Page 95 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 95
r. leyva ■ unpacking the usage and implications of neoliberal language ...
that this must first and foremost be guided, informed, and initiated by
staff in congruence with their respective expertise and interests. For ex-
ample, on pg. 26 of this statement, it says that the university will establish
an approach to pedagogic change by: “Freeing up time of key academics
who lead the transformation of specific modules, so they have the space
to identify learning outcomes, to map these to optimal delivery methods,
then to develop and deploy these within an active learning framework”.
Additionally, there were a few other standout examples of coun-
ter-hegemonic narratives. In particular, the statement of KCL regular-
ly expressed a seemingly sincere concern to help develop considerate,
service-oriented, and cosmopolitan students. Note for example the fol-
lowing excerpt from KCL’s statement on pg. 5. “We want our graduates
to have strong disciplinary foundations from which to make sense of the
world; we also want them to be socially responsible citizens who enjoy
life”. This sentiment was also expressed an appreciable amount of times in
the statements from the University of Warwick (17%), Queen’s University
Belfast (20%), University of Exeter (22%), Durham University (23%), and
Cambridge University (14%). That said, it bears repeating that these state-
ments are simply public announcements of a university’s proposed re-
search and teaching plans and initiatives. Therefore, universities are not
legally bound to follow the goals and proposals issued in these statements,
and can pursue them in any way they see fit -which may or may not align
with the intended spirit of said goals and proposals. The findings of this
study are thus only able to provide rough insights into the Russell Group’s
pedagogic and institutional trends and trajectories. Future observational
and survey research is needed to determine the extent and ways that the
neoliberal discursive practices identified in this brief content analysis are
manifesting in British and other Western universities, and impacting aca-
demics’ everyday experiences and priorities.
Finally, I want to close by noting that I am not arguing against em-
ployability, the instrumentality of research, or accountability for lack-lus-
ter teaching. These goals and practices are not necessarily antithetical to
or totally incompatible with traditional university ones. For instance,
university natural science, social science, and humanities courses have
since their inception been designed to foster critical thinking, commu-
nications, researching, and data analysis skills. Such skills are inherent-
ly transferable and applicable to contemporary knowledge and service
economy jobs. Moreover, instrumental research has always gone hand in
hand with pure research, and students certainly deserve quality teaching
and pastoral care. However, when the neoliberal expression of pedagog-
ic instrumentalism and accountability becomes totally unmoored from
93
that this must first and foremost be guided, informed, and initiated by
staff in congruence with their respective expertise and interests. For ex-
ample, on pg. 26 of this statement, it says that the university will establish
an approach to pedagogic change by: “Freeing up time of key academics
who lead the transformation of specific modules, so they have the space
to identify learning outcomes, to map these to optimal delivery methods,
then to develop and deploy these within an active learning framework”.
Additionally, there were a few other standout examples of coun-
ter-hegemonic narratives. In particular, the statement of KCL regular-
ly expressed a seemingly sincere concern to help develop considerate,
service-oriented, and cosmopolitan students. Note for example the fol-
lowing excerpt from KCL’s statement on pg. 5. “We want our graduates
to have strong disciplinary foundations from which to make sense of the
world; we also want them to be socially responsible citizens who enjoy
life”. This sentiment was also expressed an appreciable amount of times in
the statements from the University of Warwick (17%), Queen’s University
Belfast (20%), University of Exeter (22%), Durham University (23%), and
Cambridge University (14%). That said, it bears repeating that these state-
ments are simply public announcements of a university’s proposed re-
search and teaching plans and initiatives. Therefore, universities are not
legally bound to follow the goals and proposals issued in these statements,
and can pursue them in any way they see fit -which may or may not align
with the intended spirit of said goals and proposals. The findings of this
study are thus only able to provide rough insights into the Russell Group’s
pedagogic and institutional trends and trajectories. Future observational
and survey research is needed to determine the extent and ways that the
neoliberal discursive practices identified in this brief content analysis are
manifesting in British and other Western universities, and impacting aca-
demics’ everyday experiences and priorities.
Finally, I want to close by noting that I am not arguing against em-
ployability, the instrumentality of research, or accountability for lack-lus-
ter teaching. These goals and practices are not necessarily antithetical to
or totally incompatible with traditional university ones. For instance,
university natural science, social science, and humanities courses have
since their inception been designed to foster critical thinking, commu-
nications, researching, and data analysis skills. Such skills are inherent-
ly transferable and applicable to contemporary knowledge and service
economy jobs. Moreover, instrumental research has always gone hand in
hand with pure research, and students certainly deserve quality teaching
and pastoral care. However, when the neoliberal expression of pedagog-
ic instrumentalism and accountability becomes totally unmoored from
93
