Page 110 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 110
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
share commonalities that can, to some extent, determine similarities in
the manner by which they accept the EU (neoliberal) agenda. Researchers
(e.g. Alexiadou and Lange, 2013) agree that from this perspective, new
member states represent particularly interesting objects of investigation.
Silova (2009: p. 295) argues that a special group of new member states, i.e.
post-socialist member states, ‘‘share several educational characteristics, as
reflected in a number of educational legacies inherited from the social-
ist regime and a proclaimed aspiration to embrace Western (neoliberal)
educational values’’. Chankseliani and Silova (2018) report that despite
commonalities between post-socialist states in the reception of the EU
neoliberal agenda, “there is little evidence of educational convergence to-
wards neoliberal educational goals, when looking beyond policy rhetoric
and digging deeper into local educational contexts”. By studying the re-
ception of the EU neoliberal agenda, in particular member state specific
cultural tradition, state-society-economy relationship and political com-
petition should therefore be taken into consideration. Discursive insti-
tutionalism has been recognised (Schmidt, 2008) as a particularly prom-
ising theoretical approach for explaining Europeanization of education
policy field (influence and reception of the EU neoliberal agenda and na-
tional policy changes).
The article is positioned in the heart of neoliberalism discourse re-
search and fits into many identified research gaps in the field. Souto-Otero
(2017) reports that “With respect to the provision of empirical data, it is
neoliberalism as seen through the lens of governmentality that is most
commonly under-researched”. The question of how neoliberal discourse
becomes rearticulated in a specific national context and infiltrates into its
educational system is commonly overlooked (Takayama, 2009) and most
studies of neoliberal governmentality are generally abstracted from ac-
tually existing subject and spaces (Mitchell, 2006). Similarly, Alexiadou
and Lange (2013) view the scope of impact of EU governance not only as
being the most important for understanding its successful performance,
but also being the most problematic due to lacking in depth information
on whether, and how, its policy instruments are adopted and considered
within (new) member states. Delanty and Rumford (2005) denote discur-
sive institutionalism in theorizing Europeanization as a very promising,
but still neglected field.
The article aims to offer new insights into how EU (neoliberal) gov-
ernance has helped member states increasingly perceive themselves as be-
ing aligned with EU agendas in terms of which educational changes are
important and necessary. By using discursive institutionalism approach,
it sheds light on how using neoliberal discourses have contributed to new
108
share commonalities that can, to some extent, determine similarities in
the manner by which they accept the EU (neoliberal) agenda. Researchers
(e.g. Alexiadou and Lange, 2013) agree that from this perspective, new
member states represent particularly interesting objects of investigation.
Silova (2009: p. 295) argues that a special group of new member states, i.e.
post-socialist member states, ‘‘share several educational characteristics, as
reflected in a number of educational legacies inherited from the social-
ist regime and a proclaimed aspiration to embrace Western (neoliberal)
educational values’’. Chankseliani and Silova (2018) report that despite
commonalities between post-socialist states in the reception of the EU
neoliberal agenda, “there is little evidence of educational convergence to-
wards neoliberal educational goals, when looking beyond policy rhetoric
and digging deeper into local educational contexts”. By studying the re-
ception of the EU neoliberal agenda, in particular member state specific
cultural tradition, state-society-economy relationship and political com-
petition should therefore be taken into consideration. Discursive insti-
tutionalism has been recognised (Schmidt, 2008) as a particularly prom-
ising theoretical approach for explaining Europeanization of education
policy field (influence and reception of the EU neoliberal agenda and na-
tional policy changes).
The article is positioned in the heart of neoliberalism discourse re-
search and fits into many identified research gaps in the field. Souto-Otero
(2017) reports that “With respect to the provision of empirical data, it is
neoliberalism as seen through the lens of governmentality that is most
commonly under-researched”. The question of how neoliberal discourse
becomes rearticulated in a specific national context and infiltrates into its
educational system is commonly overlooked (Takayama, 2009) and most
studies of neoliberal governmentality are generally abstracted from ac-
tually existing subject and spaces (Mitchell, 2006). Similarly, Alexiadou
and Lange (2013) view the scope of impact of EU governance not only as
being the most important for understanding its successful performance,
but also being the most problematic due to lacking in depth information
on whether, and how, its policy instruments are adopted and considered
within (new) member states. Delanty and Rumford (2005) denote discur-
sive institutionalism in theorizing Europeanization as a very promising,
but still neglected field.
The article aims to offer new insights into how EU (neoliberal) gov-
ernance has helped member states increasingly perceive themselves as be-
ing aligned with EU agendas in terms of which educational changes are
important and necessary. By using discursive institutionalism approach,
it sheds light on how using neoliberal discourses have contributed to new
108
