Differentiation, distinction and equality – or diversity? The language of the marketised university: an England, New Zealand comparison

Abstract

This paper examines how universities reconcile the need to project themselves as successful global competitors with the need to respond to national policy expectations, particularly around equality. It does so through a comparative analysis of the language used in the publicly available documents of universities in England and New Zealand. While a discourse of 'distinctiveness' is employed across the board by universities to denote superiority, there are differences in the extent to which differently ranked universities signify their preparedness fully to embrace economic priorities. The analysis reveals the sidelining of 'equality' and its replacement by a discourse of 'diversity' and 'potential to succeed' which is more compatible with elitism than with social justice. The language of 'distinction' and 'diversity', it is argued, supports a logic of accumulation -for both institutions and students -in which those who are already advantaged are likely to reap the greatest rewards from a competitive educational market.

The determinants of university strategic positioning: a reappraisal of the organisation

“…Confirming these results, Seeber et al (2019) argue further that this trade-off depends not only on the institutional proximity between UK higher education institutions, expressed by the affiliation to a specific mission group (Russell group, 1994, Million+, University Alliance, GuildHE), but also on the geographic proximity between them. Bowl (2018), Jin and Horta (2018) and Huisman and Mampaey (2018) consider age and status of universities and illustrate how older and higher-status institutions prefer not to deviate from historically based institutional expectations, whereas younger and lower-status universities are more prone to unconventional positioning paths.…”

An old story, a new voice: Tertiary education in the Bay of Plenty region

“…Almost three quarters of university provision is at Bachelor's degree level (NZPC, 2017). Bowl (2018) proposes that universities employ a discourse of 'distinctiveness' to denote their academic superiority over other tertiary education institutions (for instance polytechnics, wānanga and competing universities) in order to promote themselves as successful global competitors to reap rewards from a competitive educational market vying for student enrolments.…”

“…There is wide acknowledgement of the marketisation environment which has caused universities to become more image-conscious with branding, self-promotion, impression management and competition for research funds (Bowl, 2018;Rowe-Williams, 2018). One example of marketisation is the obsession with the global ranking of universities across the world.…”

“…In the face of a neoliberal marketplace forcing institutions to compete with each other for students and funding to survive, each tertiary education institution has carved out their 'distinct' niche market regionally and nationally. Examples of this include wānanga promoting their superiority of Māori knowledge and pedagogy, the polytechnics cementing their role in offering vocational and industry training and the universities vying to protect their academic superiority over other institutions (Bowl, 2018). Other survival methods have included reducing staff and pooling resources (e.g.…”

Diversity and the European higher education student: policy influencers’ narratives of difference

“…More recent studies have also indicated that the concept of diversity, as deployed within many educational institutions, can have the effect of sustaining inequalities (see Talib and Fitzgerald (2015), for example, in relation to the schools sector). On the basis of her analysis of publically-available statements from higher education institutions in New Zealand and the UK, Bowl (2018) contends that commitments to equality have been side-lined in favour of those that focus on diversity. She maintains that this linguistic change helps HEIs mediate the tension between 'the need … to project themselves as strong competitors in a global market and leading contributors to the knowledge economy, while at the same time responding to national policy requirements to widen the social base of higher education' (p.672).…”