Constraining Innovation: A critical discourse analysis of power and assessment policy in higher education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi40.1667Keywords:
critical discourse analysis, assessment policy, neoliberalism, managerialism, pedagogical innovation, higher education policyAbstract
In this study, I examine how university assessment policies constrain pedagogical innovation. Using Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), I analysed policy documents from five UK universities to identify dominant discursive patterns influencing assessment governance. Four key themes emerged: efficiency, surveillance, standardisation, and pastoral power. Each reinforces institutional control and limits opportunities for flexible, student-centred assessment. Assessment policies prioritise compliance and administrative convenience over pedagogical innovation, embedding a discourse of risk aversion that restricts creative practice. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are framed within surveillance narratives rather than as tools for formative feedback or adaptive questioning. This study addresses two questions: the extent to which assessment policies inhibit innovative methods, and whether barriers arise from policy texts or broader institutional discourses. Institutional discourse plays an equally significant role as formal policy. I recommend repositioning AI as a formative tool, decentralising governance, and embedding academic staff in policy development.
References
Ardito, C. (2024). Generative AI detection in higher education assessments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (182), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20624
Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press.
Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Barbot, B., Besànçon, M., & Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801104010058
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing effective assessment in higher education: A practical guide. Open University Press.
Bok, H., Teunissen, P., Favier, R., Rietbroek, N., Theyse, L., Brommer, H., Haarhuis, J., Van Beukelen, P., Van Der Vleuten, C., & Jaarsma, D. (2013). Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: When theory meets practice. BMC Medical Education, 13, Article 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-123
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Brown, S., & Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches. McGraw-Hill Education.
Dannefer, E., & Henson, L. (2007). The portfolio approach to competency-based assessment at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 82(5), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0B013E31803EAD30
Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2013). Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.859654
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
Hazelkorn, E. (2018). Reshaping the world order of higher education: The role and impact of rankings on national and global systems. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2018.1424562
Hughes, D., Lee, A., Tian, A., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2018.03.001
Jessop, B. (2010). Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619741
Kohn, A., & Blum, S. D. (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837
Lonka, K. (2018). Phenomenal learning from Finland. Edita.
Maclaren, I. (2012). The contradictions of policy and practice: Creativity in higher education. London Review of Education, 10(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.691281
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5, Article 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Mulderrig, J. (2024). Critical policy discourse analysis in higher education. Oxford University Press.
QAA. (2024). Assessment. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/the-quality-code/2018/advice-and-guidance-18/assessment#
Raaper, R. (2017). Tracing assessment policy discourses in neoliberalised higher education settings. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1257160
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
Smolansky, A., Cram, A., Raduescu, C., Zeivots, S., Huber, E., & Kizilcec, R. (2023). Educator and student perspectives on the impact of generative AI on assessments in higher education. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, Denmark, 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573051.3596191
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.
Torugsa, N., & Arundel, A. (2017). Rethinking the effect of risk aversion on the benefits of service innovations in public administration agencies. Research Policy, 46(5), 900–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2017.03.009
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
