Michael A. Peters

Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism

The ascendancy of neoliberalism and the associated discourses of ‘new public management’, during the 1980s and 1990s has produced a fundamental shift in the way universities and other institutions of higher education have defined and justified their institutional existence. The traditional professional culture of open intellectual enquiry and debate has been replaced with a institutional stress on performativity, as evidenced by the emergence of an emphasis on measured outputs: on strategic planning, performance indicators, quality assurance measures and academic audits. This paper traces the links between neoliberalism and globalization on the one hand, and neoliberalism and the knowledge economy on the other. It maintains that in a global neoliberal environment, the role of higher education for the economy is seen by governments as having greater importance to the extent that higher education has become the new star ship in the policy fleet for governments around the world. Universities are seen as a key driver in the knowledge economy and as a consequence higher education institutions have been encouraged to develop links with industry and business in a series of new venture partnerships. The recognition of economic importance of higher education and the necessity for economic viability has seen initiatives to promote greater entrepreneurial skills as well as the development of new performative measures to enhance output and to establish and achieve targets. This paper attempts to document these trends at the level of both political philosophy and economic theory.

The Origins and Status of Action Research

Diverse claims have been made for and about action research in a variety of contexts. In this article, we first trace the origins of this approach to Kurt Lewin and provide a synopsis of his views. We then compare Lewins views on action research with those of contemporary exponents. In the third section, we review and systematize the claims of 11 action researchers to determine the extent to which their claims constitute a shared conception. While most authors characterize action research as a methodology, a few also attempt to link action research to a particular interpretation or theory of social science. We build on this distinction in the final section and distinguish a weak from a strong version of action research, concluding that, at this time, neither version enjoys the status of a paradigm.

Three Forms of the Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity and Openness

ABSTRACT This paper outlines and reviews three forms and associated discourses of the ‘knowledge economy’: the ‘learning economy’, based on the work of Bengt-Åke Lundvall; the ‘creative economy’ based on the work of Charles Landry, John Howkins and Richard Florida; and the ‘open knowledge economy’ based on the work of Yochai Benkler and others. Arguably, these three forms and discourses represent three recent related but different conceptions of the knowledge economy, each with clear significance and implications for education and education policy. The last provides a model of radically non-propertarian form that incorporates both ‘open education’ and ‘open science’ economies.

Performance and accountability in ‘post-industrial society˚s: The crisis of British universities

ABSTRACT In the first section the paper records some of the important changes that have been forced on British universities. These changes are referred to under the signs of ‘performance˚s and ‘accountability˚s. An attempt is made to analyse these signs as they figure in current policy discourse. The next section proposes an analysis of post-industrialism, which is both more cautious than the technocratic celebrants and more pessimistic. This analysis figures the work of Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, relating it briefly to the modernity/post-modernity debate. Finally, predicated on a different reading of ‘post-industrialism˚s, the paper sets out some positive conclusions concerning the future role of the university.

Education and the postmodern condition

Postmodern Education and the Politics of Backlash by Henry A. Giroux, Series Editors Introduction Foreword by Jean-Francois Lyotard Introduction: Lyotard, Education, and the Postmodern Condition by Michael Peters The Loss of Innocence: Lyotard, Foucault, and the Challenge of Postmodern Education by William Bain Legitimation Problems: Knowledge and Education in the Postmodern Condition by Michael Peters Lyotard and Rorty on the Role of the Professor by A.T. Nuyen From Pragmatism to the Differend by J.M. Fritzman Postmodern Feminisms by Carol Nicholson Critical Pedagogy and the Pragmatics of Justice by Peter McLaren Lyotard, Postmodernity, and Education: A Critical Evaluation by John Hinkson Is Education at the End of a Sovereign Story or at the Beginning of Another? Cultural Political Possibilities and Lyotard by Barry Kanpol Pedagogy and Apedagogy: Lyotard and Foucault at Vincennes by James Marshall From Emancipation to Obligation: Sketch for a Heteronomous Politics of Education by Bill Readings Index

Editorial: The reception of post-structuralism in educational research and policy

The reception of post-structuralism in the English-speaking world has been both varied and uneven. ‘Post-structuralism’, as an Americanism that tends to obscure the often deep-seated differences and styles of thinkers grouped together under this term, was initially more readily received in departments of literature than in departments of philosophy. Indeed, where the latter were especially hostile, the former were hospitable. Much of the post-structuralist canon dealt with the act of literature and developed forms of criticism that were not easily contained within disciplinary boundaries. Analytic philosophers have found the question of style difficult to deal with; they were unhappy with the new methods ^ deconstruction, semanalysis, genealogy ^ questioning whether they were sufficiently ‘philosophical’ and rigorous. Yet, as the philosophers quarrelled and engaged in demarcation disputes, the work of first generation post-structuralist thinkers became more absorbed into the fabric of the humanities and social sciences. While post-structuralist thought was seized upon in the emerging fields of cultural studies and film studies, it was also opposed by traditional and neo-marxists, especially in the early days by self-styled critical theorists. The question of the reception of post-structuralism needs to be written for specific countries, locations and disciplines for the American and British experience differs considerably, as it does for other countries. Gordon (1996: 253), for instance, remarks that ‘The British reception of Foucault’s work has been difficult and uncertain’ and yet he goes on to observe the way in which ‘Foucault drew attention to an element of critical thought in the Scots creators of political economy’ (p. 255) and attached particular importance to Fergusson’s idea of civil society. Gordon also begins to flesh out an account of the differences between Foucault and the British historians, especially those who saw Marxism as the science of history. As he says, the intellectual signature of the British Left is the way in which social history replaces historical sociology as the vehicle for Gramscian ‘organic’ intellectuals to live their lives as part of the existential task of recreating democratic elements of a common culture. Perhaps, today, we are now more sensitive to the valences of cultural context and less likely to parade ideological commitments as ‘truths’. The bitter antagonisms on the Left which characterized the 1980s seem to have given way to a greater theoretical sophistication and creativity; perhaps even a preparedness to entertain what might have seemed like heresy only a mere decade ago. This antagonism was evident, for example, in the endless arguments over State Theory. On the one hand, Foucault, as Gordon (1996: 263) acknowledges, ‘was inclined to make fun of what he called a tendency . . . toward ‘‘State-phobia’’ ’ and, on the other, he offended the moralists

Education Policy in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism

The term ‘knowledge capitalism’ emerged only recently to describe the transition to the so-called ‘knowledge economy’. Knowledge capitalism and knowledge economy are twin terms that can be traced at the level of public policy to a series of reports that emerged in the late 1990s by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996a,b,c) and the World Bank (1998, 1999), before they were taken up as a policy template by world governments in the late 1990s. In terms of these reports, education is reconfigured as a massively undervalued form of knowledge capital that will determine the future of work, the destiny of knowledge institutions and the shape of society in the years to come. This article focuses on the twin notions of knowledge capitalism and the knowledge economy as a comparative context for formulating education policy. First, it provides a brief theoretical context based on developments in the economics of knowledge and information by reference to the work of Hayek; second, it analyses recent documents of world policy agencies concerning these two concepts; third, it discusses the notion of knowledge capitalism as it has figured in the work of Alan Burton-Jones (1999). These accounts serve as three accounts of knowledge capitalism that have exerted a profound influence upon national education policies. This article is an essay in the new political economy of knowledge and information. It adopts the concept of knowledge capitalism as an overarching concept that denotes a sea change in the nature of capitalism. Finally, the article entertains the concept of knowledge socialism as an alternative organizing concept for knowledge creation, production and development.

Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning

There is no more central issue to education than thinking and reasoning. Certainly, such an emphasis chimes with the rationalist and cognitive deep structure of the Western educational tradition. The contemporary tendency reinforced by cognitive science is to treat thinking ahistorically and aculturally as though physiology, brain structure and human evolution are all there is to say about thinking that is worthwhile or educationally significant. The movement of critical thinking also tends to treat thinking ahistorically, focusing on universal processes of logic and reasoning. Against this trend and against the scientific spirit of the age this paper presents a historical and philosophical picture of thinking. By contrast with dominant cognitive and logical models the paper emphasizes kinds of thinking and styles of reasoning. The paper grows out of interests primarily in the work of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, and in the extension and development of their work in Critical Theory and French poststructuralist philosophy. The paper draws directly on some of this work to argue for the recognition of different kinds of thinking, which are explored by reference to Heidegger, and also the significance of styles of reasoning, which are explored by reference to Wittgenstein and to Ian Hacking.

Performance Indicators in New Zealand Higher Education: Accountability or Control?.

This paper examines and critiques the development of a set of performance indicators in New Zealand higher education introduced as a result of recent reforms. The first section outlines the policy context for their introduction in terms of a set of core public sector reforms more generally, and reforms carried out with regard to education and higher education in particular. The second section reviews and discusses the national set of performance indicators that have been developed and considers their role and significance within new mechanisms designed to improve efficiency and accountability. The third section briefly backgrounds the university opposition to the Education Amendment Act, 1990 and the policy settlement that resulted. It also updates developments under the present National government and indicates the relationship of these developments to the emergence of the right in New Zealand education.

Writing the Self: Wittgenstein, Confession and Pedagogy

In this paper I investigate ‘the confessional’ as an aspect of Wittgensteins style both as a mode of philosophising and as a mode of ‘writing the self’, tied explicitly to pedagogical practices. There are strong links between Wittgensteins confessional mode of philosophising and his life—for him philosophy is a way of life —and interesting theoretical connections between confessional practices and pedagogy, usefully explored in the writings of the French philosopher, Michel Foucault. The Investigations provides a basis and springboard for understanding the notion of ‘writing the self’ as a pedagogical practice which encourages a confessional mode compelling us to tell the truth about ourselves and, thus, creating the conditions for ethico-poetical self-constitution.