ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5989-7834
Current Organisation
University of Newcastle Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 30-05-2018
Publisher: The Open University
Date: 2013
Publisher: Elsevier
Date: 2016
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-07-2021
DOI: 10.1002/BERJ.3663
Abstract: Equity and widening participation (EWP) initiatives in Australia are increasingly reimagined in policy as sites where participants are constructed as competitor‐in iduals, with education considered only in terms of employability, social mobility and nation‐state market competition. In the context of EWP outreach, and with school students in particular, this can transpire into demands for narrow forms of ‘legitimate’ aspirations. Goffman defines obscenity as when (1) the very intimate is forced into the public sphere, while (2) the humanising dimensions or contexts are stripped away, with an ex le being pornography—where intimate encounters are reproduced as de‐contextualised acts while being made public. This article argues that dominant approaches to practicing and evaluating EWP risk obscene consequences if they force community members to present static future‐oriented valuations of intimate, fluid aspirations and experiences of education against a backdrop of increasingly in iduated, competitive and standardised educational institutions. In this article, firstly we detail the context to establish a foundation for theorising consequences of particular socio‐educational discursive practices. Secondly, we engage with notions of frame, keying and fabrication as a toolbox to reveal some of the unintended (obscene) dynamics risked via certain approaches to programmatic practice and evaluation. Thirdly, we review the ersity of approaches to evaluation (and their attendant debates), highlighting the importance of these debates and ersities, making a case against methodological imperialism.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 07-04-2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 20-02-2100
Publisher: Elsevier
Date: 2015
Publisher: Elsevier
Date: 2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 22-12-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 17-11-2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 26-02-2019
Abstract: In this paper we discuss recent policy attempts (in 2017) to introduce new frameworks for Australian higher education access and equity programs. These include introducing fees and a tendering process for access or ‘enabling’ programs, as they are called in Australia, and an evaluation framework based on an evidence hierarchy for widening participation or ‘equity’ programs. We illuminate how those policymaking attempts contradict the conditions required for equity-oriented programs because they misrecognise the experiences of the participants. We argue that different conceptual approaches to provision and evaluation are required for practitioners, providers and policymakers to shape future policy together ( Heimans and Singh, 2018 ) so that enabling and equity programs can be understood in ways that value the knowledges and experiences of the participants involved ( Sayer, 2011 ). Our aim is to contribute to work that disrupts the positioning of ‘objective’ policy evaluation frameworks vs ‘subjective’ practices because this decontextualises ( Burke and Lumb, 2018 ) and oversimplifies ( Tesar, 2016a ), and may serve paradoxically to reduce the programs’ impacts.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-07-2020
No related grants have been discovered for Anna Bennett.