This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 18 December 2014, At: 07:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Security ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasr20

Development Process of a Master'sDegree Program in Security ManagementJukka Ojasalo PhD aa Laurea University of Applied Sciences , Espoo, FinlandPublished online: 15 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Jukka Ojasalo PhD (2011) Development Process of a Master's DegreeProgram in Security Management, Journal of Applied Security Research, 6:3, 394-415, DOI:10.1080/19361610.2011.580429

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2011.580429

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Applied Security Research, 6:394–415, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1936-1610 print / 1936-1629 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19361610.2011.580429

Development Process of a Master’s DegreeProgram in Security Management

JUKKA OJASALO, PhDLaurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo, Finland

The purpose of this article is to increase the knowledge of the devel-opment process of a master’s degree program and its curriculum insecurity management. The earlier literature includes little knowl-edge of development of higher education in security management,particularly outside of the traditional security bodies such as mil-itary and police forces or public emergency services. There is aclear need for increasing the knowledge of this area. Furthermore,development process of curricula in general requires further ex-amination. The present empirical article responds to these evidentneeds. This article is an actionresearch–based case study. It drawson the development process of a master’s degree program that took22 months, starting from the initiation of the project and endingup to the point when the first students began their studies in theprogram. This process is described and analyzed in the article indetail. The empirical findings are illustrated in terms of a phasemodel of development process of a master’s degree program. Thisarticle contributes to the scientific literature, first, by increasingthe knowledge of the development of higher education in securitymanagement. Second, it contributes by increasing the knowledgeof the phases and activities of degree program and curriculumdevelopment in general.

KEYWORDS Educational development, higher education, secu-rity, safety, master’s degree program, curriculum

The first version of this article was presented at the International Technology, Educationand Development Conference on March 9–11, 2009, in Valencia, Spain, and published in theproceedings (Ojasalo, 2009).

Address correspondence to Jukka Ojasalo, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, VanhaMaantie 9, 02650 Espoo, Finland. E-mail: jukka.ojasalo@laurea.fi

394

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 395

INTRODUCTION

A degree program refers to a course of study leading to an academic degree.In other words, it is a sequence or combination of courses that, upon sat-isfactory completion thereof, lead to an award of an educational certificate,diploma, or degree. Often, this organized sequence of courses and require-ments is also called as a major. The terms degree program and curriculum,for the most part, mean the same. Curriculum is a definition of what is tobe learned. The origins of the word come from the Latin curriculum, whichrefers to racing chariot, and from this is derived a racetrack or a courseto be run, and from this a course of study (Ross, 2000). Curriculum is awritten document and plan of action for achieving the desired goals (Taba,1962). Curriculum is used as a vehicle to introduce learners to subject mattercontent, to build requisite skills, and to organize fields of study by microdis-ciplines, in other words smaller units (McNeil, 1985). Thus, curriculum canbe understood as a written and concrete level plan how to achieve theobjectives of the degree program.

According to the definition of DES (1985, para. 11), the curriculum con-sists of all those activities designed or encouraged within its organizationalframework to promote the intellectual, personal, social, and physical de-velopment of its pupils. It includes the formal program of lessons and theinformalprogram of so-called extracurricular activities. Furthermore, it cov-ers all those features that produce the school’s ethos, such as the qualityof relationships, the concern for equality of opportunity, the values exem-plified in the way the schools sets about its task, and the way in which itis organized and managed. Teaching and learning styles strongly influencethe curriculum, and in practice, they cannot be separated from it. Becausestudents learn from all these things, all need to be consistent in supportingthe school’s intentions.

Earlier literature barely includes any knowledge of development ofhigher education in security management, in particularoutside of the tradi-tional security bodies such as military and police forces or public emergencyservices. There is a clear need for increasing the knowledge of this area. Also,development process of curricula in general requires further examination.The present empirical article responds to these evident needs. The purposeof this article is to increase the knowledge of the development process of amaster’s degree program and its curriculum in security management. The restof this article is organized as follows. First, this article provides a theoreticaloverview of developing curricula and degree programs. It pays attention toobjectives and critical issues in developing curricula, as well as to the cur-riculum development process and its phases. It further reveals the researchmethod of this article. Next, it describes the problem solving and empiricaldiscoveries related to the development process of a new master’s degreeprogram in security management. In this context, it introduces a model to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

396 J. Ojasalo

illustrate the development process. Then, it explains the research implica-tions by discussing the empirical discoveries in the light of earlier literature.

DEVELOPING CURRICULA AND DEGREE PROGRAMS:A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

Objectives in Developing Curricula

Curriculum development is influenced by external and internal factors (Nash,2002). Curriculum planning is often subject to strong external influencesfrom disciplinary associations, publications, accrediting agencies, employerconcerns, the job market, and society in general. Because of their greatersusceptibility to external influences, pressures for change in purpose, learn-ers, and instructional resources are more politically explosive and the resultis the evolving curriculum debate (Toombs & Tierney, 1991). Internal influ-ences on college curriculum are also strong because faculty or institutionsare the actual planners. Faculty, educational beliefs, disciplines, institutionalpurpose and mission, as well as student characteristics drive this influence.When a faculty member works alone in planning a course, some influencesmay be more influential than when a group of colleagues plan an entireprogram (Stark et al., 1990).

Curriculum design may include several objectives. According to Starket al. (1990) and Stark (2000), in any college faculty group there are likelyproponents of each of the following statements of educational purposes:

• The purpose of the education is to make the world a better place for usall.

• The main purpose is to teach students to learn effectively.• Education should provide students with knowledge and skills that enable

them to earn a living and contribute to society’s production.• Education should involve students in a series of personality enriching ex-

periences.• Education should emphasize the great products and discoveries of human

mind• Whatever the curriculum, it should help the students clarify their beliefs

and values and thus achieve commitment and dedication to guide theirlives.

Increasing enrolment, responding to students’ and employers’ needs, as wellas internationalization are typical general objectives of curriculum develop-ment. According to Phillips, Settoon, and Phillips (2008), many academicdepartments, concerned with providing curricula that are current and tar-geted to student and employer needs, are tailoring their curricula to target

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 397

specific skill sets. This, in turn, generates students who graduate more pre-pared to assume positions being demanded by employers. Universities areobliged to balance needs and desires of diverse stakeholders. Often the cur-riculum design is driven by overlapping and perhaps somewhat mutuallyexclusive factors:

• desire to maintain or increase enrolment• interest in providing a curriculum that would meet students’ and employers’

needs• interest in maintaining a curriculum in line with accreditation standards

Many Western universities are responding to the demands of globalizationby internationalizing their curricula through introducing an element of mul-ticulturalism (Jackson, 2003). According to Haigh (2003), internationalizationof the curriculum in Western universities is driven by two processes:(a) theglobalization and commodification of higher education, which taps the fi-nancial advantages to be gained from the international marketing of highereducation services; and (b) an attempt by teachers to gain some educationalbenefits for students from this process.

Critical Issues in Developing Curricula

Curriculum development, according to Barnett and Coate (2004), is influ-enced by the following factors. First, curriculum reflects the social contextin which it is located. It is created within a wider social order and an un-derstanding of the curriculum cannot easily be accomplished without recog-nition of the social world in which is has been shaped. Second, the hiddencurriculum is pervasive and powerful. All curricula require processes of un-derstanding and complying with rules, which may be explicit and tacit. Thus,an understanding of inevitable processes and assumptions is essential for un-derstanding of contemporary curricula. Third, the power of knowledge fieldshas great influence on curriculum design. The knowledge fields or subject ar-eas that constitute the foundations of the curriculum have a powerful hold onchanges to the curriculum. Existing academic knowledge and various schoolsof thought may have almost untouchable place in a university curriculum.

Various critical issues relate to the development of curriculum in highereducation. Answering the following questions can greatly enhance the de-velopment of curriculum and avoid several pitfalls (Fraser, 2006; Stark &Lattuca, 1997):

• What is meant by the term curriculum?• What does it mean at the individual, organizational unit, or institutional

level to internationalize the curriculum, “integrate generic skills within thecurriculum” or develop an “innovative curriculum”?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

398 J. Ojasalo

• Who are the stakeholders of the curriculum?• Therefore, who should lead the discourse, influence it, and be involved in

developing and monitoring it?• To what extent is there an ability and commitment at the individual, orga-

nizational unit, and institutional level to undertake these tasks?• Does “improving the curriculum” mean improving what is offered or im-

proving the outcomes that are measured?• How should curriculum development be supported? In terms of the in-

frastructure required, the culture that values such academic work; and theprofessional and organizational development that is available, and in away that ensures the process is effective and sustainable?

• What are the impediments to curriculum development?• What are the curriculum policies of the institution?• Are they congruent with the day-to-day work undertaken across the insti-

tution, contextually relevant and flexible, focused on development as wellas defining and assuring, and supported in their implementation?

• How do you gather evidence of, and assess, the quality of the curriculum?

According to Tyler (1949), curriculum developers should also answers thefollowing questions concerning the educational system and the institutionsthey are designing the curriculum for.

• What philosophical societal view exists?• What philosophical curriculum foundation will be utilized?• What educational philosophy should be promoted?• What are the curriculum theories that are subscribed to?• Will there be one or multiple curriculum approaches? What are the educa-

tional objectives of the system?

Barnett (2000) identified nine zones of influence that may act upon patternsof curricular change. These zones of influence cut across each other so thata curriculum represents a combination of any number of these elements.The significance of these elements varies over time. The ways in whichthese dimensions and elements might enter the curriculum are likely to benumerous and inchoate. The zones of influence are

• internal and external to the academic community• epistemological, practical, and ontological• criteria of truth and performance• managerial, academic and market orientations• local, national, and global focuses• past, present, and future orientations• context specific and context generic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 399

• endorsing and critical orientations• reflexivity and the promotion of self

Curriculum Development Process

Curriculum development process is about turning visions into reality (Twin-ing, 2004). The vision needs to be translated into a plan, what it is intendedto do given the constraints of the present situation. The following litera-ture review reveals that the development process of university curriculum, atgeneral level, is well in line with any development process. A typical curricu-lum development process includes the phases setting objectives, planning,implementing, assessing, and continuous development.

Tyler is one of the early pioneers of curriculum development. Accordingto Tyler (1949, as cited in Nash, 2002), curriculum developers should analyzeand determine (a) the purposes of the school, (b) educational experiencesrelated to the purposes, (c) organization of these experiences, and (d) eval-uation of the purposes. The objectives of the curriculums, according to Tyler(1949), are identified by gathering data from subject matter experts, learners,and society. The data and objectives are filtered through two filters that arethe philosophy of the school and the psychology of learning. The curriculumis evaluated on the basis of selected experiences. Evaluation is needed tomeasure whether the learning objectives are sound and whether the intendedresults are being achieved. The measurement as to whether a curriculum iseffective or ineffective must be related closely to its foundational objectives(Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998).

Similar to Tyler’s (1949) approach, Taba’s (1962, as cited in Nash, 2002)model for curriculum development consists of seven phases: (a) diagnosis ofneeds, (b) formulation of objectives, (c) selection of content, (d) organizationof content, (e) selection of learning experiences, (f) organization of learningexperiences, and (g) evolution and means of evolution.

According to Fish and Coles (2005), most of the questions in curriculumdesign will be related to practical problems that are associated with providingsound education for this particular context. A small number will be simpleand procedural, but most will be uncertain and more contestable. It is theseabout which the development team needs to deliberate until a unity emerges,a consensus is achieved. Curriculum design, as they described it, involvesthe following key overall procedures:

1. Establish and formulate carefully through discussion within the curricu-lum design team some major questions designed to critique and un-derstand the nature of the context for which the curriculum is beingdesigned.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

400 J. Ojasalo

2. Appoint evaluators so that they are part of the design process from thestart.

3. Investigate these questions in the context in which the curriculum willbe offered and for which it is a preparation.

4. Assemble and present to the curriculum design team the evidence thatbest characterizes that context and which illustrate the range of responsesto the research questions.

5. Explore and clarify (appreciate) within the curriculum design team andthen through consultation with a wider representation of as many ofthe parties involved as possible, the values that should underpin thecurriculum (educational and professional ones).

6. Critique the evidence collected through this consultation and establishthose uncertain complex issues that must be resolved.

7. Establish within the design team the grounds on which the resolution ofeach issue will be based.

8. Deliberate (where necessary through wider consultation) about the avail-able resolutions and come to a judgment in each case.

9. Clarify and solve (within the curriculum design team) any simple proce-dural problems arising from the need to support these major judgments.

10. Build a robust curriculum that is sensitive to these and is based on firmlogic and that supports the enactment of sound educational practice.

11. Write a draft curriculum document and consult widely on its appropri-ateness.

12. Set up a steering committee to support and guide the evaluators’ investi-gations of the implementation and give advice about how to ensure theirreports will be intelligible to the wider audience and whether they willbe able to be implemented.

13. Revise the curriculum document as a result of this consultation.14. Keep the curriculum under frequent review.

In Twining’s (2004) approach, curriculum development starts from (a) vision,which is followed by a planning cycle consisting of four consecutive stages.They are (b) planning, (c) implementing, (d) assessing, and (e) evaluation.Twining and Richards (1999) reminded that this is an oversimplification. Inreality, each stage is not discrete and one may begin at any point in the cycleand will not always follow through the whole cycle in order. Nevertheless,the model helps thinking more clearly about the educational practice. Ithighlights distinctions between aspirations (what we would like to do in anideal world), intentions (what we plan to do given the constraints withinwhich we have to operate) and what is actually achieved. The implementstage bridges the intentions with what is achieved, whereasthe evaluate stageallows to compare the two and thus helps us refine our plans for futureaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 401

Phillips et al. (2008) described the process of developing academic cur-riculum in management department; according to them, the curriculum de-velopment process covers the following steps: (a) specifying goals, assessingneeds, and determining demand; (b) planning; and (c) implementing.

Phases of curriculum development process identified and suggested byseveral authors are summarized in the following table (see Table 1).

METHOD

The present article is an action research–based case study. Next, the char-acteristics of action research, case study, as well as their use in the presentstudy are briefly explained.

The idea of action research was introduced by Lewin (1946) and severaldefinitions have been provided for action research or action learning (Kem-mis & McTaggart, 1988; Oja & Smulyan, 1989; Revans, 1982; Zuber-Skerritt,1992). In action research, the purpose is, on the one hand, to develop solu-tions to practical problems, and on the other hand, to develop knowledgeor academic theory. The person involved with conducting action research is,on the one hand, a change agent in practical problem solving, and on theother hand, an academic researcher developing scientific theory (Gummes-son, 2000). According to Rapaport (1970, p. 449), “action research aims tocontribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problem-atic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration withina mutually acceptable ethical framework.” A researcher faces two goals orimperatives; one goal is to solve a practical problem within an organization,and the second is to generate new knowledge and understanding aboutother organizations (McKay & Marshall, 2001, p. 46). According to Carson,Gilmore, Gronhaug, and Perry (2001, as cited in Perry & Gummesson, 2004),action research involves (a) a group of people who use activities that in-volve planning, acting, observing, and reflecting upon what had happened;(b) people who try to improve workgroup processes of action; (c) peoplewho help to solve complex, practical problems about which little is known;and (d) produces at least one report to the workgroup’s organization aboutwhat was found. Gummesson (2000) distinguished four types of action re-search for management:

• societal action science (the traditional type in which researchers help un-derprivileged groups to solve problems)

• management action science (in which the purpose is to understand or-ganizations, markets, and customers better, usually to make an operationmore efficient)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

TA

BLE

1Phas

esin

Curr

iculu

mD

evel

opm

entPro

cess

Tyl

er,19

49Tab

a,19

62Fi

shan

dCole

s,20

05Tw

inin

g,20

04Phill

ips,

Settoon,an

dPhill

ips,

2008

1.The

purp

ose

softh

esc

hool

2.Educa

tional

exper

ience

sre

late

dto

the

purp

ose

s3.

Org

aniz

atio

nofth

ese

exper

ience

s4.

Eva

luat

ion

ofth

epurp

ose

s

1.D

iagn

osi

sofnee

ds

2.Fo

rmula

tion

ofobje

ctiv

es3.

Sele

ctio

nofco

nte

nt

4.O

rgan

izat

ion

ofco

nte

nt

5.Se

lect

ion

ofle

arnin

gex

per

ience

s6.

Org

aniz

atio

nofle

arnin

gex

per

ience

s7.

Evo

lutio

nan

dm

eans

of

evolu

tion

1.Est

ablis

hm

ain

ques

tions

and

under

stan

dth

eco

nte

xtof

curr

iculu

m2.

Appoin

tev

aluat

ors

3.In

vest

igat

em

ain

ques

tions

4.Pre

sentev

iden

ceth

atch

arac

terize

the

conte

xtan

dre

sponse

sto

mai

nques

tions

5.Cla

rify

pro

fess

ional

and

educa

tional

valu

esth

atunder

pin

curr

iculu

m6.

Critiq

ue

the

evid

ence

7.Est

ablis

hgr

ounds

on

whic

hth

ere

solu

tion

ofea

chis

sue

will

be

bas

ed8.

Del

iber

ate

aboutth

eav

aila

ble

reso

lutio

ns

9.So

lve

sim

ple

pro

cedura

lpro

ble

ms

10.B

uild

aro

bust

curr

iculu

m11

.W

rite

adra

ftcu

rric

ulu

mdocu

men

tan

dco

nsu

ltw

idel

y12

.Se

tup

ast

eering

com

mitt

eeto

support

and

guid

eth

eev

aluat

ors

13.Rev

ise

the

curr

iculu

mdocu

men

tas

are

sult

ofco

nsu

ltatio

n14

.K

eep

the

curr

iculu

munder

freq

uen

tre

view

1.V

isio

n2.

Pla

nnin

g3.

Imple

men

ting

4.A

sses

sing

5.Eva

luat

ion

1.Sp

ecifyi

ng

goal

s,as

sess

ing

nee

ds,

and

det

erm

inin

gdem

and

2.Pla

nnin

g3.

Imple

men

ting

402

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 403

• real-time action science (working in a research project planned for actionresearch)

• retrospective action science (letting past experience and action throughlater scholarly reflection become data in a research project)

A case study may apply action research approach (or vice versa). Case studieshave often used the action research approach successfully (Howell, 1994).Ojasalo (2008) summarized (on the basis of Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner,1984; Chetty, 1996; Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991; Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Gummesson, 2000; Yin, 1984) the central characteristics of acase study approach as follows:

• Holistic and detailed understanding. The case study approach implies thedetailed examination of a single example of a class of phenomena. Acase study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningfulcharacteristics of real-life events, such as organizational and managerialprocesses.

• Single and multiple case studies. Case studies can involve single and multi-ple cases. Single case studies are frequently used and advocates of this ap-proach propose that a single case would provide better theoretical insightsthan multiple-case research based on creating good constructs. Multiplecase studies are also used for theory development. They are a power-ful means to create theory because they permit replication and extensionamong individual cases. Replication means that individual cases can beused for independent corroboration of specific propositions helping re-searchers to perceive patterns more easily. Extensions refer to the use ofmultiple cases to develop more elaborated theory since different casesoften emphasize complementary aspects of a phenomenon.

• Qualitative and/or quantitative data. The empirical evidence of a casestudy may be qualitative, quantitative, or both. The following are sourcesof evidence in the data collection for case studies: interviews, direct ob-servation, participantobservation, documentation, archival resources, andphysical artifacts. Each form of empirical data require their own techniquesfor collection and analysis.

• Purpose to provide description, develop theory, or test theory. There may bedescriptive, exploratory, and explanatory case studies. Thus, case studiescan be used to accomplish various aims: to offer description, to developa theory, and test a theory. Developing a grounded theory (Glaser &Strauss, 1967) is similar to theory development from case studies. When thepurpose of the case study is to develop or suggest a theory, the grounded-theory procedures and techniques are a usable way of conducting thestudy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

404 J. Ojasalo

I functioned as a head of development team designing the new master’sdegree program in security management, thus having the two roles of an ac-tion researcher: academic researcher and practical problem solver (or changeagent). The development team consisted of 10 experts in security manage-ment education and university pedagogy. The case university of this study is amultidisciplinary university of applied sciences located in the Helsinki capitalregion in Southern Finland. The case university had already several years ofexperience in providing bachelor’s-level education in security management.The development process of the master’s degree program reported in this ar-ticle took 22 months, starting from the initiation of the project and ending upto the point when the first students began their studies in the program. Thedescription of the development process is based on observations during theprocess, memos, e-mails, various draft documents, and other documents andreports. The development process is also discussed by Franti (2008) who pro-vided a detailed description on the cooperation between the developmentteam and the Finnish security and safety cluster during the developmentprocess. Her observations also functioned as an input to the present article.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF A NEW MASTER’S DEGREEPROGRAM: PROBLEM SOLVING IN ACTION AND EMPIRICAL

DISCOVERIES

The development process of the new master’s degree program in securitymanagement is described next. At a general level, the process includedthree main phases: initiation and objective, planning, and implementing.The development process included 12 phases (see Figure 1). Some of thephases were overlapping chronologically, and the process included someiteration between the phases.

Initiation and the Objective

SETTING THE MAIN OBJECTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The development was initiated by the upper-level management of the caseuniversity. The goal was to develop a plan for realizing a master’s degree pro-gram in security management. In Finland, the Ministry of Education reviewsplans for new master’s degree programs and makes the decision of whetherthe applying university is given permission and financing to provide sucheducation. The Ministry of Education has also set the national minimum re-quirements with legislation for students applying to master’s degree programprovided by a university of applied sciences. The applicants must have acompleted bachelor degree and a minimum of 3 years of relevant (in this casesecurity or safety management related) work experience after graduation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 405

INITIATION AND OBJECTIVE 1. Setting the main objective for the development project 2. Assigning the person in charge of development process and setting up the development team

PLANNING3. Identifying critical subobjectives

- Why is this education needed? - How do we demonstrate our competence to provide the education? - How will we provide the education in practice?

4. Developing project plan and selecting the development team - individual tasks - persons or subgroups in charge of tasks - timetable

5. Analytical planning work 6. Consolidation of the final plan for realizing the master’s degree program 7. Review and acceptance of the plan

IMPLEMENTING 8. Marketing of the program to potential students 9. Detailed level curriculum development 10. Selecting teachers for individual courses 11. Selecting the first students to the program 12. Beginning the education

FIGURE 1 The development process of a master’s degree program (cf. Ojasalo, 2009).

Thus, the students of the degree program are already professionals in theirfield. Similarly, the extent of such master’s degree program is set to be 90European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System credits.

ASSIGNING THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND SETTING UP

THE DEVELOPMENTTEAM

A person who had experience in developing several degree programs at dif-ferent universities was assigned to lead the development. The developmentteam comprised 10 experts in security management education and universitypedagogy.

Planning

IDENTIFYING CRITICAL SUBOBJECTIVES

The main objective was to develop a plan for providing master’s-level educa-tion in security management that is credible and responds to the educational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

406 J. Ojasalo

criteria of the Ministry of Education that approves or rejects the applica-tion. In terms of this overall objective, it was necessary for the person incharge of the development process to identify critical and detailed subob-jectives. In this case, three critical subobjectives were identified to guide thedevelopment:

• Why is this education needed?• How do we demonstrate our competence to provide the education?• How will we realize the education in practice?

These three critical subobjectives also set up the main structure of the finaldocument showing the plan for realizing the master’s degree program insecurity management.

DEVELOPING PROJECT PLAN AND SELECTING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM

Once the critical subobjectives were identified, it was possible to developthe project plan and select the development team. This included identifyingindividual tasks derived from the aforementioned three objectives, assigningthese tasks to different members or subgroups of the development team,and setting the timetable. The development team comprised 10 experts insecurity management education and university pedagogy.

ANALYTICAL PLANNING WORK

It was considered to be of high importance that every aspect of the planfor the degree program was motivated in reliable way. The purpose wasto design a world-class degree program and make the proposed plan ascredible as possible to the reviewers in the Ministry of Education. Motivatingthe ideas was based on various government and industry reports dealing withsecurity needs now and in the future, interviews with security professionalsin organizations, (focus) group discussion with expert advisory board forsecurity education, and a small-scale survey to the expert advisory board forsecurity education. References to various sources of data and informationhad to be accurate in the final document.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE FINAL PLAN FOR THE REALIZATION OF THE MASTER’SDEGREE PROGRAM

Because the development team consisted of 10 persons, the consolidation ofthe final plan was particularly critical and a major effort. This was conductedby the person in charge of the whole development process. The detailed levelstructure and style of the document, as well as the accuracy of references

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 407

to different sources of information, was critical in this phase. The final planfor master’s degree program in security management included the followingelements, which responded to the earlier identified critical subobjectives:Why is this education needed? How do we demonstrate our competence toprovide the education? How will we realize the education in practice?

The first element of the plan explained the need for higher educationin security management in the country of the case university, particularlyin the capital region where the case universityis located. It provided anoverview of higher education in security management in the country ofthe case university. In this context, the existing security- and safety-relatededucation provided by education institutes of military, police, and publicemergency services, as well as universities, were analyzed. Also, the needfor higher education in security management for those who had alreadyobtained their bachelor degree was put forward. The educational needs ofthe security and safety cluster were described. Also, the special needs forsecurity professionals in the capital region were explained. Furthermore, thespecial requirements caused by globalization were brought forward.

The second element of the plan explained the special expertise of caseuniversityin providing higher education in security management. It explainedhow the university had earlier succeeded in bachelor’s-level education insecurity management. Also, it explained how the teacher and other expertsaffiliated to the case universityhad been active in developing the security andsafety cluster. Also, it explained the results of the research and developmentactivities achieved by the experts of the university in security and safety.In this context, the scientific research publications and various results fromapplied research were put forward.

The third element of the plan showed the curriculum of the masterprogram. It explained the educational objectives of the program. It showedhow students’ competence will increase. It described in detail the teachingresources and external experts available for teaching and supervising stu-dents. It revealed the structure of the curriculum of the whole program. Themain substance areas of the degree program were the following:

• security and risk management• international security management• business and leadership• methods for developing organizations• master’s thesis

The plan also described the case university’sown pedagogic approach, calledLearning by Developing (Franti & Pirinen, 2005; Raij, 2007) to be allied inthe education. Moreover, it showed how the degree program enhances theregional development in the larger Helsinki capital area. Furthermore, it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

408 J. Ojasalo

explained how it takes into account the globalization development. Also, itdescribed the quality assurance methods of the education.

REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN

The plan of the master’s degree program in security management was sent tothe Ministry of Education for review, and it was subsequently accepted. Also,public financing for the education was confirmed so that 15–20 students canenroll in the program annually.

Implementing

MARKETING OF THE PROGRAM TO POTENTIAL STUDENTS

Once the degree program was accepted and its financing was secured, itwas time to market the program for potential students. This took place interms of direct marketing to the alumnus of the bachelor program in securitymanagement and advertising it in major newspapers and the Internet. Thedegree program turned out to be popular for several reasons. It is difficult toget security management education, particularly outside of the traditional se-curity bodies such as military and police forces or public emergency services.The present degree program made it possible to increase one’s competenceand ability to work in the field security management also outside military,police, or public emergency services. Also, the security cluster, and in partic-ular the private security industry, is rapidly growing, thus offering interestingcareer opportunities. Moreover, the case universityis favorably located inthe capital region. The location itself was clearly an attractor. Furthermore, alarge number of applicants were alumnus from the bachelor degree programof the case university. They had good experiences of studying at the caseuniversity.

DETAILED LEVEL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Next, the curriculum was fine adjusted. Most important, the content of eachof the courses was developed and described in detail.

SELECTING TEACHERS FOR INDIVIDUAL COURSES

Teachers for individual courses were selected on the basis of their expertiseand motivation. Most of the teachers belonged to the development team.

SELECTING THE FIRST STUDENTS TO THE PROGRAM

The developed master’s degree program turned out to be the most popularmaster’s degree program offered by Finnish universities of applied sciences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 409

Only 20% of the applicants were accepted in the program in the first year.The students were selected on the basis of the success in their earlier stud-ies and on their knowledge and motivation shown in the 1-day entranceexamination. The entrance examination included written exam and groupinterview.

BEGINNING THE EDUCATION

The actual teaching started after 22 months of the initiation of the develop-ment process.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION

This article contributes to the scientific literature, first, by increasing theknowledge of the development of higher education in security manage-ment. The literature includes very little knowledge of this issue. Moreover,most of the security- and safety-related education is provided by educationalinstitutes of military and police forces or public emergency services. Theseeducational institutes do not primarily aim at educating students for the fastgrowing private security industry. The case universityof this study is a multi-disciplinary university of applied sciences and not related to military or policeforces or to public emergency services. Thus, the context of the present casestudy is rare, and the results provide new insights into developing highersecurity education outside of the traditional governmental security bodies.Second, this article contributes by increasing the knowledge of the phasesand activities of degree program and curriculum development in general.Competence requirements of employees change rapidly in almost any in-dustry. Thus, clear and updated guidelines and models are need for thosewho develop education. The model introduced in this study is based on asuccessful practical problem solving case. It has clear potential to functionas a general guideline for new degree program or curriculum development,although case specific adjustment is always required.

The present process model of a degree program begins with setting theobjectives for the development process. This is well in line with the ear-lier literature describing the development of curricula and degree programs(Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998, Phillips et al., 2008; Taba, 1962). These mod-els, however, tend to emphasize how faculty, students, and employers viewthe objectives of degree program being developed. Still, in many countries,particularly in Northern Europe, the teaching leading to a university degreeis, to a large extent, publicly financed. For example, in the present case,the studies in the degree program are almost free to the students, and thegovernment and the municipalities pay almost all of the costs of teaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

410 J. Ojasalo

Then, it is expected that the most significant goals come from the authoritiesof the educational system, in this case from the Ministry of Education. Thepresent model contributes by suggesting that, when the studies in a univer-sity are publicly financed, then the first step of the development processof the degree program is to carefully analyze and fully understand the goalsetting and philosophy of the relevant authorities in the educational systemrelated to the type of education being developed. This higher level goalssetting, in practice, delimits which views of faculty, students, and employerscan be taken into consideration in the development of the new universitydegree program. Moreover, the model developed in this study, recognizedthe different levels of the goals structure, in other words the main objectiveand critical subobjectives derived from it. This is important, because whenall the subobjectives are based on one main objective justified by the topmanagement of the university, this guarantees adequate resources to the de-velopment team. Sometimes, curriculum development projects in universitiesmay be subject to various contradictory interests of difference stakeholdersand gamesmanship (cf. Fish & Coles, 2005; Phillips et al., 2008). To someextent, the setting the main objective for the development project phase re-sembles what Twinnings (2004) called “vision” of the curriculum. However,the findings of this study emphasize, at the same time, also the capacity tooperationalize the main objective into a concrete project with an assignedperson in charge.

The second main phase of the model illustrating the development pro-cess of a master’s degree program and its curriculum is planning. The contentof this phase is supported by the earlier literature. For example, in Taba’s(1962) model, selection of content, organization of content, as well as selec-tion and organization of learning experiences relate to planning. Similarly,according to Twinning (2004) and Phillips et al. (2008), planning is one ofthe main phases of curriculum development. The present findings increaseknowledge, by explaining in sufficient detail what the planning phase inthe development of a new master’s degree program and its curriculum in-cludes. The present findings suggest that, identifying critical subobjectives isextremely important in the beginning of the planning. Also, the present studyreveals that painstaking analytical planning work with accurate and groundedargumentation, which to a large extent resembles scientific research, is cru-cial to make the plan reliable to reviewers and other stakeholders. This issupported by Fish and Coles (2005), who emphasize establishing questionsand presenting evidence in curriculum development, and whose descrip-tion of the main elements of curriculum development process resembles aresearch project.

The third main phase of the model illustrating the development processof a master’s degree program and its curriculum is implementing. Imple-mentation is also included, for example in Twinning’s (2004) and Phillipset al.’s (2008) approaches. The present study extends knowledge by finding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 411

the relevant elements of successful implementation in the new master’s de-gree program and its curriculum. This includes marketing of the program topotential students, detailed level curriculum development, selecting teach-ers for individual courses, selecting the first students to the program, andbeginning the education. Marketing of the program took place in terms ofdirect marketing to the alumnus of the bachelor program in security manage-ment as well as advertising it in major newspapers and on the Internet. Thedegree program was popular among applicants because it made possibleto increase one’s competence in rapidly growing private security industry.The program was attractive also because the case university was located inthe capital region, and because many of the applicants already had goodexperiences of the case university as past students. These findings are di-rectly supported by the earlier literature (see review in Moogan et al., 2001,p. 181). In brief, factors that make higher education institutions and degreeprograms attractive in the eyes of potential students are location (Gorman,1976; Leister, 1976; Roberts & Allen, 1997; Welki & Navratil, 1987), reputa-tion for academic quality (Anderson, 1976; Erdmann, 1983; Murphy, 1981),courses that are available and opportunities to increased one’s competence(Erdmann, 1983; Roberts & Higgins, 1992; Saunders, Hamilton, & Lancaster,1978; Sevier, 1987; Walker, Cunnington, Richards, & Shattock, 1979), andthe improves career opportunities (Krone, Gilly, Zeithaml, & Lamb, 1981;Saunders, Hamilton, & Lancaster, 1978).

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this article was to increase the knowledge of the develop-ment process of a master’s degree program and its curriculum in securitymanagement. There was a clear need to increase the knowledge of this area.The present empirical article responded to this need.

This article started by making a theoretical overview on developingcurricula and degree programs. It discussed objectives and critical issuesin developing curricula, and the curriculum development process and itsphases. This article was an action research–based case study.

The empirical findings were illustrated in terms of a phase model of thedevelopment process of a master’s degree program in security management.This article made a scientific contribution, first, by increasing the knowledgeof the development of higher education in security management. Second, itincreased the knowledge of the phases and activities of degree program andcurriculum development in general.

The following suggestions for further research emerge from the presentstudy. First, more research is needed of the degree of market orientation andproduction orientation in the development of degree programs in higher ed-ucation. Market orientation, in this context, means that education institution

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

412 J. Ojasalo

teaches what their students want and need. Production orientation meansthat the educational institution teaches what they can and like themselves. Ifthe development of a new degree program, or improvement of an existingone, is restricted to knowledge and opinions of the present teachers or cer-tain dominant schools of thought, then the result may not be innovative andserve its purpose. Second, it would be interesting to conduct a comparativestudy on developing degree programs and curricula in different cultures anddifferent educational systems. Third, understanding the requirements andneeds of knowledge and skills in the security industry was crucial in thedevelopment projects examined in this study. This was based on variousgovernment and industry reports dealing with security needs now and inthe future, interviews with security professionals in organizations, (focus)group discussion with the expert advisory board for security education, anda small-scale survey to the expert advisory board for security education.However, there is a clear need to develop further the methods used in pre-dicting the needs of knowledge and skills in the future. Fourth, educationin the examined master’s degree program was advertised in newspapers,magazines, and the Internet. In addition to this, new marketing channels forhigher education should be developed and examined. For example, viralmarketing and social networks might be an effective and efficient additionto the traditional marketing approaches.

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B.S. (1984). The Penguin dictionary of sociology.London, UK: Penguin.

Anderson, R.E. (1976). Determinants of institutional attractiveness to bright, prospec-tive college students. Research in Higher Education, 4, 361–371.

Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education,25, 255–265.

Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the curriculum in the higher education.Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Gronhaug, K., & Perry, C. (2001). Qualitative research inmarketing. London, England: Sage.

Chetty, S. (1996). The case study method for research in small- & medium-sizedfirms. International Small Business Journal, 15(1), 73–85.

DES. (1985). The curriculum from 5 to 16: Curriculum Matters 2 (An HMI Series).London, England: HMSO.

Dyer, G., & Wilkins, A. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs to generate bettertheory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16, 613–619.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991). Better stories & better constructs: The case of rigor &comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16, 620–627.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 413

Erdmann, D.G. (1983). An examination of factors influencing student choice in thecollege selection process. Journal of College Admissions, 100 (1), 3–6.

Fish, D., & Coles, C. (2005). Medical education: Developing a curriculum for practice.Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Franti, M. (2008). Turvallisuusosaamisen koulutusohjelman suunnitteluyhteistyossa turvallisuusklusterin kanssa [Safety skills training program for secu-rity planning in cooperation with the cluster]. In H. Maijala & J. Levonen (Eds.),Ylempi ammattikorkeakoulututkinto—Osaamisen ennakointi ja tulevaisuudenhaasteet [Higher education in universities of applied sciences—knowledge fore-sights and future challenges (pp. 67–76). Hameenlinna, Finland: HameenlinnaUniversity of Applied Sciences.

Franti, M., & Pirinen, R. (2005). Tutkiva oppiminen integratiivisissa op-pimisymparitoissa BarLaurea ja REDLabs [Research oriented learning in inte-grative learning environments, BarLaurea and REDLabs]. Espoo, Finland: LaureaUniversity of Applied Sciences.

Fraser, S.P. (2006). Shaping the university curriculum through partnerships & criticalconversations. International Journal of Academic Development, 11(1), 5–17.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. New York, NY: de Gruyter.

Gorman, W.P. (1976, Winter). An evaluation of student attracting methods and uni-versity features by attending students. College and University, 51, 220–225.

Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haigh, M. (2003). Internationalizing the university curriculum: Response to M.G.Jackson. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27, 331–340.

Howell, F. (1994). Action research & action learning in management education anddevelopment. The Learning Organization, 1(2), 15–22.

Jackson, M.G. (2003). Internationalizing the university curriculum. Journal of Geog-raphy in Higher Education, 27, 325–330.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria,Australia: Deakin University Press.

Krone, F., Gilly, M., Zeithaml, V., & Lamb, C.W. (1981). Factors influencing thegraduate business school decision. American Marketing Services Proceedings,453–456.

Leister, D.V., & Menzel, R. (1976). Assessing the community college transfer market.Journal of Higher Education, 47, 661–680.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues,2(4), 34–46.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. InformationTechnology and People, 14(1), 45–59.

McNeil, J.D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston, MA: Little,Brown.

Moogan, Y., Baron, S., & Bainbridge, S. (2001). Timing and trade-offs in the market-ing of higher education: A conjoint approach. Marketing Intelligence & Plan-ning, 19, 179–187.

Murphy, P.E. (1981). Consumer buying roles in college choice: Parents and students’perceptions. College and University, 57, 150–60.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

414 J. Ojasalo

Nash, T.G.J. (2002). Business curriculum development: A model for assessing out-comes in a university business curriculum using the Tyler curriculum modelframework. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Wayne State University,Detroit, MI.

Oja, S.N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmentalapproach. London, England: Falmer Press.

Ojasalo, J. (2008). Management of innovation networks: A case study of differentapproaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(1), 51–86.

Ojasalo, J. (2009, March). Developing a new master degree programme—Case secu-rity management. Proceedings of the INTED2009 Conference, 1329–1338.

Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F. (1998). Curriculum foundations, principles, and theory.Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Perry, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Action research in marketing. European Journalof Marketing, 38, 310–320.

Phillips, A., Settoon, R., & Phillips, C. (2008). Enhancing a curriculum: A focus onthe development process. College Student Journal, 42, 1070–1074.

Raij, K. (2007). Learning by developing. Espoo, Finland: Laurea Publications.Rapaport, R. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, 33,

488–543.Revans, R.W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. London, England:

Chartwell-Bratt.Roberts, D., & Allen, A. (1997). Young applicants perceptions of higher education.

Leeds, UK: HEIST Publications.Roberts, D., & Higgins, T. (1992). Higher education: The student experience. Leeds,

UK: HEIST Publications.Ross, A. (2000). Curriculum: Construction and critique. London, UK: Falmer Press.Saunders, J.A., Hamilton, S.D., & Lancaster, G.A. (1978, June). A study of variables

governing choice of course in higher education. Assessment in Higher Educa-tion, 3, 203–236.

Sevier, R. (1987). How students choose a college. Currents, 13, 146–152.Stark, J.S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context, and form.

Instructional Science, 29, 413–438.Stark, J.S., & Lattuca, L. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Bentley, R.J., Ryan, M.P., Genthon, M.L., Martens, G.G., &

Wren, P.A. (1990). Planning introductory college courses: Influences on faculty.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to ImprovePostsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY:Harcourt, Brace & World.

Toombs, W., & Tierney, W.G. (1991). Meeting the mandate: Reviewing the collegeand departmental curriculum (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6).Washington, DC: The George Washington University, ERIC Clearinghouse onHigher Education.

Twining, P. (2004). The computer practice framework: A tool to enhance curricu-lum development relating to ICT. In M. Monteith (Ed.), ICT for curriculumenhancement (pp. 41–56). Bristol, England: Intelligent Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Development Process of a Master’s Degree Program 415

Twining, P., & Richards, C. (1999). Learning schools programme: Teaching in pri-mary. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Walker, P.A., Cunnington, J.L., Richards, M.A., & Shattock, M.L. (1979). Factors in-fluencing entry at a university, polytechnic and a college of education. HigherEducation Review, 11(3), 36–45.

Welki, A.M., & Navratil, F.J. (1987, Winter). The role of applicants’ perceptions inthe choice of a college. College and University, 62, 147–159.

Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Professional development in higher education: A theoreticalframework for action research. London, England: Kogan Page.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:35

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14