Learning from a deceptively spacious policy discourse

Networked Learning, e-Learning and Technology Enhanced Learning have each been defined in different ways, as people's understanding about technology in education has developed. Yet each could also be considered as a terminology competing for a contested conceptual space. Theoretically this can be a ‘fertile trans-disciplinary ground for represented disciplines to affect and potentially be re-orientated by others’ (Parchoma and Keefer, 2012), as differing perspectives on terminology and subject disciplines yield new understandings. Yet when used in government policy texts to describe connections between humans, learning and technology, terms tend to become fixed in less fertile positions linguistically. A deceptively spacious policy discourse that suggests people are free to make choices conceals an economically-based assumption that implementing new technologies, in themselves, determines learning. Yet it actually narrows choices open to people as one route is repeatedly in the foreground and humans are not visibly involved in it. An impression that the effective use of technology for endless improvement is inevitable cuts off critical social interactions and new knowledge for multiple understandings of technology in people's lives. This paper explores some findings from a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis of UK policy for educational technology during the last 15 years, to help to illuminate the choices made. This is important when through political economy, hierarchical or dominant neoliberal logic promotes a single ‘universal model’ of technology in education, without reference to a wider social context (Rustin, 2013). Discourse matters, because it can ‘mould identities’ (Massey, 2013) in narrow, objective economically-based terms which 'colonise discourses of democracy and student-centredness' (Greener and Perriton, 2005:67). This undermines subjective social, political, material and relational (Jones, 2012: 3) contexts for those learning when humans are omitted. Critically confronting these structures is not considered a negative activity. Whilst deterministic discourse for educational technology may leave people unconsciously restricted, I argue that, through a close analysis, it offers a deceptively spacious theoretical tool for debate about the wider social and economic context of educational technology. Methodologically it provides insights about ways technology, language and learning intersect across disciplinary borders (Giroux, 1992), as powerful, mutually constitutive elements, ever-present in networked learning situations. In sharing a replicable approach for linguistic analysis of policy discourse I hope to contribute to visions others have for a broader theoretical underpinning for educational technology, as a developing field of networked knowledge and research (Conole and Oliver, 2002; Andrews, 2011).

Learning from a deceptively spacious policy discourse

In this chapter, the way in which varied terms such as Networked learning, e-learning and Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) have each become colonised to support a dominant, economically-based world view of educational technology is discussed. Critical social theory about technology, language and learning is brought into dialogue with examples from a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy texts for educational technology between1997 and 2012. Though these policy documents offer much promise for enhancement of people’s performance via technology, the human presence to enact such innovation is missing. Given that ‘academic workload’ is a ‘silent barrier’ to the implementation of TEL strategies (Gregory and Lodge, 2015), analysis further exposes, through empirical examples, that the academic labour of both staff and students appears to be unacknowledged. Global neoliberal capitalist values have strongly territorialised the contemporary university (Hayes & Jandric, 2014), utilising existing naïve, utopian arguments about what technology alone achieves. Whilst the chapter reveals how humans are easily ‘evicted’, even from discourse about their own learning (Hayes, 2015), it also challenges staff and students to seek to re-occupy the important territory of policy to subvert the established order. We can use the very political discourse that has disguised our networked learning practices, in new explicit ways, to restore our human visibility.

The political discourse and material practice of technology enhanced learning

Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them (Marx, 1990: 372) My thesis is a Sociological analysis of UK policy discourse for educational technology during the last 15 years. My framework is a dialogue between the Marxist-based critical social theory of Lieras and a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in higher education. Embedded in TEL is a presupposition: a deterministic assumption that technology has enhanced learning. This conceals a necessary debate that reminds us it is humans that design learning, not technology. By omitting people, TEL provides a vehicle for strong hierarchical or neoliberal, agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. My research has two main aims: firstly, I share a replicable, mixed methodological approach for linguistic analysis of the political discourse of TEL. Quantitatively, I examine patterns in my corpus to question forms of ‘use’ around technology that structure a rigid basic argument which ‘enframes’ educational technology (Heidegger, 1977: 38). In a qualitative analysis of findings, I ask to what extent policy discourse evaluates technology in one way, to support a Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) in a political economy of neoliberalism (Jessop 2004, Fairclough 2006). If technology is commodified as an external enhancement, it is expected to provide an ‘exchange value’ for learners (Marx, 1867). I therefore examine more closely what is prioritised and devalued in these texts. Secondly, I disclose a form of austerity in the discourse where technology, as an abstract force, undertakes tasks usually ascribed to humans (Lieras, 1996, Brey, 2003:2). This risks desubjectivisation, loss of power and limits people’s relationships with technology and with each other. A view of technology in political discourse as complete without people closes possibilities for broader dialectical (Fairclough, 2001, 2007) and ‘convivial’ (Illich, 1973) understandings of the intimate, material practice of engaging with technology in education. In opening the ‘black box’ of TEL via CDA I reveal talking points that are otherwise concealed. This allows me as to be reflexive and self-critical through praxis, to confront my own assumptions about what the discourse conceals and what forms of resistance might be required. In so doing, I contribute to ongoing debates about networked learning, providing a context to explore educational technology as a technology, language and learning nexus.

The two limits debates: "Limits to Growth" and climate change

In this article we compare the current debate about global warming with the earlier discourse of Limits to Growth (LtG) of the 1970's. We are especially interested in the similarities of and differences between the two cases and therefore compare the policy challenges and lessons to be drawn. While the two debates differ on important issues, they share a technocratic orientation to public policy, and susceptibility to similar pitfalls. In both debates alarming scenarios about future catastrophes play an important role. We suggest that climate change policy discourse needs to focus more closely on the social, economic, and political dimensions of climate change, as opposed to its excessive emphasis on emission reduction targets. We also argue that an excessive faith in the market mechanisms to supply global warming mitigation technologies is problematic. In this respect, we provide a reality check regarding the political implications of emission targets and timetables and suggest how policy issues can be moved forward.

What do public values mean for public action? Putting public values in their plural place

Public values are moving from a research concern to policy discourse and management practice. There are, though, different readings of what public values actually mean. Reflection suggests two distinct strands of thinking: a generative strand that sees public value emerging from processes of public debate; and an institutional interpretation that views public values as the attributes of government producers. Neither perspective seems to offer a persuasive account of how the public gains from strengthened public values. Key propositions on values are generated from comparison of influential texts. A provisional framework is presented of the values base of public institutions and the loosely coupled public propositions flowing from these values. Value propositions issue from different governing contexts, which are grouped into policy frames that then compete with other problem frames for citizens’ cognitive resources. Vital democratic commitments to pluralism require public values to be distributed in competition with other, respected, frames.

Counting on use of technology to enhance learning

In global policy documents, the language of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) now firmly structures a perception of educational technology which ‘subsumes’ terms like Networked Learning and e-Learning. Embedded in these three words though is a deterministic, economic assumption that technology has now enhanced learning, and will continue to do so. In a market-driven, capitalist society this is a ‘trouble free’, economically focused discourse which suggests there is no need for further debate about what the use of technology achieves in learning. Yet this raises a problem too: if technology achieves goals for human beings, then in education we are now simply counting on ‘use of technology’ to enhance learning. This closes the door on a necessary and ongoing critical pedagogical conversation that reminds us it is people that design learning, not technology. Furthermore, such discourse provides a vehicle for those with either strong hierarchical, or neoliberal agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. This chapter is a reflection on our use of language in the educational technology community through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In analytical examples that are ‘loaded’ with economic expectation, we can notice how the policy discourse of TEL narrows conversational space for learning so that people may struggle to recognise their own subjective being in this language. Through the lens of Lieras’s externality, desubjectivisation and closure (Lieras, 1996) we might examine possible effects of this discourse and seek a more emancipatory approach. A return to discussing Networked Learning is suggested, as a first step towards a more multi-directional conversation than TEL, that acknowledges the interrelatedness of technology, language and learning in people’s practice. Secondly, a reconsideration of how we write policy for educational technology is recommended, with a critical focus on how people learn, rather than on what technology is assumed to enhance.

Bernstein's theory of pedagogic discourse: linguistics, educational policy and practice in the UK English/literacy classroom

In “The English Patient: English Grammar and teaching in the Twentieth Century”, Hudson and Walmsley (2005) contens that the decline of grammar in schools was linked to a similar decline in English universities, where no serious research or teaching on English grammar took place. This article argues that such a decline was due not only to a lack of research, but also because it suited educational policies of the time. It applies Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (1990 & 1996) to the case study of the debate surrounding the introduction of a national curriculum in English in England in the late 1980s and the National Literacy Strategy in the 1990s, to demonstrate the links between academic theory and educational policy.

Biologising parenting:neuroscience discourse, English social and public health policy and understandings of the child

In recent years, claims about children's developing brains have become central to the formation of child health and welfare policies in England. While these policies assert that they are based on neuro-scientific discoveries, their relationship to neuroscience itself has been debated. However, what is clear is that they portray a particular understanding of children and childhood, one that is marked by a lack of acknowledgment of child personhood. Using an analysis of key government-commissioned reports and additional advocacy documents, this article illustrates the ways that the mind of the child is reduced to the brain, and this brain comes to represent the child. It is argued that a highly reductionist and limiting construction of the child is produced, alongside the idea that parenting is the main factor in child development. It is concluded that this focus on children's brains, with its accompanying deterministic perspective on parenting, overlooks children's embodied lives and this has implications for the design of children's health and welfare services.

Biologising parenting:neuroscience discourse, English social and public health policy and understandings of the child

In recent years, claims about children's developing brains have become central to the formation of child health and welfare policies in England. While these policies assert that they are based on neuro-scientific discoveries, their relationship to neuroscience itself has been debated. However what is clear is that they portray a particular understanding of children and childhood, one that is marked by a lack of acknowledgment of child personhood. Using an analysis of key government-commissioned reports and additional advocacy documents, this chapter illustrates the ways that the mind of the child is reduced to the brain, and this brain comes to represent the child. It is argued that a highly reductionist and limiting construction of the child is produced, alongside the idea that parenting is the main factor in child development. It is concluded that this focus on children's brains, with its accompanying deterministic perspective on parenting, overlooks children's embodied lives and this has implications for the design of children's health and welfare services.

Language policy and critical discourse studies:towards an integrated approach

This chapter offers a framework for combining critical language policy with critical discourse studies (CDS) to analyse language policy as a process in the context of minority language policy in Wales. I propose a discursive approach to language policy, which starts from the premise that language policy is constituted, enacted, interpreted and (re)contextualised in and through language. This approach extends the critical language policy framework provided by Shohamy (Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge, London, 2006) and integrates perspectives from the context-sensitive discourse-historical approach in CDS. It incorporates discourse as an essential lens through which policy mechanisms, ideologies and practices are constituted and de facto language policy materialises. This chapter argues that conceptualising and analysing language policy as a discursive phenomenon enables a better understanding of the multi-layered nature of language policy that shapes the management and experience of corporate bilingualism in Wales.

Evaluating EU regional policy

This article presents a challenge to the ways in which EU regional policy has been evaluated in the past. Given the complexity of the 'policy framework' and its objectives, it is argued that existing evaluation methodologies are not only inappropriate but create a real risk of misleading policy-makers in their search for identifying which programmes and initiatives are the most effective in tackling the scale of regional disparity that exists across the European Union. For example, the search for an 'average effect' of intervention, whether in terms of jobs created or GVA generated, does not adequately recognise the context within which policy operates. The article argues that only by attempting to adopt a realist evaluation framework can the discourse on effective regional policy be advanced. Examples are provided from a body of work on the evaluation of business support interventions in the UK as well as a broader study of the way in which regulations impacts upon firm performance and growth. This methodological approach provides an opportunity for the evaluator to identify the causal mechanisms which connect the range of policy interventions and their outcomes. In brief, it has greater potential to inform the policy-maker as to what works and, more importantly, in what contexts.

International student recruitment to universities in England: discourse, rationales and globalisation

2E4 (dounclaintieo)n The recruitment of international students to universities in England has become a central issue in an era of globalisation for university administrators, senior managers, international offices and heads of schools and faculties. We examine the policy rationales for the recruitment of international students to England. Through the use of in-depth interviews with key role players at four English universities, we compare the rhetoric, rationales and reasons for the recruitment of international students. A range of discourses can be identified in the recruitment of international students and an economic competition rationale is dominant. This is expressed within the discourse of globalisation.

Linkages between ecocentric values and action in expert discourse: the case of genetically modified food in the UK

Attitudes towards the environment can be manifest in two broad categories, namely anthropocentric and ecocentric. The former regards nature as of value only insofar as it is useful to humanity, whereas the latter assigns intrinsic value to natural entities. Industrial society can be characterised as being dominated by anthropocentrism, which leads to the assumption that a majority of people hold anthropocentric values. However, research shows the most widely held values are ecocentric, which implies that many people's actions are at variance with their values. Furthermore, policy relating to environmental issues is predominantly anthropocentric, which implies it is failing to take account of the values of the majority. Research among experts involved in policy formulation has shown that their values, often ecocentric, are excluded from the policy process. The genetic modification of food can be categorised as anthropocentric, which implies that the technique is in conflict with widely held ecocentric values. This thesis examines data collected from interviews with individuals who have an influence on the debate surrounding the introduction of genetically modified foods, and can be considered 'experts'. Each interviewee is categorised according to whether their values and actions are ecocentric or anthropocentric, and the linkages between the two and the arguments used to justify their positions are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on interviewees who have ecocentric values but act professionally in an anthropocentric way. Finally, common themes are drawn out, and the features the arguments used by the interviewees have in common are outlined.

Neuroscience and family policy:what becomes of the parent?

This article discusses the findings of a study tracing the incorporation of claims about infant brain development into English family policy as part of the longer term development of a ‘parent training’, early intervention agenda. The main focus is on the ways in which the deployment of neuroscientific discourse in family policy creates the basis for a new governmental oversight of parents. We argue that advocacy of ‘early intervention’, in particular that which deploys the authority of ‘the neuroscience’, places parents at the centre of the policy stage but simultaneously demotes and marginalises them. So we ask, what becomes of the parent when politically and culturally, the child is spoken of as infinitely and permanently neurologically vulnerable to parental influence? In particular, the policy focus on parental emotions and their impact on infant brain development indicates that this represents a biologisation of ‘therapeutic’ governance.