Session Information
22 SES 11 B, Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
At the beginning of the 21st century universities are increasingly governed and functioned according to the ideas and values of neo liberalism. Following the doctrine of new public management managerialistic practices have been introduced in several western countries, evoking new pressures for accountability, cost-effectiveness, competition and market orientation. These trends are clearly identified also in Finland. During the last 15–20 years new trends towards market and NPM have been strengthened in the Finnish higher education policy. The relationship between the Ministry of Education and the universities has changed into result-based management and steering. Several re-constructions and reforms have been carried out concerning legislation, administration, budgeting, steering mechanism and management of universities. (Ball 2006; Jauhiainen et. al 2009; Neave 2000; Slaughter & Leslie 1997; Ylijoki & Mäntylä 2003.)
Stephen Ball has analyzed and criticized the new policy from the point of view of the exercise of power and new forms of governance (Dean 1999; Miller & Rose 2008) , and the consequences of these. He has examined the operational policy based on new global, neo-liberalist values using the so-called policy technologies approach (Ball 2003, 216.) The basic elements of the new policy technologies are, according to Ball, market form,managerialism and performativity. These have replaced or are replacing at least partially the 'old' forms of policy governance such as bureaucratic administration, representative democracy and expertise based on professionalism (Simola 2009). The driving in and adaptation of these technologies entails a complete paradigm shift in policy. These are exactly those forms of policy-making that define the 'new covenant' between the public sector and the private sector in global politics and which supranational actors, with the OECD at the fore, have been enthusiastically spreading throughout various countries in recent years (see e.g. Ball 2001; 2003; 2004; Kallo 2009).
According to Ball (2003, 220–221), the application of policy technologies has numerous effects, which are not limited merely to the practices and techniques of governance and leadership. It is question about micro-politics, subjectivities and identity construction. The new, neo-liberal values have a significant effect on shared values, interpersonal relationships, the individual's status and identity, as well as on work practices and work content in institutions and organizations. As a matter of fact, they produce new types of relationships, status and values, as well as new types of identities (Simola 2009).
Policy technologies are implemented using certain techniques, through concrete practices and methods. In this study, we examine new and renewed practices in university work, and the forms of governance and management that permeate various levels of this work: the outcomes-based salary system, the annual working hour system and work time allocation, the degree reform and quality assurance and evaluation. We are interested in how the university staffs in different status groups and employee groups experience the governance of their work. Furthermore, we ask how these experiences are interrelated with the views of the meaningfulness of their work.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teachers´soul and terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy 18 (2), 215–228. Ball, S.J. 2006. Performativity and Fabrications in the Education Economy: Towards the Performativity Society. In Lauder, H, Brown, P., Dillabough, J-A., & Halsey, A.H. (eds.) Education, Globalisation & Social change.Oxford: University Press, 692-701. Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality. London: Sage Hoecht, A. (2006). Quality assurance in Uk higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability. Higher education 51, 541–563. Jauhiainen, A. Jauhiainen, A. & Laiho, A. 2009. The Dilemmas of the ”efficiency university” and the everyday life of university teachers. Teaching in Higher Education Journal 14 (4), 417-428. Kallo, J. (2009) OECD Education Policy. A comparative and historical study focusing on the thematic reviews of tertiary education. Finnish Educational Research Association: Research in Educational Sciences 45. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press. Miller , P. & Rose, N. 2008.Governing the present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life.Cambridge: Polity Press. Neave, G. 2000. Introduction. Universities’ Responsibilities to Society: An Historical Exploration of an Enduring Issue. In Neave, G. (ed.) The Universities’ Responsibilities to Society. International Perspectives. Issues in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press for International Association of Universities, 1-28. Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analyzinf Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications. Simola, H. (2009) Trans-national Technologies, National Techniques and Local Mechanisms in Finnish University Governance: a journey through the layers. Nordic Educational Research 29 (1), 6-17. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. 1997 Academic capitalism. Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Ylijoki, O.-H. & Mäntylä, H. (2003). Conflicting time perspectives in academic work. Time & Society, 12 (1) 55–78.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.