Notes on: Lambert, C., Parker, A. and Neary,
M. (2007) 'Entrepreneurialism and critical
pedagogy: reinventing the higher education
curriculum'. Teaching in Higher
Education, 12 (4): 525 - 37. Doi:
10.1080/13562510701415672.
Dave Harris
Widespread change in UKHE has included the
development of managerialism, entrepreneurialism,
quality control, links between universities and
industry, and the construction of students as
consumers in a global marketplace. This is
commodification, and entrepreneurialism has played
a major part in it. Pedagogic practices,
however might consider a more critical
relationships between entrepreneurialism and
education, as in the Reinvention Centre for
Undergraduate Research.
The commercialisation of education is global,
driven through international institutions, like
the World Trade Organisation. Links with
industry and the development of an entrepreneurial
spirit have been important, claims for the
importance of the knowledge economy or the
learning society have also been prominent, linked
to an international agenda. This is an
instrumental education focusing on human resources
rather than personal achievement, or the promotion
of education as a social good. It has been
called the '"Tesco" model of education'[Foster,
2002] (526). As a result, the structures of
HE have also changed in the adoption of managerial
strategies, entrepreneurial activity, and systems
of accountability.
The trend has been developed through a series of
reports and policy initiatives, including Dearing,
the more recent White Paper on the future of
higher education, and the Lambert Review, all
developing the knowledge based economy
perspective. A university organized around
this is supposed to be the way to develop to
overcome funding crisis and also to become more
competitive globally. This has resulted in
'niche marketing strategies' (527) and also
'private, corporate and virtual
universities'. These policies have led to a
hierarchical divide among HEIs themselves, where
research has become more prestigious and more
financially viable, with consequences for
academics who are also now seen as commodities.
Critical responses have included discussions of
commercialisation and social justice, the impact
of market demand, the erosion of the professional
identity and the student identity [refs page
527]. There is less research looking at the
impact on classroom activity. However, one
way in which commercialisation affects teaching
and learning is through enterprise
education. There has been a long history of
policies and practices to develop
entrepreneurialism.
One problem is that enterprise activity is itself
problematic. Entrepreneurship does not
necessarily support narrow profit led
activity. Even so, attributes are mostly
seen as business skills, and these have captured
the more creative and social dimensions. The
issue becomes one of getting involved without
compromising, and this in turn means there is a
need for 'an appropriate model of teaching and
learning' (528).
The Centre began with the aim of reinventing
teaching relations, bringing students more closely
into research cultures. Strategies have
included funds to academics and others to develop
research based learning and teaching, and
graduates to carry out research. Pedagogic
space itself has been reinvented, and relations
established with other academic institutions and
community groups. Important intellectual
traditions have included an American one
(Scholarship of Teaching and Learning), and work
on the role of student as researcher. Boyer
has been important. There has also been an
input from radical pedagogy and critical pedagogy,
including Freire. These help see that
teaching and learning are socially and
intellectually useful activities, and show the
need to combine action and reflection.
Students and teachers have to work creatively, in
an open way, including using collaborative methods
of thinking and research. As Freire
indicates, there is a social and political
critique 'embedded within pedagogy', and this has
led to the development of 'academic activism',
joining the academy to 'networks of social
protest' (529). At the same time, critical
pedagogy itself needs to be interrogated, and it
is ambitious to assume that this will itself lead
to challenge to neoliberal trends. Some case
studies of student research activity are
presented.
In the first example, students were encouraged to
write and publish 'a book of sociological fiction
and photographic images' (530) [called Representations].
It showcases students work and also discusses the
intellectual processes involved. The idea
was proposed by two sociologists working with
narrative and visual sociology, and students took
up the idea. Challenges that emerged
included facing different pedagogic demands, such
as writing stories of photographs rather than
traditional essays. This made students
initially uncomfortable, although they were
'surprised' by the quality of the work they had
produced. Accounts were collected and
produced in the book.
The second project was launched on gender
transformations, involving student unions and
staff in a collective. The idea was to
research student activism and campaign, through
interviews, group conversations, and
discussion. Subsequent images and posters
and reflexive journal entries were produced, and
these were distributed via e-mail.
Collaborative analysis and writing up produced 'a
shared story; one that is necessarily
characterised by multiple voices and creative
tensions' (531). The notion of praxis was
particularly explored. Research findings
have been presented him publications and
conference papers and they have been critically
discussed. Again students were forced to
reflect. Of course, power differences 'can
neither be ignored nor erased'(532), but learning
took place 'based on genuine enquiry' rather than
impose learning outcomes, and involve dialogue
between staff and students. Links were also
made between the university and campaigners.
The third case study was a documentary film
[called Universities plc?], focused on
commodification, representing the global factors
at work on HE, and possible alternative ways of
living or working and thinking. Commentators
of various kinds were interviewed. Links
were made with a sociology module on crime and
deviance, where students had learned from
discussions with young offenders. A
cooperative was funded to communicate with
students in other universities through conferences
and workshops, and the film has been widely
shown. The production of the film and its
presentation are just as significant as the
product, and show undergraduate students'
potential. A second critical documentary is
also underway, again reflecting on the pedagogic
process collaboratively. Reflection will
address unequal power relations and this will be
featured in the film.
Entrepreneurial activity is central to neo
liberalism, but entrepreneurial values can be
directed at more educationally valuable
contexts. This shows possibilities outside
the neoliberal version. In the Centre, the
focus was on 'intellectual and critical
inquiry'(533), and on reinvention. The case
study shows some of the possibilities, and the
Centre has been important in encouraging similar
developments. Pedagogic practice itself
might involve 'the more critical exploration of
the relationship between entrepreneurialism and
education'(534).
back to ed studies
|
|