Search

This paper addresses a particular gap in the further education (FE) literature offering an analysis of Incorporation within a theory of social change developed by Fligstein and McAdam, in their work ‘A Theory of Fields’. The authors argue that FE was subjected to the introduction of a quasi-market in advance of wider neoliberal reforms in the English public sector. The paper analyses the development of Incorporation arguing the marketisation of the sector developed a logic of its own which the authors term the ‘logic of Incorporation’. This logic overdeveloped areas of ‘market’ interest while neglecting other crucial areas such as teaching and learning, professionalism and the curriculum. These neglected areas are explained using the concept of ‘unorganised social space’ (taken from an undeveloped concept in Fligstein and McAdam’s work) which remain unstable and unresolved because the very logic of Incorporation blocks the discussion of other logics, discourses or alternatives. The paper concludes that the logic of Incorporation leaves many important areas underdeveloped including the strategic place or purpose of FE itself. It proposes that FE has yet to find the stability of a ‘strategic action field’ needed to maintain itself and should be returned to some form of local or regional government ownership and control. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article focuses on theBuilding Colleges for the Future(BCF) initiative (2008) which saw a wave of new-build Further Education (FE) colleges spring up across England in the final years of the New Labour government. It draws on qualitative data from a research study focusing on four new-build colleges in the West Midlands of England to theorise the BCF initiative. Using theory derived primarily from Lefebvre, the paper contextualises BCF within a frame of neoliberalisation and discusses the impact of the ‘production of space’ represented by the initiative with a research focus on two areas: pedagogy and ideology. The main findings are that these new-build colleges can be interpreted as spatial expressions of policy-makers and others’ perceptions of teaching and learning; in ideological terms, they also trumpet a ‘new lifestyle’ and a ‘new art of living’ for FE staff and students that is however, in tension with residual pedagogical practices and values. The article concludes that despite being an expression of neoliberal abstract space, these new-builds can still be seen as providing a frame for alternative individual and collective encounters with education which may subvert and outlast the processes of neoliberalisation that they appear to embody. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]