The UK National Student Survey: An amalgam of discipline and neo‐liberal governmentality

Abstract

The UK National Student Survey (NSS) has high status on the agenda of UK universities. Its rise in status is linked to its influence on national rankings and associated funding streams referenced to the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Consequently, many universities have implemented further assessments of student satisfaction, thereby putting additional internal performative pressures on courses and individual lecturers. The research contribution of this article comprises an analysis of the NSS through Foucault's notion of ‘governmentality’, with a particular focus on his work on ‘discipline’ and ‘neo‐liberal governmentality’. More specifically, by utilising qualitative data from interviews, research diaries and observations, it will be demonstrated how the NSS functions as a ‘disciplinary’ technology of government which subjects lecturers, departments and universities to intersecting panoptic gazes and perpetual ratings. In addition, the NSS can also be considered ‘neo‐liberal’ in that it governs the academic population through narrow conceptions of ‘freedom’ and omnipresent competition. The article proposes that it is through the amalgamated forces of intersecting panoptic gazes, on the one hand, and neo‐liberal free‐market principles, on the other, that student feedback develops its power to govern.

Student voice in higher education: Opening the loop

“…‘Student voice’ is used in higher education (HE) to describe a range of activities from the rather narrow concerns inherent in gathering evaluations and feedback from students in order to improve courses (Bennett & Kane, 2014), to broader participatory and inclusive research designed to affect transformational outcomes (Seale, 2010). It also encompasses activities at very different scales, from relatively informal classroom strategies (Fielding, 2004) through to institution‐level systems for student representation (Flint et al , 2017) and now at the national scale in the UK, through the National Student Survey (NSS) (Thiel, 2019), which added questions about ‘Student Voice’ from 2017. The emergence of this national framework has given rise to concerns that student voice has been co‐opted into neoliberal discourses of consumer satisfaction, university competition and lecturer responsibilisation, all of which may be seen to threaten the core educational role of universities (Sabri, 2013; Holligan & Shah, 2017; Thiel, 2019).…”

“…It also encompasses activities at very different scales, from relatively informal classroom strategies (Fielding, 2004) through to institution‐level systems for student representation (Flint et al , 2017) and now at the national scale in the UK, through the National Student Survey (NSS) (Thiel, 2019), which added questions about ‘Student Voice’ from 2017. The emergence of this national framework has given rise to concerns that student voice has been co‐opted into neoliberal discourses of consumer satisfaction, university competition and lecturer responsibilisation, all of which may be seen to threaten the core educational role of universities (Sabri, 2013; Holligan & Shah, 2017; Thiel, 2019). According to this line of critique, student voice policy in English universities is framed within a managerialist discourse that constitutes part of a ‘neoliberal imaginary’ (Ball, 2012).…”

“…However, ‘power’ understood as ‘the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organisation’ (Foucault, 1998 [1976], p. 92) is inherent in the relations of students, staff and institutions. Hence, it is unsurprising that Foucault’s work is used in several analyses of student voice (Fielding, 2004; Canning, 2016; Thiel, 2019). Thiel focuses on the impacts of the NSS on lecturers, but also broadens out his discussion to include student rep meetings and the wider phenomenon of student–staff relations in HE.…”

“…This article builds on elements of Thiel’s (2019) account. Firstly, Thiel focuses on lecturers and suggests a rather homogenous, uncritical view of students.…”

From "unintelligent" to intelligent accountability

“…The last decennia, researchers have documented many examples of malpractices in accountability systems that fail to take knowledge development and learning into consideration (e.g. Berliner 2011;Darling-Hammond 2007;Thiel 2019;Meadows and Black 2018;Webb 2006). Elmore (2002Elmore ( , 2006 described accountability in education as a complex mix of pressure and support and highlighted two problems of accountability systems: They have neglected the knowledge-generating part of the process and policymakers assume skills and infrastructures that are lacking in educational systems.…”