"Re-Placing" Aspirations in Higher Education Policy Discourse

• In Event: "Re-Placing" Aspirations in a Postindustrial Context

Abstract

This paper starts from the position that ‘aspirations’ are relational, not detached goals that can be uniformly ‘raised’ through education, to somehow benefit disadvantaged young people in post-industrial contexts. In the first instance, example statements from Higher Education (HE) policy for widening participation and employability are critically examined in order to notice why the concept of ‘raising aspirations’ is problematic as a ‘deficit discourse’ (Harrison and Waller, 2018). As HE policies have been written as strategic discourses to respond to a range of social issues in a neoliberal context (Abendroth & Porfilio, 2015), these topics are frequently discussed in isolation from each other (Peters, Jandrić & Hayes, 2018). Furthermore, the policy documents themselves tend to be formed from many repetitive, standardised statements that have come to resemble assembly lines of ‘automated language’ (Hayes, 2019). At a time when mass automation of many jobs is anticipated, a more fundamental revisioning of HE policy discourse to reflect individual, contextual human practices around learning is necessary. HE policy currently responds to an industrial model of education that deeply reflects a form of capitalist automation that is changing. A more uneven and less predictable impact from digital technologies across different sectors may now further widen income disparities (Connor, Mahoney & Lewis, 2019).
Therefore, as many authors now call for emphasis on developing social, creative and critical thinking skills in universities, so that learners can adapt in the face of automation, a fundamental reform of how we write related HE policy, is needed. Whilst no direct connections between policy discourse and social practices are assumed (Hayes, 2019: 31), it is argued that the social identity, location and place surrounding learners in post-industrial contexts is currently marginalised (not personalised) in HE policy. Armand Doucet calls for a more ‘ethical personalisation in education’ to avoid exacerbating inequities as automation progresses (Doucet, 2018: 96). An ethical, personalised policy discourse needs to reflect this.

References
Abendroth, M., & Porfilio, B. J. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding neoliberal rule in higher education: Educational fronts for local and global justice. IAP.
Connor, S., Mahoney, M., & Lewis, N. (2019). Anticipating a 4th Industrial revolution and the futures of learning: a discussion paper for Wolverhampton Learning City Region. https://wlv.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/2436/622286/Connor_et_al_Anticipating_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Doucet, A., Evers, J., Guerra, E., Lopez, N., Soskil, M., & Timmers, K. (2018). Teaching in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Standing at the Precipice. Routledge.
Harrison, N., and Waller, R. (2018). Challenging discourses of aspiration: The role of expectations and attainment in access to higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 914-938.
Hayes, S. (2019). The Labour of Words in Higher Education: Is it Time to Reoccupy Policy? Brill.
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2018). The curious promise of educationalising technological unemployment: What can places of learning really do about the future of work? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–13.

Author

• Sarah Hayes, University of Wolverhampton