Paper short abstract:

The purpose of this study is to provoke a candid discussion of ID curriculum development. Does 'embedding employability' obstruct a critical approach to development? Is dialogic learning an appropriate framework for curriculum decisions? If so, who should have a voice in this dialogue, and why?

Paper long abstract:

In the last decade there has been a rapid expansion in the number of International Development (ID) programmes being offered in the UK. There is no definitive QAA Benchmark Statement to guide curriculum content, and emphasis on subjects varies by institution. Should fee-paying students with aspirations of leadership expect training and employability to take precedence, or must development be understood in its political, historical and normative context? Does one contradict the other? Which stakeholders should decide, and on what basis?

The purpose of this study is to provoke a candid discussion of ID curriculum development. It assesses the appropriateness of Freirian dialogic learning, as opposed to the 'banking model' of education, as both a theoretical and pedagogical solution to developing critical leaders. ID students aspire to take on leadership roles in development, but curriculum choices made in the absence of theoretical grounding risk simply reflecting current research interests or replicating what is accepted as relevant subject matter from previous iterations of the programme.

Does 'embedding employability' stand in direct contradiction to a critical approach to the study of development? Is it possible, or even appropriate, to pursue a dialogic approach at a time of marketisation in Higher Education? An increasingly diverse student body might lack sufficient academic confidence to engage with such an approach without sufficient scaffolding.

The author is Programme Director of an established BSc in International Development, currently reviewing the curriculum. If a dialogic approach is appropriate, who should have a voice in this dialogue, and why?