Search results

Education perpetuates inequality directly, in that messages distributed by schools are linked to student social class. A specific focus on the response of white working‐class and minority students' attitudes to school (in the USA) reveals that elites maintain themselves not only through their own education but also through the education of others; and that those at the bottom contribute to the maintenance of class structure through their own creative response to wider ranging inequalities, and the way these inequalities are mediated in schools.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect critically upon current debates and tensions in the governance of research in the UK and more widely, particularly the imperative that social science research should demonstrate impact beyond the academy.

Drawing implicitly upon the Bevir’s theory of governance, the paper positions discourses about “research excellence and research impact” as elite narratives that are rooted genealogically in forms of managerial audit culture which seek to govern the practices of social science academics. The paper reviews relevant literature, draws upon key contributions that have shaped debate and refers to the author’s own research and experiences of “research impact”.

Initiatives such as the UK’s “Research Excellence Framework” can be understood as a form of governance that further enables already present neo-liberalising tendencies in the academy. The “impact agenda” has both negative (e.g. it can distort research priorities and can lead to overstatement of “real world” effects) and positive potential (e.g. to provide institutional space for work towards social justice, in line with long-standing traditions of critical social science and “public sociology”).

There is a need for more critical research and theoretical reflection on the value, threats, limitations and potential of current forms of research governance and “impact”.

To date, there are very few article-length, critical discussions of these developments and issues in research governance, even fewer that connect these debates to longer-standing radical imperatives in social science.

Literature has recognised entrepreneurship education as the main conduit through which entrepreneurial behaviours, attitudes and actions can be built, enacted and delivered. Since the founding of new ventures is largely a resourceful founder-driven enterprise, entrepreneurship education has largely centred on galvanising and shifting the mindsets and cognition of the entrepreneur. Yet, despite over 60 years of delivering entrepreneurship education programmes, hard evidence of the generation of high-growth-oriented and sustainable ventures has been scarce as student entrepreneurship intentions do not always translate into successful venture creation. This is largely because of the complexities of the practicality of entrepreneurial education particularly, the dissonance between acquired education in business schools and the knowledge and competencies needed in the entrepreneurial field. Such dissonance can be attributed to the lack of clarity on the pedagogical approach that most resonates with entrepreneurial action, the diversity in assessment methods and the scholarly illusion pertaining to how pedagogical approaches can be channelled to the generation of growth-oriented ventures. Drawing on Girox's concepts of transformative critical pedagogy (including pedagogy of repression), Socratic dialogue, Hegelian dialectic and Yrjö Engeström's transformative expansive agency, I demonstrate how a flipped transformative critical pedagogy can be harnessed in digitally enhanced learning environments to create new entrepreneurial possibilities for facilitating critical inquiry, complex problem-solving, innovation for the market and fostering tolerance for failure in ambiguous entrepreneurial contexts.

This chapter is an unpretentious attempt to arouse teachers and educators to convert classrooms into democratic spaces for critical discussion about martial law in the Philippines, a form of military-ruled government during the time of Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines, who declared it in 1972. Using critical theory, pedagogy, and literacy as tools for engaging teachers in careful and rigorous academic exploration about the topic of martial law, this monograph encourages teachers to view themselves as cultural workers who intend to facilitate meaning-making with students through dialogue, critical deliberation, and courageous civic engagement. In addition, this chapter shares a list of critical pedagogy resources and reflective readings, a socially and culturally situated perspective, and a culturally responsive pedagogy for teachers in their quest for a more committed, caring, joyful, hopeful, and conscientious view of teaching as a human act of generosity and respect for students' identity and autonomy.

An approach to social responsibility in higher education will be proposed in this chapter and informed by a canon of literature and theorizing on critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Freire, 1971; Giroux, 2011). Rooted in the work of education theorist Paulo Freire (1971, 1993) critical pedagogy embodies a set of critical dispositions about community, politics and education. Freire (1971, 1993) posited the nature of hope through transformative action in communities in which community empowerment arises from emerging critical consciousness and informed action. In common with the ideals of university–community partnerships critical pedagogy connects both to a community development mission and to an educational mission. However, though these principle philosophies of critical pedagogy may be inferred in the literature on civic universities, on higher education and public engagement and on wider aspects of social responsibility in higher education (Goddard & Kempton, 2016; UPP, 2019; Webster & Dyball, 2010), the chapter will explore how they may be more centrally located in analysis and in practice development.

This article suggests that Patrick Pearse’s thought and work was rooted in the child‐centred movement of the late nineteenth‐century, was informed by the tenets of progressivism and predated the work of later influential educational thinkers. It is further argued that Pearse developed a unique conceptualisation of schooling as a radical form of political and cultural dissent in pre‐1916 Ireland. Aspects of Pearse’s thought that are evidently problematic are highlighted and the article suggests that discussions of his work might benefit from moving to these more substantial and germane areas.

Recent studies in education attempt to ‘criminologise’ some of the current practices and policies of higher education institutions – that is, to deconstruct certain philosophies and practices which may be discriminatory, offensive, and biased to certain social groups. Recent theoretical frameworks problematize current higher education policies, many of which are taken for granted. This paper adopts a critical perspective, shedding light on some practices as they occur in higher educational institutions, by human and non-human agencies. The study applies a ‘detective’ approach examining some problematic uses of technology a higher education institution. In this proposed approach, researchers play the role of ‘detectives’, investigating possible breaches of good practice (possibly discriminatory) committed by higher education actors (referred hereafter as ‘defendants’). Most of these offences are committed through the use of educational and institutional technologies. The purpose of this theoretical approach is to empower alienated social groups against such practices by identifying ‘defendants’ and the implications of their acts. The study uses empirical data from interviews, visits, and observations to explain the ways in which defendants respond to the accusations levelled against them by other users of educational technologies. The investigation revealed that technology was used, among many other functions, to manoeuvre around the legal and ethical system serving the interests of some stakeholders. Then, the study categorises these manoeuvres, explaining the legal implications of each category, and recommending consideration of important academic and institutional issues.

This chapter explores the circumstances in the global south that have been reshaping teaching and learning practices, with particular focus on the African context. Anchored on a literature review strategy, the chapter explores some of the key pressure points in the higher education context that have been the trigger of reforms in the core practice of teaching and learning in recent years. In particular, the chapter discusses the neoliberalism crisis associated with the coronavirus pandemic in higher education, drawing attention to the inequalities that it ignited: not all students were affected in the same way; not all universities or colleges were affected in the same way; and not all students had the learning technologies required to carry on their education in the same way. Alongside the COVID-19 concerns, the chapter reflects on other pressure points for change including developments in digital technologies and the internet and changing students and changing higher education markets in sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that these forces are among a wave of influences that higher education institutions across the African continent cannot ignore. They form a blend of neoliberal reforms that are pressurising academics to change pedagogical models and threatening certain core values of a university: academic freedom, autonomy, and truth. The chapter develops the argument that although multiple pressures – arising from the pervasive influences of technology and the COVID-19 pandemic – are mounting on the higher education sector to reform its pedagogical practices, it should not be at the expense of perpetuating injustices, particularly among students.