Advertisement

The Problem: Standardizations and Normativities

  • Michael CrowhurstEmail author
  • Michael Emslie
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Arts-Based Educational Research book series (BABER)

Abstract

In this chapter we describe the phenomenon that has provoked our investigations. We identify this problem as tendencies towards standardizations, normativities and alignments, and we use the neoliberal university as a case study. We argue that such standardizations and alignments are the antithesis of what might characterize a pro-diversity or expansive environment. We argue that we are witnessing an intensification of these tendencies in universities and that these limiting tendencies are amplifying. This section concludes with a reflection on the type of flow that charaterizes standardized environments. We describe and deploy what we name a critical/collective/auto/ethnographic method to explore this terrain.

Keywords

Standardizations Normativities Higher education Neoliberal university Critical/collective/auto/ethnographic Critical autoethnography 

References

  1. Alcorn, G. (2018, Tuesday June 5). Peter Ridd’s sacking pushes the limit of academic freedom. The Guardian. Accessed 9 November 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/05/peter-ridds-sacking-pushes-the-limit-of-academic-freedom.
  2. Babich, B. (2018). Philosophy bakes no bread. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, A. J., & Clemens, J. (2017). What is education? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. 2016. Critical theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Technology. Accessed 9 September 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/.
  5. Bottrell, D., & Manathunga, C. (Eds.). (2019a). Resisting neoliberalism in higher education volume 1: Seeing through the cracks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bottrell, D., & Manathunga, C. (Eds.). (2019b). Resisting neoliberalism in higher education volume 2: Prizing open the cracks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.) (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bowie, D. (2015). Blackstar. YouTube. Accessed 9 November 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kszLwBaC4Sw.
  9. Butler, J. (1999\1990). Gender trouble feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, H. (2013). Individual and collaborative autoethnography as method—A social scientists perspective. In S. Holman Jones, T. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 107–122). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chua, S., Murray, D., & Vilkinas, T. (2018a, February 21). Managerialism, academic capitalism and the rise of professor Toxic. Campus Review. Accessed 28 November 2018. https://www.campusreview.com.au/2018/02/toxic-universities-part-1/.
  12. Chua, S., Murray, D., & Vilkinas, T. (2018b, May 10). The university of toxicity: Managerialism and the rise of professor Toxic (part 2). Campus Review. Accessed 28 November 2018. https://www.campusreview.com.au/2018/02/toxic-universities-part-1/.
  13. Clerke, T., & Hopwood, Nick. (2014). Doing ethnography in teams a case study of asymmetries in collaborative research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conrad, J. (2013/1899). Heart of darkness. Portland, OR: Tin House Books.Google Scholar
  15. Crowhurst, M. (1999). Are you gay/sir? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne. Accessed 27 November 2018. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/1999/cro99822.pdf.
  16. Crowhurst, M. (2001). Working through tension: A response to the concerns of lesbian, gay and bisexual secondary school students. PhD thesis, Department of Education Policy and Management, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  17. Crowhurst, M. (2009). More conversations with queer young people: To be read aloud. Melbourne, VIC: Common Ground Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowhurst, M., & Emslie, M. (2018). Working creatively with stories and learning experiences (creativity, education and the arts). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2007). Engaging Minds: Changing teaching in complex times (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Docherty, T. (2011). For the university: Democracy and the future of the institution. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Docherty, T. (2018). The new treason of the intellectuals: Can the university survive? Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum—Qualtitative Social Research 12(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  25. Freire, P. (1999). Pedagogy of the oppressed: New revised 20th-anniversary. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holman Jones, S., Adams, T., & Ellis, C. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Autoethnography. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Kamp, A., & Kelly, P. (2015). On assemblage. In P. Kelly & A. Kamp (Eds.), A critical youth studies for the 21st century (pp. 242–249). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, P., & Kamp, A. (Eds.). (2015). A critical youth studies for the 21st century. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  30. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malpas, S. (2014). Postmodernism. In R. Braidotti (Ed.), After poststructuralism: Transitions and transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Mendez, M. (2013). Autoethnography as a research method: Advantages, limitations and criticisms. Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreton-Robinson, A. (Ed.). (2016). Critical indigenous studies: Engagements in first world locations. Tuscan: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  35. Murphy, S. (2017). Zombie university: Thinking under control. London: Repeater Books.Google Scholar
  36. Rasmussen, M. L. (2006). Becoming subjects: sexualities and secondary schooling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Readfearn, G. (2018, Thursday June 7). Academic Peter Ridd not sacked for his climate views, university says. The Guardian. Accessed 9 November 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/07/academic-peter-ridd-not-sacked-for-his-climate-views-university-says.
  38. Rose, N. (2000). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, Te Whariki and curricular understandings. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university—Zombie leadership, academic rockstars and neoliberal ideology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watts, R. (2017). Public universities, managerialism and the value of higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Youdell, D. (2011). School trouble identity, power and politics in education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationRMIT UniversityBundooraAustralia
  2. 2.Youth WorkRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations