Chasing the Real: ‘Employability’ and the Media Studies Curriculum

Abstract

Media Studies in the UK has endured a decidedly chequered history. Since the late 1980s the subject has experienced massive and rapid growth in secondary, further and higher educational institutions. This continuing growth in demand for and provision of media courses in the UK has, however, rarely been seen or framed as 'good news' or a success story. In contrast, the public image of the field as embodied in recurrent cycles of press and related media coverage has tended to denigrate, question and contest its legitimacy. While there have been some more encouraging signs in recent coverage, it may be a peculiarity of the current UK cultural and educational configurations that the well established, internationally respected range of media studies courses have to be routinely called to account and ritually 'put in their place '. In what follows, we provide a contextualizing commentary on this state of affairs, first outlining the chief 'angles of attack' and critique that have characterized the public image of the subject. This is then followed by an overview of key curricula formations and associated tensions that have underpinned the field and its growth throughout the past decade. Central to this has been an increasing concentration on vocationalism and the discourses of 'employability'. We present a commentary on these discourses and, in the remainder of the discussion, report on the findings of a three-year, funded UK research project which was designed to investigate the meanings and perceptions of 'employability' held by participants in the media studies curriculum: teachers, students, graduates and employers. The commentary concludes with a reflection on the research outcomes of the project. We welcome responses to the themes and issues broached and outlined in what follows from the full readership of Media, Culture & Society, dispersed across the international academic community.

The university as intermediary for the creative economy: Pedagogues, policy-makers and creative workers in the curriculum

“…To some extent the development of the courses can be seen as reaction to debates about value of media education (Bell, 2004; Elliot, 2000; Thornham and O’Sullivan, 2004). The courses set out to ‘explore the field’ (MacDonald, 2008: 141) rather than be simply about topping-up skills or pure research.…”

“…(p.733)The course team developing the new MA programmes, which included this paper’s authors, were thus aware of the value of creating what the School’s publicity called ‘thinking media workers’, within the context of courses with ‘critical disposition’ (Elliot, 2000: 18). In part, we were responding to Thornham and O’Sullivan’s (2004) call for media studies curriculum designers to offer more reflective spaces for students, as well as both Bell’s (2004) and MacDonald’s (2008) calls to not be drawn in by external attempts to design curriculum purely around industry’s needs:The programmes were all designed to develop reflexive professionals in the media, creative and cultural industries, who can operate at the forefront of the academic discipline and of professional practice. The content and approach of the curriculum would have a strong emphasis on enterprise skills, engagement with new communication technologies, and promoting innovation.…”

Reflections on Equality, Diversity, and Gender at the End of a Media Studies Headship

“…When, therefore, the British media launched sustained attacks on media studies throughout the 1990s, they emphasized that it was not a “real” discipline. In so doing, they were claiming both that it did not have the cultural capital necessary for the production of appropriate graduates, and that it was insufficiently masculine (Barker 2001; Thornham and O’Sullivan 2004). It was “soft,” lacking rigor, unintellectual, with all the qualities of the popular culture it studied.…”

Transnational Communications in Action: A Critical Praxis

“…In this atmosphere, ICTs are framed as drivers of change, pedagogical innovations in themselves. Hazy terms of reference provide another level of incomprehension and rhetorical fuel to these misperceptions and ensuing polemics (see Everitt & Mills, 2009; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008; Thornham & O’Sullivan, 2004).…”