Conference Agenda

The symposium aims to extend upon research of policy networks, mobilities and governance, contributing theoretically but also methodologically, for researching policy networks in education. The papers engage with the national and global perspective, considering how policy is mobilised via polycentric and heterarchical networks cutting across both state and market. The symposium draws on papers that were invited to be part of a Special Issue, ‘Policy Networks’ by Professor Stephen Ball.

In their presentation, Adhikary and Lingard will draw upon research conducted in Bangladesh, emphasising the performative role that “imagination” played in the emergence and workings of multiple policy networks that continue to pursue social entrepreneurial reforms within primary education and the broader NGO landscape of the country.

As influenced by actor-network theory (Law, 1992), Rowe’s paper draws upon a metaphor of a dingo-proof fence for theorising policy networks, examining the establishment of a national evidence broker in education, referred to as the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). The establishment of this national evidence broker in 2021, which sets out to determine the national agenda in educational research, has set an important precedent for mobilising collaboration with venture philanthropy. As modelled on the UK’s Education Endowment Foundation and linked with global corporate foundations, this paper explores how policy networks pursue homogeneity in education research.

Lewis examines the rise of Apple Teacher – the free online digital learning platform of the US technology giant, Apple, Inc. (hereafter, ‘Apple’), considering how Apple Teacher forges new market- and platform-based relations between otherwise unconnected schooling spaces and actors, and in ways that spill over the prefigured territorial boundaries of the nation-state.

McKenzie and Stahelin examine the hows and whys of the inter-network policy governance of two UN intergovernmental organizations with a focus on climate change education. The paper draws on interviews with 32 policy actors from a study of the network governance of UNESCO and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) policy programs on climate change education.

In sum, the papers carry a central aim of theorising policy networks in education reform, with an interest in policy mobilities and systems of network governance. The papers draw on a range of theoretical lens and methodological tools to explore policy networks as positioned within the global-local.

Paper had to be withdrawn.

.

This paper draws on Ball et al.’s (2017) network ethnography, to investigate policy mobility and the assemblage of inanimate objects in educational research, in the form of an ‘evidence broker’. It focuses on a national education research institute funded by the Australian Government, named the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO). Positioned as essentially bipartisan and apolitical, AERO was incorporated in 2021 to accelerate the use of research evidence and set a ‘national agenda’. As modelled on the UK’s Education Endowment Foundation and the What Works Centre, it establishes important legislative precedents to collaborate with venture philanthropy. The paper sets out to examine how the policy network fundamentally reshapes the ecosystem including functionality of capital and power, translating things and ideas into policies that retain material affects. Arguably, drawing upon a metaphor for conceptualising a policy network (Knox et al., 2006) may be useful in conceptualising a policy network as put together, held together, assembled and strategically constructed. It works to translate research evidence in education as homogeneous, impartial and singular, performed and embodied within a range of durable materials, such as evidence rubrics, RCTs, and government legislation. Governance via selective networks and the assemblage of stable structures, that endeavour to render education evidence into a ‘neutral’ or inanimate object, is concerning for matters of democracy, transparency and accountability.

Ball, S. J., Junemann, C., & Santori, D. (2017). Edu.net: globalisation and education policy mobility. Abingdon,Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1 (February 2006)), 113-140. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393. doi:10.1007/BF01059830

Paper had to be withdrawn.

.

This paper examines the hows and whys of the global inter-network governance of two United Nations intergovernmental organizations with a policy focus on climate change education. Study data include web-audits, social media analyses, and interviews with 32 policy actors involved in the network governance of these policy programs. The research suggests how each organization is functioning via UN-specific forms of semi-structured network governance, in which non-state actors have increasingly played key roles, but alongside the continued influences of state actors and the hierarchical structures of the intergovernmental organizations (Bäckstrand & Kuyper, 2017; Ball et al., 2017; Barnett & Finnemore, 2004). We also found that the two organizations under study are engaged in forms of ‘inter-network governance,’ including via joint reports, meeting collaboration, and intermediary policy actors. The drivers of this inter-network governance are also discussed, including historical siloing of education and environment in different national ministries, macro and micro forms of institutionalization of the collaboration between the two organizations, and the greater mainstreaming enabled by the prominence of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The study suggests the positive outcomes of the network and inter-network governance at play in the UN organizations, and how that has been key to the global development and mobilities of climate change in education policy (McKenzie, 2021). The study has implications for international organizational theory, network governance studies, and understanding the global governance of climate change in education policy (Verger et al., 2018).

Bäckstrand, K., & Kuyper, J. W. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: the UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 764-788. Ball, S. J., Junemann, C., & Santori, D. (2017). Edu.net: Globalisation and education policy mobility. Routledge. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press. McKenzie, M. (2021). Climate change education and communication in global review: Tracking progress through national submissions to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Environmental Education Research, 27 (5), 631-651. Verger, A., Altinyelken, H. K., & Novelli, M. (Eds.). (2018). Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies. Bloomsbury Publishing.