Page 132 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 132
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
fundamental changes, then it is also worth questioning: who these chang-
es are for? Furthermore, we could ask: does this change of policy alter what
higher education is? Before we know it, ‘a packaged experience of con-
sumption itself ’ (Argenton, 2015: p. 921) could be what is delivered to stu-
dents by universities as a product that their fees have purchased. Yet the
many important topics that now reside under ‘the student experience’
cannot simply be applied to students in equal measures, when students
themselves arrive from different backgrounds, life experiences, levels of
ability and resilience.
In this article, we examine firstly some parallels between the ‘expe-
rience economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999, Argenton, 2015: p. 922) and
the discourse of ‘the student experience’ in HE policy. Just as research on
consumer behavior has revealed a shift from consumption as a utilitarian
function, to a more experiential emphasis (Holbrook & Hirschman,1982),
we note the way that extended patterns of consumption based around a
‘student experience economy’ have emerged in universities. We suggest
that whilst prior concerns about commodified forms of language and buzz
phrases in HEIs remains an issue, ‘the student experience’ discourse risks
trapping students within ‘an iron cage of control’ (Weber, 1905/1958), as
their experiences have become packaged for them into commodities. The
human autonomy associated with personal and academic forms of experi-
ence are at risk if the only design available has been mass produced for stu-
dents. Furthermore, in postdigital society, this entrapment within a neo-
liberal product is not pure bureaucracy. It may take the form of a ‘velvet
cage’ (Ritzer, 2011), as it is delivered seamlessly back and forth between
digital and physical sites of production and consumption, at the hands of
human and non-human technologies. Here the labour of students them-
selves furthers ‘the student experience’ commodity. Students provide fi-
nancially unrewarded labour yielding rich information by completing
surveys and providing opinions, thus acting as ‘prosumers’ (Ritzer, 2015)
manipulated by neoliberalism in HE.
Therefore, to better understand how ‘the student experience’ is con-
structed linguistically in policy (and how it might be otherwise…), we
present some example extracts from a sample of 20 UK university student
experience strategies we analysed, via a corpus-based Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). We then discuss these findings and we consider what it
means to package human senses, experience and culture into ‘the student
experience’. On the one hand, it could be argued that this places students
within a form of ‘iron cage’ where universities appear to be packaging ex-
perience itself for students. Yet, given the complexities of a postdigital
society, this may be more of a ‘velvet cage’, where students and student
130
fundamental changes, then it is also worth questioning: who these chang-
es are for? Furthermore, we could ask: does this change of policy alter what
higher education is? Before we know it, ‘a packaged experience of con-
sumption itself ’ (Argenton, 2015: p. 921) could be what is delivered to stu-
dents by universities as a product that their fees have purchased. Yet the
many important topics that now reside under ‘the student experience’
cannot simply be applied to students in equal measures, when students
themselves arrive from different backgrounds, life experiences, levels of
ability and resilience.
In this article, we examine firstly some parallels between the ‘expe-
rience economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999, Argenton, 2015: p. 922) and
the discourse of ‘the student experience’ in HE policy. Just as research on
consumer behavior has revealed a shift from consumption as a utilitarian
function, to a more experiential emphasis (Holbrook & Hirschman,1982),
we note the way that extended patterns of consumption based around a
‘student experience economy’ have emerged in universities. We suggest
that whilst prior concerns about commodified forms of language and buzz
phrases in HEIs remains an issue, ‘the student experience’ discourse risks
trapping students within ‘an iron cage of control’ (Weber, 1905/1958), as
their experiences have become packaged for them into commodities. The
human autonomy associated with personal and academic forms of experi-
ence are at risk if the only design available has been mass produced for stu-
dents. Furthermore, in postdigital society, this entrapment within a neo-
liberal product is not pure bureaucracy. It may take the form of a ‘velvet
cage’ (Ritzer, 2011), as it is delivered seamlessly back and forth between
digital and physical sites of production and consumption, at the hands of
human and non-human technologies. Here the labour of students them-
selves furthers ‘the student experience’ commodity. Students provide fi-
nancially unrewarded labour yielding rich information by completing
surveys and providing opinions, thus acting as ‘prosumers’ (Ritzer, 2015)
manipulated by neoliberalism in HE.
Therefore, to better understand how ‘the student experience’ is con-
structed linguistically in policy (and how it might be otherwise…), we
present some example extracts from a sample of 20 UK university student
experience strategies we analysed, via a corpus-based Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). We then discuss these findings and we consider what it
means to package human senses, experience and culture into ‘the student
experience’. On the one hand, it could be argued that this places students
within a form of ‘iron cage’ where universities appear to be packaging ex-
perience itself for students. Yet, given the complexities of a postdigital
society, this may be more of a ‘velvet cage’, where students and student
130
