Discussing course/program developments in an other way. The 'how to'?

Many authors with long work experience in teaching translation/interpreting in the Arab world (Atari 2012,  Ferghal 2009, Taibi 2016, Mehrash 2003) alarmed the community on the big gap existing in not only curriculum design but also development and implementation in the case of translation/interpreting programs.  In our review of literature and practices in the region, we observed that the curriculum practices in many translation units/departments at many Arabic universities are carried out exclusively by a committee whose baseline /core scholarship is barely in the field of translation studies, and barely have 'pedagogical 'know how' and 'know what' in their discipline specific didactic. Arguing about either moving, adding or deleting courses is an old pattern of curriculum development and discussion. You can notice that when discussing with colleagues  little reference is given to:

- What the scholarship of training , learning and teaching in a university context says
- What the scholarship on translation and interpreting pedagogy says ( that included findings from recent studies on similar issues in other countries)
-What the profession or market needs ( results from surveys, interviews, focus groups)

- Students profiles and needs ( results from surveys, focus groups, interviews)

- Employers needs( results from surveys, focus groups, interviews)

- What translation pedagogy says about curriculum practices at various levels of curriculum development , design and implementation in various countries and cultures. What are the principles and criteria to based one's decision on the 'how' and 'what' in a classroom context?

Our dear colleagues argue out of mere inherent experience, intuition and relying on ad hoc criteria. No frameworks to refer to and no evidence to base the arguments on. Things need to change. curriculum review or discussions need to be taken seriously and proper training in teaching and learning scholarship, including curriculum theory and practice should be given to these colleagues to align their reasoning with evidence based arguments.

Curriculum practices in a higher education context may be divided into three models : the theoretical and academic ( what we do in our universities since more than 90 years), the professional approach and the eclectic approach ( which we should do in a university context with more focus on the professional part in postgraduate programs ) ( see calvo, 2011 ).

When discussing curriculum parctices , reference to scintific literature as wellas department or personal specific needs is important