What’s the deal with digitalization? A critique of technosolutionism in higher education policy.

Abstract

In the face of contemporary challenges such as globalization, climate crisis and a shifting labour market, digital technology is often presented as a solution and enabler for innovation. This is the case also within the area of higher education (HE), as universities are expected to adjust to societal trends framed as the knowledge-intensive economy, increased individualization, life-long learning opportunities, and data-driven innovation, to name just a few. According to the European Commission Digital Education Action Plan (2018), for example, the digitalization of education will boost global competitiveness, enrich learning, empower learners, improve learning outcomes, reduce the learning gap, increase motivation, and – through the exploitation of big data – tailor content to individual students’ needs. The digitalization of education is not only constructed as inevitable in the light of the digital revolution that has overturned the world as we once knew it, but also as a saviour, bringing offerings that will fix everything that is “broken” in modern education.

On the supranational, national and institutional policy levels we find a strong consensus on the importance and urgency of the digitalization of higher education, but also a general lack of concreteness on how this will lead to the desired outcomes. Digital technology is simply presented as the axiomatic solution to a wide range of wicked challenges. Notwithstanding this vagueness, we can observe a growing activity on all levels to promote the digital transformation. Regulations, policies, projects and digital tools/infrastructure are being developed in a complex interplay in the boundaries of the national-supranational, academic-political, and public-private.

There is no doubt that during the past 25 years we have witnessed an enormous societal transformation, leading up to the present society where digital production, consumption, and communication is affecting almost all areas of our daily lives. At the same time, as government policy and funding is increasingly directed towards addressing the large national and global challenges through digital technology, it is important to scrutinize the explicit and implicit arguments embedded in the premises and claims being put forward. While such critical research perspectives on the digitalization discourse in higher education have been offered in recent years (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018; Roumell & Salajan, 2016; Williamson, 2018), there is still a need for more research specifically exploring the underlying ideologies in policy argumentation, as demands for digitalizing and changing our educational systems get increasingly loud and persuasive.

In the present study, we use Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (N. Fairclough, 2010) to examine Swedish government reports, university policy and information, and educational texts, with the aim to critically scrutinize the premises and arguments related to digitalization in HE. CDA centres on the relationship between language and other social practices and – using a transdisciplinary approach – attempts to answer questions about how language is involved in (re)constructing social life. It offers a framework for critically analysing how linguistic strategies and specific discourses can be drawn upon for promoting certain actions, but can also be used as a resource for those engaged in struggle within institutions currently facing changes that may seem alienating and destructive. For the purpose of this study, we adopt an approach to CDA that pays attention to practical argumentation, i.e. “the reasoning about what we should do” (I. Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012, p. 87) as a primary activity of political discourse. From the perspective of the analysis this means critically exploring how aspects of reality are represented and framed in premises (such as beliefs about goals, circumstances and values) underlying arguments for action (claims), as well as examining the texts for the absence or presence of alternative options and in what ways such options are represented.

In our presentation we will use examples from the analysed texts to illustrate that the claims for digitalizing higher education are underpinned by ideologically-laden premises, framing change processes as simple, noncontroversial and inevitable facts largely outside of – and unaffected by – politics. Digitalization, on the other hand, is constructed not only as the solution to both old and recent challenges in HE, but also as the force that will prompt Swedish universities to abandon traditional ways of practicing and organizing themselves and instead adapt to what is framed as a market. Only by truly recognizing the global and largely digitalized market as their playing field can these institutions avoid losing their position as prime conveyors of knowledge (as well as their research excellence and international reputation) to other (commercial) actors.

We believe our study also provides an illustrative example of modern day governance of higher education in Sweden. The use of linguistic strategies and effective discourses are by no means exclusively modern techniques, but we find the extent to which the government reports are based on ideology and preconceived notions, rather than research and solid investigations, worrying and warranting further critical exploration and discussion.

Abstract (Swedish)

In the face of contemporary challenges such as globalization, climate crisis and a shifting labour market, digital technology is often presented as a solution and enabler for innovation. This is the case also within the area of higher education (HE), as universities are expected to adjust to societal trends framed as the knowledge-intensive economy, increased individualization, life-long learning opportunities, and data-driven innovation, to name just a few. According to the European Commission Digital Education Action Plan (2018), for example, the digitalization of education will boost global competitiveness, enrich learning, empower learners, improve learning outcomes, reduce the learning gap, increase motivation, and – through the exploitation of big data – tailor content to individual students’ needs. The digitalization of education is not only constructed as inevitable in the light of the digital revolution that has overturned the world as we once knew it, but also as a saviour, bringing offerings that will fix everything that is “broken” in modern education.

On the supranational, national and institutional policy levels we find a strong consensus on the importance and urgency of the digitalization of higher education, but also a general lack of concreteness on how this will lead to the desired outcomes. Digital technology is simply presented as the axiomatic solution to a wide range of wicked challenges. Notwithstanding this vagueness, we can observe a growing activity on all levels to promote the digital transformation. Regulations, policies, projects and digital tools/infrastructure are being developed in a complex interplay in the boundaries of the national-supranational, academic-political, and public-private.

There is no doubt that during the past 25 years we have witnessed an enormous societal transformation, leading up to the present society where digital production, consumption, and communication is affecting almost all areas of our daily lives. At the same time, as government policy and funding is increasingly directed towards addressing the large national and global challenges through digital technology, it is important to scrutinize the explicit and implicit arguments embedded in the premises and claims being put forward. While such critical research perspectives on the digitalization discourse in higher education have been offered in recent years (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018; Roumell & Salajan, 2016; Williamson, 2018), there is still a need for more research specifically exploring the underlying ideologies in policy argumentation, as demands for digitalizing and changing our educational systems get increasingly loud and persuasive.

In the present study, we use Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (N. Fairclough, 2010) to examine Swedish government reports, university policy and information, and educational texts, with the aim to critically scrutinize the premises and arguments related to digitalization in HE. CDA centres on the relationship between language and other social practices and – using a transdisciplinary approach – attempts to answer questions about how language is involved in (re)constructing social life. It offers a framework for critically analysing how linguistic strategies and specific discourses can be drawn upon for promoting certain actions, but can also be used as a resource for those engaged in struggle within institutions currently facing changes that may seem alienating and destructive. For the purpose of this study, we adopt an approach to CDA that pays attention to practical argumentation, i.e. “the reasoning about what we should do” (I. Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012, p. 87) as a primary activity of political discourse. From the perspective of the analysis this means critically exploring how aspects of reality are represented and framed in premises (such as beliefs about goals, circumstances and values) underlying arguments for action (claims), as well as examining the texts for the absence or presence of alternative options and in what ways such options are represented.

In our presentation we will use examples from the analysed texts to illustrate that the claims for digitalizing higher education are underpinned by ideologically-laden premises, framing change processes as simple, noncontroversial and inevitable facts largely outside of – and unaffected by – politics. Digitalization, on the other hand, is constructed not only as the solution to both old and recent challenges in HE, but also as the force that will prompt Swedish universities to abandon traditional ways of practicing and organizing themselves and instead adapt to what is framed as a market. Only by truly recognizing the global and largely digitalized market as their playing field can these institutions avoid losing their position as prime conveyors of knowledge (as well as their research excellence and international reputation) to other (commercial) actors.

We believe our study also provides an illustrative example of modern day governance of higher education in Sweden. The use of linguistic strategies and effective discourses are by no means exclusively modern techniques, but we find the extent to which the government reports are based on ideology and preconceived notions, rather than research and solid investigations, worrying and warranting further critical exploration and discussion.

• author: Ljungqvist, Marita and Sonesson, Anders
• organization: Division for Higher Education Development; Educational Sciences
• publishing date: 2022
• type: Contribution to conference
• publication status: unpublished
• subject: Pedagogy
• conference name: Universities under siege?
• conference location: Uppsala, Sweden
• conference dates: 2022-06-07 - 2022-06-09
• language: English
• LU publication?: yes
• id: a925a85d-cf1c-4452-9d03-dce762bceea7
• date added to LUP: 2024-12-17 11:15:13
• date last changed: 2025-04-04 14:01:22