Qualitative Research Report
slimstickler
EXAMPLEOFREPORTSTRUCTURE.docxEXAMPLE OF REPORT STRUCTURE
The Effects of the Neoliberal Agenda on
Participation and Learning in Higher Education
The rise of the knowledge economy has created discussion on rights to higher education (HE) driven by the competing discourses of social inclusion, social justice, and widening participation (Burke, 2013a). Policies such as the Bradley review of Australian higher education (2008), are founded on neoliberal discourses of the knowledge economy which advocate that access to HE be made available to all capable people, regardless of background.
Ascendancy of this neoliberal discourse has, in turn, manifested a shift in the way institutions of HE have justified and defined their existence (Olssen & Peters, 2005). This has seen a gradual shift away from the liberal notion of HE as a public good to benefit society, towards a more neoliberal, masculine, and westernised concept of the independent learner (Morley & Lugg, 2009).
The concept of the masculinised independent learner was born from the rise of industrial capitalism where dependency was seen as shameful. This construct of the independent learner is one that is promoted in the discourses of educational policy, as a selfmanaging and self-reliant learner, and is seen as an essential construct in promoting life-long learning in order to gain skills for future employability (Leathwood, 2006). Williams (2011) argues that the promotion of employability through HE is socially constructing students into “consumers” of HE. Through this construction, learning and knowledge is not seen as an intellectually stimulating journey but a commodity that can be measured in contact hours, assessment methods, and degree certificates (Williams, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to explore in detail the impact of the neoliberal agenda on students’ accounts of participation and learning in HE. Given the lack of theoretical framework in this area, a rich and in-depth qualitative approach was considered important to focus on knowledge construction and contribute to theory generation (Saba, 2000).
Methodology
The focus of the current research was on the exploration of how neoliberal agenda has shaped how students experience participation and learning within HE. A moderate social constructionist paradigm was regarded as the most appropriate tool as I sought to recognise the impact of societal views on an individual’s discursive practices within a HE setting. Social constructionism postulates that multiple constructions of meaning can be created, influenced by cultural, historical, and linguistic factors of those engaged in the social interaction (Crotty, 1998).
Although various qualitative data analytic approaches were considered, thematic analysis (TA) was chosen to identify patterns that are socially produced. TA conducted within a moderate social constructionist framework does not aim to focus on individual interpretations or motives, it instead aims to theorise the socio-cultural contexts of the individual narratives presented (Burr, 2015).
In using the social constructionism paradigm, the researcher and participant have dialectical transference where knowledge will always be constructed subjectively by the researcher (Lawson, 1993). Therefore, it is imperative that researchers reflect on how they may influence this interpretive process. I believe it is not possible to write in an entirely impartial and dispassionate way, I have generally adopted the position of the advocate of the intellectual journey. As a studentresearcher and participant I was unprepared for the journey I experienced during the research project. Following this insight, the narratives explored took on new meanings as I began to honour and locate my story within the dialogue, this unequivocally transformed how I interpreted and analysed the data.
Method
Participants
Three psychology students volunteered to take part in a semi-structured interview, while attending residential school at university. The three participants consisted of Marge who is a 35-year-old Caucasian female, Sophie who is a 48-year-old Caucasian female, and Dylan who is a 51-year-old Caucasian male.
Informed consent was obtained by briefing participants on the nature of the study, and advising that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The 3 participants sighted and signed a consent form agreeing to participate in the study. Participants were assured confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy prior to conducting the research by the use of pseudonyms and changing potentially identifiable information about the participants or others discussed.
Procedure
The research project was approved by the university ethics committee. The 3 participants acted as co-researchers and played roles of the interviewer and interviewee at least once in the research project. The initial interview schedule was created collaboratively with all students enrolled in the class, and later narrowed down by the co-researchers (see Appendix A).
All interviews were semi-structured. The interview questions provided structure but also allowed flexibility to respond to issues deemed important for participants. The interviews ran between 13 to 25 minutes long, and were recorded via audiotape. The interviews were transcribed by the interviewer and pseudonyms were prescribed for all interviewees (Draper, 2004).
Data Analysis
The completed transcripts were analysed using TA, governed by the guidelines provided by Braun and Clarke (2006). This research utilised an inductive “bottom-up” approach in that the data was read and re-read for any themes relating to how students have constructed themselves within the neoliberal era of education. Following transcription of the data, I read the interview transcripts at least four times and changed the sequence to avoid ‘primed’ idea generation. In familiarising myself with the data I logged any thoughts and ideas about the interesting features of the data. In doing this, identified two main themes: Power and independence.
Analysis and Interpretation
It is important to note here the purpose of the study was to explore in detail the impact of the neoliberal agenda on students’ accounts of participation and learning in HE. Following the social constructionist TA, two main superordinate themes were developed: (1) A shift in power; and (2) the independent learner.
Theme 1: A Shift in Power
A sense of empowerment in how students participate in HE was a consistent theme throughout all the interviews. This empowerment manifested itself in the form of student demands. One particularly salient example can be seen when Marge talks about how everyday life impacts on her ability to participate:
“I have to do a test in another subject, but the problem is that they will only give us one week to do the test. I work full time so this is really hard for me cos I can only do it on weekends. I emailed them and said I couldn’t do it and to change the date.”
(Marge, p. 4)
Marge demonstrates a sense of entitlement in requesting the lecturer alter a due date – no longer is the lecturer seen as the only authority holder. This sense of power and entitlement has likely been constructed through the socio-cultural view of the student-as-consumer (SAC). It is evident that as the SAC mentality becomes entrenched, students are expected to take on the personification of the customer, “the customer is always right”, which has fostered a culture of compliance within HE (Molesworth, Scullion, & Nixon, 2010).
This SAC approach has facilitated a perceived shift in power from the provider (university) to the consumer (student) as students now have control over expectations and quality of service through evaluative surveys (Bunce, Baird, & Jones, 2016). One example is the expectation for lecturers to be increasingly accessible to students, as expressed by Dylan:
“I expect to be able to have my questions answered while doing my study. It comes
down to the availability of our lecturers.”
(Dylan, p. 5)
This example shows how getting help is presented as a right; the account is solely selfcentred, the student’s time is viewed as precious, and the student demands service now when it is convenient for him, without regard for others. The idea that students hold lecturers and institutions to account for the services they provide may be seen as a positive development in student power. However, it could also be interpreted as suggesting that students know better than lecturers about what is needed in learning and teaching, thereby shifting the balance of power solely to the student.
The pressure to produce happy consumers has the potential to impact pedagogy, as it may drive lecturers to provide a service rather than advocate education as an intellectual pursuit, as illustrated in this comment:
“I don’t gain much from online lectures, they seem to be just a repetition of the readings.”
(Marge, p. 3)
This sentiment of the lectures being least fulfilling in creating an intellectual journey was expressed by all of the participants and shows how treating education like a service can erode the quality of education provided. The act of telling my personal experience stimulated an exploration of my identity as a student; it dawned on me that I was a SAC. The guilt of having unconsciously held power over my lecturers in forms of demands underpinned and drove the exploration of this theme.
Theme 2: The Independent Learner
The second prominent theme evident in all the interviews is the concept of the independent learner. The independent learner is thought of as an independent, autonomous individual (Leathwood, 2006), and this construct is expressed by Sophie:
“I feel that we’re supposed to be finding things out and learning as we go but, yeah I
only tend to ask questions if I really can’t do something.”
(p. 3)
In the above example, Sophie articulates the concept of independence as ‘thinking for yourself’ and ‘taking initiative to do things yourself’ with the perception that you should only ask for help when you absolutely have to. Similar sentiments were expressed by May when asked about her preferred method of learning:
“I prefer to study alone, um, as I find that I can use lots of different resources to help
me understand the readings and the material at a greater depth.”
(p. 3).
We see a similar sense of independence as having to take responsibility for oneself and being proactive in finding the answers. These students emphasise the importance of being an independent learner embodying the masculinised and westernised concept of participation and learning.
Leathwood (2006) argued that there are dangers in students constructing themselves as independent learners as it can be repressive rather than emancipatory. This is especially the case if the independent learner has been constructed not as a female, but as a white, middleclassed male who is unfettered by self-doubt. In this sense, students who construct themselves as independent learners may avoid or hesitate in asking for support, as its connotations of need and dependency has been pathologised by society (Burke, 2013b):
“I really hesitate in contacting lecturers by email, and then contacting them again
when they don’t reply, I’m sure they’re so busy…..I feel bad when I do.”
(Marge, p. 4)
In this particular example, being seen as following-up lecturers has attracted negative connotation of feeling ‘bad’. Marge’s account suggests that the promoted westernised and masculinised concept of the independent learner may inadvertently make students feel that they need support or help or make them feel needy and inferior. This concept of the independent learner presents difficulties for women and other non-traditional students that may be excluded from this normative model. As a woman myself, I have often felt the constraints to avoid displaying socially constructed, undesirable traits such as neediness when approaching lecturers. In turn, this has influenced how I have deconstructed and explored the notion of the independent learner while overlooking other themes.
Conclusion
Throughout the process it was evident that the neoliberal agenda has vastly transformed the landscape of HE. Student identities are constructed by the shifting balance of power and advocacy of the independent learner. Interestingly, although students found it acceptable to make demands of lecturers in certain circumstances using consumer discourse to assert their rights, in other circumstances there was a fear of exposing a weakness in themselves or a sense of dependency on the lecturer. It may be that the continual promotion of the westernised concept of independence and denunciation of dependence reinforce the construct of the independent learner where students are reluctant to seek help and where disadvantaged and non-traditional students suffer the most.
