Page 141 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 141
s. hayes and p. jandrić ■ resisting the iron cage of ‘the student experience’
ways that discourse (language-in-use) shapes how we experience the
postdigital (Sinclair and Hayes, 2018).
Given these ideas, even when time seems forever short, it is necessary to
question who our written policies in HE are really for.
Who is ‘the Student Experience’ for?
In problematizing the buzz phrase of ‘the student experience’, we hope
that we have given readers some reasons to pause for thought and con-
sider who policy concerning ‘the student experience’ is really for. If it is
really aimed at improving the experiences of students then the language
needs attention. Discussing ‘students’ experiences’ in the plural immedi-
ately makes it clearer that the intention is to address diverse needs and not
simply deliver a packaged experience for one and all. As this discourse is
currently presented, ‘the student experience’ is a construct to which all
manner of expectations can be attached (Hayes, forthcoming 2019). It is
also an entity that can be said to ‘act’ on behalf of people.
Articulated as ‘a packaged experience of consumption itself ’
(Argenton, 2015: p. 921) this begins to change the very nature of HE when
experience is delivered to students by universities, as a product that their
fees have purchased. How many additional extras might then be attached
to such a package is open to whatever government and media hot topics
emerge. Yet this package deal then diminishes the realities of individual
student experiences, such as bereavement, mental health and wellbeing, as
these are experienced in diverse ways by people. The many important top-
ics that now reside under ‘the student experience’ cannot simply be ap-
plied to students in equal measures.
Conclusions
We have examined through a corpus-based CDA of policy what it means
to package ‘the student experience’ for students to consume. We have
shown that instead of treating human senses as personal and diverse, HE
policy discourse treats students’ senses as collective, as if ‘belonging’ and
‘pride’ are experienced uniformly by all. We argued that these assump-
tions suggest that ‘a sense of involvement’ and ‘a sense of wellbeing’ can
simply be included in ‘the student experience’ deal that gets delivered to
students. As such, academic experience is treated as if it were any other ge-
neric adventure or leisure deal on offer at a local hotel.
In relation to manufactured forms of ‘experience’ provided by com-
mercial organisations, Argenton asks an important question. In mod-
ern society: do we still have time for experience? We would like to leave
139
ways that discourse (language-in-use) shapes how we experience the
postdigital (Sinclair and Hayes, 2018).
Given these ideas, even when time seems forever short, it is necessary to
question who our written policies in HE are really for.
Who is ‘the Student Experience’ for?
In problematizing the buzz phrase of ‘the student experience’, we hope
that we have given readers some reasons to pause for thought and con-
sider who policy concerning ‘the student experience’ is really for. If it is
really aimed at improving the experiences of students then the language
needs attention. Discussing ‘students’ experiences’ in the plural immedi-
ately makes it clearer that the intention is to address diverse needs and not
simply deliver a packaged experience for one and all. As this discourse is
currently presented, ‘the student experience’ is a construct to which all
manner of expectations can be attached (Hayes, forthcoming 2019). It is
also an entity that can be said to ‘act’ on behalf of people.
Articulated as ‘a packaged experience of consumption itself ’
(Argenton, 2015: p. 921) this begins to change the very nature of HE when
experience is delivered to students by universities, as a product that their
fees have purchased. How many additional extras might then be attached
to such a package is open to whatever government and media hot topics
emerge. Yet this package deal then diminishes the realities of individual
student experiences, such as bereavement, mental health and wellbeing, as
these are experienced in diverse ways by people. The many important top-
ics that now reside under ‘the student experience’ cannot simply be ap-
plied to students in equal measures.
Conclusions
We have examined through a corpus-based CDA of policy what it means
to package ‘the student experience’ for students to consume. We have
shown that instead of treating human senses as personal and diverse, HE
policy discourse treats students’ senses as collective, as if ‘belonging’ and
‘pride’ are experienced uniformly by all. We argued that these assump-
tions suggest that ‘a sense of involvement’ and ‘a sense of wellbeing’ can
simply be included in ‘the student experience’ deal that gets delivered to
students. As such, academic experience is treated as if it were any other ge-
neric adventure or leisure deal on offer at a local hotel.
In relation to manufactured forms of ‘experience’ provided by com-
mercial organisations, Argenton asks an important question. In mod-
ern society: do we still have time for experience? We would like to leave
139
