Digital Humanism,Progressive Neoliberalism and the European Digital Governance System for Vocational and Adult Education

Abstract

In this article, the European digital governance system for vocational and adult education is critically examined in its single technologies and their interaction as well as theoretically reflected regarding potential dangers and opportunities based on the digital humanism and neoliberalism. The single digital technologies are described and critically scrutinised through expert interviews as well as the analysis of central policies, political decisions making (politics) and in the current technological modus operandi (digital polity). Findings reveal that the governance system leans towards progressive neoliberalism, combining forces of emancipation with forces of neoliberalism – especially regarding inclusion as one of the core dimensions of digital humanism.

Keywords

governance humanism digital education neoliberalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ambrosio

(2013). Changing the subject: Neoliberalism and accountability in public education. Educational Studies, 49(4), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.783835

Ball

S. J.

(2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065

Barberi

(2019). Diskurspragmatik, Medienkompetenz, Emanzipation und Freiheit[Discourse pragmatics, media competence, emancipation and freedom]. New Academic Press.

Barberi

Missomelius

Nida-Rümelin

Schmölz

Werthner

(2021). Editorial 2/2021: Digitaler humanismus [digital humanism]. Medienimpulse, 59(2). Article 2 https://doi.org/10.21243/mi-02-21-27

Barnett

(2021). Change in or of global governance? International Theory, 13(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192000038X

Bertini

Pentenrieder

Rebentisch

Schaat

Rentzsch

(2021). Manipulationssichere und per knopfdruck verifizierbare digital credentials: Die blockchain als initiator internationaler kooperationsprojekte[tamper-proof digital credentials that can be verified at the touch of a button: The blockchain as an initiator of international cooperation projects]. In Digitalisierung in studium und lehre gemeinsam gestalten: innovative formate, strategien und netzwerke (pp. 335–352). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32849-8_20.

Blum

Schubert

(2009). Politikfeldanalyse [Policy field analysis]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91428-2.

Braidotti

(2013). The posthuman (1. publ). Polity Press.

Brenner

Fraser

(2017). What is progressive neoliberalism? A debate. Dissent, 64(2), 130–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2017.0051

10.

Commission on Global Governance (1995). Our global neighborhood: The report of the commission on global governance. Oxford University Press.

11.

Deissinger

Heine

Ott

(2011). The dominance of apprenticeships in the German VET system and its implications for Europeanisation: A comparative view in the context of the EQF and the European LLL strategy. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 63(3), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.569089

12.

Döringer

(2021). ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777

13.

Eagleton-Pierce

(2016). Neoliberalism: The key concepts. Routledge.

14.

Emmenegger

Graf

Trampusch

(2019). The governance of decentralised cooperation in collective training systems: A review and conceptualisation. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 71(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2018.1498906

15.

Fielding

(2006). Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person‐centred education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120600895411

16.

Fielding

(2007). The human cost and intellectual poverty of high performance schooling: Radical philosophy, John Macmurray and the remaking of person‐centred education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701390511

17.

Fisher-Ari

T. R.

Kavanagh

K. M.

Martin

(2017). Urban teachers struggling within and against neoliberal, accountability-era policies. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 13(2), 1–19.

18.

Flinders

(2004). Distributed public governance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694282

19.

Fraser

(2016). Progressive neoliberalism versus reactionary populism: A choice that feminists should refuse. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 24(4), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2016.1278263

20.

Habermas

(1985). Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne [The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity]. Suhrkamp.

21.

Hamilton

L. S.

Stecher

B. M.

Yuan

(2012). Standards-based accountability in the United States: Lessons learned and future directions. Education Inquiry, 3(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i2.22025

22.

Hanberger

(2016). Evaluation in local school governance: A framework for analysis. Education Inquiry, 7(3), 29914. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.29914

23.

Horkheimer

(1947). Akademisches Studium. Begriff der Bildung. Fragen des Hochschulunterrichts. [Academic study. Concept of education. Questions of higher education]. Vittorio Klostermann.

24.

Hutterer

(1998). Das Paradigma der Humanistischen Psychologie[The paradigm of humanistic psychology]. Springer Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-7493-7

25.

Kremsner

Schmoelz

Proyer

(2022). Against the rules – disrupting and reassessing discursive practices of playfulness. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2072707

26.

Lassnigg

(2020). Digitaler humanismus“ und „digital humanities” – renaissance des humanismus? [“Digital humanism” and “digital humanities” - renaissance of humanism? Magazin Erwachsenenbildung, 39(1). https://www.ihs.ac.at/fileadmin/public/documents/projects/dighum_01_1581881732.pdf

27.

Luhmann

(1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft [The society of the society] (1. Aufl). Suhrkamp.

28.

Martino

Rezai-Rashti

(2012). Neoliberal accountability and the politics of boys’ underachievement: Steering policy by numbers in the Ontario context. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.555097

29.

Medien

(2021). Israeli settler colonialism, “humanitarian warfare,” and sexual violence in Palestine. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 23(5), 698–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2021.1882323

30.

Naz

(2021). Analysing neoliberal discourse in ofsted’s education inspection framework (EIF) through a foucauldian lens. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1995469

31.

Nida-Rümelin

Weidenfeld

(2018). Digitaler Humanismus: Eine Ethik für das Zeitalter der künstlichen Intelligenz [Digital Humanism: An Ethic for the Age of Artificial Intelligence]. Piper.

32.

Olson

Lechner

(2022). #Feminist – naming controversies and celebrating points of connection and joy in current feminisms. European Journal of English Studies, 26(2), 292–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2022.2091323

33.

Olssen

(2016). Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability and impact. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1100530

34.

Rasmussen

Lolle

E. L.

(2022). Accessibility of general adult education an analysis of the restructuring of adult education governance in Denmark. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713621Q996236

35.

Sarakinioti

Tsatsaroni

(2015). European education policy initiatives and teacher education curriculum reforms in Greece. Education Inquiry, 6(3), 28421. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.28421

36.

Schlögl

(2014). Ästhetik der Unabgeschlossenheit. Das Subjekt des lebenslangen Lernens[Aesthetics of incompleteness. The subject of lifelong learning]. transcript Verlag. http://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2643-8/aesthetik-der-unabgeschlossenheit

37.

Schlögl

(2018). Digitalisierung – oder: Wenn Technik nicht Probleme löst, sondern erneut eine Bestimmung beruflicher Handlungsfähigkeit herausfordert[Digitisation - or: When technology does not solve problems, but once again challenges a determination of professional capacity to act]. In Dobischat

Käpplinger

Molzberger

Münk

(Eds), Bildung 2.1 für Arbeit 4.0? (pp. 303–318). Springer VS.

38.

Schmoelz

(2017). On Co-creativity in playful classroom activities. Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, 4(1), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2017-0002

39.

Schmoelz

(2018). Enabling co-creativity through digital storytelling in education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.002

40.

Schmoelz

(2019). Creative works. In Ranieri

Benjamin

Cappello

(Eds), The international encyclopedia of media literacy (pp. 1–9). Wiley-Blackwell.

41.

Schmoelz

Bauer

(2021). Digitalisierung, Humanismus und die Zukunft von Arbeit und Berufsbildung: Zentrale Prognosen aus der Berufsbildungsforschung [Digitalisation, humanism and the future of work and vocational education and training: Central forecasts from VET research]. In Löffler

Schlögl

Schmoelz

(Eds), 50 Jahre Berufsbildungsforschung in Österreich im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis (pp. 221–236). wbv http://dx.doi.org/10.3278/6004915w221.

42.

Schmölz

(2020a). Die Conditio Humana im digitalen Zeitalter. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 20, 208–234. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2020.11.13.X

43.

Smythe

(2018). Adult learning in the control society: Digital era governance, literacies of control, and the work of adult educators. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713618766645

44.

Stenning

Schmoelz

Wren

Stouraitis

Scaltsas

Alexopoulos

Aichhorn

(2016). Socratic dialogue as a teaching and research method for co-creativity? Digital Culture and Education, 8(2), 154–168.

45.

Treib

Bähr

Falkner

(2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406

46.

Walsh

Chappell

Craft

(2017). A co-creativity theoretical framework to foster and evaluate the presence of wise humanising creativity in virtual learning environments (VLEs). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.001

47.

Werthner

Lee

Akkermans

Vardi

, et al. (2019). Wiener Manifest für Digitalen Humanismus. [Vienna Manifesto for Digital Humanism] https://www.informatik.tuwien.ac.at/dighum/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Vienna_Manifesto_on_Digital_Humanism_DE.pdf

48.

Werthner

Prem

Lee

E. A.

Ghezzi

(Eds), (2022). Perspectives on digital humanism. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86144-5

49.

Zaunstöck

Marhuenda-Fluixá

Ros-Garrido

Fischer

(2021). Europeanisation of VET – the Spanish Vocational Education and Training system and the influence of European education policy. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 73(2), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1889645