Journal of Academic Language & Learning ASSOCIATION FOR

ACADEMIC
LANGUAGE AND
Vol. 14, No. 2, 2020, 148-159. ISSN 1835-5196 LEARNING

The impact of neoliberalism on academics and

students in higher education: A call to adopt
alternative philosophies
Anibeth Desiertoa and Carmela de Maiob
a
Faculty of Science and Engineering/Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
b
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
(Received 31 August, 2020. Published online 27 November, 2020.)

In adopting neoliberalism, higher education institutions may view students as

consumers rather than learners. This sits uncomfortably with humanistic and
critical teaching philosophies which view learning as contextualised within a
caring environment. In this environment, students become effective, lifelong
learners who can contribute to a better society. However, although humanistic
educational philosophies, such as Vygotsky’s social-constructivist approach
and Freire’s pedagogy of care appear to resonate with academics and students,
we argue that neoliberalism and its associated issues are predominant in higher
education. This paper discusses the effects of neoliberalism in higher educa-
tion. It outlines the financial, economic and psychological toll on both students
and academics in a climate of increasing casualisation of the workforce and
loss of employment; factors which not only impact on students and academics
but also on the viability of universities themselves. Finally, we suggest that
higher education institutions and universities emphasise alternative philoso-
phies that nurture and support higher education students and their learning.
Key Words: neoliberalism, alternative philosophies, Vygotskian philosophy,
pedagogy of care, students, academics, higher education, casualization.

1. Introduction
Neoliberalism is now the dominant ideology of global higher education, upholding practices and
policies that allow the control of social life by private entities for profit (Mahony & Weiner, 2017;
Connell, 2013; Baltodano, 2012; Chomsky, 2011; Kumar, 2007). Neoliberalism promotes free-
dom of competition in a global market, private enterprise, freedom of consumers to choose their
products, entrepreneurship and reduction of government spending on social services including
those for health as well as education (Kumar, 2007). Its consequences for the educational process,
the roles of teachers and students, and the goals of education, have been examined by sociologists,
educational experts and researchers (Giroux, 2017; 2014; Saunders & Ramirez; 2017). Such con-
sequences include the reconceptualisation of teachers and students as human capital in a commer-
cial transaction whereby the teacher as well as the higher education institution sell education to
the student who functions as a consumer (Saunders & Ramirez, 2017). Teachers are considered
as economic units who can be dispensed with at short notice to maintain profit margins, and casual
contracts allow for this to happen (Barnes & Kniest, 2019) while students must be able to purchase
education which is packaged as a product with a limited life (Lorenz, 2012; Hill, 2007). This
reconceptualisation is at odds with critical approaches which consider education as a lifelong,
liberating and transformative process for its participants, that engenders the capacity to critically

148 © 2020 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

149 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

examine society and contribute to concrete changes for social justice, transparent socio-economic
processes, equal distribution of, and access to resources and services Giroux, 2017; 2014; Chom-
sky, 2011).
It is clear from the predominant neoliberalist profit motive that the purposes of education and
neoliberalism are at odds. The latter’s goal is to amass wealth while the aim of education is to
enhance learning and sharing of knowledge (Hill, 2007). Education focuses on the development
of students through learning and on supporting them in this process (Freire, 1997) but neoliberal-
ism focuses on treating students as consumers with purchasing power who have to be pleased in
order to maintain corporate profit (Lorenz, 2012; Hill, 2007). Education considers the depth and
scope of enquiry for both teacher and student as valuable (Freire, 1997) but in the neoliberalist
agenda, what is important is success of product sales and length of product shelf life (Hill, 2007,
pp. 124-125). Education focuses on learning and teaching as a positive, lifelong endeavour
(Freire, 1997), but in neoliberalist practice, the focus is on education as a product which has to be
sold as a specific item within a particular time frame (Hill, 2007). These are limited comparisons
as it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a comprehensive treatise on these conflicting ideo-
logies because the focus of this paper is on the effects of neoliberalist policies on students and
academics. It is evident, however, from the literature that neoliberalism is now a global ideology
reflected in higher education institutions (see Mahony & Weiner, 2017 on the UK; Connell, 2013
on Australia; Baltodano, 2012 on the US experience) as discussed further in the sections on its
effects on academics and students.
In this paper, we examine the effects of neoliberalism on tertiary institutions, teachers and stu-
dents as well as some emerging literature on the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on higher educa-
tion. We argue that the impacts of neoliberalism including high rates of staff casualisation and
reduced work benefits have become even more prominent with the current COVID-19 pandemic
(Nicolls & Griggs, 2020). We also show how neoliberalist policies have contributed to student
inequality (Edmond & Berry, 2014) such as via the escalating student debt, considered in neolib-
eralist ideology in a positive light (Haiven, 2019; Hudson, 2019; Nissen, Hayward & McManus,
2019). As an alternative, we present humanistic philosophies, particularly Freire’s pedagogy of
the heart and Vygotsky’s social constructivism (Fitzsimmons, 2015; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014;
Liu & Matthews, 2005; Freire, 1997; Vygotsky, 1994, 1987). We propose that these philosophies
counter the utilitarian, profit-orientated dominance of neoliberalist thought and place student and
academic in a humanist and caring environment where teaching and learning is a lifelong endeav-
our for the betterment of society. In examining the literature on the effects of the neoliberalist
model on teachers and students in higher education and educators’ philosophies, we hope to con-
tribute to the discussion and research on support for students and academics in a neoliberalist
higher education environment. We suggest that alternative philosophies can provide means for
nurturing and supporting students in higher education despite pressures brought upon students
and teachers from neoliberalist policies and practices. In concluding, we suggest further research
and debate be undertaken on how educators and students under the present dominant neoliberalist
ideology could be sustained as they face current financial, economic and personal pressures.

2. The impact of neoliberalism on academics

Educators and academics in higher education have borne the brunt of widespread casualisation
coupled with the damaging reconceptualization of themselves as ‘human capital’ and sellers of
education (Bone, 2019; Mahony & Weiner, 2017; Rustin, 2016). The effects of the latter have
also been exacerbated under the COVID-19 pandemic (Nicolls & Griggs, 2020). Educators are
expected to further the corporate goals of the university (Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017;
Giroux, 2017). Recently, 126 UK academic signatories to an open letter stated they were expected
to perform as “small businesses” pushed by “highly-paid university managers (and even more
highly-paid management consultants)” who have minimal comprehension of what constitutes
teaching and learning at university (Lesnick-Oberstein et al., 2015 in Mahony & Weiner, 2017,
150 The impact of neoliberalism on academics and students in higher education

p. 563). The economic orientation of education under neoliberalism runs counter to the educative
principles of imparting, acquiring and creating new knowledge for professional and personal ful-
filment espoused by teachers and researchers for whom the profit gained is not the primary focus
of education (Fitzsimmons 2015; Freire 1997).

2.1. Pressures to “perform” and loss of autonomy

The neoliberalist agenda requires academics to produce knowledge for commercial purposes and
to quantify such production in terms of monetary value (Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017; Jes-
sop, 2017) with the expectation for research staff to attract as much external funding as possible
(Mahony & Weiner, 2017). Professional autonomy is lost in this process especially when re-
searchers are required to court large corporations to fund their projects (Giroux, 2017; 2014). In
this approach, works produced with “multiple critical pedagogies” are lost (Cannella & Koro-
Ljungberg, 2017, pp. 157-158). The loss of professional autonomy with the requirement to com-
ply with commercial sponsors and in line with the university’s corporatist goals means academic
work is limited. Diverse views are sacrificed as “publications which are based on histories, fo-
cused on diversity, multiplicity and justice are often forgotten by scholars attempting to survive
in current neoliberal contexts” while present pedagogies are ruled by the neoliberal dominant
goals of “profit, competition and entrepreneurialism” (Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017, p. 158).

2.2. Bullying and harassment

A culture of bullying and harassment has also been found to be increasing, leading to higher stress
among university staff in the UK (Mahony & Weiner, 2017, p. 562). The pressures to conform to
the neoliberalist profit imperative (Mahony & Weiner, 2017) adds to increasing workloads (Rus-
tin, 2016), leading to anxiety and stress among academics (Evans et al., 2018; Thornton, 2013).
In the US and the UK, such extensive stress and anxiety has contributed to increasing suicide on
campuses (Mahony & Weiner, 2017). The recent suicide of Professor Stefan Grimm of Imperial
College London has been attributed to these neoliberalist pressures. Professor Grimm was in-
formed by his superiors that “he was struggling to fulfill the metrics” (Parr, 2014 cited in Mahony
& Weiner, 2017, p. 563), failing to undertake adequately expensive research while also being
subjected to constant bullying (Mahony & Weiner, 2017, p. 562).

2.3. Subjects of audit culture

Furthermore, academic educators are also now subjects of constant auditing. They need to comply
with “audits, performance indicators, competitive benchmarking exercises, university league ta-
bles, management by targets ... punitive assessment exercises and periodic teaching reviews”
(Shore, 2008, p. 282) and at the same time teach, design courses, conduct research and complete
administrative tasks. This “audit culture” pervades higher education institutions around the world;
in Australia, the US, UK, New Zealand and other nations dominated by neoliberalism and its
imperatives of “privatization” and “deregulation” (Shore, 2008, p. 293). This works alongside
neoliberalist managerialism which creates the narrative that academics are lowly, cannot be
trusted, are not compliant and need to be managed with the use of “policies, regulations, guide-
lines and performance management metrics” (Sims, 2019; Shore, 2008, pp. 289-290).
In the UK, “audit culture” as enforced by the UK’s National Student Survey (NSS), the Research
Excellence Framework (REF) and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), translates as man-
agement possessing the power to “increase the ‘performance’ of professionals” (that is, academ-
ics), in a commercial environment and from whom these managers then require “excellence” in
“teaching and research” outcomes according to these frameworks (Cruickshank, 2016). This kind
of culture evaluates the quality of teaching on standards which could be viewed as “coercive” and
“authoritarian” (Shore, 2008), leading to very high levels of stress for academics (Cruickshank,
2016).
151 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

2.4. Casualisation
The corporatisation of higher education is very evident in data which show that most teaching at
Australian universities is done by lowly-paid casual staff with insecure working conditions. Cas-
ualisation has been escalating in universities worldwide over the last 30 years. It is used to push
costs down, maintain profit and increase organisational flexibility (Nicolls & Griggs, 2020; Bone,
2019; Cruickshank, 2016; Rustin, 2016). Current figures reveal an almost entirely casualised
workforce that can be removed at any time if needed to cut costs and maximise profit (Mahony
& Weiner, 2017). Research data shows that 8 out of 10 full-time academic positions at Australian
universities are casual, while 8 out of 10 research-only jobs are “limited term contracts” (Barnes
& Kniest, 2019, p. 24). Mirroring the rest of Australia, 68.74% of university staff in Victoria are
casuals or on fixed-term contracts while at the University of Melbourne, 72.9% of academic staff
and 72.8% at Monash University have insecure work (as casuals or on short-term contracts)
(Duffy, 2020). In the UK, 2/3 or 67% of university researchers and almost half of the teaching
staff (49%) are only on fixed-term contracts, while over “6,500 academic faculty” are on “zero-
hours contracts” and “68,845” are on “atypical contracts” (O’Malley, 2020). As women have been
found to dominate the lower levels of academic staff with a higher likelihood of working part-
time in comparison to men (Strachan et al, 2011, p. 309), it is possible that they are much more
affected by this casualisation trend than their male colleagues.
The personal, economic and social effects of casualisation for academics are damaging. Casual
staff do not get paid holiday or sick leave, their superannuation is very much decreased, and when
employment is terminated, there is no notice period nor payment for any redundancy (Bredehoeft,
2018 as cited in Nicolls & Griggs, 2020, p. 6). 71% of casual academic staff surveyed in the UK
stressed that their mental health had been destroyed by working for contracts without job security
and 83% stated that their casualised status at work made it hard for them to commit to any long-
term decisions such as purchasing a house or planning to have a family (O’Malley, 2020).

2.5. COVID-19, job losses & workplace exploitation

The current COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the effects of neoliberalism on academics and
academic work with higher education institutions shedding more casual staff. In Australia, the
border closures to limit the pandemic spread has resulted in the destruction of the $Aust 9 billion
international student market (Morrison, 2020; Tiffen, 2020). Thousands of academic staff, partic-
ularly casual staff have lost their jobs with further terminations predicted for those on continuing
contracts (Duffy, 2020; Nicolls & Griggs, 2020). At least 5,000 academic staff at just two Mel-
bourne universities have been made redundant with other unreported job losses throughout the
country at higher education institutions (Duffy, 2020). In addition, by the end of 2020, at least
21,000 full-time academic jobs are at risk with 7,000 of these being research-only jobs (Duffy,
2020; Lane & Long, 2020).
Apart from continuing job losses, the effects of the changed workplace circumstances due to
COVID-19 has deepened the damaging effects of neoliberalism on academic staff, particularly
for casual staff with increases in “workplace exploitation” and “systematic underpayment”
(Nicolls & Griggs, 2020, pp. 3-4). Of 159 tutors, lecturers and researchers surveyed at the Uni-
versity of Sydney, 82% undertook unpaid work in Semester 1 2020 with a median of 50.58 unpaid
hours per employee, some reportedly earning $8 an hour equating to one third of the average
hours in a semester for which a casual academic is hired) with higher workloads and personal
additional expenses on higher internet and electricity bills in the switch to online teaching (Nicolls
& Griggs, 2020, pp. 3-4).

3. The impact of neoliberalism on students

The reconceptualisation of the student as human capital and a buyer of education within the ne-
oliberalist university has entailed consequences which include the marked debt burden carried by
higher education students, high levels of mental illness, stress and anxiety, and decreased access
152 The impact of neoliberalism on academics and students in higher education

to education for disadvantaged students. As higher education under neoliberalism has become an
entrepreneurial endeavour, universities are now corporatised entities maximising profit from all
aspects and processes of higher education (Giroux, 2017, 2014); hence the logical corollary has
been that education is a product that has to be paid for and students who cannot afford to pay
outright for their university education are allowed to borrow monies to finance their studies, from
their governments to whom they repay their debt once they have completed their degrees.

3.1. Escalating Levels of Student Debt

However, debt incurred by students to be able to afford their university degrees is “unprecedented
and rising in many democracies”, although there are arguments that such debt can be “good” and
is a chance for students to “invest in themselves as human capital” (Nissen, Hayward, &
McManus, 2019, p. 245). There is a view that the rise in student loans and fees is “fair”, making
it possible for many more students to participate and study at university while being an “afforda-
ble” price for taxpayers to pay (Nissen, Hayward, & McManus, 2019, p. 245).
In addition, the capitalist logic in the creation of student debt, and debt in general, forms part of
the neoliberalist cycle of money, whereby capital is created through lending and borrowing and
debt is used to produce wealth (Haiven 2019; Hudson, 2019).
Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine how this unprecedented higher education student debt can
possibly be paid for during the students’ lifetime: in the US, student debt is now over US$ 1
trillion (Hoffower & Akhtar, 2019; Giroux, 2017), while in New Zealand $15.9 billion is owed
by 730,000 students with an average loan of $32,000 for each student completing a bachelor’s
degree; this level of student debt is the seventh highest among OECD countries and the same debt
level as that in Australia and Canada (Nissen, Hayward & McManus, 2019, p. 245). The highest
student debt rates are in the UK (with the US second); UK university students will graduate with
an average debt of 50,000 UK pounds (Nissen, Hayward, & McManus, 2019, p. 245).

3.2. Effects of student debt

In an analysis of 65 articles and books on student debt, researchers also found that student debt in
higher education affects students’ economic, physical, mental and social well-being (Nissen, Hay-
ward, & McManus, 2019, p. 247). Those with debt were less successful in their academic results,
less engaged, and more likely to drop out of their studies; they also had to work in jobs while
studying to manage financially although such jobs did not assist with their career development.
They were also more likely to graduate with lower overall financial worth in comparison to those
of their peers who could afford tertiary education and did not have to incur debt to pay for their
studies (Nissen, Hayward, & MacManus, 2019, p. 247).
It is also possible that already present inequalities would be reinforced by debt incurred by stu-
dents in order to complete higher education studies. The students finding it difficult to make ends
meet while studying tended to be those already negatively affected by debt, such as students from
poorer families, those from ethnic minorities and women (particularly single mothers), with debt
made more pronounced by dependence on finance options like credit card debt (Nissen, Hayward,
& McManus, 2019, p. 248).
Higher education students with debt also experienced more difficulties with their mental health
and psychological functioning, with feelings of shame and stigma associated with taking out a
loan for their studies. Furthermore, those with student debt experienced higher levels of loneliness
and social isolation as well as stress with family relationships and in order to pay off their debt
after university, many would defer getting married, purchasing a house and starting a family (Nis-
sen, Hayward & McManus, 2019, p. 248).
These negative effects of student debt make one question the necessity of such debt, particularly
as there are other OECD countries who are able to provide free higher education to their citizens,
153 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

for example Sweden and Norway, while Australia ranks among the top five OECD countries with
the highest tertiary fees (Munro, 2016).

3.3. Student Inequality & Internalisation of Neoliberalism

Apart from the deleterious effects on students of student debt, neoliberalism has, instead of sup-
posedly benefitting students, led to reduced intake of underprivileged students (Dougherty & Na-
tow, 2019). With increasingly higher fees as universities have become more business-like, stu-
dents from the lower socio-economic strata of society have found it harder to afford higher edu-
cation (Edmond & Berry, 2014) which makes it more difficult to gain well-paid work and move
out of impoverishment (Giroux, 2014; Croxford & Raffe, 2013).
Research on university students such as those in Finland (Fitzsimmons, 2015), illustrate the dam-
aging effects of neoliberalist thinking on students who accept that they need to complete their
studies as quickly as possible. This belief ensures that universities obtain maximum funding,
which is based on diplomas which have been completed. As in the US where higher education
institutions are termed “diploma mills” (Lorenz, 2012), in Finland they are termed “diploma fac-
tories” (Fitzsimmons, 2015, pp. 212-219). Finnish students have tended to accept the effects of
neoliberalism on their education and in creating student debt, with a degree of “cynical ideological
fatalism” (Fitzsimmons, 2015, p. 215).
The acceptance of what neoliberalism entails for higher education studies brings increased pres-
sures for students. Many students are anxious to be employable as soon as completing their de-
grees (Winerman, 2017) while facing rising student fees, living costs and work during their stud-
ies to make ends meet. High levels of stress and difficulties in managing study and learning sched-
ules were found among 33% of Finnish university students, with 20% worried about their finances
and future (Kunttu & Pesonen in Fitzsimmons, 2015) while a study of 2,279 graduate students in
243 higher education institutions found elevated levels of anxiety among these students who felt
they needed more assistance and support from their supervisors in order to succeed (Evans et al.,
2018).
Finally, students themselves live out the neoliberalist thinking transforming them into buyers of
education. Where previously education might have been seen as engaging and empowering stu-
dents to become citizens contributing to self and society for the greater good (MacDonald, 2018;
Hughes, 2017; Fitzsimmons, 2015; Giroux, 2014), there is now a belief that education is an “eco-
nomic transaction between a buyer and seller” with the student being “always right in the market”
(Lorenz, 2012, pp. 621-622). Hence, there are students who ask their teachers what they can offer
and provide for the fees paid by the students to the institution (Giroux, 2014; Lorenz, 2012).
The reconceptualisation of students as human capital and consumers of education has altered the
educative process itself with those students who willingly take on the role of the buyer, perceiving
education as a form of economic transaction. However, there are also many who have internalised
neoliberalism and accept its inevitability despite financial, social, psychological and emotional
pressures, particularly from having incurred debt in order to complete higher education studies.
Imbibing neoliberalism, corporatist higher education institutions are capitalising on shorter course
offerings to maximise their profits, and financial institutions and governments are encouraging
student debt (and profiting from the interest on these debts) while abandoning responsibility for
the education of their citizens (Giroux, 2017, 2014).
In evaluating the impact of neoliberalism on participants of education, and recognising the pres-
sures wrought on academics and students, one could ask how academics under such pressure
continue to teach, assist and facilitate their students’ learning. From the literature, it seems there
are educators in higher education who are drawing on alternative philosophies to resist the ne-
oliberalist paradigm, restoring the student to being a learner instead of a consumer and the teacher
to being a facilitator of learning and knowledge, supporting the student in their growth and devel-
opment. Two of these alternative philosophies are discussed below.
154 The impact of neoliberalism on academics and students in higher education

4. Alternative humanist philosophies which support learning and teaching

In this discussion of Vygotsky’s social constructivism and a pedagogy of the heart, the emphasis
is on the relationship between teacher and the student, which is a very different relationship to
that conceptualised in neoliberalist discourse. The critical aspects of this relationship and the con-
sequences for student learning are discussed below.

4.1. Teacher-student relationship (TSR)

The relationship bond between teacher and student has been found to be crucial for effective
student learning. The connectedness to the academic environment that can result from the teacher-
student relationship (TSR) leads to a sense of belonging which encourages many students, partic-
ularly those at risk or who are considering dropping out in their first year, to continue with their
studies, though relationships with peers also contribute to a sense of belonging (Hagenauer &
Volet, 2014, pp. 379-380). TSR can depend on the context as students in different disciplines
view support from their teachers in different ways and seminars rather than lectures provide more
opportunity for contact between teachers and students (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014, p. 374). Nev-
ertheless, for all students, TSR works on the basis of the “affective” and “support” domains, with
the former referring to the bond between teacher and student which can lead to a secure and pos-
itive relationship, and the latter to the support provided for students to succeed (e.g., teachers
answering queries and e-mails) (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014, p. 374).
The importance of TSR for students and student learning cannot be discounted as it has been
shown that TSR promotes students’ “commitment, effort, motivation, satisfaction, engagement,
deep-learning approaches, achievement” and “intellectual development (e.g., critical thinking,
learning fundamental principles)” (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014, p. 380).

4.2. Vygotsky’s social constructivism

As the earlier discussion on TSR reflects, the student is more than just human capital and a source
of profit; in the educational environment before neoliberalism took hold in higher education, the
student has always been conceptualised as the learner at the centre of the educative process, who
needs to be supported and encouraged towards positive growth and development (Rustin, 2016;
Fitzsimmons, 2015; Giroux, 2014; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).
Vygotskyian social constructivism conceptualises the student as part of a much bigger entity, who
interacts with the wider environment and the learning community with the mind of the student
forming part of the “social cultural group” as well as the world around the student (Liu & Mat-
thews, 2005). Thus, the student develops with the social environment and is influenced by it, and
learning provides the student with knowledge and capabilities for examining and understanding
the socio-cultural and socio-political structures within which they are based while being able to
confront such structures if needed (Liu & Matthews, 2005). So, during the process of learning,
“the environment, the student and the teacher” affect each other, possibly developing and chang-
ing both individual student and their social environment while this external world can be influ-
enced over time by “collective participation and collaboration” (Liu & Matthews, 2005; Vygotsky
1994; 1987).
This holistic Vygotskian philosophical concept translates into social-constructivist practices in
the higher education classroom whereby the students’ experiences and the wider environment
form part of, and contribute to the pedagogy; in this way also thus engaging the student in learning
(Murphy, 1997). These practices also include scaffolding students’ learning with different forms
of support during class such as practical demonstrations, division of content into manageable parts
and provision of clear guidelines (Verenikina, 2008). Apart from scaffolding, other social-con-
structivist teaching practices include the teacher acting as coach, incorporating multiple perspec-
tives and alternative viewpoints; basing learning goals on student needs; engaging students in
“authentic activities and contexts”; teaching problem solving; providing primary data sources and
155 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

co-constructing knowledge with the student (Murphy, 1997; Richardson, 1997 cited in Desierto
& Yin, 2014).
Thus, in Vygotskian social constructivism, the student forms part of the learning environment and
his or her growth and development can result from the support and pedagogical approach of the
teacher as well as that of the social environment. The student is thus not constructed as merely
human capital and a consumer of education and in addition, as discussed earlier, the teacher-
student relationship plays a significant part in students’ intellectual and critical growth, facilitat-
ing learning through developing students’ sense of belonging and connectedness within the edu-
cational environment.

4.3. Freire’s pedagogy of the heart

As discussed, alternative philosophies to neoliberalism, such as Vygotskian social-constructiv-
ism, view students not as human capital or customers who must be serviced, but as those who
must be supported and nurtured to be able to succeed in their studies. Academics are also not
viewed as human capital in humanist philosophies but as contributors to the mores and ethics of
society. There are a number of viable alternatives which have been used in higher education to
support students in their learning, including transition pedagogies (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010;
Hughes, 2017). However, this part of the paper will focus on a pedagogy of the heart which has
been recognised in the literature among educators as transformative for effective student learning
(Fitzsimmons, 2015).
Freire’s (1997) pedagogy of the heart offers an alternative philosophy to the neoliberalist tenden-
cies of the modern institution of higher learning. His work is situated in the context of oppression
of minority groups in South America in the early 1900s; however, his theory is applicable in
today’s higher education context as one which values the student-teacher relationship. Freire’s
philosophy involves the total student - mind, body, spirit - in the learning experience and regards
the teacher as one who nurtures the student without viewing them as disadvantaged or bereft of
knowledge, but one who brings their histories, experiences and realities with them to higher edu-
cation (Freire, 1998, as cited in Motta & Bennett, 2018). The focus is on “collaboration, collec-
tivity, and critical reflexivity between educators, and between students and educators” (Motta &
Bennett, 2018, p. 636). The process is a democratic one, in contrast to the neoliberalist view of
students as customers who need to be serviced to benefit not themselves but their future employ-
ers. Under Freire’s philosophy, students will leave the university as critical thinkers and caring
and democratic citizens who will make useful contributions to society as a whole (Freire, 1997).
Fitzsimmons (2015) further develops the pedagogy of the heart initiated by Freire (1997) using
the principles of social justice, equality, human rights and solidarity as central to teaching and
learning in higher education (Fitzsimmons, 2015). Students learn to become critical thinkers and
to query knowledge, themselves and society, rather than learning to pass examinations, which are
the dominant mode of education used in a neoliberalist approach (Fitzsimmons, 2015). In this
way, students are given the power to engage more positively and confidently in their learning and
in society rather than being stressed and worried about whether or not they can find employment
once their studies are complete.
In this social-transformative approach, the care and support of the teacher is important so that
learning can take place effectively. As such, it is a useful approach in student support or enabling
programs at universities. A review of the literature on enabling and support programs suggests
that this pedagogy of the heart is not specifically referred to as the underlying philosophy in such
programs. Despite this, the authors posit that it is an approach being taken; many such programs
report elements of the pedagogy in that “they [are] focused on establishing relationships, provid-
ing pastoral care and support, and building a community of learners” (Relf et al., 2017, p. 10).
Another teaching and learning strategy which can be incorporated in this pedagogy of the heart
could be one whereby academics view students as partners. The strategy and concept of students
156 The impact of neoliberalism on academics and students in higher education

as partners is “seen as a counter-narrative to the consumer model” as it enables “a shared and

collaborative space where students and staff together could contribute to the planning and devel-
opment of teaching and learning practices—sharing responsibility for those” (Matthews et al.,
2018, p. 961).
Through these alternative philosophies of Vygotskian social-constructivism and a pedagogy of
the heart the teacher-student relationship (TSR) is recognised as the core of the educative process
and teachers and students are conceptualised as human beings with positive roles to play in the
process. Teachers provide support, facilitate learning and engagement, deliver and co-construct
knowledge, while students are engaged, active learners contributing to the educational process
and the creation of knowledge, contributing to the world for human good. Reclaiming this purpose
for education and its participants (teacher and student) from the quantitative and narrowed focus
of neoliberalist education might be possible through these alternative philosophies which many
educators espoused before the advent of neoliberalism.

5. Conclusion
Neoliberalism in higher education views students as consumers rather than learners and academ-
ics as human capital required to contribute to the neoliberalist economies of the world. The im-
pacts of neoliberalism on students and academics in higher education institutions are extremely
damaging and these impacts have only been exacerbated by the current COVID-19 global pan-
demic affecting countries and their universities. The negative impacts on academics include in-
creased stress and anxiety as a result of the globalisation and commercialisation of higher educa-
tion and the casualisation of its workforce. In addition, the audit culture and the pressure to ‘pub-
lish or perish’ has led to increased rates of mental health issues and suicides among academics.
For students, the negative impacts of neoliberalism include increased debt, stress, anxiety and
mental health issues as students struggle to find their place in a commercially orientated society.
Institutions need to return to their original role as a place of knowledge as well as for the creation
of social citizens; this can be achieved through the implementation of philosophies which are a
viable alternative to neoliberalism. Vygotsky’s social constructivism and Freire’s pedagogy of
the heart allow the institution and their academics and students to return to the purpose of educa-
tion as one where everyone contributes to learning and teaching for the good of society. However,
while these philosophies can help provide support and care for students, it would be helpful to
conduct further research on how educators might be sustained in their endeavour to support stu-
dents in face of extreme financial, psychological and personal pressures from casualisation and
job losses, as well as investigating how students may be supported from critical aspects of the
neoliberalist agenda in higher education.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editors of the journal for the opportunity to present our find-
ings at the 2019 ALL Conference held in Fremantle, Western Australia and acknowledge the
interest of those present at the conference in our topic.

References
Baltodano, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: The corporatization of
schools of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa-
tion, 25(4), 487-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.673025
Bone, K. (2019, July 18). Dependent and vulnerable: The experiences of academics on casual
and insecure contracts. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/dependent-and-
vulnerable-the-experiences-of-academics-on-casual-and-insecure-contracts-118608
157 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

Barnes, A., & Kniest, P. (2019). National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) 2019-2020 pre-
budget submission. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/360985-National-
Tertiary-Education-Union.pdf
Cannella, G.S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2017). Neoliberalism in higher education: Can we un-
derstand? Can we resist and survive? Can we become without neoliberalism? Cultural
Studies, 17(3), 152-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617706117
Chomsky, N. (2011) Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order. Seven Stories Press.
Collini, S. (2015). Defending universities: Argument and persuasion. Power and Educa-
tion 7(1), 29-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1757743814567383
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and
its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.776990
Croxford, L., & Raffe, D. (2013). Differentiation and social segregation of UK higher educa-
tion, 1996-2010. Oxford Review of Education, 39 (2), 172–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.784193.
Cruickshank, J. (2016). Putting business at the heart of higher education: On neoliberal inter-
ventionism and audit culture in UK universities. Open Library of Humanities, 2(1), e3.
http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.77
Dobbie, D., & Robinson, I. (2008). Reorganizing higher education in the United States and Can-
ada: The erosion of tenure and the unionization of contingent Faculty. Labour Studies
Journal, 33 (2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X07301241
Dougherty, K., & Natow, S. (2019). Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of
performance-based funding for higher education. Centre for Global Higher Education
working paper no.44. https://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/cghe-
working-paper-44.pdf
Duffy, C. (2020, July 17). Cashed-up university sector accused of hypocrisy over mass casuali-
sation of workforce, job losses. ABC Online. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-
17/university-casual-workforce-redundancies-dirty-secret/12462030
Edmond N., & Berry, J. (2014). Discourses of ‘equivalence’ in HE and notions of student en-
gagement: Resisting the neoliberal university. Student Engagement and Experience
Journal, 3(2), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.7190/seej.v3i2.90
Evans, T., Bira, L., Gastelum, J., Weiss, L, & Vanderford, N. (2018). Evidence for a mental
health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282-284.
Fitzsimmons, R. (2015). Countering the neoliberal paradigm: A pedagogy of the heart from a
Finnish higher learning perspective. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(1),
210-237.
Freire, P. (1997). A pedagogy of the heart. Continuum.
Giroux H.A. (2017). Neoliberalism’s war against higher education and the role of public in-
tellectuals. In M. Izak, M. Kostera, & M. Zawadzki (Eds), The future of university
education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Giroux. H. (2014). Neoliberalism's war on higher education. Haymarket Books.
Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S.E. (2014). Teacher-student relationship at university: An important
yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370-388.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.921613
Haiven, M. (2019). The art of unpayable debts. In M. Featherstone (Ed), The sociology of debt
(pp. 195-230). Bristol University Press. http://doi:10.2307/j.ctvggx2fq.13
158 The impact of neoliberalism on academics and students in higher education

Hill, D. (2007). Educational perversion and global neoliberalism. In E.W. Ross & R. Gibson
(Eds), Neoliberalism and education reform (pp. 107-144). Hampton Press.
Hoffower, H., & Akhtar, A. (2019, July 2). 11 mind-blowing facts that show just how dire the
student-loan crisis in America is. Business Insider Australia. https://www.busi-
nessinsider.com.au/student-loan-debt-crisis-college-cost-mind-blowing-facts-2019-
7?r=US&IR=T
Hudson, M. (2019). ‘Creating wealth’ through debt: The West’s finance capitalist road. World
Review of Political Economy, 10(2), 171-190. http://doi:10.13169/worlrevipo-
liecon.10.2.0171
Hughes, K. (2017). Transition pedagogies and the neoliberal episteme: What do academics
think? Student Success, 8(2), 21-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.378
Jessop, B. (2017). On academic capitalism. Critical Policy Studies, 12(1), 104-109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1403342
Kift, S., Nelson, K, & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to
FYE – A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The Interna-
tional Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-20.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13
Kumar, A. (2007). Review essay of Ross, E.W. & Gibson, R. (Eds), (2007), neoliberalism and
education reform. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Journal for Critical Policy Education
Studies, 6(2), 218-236. http://www.jceps.com/archives/590
Lama, T., & Jouillie, J. (2015). Casualization of academics in the Australian higher education
system: Is teaching quality at risk? Research in Higher Education, 28, 1-11.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062094
Lane, S., & Long, C. (2020, May 11). Research jobs set to go as coronavirus takes hold
throughout Australian universities. ABC Online. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-
11/australia-research-workforce-facing-widespread-coronavirus-pain/12234704
Liu, C.H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms ex-
amined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.
Lorenz. C. (2012). If you're so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberal-
ism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(2), 599-629.
MacDonald. K. (2018). A review of the literature: The needs of nontraditional students in post-
secondary education. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly 5(4), 159-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20115
Mahony, P., & Weiner, G. (2017). Neo-liberalism and the state of higher education in the UK.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(4), 560-572.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1378314
Matthews, K., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., & Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners.
Higher Education,76, 957-971. https://doi.og/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y
Morrison, S. (2020). Update on coronavirus measures: Media statement 20 March 2020 Prime
Minister. Retrieved from https://www.pm.gov.au/media/update-coronavirus-measures-0
Motta, S., & Bennett, A. (2018). Pedagogies of care, care-full epistemological practice and
‘other’ caring subjectivities in enabling education. Teaching in Higher Education,
23(5), 631-646. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1465911
Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: From philosophy to practice.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444966
Nicolls, L., & Griggs, J.L. (2020). Overworked and worked over: Casual academics bear the
costs of COVID-19. University of Sydney Casuals Network Report.
159 A. Desierto & C. de Maio

https://honisoit.com/2020/07/casual-academics-at-usyd-systematically-underpaid-sur-
vey-finds/
Nissen, S., Hayward, B., & McManus, R. (2019). Student debt and wellbeing: A research
agenda, Kōtuitui. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(2), 245-256.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1614635
O’Malley, B. (2020). ‘Dehumanising’ impact of casualisation of HE staff exposed. University
World News. https://www.universityworld-
news.com/post.php?story=20200121072332456
Relf, B., O’Rourke, J. Crawford, N., Sharp, S., Hodges, B., Shah, M., & Barnes, R. (2017).
Lighting the path(way): Articulating curriculum design principles for open access ena-
bling programs. Retrieved from http://www.newcastle.edu.au
Rustin, M. (2016). The neoliberal university and its alternatives. Soundings, 63, 147-176.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3898/136266216819377057
Saunders, D., & Ramirez, G. (2017). Resisting the neoliberalization of higher education: A chal-
lenge to commonsensical understandings of commodities and consumption. Critical
Methodologies, 17(3), 189-196. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532708616669529
Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance. Anthropological Theory, 8(3), 278-
298.
Sims, M. (2019). Neoliberalism and new public management in an Australian university: The
invisibility of our take-over. Australian Universities’ Review, 61(1), 22-30.
Strachan, G., Broadbent, K., Whitehouse, G., Peetz, D., & Bailey, J. (2011). Looking for
women in Australian universities”. In K. Krause, M. Buckridge, C. Grimmer & S. Pur-
brick-Illek (Eds), Research and development in higher education: Reshaping higher ed-
ucation, 34, (pp. 308-319). Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia, Inc.
Thornton. M. (2013). Inhabiting the Neoliberal University. Alternative Law Journal, 38(2), 72.
Tiffen, R. (2020). The four-and-a-half-higher education squeeze. Retrieved from http://in-
sidestory.org.au/the-four-and-a-half-decade-higher-education-squeeze/
Verenikina, I. (2008). Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners. In P. Kell, W.
Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogl (Eds), Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for
new times. University of Wollongong.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1994). The Socialist alteration of man. In R. van de Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds),
The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 175-185). Blackwell Publishers.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psy-
chology (transl. Norris Minick). Plenum.
Winerman, L. (2017). By the numbers: Stress on campus. Monitor on Psychology, 48(8), 88.
Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/09/numbers
Yin, K., & Desierto, A. (2014). Legal problem solving and syllogistic analysis: A guide for
foundation law students. LexisNexis Australia.