Page 94 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 94
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
increases in tuition fees and student loan debt. Resultantly, contempo-
rary universities now have to decide whether to uphold their tradition-
al liberal humanist mission, surrender to market pressures and norms,
or find a balance between these conflicting standards. To gain an empir-
ical sense of which of these paths British universities are most likely to
pursue, the present study employed a content analysis method to exam-
ine the education strategies and commitment statements of the Russell
Group, i.e., Great Britain’s top 24 elite and world-leading public univer-
sities. While these documents do mostly contain empty marketing pabu-
lum rather than binding policy proposals, they nevertheless serve as pub-
lic pronouncements of said universities’ current and future educational
purposes, ambitions, and values. Hence, these statements shed light on
the Russell Group’s pedagogic practices and institutional priorities, which
will, in turn, likely influence the wider British and global university sector.
The results show that these statements are predominantly rife with
neoliberal discursive inflections of global competitiveness, instrumental-
ism, employability, and customer satisfaction, which principally equate
a university education with professional development and research with
economic utility. Conversely, largely absent from the majority of these
statements are the traditional university mission and goals of nurturing
intellectual curiosity, promoting academic freedom, generating pure sci-
entific knowledge, and fostering character and conscientious citizenship.
These results, therefore, suggest that the Russell Group’s current and long-
term plans for pedagogy and research strongly mirror the language of the
neoliberal policy agenda for higher education, and have largely abandoned
the academy’s historically humanist and enlightenment principles and
commitments.
Moreover, these results are consistent with the literature on the ne-
oliberalization of universities (Ball, 2012; Lojdová, 2016; Morrissey, 2015;
Mountz et al., 2015; Shore & Davidson, 2014), and are thus not especial-
ly surprising. However, one could argue that universities, particularly elite
ones, have even in the current neoliberal era, been “culturally, institution-
ally and even statutorily obliged to assert their commitment to academic
freedom” (Phelan, 2016, p. 1). So in this regard, it is somewhat unexpect-
ed to see how minimally this most basic and longstanding principle is at-
tended to in the Russell Group’s education strategy statements, such that
it is not even really paid rhetorical lip service. There were a couple of excep-
tions to this with the most notable one being Imperial College London.
Indeed, their rather lengthy education statement, which was also the only
one to include a reference list, frequently and consistently expressed the
urgent need to change existing curriculum and teaching practices, but
92
increases in tuition fees and student loan debt. Resultantly, contempo-
rary universities now have to decide whether to uphold their tradition-
al liberal humanist mission, surrender to market pressures and norms,
or find a balance between these conflicting standards. To gain an empir-
ical sense of which of these paths British universities are most likely to
pursue, the present study employed a content analysis method to exam-
ine the education strategies and commitment statements of the Russell
Group, i.e., Great Britain’s top 24 elite and world-leading public univer-
sities. While these documents do mostly contain empty marketing pabu-
lum rather than binding policy proposals, they nevertheless serve as pub-
lic pronouncements of said universities’ current and future educational
purposes, ambitions, and values. Hence, these statements shed light on
the Russell Group’s pedagogic practices and institutional priorities, which
will, in turn, likely influence the wider British and global university sector.
The results show that these statements are predominantly rife with
neoliberal discursive inflections of global competitiveness, instrumental-
ism, employability, and customer satisfaction, which principally equate
a university education with professional development and research with
economic utility. Conversely, largely absent from the majority of these
statements are the traditional university mission and goals of nurturing
intellectual curiosity, promoting academic freedom, generating pure sci-
entific knowledge, and fostering character and conscientious citizenship.
These results, therefore, suggest that the Russell Group’s current and long-
term plans for pedagogy and research strongly mirror the language of the
neoliberal policy agenda for higher education, and have largely abandoned
the academy’s historically humanist and enlightenment principles and
commitments.
Moreover, these results are consistent with the literature on the ne-
oliberalization of universities (Ball, 2012; Lojdová, 2016; Morrissey, 2015;
Mountz et al., 2015; Shore & Davidson, 2014), and are thus not especial-
ly surprising. However, one could argue that universities, particularly elite
ones, have even in the current neoliberal era, been “culturally, institution-
ally and even statutorily obliged to assert their commitment to academic
freedom” (Phelan, 2016, p. 1). So in this regard, it is somewhat unexpect-
ed to see how minimally this most basic and longstanding principle is at-
tended to in the Russell Group’s education strategy statements, such that
it is not even really paid rhetorical lip service. There were a couple of excep-
tions to this with the most notable one being Imperial College London.
Indeed, their rather lengthy education statement, which was also the only
one to include a reference list, frequently and consistently expressed the
urgent need to change existing curriculum and teaching practices, but
92
