The research design: Theoretical and empirical fields of the study

According to Brown and Dowling (1998), the theoretical field of study is the broad area of academic and/or professional knowledge, research and debates which contains a researcher’s general area of interest, and the empirical field is the general area of practice or activity or experience about which the researcher intends to make claims.

1.5.1. Theoretical field

Theoretically, my case study is broadly located within the field of the sociology of education, utilising the theories of Basil Bernstein. However, given Bernstein’s theories are based within a more structuralist orientation, my study also draws on the work of Nancy Fraser’s (1989) needs discourse theory, with the perspectives of Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) Maria Root (1996) and Nicholas Burbules (1997),

illuminating several post-structuralist theories about culture, identity politics and needs discourse. Through utilising more than one theoretical argument, I seek to avoid an overly reductionist approach to the complex interplay of contextual influences on curriculum design and implementation.

Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device (1990, 2000) provides a useful framework to investigate the potential influences at the different stages of the curriculum design process, ranging from an ‘official recontextualising field’ (ORF) which tends to be dominated by academics and policy officials, through to the ‘pedagogic

recontextualising field’ (PRF), which includes external professional development facilitators as well as school leadership and teaching staff. Historically, the ORF has not included direct involvement of business and employer interest groups, but the advent of neoliberal economic policies has meant business, employer interest groups and other influential stakeholders appear to have an increased influence on the content and outcomes of the school curriculum.

In addition, with the emergence of identity politics, responsiveness to student diversity and difference in curriculum design remains complex and contested. Identity politics in the United States emerged in the later part of the 20th century

during the civil rights era as a collective term to refer to the different political positions that have been shaped by the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify, particularly where they have felt marginalised or

suppressed. Examples include social organisations based on age, social class, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, gender identity,

generation, race, religion, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation etc. (Heyes, 2016).

While inclusive curricula and pedagogies are important elements in facilitating the personal, social and economic wellbeing of young people, this space can also be vulnerable to capture by powerful groups and individuals, and can promote particular identities for students and essentialised notions of cultural practices. Alternatively, interpretations of cultural responsiveness can reify some students’ ethnicity or culture over others. The impact of this on individual students can be far reaching, but critics claim identity politics can also divert energy and can result in a fragmented approach to addressing fundamental class-related social and economic inequities and conflicts for a number of marginalised groups. Bernstein (1990) also warns of the ‘pedagogic Janus’, where neoliberal discourse appears to be responsive to diversity and makes concessions to some marginalised groups, but largely appropriates progressive language and repositions it within its own ideology and instrumental goals.

Nancy Fraser’s (1989) theory on needs discourse provides a complementary theory to Bernstein’s (2000) pedagogic device theory to more finely analyse the discourse in each field in relation to cultural diversity and identity politics and curriculum design. Fraser (1989) highlights the weaknesses and assumptions in uncritical approaches and theories in the area of needs discourse and identity politics, and proposes that any dialogue or representation be examined from a number of perspectives,

including identifying the interlocutors and whose needs do they claim to represent, how inclusive or exclusive is the discourse, and how hierarchical or egalitarian are the relationships within the group. This type of analysis is an important element of my research within New Zealand’s socio-political and cultural context.

Both Bernstein (2000) and Fraser’s (1989) theories are particularly relevant in the design and implementation of the key competencies. The 2007 New Zealand

Curriculum is widely regarded as a ‘permissive’ curriculum (Abbiss, 2011; ERO, 2012) which seeks to locate school curriculum design and decision-making processes with individual school’s Boards of Trustees. It is important, therefore, to ask how official curriculum policy has helped schools to manage the complexities and influences in agreeing on the valued behaviours and attitudes inherent in the key competencies with their diverse students and communities.

1.5.2. Empirical framing

Empirically, the study is located within a specific case of curriculum change – the revision of the New Zealand Curriculum (2007). More specifically, the focus is on the inclusion of key competencies as a curriculum construct, and their subsequent implementation in state and state-integrated primary and secondary schools. The research takes place some years after the curriculum was officially launched in 2007. Data were collected in 2013 and 2014 from policy officials and academics involved in the design of the curriculum, and from teachers and senior leaders in a New Zealand primary and secondary school. Continuous document searching and analysis of Ministry of Education curriculum archives took place from 2012 through to 2015.

The study tracks the recontextualisation of the curriculum key competencies, from the consultants and policy officials who designed the key competencies, through to the school leaders and teachers charged with their interpretation and

implementation. It analyses emerging themes and debates that arose during the policy design process, as identified through document analysis of key policy papers and think pieces, and the recollections of many of those involved. These recollections were obtained from individual interviews with key government officials and

academics around 6 years after the launch of the final curriculum document in 2007. The recollections and interpretations of school leaders and teachers from two