Universities are now compelled to attend to metrics that (re)shape our conceptualisation of the student experience. New technologies such as learning analytics (LA) promise the ability to target personalised support to profiled 'at risk' students through mapping large-scale historic student engagement data such as attendance, library use, and virtual learning environment activity as well as demographic information and typical student outcomes. Yet serious ethical and implementation issues remain. Data-driven labelling of students as 'high risk', 'hard to reach' or 'vulnerable' creates conflict between promoting personal growth and human flourishing and treating people merely as data points. This article argues that universities must resist the assumption that numbers and algorithms alone can solve the 'problem' of student retention and performance; rather, LA work must be underpinned by a reconnection with the agreed values relating to the purpose of higher education, including democratic engagement, recognition of diverse and individual experience, and processes of becoming. Such a reconnection, this article contends, is possible when LA work is designed and implemented in genuine collaboration and partnership with students.
ArticleWe live in uncertain, unpredictable and super complex times, which, as Ron Barnett writes, produce a 'fragility in the way that we understand the world ' (2000, p. 257). Indeed, if the world and the society contained within it are part of an open, indeterminate, 'messy' (Law, 2004), and thus unpredictable but self-organising system (Prigigone & Sten-gers, 1984), how might our universities resist the lure of developments in technology, such as learning analytics (LA), that seek to 'tidy up' this messiness but, at the same time, risk diminishing the underpinning values of higher education? This article argues that the popularity of LA as a solution to the 'problem' of student retention, experience and performance (Olmos & Corrin, 2012) fails to attend to the complexities of collective and individual existence. Shaped by historical drivers for the massification and marketisa-tion of HE as well as the current, fundamental tenants of neo-liberalism that position English universities as 'schizophrenic transnational business corporations' (Shore, 2010, p. 15), universities routinely fail to account for students' 'continual change[s] of form' (Bergson, 1911, p. 301) and the 'processes of becoming that are fostered in a culture of affirmation that acts through either empowering or confining powers' (Braidotti, 2012, p. 173). Students who transition through university thus emerge in and through educational processes in unique and unpredictable ways (Biesta, 2010;Postma, 2016).What is needed in Higher Education (HE) is an 'alternative work model' (Freire, 2007, p. 4) that recognises our complicity in the neo-liberal world. Here, we reject both the concept of student as consumer or product of HE, as well as the liberal tradition of students as apprentice academics in search of knowledge for its ...