This article was downloaded by [University of Birmingham]On 12 November 2014 At 1045Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloirpce20

Interpreting Personal DevelopmentPlanning (PDP) a policy andprofessional practice story of highereducation in the UKJohn Hilsdon aa Learning Development Plymouth University Plymouth UKPublished online 27 Nov 2012

To cite this article John Hilsdon (2012) Interpreting Personal Development Planning (PDP) apolicy and professional practice story of higher education in the UK Research in Post-CompulsoryEducation 174 483-495 DOI 101080135967482012739004

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101080135967482012739004

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Interpreting Personal Development Planning (PDP) a policy andprofessional practice story of higher education in the UK

John Hilsdon

Learning Development Plymouth University Plymouth UK

(Received 4 May 2012 final version received 3 September 2012)

It is claimed that Personal Development Planning (PDP) is the only approach tolearning in UK higher education that has been actively encouraged through apolicy This paper reviews the background to the development of PDP as policyunder conditions described as the lsquonew moral economyrsquo and the impact of theseconditions on contemporary universities in the UK A variety of approaches tothe interpretation and implementation of PDP is considered drawing upon thepublished work of a group of professionals from a range of universities all ofwhom were participants in a National Teaching Fellowship Scheme This reviewof the work of the project and of PDP in general also served to inform reflec-tions on the overall purpose of learning at university

Keywords Personal Development Planning (PDP) HE policy professionalismkey skills learning development

Introduction

As co-editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (httpwwwaldinheacukojs) I recently worked on a special edition of the journal(JLDHE November 2010) entitled lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Develop-ment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo On the cover sheet of the journal the intro-duction of Personal Development Planning (PDP) is described as a lsquofirst attempt inUK higher education to implement a particular framework for enhancing and cap-turing student learning by sector-wide agreementrsquo (Burkinshaw et al 2010) Thispaper attempts to contextualise the policy and professional practice story of PDPand to offer a brief review of some interpretations of PDP as represented in the arti-cles published in the JLDHE Special Edition

Whilst working for the English HE sectorrsquos Quality Assurance Agency NormanJackson was one of those leading the development of PDP as lsquopolicyrsquo He was amajor contributor to documentation such as lsquoGuidelines for HE Progress Filesrsquo anda variety of related reports (Jackson 2010 QAA 2001a 2001b 2009) and laterworked closely with the Centre for Recording Achievement to support the imple-mentation of practice in this area across the HE sector (Jackson and Ward 2004)His work is therefore highly relevant in representing an lsquoestablishedrsquo view of whatPDP is and its relationship to policy in higher education He describes the initiativeas follows

Email johnhilsdonplymouthacuk

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationVol 17 No 4 December 2012 483ndash495

ISSN 1359-6748 printISSN 1747-5112 online 2012 Further Education Research Associationhttpdxdoiorg101080135967482012739004httpwwwtandfonlinecom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Personal Development Planning (PDP) is the only approach to learning in UK highereducation that is actively encouraged through a policy The dispositions thinkingbehaviours and habits that PDP is intended to promote are closely aligned to the pro-cesses identified in self-regulation hellip if PDP is implemented in ways that learners findengaging and can be related to real world experiences it offers the promise ofenabling them to develop and practise capabilities that are important to being an effec-tive self-regulating professional (Jackson 2010 1)

The potential implications for policy professionalism learning and behaviour inthese statements are relevant for this paper I attempt to describe PDP as policy andas it is seen and interpreted by certain HE practitioners primarily lecturers andlearning developers The latter term is used increasingly to refer to those in posts(often on lsquoacademic-relatedrsquo rather than academic contracts) whose function hascommonly been described by phrases such as lsquolearning skillsrsquo lsquosupportrsquo or lsquostudyskillsrsquo (Hilsdon 2011) and who are often (though not always) located in universitylibraries educational development careers or student services units rather than aca-demic departments This distinction between academic and non-academic contracttypes is also of significance (Peters 2010) it might be argued that at least some ofthe interpretations of PDP evidenced in the papers reviewed here are likely to havebeen influenced by the fact that the professional roles and posts of some authorsrelied on temporary policy-related funding such as from Centres for Excellence inTeaching and Learning and from a National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS)project Indeed as Ball points out lsquonone of us remains untainted by the incentivesand disciplines of the new moral economyrsquo (1997 258) This idea will be utilisedin the development of the current analysis of PDP

The papers and reports from this NTFS-funded project on the implementation ofPDP published in the JLDHE in November 2010 form the basis of the documen-tary and empirical material for this study The evaluation of PDP is developedthrough these lsquolensesrsquo informed by social theory relating to policy and with provi-sional ideas for alternative approaches and recommendations based on my ownpractice Before coming to the description of PDP however I want to clarify myunderstanding of lsquopolicyrsquo which I see as an aspect of the operation of power insociety ndash by both the state and other social groups The analysis of policy is there-fore fundamental in any kind of social study Clearly the word implies decisionsmade in relation to goals values or beliefs ndash and plans for enacting those decisionsvia procedures rules or guidelines Critically as Ball and Bowe (1992) point outpolicies manifest both in written forms eg as statements of intent ndash lsquoactual poli-ciesrsquo (to which some may be held accountable) ndash and as lsquopolicies in usersquo in theirimplementation both explicitly and in terms of the hidden or unintended conse-quences of people acting upon or reacting to such policies The etymology of theterm through French Latin and Greek uses suggests associations with the statecitizens (people in social contexts) administration and the exercise and legitimationof power

The role of discourse in these processes of power as explored in the work ofsocial theorists such as Foucault (1972) and Bourdieu (1992) is of immediate rele-vance to this study The context for the development and implementation of policiesin higher education in the UK relating to notions of lsquokey skillsrsquo or lsquograduateattributesrsquo since the early 1990s and especially the idea Jackson refers to above ofbeing an lsquoeffective self-regulating professionalrsquo need to be seen in relation to whatBall (1997) refers to as lsquothe introduction of new forms of social regulationrsquo (257)

484 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

These regulatory drives are associated with the transformation of all forms of publicsector and welfare provision in a post-Keynesian economic context since the late1970s where characteristics associated with lsquofree marketsrsquo have been increasinglyimposed upon the organisation of health education and other social services Ballrefers to Jessoprsquos formulation the replacement of a lsquoFordist discourse of productiv-ity and planning with a post-Fordist rhetoric of flexibility and entrepreneurialismrsquo(Jessop 1994 cited in Ball 1997 258) My description and analysis of PDP istherefore presented not just in terms of pedagogy or learning development policyas if these ideas and practices were neutral or transparent but with a criticallyreflexive intent and an eye to the role of language in their operation ndash and how thisoperation is implicated in the changes that have been taking place in higher educa-tion (and other public services) since the latter part of the twentieth century

The origins of Personal Development Planning

The emergence of Personal Development Planning (PDP) followed the NationalCommittee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE 1997) referred to as theDearing Report One of its recommendations concerned lsquoprogress filesrsquo a policyalready in use in schools and the further education sector in England (and buildingupon the policy which had led to the lsquoNational Record of Achievementrsquo) Dearingsuggested that progress files should consist of two elements

bull A transcript recording student achievement which should follow a commonformat devised by institutions collectively through their representative bodies

bull A means by which students can monitor build and reflect upon their personaldevelopment (NCIHE 1997)

The Higher Education Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) which may best bedescribed as a lsquoquangorsquo (a body describing itself as independent but which nonethe-less is strongly influenced by the state) was tasked with steering the HE sector toimplement the policy drawing on professional networks already established by theCentre for Recording Achievement (CRA) Strivens and Ward describe the CRA as

an educational charity originally established as a project in 1991 whose purpose is topromote awareness and understanding of recording achievement processes as animportant element in improving learning and progression throughout the world of edu-cation training and employment (2010 2)

This movement towards recording achievement against defined lsquocore skillsrsquo orlsquocompetenciesrsquo in HE can be traced back to earlier initiatives in further educationvia the Manpower Services Commission and Further Education Unit to codifyskills and attributes designed to appeal to employers As Woollard (1995) pointsout the move to undertake similar activities in HE was influenced by the Councilfor Industry and Higher Education and the Confederation of British Industry in the1980s and led to the lsquoEnterprise in Higher Educationrsquo initiative which providedfunding for projects promoting the notion of skills Criticism of this approach camefrom a number of researchers and writers such as Ron Barnett (1990 1994) andLen Holmes (1999)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Whilst agreeing that some attributes such as critical thinking are indeed lsquocorersquoto academic endeavours Barnett critiques the emphasis on competencies and skillsas being overly predictable and prescriptive As such he argues these are unsuit-able underpinnings for a higher education ndash which by its definition seeks to gobeyond the known and predictable ndash and especially in the contemporary periodwhich Barnett later characterised by the term lsquosupercomplexityrsquo (2000) Holmesrsquoopposition to concepts such as lsquotransferablersquo lsquogenericrsquo and lsquokeyrsquo capabilities skillsetc rests on the impossibility of these being objective characteristics of individualsHe presents an alternative lsquorelationalrsquo model based on social practices involvingopportunities for graduates to develop and warrant their own lsquoemergent identityrsquo(2002)

Following the Dearing Report the CRA embarked upon a consultative exerciseinvolving its stakeholders resulting in the evolution of the term Personal Develop-ment Planning to refer to the lsquomonitoring building and reflectingrsquo activities inwhich it was envisaged students were now to engage A set of guidelines for thiswas published by the QAA incorporating a definition of PDP as

a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon theirown learning performance andor achievement and to plan for their personal educa-tional and career development (2001a 2)

From 2001 onwards QAA publications stated that it was to be expected that all HEstudents would now be

explicitly introduced to the rationale and opportunities for PDP at the start of [their]programme and provided with these opportunities at each stage hellip By the end of theprogramme they would have created their own learning records containing informationon the qualities and skills which could be drawn upon as evidence when applying fora job or further study (Strivens and Ward 2010 2)

QAA documents called for institutions to set up and monitor their own pro-cesses for offering lsquoPDP opportunitiesrsquo for all students by 2005ndash2006 on the under-standing that local practice should be drawn upon rather than a national modelimposed Strivens and Ward also point out that related policy initiatives have sincecontributed to the pressure on HEIs to develop PDP First the lsquoe-Learning Strategyrsquoadopted by HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England) encour-aged lsquoe-based systems of describing learning achievement and personal develop-ment planningrsquo (HEFCE 2005 13) and the Department for Education and Skills inits e-Strategy supported the greater lsquopersonalisationrsquo of learning across all educa-tional sectors by means of

a personal online learning space to store coursework course resources results andachievements [with] a personal identifier for each learner hellip an electronic portfoliomaking it simpler for learners to build their record of achievement throughout theirlifelong learning (DfES 2006 5 para 10 cited in Strivens and Ward 2010 3)

This link between PDP and policy on lsquoe-learningrsquo is a telling indication of theinfluence of what Evetts refers to as lsquotechnical rationalisationrsquo in teaching with itsassociated instrumentalist drives to standardise and regulate functions which wereseen previously as primarily academic In this case the use of standardised tem-

486 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

plate-driven online lsquospacesrsquo (eg for the production of an lsquoe-portfoliorsquo) is conflatedwith an interpretation of compliant professional behaviour and preparation foremployment which is assumed to be generally desirable Similar kinds of lsquoorganisa-tionalrsquo as opposed to lsquooccupationalrsquo professionalism (Evetts 2009) can be seen inoperation where the focus in practice seems to be more about the systems (andtheir technicalities) for submission and feedback on academic work than on thelearning processes and the pedagogies they might imply Indeed it is preciselythe more procedural and bureaucratic elements of PDP that cause most resistance tothe policy among academics (Hughes et al 2010a)

It can be seen from the above that PDP has indeed arisen and been promotedwith the force of a stated policy supported by government-related bodies I havealready suggested that the explanation for the development of PDP as policy andits emergence in practice is associated at least as much with drives to introduceregulatory frameworks aiming to support behaviours helpful to market-related aimsof lsquoproductivityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo and lsquoflexibilityrsquo (representing what Ball refers to aslsquoa lsquopeople-centredrsquo new managerialismrsquo [1997 259]) as with pedagogic or educa-tional principles As lsquopolicy-in-usersquo however ndash in other words in their practice ndashteachers and others often emphasise purposes for PDP which propose humanisticcommunitarian or even emancipatory principles In what follows I hope to illustratefurther some of these potentially contradictory aspects of PDP

PDP in practice interpretations and reflections from practitioners

Drawing upon empirical and documentary evidence taken from the special PDP-related edition of the JLDHE (November 2010) I was struck by the levels of varia-tion in interpretation of PDP and the assumptions that appeared to have been madeabout the policy Some authors might be seen as interpreting uncritically the broadgoals of PDP in ways which align more or less directly with those stated by policymakers A PDP policy emphasising lsquopersonal developmentrsquo (as per the DearingReport) seems relatively uncontroversial but its implications can be seen in thecontext of the broader policy drives referred to above designed to support generalmarketisation and which Ball describes as a lsquonew moral economyrsquo (1997 259) Inthe case of higher education in the UK this can be seen represented in the Leitchreport in the claim that lsquoa move to a system that gives employers the strongestvoice is now essentialrsquo (DfES 2006)

Resistance to such a shift is evident in the constructively critical approaches toPDP which some of the JLDHE authors demonstrate Others are less clear andwhether intentionally or not their interpretations might be seen to affirm a moveaway from a lsquotraditionalrsquo kind of university education (one based around inductioninto specific academic disciplines) towards one emphasising lsquopreparation for workand the development of the individualrsquo (Savory et al 2010) However several ofthe authors describe how their practice and their action research in the implementa-tion of PDP (as lsquopolicy-in-usersquo) have aimed at facilitating what one might termmore socially lsquoprogressiversquo approaches to student learning at university (Laurillard2001)

As will be seen there are numerous examples of attempts to focus on wideningparticipation on peer-learning and support activities intended to counterinequalities in social and cultural capital In this PDP can be seen as serving thebroader public goals of learning development (Hartley et al 2011 Hilsdon 2004)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and increasing access to and participation in higher education (Archer et al 2003Haggis 2006) In what follows therefore it is evident that PDP-related initiativesas policy-in-use are implemented by professionals to serve varying goals andvalues some of which are adjacent to (and potentially in conflict with) those of itsoriginators

In her paper on lsquoidentity development and confidence building in non-traditionalstudentsrsquo Carina Buckley (2010) concentrates on how in her context PDPresources have been used to establish processes to support peer-learning communi-ties which contribute to lsquoaspiration buildingrsquo the setting up of a forum lsquofor theexchange and development of ideasrsquo using guided and structured reflection and alsquo360 degree reviewrsquo along with a range of online activities which help students toexplore

fluid boundaries between the workplace and the university represented as three over-lapping circles of self theory and practice [and] allow for integrated learning and theintroduction of the familiar into the unfamiliar [PDP] is therefore demonstrated hereto be a safe area of the curriculum that supports the development and confidence ofthe new uncertain learner (Buckley 2010 1)

Drawing upon critical interpretations of PDP such as those of Clegg (2004)and promoting the intrinsically humanistic value of higher education this papersuggests a progressive role for this work in furthering the aims of wideningparticipation in HE by offering lsquotransformativersquo learning experiences (Mezirow1997) To these ends Buckleyrsquos focus is on studentsrsquo development of their owncritical awareness of role and identity and on learning as part of a communityof peers

Similarly Hughes et al in their paper lsquoSituated Personal Development Plan-ningrsquo (2010a) warn against a narrow interpretation of PDP and suggest a lsquosocialpracticesrsquo model emphasising the opportunities it can create to promote morereflexive approaches to teaching and learning in general and to notions of profes-sional and academic identity in particular This theme is developed by Riddell andBates (2010) in their review of PDP as a framework to guide practice in personaltutoring and by Andrea Raiker who argues for the use of PDP to inform under-graduate dissertation tutorials She offers a framework for negotiating the responsi-bilities of both student and supervisor lsquoreflecting autonomous (Mezirow 1997) andcollaborative (Vygotsky 1978) learning mediated through the tutorialrsquo (Raiker2010)

At Birmingham City University Rachel Moule and Ethan Rhemahn were keento investigate student experiences of using an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo for PDP Theirstudy reveals that

although students clearly enjoyed engaging with opportunities for creativity and playthey also expressed uncertainty over the purpose of and audience for their e-Portfolioand thus its academic relevance The emotional dimension of trust in relation tointended audience ownership of content and online space security and accessibilityalso emerged as an important student concern and this appeared to act as a barrier toengagement with e-Portfolio (Moule and Rhemahn 2010 1)

488 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

These regulatory drives are associated with the transformation of all forms of publicsector and welfare provision in a post-Keynesian economic context since the late1970s where characteristics associated with lsquofree marketsrsquo have been increasinglyimposed upon the organisation of health education and other social services Ballrefers to Jessoprsquos formulation the replacement of a lsquoFordist discourse of productiv-ity and planning with a post-Fordist rhetoric of flexibility and entrepreneurialismrsquo(Jessop 1994 cited in Ball 1997 258) My description and analysis of PDP istherefore presented not just in terms of pedagogy or learning development policyas if these ideas and practices were neutral or transparent but with a criticallyreflexive intent and an eye to the role of language in their operation ndash and how thisoperation is implicated in the changes that have been taking place in higher educa-tion (and other public services) since the latter part of the twentieth century

The origins of Personal Development Planning

The emergence of Personal Development Planning (PDP) followed the NationalCommittee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE 1997) referred to as theDearing Report One of its recommendations concerned lsquoprogress filesrsquo a policyalready in use in schools and the further education sector in England (and buildingupon the policy which had led to the lsquoNational Record of Achievementrsquo) Dearingsuggested that progress files should consist of two elements

bull A transcript recording student achievement which should follow a commonformat devised by institutions collectively through their representative bodies

bull A means by which students can monitor build and reflect upon their personaldevelopment (NCIHE 1997)

The Higher Education Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) which may best bedescribed as a lsquoquangorsquo (a body describing itself as independent but which nonethe-less is strongly influenced by the state) was tasked with steering the HE sector toimplement the policy drawing on professional networks already established by theCentre for Recording Achievement (CRA) Strivens and Ward describe the CRA as

an educational charity originally established as a project in 1991 whose purpose is topromote awareness and understanding of recording achievement processes as animportant element in improving learning and progression throughout the world of edu-cation training and employment (2010 2)

This movement towards recording achievement against defined lsquocore skillsrsquo orlsquocompetenciesrsquo in HE can be traced back to earlier initiatives in further educationvia the Manpower Services Commission and Further Education Unit to codifyskills and attributes designed to appeal to employers As Woollard (1995) pointsout the move to undertake similar activities in HE was influenced by the Councilfor Industry and Higher Education and the Confederation of British Industry in the1980s and led to the lsquoEnterprise in Higher Educationrsquo initiative which providedfunding for projects promoting the notion of skills Criticism of this approach camefrom a number of researchers and writers such as Ron Barnett (1990 1994) andLen Holmes (1999)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Whilst agreeing that some attributes such as critical thinking are indeed lsquocorersquoto academic endeavours Barnett critiques the emphasis on competencies and skillsas being overly predictable and prescriptive As such he argues these are unsuit-able underpinnings for a higher education ndash which by its definition seeks to gobeyond the known and predictable ndash and especially in the contemporary periodwhich Barnett later characterised by the term lsquosupercomplexityrsquo (2000) Holmesrsquoopposition to concepts such as lsquotransferablersquo lsquogenericrsquo and lsquokeyrsquo capabilities skillsetc rests on the impossibility of these being objective characteristics of individualsHe presents an alternative lsquorelationalrsquo model based on social practices involvingopportunities for graduates to develop and warrant their own lsquoemergent identityrsquo(2002)

Following the Dearing Report the CRA embarked upon a consultative exerciseinvolving its stakeholders resulting in the evolution of the term Personal Develop-ment Planning to refer to the lsquomonitoring building and reflectingrsquo activities inwhich it was envisaged students were now to engage A set of guidelines for thiswas published by the QAA incorporating a definition of PDP as

a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon theirown learning performance andor achievement and to plan for their personal educa-tional and career development (2001a 2)

From 2001 onwards QAA publications stated that it was to be expected that all HEstudents would now be

explicitly introduced to the rationale and opportunities for PDP at the start of [their]programme and provided with these opportunities at each stage hellip By the end of theprogramme they would have created their own learning records containing informationon the qualities and skills which could be drawn upon as evidence when applying fora job or further study (Strivens and Ward 2010 2)

QAA documents called for institutions to set up and monitor their own pro-cesses for offering lsquoPDP opportunitiesrsquo for all students by 2005ndash2006 on the under-standing that local practice should be drawn upon rather than a national modelimposed Strivens and Ward also point out that related policy initiatives have sincecontributed to the pressure on HEIs to develop PDP First the lsquoe-Learning Strategyrsquoadopted by HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England) encour-aged lsquoe-based systems of describing learning achievement and personal develop-ment planningrsquo (HEFCE 2005 13) and the Department for Education and Skills inits e-Strategy supported the greater lsquopersonalisationrsquo of learning across all educa-tional sectors by means of

a personal online learning space to store coursework course resources results andachievements [with] a personal identifier for each learner hellip an electronic portfoliomaking it simpler for learners to build their record of achievement throughout theirlifelong learning (DfES 2006 5 para 10 cited in Strivens and Ward 2010 3)

This link between PDP and policy on lsquoe-learningrsquo is a telling indication of theinfluence of what Evetts refers to as lsquotechnical rationalisationrsquo in teaching with itsassociated instrumentalist drives to standardise and regulate functions which wereseen previously as primarily academic In this case the use of standardised tem-

486 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

plate-driven online lsquospacesrsquo (eg for the production of an lsquoe-portfoliorsquo) is conflatedwith an interpretation of compliant professional behaviour and preparation foremployment which is assumed to be generally desirable Similar kinds of lsquoorganisa-tionalrsquo as opposed to lsquooccupationalrsquo professionalism (Evetts 2009) can be seen inoperation where the focus in practice seems to be more about the systems (andtheir technicalities) for submission and feedback on academic work than on thelearning processes and the pedagogies they might imply Indeed it is preciselythe more procedural and bureaucratic elements of PDP that cause most resistance tothe policy among academics (Hughes et al 2010a)

It can be seen from the above that PDP has indeed arisen and been promotedwith the force of a stated policy supported by government-related bodies I havealready suggested that the explanation for the development of PDP as policy andits emergence in practice is associated at least as much with drives to introduceregulatory frameworks aiming to support behaviours helpful to market-related aimsof lsquoproductivityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo and lsquoflexibilityrsquo (representing what Ball refers to aslsquoa lsquopeople-centredrsquo new managerialismrsquo [1997 259]) as with pedagogic or educa-tional principles As lsquopolicy-in-usersquo however ndash in other words in their practice ndashteachers and others often emphasise purposes for PDP which propose humanisticcommunitarian or even emancipatory principles In what follows I hope to illustratefurther some of these potentially contradictory aspects of PDP

PDP in practice interpretations and reflections from practitioners

Drawing upon empirical and documentary evidence taken from the special PDP-related edition of the JLDHE (November 2010) I was struck by the levels of varia-tion in interpretation of PDP and the assumptions that appeared to have been madeabout the policy Some authors might be seen as interpreting uncritically the broadgoals of PDP in ways which align more or less directly with those stated by policymakers A PDP policy emphasising lsquopersonal developmentrsquo (as per the DearingReport) seems relatively uncontroversial but its implications can be seen in thecontext of the broader policy drives referred to above designed to support generalmarketisation and which Ball describes as a lsquonew moral economyrsquo (1997 259) Inthe case of higher education in the UK this can be seen represented in the Leitchreport in the claim that lsquoa move to a system that gives employers the strongestvoice is now essentialrsquo (DfES 2006)

Resistance to such a shift is evident in the constructively critical approaches toPDP which some of the JLDHE authors demonstrate Others are less clear andwhether intentionally or not their interpretations might be seen to affirm a moveaway from a lsquotraditionalrsquo kind of university education (one based around inductioninto specific academic disciplines) towards one emphasising lsquopreparation for workand the development of the individualrsquo (Savory et al 2010) However several ofthe authors describe how their practice and their action research in the implementa-tion of PDP (as lsquopolicy-in-usersquo) have aimed at facilitating what one might termmore socially lsquoprogressiversquo approaches to student learning at university (Laurillard2001)

As will be seen there are numerous examples of attempts to focus on wideningparticipation on peer-learning and support activities intended to counterinequalities in social and cultural capital In this PDP can be seen as serving thebroader public goals of learning development (Hartley et al 2011 Hilsdon 2004)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and increasing access to and participation in higher education (Archer et al 2003Haggis 2006) In what follows therefore it is evident that PDP-related initiativesas policy-in-use are implemented by professionals to serve varying goals andvalues some of which are adjacent to (and potentially in conflict with) those of itsoriginators

In her paper on lsquoidentity development and confidence building in non-traditionalstudentsrsquo Carina Buckley (2010) concentrates on how in her context PDPresources have been used to establish processes to support peer-learning communi-ties which contribute to lsquoaspiration buildingrsquo the setting up of a forum lsquofor theexchange and development of ideasrsquo using guided and structured reflection and alsquo360 degree reviewrsquo along with a range of online activities which help students toexplore

fluid boundaries between the workplace and the university represented as three over-lapping circles of self theory and practice [and] allow for integrated learning and theintroduction of the familiar into the unfamiliar [PDP] is therefore demonstrated hereto be a safe area of the curriculum that supports the development and confidence ofthe new uncertain learner (Buckley 2010 1)

Drawing upon critical interpretations of PDP such as those of Clegg (2004)and promoting the intrinsically humanistic value of higher education this papersuggests a progressive role for this work in furthering the aims of wideningparticipation in HE by offering lsquotransformativersquo learning experiences (Mezirow1997) To these ends Buckleyrsquos focus is on studentsrsquo development of their owncritical awareness of role and identity and on learning as part of a communityof peers

Similarly Hughes et al in their paper lsquoSituated Personal Development Plan-ningrsquo (2010a) warn against a narrow interpretation of PDP and suggest a lsquosocialpracticesrsquo model emphasising the opportunities it can create to promote morereflexive approaches to teaching and learning in general and to notions of profes-sional and academic identity in particular This theme is developed by Riddell andBates (2010) in their review of PDP as a framework to guide practice in personaltutoring and by Andrea Raiker who argues for the use of PDP to inform under-graduate dissertation tutorials She offers a framework for negotiating the responsi-bilities of both student and supervisor lsquoreflecting autonomous (Mezirow 1997) andcollaborative (Vygotsky 1978) learning mediated through the tutorialrsquo (Raiker2010)

At Birmingham City University Rachel Moule and Ethan Rhemahn were keento investigate student experiences of using an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo for PDP Theirstudy reveals that

although students clearly enjoyed engaging with opportunities for creativity and playthey also expressed uncertainty over the purpose of and audience for their e-Portfolioand thus its academic relevance The emotional dimension of trust in relation tointended audience ownership of content and online space security and accessibilityalso emerged as an important student concern and this appeared to act as a barrier toengagement with e-Portfolio (Moule and Rhemahn 2010 1)

488 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Whilst agreeing that some attributes such as critical thinking are indeed lsquocorersquoto academic endeavours Barnett critiques the emphasis on competencies and skillsas being overly predictable and prescriptive As such he argues these are unsuit-able underpinnings for a higher education ndash which by its definition seeks to gobeyond the known and predictable ndash and especially in the contemporary periodwhich Barnett later characterised by the term lsquosupercomplexityrsquo (2000) Holmesrsquoopposition to concepts such as lsquotransferablersquo lsquogenericrsquo and lsquokeyrsquo capabilities skillsetc rests on the impossibility of these being objective characteristics of individualsHe presents an alternative lsquorelationalrsquo model based on social practices involvingopportunities for graduates to develop and warrant their own lsquoemergent identityrsquo(2002)

Following the Dearing Report the CRA embarked upon a consultative exerciseinvolving its stakeholders resulting in the evolution of the term Personal Develop-ment Planning to refer to the lsquomonitoring building and reflectingrsquo activities inwhich it was envisaged students were now to engage A set of guidelines for thiswas published by the QAA incorporating a definition of PDP as

a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon theirown learning performance andor achievement and to plan for their personal educa-tional and career development (2001a 2)

From 2001 onwards QAA publications stated that it was to be expected that all HEstudents would now be

explicitly introduced to the rationale and opportunities for PDP at the start of [their]programme and provided with these opportunities at each stage hellip By the end of theprogramme they would have created their own learning records containing informationon the qualities and skills which could be drawn upon as evidence when applying fora job or further study (Strivens and Ward 2010 2)

QAA documents called for institutions to set up and monitor their own pro-cesses for offering lsquoPDP opportunitiesrsquo for all students by 2005ndash2006 on the under-standing that local practice should be drawn upon rather than a national modelimposed Strivens and Ward also point out that related policy initiatives have sincecontributed to the pressure on HEIs to develop PDP First the lsquoe-Learning Strategyrsquoadopted by HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England) encour-aged lsquoe-based systems of describing learning achievement and personal develop-ment planningrsquo (HEFCE 2005 13) and the Department for Education and Skills inits e-Strategy supported the greater lsquopersonalisationrsquo of learning across all educa-tional sectors by means of

a personal online learning space to store coursework course resources results andachievements [with] a personal identifier for each learner hellip an electronic portfoliomaking it simpler for learners to build their record of achievement throughout theirlifelong learning (DfES 2006 5 para 10 cited in Strivens and Ward 2010 3)

This link between PDP and policy on lsquoe-learningrsquo is a telling indication of theinfluence of what Evetts refers to as lsquotechnical rationalisationrsquo in teaching with itsassociated instrumentalist drives to standardise and regulate functions which wereseen previously as primarily academic In this case the use of standardised tem-

486 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

plate-driven online lsquospacesrsquo (eg for the production of an lsquoe-portfoliorsquo) is conflatedwith an interpretation of compliant professional behaviour and preparation foremployment which is assumed to be generally desirable Similar kinds of lsquoorganisa-tionalrsquo as opposed to lsquooccupationalrsquo professionalism (Evetts 2009) can be seen inoperation where the focus in practice seems to be more about the systems (andtheir technicalities) for submission and feedback on academic work than on thelearning processes and the pedagogies they might imply Indeed it is preciselythe more procedural and bureaucratic elements of PDP that cause most resistance tothe policy among academics (Hughes et al 2010a)

It can be seen from the above that PDP has indeed arisen and been promotedwith the force of a stated policy supported by government-related bodies I havealready suggested that the explanation for the development of PDP as policy andits emergence in practice is associated at least as much with drives to introduceregulatory frameworks aiming to support behaviours helpful to market-related aimsof lsquoproductivityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo and lsquoflexibilityrsquo (representing what Ball refers to aslsquoa lsquopeople-centredrsquo new managerialismrsquo [1997 259]) as with pedagogic or educa-tional principles As lsquopolicy-in-usersquo however ndash in other words in their practice ndashteachers and others often emphasise purposes for PDP which propose humanisticcommunitarian or even emancipatory principles In what follows I hope to illustratefurther some of these potentially contradictory aspects of PDP

PDP in practice interpretations and reflections from practitioners

Drawing upon empirical and documentary evidence taken from the special PDP-related edition of the JLDHE (November 2010) I was struck by the levels of varia-tion in interpretation of PDP and the assumptions that appeared to have been madeabout the policy Some authors might be seen as interpreting uncritically the broadgoals of PDP in ways which align more or less directly with those stated by policymakers A PDP policy emphasising lsquopersonal developmentrsquo (as per the DearingReport) seems relatively uncontroversial but its implications can be seen in thecontext of the broader policy drives referred to above designed to support generalmarketisation and which Ball describes as a lsquonew moral economyrsquo (1997 259) Inthe case of higher education in the UK this can be seen represented in the Leitchreport in the claim that lsquoa move to a system that gives employers the strongestvoice is now essentialrsquo (DfES 2006)

Resistance to such a shift is evident in the constructively critical approaches toPDP which some of the JLDHE authors demonstrate Others are less clear andwhether intentionally or not their interpretations might be seen to affirm a moveaway from a lsquotraditionalrsquo kind of university education (one based around inductioninto specific academic disciplines) towards one emphasising lsquopreparation for workand the development of the individualrsquo (Savory et al 2010) However several ofthe authors describe how their practice and their action research in the implementa-tion of PDP (as lsquopolicy-in-usersquo) have aimed at facilitating what one might termmore socially lsquoprogressiversquo approaches to student learning at university (Laurillard2001)

As will be seen there are numerous examples of attempts to focus on wideningparticipation on peer-learning and support activities intended to counterinequalities in social and cultural capital In this PDP can be seen as serving thebroader public goals of learning development (Hartley et al 2011 Hilsdon 2004)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and increasing access to and participation in higher education (Archer et al 2003Haggis 2006) In what follows therefore it is evident that PDP-related initiativesas policy-in-use are implemented by professionals to serve varying goals andvalues some of which are adjacent to (and potentially in conflict with) those of itsoriginators

In her paper on lsquoidentity development and confidence building in non-traditionalstudentsrsquo Carina Buckley (2010) concentrates on how in her context PDPresources have been used to establish processes to support peer-learning communi-ties which contribute to lsquoaspiration buildingrsquo the setting up of a forum lsquofor theexchange and development of ideasrsquo using guided and structured reflection and alsquo360 degree reviewrsquo along with a range of online activities which help students toexplore

fluid boundaries between the workplace and the university represented as three over-lapping circles of self theory and practice [and] allow for integrated learning and theintroduction of the familiar into the unfamiliar [PDP] is therefore demonstrated hereto be a safe area of the curriculum that supports the development and confidence ofthe new uncertain learner (Buckley 2010 1)

Drawing upon critical interpretations of PDP such as those of Clegg (2004)and promoting the intrinsically humanistic value of higher education this papersuggests a progressive role for this work in furthering the aims of wideningparticipation in HE by offering lsquotransformativersquo learning experiences (Mezirow1997) To these ends Buckleyrsquos focus is on studentsrsquo development of their owncritical awareness of role and identity and on learning as part of a communityof peers

Similarly Hughes et al in their paper lsquoSituated Personal Development Plan-ningrsquo (2010a) warn against a narrow interpretation of PDP and suggest a lsquosocialpracticesrsquo model emphasising the opportunities it can create to promote morereflexive approaches to teaching and learning in general and to notions of profes-sional and academic identity in particular This theme is developed by Riddell andBates (2010) in their review of PDP as a framework to guide practice in personaltutoring and by Andrea Raiker who argues for the use of PDP to inform under-graduate dissertation tutorials She offers a framework for negotiating the responsi-bilities of both student and supervisor lsquoreflecting autonomous (Mezirow 1997) andcollaborative (Vygotsky 1978) learning mediated through the tutorialrsquo (Raiker2010)

At Birmingham City University Rachel Moule and Ethan Rhemahn were keento investigate student experiences of using an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo for PDP Theirstudy reveals that

although students clearly enjoyed engaging with opportunities for creativity and playthey also expressed uncertainty over the purpose of and audience for their e-Portfolioand thus its academic relevance The emotional dimension of trust in relation tointended audience ownership of content and online space security and accessibilityalso emerged as an important student concern and this appeared to act as a barrier toengagement with e-Portfolio (Moule and Rhemahn 2010 1)

488 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

plate-driven online lsquospacesrsquo (eg for the production of an lsquoe-portfoliorsquo) is conflatedwith an interpretation of compliant professional behaviour and preparation foremployment which is assumed to be generally desirable Similar kinds of lsquoorganisa-tionalrsquo as opposed to lsquooccupationalrsquo professionalism (Evetts 2009) can be seen inoperation where the focus in practice seems to be more about the systems (andtheir technicalities) for submission and feedback on academic work than on thelearning processes and the pedagogies they might imply Indeed it is preciselythe more procedural and bureaucratic elements of PDP that cause most resistance tothe policy among academics (Hughes et al 2010a)

It can be seen from the above that PDP has indeed arisen and been promotedwith the force of a stated policy supported by government-related bodies I havealready suggested that the explanation for the development of PDP as policy andits emergence in practice is associated at least as much with drives to introduceregulatory frameworks aiming to support behaviours helpful to market-related aimsof lsquoproductivityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo and lsquoflexibilityrsquo (representing what Ball refers to aslsquoa lsquopeople-centredrsquo new managerialismrsquo [1997 259]) as with pedagogic or educa-tional principles As lsquopolicy-in-usersquo however ndash in other words in their practice ndashteachers and others often emphasise purposes for PDP which propose humanisticcommunitarian or even emancipatory principles In what follows I hope to illustratefurther some of these potentially contradictory aspects of PDP

PDP in practice interpretations and reflections from practitioners

Drawing upon empirical and documentary evidence taken from the special PDP-related edition of the JLDHE (November 2010) I was struck by the levels of varia-tion in interpretation of PDP and the assumptions that appeared to have been madeabout the policy Some authors might be seen as interpreting uncritically the broadgoals of PDP in ways which align more or less directly with those stated by policymakers A PDP policy emphasising lsquopersonal developmentrsquo (as per the DearingReport) seems relatively uncontroversial but its implications can be seen in thecontext of the broader policy drives referred to above designed to support generalmarketisation and which Ball describes as a lsquonew moral economyrsquo (1997 259) Inthe case of higher education in the UK this can be seen represented in the Leitchreport in the claim that lsquoa move to a system that gives employers the strongestvoice is now essentialrsquo (DfES 2006)

Resistance to such a shift is evident in the constructively critical approaches toPDP which some of the JLDHE authors demonstrate Others are less clear andwhether intentionally or not their interpretations might be seen to affirm a moveaway from a lsquotraditionalrsquo kind of university education (one based around inductioninto specific academic disciplines) towards one emphasising lsquopreparation for workand the development of the individualrsquo (Savory et al 2010) However several ofthe authors describe how their practice and their action research in the implementa-tion of PDP (as lsquopolicy-in-usersquo) have aimed at facilitating what one might termmore socially lsquoprogressiversquo approaches to student learning at university (Laurillard2001)

As will be seen there are numerous examples of attempts to focus on wideningparticipation on peer-learning and support activities intended to counterinequalities in social and cultural capital In this PDP can be seen as serving thebroader public goals of learning development (Hartley et al 2011 Hilsdon 2004)

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and increasing access to and participation in higher education (Archer et al 2003Haggis 2006) In what follows therefore it is evident that PDP-related initiativesas policy-in-use are implemented by professionals to serve varying goals andvalues some of which are adjacent to (and potentially in conflict with) those of itsoriginators

In her paper on lsquoidentity development and confidence building in non-traditionalstudentsrsquo Carina Buckley (2010) concentrates on how in her context PDPresources have been used to establish processes to support peer-learning communi-ties which contribute to lsquoaspiration buildingrsquo the setting up of a forum lsquofor theexchange and development of ideasrsquo using guided and structured reflection and alsquo360 degree reviewrsquo along with a range of online activities which help students toexplore

fluid boundaries between the workplace and the university represented as three over-lapping circles of self theory and practice [and] allow for integrated learning and theintroduction of the familiar into the unfamiliar [PDP] is therefore demonstrated hereto be a safe area of the curriculum that supports the development and confidence ofthe new uncertain learner (Buckley 2010 1)

Drawing upon critical interpretations of PDP such as those of Clegg (2004)and promoting the intrinsically humanistic value of higher education this papersuggests a progressive role for this work in furthering the aims of wideningparticipation in HE by offering lsquotransformativersquo learning experiences (Mezirow1997) To these ends Buckleyrsquos focus is on studentsrsquo development of their owncritical awareness of role and identity and on learning as part of a communityof peers

Similarly Hughes et al in their paper lsquoSituated Personal Development Plan-ningrsquo (2010a) warn against a narrow interpretation of PDP and suggest a lsquosocialpracticesrsquo model emphasising the opportunities it can create to promote morereflexive approaches to teaching and learning in general and to notions of profes-sional and academic identity in particular This theme is developed by Riddell andBates (2010) in their review of PDP as a framework to guide practice in personaltutoring and by Andrea Raiker who argues for the use of PDP to inform under-graduate dissertation tutorials She offers a framework for negotiating the responsi-bilities of both student and supervisor lsquoreflecting autonomous (Mezirow 1997) andcollaborative (Vygotsky 1978) learning mediated through the tutorialrsquo (Raiker2010)

At Birmingham City University Rachel Moule and Ethan Rhemahn were keento investigate student experiences of using an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo for PDP Theirstudy reveals that

although students clearly enjoyed engaging with opportunities for creativity and playthey also expressed uncertainty over the purpose of and audience for their e-Portfolioand thus its academic relevance The emotional dimension of trust in relation tointended audience ownership of content and online space security and accessibilityalso emerged as an important student concern and this appeared to act as a barrier toengagement with e-Portfolio (Moule and Rhemahn 2010 1)

488 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and increasing access to and participation in higher education (Archer et al 2003Haggis 2006) In what follows therefore it is evident that PDP-related initiativesas policy-in-use are implemented by professionals to serve varying goals andvalues some of which are adjacent to (and potentially in conflict with) those of itsoriginators

In her paper on lsquoidentity development and confidence building in non-traditionalstudentsrsquo Carina Buckley (2010) concentrates on how in her context PDPresources have been used to establish processes to support peer-learning communi-ties which contribute to lsquoaspiration buildingrsquo the setting up of a forum lsquofor theexchange and development of ideasrsquo using guided and structured reflection and alsquo360 degree reviewrsquo along with a range of online activities which help students toexplore

fluid boundaries between the workplace and the university represented as three over-lapping circles of self theory and practice [and] allow for integrated learning and theintroduction of the familiar into the unfamiliar [PDP] is therefore demonstrated hereto be a safe area of the curriculum that supports the development and confidence ofthe new uncertain learner (Buckley 2010 1)

Drawing upon critical interpretations of PDP such as those of Clegg (2004)and promoting the intrinsically humanistic value of higher education this papersuggests a progressive role for this work in furthering the aims of wideningparticipation in HE by offering lsquotransformativersquo learning experiences (Mezirow1997) To these ends Buckleyrsquos focus is on studentsrsquo development of their owncritical awareness of role and identity and on learning as part of a communityof peers

Similarly Hughes et al in their paper lsquoSituated Personal Development Plan-ningrsquo (2010a) warn against a narrow interpretation of PDP and suggest a lsquosocialpracticesrsquo model emphasising the opportunities it can create to promote morereflexive approaches to teaching and learning in general and to notions of profes-sional and academic identity in particular This theme is developed by Riddell andBates (2010) in their review of PDP as a framework to guide practice in personaltutoring and by Andrea Raiker who argues for the use of PDP to inform under-graduate dissertation tutorials She offers a framework for negotiating the responsi-bilities of both student and supervisor lsquoreflecting autonomous (Mezirow 1997) andcollaborative (Vygotsky 1978) learning mediated through the tutorialrsquo (Raiker2010)

At Birmingham City University Rachel Moule and Ethan Rhemahn were keento investigate student experiences of using an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo for PDP Theirstudy reveals that

although students clearly enjoyed engaging with opportunities for creativity and playthey also expressed uncertainty over the purpose of and audience for their e-Portfolioand thus its academic relevance The emotional dimension of trust in relation tointended audience ownership of content and online space security and accessibilityalso emerged as an important student concern and this appeared to act as a barrier toengagement with e-Portfolio (Moule and Rhemahn 2010 1)

488 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This indication of the importance of issues of power and ownership in any form ofPDP is a key reminder that uncritical adoption of such processes is likely to resultin an absence of authenticity in reflection and an ineffective learning environment

Arti Kumar argues for an approach to PDP applying lsquoAppreciative Inquiry andpositive psychology theories and practicesrsquo

to improve our personal and organisational efficacy I believe we need to create andmanage programmes and communities of learning designed for good and lastingeffect In doing so we need to ask questions in such a way as to lsquoappreciatersquo (increasein value) our assets much as a house or business appreciates in value (2010 5)

The language used here seems to merge humanistic with managerialist interpreta-tions of PDP drawing upon discourses associated with Maslow (1954) and Selig-man (2002) and those of neoliberal theories such as Beckerrsquos (1964) notion ofhuman capital which as described by Tomlinson (2005) gained some prominenceunder the Blair government in the UK from the late 1990s By contrast someauthors interpret PDP in communitarian terms referring to Wengerrsquos notion oflsquocommunities of practicersquo (1998) as influencing their approach to PDP and statetheir support more generally for the values of collaboration and equity in academicand professional development (Hughes et al 2010b Peters 2010)

Strivens and Ward address the role of technology in supporting PDP processeslsquoin particular the close association between PDP and e-Portfolio practicesrsquo Theyacknowledge the complexity of purposes and multiple perspectives in the theoryand practice of PDP associated with personal educational and career development

For the practitioners PDP was seen as a holistic and integrated set of processes witha consistent emphasis on the role of PDP processes in the development of studentself-identity broadly conceived PDP outputs were seen as records of this process andas raw material on which students could draw when presentingrepresenting them-selves to others However in programmes where PDP-style activities were requiredfor professional recognition or progression the records themselves assumed a primarypublic (or at least shared) purpose (Strivens and Ward 2010 7)

This point recalls Evettsrsquo (2009) distinction between interpretations of professionalismreferred to above Similarly Cotterill et al (2010) ask whether blogs and e-Portfoliotechnologies promoted as part of PDP in their professional context of initial teachertraining can support reflective and dialogic learning Their study of student viewsreported mostly positive responses although they refer to some anxieties over issuesrelated to how lsquopublicrsquo their work was to be made and over the assessment of workcharacterised as lsquoreflectiversquo recalling the concerns of Moule and Rhemahn aboveand offering evidence that although the language of reflection may have becomecommonplace in higher education its practical implications are not uncontroversial(Hilsdon 2006)

In a further illustration of how boundaries between the discourses and practicesassociated with differing domains of social life are contested Davey and Lumsden(2010) argue that the notion of studentsrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo can be traced backto Newmanrsquos nineteenth-century work lsquoThe Idea of a Universityrsquo (1858) CitingBrennan and Shah (2003) they suggest that PDP harks back to an older tradition inhigher education broader than the lsquosingular focus on research and teachingrsquo (Daveyand Lumsden 2010) and linking the modern concept of lsquoenhancing employabilityrsquo

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Bloxham et al 2007) with the traditional idea of universities as preparation forentry into professions More importantly in my view it is the operation of powerthrough policy that one can trace here ranging through Newmanrsquos moral-rational-ism driven by religious as well as scientific values through to the present daypolitical and economic purposes of managerialist discourse and the lsquonew moraleconomyrsquo

Frith (2010) refers to Clegg and Bradleyrsquos (2006) three models of PDP the pro-fessional the employability and the academic models She examines case studies ofprogrammes using PDP that can be characterised by these three types Her findingsindicate varying degrees of lsquosuccessrsquo in the integration of PDP into HE curriculaand she concurs with Clegg that PDP may lsquodisturbrsquo the conventions and academicpractices of some disciplines more than others Frithrsquos study suggests that it wouldbe of great interest to examine more closely the extent to which university pro-grammes in different disciplines have adopted or are adopting the discourse andpractices of professional training programmes and workplaces with the more lsquovoca-tionalrsquo programmes such as Social Work using assessing and accrediting reflectivetasks for example and using competency-based assessments

In their study Savory et al (2010) illustrate how the discourse of ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) has become conventional academic practice insubject areas where employer-sponsored students are to be found Following Gib-bons et alrsquos (1994) notion of a lsquomodern knowledge economyrsquo the function of con-temporary HE in their study seems to equate primarily to the needs of employersand the workplace Employer involvement in HE curricula aims to lsquoensure that theadded value potential in terms of enhancing functional knowledge to improveorganisational performance can be achievedrsquo (Savory et al 2010 16) In such inter-pretations the influence of a policy such as PDP can be seen as part of a deeperunderlying drive to shift the way university education is viewed both within andoutside of HE institutions as well as to influence how it is practised in the contextof each situation

Conclusions towards an evaluation of PDP as policy

This analysis of PDP as policy based on the foregoing review draws upon themesidentified in relation to Tomlinson and Ballrsquos work on technical rationalism newmanagerialism and the lsquonew moral economyrsquo as powerful drivers of change withinhigher education as in other areas of UK and global societies over the last 30 years(Ball 2005 Tomlinson 2005) The mobilisation of certain concepts and terms in theservice of these forces lends to them a particular energy that this paper seeks tohighlight As key components of contemporary HE discourse notions such as lsquoself-regulationrsquo lsquoqualityrsquo lsquoeffectivenessrsquo lsquopersonal developmentrsquo lsquopersonalisation oflearningrsquo and lsquoemployabilityrsquo as well as the idea of lsquocapturing learningrsquo as alsquorecord of achievementrsquo cannot be taken at their apparent face value or remainunexamined and taken to mean what lsquocommon sensersquo might suggest Along withthe terms lsquoprofessionalrsquo and lsquoprofessionalismrsquo themselves interpretations of thesewords and phrases in their social and economic context offer a rich seam for criticalanalysis

I have attempted to show that whilst socially progressive interpretations of PDP(and of some of the related ideas referred to above) are not only possible but clearlyin evidence in some examples of practice it is nonetheless important to see how

490 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the policy evolved to promote the specific view that the purpose of HE is primarilyto serve certain economic interests ndash and particularly those of employers Further-more such a view implies an attempt to introduce market-driven behaviours andvalues into HE and all areas of academic practice Hence in a social policy contextPDP can be seen as a vehicle for the generally increasing emphasis which Ball andothers have identified on record-keeping on competence-based assessments and onactivities characterised for example as lsquoskills for reflectionrsquo and lsquomanagement ofselfrsquo which would not previously have been so readily associated with a universityeducation

In and of themselves such activities might be seen as politically neutral and incombination with other approaches to teaching and learning might be said to havemuch pedagogic and educational value Evidence that this is the case comes fromthe examples of positive feedback about PDP from staff and students in some ofthe JLDHE papers The most potent lesson that this study has revealed to me how-ever is the importance of critical engagement with policy discourse I began thispaper with a commitment to reflexivity whilst acknowledging the difficulties thispresents for humans as social subjects who Foucault suggests are constitutedthrough discourse in any given time or situation (1972) This would seem to implythat any form of understanding is a constant critical struggle I remain committedhowever to a values-based approach and have been inspired by Ballrsquos quotationfrom Prunty

The personal values and political commitment of the critical policy analyst would beanchored in the vision of a moral order in which justice equality and individual free-dom are uncompromised by the avarice of a few The critical analyst would endorsepolitical social and economic arrangements where persons are never treated as ameans to an end but treated as ends in their own right (Prunty 1985 136 quoted inBall 1997 271)

The brief review of PDP in this paper is therefore an attempt to promote these val-ues utilising social theory and endeavouring to uncover and examine the operationof power through discourse and policy Foucaultrsquos work lsquoDiscipline and Punishrsquo isalso of relevance here he suggests that modern power has become increasinglyinternalised especially through discourse as a form of technology for maintainingcontrol that can be more effective than physical force (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983)Seen in this light PDP might be thought of as a kind of discourse technologywhich operates to underpin the individualistic values (ie lsquopersonal developmentrsquo)of the marketplace alongside serving the needs of the economy (ie the focus onlsquoemployabilityrsquo) and to help embed these within academic practice Hence moreand more time is spent by students lsquoreflectivelyrsquo self-policing via their PDP com-pleting records in an online lsquoe-Portfoliorsquo and logging experiences to demonstrateskills related ostensibly to the needs of employers Team-work self-efficacy and thedevelopment of studentsrsquo metacognitive and self-regulatory capacities (Jackson andWard 2004) are prioritised rather than engaging in what might be thought of asmore genuine and critical academic practices such as experimenting analysing dataasking questions and debating issues within a discipline

It is important to acknowledge that universities (like any other social institution)are sites where competing discourses can be seen to influence practice Such a viewis helpful in understanding how a policy like PDP will be interpreted in a variety of

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ways ndash as we have seen above ndash some of which are conflicting The traditional andoften elitist idea of a professional for example as a member of a self-regulatingcommunity ndash collegial but open only to those with the requisite qualifications ndashcan be contrasted with the notion as it fits into the context of the lsquonew moral econ-omyrsquo where values of skills and consumerism are more in evidence The latter kindof professional in Foucauldian terms has internalised the importance of engagingin continuing professional development of keeping her lsquoprofilersquo up to date and ofdemonstrating flexibility for the job market ndash what Yorke and Harvey (2005) intheir formulation of lsquoemployabilityrsquo refer to as lsquoUnderstanding Skilful practicesEfficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM)rsquo Despite the rhetoric of preparinggraduates for employment in a rapidly changing world and of the new and complexneeds of a lsquoknowledge economyrsquo (Jackson and Ward 2004) in such notions thefundamental question for me remains one related to power whose needs are beingmet here and in whose interests

Following the values above expressed by Prunty education should not privilegethe interests of employers as the Leitch report advocated (or government or anyother group) or their ability to influence either curricula or other areas of academicpractice This is not to argue of course that HE should not serve our economicinterests as well as those of education more generally ndash our ability to earn our liv-ing is of course dependent upon economic activity The point is more to do withhow those interests are to be determined In an age where concerns about climatechange environmental degradation world population and food production healthcare etc are all urgent concentrating solely on producing skilled graduates for thelabour market and to improve UK competitiveness is clearly a dangerously narrowfocus for our universities

An alternative would be to promote universities as social spaces belonging toall ndash where anyone with lsquothe ability to benefitrsquo from Higher Education ndash a maximoften associated with Robbins (1963) ndash has the opportunity to engage in criticaland scholarly teaching learning and research activities with others in pursuit ofincreasing human knowledge for social economic and political good And ratherthan promoting a professionalism characterised primarily as lsquoself-regulatingrsquo per-haps a more socially accountable model could be developed In my own view thisis a lsquolearning developmentrsquo perspective which whilst retaining something of New-manrsquos ideal lsquoknowledge [as] its own endrsquo is committed to open and accessibleuniversities enabling maximum participation by all social groups and advocatedby Tamsin Haggis in her lsquoPedagogies for Diversityrsquo paper of 2006

Notes on contributorJohn Hilsdon is associate professor and Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing atPlymouth University

ReferencesArcher L M Hutchings C Leathwood and A Ross 2003 Widening participation in

higher education Implications for policy and practice In Higher education and socialclass Issues of exclusion and inclusion ed L Archer M Hutchings and A Ross 193ndash202 London RoutledgeFalmer

492 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ball SJ 1997 Policy sociology and critical social research A personal review of recenteducation policy and policy research British Educational Research Journal 23 no 3257ndash74

Ball SJ 2005 Education policy and social class The selected works of Stephen Ball Lon-don Routledge Falmer

Ball S and R Bowe 1992 Subject departments and the lsquoimplementationrsquo of NationalCurriculum policy Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 no 2 97ndash115

Barnett R 1990 The idea of higher education Buckingham Society for Research intoHigher Education and Open University Press

Barnett R 1994 The limits of competence Buckingham Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press

Barnett R 2000 Supercomplexity and the curriculum Studies in Higher Education 25 no3 255ndash65

Becker G 1964 Human capital A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer-ence to education Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Bloxham S A Cerevkova and C Waddlelove 2007 Embedding personal developmentplanning within a Web-CT supported module ndash a collaborative venture PractitionerResearch in Higher Education 1 no 1 3ndash9

Bourdieu P 1992 Invitation to a reflexive sociology Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Brennan J and T Shah 2003 Report on the implementation of progress files LondonCentre for Higher Education Research and Information

Buckley C 2010 What role can PDP play in identity development and confidence buildingin non-traditional students Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Spe-cial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfo-lio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=96

Burkinshaw S J Peters and R Ward 2010 Introduction Journal of Learning Develop-ment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Devel-opment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

Clegg S 2004 Critical readings Progress files and the production of the autonomous lear-ner Teaching in Higher Education 9 no 3 287ndash98

Clegg S and S Bradley 2006 Models of PDP Practice and processes British EducationalResearch Journal 32 no 1 57ndash76

Cotterill S K Lowing K Cain R Lofthouse C Mackay J McShane D Stancliffe andD Wright 2010 Blogs and e-Portfolios Can they support reflection evidencing anddialogue in teacher training Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=97

Davey J and P Lumsden 2010 From cats to roller-coasters Creative use of posters toexplore studentsrsquo perceptions of PDP Journal of Learning Development in Higher Edu-cation Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planningand e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=98

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006 Prosperity for all in the global economyndash world class skills The Leitch report London HMSO httpwwwhm-treasurygovukmedia64leitch_finalreport051206pdf

Dreyfus HL and P Rabinow 1983 Michel Foucault Beyond structuralism and hermeneu-tics 2nd ed Chicago IL University of Chicago Press

Evetts J 2009 The management of professionalism A contemporary paradox In Changingteacher professionalism International trends challenges and ways forward ed S Gew-irtz P Mahony I Hextall and A Cribb 19ndash30 Abingdon Routledge

Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language NewYork Pantheon Books

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Frith L 2010 How do different models of PDP influence the embedding of e-PortfoliosJournal of Learning Development in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearchingand Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwald-inheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=111

Gibbons M C Limoges H Nowotny S Schwartzman P Scott and M Trow 1994 Thenew production of knowledge The dynamics of science and research in contemporarysocieties London Sage

Haggis T 2006 Pedagogies for diversity Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of lsquodum-bing downrsquo Studies in Higher Education 31 no 5 521ndash35

Hartley P J Hilsdon C Keenan S Sinfield and M Verity eds 2011 Learning develop-ment in higher education Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan

HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) 2005 Strategy for e-learninghttpwwwhefceacukpubshefce200505_1205_12doc

Hilsdon J 2004 Learning development in higher education network An emerging commu-nity of practice Educational Developments 5 no 3 Birmingham SEDA

Hilsdon J 2006 Re-thinking reflection Journal of Practice Teaching in Health and SocialWork 6 no 1 57ndash70

Hilsdon J 2011 What is learning development In Learning development in highereducation ed P Hartley J Hilsdon C Keenan S Sinfield and M Verity 13ndash27Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan

Holmes L 1999 Competence and capability From lsquoconfidence trickrsquo to the construction ofthe graduate identity In Developing the capable practitioner Professional capabilitythrough higher education ed D OrsquoReilly L Cunningham and S Lester 83ndash98 Lon-don Kogan Page

Holmes L 2002 Reframing the skills agenda in higher education Graduate identity and thedouble warrant In University of crisis ed D Preston 135ndash52 Amsterdam RodopiPress

Hughes P N Currant J Haigh C Higgison and R Whitfield 2010a Situated personaldevelopment planning Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education SpecialEdition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-PortfolioPracticersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=118

Hughes P C Keenan and A Kumar 2010b Forming communities of practice Journal ofLearning Development in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluat-ing Personal Development Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=113

Jackson N 2010 Learning to be a self-regulating professional The role of personal devel-oping planning (PDP) In Learning to be professional through higher education httplearningtobeprofessionalpbworkscomwfile32872916CHAPTER20A620Learning20to20be20a20Self-Regulating20Professional20-2020the20role20of20PDPpdf

Jackson N and R Ward 2004 A fresh perspective on Progress Files ndash a way of represent-ing complex learning and achievement in higher education Assessment and Evaluationin Higher Education 29 no 4 423ndash49

Laurillard D 2001 Rethinking university teaching A conversational framework for theeffective use of learning technologies London Routledge

Maslow A 1954 Motivation and personality New York Harper and RowMezirow J 1997 Transformative learning From theory to practice New Directions for

Adult and Continuing Education 74 5ndash12Moule R and E Rhemahn 2010 Student experience with e-Portfolio Exploring the roles

of trust and creativity Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education SpecialEdition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-PortfolioPracticersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=101

NCIHE 1997 Higher education in the learning society The Dearing Report LondonNational Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education

Newman JH 1858 The idea of a university defined and illustrated London LongmansGreen and Co httpwwwnewmanreaderorgworksidea

494 J Hilsdon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peters J 2010 Building research capacity in a practitioner community Framing and evalu-ating the National Action Research Network on Researching and Evaluating PersonalDevelopment Planning and e-Portfolio Practice Journal of Learning Development inHigher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal DevelopmentPlanning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjour-nal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=115

QAA 2001a Guidelines for HE progress files httpwwwqaaacukPublicationsInformationAnd-GuidanceDocumentsprogfile2001pdf

QAA 2001b Progress files for higher education httpswwwqaaacukacademicinfrastruc-tureprogressfilesdefaultasp

QAA 2009 Personal development planning guidance for institutional policy and practice inhigher education httpwwwqaaacukPublicationsInformationAndGuidanceDocu-mentsPDPguidepdf

Raiker A 2010 An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP pro-cess to support learner development Journal of Learning Development in Higher Educa-tion Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning ande-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=102

Riddell S and N Bates 2010 The role of the personal tutor in a curricular approach toPersonal Development Planning Journal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSpecial Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=arti-cleampop=viewamppath[]=103

Robbins L 1963 Higher Education Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minis-ter under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins Committee on Higher Education LondonHMSO

Savory J C Conroy and D Berwick 2010 The role of personal development planning(PDP) for employer sponsored students ndash an exploration of how PDP learning activitiescan support CPD and workforce development requirements Journal of Learning Devel-opment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating PersonalDevelopment Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=109

Seligman MEP 2002 Authentic happiness Using the new positive psychology to realizeyour potential for lasting fulfillment New York NY Free Press

Strivens J and R Ward 2010 An overview of the development of personal developmentplanning (PDP) and e-Portfolio practice in UK higher education Journal of LearningDevelopment in Higher Education Special Edition lsquoResearching and Evaluating Per-sonal Development Planning and e-Portfolio Practicersquo httpwwwaldinheacukojsindexphpjournal=jldheamppage=articleampop=viewamppath[]=114

Tomlinson S 2005 Education in a post-welfare society Maidenhead Open UniversityPress

Vygotsky L 1978 Mind in society Development of higher psychological processes Cam-bridge MA Harvard University Press

Wenger E 1998 Communities of practice Learning meaning and identity CambridgeCambridge University Press

Woollard A 1995 Core skills and the idea of the graduate Higher Education Quarterly 49no 4 316ndash25

Yorke M and L Harvey 2005 Graduate attributes and their development New Directionsfor Institutional Research 128 41ndash58

Research in Post-Compulsory Education 495

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

045

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14