Reflections on the development of a model of partnership designed to enhance the ‘digital curriculum’ of Sociological Studies programmes

Clarissa Simpson, Tom Clark


As this journal demonstrates, there are a growing number of accounts describing how student partnerships can be achieved in practice. However - and as some of this literature highlights - student partnerships are not merely technical impositions that can be simply implemented from ‘there’ to ‘here’ (Healey et al, 2016). They are instead reflexively experienced as processes of engagement by those who are working together within situated environments. Partnerships are not only directed by particular people toward particular ends, they are also relative to the contexts they variously exist within (see Elphick and Sims, 2017, for example). Drawing on our experiences of working together on a project designed to enhance the ‘digital curriculum’ within an undergraduate sociology programme, this casestudy reflects on a model of partnership that emerged from the situating determinants within which our relationship was based - and how these conditions subsequently impacted on assessments concerning the ‘success’ of the project. These determinants include the aims of the initiative that the project was a part, the substantive arena within which the project was focussed, and our own competencies, experiences, and networks. The role of the institution in enabling and constraining the project is also explored. In examining the values that underpinned the model of partnership that we developed, the paper follows Healey et al’s (2014, p 7) contention that student partnerships are a process of engagement, not merely a product that can be measured by outcomes. More specifically, it highlights the importance of reflecting on the interdependencies that exist between people, process, and purpose when doing partnership work, and how these connections influence judgements about effectiveness.

Full Text:



Arafeh, S. (2015) ‘Curriculum mapping in higher education: A case study and proposed content scope and sequence mapping tool’. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), pp. 585-611.

Association of Colleges and Research Libraries (ACEL) (2012) Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guideline. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) ‘The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence’. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, pp. 775–786.

Covello, S. (2010) A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. Syracuse University, School of Education/IDD & E.2. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):

Healey, M., Flint, A. and Harrington, K. (2014) Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [HoC] (2016) Digital skills crisis: Second report of session 2016–17. London: HMSO. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):

Gilster, P. (1997) Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley.

JISC. (2014) Developing digital literacies. London: JISC. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):

Jones, H., Johnson, P. & Gruszczynska, A. (2012) ‘Digital literacy: digital maturity or digital bravery?’ Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 4(2) pp. 1-3.

Killen, C. and Chatterton, P. (2015) Developing successful student-staff partnerships. JISC Change Agents Network. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):

McKay, R. and Baily, J. (2017) ‘Inside Knowledge’, poster presented at ‘RAISE: International Colloquium Partnership’, Birmingham City University, 23-06-17.

Newman, T. and Beetham, H. (2017) Student Digital Experience tracker 2017: The Voice of 22,000 UK learners. London: JISC. Available at (accessed 24-07-17):


  • There are currently no refbacks.