This paper was presented as part of the International Network of Philosophers Conference in Warsaw, Poland (August, 2016). Do not quote without permission. Self-Conception in Teacher Self-Evaluation in relation to Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus: A WoƌkiŶg Papeƌ Alison M. Brady Introduction Audit culture is pervasive in education, and this can be seen most evidently in the policy of external inspections, with governmental bodies such as Ofsted in England or the Inspectorate in Ireland, taking on the role of investigators into the nature of teaching and learning in schools (DES (Ireland), 2003, 2004, 2011, 2012; DfES (UK), 2015; Ofsted, 2015a, 2015b). This is arguably linked to the overarching ideology of neo-liberalism, which promotes ideas such as accountability for teachers and schools, not only to pupils but to society at large, the necessity of school choice and competition in a marketised education system, all of which are seen to be crucial to the establishment and maintenance of knowledge-based economies, whose sustenance and status within the global economy depends on highly educated labourers. (Avison and de Wall, 2008; Ball, 2003; Clapham, 2015; Denison, 2015). In an age of responsibilisation (Simons, 2014) along with other factors, one could argue that the very nature of teaching has changed considerably. In more recent times, a new turn in inspection is evident, however. Self-evaluation has become the primary mechanism of inspection in such knowledge-based economies as the Republic of Ireland (DES (Ireland), 2003, 2012). Similar moves can also be seen in other contexts, such as England (Miliband, 2004). The idea behind self-evaluation is that it allows teachers and schools more autonomy over their educative practices, by giving them more ownership and control over their respective developmental directions. With such control, however, comes greater responsibility, and therefore, the apparatus of accountability is heavily built into the self-evaluation process (DES (Ireland), 2012; Hislop, 2012). Nevertheless, one could argue that this new approach succeeds where such notorious systems of external inspections fail – they grant the freedom of implementation of context-specific methods for evaluating teaching and learning to the schools themselves. Or so, perhaps, it seems. As will be addressed later on in the paper, the step-by-step guidance and the criteria that is offered to teachers and schools, developed externally by inspecting bodies, which are then meant to be used to evaluate their practice, do not authentically describe or constitute what being