, P., & Walker, C. (2021). The UK higher education senior management survey: A statactivist response to managerialist governance. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2134–2151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1712693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (2016). A case for the case study. UNC Press Books. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gary, K. (2019). Pragmatic standards versus saturated phenomenon: Cultivating a love of learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53(3), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC). (2019). Accreditation roadmap for tertiary education institutions in Ghana. GTEC. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Giddens, J. F., & Brady, D. P. (2007). Rescuing nursing education from content saturation: The case for a concept-based curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(2), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20070201-05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Grant, J. (2018). Principles of curriculum design. In T. Swanwick (Ed.), Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory, and practice (pp. 71–88). Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720960487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2020). “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0481 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Gyamera, G. O., & Burke, P. J. (2018). Neoliberalism and curriculum in higher education: A post-colonial analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414782 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. [Google Scholar]
  51. Haigh, M. (2020). Curriculum design for diversity: Layering assessment and teaching for learners with different worldviews. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1803224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Hall, R., & Smyth, K. (2016). Dismantling the curriculum in higher education. Open Library of Humanities, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Hooley, T. J., Bennett, D., & Knight, E. B. (2023). Rationalities that underpin employability provision in higher education across eight countries. Higher Education, 86(5), 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00957-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Jepperson, R. L., & Meyer, J. W. (2021). Institutional theory: The cultural construction of organizations, states, and identities. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E., & Rabetino, R. (2022). Making connections: Harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 210–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Kaytu, F. A. (2025). Rethinking curriculum for uncertain futures: A foresight-based framework for transformative education. Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103251411719 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. (2018). Academic policy and curriculum framework. KNUST. [Google Scholar]
  58. Law, M. Y. (2022). A review of curriculum change and innovation for higher education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 10(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v10i2.5448 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  60. Le Grange, L. (2020). Decolonising the university curriculum: The what, why and how. In Transnational education and curriculum studies (pp. 216–233). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-111734 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Lowe, K., & Galstaun, V. (2020). Ethical challenges: The possibility of authentic teaching encounters with Indigenous cross-curriculum content? Curriculum Perspectives, 40(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00093-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Maki, P. L. (2023). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  64. McEneaney, E. H. (2015). Finding knowledge on the internet: Implications for the knowledge-driven curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089941 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. McEneaney, L. H., & Meyer, J. W. (2000). The content of the curriculum: An institutionalist perspective. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 189–211). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ministry of Finance, Ghana. (2024). Programme-based budgeting framework for tertiary education institutions. Government of Ghana. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mountford, N., & Cai, Y. (2023). Towards a flatter ontology of institutional logics: How logics relate in situations of institutional complexity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(2), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. National Accreditation Board. (2019). Tertiary education institutions statistical report. National Accreditation Board. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nigar, N. (2020). Hermeneutic phenomenological narrative enquiry: A qualitative study design. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(1), 10–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1001.02 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 509–531). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  71. Office for Students. (2026). Access and participation data dashboard. Retrieved April 21, 2026, from https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/student-outcomes-data-dashboard/ [Google Scholar]
  72. Office for Students. (2022a). Approach to regulating student outcomes. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  73. Office for Students. (2022b). Condition B3: Student outcomes. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  74. Office for Students. (2022c). Regulatory framework for higher education in England. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  75. Office for Students. (2022d). Student outcomes and institutional performance dashboards. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  76. Office for Students. (2022e). Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF): Guidance for providers. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  77. Office for Students. (2022f). Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF): Submission requirements and evidence. Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  78. Office for Students. (2024). Higher Education Students Early Statistics (HESES24). Office for Students. [Google Scholar]
  79. Oldham, S. (2017). Enterprise education: Critical implications for New Zealand curriculum governance. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0091-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  80. Painoli, A. K., & Kukreti, A. (2022). Expectations of the students from institutions offering higher education: Literature review. International Journal of Business Excellence, 28(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2022.125723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  81. Parliament of Ghana. (2020). Ghana Tertiary Education Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1023). Government of Ghana. [Google Scholar]
  82. Posillico, J. J., Edwards, D. J., Roberts, C., & Shelbourn, M. (2022). Curriculum development in the higher education literature: A synthesis focusing on construction management programmes. Industry and Higher Education, 36(4), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211044894 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  83. Radice, H. (2013). How we got here: UK higher education under neoliberalism. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v12i3.983 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  84. Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015589981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  85. Renfors, S. M. (2021). Internationalization of the curriculum in Finnish higher education: Understanding lecturers’ experiences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319888464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  86. Roberts, P. (2015). Higher education curriculum orientations and the implications for institutional curriculum change. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1036731 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  87. Robson, S. (2015). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(3). [Google Scholar]
  88. Römgens, I., Scoupe, R., & Beausaert, S. (2020). Unraveling the concept of employability: Bringing together research on employability in higher education and the workplace. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2588–2603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623770 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  89. Ruffa, C. (2020). Case study methods: Case selection and case analysis. In The SAGE handbook of research methods in political science and international relations (Vol. 2, pp. 1133–1147). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  90. Savage, G. C., & O’Connor, K. (2015). National agendas in global times: Curriculum reforms in Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.969321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  91. Scott, P. (2012). Structural changes in higher education: The case of the United Kingdom. In M. Kwiek & P. Maassen (Eds.), Structuring mass higher education (pp. 35–55). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schucan Bird, K., & Pitman, L. (2020). How diverse is your reading list? Exploring issues of representation and decolonisation in the UK. Higher Education, 79(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00446-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  93. Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 600–630). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  94. Senior, D. D., Singh, G., Verma, J., Dey, T., Kapoor, P., Lalrinkima, L., & Haqqani, M. H. (2025). Institutional reform in education: Aligning curriculum with sustainable infrastructure development. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 9(1), 10467. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd10467 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  95. Shay, S. (2016). Curricula at the boundaries. Higher Education, 71(6), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9917-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  96. Shields, R., & Watermeyer, R. (2020). Competing institutional logics in universities in the United Kingdom: Schism in the church of reason. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1504910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  97. Smets, M., Greenwood, R., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). An institutional perspective on strategy as practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed., pp. 283–300). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  98. Soin, K., & Huber, C. (2023). Compliance and resistance: How performance measures make and unmake universities. Organization, 30(5), 1130–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211066810 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  99. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sweller, J. (2021). Instructional design. In Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 4159–4163). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_2438 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  101. Tetteh, G. A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Twumasi, J. (2021). Developing a quality assurance identity in a university: A grounded theory approach. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(2–3), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0141 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  102. Thomann, E., Ege, J., & Paustyan, E. (2022). Approaches to qualitative comparative analysis and good practices: A systematic review. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(3), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  103. Thrupp, M., O’Neill, J., Powell, D., & Butler, P. (2020). Private actors in New Zealand schooling: The path to saturation. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(4), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1726882 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  104. Van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., & Struyf, E. (2023). Professional development initiatives as a lever for inclusive education: A multiple case study using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Professional Development in Education, 49(3), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1853593 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  105. Verge, T. (2021). Gender equality policy and universities: Feminist strategic alliances to re-gender the curriculum. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 42(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2021.1904763 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  106. Vican, S., Friedman, A., & Andreasen, R. (2020). Metrics, money, and managerialism: Faculty experiences of competing logics in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(1), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1615332 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  107. Weiner, S., Jordan, S. S., & Lande, M. (2021). What to “make” of school: Revealing the conflicting institutional logics of grassroots making and formal education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1767526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  108. Winstone, N., Balloo, K., Gravett, K., Jacobs, D., & Keen, H. (2022). Who stands to benefit? Wellbeing, belonging and challenges to equity in engagement in extra-curricular activities at university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420908209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  109. Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In Handbook of complementary methods in education research. American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 2 (1)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 2 Issue 1

April 2026

All Manuscript

Curricular Studies & Perspectives

Copyright © 2026 Curricular Studies & Perspectives.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website have been created using the BOQ™ - eJournal Management System.