Sarah Hayes
Sarah Hayes (PFHEA), Professor of Higher Education Policy, University of Wolverhampton and an Honorary Professor at Aston University. Sarah’s PhD is in Sociology which she taught at Aston University, she then became Programme Director for Aston’s Masters in Education, and has also taught at University of Worcester. Sarah’s research into Higher Education policy discourse intersects across Sociology, Technology and Education. Sarah’s recent books include: 'The Labour of Words in Higher Education' (2019) and 'Postdigital Positionality' (2021) through Brill Sense Publishers. Sarah is an Associate Editor of the journal Postdigital Science and Education: https://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/journal/42438. Publications are on Aston Research Explorer and Google Scholar.
less
InterestsView All (20)
Uploads
Papers by Sarah Hayes
academic publication and shows that the current political economy of
mainstream academic publishing has resulted from a complex interplay
between large academic publishers, academics, and hacker-activists. The
process of publishing is a form of ‘social production’ that takes place
across the economy, politics and culture, all of which are in turn
accommodating both old and new technology in our postdigital age.
Technologies such as software cannot be separated from human labour,
academic centres cannot be looked at in isolation from their margins,
and the necessity of transdisciplinary approaches does not imply the
disappearance of traditional disciplines. In the postdigital age, the
concept of the margins has not disappeared, but it has become
somewhat marginal in its own right. We need to develop a new
language of describing what we mean by ‘marginal voices’ in the social
relations between knowledge production and academic publication.
Universities require new strategies for cohabitation of, and collaboration
between, various socio-technological actors, and new postdigital politics
and practice of knowledge production and academic publishing.
to the global economy, priorities have been placed on study for a
degree to directly meet the needs of industry (Hayes, 2015: p. 125).
Furthermore, in UK policy, students have been defined as ‘customers’
by the government since the introduction of tuition fees (Dearing, 1997;
Browne, 2010). Together, these developments have emphasized the role of
a degree as a consumer ‘product’, purchased to secure future employment
(Peters, Jandrić and Hayes, 2018a), rather than an experiential learning
‘process’, that continues well beyond student life (Hayes, 2015 : p. 130). We
examine how the student-as-consumer approach in HE policy has recently developed into a strong rhetoric emphasizing ‘the student experience’ as
a package, including leisure, well-being, future employment and other ‘extras’. This could be perceived as positive, where all elements of student life
are acknowledged. Alternatively, policy discourse concerning ‘the student
experience’ could also be critiqued as a concept that now transcends the
notion of a degree as a utilitarian product. A disturbing impression is then
generated, where universities are now delivering a packaged experience of
‘consumption itself’, to students (Argenton, 2015: p. 921). What students
would individually experience, such as a ‘sense of belonging and pride in
the university’, is delivered to students, not developed by them. To examine such concerns more closely, we analyse a sample of 20 UK university ‘student experience’ strategies, via a corpus-based Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). Drawing on themes from these texts, we question who
‘the student experience’ rhetoric really benefits? If a rationalized experience is constructed on behalf of students, then universities as ‘cathedrals of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2010) align themselves with any other provider
of consumer experiences, where the ‘production’ of academic life has all
been taken care of. In such a discourse, students are not necessarily conceptualized as empowered consumers either (Brooks, 2017) but trapped
instead within an ‘iron cage’, even before they set foot in the workplace.
Yet, despite a distorted picture that neoliberal HE policy discourse may
portray, a postdigital understanding of ‘the student experience’ could yet
offer helpful insights into possible routes of resistance.
Sarah Hayes
Centre for Learning, Innovation and Professional Practice, Aston University, UK
Abstract
The logic of ‘time’ in modern capitalist society appears to be a fixed concept. Time dictates human activity with a regularity, which as long ago as 1944, George Woodcock referred to as The Tyranny of the Clock. Seventy years on, Hartmut Rosa suggests humans no longer maintain speed to achieve something new, but simply to preserve the status quo, in a ‘social acceleration’ that is lethal to democracy. Political engagement takes time we no longer have, as we rush between our virtual spaces and ‘non-places’ of higher education. I suggest it is time to confront the conspirators that, in partnership with the clock, accelerate our social engagements with technology in the context of learning. Through Critical Discourse Analysis I reveal an alarming situation if we do not. With reference to Bauman’s Liquid Modernity, I observe a ‘lightness’ in policy texts where humans have been ‘liquified’ Separating people from their own labour with technology in policy maintains the flow of speed a neoliberal economy demands. I suggest a new ‘solidity’ of human presence is required as we write about networked learning. ‘Writing ourselves back in’ requires a commitment to ‘be there’ in policy and provide arguments that decelerate the tyranny of time. I am, though, ever-mindful that social acceleration is also of our own making, and there is every possibility that we actually enjoy it.
Keywords: Time, policy, Critical Discourse Analysis, networked learning
academic publication and shows that the current political economy of
mainstream academic publishing has resulted from a complex interplay
between large academic publishers, academics, and hacker-activists. The
process of publishing is a form of ‘social production’ that takes place
across the economy, politics and culture, all of which are in turn
accommodating both old and new technology in our postdigital age.
Technologies such as software cannot be separated from human labour,
academic centres cannot be looked at in isolation from their margins,
and the necessity of transdisciplinary approaches does not imply the
disappearance of traditional disciplines. In the postdigital age, the
concept of the margins has not disappeared, but it has become
somewhat marginal in its own right. We need to develop a new
language of describing what we mean by ‘marginal voices’ in the social
relations between knowledge production and academic publication.
Universities require new strategies for cohabitation of, and collaboration
between, various socio-technological actors, and new postdigital politics
and practice of knowledge production and academic publishing.
to the global economy, priorities have been placed on study for a
degree to directly meet the needs of industry (Hayes, 2015: p. 125).
Furthermore, in UK policy, students have been defined as ‘customers’
by the government since the introduction of tuition fees (Dearing, 1997;
Browne, 2010). Together, these developments have emphasized the role of
a degree as a consumer ‘product’, purchased to secure future employment
(Peters, Jandrić and Hayes, 2018a), rather than an experiential learning
‘process’, that continues well beyond student life (Hayes, 2015 : p. 130). We
examine how the student-as-consumer approach in HE policy has recently developed into a strong rhetoric emphasizing ‘the student experience’ as
a package, including leisure, well-being, future employment and other ‘extras’. This could be perceived as positive, where all elements of student life
are acknowledged. Alternatively, policy discourse concerning ‘the student
experience’ could also be critiqued as a concept that now transcends the
notion of a degree as a utilitarian product. A disturbing impression is then
generated, where universities are now delivering a packaged experience of
‘consumption itself’, to students (Argenton, 2015: p. 921). What students
would individually experience, such as a ‘sense of belonging and pride in
the university’, is delivered to students, not developed by them. To examine such concerns more closely, we analyse a sample of 20 UK university ‘student experience’ strategies, via a corpus-based Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). Drawing on themes from these texts, we question who
‘the student experience’ rhetoric really benefits? If a rationalized experience is constructed on behalf of students, then universities as ‘cathedrals of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2010) align themselves with any other provider
of consumer experiences, where the ‘production’ of academic life has all
been taken care of. In such a discourse, students are not necessarily conceptualized as empowered consumers either (Brooks, 2017) but trapped
instead within an ‘iron cage’, even before they set foot in the workplace.
Yet, despite a distorted picture that neoliberal HE policy discourse may
portray, a postdigital understanding of ‘the student experience’ could yet
offer helpful insights into possible routes of resistance.
Sarah Hayes
Centre for Learning, Innovation and Professional Practice, Aston University, UK
Abstract
The logic of ‘time’ in modern capitalist society appears to be a fixed concept. Time dictates human activity with a regularity, which as long ago as 1944, George Woodcock referred to as The Tyranny of the Clock. Seventy years on, Hartmut Rosa suggests humans no longer maintain speed to achieve something new, but simply to preserve the status quo, in a ‘social acceleration’ that is lethal to democracy. Political engagement takes time we no longer have, as we rush between our virtual spaces and ‘non-places’ of higher education. I suggest it is time to confront the conspirators that, in partnership with the clock, accelerate our social engagements with technology in the context of learning. Through Critical Discourse Analysis I reveal an alarming situation if we do not. With reference to Bauman’s Liquid Modernity, I observe a ‘lightness’ in policy texts where humans have been ‘liquified’ Separating people from their own labour with technology in policy maintains the flow of speed a neoliberal economy demands. I suggest a new ‘solidity’ of human presence is required as we write about networked learning. ‘Writing ourselves back in’ requires a commitment to ‘be there’ in policy and provide arguments that decelerate the tyranny of time. I am, though, ever-mindful that social acceleration is also of our own making, and there is every possibility that we actually enjoy it.
Keywords: Time, policy, Critical Discourse Analysis, networked learning
However, the ‘social’ and the ‘technical’ are still frequently discussed as separate spheres in relation to human learning, rather than as mutually shaping of each other within capitalism. Using various critical approaches, this volume invites authors to ask diverse probing questions about the multi-dimensional, individual and social experience of time, by teachers and learners of all kinds, imbued in contemporary neoliberal technoscapes.
This Special Issue of Knowledge Cultures (http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/knowledge-cultures) invites authors to explore these questions especially in relation to all kinds of human learning, including, but not limited to, the formal process of schooling. We are particularly interested in situating the relationships between human learning, social acceleration, and digital technologies in the context of global neoliberal capitalism – and in developing viable alternatives / seeds of resistance.
Working at the intersection of technology, psychology, sociology, history, politics, philosophy, arts, science fiction, and other related areas, we welcome contributions from a wide range of disciplines and inter-, trans- and anti-disciplinary research methodologies.
Submissions
All contributions should be original and should not be under consideration elsewhere. Authors should be aware that they are writing for an international audience and should use appropriate language. Manuscripts should not exceed 6000 words. For further information and authors’ guidelines please see http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/images/Instructions_for_authors1.pdf.
All papers will be peer-reviewed, and evaluated according to their significance, originality, content, style, clarity and relevance to the journal.
Please submit your initial abstract (300-400 words) by email to the Guest Editors.
Guest editors
Sarah Hayes, Centre for Learning, Innovation and Professional Practice, Aston University, UK (s.hayes@aston.ac.uk)
Petar Jandrić, Department of Informatics & Computing, Polytechnic of Zagreb, Croatia (pjandric@tvz.hr)
IMPORTANT DATES
1 May 2015 – Deadline for abstracts to editors
1 June 2015 – Deadline for feedback from reviewers
1 November 2015 – Deadline for submissions/full papers
1 January 2016 – Deadline for feedback from reviewers
1 March 2016 – Final deadline for amended papers
Publication date – late 2016 / early 2017
Inspired by the work of George Ritzer on the McDonaldisation of Society, the term McPolicy is adopted by the author, to describe a rational method of writing policy, now widespread across UK universities. Recent strategies on ‘the student experience’, ‘technology enhanced learning’, ‘student engagement’ and ‘employability’ are explored through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Findings are humourously compared to the marketing of consumer goods, where commodities like cars are invested with human qualities, such as ‘ambition’. Similarly, McPolicy credits non-human strategies, technologies and a range of socially constructed buzz phrases, with the human qualities and labour activities that would normally be enacted by staff and students.
This book is written for anyone with an interest in the future of universities. It concludes with suggestions of ways we might all reoccupy McPolicy.