English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Professionalism in the English Further Education (FE) system has been traditionally discussed in terms of superior teaching practices, attitudes and behaviours. The concept of ‘good work’ is therefore central to this paper’s analysis. Following a Bourdieusian tradition, professionalism is treated as a ‘site of struggle’ between FE teachers and managers, where managers hold the power to change the definition and substance of ‘good work’. This has implications for how teachers understand and speak about professionalism and highlights the discord that arises when teachers hold different viewpoints from managers. Drawing on a survey of 461 responses, the analysis makes three contributions: first, professionalism is theorised as a form of symbolic capital which actors attain by acquiring and deploying cultural, social and economic capital. Second, it shows how inequalities in capital can affect teachers’ perceived opportunities for professional recognition. Finally, it reveals that senior managers, with the greatest power, enforce a compliance model of professionalism based on the production of ‘good data’, which is the legitimate capital in the FE field, even when this is shown to be deprofessionalising to teachers.

‘Below the surface’: power and professionalism in the further education sector