Katy Vigurs

From critical research to policy

This special issue arises from our observation of a widespread disconnect between socially critical research and policy, and more specifically divisions between critical researchers and policy makers in education. Ideally policymakers would opt to critically engage with research that considers the issues their policies attempt to resolve and the outcomes of their policy decisions. Yet policy decisions rarely tend to be informed by direct research evidence, let alone critical education research that challenges policy by highlighting societal inequities that are perpetuated through social exclusion and disadvantage. This questions the adequacy of prevailing policies for social inclusion. Some critical researchers speculate that historical and ideological divisions put limits on the policy influence of critical research (Shain & Ozga, 2001; Apple, 2011). These divisions underpin the various tensions between policy and critical research which are highlighted in the articles in this special issue. Yet the aim of this set of articles is to look beyond the limits proposed by history and ideology, and consider whether and where there are paths open to researchers to allow critical research to impact upon policy development and enactment. This special issue emerges against a backdrop of general acknowledgement – by policymakers, practitioners and researchers – of the value in an education policy system informed by evidence, even though it is hard to establish agreement on the precise nature of evidence and how it can be used (Weiss, 1979; Sanderson, 2009; Hammersley, 2013; Whitty, 2014). Research on knowledge mobilisation suggests that to undertake this work purposefully requires in-depth understanding of the micro-processes that contribute to the transfer of

Developing a methodology for public engagement with critical research

In this article we argue that a refined understanding of ‘public’ and ‘public engagement’ can help researchers who produce critical research make better decisions towards achieving policy influence. We acknowledge the challenges critical researchers face in putting their research to work within the public domain. Critical research struggles to gain influence in bounded public spheres where research is valued as a consumable commodity rather than for its integrity or capacity for informing change. A starting point for developing a method of engagement is to understand better ‘publics’ and the different ways they may be conceptualised. We draw on a framework of three conceptualisations of the public in public engagement: bounded, normative and emergent. We use this framework to analyse our own experience of public engagement and attempts at policy influence in the Respecting Children and Young People Project. Through this analysis we recognise alternative ways to conceive of publics that may direct us away from some courses of action, and open new possibilities for public engagement with critical research.

Mindful Networks? Navigating and Negotiating Life and Work in Academia

In this chapter, I unpack my use of social networks (and social media) as a means of being more mindful about the role of research and scholarship in the construction of my academic identity. I have found it to be a restless, shifting identity that has to be carefully and continually navigated and negotiated. On the one hand, I explain how participation in social networks has actively shaped my sense of academic community and also the scholarly relationships that contribute strongly to my academic health and well-being. On the other hand, I question the extent to which social networking and the use of social media in academia allow truly mindful practices to be enacted. For example, I sometimes worry that social networking for academic purposes through social media contributes to the acceleration of higher education practice—never switching off, always being connected—potentially further exacerbating academics’ levels of labour, stress and pressure. By reflecting upon and analysing my scholarly use of Twitter and Instagram, I explore how this practice (usually) keeps me acting mindfully as an academic and evaluate the extent to which it enables me to engage better in the complex cognitive and emotional demands of working in higher education. Finally, I reflect upon my recent change of both role and institution, which saw me unexpectedly and temporarily suspend my regular use of social media for academic purposes.

Higher fees, higher debts: Unequal graduate transitions in England?

Abstract This chapter draws on findings from a comparative, qualitative research project investigating the decision-making of different groups of English higher education students in central England as they graduated from a Russell group university (46 interviewees) and a Post-92 university (28 interviewees). Half of the students graduated in 2014 (lower tuition fees regime) and the other half graduated in 2015 (higher tuition fees regime). The students interviewed were sampled by socio-economic background, gender, degree subject/discipline and secondary school type. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore students’ future plans and perceptions of their future job prospects. Despite higher debt levels, the 2015 sample of Russell Group graduates from lower socio-economic backgrounds had a positive view of their labour market prospects and a high proportion had achieved either a graduate job or a place on a postgraduate course prior to graduation. This group had saved money whilst studying. The 2015 sample of Post-1992 University graduates (from both lower and average socio-economic backgrounds) were worried about their level of debt, future finances and labour market prospects. This chapter raises questions about whether a fairer university finance system, involving lower levels of debt for graduates from less advantaged backgrounds, might avoid some graduates’ transitions to adulthood being so strongly influenced by financial anxieties.