Search

In this article the authors take up the invitation to respond to the previous articles in the special issue. They discuss why it is so difficult to speak and write about gender and sexuality, and difference more generally, in the neoliberalised university. They make the case that the neoliberal university engages and uses categorical difference, and the individuals inhabiting these, mainly for auditing purposes. The authors develop the argument that despite the enterprise university's official commitments to diversity and inclusion, it remains indifferent to difference, understood as openness to becoming different, to differenciation in a Deleuzian sense. Difference is privatised and depoliticised and is only acceptable if it is useful and exploitable in pre-specified ways and if it conforms to and facilitates neoliberal agendas. (Contains 1 note.)

This article examines the everyday practices of writing in the context of the technologies of audit, as they have been practised on and by the four authors in their capacity as students and researchers. It examines the activity of writing as governmentality, through which students and academics make themselves into appropriate subjects, and also exceed and disrupt the effects of government. (Contains 1 note.)

In this paper the authors analyse a university-school partnership that went awry. It was designed to develop a new set of philosophical principles to inform work with violent student behaviour in schools. The project brought together a team of researchers from the university and school sector with a strong record of examining and improving the management of behaviour in classrooms. The authors sought volunteer school-based educators to work with them as co-researchers. Despite the team's strong school-based research background, the mutual interest in developing a new approach to work with violence, and the strong collaborative base, they found themselves, as the initiating research team, unable to progress in the ways they had anticipated. This paper analyses the dynamics at work in that lack of progress. The analysis is put forward with the hope of enlivening discussion about what makes for successful collaborative projects between schools and universities. (Contains 5 notes.)

The controlling strategies of neo-liberalism, designed to constitute academics as economic units supporting the designs of government, are contrasted here with the creative and transgressive elements of a more Deleuzian approach to writing that opens things up, that brings thought to life, that makes the familiar, predictable order tremble. The article suggests that neo-liberalism can never fully capture the creative and joyful subject that it thinks it is creating and controlling. The article is disruptive of the neo-liberal order--and a refusal of it. It plays with multiple layers of meaning making, using metaphor, images and imagined sounds from opera, a story from collective biography, and interviews with academics to create an engagement with women's place in academe that is at once intellectual and emotional. At its centre is a synopsis for an opera set in the halls of academe. The article does not negate emotion and embodiment, but rather opens the possibility of decomposing some aspects of our embodied history of inhabiting the male-female binary, as it is lodged in the structures and practices of the academy.

The rise of neo-liberal universities over the last 15-20 years has been characterised as an inevitable effect both of globalisation and the associated dominance of capital. In this article we will analyse that rise, seeking to understand how it has come about and its impact on intellectual work. In the final pages of the article we turn towards its fall.

In this article we analyse the ways in which neo-liberalism is taken up in the discourses and practices of university life. In the "knowledge economy" it might be thought that intellectual work would flourish. Yet the neo-liberal technologies through which universities and individual academics are made into entrepreneurs and made "productive" are at risk of undermining the very source of knowledge production that they are intended to promote. In this article we explore the ways in which the discourses and practices of neo-liberal managerialism work to effectively forestall resistance to themselves. The forestalling of resistance is accomplished in part by persuading each individual academic to treat the effects of neo-liberalism as personal successes, responsibilities and failings rather than as a form of institutional practice in need of critique and transformation.

Argues against a definition of poststructural theory as generating inaction and as antithetical to concepts such as "agency" and "choice." Suggests that poststructuralist theory may have implications for practice by examining the practices in regular schools and a school for "behaviorally disturbed" children. (CMK)

Sex discrimination in employment is analyzed based on definitions developed through antidiscrimination legislation in Australia. Experiences at one university are used to illustrate how discrimination manifests and perpetuates itself in a cycle of attitudes, acts, and outcomes. Substantial data on employment patterns and practices are presented. (MSE)

Analyzes A. Jones' exposition of the problems her students face in acquiring post-structuralist discourse and the aspects of that problem that Jones attributes to the writings of B. Davies. A focus is on the concept of the post-structuralist "subject." (SLD)

This paper shows how student teachers can learn to see, through analysis of videotaped classroom scenes, the underlying rules informing the patterns of interactions between teachers and pupils. A single classroom scene where the first impression is of complete chaos with one student running amok is analyzed in detail. (MT)

Characterizes teachers as socializing agents reinforcing sex-gender stereotypes. Claims that the production of the self-concept involves learning categories that include some people and exclude others. Argues that linguistic definitions act as a constraint on development, and discourse directs individuals into a gender-specific structure. (NL)

Rejects sociobiological theories on female academic achievement and bases findings on social structure to explain why undergraduate women at Oxford University (England) achieve fewer first places and more second places in class honors. Bases theory on bipolarity of gender as an organizing principle of society. Claims that the double bind of social construct restricts female achievement. (NL)