Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

The paradox of professionalism in English further education: A TLC project perspective

James, David and Gleeson, Denis 2007. The paradox of professionalism in English further education: A TLC project perspective. Educational Review 59 (4) , pp. 451-467. 10.1080/00131910701619340

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

This paper examines the shifting nature of Further Education (FE) professionalism through the lenses of the Transforming Learning Cultures in FE (TLC) project. Despite over a decade of market and managerial reform professionalism in FE remains an elusive and paradoxical concept. With some notable exceptions there exists little official data or research evidence of who its practitioners are, their dispositions or how they define professionalism in the contested contexts of their work. In addressing this neglected issue, albeit in a brief fashion here, the paper engages with wider debate concerning the culturally oriented nature of FE practice, as it mediates contradictory policy agendas, at college level. The paper highlights some of the paradoxes involved in a public management discourse that seeks to modernize FE professionals whilst, at the same time, displaying little understanding of their current practice or contexts in which they work. Drawing on the narratives of experienced practitioners participating in the TLC project (2001–2005) the paper explores their perceptions and experiences of professionalism through cultures of learning that simultaneously enhance and restrict their professional room for manoeuvre.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Social Sciences (Includes Criminology and Education)
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Publisher: Routledge
ISSN: 0013-1911
Funders: ESRC
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2017 07:59
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/71078

Citation Data

Cited 58 times in Google Scholar. View in Google Scholar

Cited 43 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item