Changing Spaces of Education

New Perspectives on the Nature of Learning

Rachel Brooks, Alison Fuller, Johanna Waters

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415672214
• eBook ISBN: 9781136463419
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

In today's modern climate, education and learning take place in multiple and diverse spaces. Increasingly, these spaces are both physical and virtual in nature. Access to and use of information and communication technologies, and the emergence of knowledge-based economies necessitate an understanding of the plurality of spaces (such as homes, workplaces, international space and cyberspace) in which learning can take place. The spaces of policy making with respect to education are also being transformed, away from traditional centres of policy formation towards the incorporation of a wider range of actors and sites. These changes coincide with a more general interest in space and spatial theory across the social sciences, where notions of simultaneity and diversity replace more modernist conceptions of linear progress and development through time.

This volume proffers a unique perspective on the transformation of education in the 21st century, by bringing together leading researchers in education, sociology and geography to address directly questions of space in relation to education and learning. This collection of essays:

• examines the changing and diverse spaces and concepts of education (occurring simultaneously at different scales and in different parts of the world)
• explores where education and learning take place
• discusses how spaces of education vary at different stages (compulsory schooling, tertiary and higher education, adult education and workplace learning)
• inspects the ways in which the meanings attached to education and learning change in different national and regional contexts.

Changing Spaces of Education is an important and timely contribution to a growing area of concern within the social sciences and amongst practitioners and policy-makers, reflecting an urgent need to understand the ways in which both education and learning are being reconfigured, not just nationally, but also internationally and transnationally. It is essential reading for final-year undergraduates, postgraduates and researchers in geography, sociology, education and policy studies, with an aim, too, of informing policy and practice in this area.

Chapter 1

Changing spaces of education

An introduction

Rachel Brooks, Alison Fuller and Johanna Waters

Introduction

The spaces in which education and learning take place are undergoing almost continual transformation. Widespread access to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), and the emergence of a knowledge-based economy necessitate an understanding of the plurality of spaces (such as homes, workplaces, international space and cyberspace) within which learning can take place, as well as the ‘non-traditional’ stages in the life course at which it occurs. The spaces of policymaking that relate to education are also being transformed, away from traditional centres of policy formation towards incorporating a wider range of actors and sites. These changes coincide with a more general interest in ‘space’ and ‘spatial theory’ across the social sciences, where notions of ‘simultaneity’ and ‘diversity’ replace more modernist conceptions of linear progress and development through time. Although educationalists are increasingly interested in issues of space (Gulson and Symes 2007), and human geographers have themselves developed spatial analyses of educational processes (e.g. Waters 2006), to date, education theorists have rarely engaged with geographers in tackling questions of space in relation to education and learning. Consequently, a crucial interdisciplinary understanding of these new and emergent spaces of education is missing.

Changing Spaces of Education: New Perspectives on the Nature of Learning aims to address this gap in our understanding, by bringing together geographers and educationalists from five different countries to examine the ways in which spaces of education and learning are being reconfigured and redefined in the twenty-first century. We argue that contemporary understandings of education need to take seriously the diverse and fluid spaces in which learning and policymaking around learning can and do occur, as well as the simultaneity of this diversity. Our perspective is influenced by new conceptions of ‘space’ emanating from the discipline of geography (Massey 2005) and an emergent ‘spatial turn’ within the social sciences more broadly (Edwards and Usher 2008). Technological developments associated with globalization have resulted in ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey 1991) enabling learning within a multitude of spaces, often irrespective of distance and location. Despite this, we are also conscious of the ‘power-geometries’ inherent in these processes (Massey 2005) – the ways in which individuals and social groups have differential access to ostensibly ‘emancipatory’ spaces of learning.

Theoretical underpinnings

As will become clear from the ensuing chapters of this book, the concept of ‘space’ has been used in a variety of different ways by researchers across the social sciences, including human geographers and educationalists. However, in general, there has been a clear shift away from an objective understanding of space as a system of organization or geometry. Instead, emphasis is placed on how space is constructed through social processes, and how it is these which give it meaning. A particularly clear summary of this shift in approach is given by Singh et al. (2007: 197) in their research on the spatial production of cosmopolitan identities by students who move abroad for higher education. They state that:

In analytical terms, space is no longer treated as a container of static, though movable, objects and dynamic flows of behaviour. The dimensions and contents of space are no longer assumed to be natural and given ... in contrast, a relational view of space seeks to provide a relational understanding of how space is constituted and given meaning through human endeavour. Space is no longer given a neutral or passive geometry; it is continuously produced through socio-spatial relations ... space is conceived as a product of cultural, social, political and economic interactions, imaginings, desires and relations. In this way, space is not merely an objective structure but also a social experience.

In large part, such approaches draw on the work of Henri Lefebvre and, in particular, his seminal text, The Production of Space, which was published in the UK in 1991. This was important in emphasising that space is both constituted through social relations and constitutive of them. More specifically, Lefebvre argued that space is produced through three inter-related processes – ‘spatial practices’, ‘representations of space’ and ‘spaces of representation’ – and is thus multi-dimensional. These processes refer to the physical, social and cultural dimensions of space. ‘Spatial practices’ or ‘perceived spaces’ are the patterned routines of material, social practice. ‘Representations of space’ or ‘conceived spaces’ refer to the ideological, symbolic and representational practices which make sense of space. They have the potential to reproduce space, working ideologically to legitimate particular practices – or, alternatively, to contest them. ‘Spaces of representation’ or ‘lived spaces’ denote space as it is lived, felt and experienced, imbued with both ideological and political content. Thomson (2007) argues that employing this three-fold view of space allows researchers to explore the tensions inherent in many educational practices. Indeed, she contends that:

when thinking about schooling, it is important to consider not only the material and the symbolic but also the realm of experience. Contradictions in and between perceived and conceived space are experienced passively but they are actually changed in lived space.

(p. 113)

Paying attention to all three aspects of space was also important to Singh et al. (2007) in their research on international students moving from China to Australia. They explain how Lefebvre’s conceptualization sensitized the research team to the different ways in which their respondents were positioned by particular ideological representations of space, but also how they experienced these on a day-to-day basis, and how they sought to reshape such representations themselves. They write:

It has enabled the exploration of processes of cultural production through which international students struggled to make sense of their experiences in Australia; the ways in which they assessed their histories in China and how they imagined and anticipated their future spatial trajectory; and the ways in which they felt they were positioned by and actively sought to position themselves within the dominating corporate narratives of globalization and international education.

(p. 197)

While Lefebvre’s work has been very influential within educational research which has deployed spatial analyses, in a recent special issue of Social and Cultural Geography, Cook and Hemming (2011) argue that the interplay of the physical, social and cultural aspects of space (a central tenet of Lefebvre’s thesis) should be seen as only one of three influential ‘spatial themes’ in the range of work on ‘Education Spaces’. They contend that geographers have also been central in focussing attention on the importance of ‘embodied space’ within education processes and in emphasising the ‘active dynamics’ of educational space. In relation to embodied space, they argue that recent spatial analysis has generated new knowledge through viewing the human body as both ‘an entity within space and a space in itself’ (p. 3). It is significant as it provides a boundary between the self and others, a space where emotions are experienced and a location for identity construction. Cook and Hemming (2011) go on to claim that ‘bodies are also in space, providing the basis for our experience of the multiple dimensions, aspects, dynamics and properties of space ... [they] allow us to understand ourselves relationally and spatially orientate ourselves both physically and mentally’ (p. 3). This emphasis on embodiment is evident in a number of recent examples of educational research. Wainwright et al.’s (2010) study of mothers’ ‘training choices’, argues that the encouragement given to the women and the interest they had in engaging in ‘body training’¹ are linked to the discursive construction and performance of a highly feminized and, often, maternal identity, which emphasizes women’s caring role and the caring self. Similarly, den Besten et al. (2011) have shown how the design of school space is often informed by a desire to manage pupils’ bodies in a particular way, and promote specific emotional responses. In relation to the ‘active dynamics’ of space, Cook and Hemming (2011) emphasize that it is the unfinished nature of space, as a result of its production through social relations, that is important. Moreover, drawing on the work of both Massey (1999) and Soja (2011), they argue that spaces provide fora for ‘disruption’ and change (Cook and Hemming 2011:4). As such spaces are socially constructed, and thus not immutable, the opportunity for a ‘sphere of possibility’ is opened up. The ‘active dynamics of space’ also refers to their connections beyond a single locality; places are not bounded but, through their constitution by social relationships, are linked to other, wider scales.

As noted above, within the chapters of this book, the concept of ‘space’ is used in a variety of different ways and, often, its theoretical underpinnings are implicit. Nevertheless, across the twelve chapters there are numerous examples of the ‘relational’ approach to spatial analysis described, in different forms, above. In the following section, we outline a number of the specific advantages to education of using some of the theoretical and methodological tools made available by paying greater attention to space and place.

The value of a spatial analysis

The value, to educational research, of employing a spatial analysis is manifold: it can highlight important differences across physical spaces; it can offer an effective means of exploring the relationship between structure and agency, and of the interaction between social processes at different scales; and it can also help to interrogate some of the taken-for-granted assumptions about education. Examples of each will now be discussed.

Although many commentators – within education, but also across the social sciences more broadly – have argued that the dominance of neo-liberal ideas over recent decades has led to increasing homogeneity in social policy in general and in education in particular (for example, Moutsios 2009), this perspective is not shared by all. Indeed, educational researchers have pointed to many enduring differences across different physical spaces. Brooks (2011) has highlighted the ways in which the English and Danish higher education systems continue to diverge – despite the emergence of an international market for university students and a global ‘ranking’ of institutions, which might be expected to lead to convergence. Regional differences are also evident. For example, Hinton (2011) has emphasized the importance of national identity in shaping young Welsh people’s aspirations for higher education – suggesting that they are considerably different from their English peers. Her respondents often chose to move to a university within Wales in order to reconcile their desire to experience different places with their concern to remain within their own nation. Within compulsory schooling, regional effects are also evident. Butler and Hamnett’s (2011) work, for example, has emphasized the impact of gentrification within London on processes of school choice within the city which, they contend, is particular to this geographical location.

Research has also shown how the impact of geographical factors is not always played out in the same way, even at the local level (Taylor 2002). Indeed, it is often mediated by a range of social factors. On the basis of their work on secondary school choice within London, Ball and colleagues (1995) have argued that different social groups have different abilities to overcome what Harvey (1991: 211) has called the ‘friction of distance’. Although some of this is predicated on economic factors (for example, not being able to afford the travel costs to schools further away), it is also influenced by a range of social and cultural factors, which affect evaluations of what is deemed to be an appropriate and suitable school to attend – with ‘the local’ tending to be valued more within working-class communities than within their middle-class counterparts. Similar differences have been shown to operate at the post-compulsory level. Clayton et al. (2009) have argued that spatial considerations play an important role in decisions about higher education: while the middle-class students in their sample were happy to move away from home to pursue a degree, those from less privileged backgrounds put much more emphasis on ‘investing in the familiar’ – whether by attending a local university, making frequent trips home or finding a student body thought to be similar to one’s friends at home. Research on moving overseas for higher education has similarly highlighted the importance of social and cultural capital, as well as economic resources, in determining what is perceived to be within the bounds of the ‘possible’ (Brooks and Waters 2011a; King et al. 2011; Waters and Brooks 2010).

By foregrounding social class, these studies emphasize the influence of structural factors in educational processes. As Cook and Hemming (2011) argue, spatial analyses can offer new perspectives on the ways in which other structures, besides social class, affect policy and practice within education. Detailed accounts of the structuring effect of many educational spaces are provided in the literature, focussing on playgrounds, dining rooms, libraries and corridors, as well as classrooms (for example, Gallagher 2011; Gordon et al. 2000; Marks 2011; Reh et al. 2011; Shilling and Cousins 1990). Indeed, Thomson (2007: 115) argues that:

Schools traditionally manage the behaviour of ... students by manipulating both space and time. Students are sent out of learning time-spaces to punitive/therapeutic ones ... They are required to attend detentions or to stay away from school time-space altogether for a fixed period. Sometimes they have alternative programmes and remedial classes created for them in which they leave the remainder of the student body to get on with the mandated work.

However, as Hanson Thiem (2009) has noted, education spaces both shape and are shaped by wider social processes. Work by both geographers and educationalists has indeed suggested that educational spaces also offer the potential for resistance, not merely the reproduction of social structures (Gordon et al. 2000). Thomson’s work (2007), for example, while emphasising the ways in which student behaviour was often affected by the organization of school space, also suggests that some pupils were able to resist these dominant structures. She argues that the provision of an alternative physical space (a separate room in the school) to enable girls, thought to be on the margins of schooling, to run their own voluntary activity (an environmental activist group) was significant in changing the spatial relations within the school. It allowed the girls to ‘get out’ of their usual classroom space, and gave them new opportunities to build their identities and exercise their agency. Similarly, based on her research on ‘homeschooling’ in America, Hanson Thiem (2007: 32) highlights the political nature of changing the physical space in which education is conducted:

By moving education into the private home and participating in novel forms of educational delivery (e.g. online schools), homeschoolers facilitate the decoupling, both material and discursive, of state-sanctioned education from the public spaces of common schools ... geography [thus] becomes both a stake and a strategy in political mobilizations.

Here, it is resistance to government policy, rather than to dominant school practices, that is revealed.

A number of other educationalists and geographers have pursued a similar theme, arguing that both space and place have considerable impact on the way in which policy is played out in different ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Changing spaces of education: An introduction
• PART I International/transnational spaces of education
• PART II New policy spaces of education
• PART III Lifelong learning and work spaces
• PART IV Cyber-spaces and virtual learning
• Afterword: From changing spaces of education to changing spaces of learning
• Index