23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Lost in Translation? The Threat That Uncertain ‘Science’ is Becoming Crude, Certain and Racist Policy
Ian McGimpsey, Claire Crawford
University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: McGimpsey, Ian;
Crawford, Claire
Genetic research is part of an ugly history of racist ideologies that produce and legitimise unjust policies against minority ethnic groups – to deny children opportunity for education, erode public support for social policy, and proliferate racist and classist belief. In education, ‘racial geneism’ – the belief that genes shape the nature of ethnic group achievements and inequities (Gillborn, 2016) - has moved at an alarming rate from the fringes to the center of political and academic discourse promoted through politically influential educational networks (Gillborn et al, 2022).
In a recent paper The New Genetics of Intelligence (2018), Plomin – a Professor of Behavioural Genetics at Kings College London, who enjoys an international reputation for his research on twins and estimations of the biological basis for human attributes including intelligence - makes a case that parents will use direct-to-consumer DNA tests kits (such as 23andMe.com/AncestreyDNA.com) to predict a child’s mental abilities and make schooling choices - a concept Plomin calls ‘precision education’. Dominic Cummings, formerly a special adviser in the Department for Education and described as at one point “the most powerful unelected political figure” in the UK (Collini, 2020), attacked policy-makers’ failure to embrace the ‘relevant science’ concerning ‘evolutionary influences’ on intelligence (Gillborn, 2016) and arranged for Plomin to visit the Department for Education “to explain the science of IQ and genetics to officials and Ministers” (Cummings, 2013:64).
In education, hereditarian analysis has been acknowledged for its ability to breed ‘fatalism, deficit-thinking and elitism’ (Gillborn, 2016). This presentation critically examines how discredited ideologies are re-emerging in institutions, publications and public debates; specifically examining recent claims about the genetic basis of intelligence. The paper is informed by Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the concept of policy translation. Critical Race Theory is a perspective that contends that race is a historically patterned, contextually specific and multifaceted social construction (Gillborn, 2016). As argued by Saini, proponents of eugenics and discredited ideologies aspire to maintain existing social hierarchies by arguing that the inequality that we see in the world is natural, and not the product of social and historical factors (Saini, 2019). Thus, any science that gives support to the argument that White people are intellectually superior to Black people (i.e. Gould, 1981; Herrnstein & Murray, 1996; Plomin [see BBC, 2015]), is not only deeply erroneous, but fundamentally dangerous in the education policy space.
The concept of policy translation is used here to describe the mobility of complex, uncertain and contested ideas in academic research from non-governmental sites of production to policy networks wherein they are presented as scientific breakthroughs with wide-ranging social and political consequences (McGimpsey et al, 2017). In these movements, ideas and knowledge are ‘mutated and transformed…[rather than] merely being transferred’, (Stone, 2012:493) despite the increasingly direct relationships between experts and policy-makers that often result. The policy mobilities we describe also cross-national boundaries, with our focus here on education policy mobilities across UK and North American contexts.
Studies exploring policy mobilities often focus on either the relatively unpredictable outcomes of these processes (Stone, 2012) or offer accounts of the effects of policy mobilities as governed by the interests of capital, neoliberalism and class (Davies, 2012; Wilkins, 2022). This study is distinctive in its use of Critical Race Theory to identify and analyse processes of policy translation that are both mobilised by and reproductive of structural racism in education, working to embed racist ideology in education policy and institutions. CRT is used here to delve beneath the political and policy veneer to expose the racial inequity that is often disguised by a seemingly ‘neutral’ and ‘scientific’ façade (Bell, 1992; Gillborn, 2016).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis presentation critically examines recent claims about the genetic basis of intelligence, drawing upon documentation produced in domains of i) scientific knowledge production, ii) non-governmental policy actors, iii) government. We identify series of texts across these domains connected by their representation or citation of the same evidence regarding the relation of genetics and IQ, produced in the UK and US. This allows us to trace both the mobility and the change of ideas and knowledge in processes of policy translation.
The paper utilises Critical Race Theory as theory and method, informing the analysis to which selected texts are subjected, and of the significance of the identified policy translations to race inequities. Applying the tenets of CRT in relation to policy mobilities is not only timely, but essential; especially given the resurgence of pseudoscientific discourses which seek to pathologise minoritized groups of people with biological theories of inferiority (Delgado, 1998).
CRT offers an understanding of society as shaped by racism which is endemic, systematic and often unrecognised (Ladson-Billings, 2004; Tate, 1997; Taylor, Gillborn, and Ladson-Billings, 2009; Delgado and Stefancic, 2000). It offers a lens through which to consider the ‘business as usual’ (Delgado and Stefancic, 2000) operation of ‘race’ as a social construct which has discursive and material effects on individuals, institutions and in the translation of policies.
We identify an ensemble of documents connected by shared ideas and evidence regarding the genetic basis of intelligence, and spanning the three domains identified above. These texts include interview transcripts with leading scientists, books and journal articles, media reports and headlines, and government and policymaker narratives. The analysis of texts includes the identification of i) specific ideas and evidential claims, ii) authorship, iii) citations and references. This data is used to trace the translation of genetic research on intelligence from scientific to policy domains. Analytically, translation here is understood to encompass both the mobility and distribution of discursive constructions, and their mutation as they are made productive in the construction of policy representations of the subjects of education, policy problems of education, and the legitimations of policy intervention in education.
Together these perspectives build a clear and concerning case of policy translation of ideas and knowledge from research in hereditarian behavioural genetics to education policy.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsGenetically sensitive schooling is one of the latest threats coming from hereditarian behavioural genetics, risking the re-inscription of racialised bio-determinism into education (see for example Murray & Herrnstein, 1994). Contributing to the project of scholarship aspired to by Critical Race Theory, this presentation exposes the threat posed by the damaging and racialised translation of emerging scientific ‘knowledges’ into educational policy texts and practices (McGimpsey et al., 2017), a field Plomin described as the “last bastion of anti-genetics” (Plomin, 2019).
One means by which complex, uncertain scientific knowledge in the field of intelligence is translated in the production of crude, certain and racist policy takes place is scholarly brinkmanship. ‘Brinkmanship’ occurs during the process of inserting caveats in which scientists will highlight the probabilistic nature of their findings, but then follow such with deterministic claims; as in the case of Plomin, that DNA can predict school achievement at an individual level, or more incredibly, that private schooling makes no difference because high achievement is programmed genetically (see Plomin, 2019). As Kaufman (2019) explained:
“What's frustrating is that there seems to be two different Plomins: (a) the careful, responsible scientist who did groundbreaking research in the field and provides the appropriate caveats, and (b) a publicly unleashed version of Plomin that says outrageous things that aren't even supported by his own research.”
‘Hereditarian’ science linking genetics to intelligence functions in the education policy debate as a ‘new knowledge’ that echoes past theories with alarming familiarity. And it raises distinctive challenges for thinking critically about policy:
•How might political elites seek to translate the results of ‘educational genomics’ into policy proposals?
•How might ‘the new genetics of intelligence’ be manipulated to fit political agendas and policymakers’ requirements?
•How can social sciences safeguard marginalized children and young people in an era of ‘precision’ education?
ReferencesBBC Radio 4 (2015). The Life Scientific: Robert Plomin (podcast broadcast 20/1015), accessed 04/Dec/15 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j1qts
Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. New York: Basic Books.
Collini, S. (2020, 6 February 2020). Inside the Mind of Dominic Cummings. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/06/inside-the-mind-of-dominic-cummings-brexit-boris-johnson-conservatives
Cummings,D. (2013). Some thoughts on education and political priorities. Dominic Cummings own Wordpress. Available online https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20130825-some-thoughts-on-education-and-political-priorities-version-2-final.pdf
Davies, J. S. (2012). Network Governance Theory: A Gramscian Critique. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(11), 2687-2704. doi:10.1068/a4585
Delgado, R. (1998). “Rodrigo’s Bookbag: Brimelow, Bork, Herrnstein, Murray, and D’Souza.” Recent Conservative Thought and the End of Equality, Stanford Law Review 50: 1929–1957.
Delgado, R. and Stefancic. J. (2000). Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Gillborn, D. (2016). Softly, softly: genetics, intelligence and the hidden racism of the new geneism, Journal of Education Policy, 31(4): 365-388.
Gillborn, D., McGimpsey, I., & Warmington, P. (2022). The fringe is the centre: Racism, pseudoscience and authoritarianism in the dominant English education policy network. International Journal of Educational Research, 115, 102056. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102056
Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Herrnstein, R.J, & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure in American Life. New York: The Free Press.
Kaufman, B.S. (2019). There is no nature-nurture war, Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/there-is-no-nature-nurture-war
Ladson-Billings, G (2004). Just What Is Critical Race Theory and What’s It Doing in a Nice Field like Education?” In G. Ladson-Billings and D. Gillborn (eds) The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Multicultural Education. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer
McGimpsey, I., Bradbury, A. & Santori, D. (2017). Revisions to rationality. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(6): 908-925.
Plomin, R. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 19: 148-159.
Plomin, R. (2019) Teachers matter (but not in the way we might think), Times Eduation Supplement (25/Jan/19) https://www.tes.com/magazine/england/2019-01-25-england/teachers-matter-not-way-we-might-think
Saini, A. (2019) Superior: The return of race science. 4th Estate: London
Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(6), 483-499. doi:10.1080/01442872.2012.695933
Tate, W.F. (1997) .Critical Race Theory and Education: History, Theory and Implications. In M. W. Apple (ed.) Review of Research in Education, Washington DC: American Educational Research Association
Taylor, E., Gillborn, D. and Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, London: Routledge
Wilikins, A. (2022). Deconstructing Governance. In M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. Singapore: Springer
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Constructing Impacts of Public Guidance Policies in Educational Transitions
Mira Kalalahti1, Janne Varjo2
1University of Jyväskylä, Finland; 2University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author: Kalalahti, Mira;
Varjo, Janne
Since the early 2000s, the European Union (EU) has placed policies to ensure educational transitions high on its agenda (Barnes et al. 2020; Sultana 2012). As consequence, public guidance policies have formed a field through which “individuals are encouraged, supported and guided to think about their own lives” (Hooley, Sultana & Thomsen 2019, 12).
EU has focused especially on improving, assessing, and measuring the efficiency of guidance systems involved in educational transitions (Barnes et al. 2020; Sultana 2012). A range of practices is associated with these aims, such as the provision of labour market information, one-to-one counselling, career education, learning in the workplace and others (Hooley, Sultana & Thomsen 2019). Despite the interest in inputs (resources, investments), outputs (measurable actions done) and outcomes (changes in people's behaviour and in social structures), the issues on individual, systemic and societal impacts – long-term positive macro-level developments – of these activities (see Figure 1.) have been ignored and understudied.
Figure 1. The model of impact chain
Input → Output → Outcome → Impact
Theoretically, our comprehension of impact is built on input, output and outcome (see Bertelsmann Stiftung, N.D.). The end of the chain, ‘impact’, means the positive of macro-level development, that is, social benefit. Benefits may be related to individuals, organisations, or to wider society (Watts 2016), typically in the medium or long term. Next, to materialise macro-level development, changes in people's behaviour and in social structures must occur. These changes are called outcomes. They are supposed to cause anticipated social benefits, as a rule, in the medium term. The second part of the impact chain covers measurable actions done, i.e., outputs. Where impacts require several actual changes in the behaviour of people and/or social structures, outputs are achieved through well-thought-out and targeted measures. The first part of the chain looks at the resources required by the measures i.e., inputs. The stakes should be understood broadly: they may include work, money, material, time, contracts, knowledge, among others (Bertelsmann Stiftung, N.D.).
Drawing from Robertson (2021) and T. Watts (2016), the conceivable impacts for public guidance policies could be divided into three categories: First, matching individuals to education and work that suits them. It helps individuals to make choices, to build their skills and to strategize their participation in learning and the labour market. Second, to improve the functioning of the education and training systems, enhance the accessibility of education, and to promote skills development and lifelong learning. Third, to promote economic and social benefits, such as social inclusion and equality of opportunity in the society. Evidently, the aims given for public guidance policies are numerous, multifaceted and, in many cases, ambiguous. Therefore, calls for more rigorous impact evaluation have been accompanied by the quest not just to find out what works but why (White 2009).
In our presentation, we scrutinise guidance (with special focus on educational transitions) from an impact perspective. We construct the impact of public guidance policy by looking at objectives, means and evaluation as chains of impact (see Bertelsmann Stiftung, N.D.) by analysing how experts in guidance services talk about the goals set for services, the means of achieving them and the evaluation. We ask: How is the impact of public guidance policies built in the expert speech at the individual, the service system and society levels? And how is impact built from different expert positions?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn Finland, guidance services are provided mainly in two public systems: The Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for the organisation and funding of guidance at comprehensive, upper secondary and higher education institutions, and The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment for establishing political guidelines and strategic goals for the labour market policy (Toni & Vuorinen 2020). Educational establishments bear the main responsibility for guidance of pupils and students, whereas the Employment and Economic Development Offices are primarily intended for those outside education and training. The youth sector is involved in offering information, guidance, and counselling to young people, most commonly through Outreach Youth Work and One-Stop Guidance Centers. (Euroguidance 2022.) Elementally, guidance is publicly funded service, integrated into the Finnish education system and the ‘Nordic model’ where welfare is organised to ensure maximum participation in work and equal access to employment (Bakke 2020).
The data of the research compiles thematic interviews conducted with career guidance and counselling professionals (N = 15). The interviewed professionals work as guidance counsellors or administrative staff in the lower secondary education (comprehensive school), upper secondary education (general education and vocational education and training) or in the employment, youth or social services. Administrative staff deals with developing, planning of guidance services and overseeing them in the municipality and in their educational institution. Following the principles of the key informant technique (see Tremblay 1982), the interviewees were selected according to their institutional position, due both to their role within the structure of municipal guidance and counselling, and to their direct access to the information on educational transitions.
The informants all worked at the same mid-size municipality with 50 000 inhabitants, located in southern Finland with a close distant to the other largest municipalities. The interviews covered themes related to the administration and co-operation of guidance, as well as the aims, premises and models of guidance at the practical level, and the future of career guidance. At the first phase of the analysis, we pinpointed impact speech on the individual, the system and society levels. In the second phase, the impacts of guidance policies were constructed through the aims set, the means chosen, and the evaluation of aims reached.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn our presentation, we highlight the ways in which the counselees are connected to the quest for impacts of guidance policy. At the individual level, the impact comes from attachment to society through education or employment. At the system level, the impact is built on effective labour market policies, for instance. At the societal level the focus is on education, reduction of unemployment, prevention of exclusion and lifelong learning. Guidance experts also identified a contradiction between the performative pressures imposed by society and the actual opportunities of the individual. The speech on impact of public guidance policies constructs a fragmented and unstructured picture of the intended impacts.
ReferencesBakke, I.B. 2020. The ‘idea of career’ and ‘a welfare state of mind’: On the Nordic model for welfare and career. In Career and Career Guidance in the Nordic Countries. E.H. Haug, T. Hooley, J. Kettunen & R. Thomsen (Eds.) Brill Sense.
Barnes, S-A., Bimrose, J., Brown, A., Kettunen, J. & Vuorinen, R. 2020. Lifelong guidance policy and practice in the EU: Trends, challenges, and opportunities. European Commission.
Bertelsmann Stiftung. N.D. Corporate Citizenship planen und messen mit der iooi-Methode: Ein Leitfaden für das gesellschaftliche Engagement von Unternehmen. Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Euroguidance. 2022. Guidance System in Finland. https://www.euroguidance.eu/guidance-system-in-finland.
Hooley, T., Sultana, R.G. & Thomsen, R. 2019. The Neoliberal Challenge to Career Guidance: Mobilising Research, Policy, and Practise Around Social Justice. In T. Hooley, R.G. Sultana & R. Thomsen (Eds.) Career Guidance for Social Justice: Contesting Neoliberalism. Routledge.
Robertson, P.J. 2021. The Aims of Career Development Policy: Towards a Comprehensive Framework. In P.J. Robertson, T. Hooley, & P. McCash (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Career Development. Oxford University Press.
Sultana, R. G. 2012. Learning career management skills in Europe: A critical review. Journal of Education and Work 25 (2), 225–248.
Toni, A. & Vuorinen, R. 2022. Lifelong guidance in Finland. Key policies and practices. In Haug, E.H., Hooley, T., Kettunen, J. & Thomsen, R. (eds.). Career and Career Guidance in the Nordic Countries. Brill. Sense, 127–143.
Tremblay, M.-A. 1982. The Key Informant Technique: A Nonethnographic Application. In Burgess, R. (Ed.), Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Routledge, 151–161.
Watts, T. 2016. The Economic and Social Benefits of Career Guidance. In T. Hooley & L. Barham (eds.) Career Development Policy & Practice: The Tony Watts Reader. National Institute for Career Education and Counselling, 55–65.
White, H. 2009. Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1 (3), 271–284.
|
