The ‘field of power’ in the ‘here and now’

Using Hyatt’s (2005) heuristic it is possible to understand the immediate socio- political context in which revised ideas concerning student choice are constructed. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition has pushed ahead the introduction of controversial reforms to the way that HE is funded, in ways in which key messages of value for money and fiscal efficiency are now afforded primacy. In accepting the majority of the recommendations of the Browne Review (2010), there has been a shift in the way that universities will receive their funding. In a statement to Parliament, David Willetts (2010), the Minister for Universities and Science, indicated that:

The bulk of universities' money will not come through the block grant, but will instead follow the choices of students. It will be up to each university or college to decide what it charges, including the amounts for different programmes.

This, then, is the immediate socio-political context in which revised political ideas and a ‘new’ discourse circulate within the field of power. Whilst setting out a clear link between the need for policy reform and economic prudency in the ‘here and now’, student choice appears to be completely detached from any notion of the democratisation of HE. Now the overwhelming political imperative is to deliver a recursive theme of economic reform, in which the full resources of Government have been made available to articulate, refresh and renew this new discourse in the form of political capital (Swartz, 1997) through

press releases, political statements, speech acts, and in a number of other complementary policy initiatives.

Fairclough’s (2000) critical reading of the discourse of ‘New Labour’ also demonstrates how it is possible for ideologically different partners from the left (Socialists) and centre (Social Democrats) of the Labour party to unify under the recursive discourse of ‘The Third Way’. Similarly my analysis shows how a specific Coalition genre is constructed as a way of revising how the social world is currently represented. As an opening paragraph to the foreword, these ‘new’ representations are at best only subtly alluded to. What is more, the genre that is constructed does not overtly describe ‘economic imperative’ as the basis for a revised construction of student choice. Instead the discourse shows how the need for reform is validated on the textual use of a certain form of justification that Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001) describe as ‘warrant’. In paragraph 1, line 1, this form of warrant takes on an evidentiary approach in which certain claims evidence the current status of HE. The Coalition asserts that:

Our university sector has a proud history and a world-class reputation, attracting students from across the world.

This is presented to the reader as if it were a statement of fact. Within the text there is a suggestion that, in order for HE to maintain its reputation and to keep pace with global competition, reforms are necessary, even vital. This is achieved through a linguistic presupposition that lays claim to a clear and objective factual reputation (the UK’s status as a global player in HE). Yet in paragraph 1 the basis for establishing the truth of the matter switches from factual reputation to feelings, in the form of pride.

Furthermore, in the first paragraph, a specific Coalition genre begins to take shape textually There is a suggestion that the Government alone should no longer be responsible for continuing to fund the HE sector:

Higher education is a successful public private partnership (paragraph 1 line 2).

To add credence to the genre the authors switch to a ‘political’ form of justification, in which the ability to forge a public-private partnership is portrayed in the discourse as being in the interests of country and society as a whole (Cochran-Smith and Fries, 2001). What can be described as a simple co-ordination sentence is then used to textually suggest how incompatible ideas become linked together in the suggestion that ‘Government funding and institutional autonomy’ appear to be given equal weight and status (Cochran- Smith and Fries, 2001).

The formation of the genre also contains specific economic actions, including a greater emphasis on student choice as a mechanism to introduce wide-ranging funding reforms. The key aim of the policy is therefore expressed in paragraph 2, line 2:

. . . while doing more than ever to put students in the driving seat. We want to see more investment, greater diversity and less centralised control.

Here we see how the genre discourse is established without explicitly stating that this is the case. The text appears to suggest that student choice enables funding reforms to be based on the principles of marketisation as the engine of efficiency, and thus replaces the traditional responsibilities of the state toward HE funding and policy direction. Talk of greater diversity in this paragraph remains unclear, and is just as likely to refer to the opening up of the sector to

new providers as to a desire to re-address access and participation. In other words, the text acts as a justificatory warrant that is discursively expressed through economic principles. On several occasions the authors allude to financial imperatives to give connective value to the text and to re-enforce a cohesive set of principles that are presented as logical and necessary (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999).

Repetition of key words such as ‘financial’ or related words such as ‘funding’ ‘investment‘ and ‘low cost’ are used to substitute each other as well as to co- locate with ideas that imply the need for change. Thus textually some words are used interchangeably to re-enforce the message.

 reform

 renewed

 new focus

Whist these lexical features are meant to engender the need for change, the exact role of the Government is again not made clear. The discursive elements of the text appear to support Naidoo’s (2003) view of a political lurch to a utilitarian form of government. The Coalition is thus actively withdrawing from its traditional responsibilities, thereby opening up the sector to consumerism and marketisation.

To recap, using the principles of Hyatt’s (2005) approach to CDA, textual exploration identifies how the discourse is constructed from the social circumstances that exist in the ‘here and now’. This discourse does not exist in isolation but in the nexus of a particular set of interactions with the economic

field in the field of power. The next stage of Hyatt’s (2005) approach is to consider how the text is socio-politically constructed over a significant period of time, and which links ideas contained within the policy foreword to existing historical movements.