Summarising performativity in the sector

The evidence from the literature has suggested that the incorporation of colleges under the Further and Higher Education Act (1992) has led to a profound shift in culture within the sector. A movement to an approach that is based on KPIs and conformity has meant that the role of the manager has changed, and in particular their relationship with lecturers has altered from one of support to one of control. This has meant that a more business-focused approach has been adopted and, whilst in some cases this was needed (Simmons, 2008), it has meant that the educational imperative has been supplanted by a managerial approach in some cases.

2.3 The concept of ‘professionalism’ within the post-

compulsory education sector 2.3.1 Defining ‘professionalism’

‘Few professionals talk as much about being professional as those whose professional stature is in doubt’ (Katz, 1969:71). In many ways, this quote sums up the ongoing discussion in the literature on the issue of

professionalism within the sector, which suggests that any definition is somewhat nebulous. Similarly, the way in which professionalism is measured changes on a regular basis and this section will explore some of the main themes within the context of the sector defined in the previous part. An important consideration at this point is the interaction between theory and practice. Anyon et al. (2008) discuss this relationship and argue that many studies fail to map the relationship between the two. By using both theory and empirical research, greater understanding can be gained. This is particularly true when looking at professionalism, where there is a great deal of discussion regarding the theoretical concept but also the practical implications of what professionalism means to the workforce.

Defining professionalism is a theme taken up in the work of Furlong et al. (2000), who identify three key aspects that combine to create the concept of ‘professionalism’. These are knowledge, autonomy and responsibility. It is in the context of these themes that the literature in this area will be examined. Taking these three themes in turn, Furlong et al. (2000) refer to

a specialised body of knowledge as being crucial to describing someone as professional. In most cases, this has been studied both theoretically and practically, echoing the work on professionalism by Sachs (2001), who explored the possibility of teaching being viewed as a craft; in all cases, it is specific to the professional body explored. The second theme, that of autonomy, is key to the definition. Professionals are viewed as working in

‘complex and difficult situations’ (Furlong et al., 2000:5) and are hence

trusted to make their own decisions without undue interference from anyone else. Linked to this is the theme of responsibility; in short, you are trusted to make the right decision. This definition has been challenged (Lawlor, 1990). However, it provides a useful definition of professionalism that can be used to examine the various aspects discussed within the literature.

The changes that occurred post-incorporation and the subsequent changing nature of the sector have had a significant impact on the perception of professionalism by middle managers. As a result of the peformative culture in the sector, the view of success has moved to a quantitative approach, as outlined by Ball (2003), and away from a wider concept of ‘professional judgement’ (Tripp, 2012).

The complexity of the concept of professionalism and thus how to measure whether something is ‘professional’ is best summed up by a Lewis Carroll quote used by Spenceley (2006):

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

(Carroll, 1897:237) Furlong et al. (2010) describe professionalism as an autonomous and intrinsic state that cannot be merely bestowed. This is a definition that contradicts attempts by successive governments to impose professionalism through regulation. Evans (2011) differentiates between ‘enacted’ and

‘demanded’ professionalism, with the latter stressing only behaviours rather than attitudes. Her argument is that merely ensuring that lecturers and managers followed a set of standards did not constitute true

professionalism; in addition, the danger was that intrinsic professionalism would be damaged if newcomers believed that professionalism could be acquired through regulation rather than approach and attitude. This theme was also examined in the Lingfield report (Lingfield, 2012), which concluded that merely telling someone that they were professional did not mean that they were truly professional.

Throughout the literature, the concept of professional identity remains a key one. James (2017) poses the question as to how this interacts with the structural aspects of the sector, a theme also developed by Bathmaker and Avis (2004), who discuss the struggles that new entrants to the profession have in developing their identity in a sector that is constantly evolving. This is especially true today, when area reviews, austerity and an increased focus on targets mean that the established concept of professionalism – which forms an alternative to the more bureaucratic or managerialist approach seen in colleges (Parsons, 1951) – is not always viewed in a positive light by all participants. Indeed, Susskind and Susskind (2015) discuss the possibility of professionals being replaced by systems, which, as with the issues discussed when looking at performativity, suggests that the role of many within the sector is that of an implementer (Johnson and Scholes, 2002).

The complexities of the sector and how professional identities were interlinked were explored in the ‘learning cultures’ approach developed in the Transforming Learning Cultures in Further Education (TLCFE) project (2001-2005). This key piece of research, undertaken by authors such as Biesta, James, Hodkinson , Gleeson and Postlethwaite, took a

comprehensive look at the sector and investigated how those within it responded to their environment. One of the key conclusions of the project was that the way in which the sector operated, in particular the funding mechanisms and the quality assurance systems, failed to impact in a positive manner on the quality of learning. In part, this was down to the way in which qualifications were now taught and the behaviourist manner in which they were assessed (James, 2017). This concern is mirrored in the

compulsory education sector, where the teacher’s primary objective has been redefined as ensuring students pass their qualifications (Day and Smethem, 2009) rather than a broader purpose that has traditionally been an objective of the educational professional.

Despite these challenges, the TLCFE project found that professional identities were strongly held and remarkably resilient (James, 2017). This is reassuring as, despite a great deal of encouragement from governments about the importance of improving the learning culture, the reality is that little attention has been paid to a structured programme, based on a theoretical bedrock, of improvements (a point made by Coffield, 2000, prior to the establishment of the current mechanisms for measurement). The concept of a learning culture is an important one in the sector, with the TLCFE project defining it as the social practices (both formal and informal) through which people learn (James and Biesta, 2007).

Given the interaction with professionals within the sector that this implies, it is clear that great importance should be attached to professionalism. Furlong et al.’s (2000) original definition remains the starting point within the sector; however, it is important to note that attempts to define

professionalism, such as those included in the requirements for the QTLS qualification, have led to alternative definitions of professionalism, such as a managerial version discussed by Day and Sachs (2004), which differs from the democratic version (Sachs, 2001) in that it is linked to systems and employers.