Content uploaded by Bronwyn Davies
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bronwyn Davies on Jun 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Bronwyn Davies
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bronwyn Davies on Jun 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Bronwyn Davies
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bronwyn Davies on Jun 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
D eath t o c ritiq ue a nd d is se nt? Th e po lic ie s a nd pr ac tic es of
n ew m an ag eriali sm a nd o f “ evid en c e- ba se d pra cti ce”.
Pu blis he d: 2 0 03 G e n d er an d E duc ati on 1 5 ( 1) 8 9- 1 01
Br on wy n D avi e s
Abs trac t
In this pa p e r I d evelop a cri tiq u e of new m a n ag e ri alis m a n d of
its i m plic ations for th e p r ofes sio n al wor k of sch olar s a n d t eac h ers . I
th en critiqu e “eviden ce-ba s e d p rac tic e” as it is b ein g d e velope d for
sch ools. I ar gu e tha t it is only pos sible to ma k e sen s e of t he policies
an d p ractic es of t he evide n ce-b as ed pr actice m ov em ent within th e
fra me wo rk of ne w m a na geri alis m. I also explor e so me of t h e
te nsion s an d co n tr adictio ns b et we en m a na ge rialism a nd ge nde r
re form in e d u cation al con t ext s. I e nd with a challen ge to b e gin the
wor k of ge ner ating th e collectiv e story th ro u g h whic h we can
dism an tle th e h ege mony of n e w m a n ag eri alis m an d e nga ge in t he
tr an sfor m a tive work t ha t will afford us a differ e nt futur e.
1
D ea th t o cr itiq u e an d dis se nt? Th e p oli ci e s an d prac ti c e s of
n ew m an ag eriali sm a nd o f “ evid en c e- ba se d pra cti ce”.
N e w ma n a ger i alis m, which is also refe r re d to a s n eo-liber alism
in t h e Unit e d Kin gdo m a nd Total Q uality M a nag e m e nt in t he Unit e d
St a tes, is a syst e m of g over n m ent of individuals inven te d d u ri n g t he
That c h e r an d Re ag a n yea r s . It m ay well involve th e mo st sig nific an t
shift in th e disc u rsive cons t r uction of p rofe s sion al p rac tic e a n d
pr o f e ssio n al re spon si bility t h a t a ny of us will ever expe ri en c e. It is
ch ar acte ris e d by t h e r em ov al of th e locu s of po w er from the
kno wle d g e of pr ac tici n g pr ofes sion als to a u dito rs, policy ma ke rs
an d s ta tisticians, no n e of who m n ee d k now anyt hi n g a b ou t th e
pr o f e ssio n in q ue stion ( Ros e, 199 9). N eo-libe r alism is ch a r act e ri s ed
by Thatc h er’s “ de at h of so ci e ty” a nd th e r i s e of “individ u als” wh o
mu st re gul a te th e ms elves but ar e also in n ee d of ma n ag em e nt,
su rveilla n ce an d con trol.
Ma n ag e m e nt, sur v eillanc e a nd con trol ar e n o t n e w of co ur s e .
Fouc a ult (19 9 7, 198 0) a na lys e d t h e p an o pticon as a for m of
gover nm e nt in w hich “r el atively few officials cont r ol la rg e n u m ber s
of [wor k e r s] by fo r egro un ding both hier ar c hy a n d visibility”
(Sch melzer, 1 99 3, p. 1 27). Th e n e w pa n op ticon, h owever, t ha t c a n
be ob s erved in new m an age ri alist w or k sites , wo rks quite
differ e n tly. Sch melzer o b se rve s th at it is invisible a n d ope ra t e s
th rou gh m ul tiple e ye s a t eve ry level—eyes w h os e g a ze is fin ely
tu ne d to th e inflow an d ou tflow of fundin g an d to th e m ultitud e of
m e cha nism s th at hav e b e en g en era t ed to ma nipul a te tho s e flows.
This mu l tiplied gaz e wo rk s in s uc h a w ay th at it s e ems n a tur al an d
m a k e s u s blind to its effe c ts. It en abl es, ac c or ding to Sc hm elze r
(199 3, p. 12 7-8):
… me ticulous co n tr ol over t h e n etwo rk of p owe r rela tions th at
pr od uc e a nd su s t ai n the tr ut h claims of an institution by m ea ns
2
of a n ec ono mical sur veillan c e. It m ultiplies an d mys tifies th e
visible an d c e nte r ed g aze of th e m ac hine into t h e co u ntle ss
inst a nces of obs ervation of a me ch anism. I t s ope r a tion is
distri b ut ed to ever y bo dy in a syste m of pow er r elations th a t
con stitut e a n institu tion. It work s pe rv a sively an d invisibly.
Ever y I in t h a t sys t em b eco m e s a n eye th at se es wh at the
institution a s ks it to s ee, in a r eq u es t so n at ur alized th at it is
often no mor e t han a su bli minal e cho. Pano p tici s m blinds to
oth er w ays of s e ei ng a nd con trols g a ze s a nd gaz er s. It mos t
bli n ds a body to its o wn objectification, to it s having b eco me a
site a nd a sig h t lin e. Mor eover, p anop ticis m s e ems to wor k
mo st efficien tly w hen bodie s ar e set in o p position [for li mited
fund s, for ex ampl e , or for limited re wa rds].
So how di d th e p a nopticon wo rk b e fore th e a dve nt of n ew
m a na g erialis m? In t h e unive r sity cont ext, in th e e a rly 7 0 s, th e
pe riod t h at ca n b e c h ara ct eris e d as high mod ernity (Arche r, 20 0 2),
we h a d ( ge n er ally) “be ni g n” lead ers who ob se rve d th e p rofession al
wor k of th eir st aff at a dist an ce. Th ey as su m ed th o se st aff we re
drive n neit h er by th e m, nor by rul es or by sur v eillanc e, bu t by a
de sir e for mu tu al re sp ec t sh a r ed with c olle ag u e s a n d st ud e n ts, a
de sir e to m ak e a contr i b ution to kn o wled ge in t heir chos en ar e a
an d a d esi r e for pe r s on al fr e e dom. As Fouc ault h a s s hown, this
e a rlie r form of pa no p ticism en co u rag e d m e mb ers of institutions to
con du c t th eir ow n cond uc t in int er n a lized s tr uctu re s of
su rveilla n ce . Subj e cts we r e exp e ct e d to ta ke up a s t h ei r own t he
ne ce ssi ty of c o nd uc tin g th eir own cond uc t— an d ea ch individual’s
ca pa city a n d will t o do so wa s fun d ame ntal to the form s of
gover nm e nt th a t c ha r ac t erise d high mod er ni ty. U n der th o se
syst e ms of m a na gem ent ea ch profe ssion al p e rson (mor e or less)
willin gly took up m ultiple for ms of self-s ur v eillanc e a nd cor re ction
in o rd e r to b e co me legitima t e subj e cts, a c cou nt abl e to th e m selves,
an d t o oth e rs. Their val ue in th eir profe ssion al lives wa s tie d , in
3
pa r t , t o th ei r ca pa city to do so, bu t also to th eir pr ofes sion al
exp er tise an d kn o wled ge . The qu ality of institu tional life w as
ch ar acte ris e d by a high level of s ocial int e gra tion an d individ u al
com mit m ent t o bein g socially r esp o nsi ble (Arch er, 2 0 02). Of cours e
some individuals did not live up to the ideals encap s ulat ed in this
des c ription, and women and membe rs of other groups could be
exclu d ed, exploited and other w i s e badly treate d. I am not arguing
here that the system was perfect, but trying to charact eriz e the
principl e s or rationalities throug h which it made sense of itself.
Now, a s Sc hm elze r (19 93) sh ows , inst ea d of th e s e (mo r e or
less) be nign lead e r s w ho could rely on our own inte r n alized g aze to
mo nitor ou r ow n wo r k, we h ave th e m u l tiplied gaz e of t h e work er s
on e ac h oth er, t hei r gaz e sh ape d by th e policie s an d p ra ctice s
e m an atin g from m an ag e me n t. The multipli e d g a ze infiltr at es an d
sh ap es th e w ay work is und ers tood. Lit tle or no at t ention is p ai d to
th e ac tu al effects on th e wo r k th at this ne w p an op ticism migh t
h a v e, oth e r t han to monitor the m e e tin g of institution al objec tives.
As lo ng a s obje c tive s h ave b e e n sp e cified an d st r a tegie s fo r th eir
m a na g em e nt a n d s urveillan ce put in pla c e, th e n atu re of t he work
itself is of littl e rel evan c e to a nyo ne . If t he au diting tools say th at
th e wo r k ha s, on ave r ag e, m et th e obje c tive s, it is si mply a ss u me d
th at the wor k ha s b ee n a ppr op r i at ely a nd sa tisfa c torily tailore d
ac c or ding to t h e r equi r eme n t s of t he institution (an d often of th e
rel evan t fundin g body).
Within n ew ma n a g erialis t syste ms individu al s’ s ens e of t heir
own val u e is no longe r p r im a rily d e rive d from r es po nsible s elf-
con du c t an d t h e co mp et e n t k n owle d ge an d pr a ctic e of p rofes sional
kno wle d g e. And y et a t the sa me ti me ne w m a n age ri alis m r e lie s on
ha bit u al, in te r naliz e d su rveilla nc e , t hr o ug h w hi c h th e con du ct of
con du c t is c ar ri ed ou t, t o pr es s s u bje c ts into m a king an d r e m aking
th e m selves as legitima te an d a pp ro pria te( d) m em b e rs of t h e l a te st
shift wit hin the p a r ticular ne w m a n ag eri alist syst ems tha t th ey a r e
ca ug ht up in. T h e r e quire men t of “con ti n uou s imp r ove m ent”, an d
4
doc um ent e d in dividu al co m mit men t tow a r ds an d s t rivin g fo r it, is
on e of t h e str at egi es for cr ea ting this continu ally cha n gi ng
individu al.
Within th e te r ms of t h e n e w syst e m in divid uals will b e
pr ese nt e d with a n (often over w h el ming) ra n ge of p re ssi n g ch oic e s
an d a dministr ative tas k s for which t h ey a r e r es po nsible. But a ny
qu e s tioning of t he syste m it s elf is silen ce d or trivialize d . The syst e m
itself is c ha ract erized a s bo t h n a t u r al a nd inevit able . R e sist a nce to
it by individu als (and th a t includ e s critiqu es suc h as this) is
con s titut ed as ig nor a n c e of w ha t t he “re al” (finan ci al) “ botto m-line”
issu e s a re, as sh e er c us se dne ss, or a s a sign r emi ndin g
m a na g em e nt of individu al work er’s re plac e a bility. As H a m me rsl ey
(20 01, p. 9) points ou t: “[D]e m a nds for ‘tran sp a re nt’ acco un t ability”
(along with m a ny oth e r of ma n ag e r ialism’s t e r ms ), ar e ma d e into
imp e ratives t ha t ar e in t u r n justified as a r espo ns e to s e v er ely
limite d fin an cial re so u rces . The fact th at mu ch of the r es o u r c e b as e
th at was p r eviously a v ailable to su ppo r t profe s sion al w o rk ha s b e en
re dir ecte d into su r veillan ce an d a uditing som eh ow r e m ai ns
invisibl e, o r at leas t is g e n er a lly no t spok en ab o ut, no r su bjec t ed to
critiqu e.
The imp et us of th e individu al’s di re ction an d ju d gem e nt, un d er
n e w m an a g eriali s m, is m ove d by a th o us a n d mi nu te acc r e tions to a n
ext e r nal (an d po t entially p u ni tive) s ou rc e. The individu al’s se n s e of
a g ency an d fre e d om th ro u gh which p rofes sional en ergy, d e dication
an d p ow er we re form erly ge ner ate d a r e overl ai d an d in ten sion
with a n al m ost subliminal anxiety an d fea r of s ur veillanc e. Tha t fear
m ay, of co u rs e, b e d efined as t he individual’s fear, a nd th e r efo re
pa th ologi c al, eve n t ho u gh th e s u rveill a nc e is g e ne rally linked to the
pe rv a sive ne w disco ur se th at cons tit ut es all wo rk er s a s r e pl ac e able.
The fea r a nd anxiety ar e usef ul, from a syste ms point of view as
th ey work to fuel a con st a ntly re n e wed (tho u gh lar g ely fu tile)
re solu tion to r em ak e a self wh o is a p p ropri a t e to, an d r e g ard ed as
good en o ug h within, th e n ew syste m. As Sc hm elz e r point s out, th at
5
re ma d e self is extr aor din arily vulne r able an d p eculiarly u n able to
hold on to th e op en n e ss of mind so val ue d within th e p r ofes sional
et hics of t e ach er s a nd sc h olar s.
N e w ma n a ger i alis m r e lie s on a co mpl ex co mbin ation of t he two
fo r ms of mo r ali ty th a t Fouc ault ob s erve d , the firs t re quirin g
com plianc e a nd th e s eco nd d riven by individual s’ d esir es to sh a pe
th eir own dire c tions. It work s , on the one ha nd, to g ain com pli an c e,
re lying on th at for m of mor ality driven by “ob e di en c e t o a
he t e rono mou s cod e whic h we mu st acc ep t, an d to which we ar e
bou nd by fe ar a n d guil t” (Ro se, 19 9 9 , p. 97). On th e oth e r h an d, it
pa r ti ally dis g uis es t he coe r cion by pl acing incre as ed e mp hasis on
“pe rs o n a l r es po n sibility” within th e n ew syste m (an e m pha sis th at
flows in pa r t f ro m th e a bdication by gover nm e nt an d g ove r ni ng
bodi e s from t heir fo r mer role in takin g ca r e of as p e ct s of th e s ocial
fabric). This is n ot a se n s e of r espo nsibility t h at work s in r el ation to
a s en s e of t r ust of t he social fab ric or of on e’s colleag u e s, sinc e
tr us t is fun da men t a lly u n der mi n ed th r ou gh th e m ultiplied gaz e of
eve r y I/ eye. It is a lonely kind of r e spon sibility an d on e t h at is
drive n by t h e alm ost s ubliminal anxiety an d fea r of s ur v eillanc e
ra th er th a n a se ns e of p e r sonal value within th e s ocial fa b ric.
N e ver thele ss t his in c r e ase d e m p hasis on pe rs on a l r es po nsibility
m ay be re a d a s invokin g th e s e co n d kind of m o rality tha t Fouc ault
obs er ved, w he re “mo rality is an ex e rcise in asc etics, wh ere by
th rou gh exp eri me nt ation, exe rcis e a n d p er m an e nt wor k on one s elf
on e ca n m ak e life into its ow n t elos” (Ros e, 199 9, p . 97). That telos,
or dir ection, how ever, w it hou t individu al s nec ess a rily r ealizin g it, is
con s titut ed th r ou gh the m u l tiplied gaz e. An d it is di re ct ed by t he
(now r e dun d an t) selves g e ne r ate d in th e p erio d of high mo d er nity,
wh o still feel re s p on sible for ma ki n g thin gs wo rk, how eve r diffic ult
th e syst e m mig ht b e. An exa m pl e of this dyn a m i c, in t h e con t ex t of
univer sity life, w as told in a collec tive biogr aphy wor k sh op th at I
con du c te d r ec ently on E mb o dim e n t in th e wo r kpla c e. ( 1) M emb ers
of th e c ollec tive wro t e r em e mb er ed st orie s from childhood an d
6
from t h ei r work plac e as da ta th ro u gh which to e x plore th e w ays in
which the em bodied self is constitu te d in the wo r kpla ce. The story
we nt as follows:
The P r eside n t s at ar o und t h e t able with us . H e was he r e to
list e n a nd to an s w er q u estions from me mb e rs of t he School.
You can ev en sho ut at m e, he s a i d, I can ta ke it. S he told him,
in a c alm bu t st ron g voic e , t ha t th ey we r e feeling d em or aliz ed
be c a use the p r actice s of forcing t h em (bu t not ot h er sc h ools) to
en roll p oor s t u d ent s w h o could n’t p ossibly p as s, a n d of
withd rawin g fund s to r e alloca te to schools wh o achi eved high
re ten tio n ra te s, me ant tha t th ey we re n ec es s a rily loser s. This,
com bin e d with thei r high t e aching lo a ds (agai n comp are d t o
oth er sc hools), w hic h ma de wo rking with in dividu al st ud e n ts
impo s sible, w as de mor alizing fo r th e m as a gr ou p.
This is just wh at I w ould ex p ect fro m y o u Doctor X h e r eplied .
You al ways se e th e n egative side. I s ee thin gs positively. The
reallo ca te d fu n ds are a re w ard, no t a p u ni s h m e nt. An d th e fa c t
is, I d on’t think the 2% ma k es e n ou g h dif fe re n ce to th e
distribution of f un ding. I a m consid ering ch a n gin g it t o 4 %
ne xt year.
After wa rd s so m e of h e r colleag u e s t old h e r s h e should h ave
ke pt q ui et—not got him off-side: H e w as really lis t enin g to us.
You are jo kin g s h e s ai d , h e will re me mb er nothin g of wh at w e
said.
Oh ye s, just wait an d se e. I t hink it will m a ke a diff e re n ce. W e
hav e b e en h ear d this tim e .
The mo r al of the sto ry: b e on e of t he gr o up, do n’t r o ck th e
bo a t; tr us t th e m a na ger s to h ave your be st int e res t at he a r t; b e
flexibl e— b en d to th e w ay t hin gs ar e—ben d t o the ne w
con st r ai n ts a nd you will b e r ewa rd ed. By wh a t ? A q ui e t life, a
ha rmo n io u s g r ou p, an ap p rovin g ma nag e r — m ayb e eve n a
bal an c ed bu d g e t — while ea ch one of us go es hom e ex h a uste d,
7
ag onizi n g a b ou t how to mak e o ur selves str o ng e n ou gh or
com p e ten t e n ou g h or clever eno u g h or he althy en ou g h t o do
this job w ell.
Den nis (199 5), w riting in th e No r th America n con text p ut s his
fin g er on a ce n t r al pr oble m of n ew m a na g erialis m. H e s ays tha t
th rou gh a n e m p hasis on me a s ura ble o u tco me s, on go al s define d by
m a na g em e nt at th e hig h est levels an d on t he syst em s t h ro ugh
which suc h go als ar e achi ev e d, n ew ma nag e r ialis m is always
da nge ro u sly a t risk of c u ttin g its pop u l ac e a d rift from mo r al a n d
political de b ate:
Ma ke no mist a ke ab o ut it. Wh en Demin g (2) s ays t hat q u ality-
re ality is de te r min e d by to p ma nag em e nt an d can not be
del eg at e d , he privilege s t h e e xec utive pr o duction of m e ani n g
as a m orally unim p e ach abl e even t. In this as p e ct, TQM is a
philosop hy of d ue ob edie nc e w h os e effect s , if implem ent e d,
would b e d eva st atin g to th e pr actice of c ritic al t ho u ght an d t he
exp re ssion of re sp on si ble di s sent. (De nnis 19 9 5 )
Given all of th es e ne g atives (the re du ction in critic al t hou gh t
an d r esp o nsible diss e n t, th e p er v asive su bli minal fe a r a nd anxiety,
th e s e nse of pe r s on al pr e ssu re a n d re s ponsibility co mbin ed with a
de-value d s e nse of self, the shift of valu e aw ay fro m p e rson al an d
pr o f e ssio n al con sid era tio n s tow a r ds th e single co nsid e ration of t he
eco no my), it is rel ev a nt to a sk why so ma ny of u s h ave willin gly
wor ke d tow a r ds th e inst alm en t an d main te n a nce of n ew
m a na g erialist s yste ms. Individu als involved in i m plem e ntin g (or
simply c au g h t wit hin) n e w m ana geri alist syst e ms ar e of t en se d uce d
by its r he to rics of efficien cy a n d ac cou nt ability, an d by its m orally
as ce n d ant p romis e of a de sire d co me-up p a nce for t h os e p e rceived
to be faulty or in ad e q uat e in cond uc ti n g th eir own con du c t. The
pe rceived flaws in in dividu al s , p a rticularly d uri n g t h e 7 0s, w her e
pr o f e ssio n al re spon si bility w as pa r a m ou nt, a n d wh e re so m e
8
individu al s did not live up to oth ers’ exp ec t ations of th em, hav e th us
be en us ed, in p ar t, to cre ate the do w nf all of t h e old syste m, (Bigg s,
20 02). The re w a s a st ro ng an d wid e spr e a d belief g e ne r ate d a t th at
time th a t e d u c ation syst em s n eed ed ch an gin g. Femi nist s, for
exa m pl e, we r e dr aw n to the pos sibility of br e aking up old ne t wo rk s
of po we r t h at held t hem on t h e m ar g i ns a nd in low st at us positio ns.
The ide a of a ne w sys t em th at could brin g ab ou t ch a nge, b re aki ng
up old h e g emo nies a n d m a n datin g eq uity w as se du ctive an d
ap p ealing .
Those workin g to implem e n t n ew m a na ge rialism s e t u p
syst e ms in which e v e r yo n e ( s ub-text: sp e cifically, tho s e w ho did not
sa tisfacto r ily con du ct th eir ow n con d uct un de r pr evio us syst e m s)
will h av e to wor k ha rd er to b e “goo d en o u g h”, to me et th e ex acting
st an d a rds re qui r e d of t he m. W ha t th ey d o not anticipa te is t h at th e
con s t a nt thr eat of exte r n al pu nitive sur veillan c e p ot en tially e ro de s
th e p r ofes sional judg e me n t of ever yo n e (including t hos e w h o h av e,
un til now, suc ce ssfully c on d uc te d th ei r own co n duct). The pe rs on al
dyn a mi c t hat is set up is pote nti ally exh a usting a n d d ebilit ating,
since it is likely tha t no-o ne ca n exp er i en c e t hem s e lve s a s “good
en ou gh” w h en th e b asis of as se s s men t is e x te r nalized, cons ta ntly
es cal a ting, su bjec t to cha n g e, a nd often at odd s with t h e
pr o f e ssio n al kno wle d g e on which p r evious good p ra ctic e wa s b a s ed .
Both th o se who e n g age in est ablis hin g n e w m an a g erialis t syste ms,
an d t hos e w o rki n g within th em , can exh au st t hem s e lve s in thei r
str uggle to c r ea te a satisfyin g profe ssion al life within pa r a m et e rs
th at me a n t h at th e s atisfac tion of work w ell d on e m ay alw ays be
ne gat ed by t hos e e nga gin g in over t o r cover t su r veillan ce ov e r t hem
(3).
The p e rsu a sive p o we r of ne w m an age ri alis t syste ms would
ap pea r to be s t a gge rin g . Given t h e g ene ral d ifficulty, ofte n w r i t te n
ab ou t , of e ngine er i ng social cha n ge, t h e i mple m ent ation of n ew
m a na g erialist s yste ms is, in a se ns e, a frea kis h ph enom enon tha t
ca n b e co mp a r ed to “r e edu c ation” in com munist China. Ind e ed th e
9
simil arities a n d differ e nce s in str at e g y wo uld ma ke for a fascin a ting
historic al s t udy.
On e of its clever es t a n d pe rh a p s t h e mo st devious st ra t e gi e s of
n e w m an a g eriali s m h as be e n t h e inclusion of e q u i ty disc o ur se s in
th e obje c tiv e s th at institutions w er e impelled to includ e . Ma ny
feminists we r e dr awn in t o m ana geri alism—an d so into th e n ew
e pi st e m e — in w h i c h th eir pr ofes sio n al life w as re con stitu t ed in t he
te r ms of au ditor s an d econ o mi s ts b ec au s e of t hei r de si re for
ch an g e . It s ee m ed to offe r a n alt er n a tive to th e old hi er arc hi es of
pow e r a nd con trol. What n ew m an age ri alism h as achi eved,
how ever, is a fa r cry from t he ra dical re-visioning of unive r sities
th at th ey h ad imagin e d in w hich th e locu s of po we r wo u l d shift a n d
disr up t th e a pp are nt na tu ral n ess a nd inevitability of m ale
hier archi e s, an d in which wo m en’s ways of b ein g woul d bec om e
re spe ct e d a nd value d, thei r historie s told, a n d th eir lit e r a tur e r e a d
an d v alu ed . As Johann a Wyn wrote to me, in an elabo r ate and
insightful analysis when I was undert aking resea r ch for a pap er on
wome n in academ e (Davies, 2000a):
The change s over the last few yea r s are both det ri m ent al and
positive to differe nt wome n , but almost comple t ely
det rim ent al to the feminist goals of academic women. I am
curr e ntly a visitor in a departm en t which has a female head of
dep art m e n t. The Dean is a woman and the Preside n t is also a
woma n . Now is a time when individual women may well reach
the highe s t ranks of the profession.
But this does not mean that the univer sity has become a
more eg alitarian, intellectual, supportive workplace. On the
contrar y . Putting it simply (and simplistically), the change s to
universiti e s, especially in Australia, but also to som e extent in
Canad a, have bee n larg ely in respo n se to the need to find
alterna tive sources of funding, as public funding has
gra dually been withdrawn . In response to this, many
10
universiti e s have institute d the 'new manage m ent' and their
proces ses . This has resulted in atte m pt s to get more for less
from staff — workload s have gone up, pressu r es to genera te
funds have been dram a tically incr e ase d, and thinking has
chan g ed - manag e rs see their role as curtailing acade mic staff
flexibility and freedom in order to get the kind of performa n ce
manager s want.
Some women fit into this context very well. But, for
many women (and some men too), the costs ar e too gre a t.
For one thing, staff are put into a competitive rela tionship for
ever- reduc e d resources . For another , marke t forces are
being brought to bear, so some kinds of teaching - and
knowledge - are given priority. Eg. Educational
Administration (sometime s reinvented as 'leaders hip') is
favour e d in the faculty in which I usually work. Feminist
course s have bee n dele t ed from the books as of last year.
There is a rush to use inform a tion technology, which can be
very flexible, but fits best with modula t ed, unitis ed,
pre pack a ge d kinds of teaching. It is possibl e, but not usual, to
have critical, challenging and student- centred discu s sion
throug h the tech nology.
The need to keep up rate s of publication (in specific
journals only), res e arc h project funding (especially
pre s tigio us ARC funding, but also consultancies), and
teac hin g to larger groups of students have pushe d up the
hours of acad emic work. The eager ne ss to take on
consultanci e s me a ns that acade m i cs ar e not usin g their
freedom to deter mine rese a rc h ag e n da s - they are driven by
the funding bodies.
Finally, the re is a rus h to get funding from rich stud e nts
and fro m cons ulta ncies in third world countries. This may
mean working over s eas for long periods of time, or makin g
many, many trips.
11
These change s are favouring a much tougher, more
'mach o ' kind of acade m i c, and encoura ge a climat e where due
proces s, equity, and respec t for acade m ic freedom are
overwhelm ed by the need to respond quickly to opportunities,
reinvent, repack a ge and position oneself and one's institution
in the marketpla ce.
Ironically, th e r edu ction of fre ed om, t h e loss of a m o ral b ase in
favo ur of an eco nomic b as e, t h e c el e b r atio n of th e n ew m ac ho
individu al, ar e pr es e n ted wi t hin ne w m a n ag e ri alis m a s fun d ame ntal
to th e n ew mo r ally a s c en d a nt position—th e only po sitio n any
re ason able pe rs on c ould h a v e. That mor ally as ce nd ant view ha s, as
its f u nd a m ent al ten et, s urvival of the impos ed syst em s. Disse n t, just
like diss en t a m on gs t soldier s in ti me s of w ar, c an not be tol er at e d .
Den nis (199 5) obs er v es t hat th e w ar m et apho r is c om mo nly us ed to
sp ell out how n ew ma n a g erialis m wo rk s . He qu ot e s Ja m es H.
S aylor's 19 92 TQM Fi eld Ma nu al wh er e o n p. xvi h e offers a
ra tion al e fo r th e con st an t us e of th e w a r me t a phor:
The w a r the me is us e d t o convey th e s eriou sn es s of t he
ec o no mic si t ua tion in t he US tod ay. We ar e en ga ged in to t al
ec o no mic war. Our very s u rvival as an eco n omic fo rc e is a t
st ak e . Alrea dy th e re h ave be en ma ny c as u al tie s. Ma ny
or g anizations a n d peo ple h ave b ee n w ou nd e d , an d so m e h ave
be en d e str oye d ... [TQM] is th e p r oc es s th at ca n tu r n d efea t
into victory ... in th e ec o no mic w ar.
“Gen d er e q ui ty” is th us, a rg u a bly, not an o ut c o me of t h e n ew
syst e m, as pro mise d, bu t a st ra t e gy to win a n d main t ai n cons en t
from po te ntial disside n ts within the n ew syste m. It is in pa r t
be ca use of its a ppa ren tly vir tuo u s a nd mo r ally as c e nda nt lang u age,
th at othe r w i s e c ritical p rofes sionals m ay b e blind to th e n ec es sity
fo r critiqu e of t h e new m a n ag e ri alis t discur sive fram ework thr o ugh
12
which th ey a r e a bo ut to b e , or ar e bein g , co nstitu te d. They m ay al so
be d r awn into t he sticky n et of m a na g erialism’s a ge nda if t h ey fin d
th e m selves in p olicy-ma king po sitio ns w h ere th ey ca n pla c e t h e i r
political de m a nds, su ch as e qu al e d uca tio n al oppor tunity o r ge nd er
re form, on the ag e n da. Clar e Bur ton ( 19 93), fo r exa mpl e , a r g ued
th at corp o r at e pla n s h ave b e en very us eful pl a ce s fo r inse r ti n g
eq ual e mployme nt oppor tunity p olici e s a n d pr a ctic e s a nd ac hieving
th e m a s m an dato ry for ed u cational institutions . S he st r on gly
ad vocat e d u si ng th e la ng u age of co r pora te m a n age ri alis m (ano th er
na me for ne w m a n a geri alis m) to fe minist ad v an ta ge, thou g h sh e
also wa r ne d, in the wo r ds of Fe r guso n , t ha t "fe minism is not
com p a tible with b ure auc r acy, an d like all for m s of o p po sitio n, it is
en dan ge red by too-close co n t a ct w i t h bu r e auc r atic ling uistic a nd
institution al fo r m s" (F er g uson 19 84: 180). The s e wor d s h ave t ur n e d
out t o be tr u er th an s h e mi gh t h a v e gu ess ed . In g ene r al the
situa tion of wo me n in unive r sities has wo r s en ed, thou gh as Wyn
points out, som e individu al wom en h ave p ros p e red .
So how do ma nag e r ialist a gen d as play o ut in s ch ools, a n d in
pa r tic ular how mig ht t h e n ew pu sh tow ar ds eviden ce-ba s e d
pr actice b e u nd e rs tood in this co n t ex t ?
A criti qu e of t h e conc ep t of “eviden ce-ba s e d p rac tic e”
Hammer sley (2001) provides a critique of evidenc e- based
pra c tic e , also analysing it as a new manage rialist strate gy. He
points out that manag e ri alism is based on an assumpt io n that
professional practice “should take the form of specifying goals
explicitly, selecting strategi es for achieving them on the basis of
objective evidence about their effectiveness , and then measurin g
outcomes in ord e r to asse s s their degree of success (thereby
providing the knowledge require d for improving future
perform an c e)” (2001, p. 5). These are not, when it comes to
teac hin g , individually set goals, but the goals of the institution, or
even of the sta t e . While individual teach e rs may be respo nsible for
13
providing the “objective evidence”, and may be held individually
account able if their evidence does not provid e the instit u tion with
wha t it needs to make an accep t abl e account of itself to
governm e nt, the definition of what is “effective”, of what counts as
“success”, will not be somet hin g they have any control over. When
Davies et al (2000, p. 2, n.b.not the present author ) observe that “in
contras t to the precedi ng culture of largely judgemen t- based
professional practice, there has rise n the importa n t notion of
evidence- based practice as a means of ensuring that what is being
done is worthw hile and that it is being done in the best possible
way” we can be sur e that it is not the teacher s who are being ask e d
to judge what is worthw hile, nor wha t might be regard ed as the
“best possible way”. Of course “consultations” with repres en ta tive
teac h er s may have tak e n plac e, but those consul t a tions will have
been und erta ke n in such a way that the represe nt ativ e s will have
acquire d the new discou r se and so beco m e par ty to its
disseminati o n (the only alternative being to be marginalized or
replac e d). Neither the teache r s, nor their repres en ta t ives, will have
had freedom to dispute or resile from the institu tion’s or state’s
criteria of effectivity and succes s, since both their own livelihoo d
and the fundin g of their institution may well be tied in whole or in
part to their satisfacto ry fulfillme nt. As Grundy points out:
Leader s will be expec ted to exercise control so that the
objectives of the organisations, clearly defined and articulat e d,
will be achieved. There will be a divisio n of labo u r betwee n the
leader who plans (or who receives and interpr ets plans
imposed from elsewher e) and the practi tione rs who implemen t
the plans. The langu a ge of administr a tive planni n g will be 'en d-
directed ', with criteria for the achievem e nt of the objectives
being artic ulat ed along with the plan s . It will be the leader who
is respon s ible for the training of the practitione rs, and such
training will be oriented towar d s the develop m en t of skills. It
14
will also be the respon s i bility of the leader to motivate and
enth use practitioners to embrac e the specified objectives and
work for their achieve me n t. (Grun dy 1993: 168)
To this end the language of manager i alism cleverly
cannibalizes the liberal humanist ter ms in vogue during the period
of high mode r nity tha t seem, on the face of it, indisput ably virtuous
and desirable. Take “liter a cy”, for example. Who can dispute the
desirability of every child achieving a minim um stand ar d of litera c y
and thus achieving not only the potential to be active citizens of
demo c racy but also the potenti al to survive in the new information
technology driven global world? The means of achieving this may
actually be at the expens e of the teaching strate gies through which
critical literacy or any other critical/analytic skills are taught. They
may also draw massive res o urce s away from teaching its elf and into
the bureau cr a cy that stage s and evaluate s the testing and other
strat egie s through which the “new” objectives are to be achieved.
Individual resistan ce to the str a tegi e s throu g h which these new/old
ideals ar e implem e nt ed ar e likely to be read as inflexible, or
conserva t iv e , or worse, as motivated by individual incom p ete nc e or
laziness. Resistance may well position you as one of those whom the
systems are suppos edly design ed to catc h out. (4)
The p r op o n e nts of evide nc e-b ase d p r a ctic e pro pos e a n
un pr oble m a tic r e l ations hip be t w e en r es e ar ch an d p ra ctice, a nd also
a m on g s t policy, r e sea rch a nd p r actice. At firs t gl an ce th e ide a of
eviden c e-ba s ed pr ac tice a p pe a rs to be so obviously de sir a bl e (lik e
univer s al lit e r a cy, or continu ous impr ovem e n t) th at it mig ht b e
re gar d ed as a tr uism . Who c o uld ar g u e ag ain s t th e ide a th at
pr o f e ssio n al pr actice sh ould b e b as e d on evide nc e? Its op posite,
te ac hing wit ho ut evide nc e, or a g ai nst the evide n ce, s ou nd s a bs ur d.
Re a d in this w ay a move towa r d s e vid en ce-ba s e d p rac tic e se ems
impo s sible to disag ree with. But a not he r re a di ng c an be pro d uce d if
we un der st an d evid e nc e-bas ed pr actice a s a pro du ct of n ew
15
m a na g erialis m a n d a s no m o re th an a m e a ns of imple m en ting
m a na g erialist a gen das.
To g et b eyo n d t he obviousn es s of t he first r e adi n g it is us eful t o
fo c us on the bas ed of evide nc e-b a sed an d a sk w hi ch e vi d e n ce
sh o uld be th e bas e, an d w ho s el ect s it? In w hat w ay s, we mig ht
th en ask, a r e th e choic e s a n d decisions tea ch ers ma ke in the
class roo m a nd playgro un d to b e foun d ed in ( b as ed on) th e evide nc e,
not o nly th at som eo n e el se pr ovide s, but tha t so me on e els e (a n oth e r
so m eone , locat e d in the bu re auc ra cy) solicits a nd s e l ect s. Ar e tho s e
wh o pro du ce the evide n ce an d t hos e w h o solicit a nd s el ect it
m e mb er s of t h e p r ofes sio n of te ac hing? H ow h av e th ey cho se n w h at
will co un t as evide nc e, an d h ow h ave th ey s elec t ed th e p ar ticula r
eviden c e th at is to b e a ct ed on? An d, fin ally, h ow ar e t h e links to th e
eve r yd ay p rac tice of t ea chin g to be acc o mplis h ed? How is t he
te ac h e r to a l te r h e r/his p ractic es of t e a ching in light of t his
“evi de n c e ” ? Suc h q u estions i m media tely al er t us to a pos sible
hidd en ag e n da—to a pla n to ch a nge wh at it is t ha t t e ach er s p rod uc e
th rou gh th e a do p tion of a langu age an d a syste m tha t gu ara nte es
its s ens e of in evit a bility. The q u estion we mig ht t h en go on to a s k is:
ar e the p r actice s of t e aching so su s ce pti ble to this kin d of
su bt erf ug e ?
The rig h t to be t a ugh t is n o w bei n g fr am e d t h roug h n e w
m a na g erialist s tr ate gies, in ter ms of m e a sur ed out c om es , a n d yet
at th e sa me ti me relies on the very profe ssion al b ase of knowin g
on e’s su bjec t th a t n ew m a na ge rialism po t entially u n d er mine s.
Inst r uctions from bu r eau c r ats to p r od uc e sp ecific ou t com es
(in str uc tion s ba ck e d by “evide n c e ”) ca n only (logically s pea kin g) be
inter pre t e d/ pr ac ticed in t er ms of th e t each ers’ al r eady (pe r)form ed ,
an d ( p er )for ming, profe ssion-in-p r a cti c e. But th at profe ssion-in-
pr actice is w hat m ad e s en s e in hi gh m o der nity w h en our work w a s
infor med by a r ation ali ty th a t pla c ed value on a pe rs on al a nd
pr o f e ssio n al com mit m ent to th e p urs uit of knowle dg e inside
mu tu ally r es pe ctful rela tio n s a m ongs t colle ag u es an d b et we en
16
te ac h e rs an d s tu d e nts. So th e p r ofes sion-in-p r actice—or
pr o f e ssio n al kno wle d g e—is b oth relied on and u nde r m i ne d by n e w
m a na g erialist s tr ate gies suc h a s th e i m plem ent ation of evid e nc e-
ba s ed pr ac tice.
So how ar e w e to m ak e s en se of w ha t it is th at evide nc e-bas ed
pr actice s e ts out to ac hieve a nd its me th od s for doing so? The r e ar e
two m ajo r consid er atio ns t h at I will el ab o rat e h er e tha t a r e rel evan t
to this qu e s tioning of a n id eal, o r r e al, con ne ction b e t we e n
eviden c e a n d pr a ctic e. Thes e r el at e to t h e in t er pre ta tion an d u s e of
exp eri me nt al evid e n ce by th e a d voca te s of evide nc e-b ase d p rac tice
an d t o the n e ces si ty fo r an und erlying philo s o p hy of t h e p rofession
of t e aching .
Inter pr etin g statistical/ e xp erim ental evide nc e .
As H a mm e r sl ey (2 0 01) points ou t , t h e p ropon ents of eviden ce-
ba s ed pr ac tice, for ex ampl e , Blunke tt (2 0 00), ar g u e th a t
st atistically ba s ed, exp e ri me nt al re s e a rch, is to b e p re f er r ed by
eviden c e-ba s ed pr ac titio n ers sinc e it is less bia s ed by the inte re sts
of th e r es e arc he r. This tru st in th e objec tivity of ex p erim e ntal
re sea r c h is em b a rr a ssingly n a ïve. Expe rim en t al r e se a rch er s, eve n
tho se gazing down a mic ros c op e, ar e a s c a pable of finding wh at
th ey expe ct to fin d, o r wa nt to find, as anyon e els e. Ma rtin ( 19 91 )
sh o we d, fo r exa mpl e, how g e ne r ations of s ci e ntist s ga zin g dow n
micro sco p es at the mo m ent of m e eting b et wee n s p er m a nd eg g in
hu man conc ep tion failed to s ee t h e a ctive p art tha t th e e gg playe d.
The m et apho r info r mi ng a nd sh aping th eir gaz e , evi d ent in t h e t exts
of th eir r ep or ts, r e v e al ed the sp er m as a n a c tive, co mp etitive knigh t
in s hining a r mo u r, an d th e e gg a s p as sive re c eptive da m s el. This
elab or at e m eta phor not only sh ape d t h e des crip tiv e lang u age th at
scie n tists u sed to re por t t heir obs e rv a tions, bu t it s ha p e d wh a t it is
th ey un d ers tood the mselves to be se e i ng. Micro scop es an d th e
scie n tific m eth o d we re n o pro t ection ag ain s t discou rs e’s ability to
ar ticula te an d m ak e r eal th e t hin g it d es crib es . As Butl er says,
17
“Disco u rse is not me r e ly s p oke n wo rd s, but a notion of sig nific ation
which conc er ns not m e r ely how it is t ha t ce rt ain sig nifiers co me to
m e an w ha t th ey m e a n, but how c e r tain disc ur sive for ms ar ticulat e
object s a n d s ubject s in t heir intelligibility” (Butler, 19 95, p.13 8).
It is well k now n a m o n g s t st atistician s th at s t ati stics ca n b e
us ed to “pr ove” a l mo s t a ny t hin g th at t h e re s ea r che r wish es to
pr ove. The sleight s of h an d t h a t a re u s ed to ar rive a t on e or a noth e r
“re s e arc h fin din g” may or may no t be in t h e consciou s pu r view of
th e r es ear ch er. And th ey m ay or m ay not b e visible in t he r e portin g.
In the ac a de mi c w orld dis p ut e ove r inte r p ret ation s is a legitima te
as p ect of intellectu al work. Exp e ri me nt s do no t re m ov e th e
su bjectivity of re s e arc h e rs, th ey sim p ly w ork to conc e al it.
“Finding s ” ar e no t gu a r ant e e d—th ey ar e mor e like working
pr o po sitio ns th at ma ke se ns e within p ar ticula r fra m ewo rk s of
as su mptions an d of p ra ctice .
Yet it is in o r d er to give an ap pe ara nce of an u n ch allen ge a ble
link be t w e en evide n ce an d p r a ctic e th at t h e advoc a t e s of evi d en ce-
ba s ed pr ac tice r e ly on exp e r im e ntal re se arc h. They en ga ge th e
au th ority of “ha r d s cien c e” to give weig ht to