Search

Government reports and documents claim that building a high skill society is critical for national success in China. In this paper, eight policies in relation to the government's espoused priorities of upskilling are examined. Applying the principles of critical policy analysis, the paper aims to expose the ideological presuppositions made in these policies. The findings in this paper reveal that the Chinese government may have focused on upgrading the credentials, rather than the actual skills that these credentials signal, thus reinforced forms of consciousness that maintain the academic-focus, credential-driven hegemony. The new policies have vigorously invested in the 'model schools', yet further excluding non-model schools and the marginalised learners. This investment, emphasising the 'supply-side' of skills provision, has also led to a more fragmented connection between the training system and industry. The promotion of 'entrepreneurial talent training', with an intention of enhancing young people's employability and building a knowledge-based economy, may act as a technique for 'self-government' under the influence of a neoliberal ideology. The responsibility of skill acquisition may have shifted to individual students, who will encounter increased precarity on their routes into work. Drawing on Gramsci's concept of hegemonic power, the paper highlights China's national skills policies may further facilitate the reproduction of current forms of inequality in training as well as contribute to construct and manage the neoliberal subjects required by the Reform Era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we consider the intensifying pressures on critical research and academic integrity in a research policy context that has come to be increasingly dominated by an instrumentalist mind-set. Using sensitising resources drawn from Geoff Whitty's critique of the 'what works' agenda, we reflect on the current conditions of academic labour and some of the key issues and dilemmas they pose for critical researchers in the sociology of education and beyond. In particular, we underline the trend for 'what works' agendas to become constitutive of academic identities and practices, including at micro-levels, such that the option of 'standing outside' them is shifting from being merely personally taxing to being institutionally disallowed. In addition to highlighting the dilemmas this creates for critical researchers and the threat this poses to expansive and democratic approaches to education, the paper emphasises the centrality of relationship-forming in understanding and underpinning academic integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]