TY - GEN
T1 - Invisible labour
T2 - Do we need to reoccupy student engagement policy?
AU - Hayes, Sarah L
N1 - This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedited version of an article published in Learning and Teaching. The definitive publisher-authenticated version 'Invisible labour: Do we need to reoccupy student engagement policy?' Sarah Hayes. Learning and Teaching, 11:1, 19-34. is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2018.110102
PY - 2018/7/16
Y1 - 2018/7/16
N2 - The 'academic orthodoxy' (Brookfield 1986) of student engagement is questioned by Zepke, who suggests that it supports 'a neoliberal ideology' (2014: 698). In reply, Trowler argues that Zepke fails to explain the mechanisms linking neoliberalism to the concepts and practices of student engagement (2015: 336). In this article, I respond to the Zepke-Trowler debate with an analysis of student engagement policies that illuminates the role of discourse as one mechanism linking neoliberal values with practices of student engagement. Through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis, I demonstrate a persistent and alarming omission of human labour from university policy texts. Instead, the engagements of students and staff are attributed to technology, documents and frameworks. Student engagement is discussed as a commodity to be embedded and marketed back to students in a way that yields an 'exchange value' (Marx 1867) for universities.
AB - The 'academic orthodoxy' (Brookfield 1986) of student engagement is questioned by Zepke, who suggests that it supports 'a neoliberal ideology' (2014: 698). In reply, Trowler argues that Zepke fails to explain the mechanisms linking neoliberalism to the concepts and practices of student engagement (2015: 336). In this article, I respond to the Zepke-Trowler debate with an analysis of student engagement policies that illuminates the role of discourse as one mechanism linking neoliberal values with practices of student engagement. Through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis, I demonstrate a persistent and alarming omission of human labour from university policy texts. Instead, the engagements of students and staff are attributed to technology, documents and frameworks. Student engagement is discussed as a commodity to be embedded and marketed back to students in a way that yields an 'exchange value' (Marx 1867) for universities.
UR - https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/latiss/11/1/latiss110102.xml
M3 - Editor of Special issue
SN - 1755-2273
VL - 11
SP - 19
EP - 34
JO - LATISS
JF - LATISS
PB - Berghahn
ER -