Search

The aim of this study was to explore the note-taking experiences of university students using paper-based (non-electronic) and paperless (electronic) resources. By means of a hermeneutic phenomenol...

Taking the European Credit and Transfer System as its departure point, this article describes the (mis)fortunes of the figure of the independent learner. This figure is conceptualized by analyzing ...

The bankruptcy of tailor-made education. The need for pedagogic (work)places Education, youth work and youth care confront many challenges which are interpreted in many different ways and receive various responses. However, one type of response seems to be widely applauded: education and care should be tailor-made or become so: tailored to children and youngsters, to their talents and their lifeworld. This call for tailor-made education and care is often accompanied by an emphasis on the need for the development of talents and on the value of feeling-well. In this contribution we indicate how this response entails an approach to education as form of socialization. I.e. as practices that assist the (re-)production of a particular societal regime which calls upon us to conceive of ourselves as entrepreneurs and to permanently take care of our profile. The experience of a meaningful life risks thereby to become exclusively dependent on social recognition and comparison. In so doing tailor-made education risks to deny youngsters the chance for a pedagogical workplace i.e. a place where the world is presented and disclosed to them in such a way that it can provide them with a measure outside of themselves and allows them an experience of a meaningful life in relation to the work which is taking place there. ispartof: Pedagogiek vol:39 issue:3 pages:349-366 status: published

© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. The question concerning the relation between thinking and the university is the starting point of this paper. After a very brief outline of some reflections on this topic, the case of Campus in Camps, a Palestinian experimental university, is presented to shed light on this issue. Inspired by Isabelle Stengers’ ecology of practices, it is possible to discern four requirements on thinking in the work of Campus in Camps, namely storytelling, comparing, mapping, and using. It will be argued that the particularity of thinking at the university, is that it is done via artifices that initiate processes of composition, problematization, and attention. In the concluding section, the paper proposes to understand the study practice of Campus in Camps as an adventure that activates a sense of the possible, and hence opens up futures that are different from the ones that present themselves as obvious or unavoidable. ispartof: ETHICS AND EDUCATION vol:14 issue:2 pages:184-197 status: published

Despite the growing interest in deliberative and dialogue models the research literature lacks investigations of the underlying assumptions of deliberative methods. Starting from the current popularity as well as the broad use of the method of deliberative inquiry -one example of such a deliberative method- this article aims to identify approaches and underlying assumptions of deliberative inquiry. Therefor a systematic literature review of empirical research, of descriptions of practical deliberative procedures and of theoretical research of deliberative inquiry is used. This review demonstrates that the method of deliberative inquiry is elaborated and used within different contexts with a corresponding range of rationales: From (1) a procedure to tackle curriculum questions through (2) a way of investigating and agreeing upon policy actions to (3) collaboratively researching issues. By describing the three approaches and by investigating the assumptions of deliberative inquiry within each approach, we demonstrate a range of rationales behind this method. Despite the distinctions, the primary goal of all manifestations of deliberative inquiry is similar: to contemplate a practical problem in a systemic and collaborative way, to weigh arguments for possible solutions and to make (even temporarily) a decision. This article concludes with future research perspectives. ispartof: Systemic Practice and Action Research vol:32 issue:2 pages:193-217 status: published

In the age of web 2.0, the university is constantly challenged to re-adapt its ‘old-fashioned’ pedagogies to the new possibilities opened up by digital technologies. This article proposes a rethink...

Today the issue of ‘educational change’ is widely discussed. Such change, so we can hear, is needed because of increasing linguistic heterogeneity and cultural diversity, because of technological developments and because of the persisting correlation between social background and educational success. In this context ‘educational’ seems to refer to the institutional practice of the school. But what do we mean by school? In our contribution, we offer some elements of what we call an internal pedagogical perspective on school and on scholastic learning which clarifies its emancipatory potential as pedagogic form. This will allow us to address the issue of educational change differently and to substantiate a plea for bringing more ‘school’ into our educational institutions. We (1) distinguish between an internal perspective and various external perspectives on the school. We, than, (2) sketch the basic assumptions, operations and experiences of the school as pedagogic form emphasizing (3) that school is technically, pedagogically and practically composed and (4) indicating very briefly how school has and is been tamed. Finally (5) we suggest some challenges for making or reinventing school today, relating it briefly to the issue of teacher education.

Is there (still) something specific about academic practice in contemporary neoliberal times? This article reports on a sociomaterial, ethnographic study informed by Deleuze’s untimely empiricism conducted at two research centres of a research university. We unfold the specificity of ‘the academic’ by elaborating upon two central notions: relational aspirations (the attachments of these academics, and the operations that such attachments generate) and mode of existence (the way academic practice comes into being by and through these attachments). The article discerns four types of relations that are typical for academic practice and argues that the way in which academic practice exists nowadays is characterized by a continuous distancing in action, that is, by drawing things together and by slowing things down. ispartof: Critical Studies in Education vol:60 issue:2 pages:226-244 status: published

© 2016 Pedagogy, Culture & Society. Although a large amount of ethnographic research has been conducted in schools, little is known about the particularity of the school, about what makes the school–as a school–different from other (learning) environments. As school ethnographies focus primarily on the perspectives and interpretations of pupils and teachers, the school itself remains largely ignored. Drawing on ethnographic research within six Flemish secondary schools, the particularity of the school is examined through its possible regime of enunciation. By focussing on both sociomaterial and discursive elements within school practices, we look for markers which point at a specific pedagogical regime of enunciation within these practices. Attention is then paid to the manner of speech, to the elements at stake when sayings occur, to the knitting together of objects, time(s) and space(s) as they are enacted through and as part of practices at school. ispartof: Pedagogy, Culture and Society vol:25 issue:1 pages:105-119 status: published

This article reports of an ethnographic study conducted in two academic research centers. The article is centrally directed at the role of digital technologies and devices in contemporary academic work, and more particularly at the role of the screen in the daily composition of this work. Three central questions are raised. First, which positional relations do academics need to uphold with the screen in order for the screen to be able to operate? Second, in which forms do these digital devices come into being? Third, which sorts of (in)compatibility between activities are established because of the mutual interplay between academics and screens? By adopting a relational, sociomaterial approach, the study gives an account of the established choreographies that are enacted likewise, provides an overview of the role and operations of the screen in contemporary academic work, and analyzes which sorts of time and space are generated likewise.

There are several ways to discuss how the work of Michel Foucault has been used in educational philosophy and theory. After retracing some of the main references and debates, this contribution clarifies how Foucault discusses two traditions in philosophy – the analytic and the existential-ethical – in order to locate himself within the second, the existential-ethical tradition. This perspective allows us to explore Foucault’s relevance for philosophy of education at the level of philosophical ethos. This raises the question of the extent to which Foucault was often circling around educational issues, without really focusing on education.

Against the background of the many attacks on the school as being outdated, alienating, ineffective and reproducing inequalities we offer a morphological understanding of the school as distinguished from functionalist understandings (sociological or economical perspectives in terms of functions and roles) and idealistic understandings (philosophical ones in terms of ‘ideas of education’). Our educational morphology approaches the school as a particular scholastic ‘form of gathering’ i.e. a particular time–space–matter arrangement (including concrete architectures, technologies, practices and figures) that deals in a specific way with the new generation, allows for a particular relation to the world, and for a particular experience of potentiality and of commonality (of making things public). We elucidate how this form performs particular operations of suspension, profanation and formation of attention and how these operations imply a slowing down and an opening of future. Finally, we emphasise the potenti...

The transnational independent learner has become the new hero of the European learning space. In order to describe the mode of existence of the independent learner, an analysis in terms of deinstitutionalization falls short. Such analysis focuses on what disappeared but easily loses out of sight what comes instead. Especially in the case of the independent learner, the risk is taking the proclaimed ambition of liberation and emancipation of the learner from institutional settings for real. The person of the learner is not just what simply appears when the student is liberated from national and institutional frames. It is the carefully measured, calculated, monitored and framed architecture of new learning spaces that allow for recognizing oneself as a person, that is, as someone with specific learning needs. The need for authorization and recognition is part of the learner’s ontological make-up and means that the learner’s mode of existence is susceptible to verification, calculation and tracing. It is argued that this is the present-day manifestation of what Foucault termed as the ‘double bind’; what turns someone into an independent learner is subjecting her at once to governmental intervention.

It is striking to notice how learning and education are treated by philosophers and political and social theorists. In our contribution we will discuss the 'social learning philosophers' (e.g.Habermas, Latour), the 'enfance-philosophers' (e.g. Lyotard, Agamben, Arendt) and the 'game-philosophers' (e.g. Wittgenstein). From the perspective of these adult or grown-up philosophies and theories, learning is instrumentalized and, as a consequence, it is often marginalized, ridiculed or – when acknowledged – celebrated as a unique case, example or metaphor. To the extent that the importance of learning is recognized, it is about ‘natural’ learning and certainly not about ‘artificial’ schooling. In our contribution we exactly want to speak pedagogically about what is at stake in school learning. Instead of narrating about the (good, bad, great, sad) experiences of learning at school, this pedagogical language seeks to give voice to the experience while school learning. Not the experience of a condition where someone is not (yet) being able to, for instance, write or count. But also not the experience of (already) being able to write or count. School experience is what is experienced at the moment that writing or counting becomes a possibility; what is experienced before being able to write, but after not being able to write. School experiences refer to the collective experience of being-in-the-middle (of things), the experience of an interrupted course of life where new courses become possible, the experience of knowledge and ability after making a mistake. We want to argue that from a pedagogical perspective school is not an institution but the always artificial arrangement of time, space and matter you have to go to for these experiences. However, philosophers and social and political theorists often (rather) forget they too went to school.

This paper is centred on the issue of emancipation in education practice in general, and in VET in particular. We aim to contribute to the discussion of particular traditions of emancipation in education in connection with VET practices. In our overview of ongoing educational debates on VET policy making and the issue of emancipation in VET, we have observed that ultimately emancipation in VET is understood as a specific function for social and economic integration. In this paper, we discuss this functionalist orientation and contrast it with a vision on emancipation as a feature of an educational process rather than an educational outcome. Freire’s and Rancière’s core concepts of emancipation guide our discussion regarding the latter interpretation of emancipation in VET practices. ispartof: Studies in Continuing Education vol:36 issue:3 pages:275-289 status: published

© 2014 Taylor & Francis. There is an increasing emphasis today on different forms of evidence-based policy in education. Several authors address the related emergence of new patterns of governing and describe forms of governing by numbers and related practices of governing by comparison. There is, however, less focus on the governmental use of soft evidence such as examples of good practice. Drawing on the analysis of governing practices in Belgium (Flanders) and Europe, this article attempts to examine in detail how soft evidence, among other elements, constitutes the current governing configuration. It is argued that this configuration includes several mechanisms that appear as evident but have far-reaching consequences: imposing spaces of meaning and discussion, deciding on what is within one's control and what is not, making people believe there is no longer something beyond themselves that is an excuse for actual self-improvement. What takes shape as part of techniques of contextualization, personalization, and permanent monitoring is ‘the power of the example’: learning from examples in view of increased performance. The conclusion expresses some concerns about the tendencies toward a manipulative society. ispartof: Discourse Studies in Cultural Politics of Education vol:36 issue:5 pages:712-731 status: published

Over the last two decades, a sense of awareness has arisen that universities are facing important challenges. This article focusses on the challenge that could be broadly termed as ‘the digitization of academic work’, yet without assuming that this digitization would be an explanatory factor clarifying the precise nature of contemporary academic work. On the contrary, and adopting a relational actor-network theory (ANT) approach, this contribution stresses the concrete composition of academic work without making any general presumptions regarding how the university is looking like nowadays. Furthermore, by introducing a specific interview technique as methodological approach and different visualizations as (qualitative) analytical approach, this article offers a threefold exploratory textual and visual analysis of academic practice in the making. First, the constitution of an academic practice is discussed, showing the prevalence of multifarious human and non-human actors, and how each of these actors is embedded in a network of interactions with other actors. Second, we show how academic practice is distributed into different regions of interacting actors. Third, the association of these different regions is analyzed with special attention for boundary actors (between different regions) and digital actors. The article concludes, firstly, that it makes not much sense anymore to talk about academic practice in terms of humans or non-humans, material or digital, etc. Instead, perhaps it makes more sense to speak of actors in academic practice as being humandigital. Secondly, the article concludes that sociomaterial approaches might constitute a fruitful addition to more traditional research about the university that is inclined to focus on epochal changes that are suggested or expected to alter the position of academics and the university. ispartof: European Educational Research Journal vol:13 issue:1 pages:89-106 status: published

This article takes a particular interest in the doings of educational standards. Accordingly, it does not discuss the contents, objectives or various states of implementation of educational standards. Rather, it follows a strange and peculiar thing and traces how it gets to work in localised practices. Building on Bruno Latour's exercises of socio-technical analysis, various modes to register and describe these practices are being put to the test. In so doing, the aim is to gather pieces of evidence on how standardising takes shape and what sorts of workings it generates. Undertaking such socio-technical exercises, this research argues, offers an entry point to readdress the ubiquity of educational standards today.

Contemporary research on the European policy space in education has paid much attention to decentralisation, deregulation and new modalities of privatisation and marketisation, but there is less focus on how these processes and policies are actually played out in education. It is argued that understanding the role of commercial actors, new local and global markets and public—private partnerships in the governing of education becomes increasingly important. The aim of the article is to introduce the special issue on commercialisation of the European Educational Research Journal by discussing some general issues: theoretical and methodological considerations when studying privatisation and commercialisation in the governing of education, conceptual clarifications, and finally, possible themes and topics for study, but also for further debate.

Over the last few years, different sociomaterial research orientations have emerged. In this article, we argue that most of these orientations are relying on a relational mode of thinking, that is, a way of conceiving of educational practices in terms of the relations between the different actors present in these particular practices. In doing so, these various sociomaterial studies share many of their theoretical assumptions with social topology, an approach inspired by the mathematical field of topology. In educational research, however, this connection between sociomaterial and sociotopological accounts is not commonly made. Therefore, this article calls for a more intricate interweaving of topological thinking with better-known sociomaterial approaches. Furthermore, we assert that using visualisations might play a crucial role in this respect. To that effect, we introduce the Foucauldian and Deleuzian notion of the diagram. This notion of the diagram, as the technique that brings the orders of...

This paper has as central argument that the recently emerging sociomaterial approach to education has an inherently critical potential, but that this capacity is not yet fully deployed and explored in educational studies. In order to make this argument, this paper starts, first, with a concise description of representationalist versus relational thinking, and argues that sociomaterial studies have to be situated in the latter current. Consequently, the role of critique that is largely upheld in representationalist thinking –that is, a role primarily directed at debunking and unveiling– needs to be rethought. In order to reconceive this role, the paper secondly elaborates upon the key characteristics of sociomaterial studies in education in order to show such relational thinking takes shape in and during the conduct of sociomaterial research. These characteristics are crucial in order to fully apprehend the critical prospect of sociomaterial approaches in education. The role of critique, then, amounts to an engaged attitude vis-à-vis the practices under investigation, and more particularly points to critical creativity as offering some horizons of change., Este artículo tiene como argumento central que el recientemente emergente enfoque sociomaterial tiene un inherente potencial crítico para la educación, pero esta capacidad no ha sido completamente puesta en práctica o explorada en estudios educativos. Para argumentar estas ideas, este artículo empieza, en primer lugar, con una concisa descripción de representacionalismo en contraposición al pensamiento relacional, y propone que los estudios sociomateriales deben situarse en esta última corriente. En consecuencia, la función crítica que es ampliamente apoyada en el pensamiento representacional –que es una función principalmente dirigida a desacreditar y develar– requiere ser repensada. Para concebir nuevamente esta función, el artículo en segundo lugar profundiza sobre las principales características de los estudios sociomateriales en educación para demostrar que tal pensamiento relacional toma forma dentro y durante la realización de la investigación sociomaterial. Estas características son decisivas para aprehender completamente la perspectiva crítica de los enfoques sociomateriales en educación. La función de la crítica, entonces, equivale a una actitud comprometida con las prácticas objeto de investigación y dirige la atención hacia la creatividad crítica que ofrece algunos horizontes de cambio., Cet article a comme argument central que l’approche sociomatériel récemment émergent dans la recherche éducative a un potentiel intrinsèquement critique, mais que cette capacité n’est pas encore totalement déployée et explorée dans les études pédagogiques. Afin de rendre cet argument, cet article commence, d’abord, avec une description concise de la pensée représentationaliste et la pensée relationnelle, et argumente que les études sociomatérielles doivent être situées dans le dernier courant. Par conséquence, le rôle de la critique qui est largement adopté dans la pensée représentationaliste –i.e., un rôle adressé principalement aux démystification et dévoilement– doit être repensée. Afin de ressaisir ce rôle, le document explique deuxièmement les caractéristiques clés des études sociomatérielles dans l’éducation, afin de montrer que telle pensée relationnelle prend forme dans, et pendant, la conduite de la recherche sociomatériel. Ces caractéristiques sont essentielles pour appréhender pleinement la perspective critique des approches sociomatérielles dans l’éducation. Le rôle de la critique, puis, s’élève à une attitude engagée vis-à-vis des pratiques sous enquête, et plus particulièrement à la créativité critique qui offre des horizons du changement.

This article takes up a text that Ranciere published shortly after The Ignorant School Master appeared in French, ‘Ecole, production, egalite’[School, Production, Equality] (1988), in which he sketched the school as being preeminently the place of equality. In this vein, and opposed to the story of the school as the place where inequality is reproduced and therefore in need of reform, the article wants to recount the story of the school as the invention of a site of equality and as primordially a public space. Inspired by Ranciere, we indicate first how the actual (international and national) policy story about the school and the organizational technologies that accompany it install and legitimate profound inequalities, which consequently can no longer be questioned (and become ‘invisible’). Second, the article recasts and rethinks different manifestations of equality and of ‘public‐ness’ in school education and, finally, indicates various ways in which these manifestations are neutralized or immunized in...

This article takes its point of departure in the current tendency of education policy to become more and more evidence-based. The use of statistics and numbers seems to be a prerequisite for conducting a policy that is both efficient and effective. The kind of knowledge thus produced is regarded as factual and scientific. This article tries to get a grasp on value-added modelling, a commonly used method supposed to produce such knowledge. Drawing on some conceptual underpinnings of actor-network theory, the article advances that such factual matters often take the form of matters of educational performance that are shaped and produced by means of calculative and inscription devices. However, the adagio that measures of performances should guide education policy is only one,albeit strong, point of view. Taking not only performances but also public issues into account could lead to what could be called a more ‘concern-oriented’ policy. ispartof: International Studies in Sociology of Education vol:21 issue:2 pages:115-135 status: published

Background/Context The article reflects on the public role of education on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Hannah Arendt's essay, “The Crisis in Education” and in facing the current transformation of public policy into “new public management.” Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study Based on Arendt's essay, “The Crisis in Education,” the article explores that peculiar setting and architecture between family and world that is called school. The leading concern for this investigation is the school's public meaning. The point of departure is that today, the public role of education is an urgent concern, that is, the school's public role is questioned in view of the current processes of privatization, and what is critically described as the “capitalization of life.” In this contribution, based on a reading of Arendt's essay and relying on the analysis of a specific school design by the architect Wim Cuyvers, two different ways of thinking the public meaning of school education are explored. One way of thinking takes the school as an infrastructure of “intro-duction,” while the other way of thinking regards the school as an infrastructure of “e-duc(a)tion.” Research Design This article is an analytic essay. Conclusions/Recommendations The article shows that it is impossible to think “a new beginning in our world” without thinking the school as public space. Drawing on some thoughts of Agamben and the school architecture of Cuyvers, the article offers an outline for elaborating the Arendtian thinking of the “perfect school.” This school is conceived of as a space where people are exposed to things, and being exposed could be regarded as being drawn outside (or as e-ducation), that is, into public space. Public space is a “free space” or the space of “free time.” This free time is precisely the sense that the Greek “scholé” seemed to indicate—a space where (economic, social, cultural, political, private …) time is suspended and where people have time at their disposal for “a new beginning.” Whereas the museum is the setting that accumulates time, the school could be seen as the setting for suspending time. The school as “public architecture,” then, is not a space/time of “intro-duction” and “in-between,” but a space/time of “suspension” and “e-ducation.”

The article presents an introduction to the Special Issue on the French philosopher Jacques Ranciere who raises a provocative voice in the current public debate on democracy, equality and education. Instead of merely criticizing current practices and discourses, the attractiveness of Ranciere's work is that he does try to formulate in a positive way what democracy is about, how equality can be a pedagogic or educational (instead of policy) concern, and what the public and democratic role of education is. His work opens up a space to rethink and to study, as well as to ‘re‐practice’, what democracy and equality in education are about. He questions the current neutralisation of politics that is motivated by a hatred of democracy. This questioning is for Ranciere also a struggle over words. Against the old philosophical dream of defining the meaning of words, Ranciere underlines the need for the struggle over their meaning. The aim of the article is to clarify how and why education, equality, and democracy a...

Starting from a Foucaultian perspective, the article draws attention to current developments that neutralise democracy through the ‘governmentalisation of democracy’ and processes of ‘governmental subjectivation’. Here, ideas of Ranciere are introduced in order to clarify how democracy takes place through the paradoxical process of ‘political subjectivation’, that is, a disengagement with governmental subjectivation through the verification of one's equality in demonstrating a wrong. We will argue that democracy takes place through the paradoxical process of political subjectivation, and that today's consensus society tends to depoliticize all processes of subjectivation. A final step in the argumentation is to introduce the concept of ‘pedagogic subjectivation’—to be understood as the experience of potentiality—that is to be distinguished from governmental subjectivation and also from political subjectivation. The concept ‘pedagogic subjectivation’ is proposed as a way of thinking of the school as a publ...

This article explores how universities can function as spaces where a world citizenship takes shape. First, Kant's distinction between the ‘private use of reason’ and ‘domestic gathering’, on the one hand, and the ‘public use of reason’ and ‘public gathering’, on the other, is elucidated. This distinction is used, secondly, to argue that the actual university organises ‘domestic gatherings’. In the name of excellence, it requires an entrepreneurial ethos of its staff, i.e. an ethos of obedience to a permanent quality tribunal, implying a permanent (self-)mobilisation confining the entrepreneur to a domestic gathering and the private use of reason (‘private citizens’). Based on this understanding, the third section develops a proposal for a world university inhabited by ‘learned individuals' acting as world citizens. It is a habitat in which an experimental and attentive ethos is present and where the public use of reason is ‘finding (a) place’. This public use of reason is not just about making things known, but of making them present. The aim of the final section, then, is to make the proposal more specific, based on an exploration of ‘public lecturing’ as the time and space of public (world) gathering where things are made public.

Could anyone reasonably oppose the idea that quality and excellence are essential to the university? However unlikely it seems, that is exactly what we would like to do in this article: we would like to reject the demand for quality and excellence in the university. We would like to arrive at a point at where the need for quality is no longer necessary. In this article, such a refusal will direct us to a proposal for using the spaces offered by the university and its teaching and research in a different way; in a way that transforms the university into a world university. This paper will argue that a world university is concentrated around attentive pools of worldly study. It is a university that has to invent new languages in order to answer the question “How can we live together?” In order to answer this question, and to be “present in the present,” we will clarify our argument that both acceptance and attention are needed in the world university. This position implies a kind of curiosity that is not driven by the “will to know” but by a caring attitude to what is happening now.

With the growth of the European Union – both in terms of its size and in terms of its influence and importance – questions have emerged about the relationship between the European Union and the inhabitants of its member states. These questions are increasingly being framed in relation to the idea of citizenship. The issue here is not only whether such a thing as European citizenship can exist. The issue is also what we should understand by European citizenship and, in relation to this, how European citizenship can be promoted and advanced. These questions are first of all considered to be important in relation to the democratic legitimacy of the European Union on the assumption that the legitimacy of democratic governance crucially depends on the extent to which it is supported and ‘owned’ by its citizens. But they are also considered to be important in relation to wider questions about social cohesion and integration and the emergence of something like a sense of a European identity. Whereas many opportunities for civic participation and identification are located at national and sub-national levels, there is at least one area where over the past decade something with a more European identity has been emerging. This is the field of higher education.[1] While compulsory education and, to a slightly lesser extent, vocational education have largely remained tied to national priorities, agendas and policies, the field of higher education is rapidly evolving into a sector which transcends national borders and agendas. Although the economic imperative is central in the policies that drive these developments, particularly in relation to the ambition of the European Community to become ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (Lisbon European Council, 2000), policy makers are clearly aware of the wider potential of universities in relation to questions of social cohesion and European citizenship (see, for example, European Commission, 2003, 2006). This is also what has been emphasised by the European universities themselves, who have stressed that their role encompasses more than just the creation of the next generation of workers for the knowledge economy, but includes a responsibility for cultural, social and civic development at national and European level (see, for example, European University Association, 2003). There are indeed good reasons for focusing on the higher education sector in relation to questions about European citizenship. One reason goes back to the Humboldtian tradition, which has always given the university a special role in the development of the democratic nation-state, a line of thinking which is now extended to the European level. This line of thought traditionally stresses the unique role of ‘academic’ education, that is, the edifying potential of research-based education in institutions for higher education. A second reason for a focus on higher education has

Instead of asking how universities can contribute to active citizenship and democratic participation (and seeking for ways to improve their contribution), this article asks what it is that universities, due to their specific mission, have to offer. After describing the transition of the historical university (and its focus on modernisation) to the entrepreneurial university (focused on innovation), the authors discuss the current framing of the university's public role in terms of civic employability. The notion ‘strategies of immunisation’ is introduced to point to the implications of the current focus on citizenship. Finally, an alternative conception of the public role of the university is introduced: the university can be regarded as a space and time to constitute a public by gathering people around matters of concern, and to make something a public concern for people.

In this essay, Maarten Simons and Jan Masschelein reconsider the concepts “educationalization” and “the grammar of schooling” in the light of the overwhelming importance of “learning” today. Doubting whether these concepts and related historical-analytical perspectives are still useful, the authors suggest the concept “learning apparatus” as a point of departure for an analysis of the “grammar of learning.” They draw on Michel Foucault’s analysis of governmentality to describe how learning has become a matter of both government and self-government. In describing the governmentalization of learning and the current assemblage of a ”learning apparatus,” Simons and Masschelein indicate how the concept of learning has become disconnected from education and teaching and has instead come to refer to a kind of capital, to something for which the learner is personally responsible, to something that can and should be managed, and to something that must be employable. Finally, the authors elaborate how these discourses combine to play a crucial role in contemporary advanced liberalism that seeks to promote entrepreneurship.

This article presents and discusses the results of a literature review that was conducted in order to understand ambivalences observed in reflections on the research–teaching nexus. As a result of this literature review, it is possible to attribute these ambivalences to the mixed use of two approaches: on the one hand, a functional approach that regards research as a tool in the learning environment in order to develop competencies that are functional for the knowledge society, and, on the other hand, an idealistic approach that regards research as a process of edification and understands academic education as participation in research. This article examines these two approaches and discusses the critical issues that have to be taken into account in order to deal with the ambivalences.

A ‘renaissance of the university’ in the European knowledge society is regarded today as a necessity. However, there is an ongoing debate about what that renaissance should look like. The aim of this article is to take a closer look at these debates, and in particular, the disputes related to the public role of the (future) university in the European knowledge society. The aim however is not to assess the validity of the arguments of each of the protagonists but to place the discussion within a broader socio-historical context. From a genealogical point of view, and drawing upon the work of Foucault and Hunter, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of milieu, each embodying their own “intellectual technology” and each leading to a specific conception of the public role of the university: firstly the principled milieu (with the persona of the academic as critical intellectual), and secondly the governmental milieu (with the persona of the state official or governmental expert). From this genealogical point of view, I will argue that the modern (research) university was from the very beginning a hybrid institution due to the claims and scopes of both milieus. Furthermore, I will argue that the current discussions reveal the ongoing influence of both milieus and their respective gazes and approaches.

The aim of this article is to analyse the evident use of the notion ‘educational quality’ from the perspective of a critical ‘ontology of the present’ by focusing on governmental relations. Through mapping present discourses on educational quality and related technologies, the authors analyse how our present concern with quality is part of a particular regime of government and self-government. In this governmental regime the ‘quality apparatus’ seeks to assure an optimal relation between supply and demand. In conclusion, the perspective of a ‘creative ontology’ of the educational present is introduced in order to formulate alternative ideas on education and in order to indicate the limits of education policy.

Traditionally, ‘education through research’ is understood to be a main characteristic of education at the university. In this article we will explore how ‘education through research’ is argued to be of major importance for the European knowledge society, how there is still a reference to the idea of Bildung or liberal education, and what research is presumed to be like if it is to have this edifying potential. It will be argued that the edifying potential of research is related to a normative component in the research activity and that this normative orientation and its presuppositions are problematic today. This lays the way for the exploration of alternative approaches to the edifying potential of research (with reference especially to Jurgen Mittelstrass and Jacques Derrida) and for the discussion of what could be at stake for ‘education through research’.

This paper presents an overview of the elements which characterize a research attitude and approach introduced by Michel Foucault and further developed as ‘studies of governmentality’ into a sub‐discipline of the humanities during the past decade, including also applications in the field of education. The paper recalls Foucault's introduction of the notion of ‘governmentality’ and its relation to the ‘mapping of the present’ and sketches briefly the way in which the studies of governmentality have been elaborated in general and in the context of research in education more particularly. It indicates how the studies of governmentality can be related to a cartography of the learning society, a cartography which helps us to get lost and to liberate our view.

The ‘European Space of Higher Education’ could be mapped as an infrastructure for entrepreneurship and a place where the distinction between the social and the economic becomes obsolete. Using Foucault's understanding of biopolitics and discussing the analyses of Agamben and Negri/Hardt it is argued that the actual governmental configuration, i.e. the economisation of the social, also has a biopolitical dimension. Focusing on the intersection between a politicisation and economisation of human life allows us to discuss a kind of ‘bio‐economisation’ (cf. Brockling), a regime of economic terror and learning as investment. Finally it is argued how fostering learning, i.e. fostering life (as a learning process) could turn into ‘let die’ and even into ‘make die’.

Critical educational research offers the researcher a position and an ethos of comfort. Even the declared recognition of the relativity of principles, norms or criteria so characteristic of much cr...

We will focus on the recent concern — and even ‘obsession’ — with quality in education from the perspective of changes in how we are governed and governing ourselves. Therefore, we will explore advanced liberalism as a form of ‘governmentality’ and point out that (political) government has to submit itself to a ‘permanent economic tribunal’, i.e. judge everything constantly by the principles of entrepreneurship and competition. Furthermore, not only political government, but foremost self-government should be understood in relation to the tribunal: free people objectify within them skills and competencies, which are valuable in a (market) environment. Moreover we argue that management rationality and technology try to establish a double bond within the organization by regarding the worker as an enterprising self. Having pointed out the relationship between entrepreneurship and (self-)management, it is possible to describe how quality becomes a permanent obsession to those managing their life or an organization as an enterprise. After describing management and quality (and their relation) as a ‘function’ of entrepreneurship it is possible to understand how learning is part of it, and how quality management and schooling become entwined at all levels.

The article starts from the questions: what is it to be an inhabitant or citizen of a globalised world, and how are we to think of education in relation to such inhabitants? We examine more specifically the so–called ‘European area of higher education’ that is on the way to being established and that can be regarded as a concrete example of a process of globalisation. In the first part of the paper we try to show that the discursive horizon, and the concrete techniques and strategies that accompany the establishment of this space of higher education, invite the inhabitants of that space to see themselves as entrepreneurial and autonomous entities. In the second part we show how this specific kind of subjectivation (this production of subjects), related as it is to this globalised space, involves what we call an immunisation that also affects our thinking and our ideas in and about education. To refer to this as a kind of immunisation implies that globalisation could in fact be considered a closing or enclosing rather than an opening up. We argue, therefore, that this immunisation needs to be refused in favour of the invention of other kinds of subjectivity, other ways of speaking and writing about the world and about education, such that we relate to ourselves in a different way.

Central to this article is a case study of one particular governmental instrument in Flanders, the educational magazine ‘Klasse voor Ouders’ (‘Klasse for Parents’). This popular magazine aims to provide information for and communication with parents as one of the target groups in the educational field. Despite the claimed formal and neutral character, in this study, we assume that ‘Klasse voor Ouders’ plays a larger role by contributing to the (re-)organisation of the public debate. We suggest that through the ‘order of discourse’ and thus, through what is said and written, an educational reality is created in which parents and the government are ‘positioned’ and are asked to reflect on themselves and to act in a well-defined way. By means of a critical discourse analysis in line with Fairclough, we illustrate how parents are understood as having a continuous ‘drive’ for improving the quality of their own parenting practice while the government is positioned as in charge of and in control for creating a kind of ‘parental learning community’. peerreview_statement: The publishing and review policy for this title is described in its Aims & Scope. aims_and_scope_url: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=tedp20 ispartof: Journal of Education Policy vol:29 issue:6 pages:785-803 status: published

During the last two decades, professional standards describing competencies for teaching staff have emerged in nation states all around the world. This article reports on a pilot-study that applies a sociotechnological ‘lens’ to examine this standardisation process in educational policy. In line with ethnographic analyses drawing on science and technology studies and actor-network theory, the authors present a case study of teacher education in Flanders to demonstrate empirically how professional standards for teachers are being translated in (material) reality. First, we show where the Flemish professional profile and the core competencies of the teacher are being inscribed in teacher education. Second, we register how they gather an assembly of people, documents, procedures, instruments, etc. into specific types of stable and self-evident practice, and, third, we describe who and what is therefore set in motion. By displaying where the core competencies of the teacher function as ‘obligatory points of p...

1. Mobilizing Foucault in studies of lifelong learning Katherine Nicoll and Andreas Fejes Section 1: Governing policy subjects 2. Actively seeking subjects? Richard Edwards 3. Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning flexibility and knowledge capitalism Mark Olssen 4. Our 'will to learn' and the assemblage of a learning apparatus Maarten Simons and Jan Masschelein 5. The operation of knowledge and construction of the lifelong learning subject Ulf Olsson and Kenneth Petersson 6. The reason of reason: cosmopolitanism, social exclusion and lifelong learning Thomas S. Popkewitz 7. Historicizing the lifelong learner: governmentality and neoliberal rule Andreas Fejes Section 2: Governing pedagogical subjects 8. Self-governance in the job search: regulative guidelines in job seeking Marinette Fogde 9. Adult learner identities under construction Katarina Sipos Zackrisson and Liselott Assarsson 10. Recognition of prior learning as a technique of governing Per Andersson 11. Pathologizing and medicalizing lifelong learning: a deconstruction Gun Berglund 12. Motivation theory as power in disguise Helene Ahl 13. Discipline and e-learning Katherine Nicoll 14. Academic work and adult education: a site of multiple subjects Nicky Solomon Section 3: Governing subjects 15. Encountering Foucault in lifelong learning Gert Biesta