Conference Agenda

The aim of this presentation is to deepen our understanding of high achieving students with different social backgrounds, their socially grounded motivation to perform well and how momentum in their trajectories are related to the dynamics in the student’s social network.

In a number of studies, we showed how students drives themselves to perform well in school and how the process is socially grounded and therefore also differentiated depending on their specific position in the social space (Carlhed Ydhag, et al 2021). We identified crucial aspects of support for educational success among disadvantaged students; 1) unconditional support from a significant other, 2) regularly studying together with likeminded peers and 3) support from a teacher who were engaged in both the school subject and in the student’s development (Osman et al, 2020). We showed how students from families with low education levels learned to succeed via a conversion process of their habitus (Månsson, et al, 2021). We analysed disadvantaged students’ own perspectives on significant others, who they were and what they did to support them in school related matters. It showed that the most important support came from different actors who supported them emotionally and academically. These actors can be parents, teachers or peers (Osman et al, 2021).

In this presentation we will focus on the social conditions in which the students are embedded in, what inspires them and form their strategies in relation to the specific configurations of their significant others in their social network. How do these conditions come into play when they have transitioned from upper secondary school? Hence, in the analysis, we will take into account the stability in their social network in terms of continuity or change, density and the social environment they are embedded in and in what ways was the support system consistent to socially shared expectations and mutual commitments?

In other words we will add the aspects of the students’ network’s tenacity to support them through upper secondary school and their transition from upper secondary school to university studies or labour market.

Theoretical tools

The research project departed from Coleman’s (1990) and Bourdieu’s (1986) understanding of social capital concerning educational performance. The following concepts we have used to analyse the data: ideational support, material support and bridging support. Ideational support refers to the ability of parents and other influential figures to inculcate a pro-academic norm in these students. Material support denotes the unequal material resources that advantage or disadvantage the educational experiences of different categories of students. Bridging refers to parental abilities to link their child to individuals with institutional actors serves as a medium for material and ideational support (Osman & Månsson, 2015; Prado, 2009).

In our analyses of how the students motivated themselves we used ‘habitus’ and the related term ‘illusio’, to attain greater depth in analysing meaning-making processes. Following Bourdieu’s sociology, we believe the individual’s search for recognition and belonging is socially grounded and thus not entirely based on reason (Bourdieu, 2000). In this presentation we will describe and analyse students’ motivation and rationale behind their narrative of academic success. Theoretically we will adopt Coleman’s understanding of social capital, particularly the dimensions of trust, social control, reciprocity, commitment and shared expectations in their social network.

In recent education discourse in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, we can see a renewed interest in the management of pupils’ dispositions and behaviours. This is evident in a proliferation of scientific research which links the development of social and emotional skills and character (skills) to improved academic achievement, and, by extension, better later life ‘outcomes’ and economic prosperity (Allen and Bull 2018; Bates 2017; Williamson 2017). In particular, the debate is framed and informed by knowledge from the domains of cognitive and positive psychology and concepts such as ‘grit’, ‘resilience’ and ‘motivation’. International organisations, such as the OECD and the World Bank have enthusiastically drawn on this field of research to argue for urgent reforms of education systems so that they can adequately prepare individuals and societies for the demands of the so called fourth industrial revolution (see for example Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2015; World Bank, 2017).

In education policy debates in the United Kingdom, this discourse has mainly played out in a resurgence of character education (Jerome and Kisby, 2019; Spohrer and Bailey, 2020), promoted by Conservative- Liberal Democrat Coalition and Conservative government from 2010. These debates and initiatives have been characterised as a blend of neo-liberal thought, promoting economic growth and addressing social mobility problems, and as a return to neo-conservative to traditional values (Vincent, 2019; Spohrer, 2021). Character education goes alongside the promotion of stricter discipline, evident in the appointment of the behaviour consultant Tom Bennett and a £10 initiative to tackle 'bad behaviour' in schools (Department of Education, 2019).

A number of high-profile Academy schools in England have embraced the idea that ‘discipline’, understood as behavioural control, is conducive to learning and, consequently, leads to higher ‘outcomes’ for individuals and schools. These schools often adopt principles and practices from the KIPP Charter Schools in the US, which draw on positive psychology and adopt ‘no excuses’ approaches (Stahl, 2020). Principles and methods of teaching include direct instruction, scripted lessons,and the SLANT technique (see, for example TES, 2021).

Reading this trend against a background of neo-liberal governmentality, Ball (2017) asks whether we can witness a return to docility and to a pedagogy that is concerned with the surface of learners rather than knowing them in-depth (as advanced in so-called progressive approaches to education which are concerned with the 'whole child'). Ball connects the recent interest in discipline and character with Bernstein's notion of a ‘visible’ or ‘performative’ pedagogy (Bernstein, 2000). Taking this observation as a starting point, the paper aims to analyse pedagogic discourses in schools with a 'no excuses' approach with a view to identifying which notion of the ideal person they construct, what techniques are employed in this process and what possibilities this opens up for pupils to interact with the rules of the school and develop their understanding of self.

The ideology of lifelong learning has become an unquestionable truth which most scholars say is governed by the hegemonic discourse of economy (e.g. Olssen 2008; Fejes & Dahlstedt 2013; Kinnari 2020a). Indeed, economic emphasis is globally recognised today as intrinsic to the politics of lifelong learning (Kinnari 2020a; 2020b; Larson & Cort 2022). Further, the current entrepreneurial ethos of lifelong learning encourages individuals to become best versions of themselves to maximise human capital (Kinnari 2020a).

The present era of capitalism can be referred as ‘cognitive capitalism’. Cognitive capitalism is regarded as ‘the next phase’ for Fordist and Taylorist forms of capitalism where the productivity of the labour was related to different factors than in present capitalism. In cognitive capitalism, human resources are employees’ main assets in becoming competitive and productive (Vercellone 2005). In cognitive capitalism, lifelong learning and continuous self-development are assumed to be necessities for organisations and individuals pursuing success. In this frame, competences, potentials and personal attributes of individuals are perceived as sources of economic added value. (European Union 2018; OECD 2021.) Since a subject who constantly aims at optimizing themselves is seen to benefit not only the individual but the whole economy, people need to be guided to understand themselves as assets and to behave accordingly.

In our study, we are interested in how the norms and ideals that define current working life, continuous self-development and lifelong learning are represented in media discourse. We analyse guidelines for work and self-development represented in two main broadcasters in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat and YLE. We ask, what kinds of obligations for self-development are mediated in the descriptions of working life, how are people guided to work on themselves, and how does expert knowledge legitimise these obligations, and within them, ‘truth’ on working life and an ideal employee. In addition, we are interested in the addressed target group as well as in marginalised groups and discourses. The study is part of the research project ‘Living on the edge – lifelong learning, governmentality, and neurotic citizen’, in which unintended, even perverse, consequences of lifelong learning policy are researched.

Our theoretical approach lays on the analytics of governmentality (Foucault 1991; 2009; Dean 1999/2010; Miller & Rose 2008). According to Michel Foucault, governmentality comprises three factors: knowledge, power and truth. Every society has its ‘régime of truth, its “general politics” of truth’ (Foucault 1980, p. 131). For example, media discourses concerning lifelong learning include conceptions of humanity and society. The mechanisms and instances within these discourses establish true and false statements. Techniques and procedures legitimise the acquisition of truth, and those who have attained legitimate status are obligated to say what counts as true (Foucault,1980). Accordingly, we acknowledge the hegemonic policy discourse of lifelong learning to be guiding and framing thinking and behavior in various cultural and social fields, including work. We perceive the obligations for continuous self-development to be part of policy and government of lifelong learning, also illustrating the manifestation of a culture that emphasizes entrepreneurial mindset and individual responsibility of citizens.