Neoliberal dread and the persistence of teaching
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12425294 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jeffrey R Di Leo (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 85-101 |
| Publication date | 2023-06-22 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Review of Education Pedagogy & Cultural Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1071-4413 • E-ISSN: 1556-3022 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10714413.2023.2223730 |
| OpenAlex | W4381889697 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 12 |
This article argues that it is only possible to teach without dread today if one does not value academic freedom. For these people, it is perfectly acceptable to be told what course they will teach, the content of those courses, and the modality of instruction. If one does not care about such things, then neoliberal academe with regard to teaching is not a house of dread. But for those who do not want to be told how to teach their course; who want to have a strong role in the shape of the curriculum; who want the ability to choose their preferred modality of instruction; and want to have a reasonable amount of choice in what they teach; for these people, higher education today has become and is a house of teaching dread. The persistence of teaching under such conditions can only be explained by an increase in neurotic dread in academe
Curriculum · Modality (human–computer interaction · Pedagogy · Persistence (discontinuity · Sociology · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Digital Education and Society · Engineering · Psychology · University Challenges and Reforms
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |