There seems to be a whole body of discussion on whether we are post neo-liberal now or in a revised form of it. But what on earth is neo-liberalism? It may be seen as the dominant political context but few people seem to define it.
Neo-liberalism – for me – is about a market-lead approach, freeing the markets to lead economic growth and service provision. It is also about rendering the individual citizen a contributor and beneficiary of a market system.
Now many against neo-liberalism argue that all values thus become economic, driven by targets and other social and philosophical values are lost.
Those in favour, see it as method for financial gains individually and nationally, smaller, more efficient government which leaves the citizen in control.
During the economic crisis it was deemed that neo-liberalism had failed; leaving banks and markets to decide the worth of anything lead to a melt-down. But it has to be questioned what form of neo-liberalism failed as it has gradually evolved.
Thatcher and Reagan are seen as the original creators of neo-liberalism though they themselves would not use the term nor particularly see themselves as liberals. They lead the large-scale opening up of markets, encouraging home ownership (and thus individual participation in a market) and changed our relationship with public services.
This model was then revised by Clinton and Blair with the so-called ‘third way’: put simply, market liberalism with a social conscience which meant more state investment in services. And yet for some this lacked the economic rigour for some and thus was doomed to failure.
The thing is that we are yet to see a huge divergence away from the models identified above. Despite the cycles of market growth and constriction, it appears to have worked as a model for increasing wealth. Indeed it is still ensuring huge growth in China, India and Brazil.
What 2008 did was make excessive money (and particularly bankers) look wrong and cause people to ask that a wider set of values be attributed to our markets, governance and, indeed, our lives. I can see neo-liberalism evolving to take on these values; causing a third stage of the concept’s development.
As someone researching European Higher Education, many of the key questions tied to it are attributed to neo-liberalism: the current form of the EU, globalisation, the market approach to HE, the understanding of education/learning etc. My tutor (rightly) argues that I need to challenge these ideas and look for alternative models. My problem is this: I have this feeling that, from my perspective, neo-liberalism works and – with the above evolution – should work better.
Due to neo-liberalism (though some would say despite it), universities have grown and been successful, people are more mobile and aware of the world and the individual’s capacity to bring about change have become clear.
There are faults and the current coalition government are aware of them. But what’s required is a revision to the neo-liberal model - rather than a whole scale scrapping of it as it remains an important model for our universities, country and world.
Monday 24 January 2011
Research Update 24/01/11
So the plan of writing every day with what I had done does not seem to have worked either, does it? So let’s scrap that for a work. The thing is I don’t make the greatest diarist but be assured that I have been working for at least an hour a day. The essay on the philosophy of social scientific research went through 3 further drafts and has resulted in quite a bit of reading on the History of the European Union and on neo-liberalism. A post follows on that and I think this will have to remain my main way of writing as daily (or even regular blogging) does not appear to work for me!!
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Research Diary 04/01/12
Hours Carried Forward from Last Session: -3 hours (none done first 3 days of year)
Hours & Work Undertaken: 5 hours - redrafting philosophy of research essay.
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List: +2 hours - reflect on 2nd draft of essay, start condencing reading for lit review.
Notes:
After not finishing the re-draft of the essay at home (too many other distractions), I finished this evening and have sent it to a couple of friends to have a look at.
Found sorting the philosophical considerations behind my research a little tough. You're not meant to fit your methodology or paradigm to the methods or the research questions but in a sense I feel I have had to after not sorting this to start off with. I suppose this is part of the learning process in doing a major research project. Next time I will sort the lit review and methodology ahead of actually starting the research.
Sort of got hear around the whole epistemology and ontology question (I am an interpretivist and social constructionist, on the whole) but need to work out how I express that.
Style wise - a little muddy I suspect in places. Tried to get it that each section (epistemologival, ontological and political considerations) to one author/thinker. Almost there on the first and last but not really got to the bottom of who the key thinker in social constructionism is, yet. It would be tidier and more pleasing stylistically if I could simplify the structure.
Tomorrow I will have a break on this and look at the lit review. Need a change of task and just a quick data-basing my reading will make a nice contrast and help me focus on what I am reading.
Hours & Work Undertaken: 5 hours - redrafting philosophy of research essay.
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List: +2 hours - reflect on 2nd draft of essay, start condencing reading for lit review.
Notes:
After not finishing the re-draft of the essay at home (too many other distractions), I finished this evening and have sent it to a couple of friends to have a look at.
Found sorting the philosophical considerations behind my research a little tough. You're not meant to fit your methodology or paradigm to the methods or the research questions but in a sense I feel I have had to after not sorting this to start off with. I suppose this is part of the learning process in doing a major research project. Next time I will sort the lit review and methodology ahead of actually starting the research.
Sort of got hear around the whole epistemology and ontology question (I am an interpretivist and social constructionist, on the whole) but need to work out how I express that.
Style wise - a little muddy I suspect in places. Tried to get it that each section (epistemologival, ontological and political considerations) to one author/thinker. Almost there on the first and last but not really got to the bottom of who the key thinker in social constructionism is, yet. It would be tidier and more pleasing stylistically if I could simplify the structure.
Tomorrow I will have a break on this and look at the lit review. Need a change of task and just a quick data-basing my reading will make a nice contrast and help me focus on what I am reading.
New Year New Blog
So I am going to aim and fill in a (short) blog every time I do some research on the PhD. The aim has always been to do an hour and I will keep a brief diary of the format below. Every day for a year so you can see what is going on. Feel free to feedback on any of my thoughts! That doesn't mean there weren't be other posts on other issues (particularly politics, news, university items and general reflections); I just want to keep a better record of my research
Hours Carried Forward from Last Session:
Hours & Work Undertaken:
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List:
Notes:
Hours Carried Forward from Last Session:
Hours & Work Undertaken:
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List:
Notes:
Reflections on Citizen Journalism
10 days ago I was stuck in the protests on Oxford Street and proceeded to capture the event using my mobile to tweet and record the event, blogging about it afterwards and disseminating my findings by email & social media.
This reminded me of discussions about citizen journalism when I studied to be a journalist at the University of Sheffield. Now much has been written about citzen journalism and there's even a good wikipedia summarising many of the debates. Now the 2 of the problems with citizen journalism are obvious: skills (whether someone is trained to report) and editorial rigour (anyone can blog, that doesn't necessarily make it fair/balanced journalism).
Now unlike many 'citizen' journalists, I have actually trained formally as a journalist and I was conscious of one key limitation during my time on Oxford Street: the lack of editorial oversight available. If I had been linked to a newsroom, more details on what was happening elsewhere could have been fed back to me and a wider context passed on which would have allowed me to focus on the important areas in what I was witnessing. This would have helped with independence of the journalist (even if most journalists can self-regulate themselves) but more importantly told me where to focus my efforts.
As part of the MA dissertation handbook, I remember reading that good academic research is like good journlism: thorough, verifiable and fairly presented. As an academic researcher now, I have the framework (libraries, online publications, colleagues etc.) to fraw on to verify my work. As a journalist you have the desk-based research, news wires and colleagues to rely on. As a citizen journalist, I felt alone and could not guarantee I was getting it all - let alone getting it all right.
Over the last few days I have been drawing on a reflection on objectivity I wrote as part of my MA dissertation. In that work, I argued that objectivity is impossible but the rigours of trying to achieve it at least ensure work is balanced and possibly of a higher, more ethical standard. Much to my tutor's disbelief I think the same is true for my PhD research: the ability to critically reflect on one's work is important. Now as an MA and PhD student, that is part of what academia helps instil. As a journalist, the profession and the editor help instil this. As a citizen journalist, I lacked both the guidance of a team to deliver journalism that would work in the wider world.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have discussed the changing media habits (look at my blog a few moments before the protests for my first thoughts): there is a clear 2 tier news system with an 'official stream' (made up of journalists & mainstream media) for hard facts & comment and an 'unofficial stream' (made up of citizen journalists & commentators) for analysis. Now this has always existed - look at any historical event and the official media has always been challenged; some would argue that the pamphlets of the 1968 protests, for example, have become the blogs of today.
However, in a modern media world, there is a need to ensure wider media education so that people can assess and access all types of media. Not all forms are equal and should be given the same credance. And that includes my report from Oxford Street. My report lacks the journalistic rigour that official media would give it - even though I would vouch for its accuracy.
On Saturday's 'Today' programme, there was a discussion over whether blogging is dead and what media will take things forward. This would leave citizen journalists looking either out of a job or looking for a new way forward. But in age where media seems all dominating, though the format may change, there is still a need for citizen journalists to be there.
So for all my faults on Oxford Street, I come to the same conclusion about my citizen journalism as I did for my MA & PhD and my professional journalism: that trying to follow the research & reporting protocols of the 'trade' may not result in a perfect product but it at least means a story gets out there.
This reminded me of discussions about citizen journalism when I studied to be a journalist at the University of Sheffield. Now much has been written about citzen journalism and there's even a good wikipedia summarising many of the debates. Now the 2 of the problems with citizen journalism are obvious: skills (whether someone is trained to report) and editorial rigour (anyone can blog, that doesn't necessarily make it fair/balanced journalism).
Now unlike many 'citizen' journalists, I have actually trained formally as a journalist and I was conscious of one key limitation during my time on Oxford Street: the lack of editorial oversight available. If I had been linked to a newsroom, more details on what was happening elsewhere could have been fed back to me and a wider context passed on which would have allowed me to focus on the important areas in what I was witnessing. This would have helped with independence of the journalist (even if most journalists can self-regulate themselves) but more importantly told me where to focus my efforts.
As part of the MA dissertation handbook, I remember reading that good academic research is like good journlism: thorough, verifiable and fairly presented. As an academic researcher now, I have the framework (libraries, online publications, colleagues etc.) to fraw on to verify my work. As a journalist you have the desk-based research, news wires and colleagues to rely on. As a citizen journalist, I felt alone and could not guarantee I was getting it all - let alone getting it all right.
Over the last few days I have been drawing on a reflection on objectivity I wrote as part of my MA dissertation. In that work, I argued that objectivity is impossible but the rigours of trying to achieve it at least ensure work is balanced and possibly of a higher, more ethical standard. Much to my tutor's disbelief I think the same is true for my PhD research: the ability to critically reflect on one's work is important. Now as an MA and PhD student, that is part of what academia helps instil. As a journalist, the profession and the editor help instil this. As a citizen journalist, I lacked both the guidance of a team to deliver journalism that would work in the wider world.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have discussed the changing media habits (look at my blog a few moments before the protests for my first thoughts): there is a clear 2 tier news system with an 'official stream' (made up of journalists & mainstream media) for hard facts & comment and an 'unofficial stream' (made up of citizen journalists & commentators) for analysis. Now this has always existed - look at any historical event and the official media has always been challenged; some would argue that the pamphlets of the 1968 protests, for example, have become the blogs of today.
However, in a modern media world, there is a need to ensure wider media education so that people can assess and access all types of media. Not all forms are equal and should be given the same credance. And that includes my report from Oxford Street. My report lacks the journalistic rigour that official media would give it - even though I would vouch for its accuracy.
On Saturday's 'Today' programme, there was a discussion over whether blogging is dead and what media will take things forward. This would leave citizen journalists looking either out of a job or looking for a new way forward. But in age where media seems all dominating, though the format may change, there is still a need for citizen journalists to be there.
So for all my faults on Oxford Street, I come to the same conclusion about my citizen journalism as I did for my MA & PhD and my professional journalism: that trying to follow the research & reporting protocols of the 'trade' may not result in a perfect product but it at least means a story gets out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
