高等教育中的社会公平:一个因多重论述而恶化的邪恶问题

Anita M Larsen, S. Emmett
{"title":"高等教育中的社会公平:一个因多重论述而恶化的邪恶问题","authors":"Anita M Larsen, S. Emmett","doi":"10.5456/wpll.23.1.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social equity in higher education has been a priority for universities and policy makers throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations for more than a decade. Limited improvement is seen among students in under-represented groups which remains a concern\n and for this reason social equity in higher education is presented as a wicked problem. This article will outline the steady massification of higher education where elitist discourses were largely abandoned, while social equity discourses flourished. The discussion will include key documents\n that have wielded great influence on discourse including The Bradley Review, Performance-Based Funding (PBF) and the Job-Ready Graduates legislation. After illuminating the Australian political context, this article will define four social equity discourses currently distinguishable\n in higher education literature: meritocratic, economist, social justice and human potential. Interrogation of these discourses will reveal complexity and divergence that contributes to the wicked nature of improving social equity in higher education.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social equity in higher education: a wicked problem exacerbated by multiple discourses\",\"authors\":\"Anita M Larsen, S. Emmett\",\"doi\":\"10.5456/wpll.23.1.191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social equity in higher education has been a priority for universities and policy makers throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations for more than a decade. Limited improvement is seen among students in under-represented groups which remains a concern\\n and for this reason social equity in higher education is presented as a wicked problem. This article will outline the steady massification of higher education where elitist discourses were largely abandoned, while social equity discourses flourished. The discussion will include key documents\\n that have wielded great influence on discourse including The Bradley Review, Performance-Based Funding (PBF) and the Job-Ready Graduates legislation. After illuminating the Australian political context, this article will define four social equity discourses currently distinguishable\\n in higher education literature: meritocratic, economist, social justice and human potential. Interrogation of these discourses will reveal complexity and divergence that contributes to the wicked nature of improving social equity in higher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.23.1.191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.23.1.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

十多年来,高等教育中的社会公平一直是经济合作与发展组织(OECD)成员国的大学和政策制定者优先考虑的问题。在代表性不足的群体中,学生的进步有限,这仍然是一个令人担忧的问题,因此,高等教育中的社会公平被视为一个邪恶的问题。本文将概述高等教育的稳步大众化,精英主义话语在很大程度上被抛弃,而社会公平话语则蓬勃发展。讨论将包括对话语产生重大影响的关键文件,包括布拉德利评论,基于绩效的资金(PBF)和就业准备毕业生立法。在阐明了澳大利亚的政治背景之后,本文将定义目前在高等教育文献中可区分的四种社会公平话语:精英主义,经济学家,社会正义和人类潜力。对这些话语的质疑将揭示复杂性和分歧,这有助于提高高等教育社会公平的邪恶本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social equity in higher education: a wicked problem exacerbated by multiple discourses
Social equity in higher education has been a priority for universities and policy makers throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations for more than a decade. Limited improvement is seen among students in under-represented groups which remains a concern and for this reason social equity in higher education is presented as a wicked problem. This article will outline the steady massification of higher education where elitist discourses were largely abandoned, while social equity discourses flourished. The discussion will include key documents that have wielded great influence on discourse including The Bradley Review, Performance-Based Funding (PBF) and the Job-Ready Graduates legislation. After illuminating the Australian political context, this article will define four social equity discourses currently distinguishable in higher education literature: meritocratic, economist, social justice and human potential. Interrogation of these discourses will reveal complexity and divergence that contributes to the wicked nature of improving social equity in higher education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信