Conference Agenda

This symposium analyses how knowledge in education policymaking is socially constructed in knowledge networks. The term ‘knowledge network’ attempts to capture the processes and relationships in groups of policy actors created through networking, in which cross-sector, formal, and informal links are forged among policymakers, officials, special advisers, think-tank members, academics, lobbyists, and other stakeholders (Rhodes 2008). As has been found in comparative education research, these networks do not follow the borderlines and legislative restrictions of states or other regions, but work in and between them (e.g. Verger et al. 2012). We understand knowledge broadly: it can be scientific or based on political judgement and practice (Head 2008).

The symposium aims to understand the two key aspects in understanding the social construction of knowledge networks: their role in policymaking, and how these networks capitalise on knowledge.

First, different symposium presentations build understanding on what the knowledge networks are. From the theoretical perspective the importance of knowledge networks is obvious, given how the waves of decentralisation, managerialism, and privatisation have diversified the formal structures of policymaking and governance in a complex mass of interconnected levels and social networks (e.g. Maroy 2009; Ball & Junemann 2012; Ferlie et al. 2008). Researchers have a growing interest in analysing knowledge’s use in education policies (Fenwick et al. 2014; Carvalho 2013) and expert networks’ creation of the infrastructure for dataflows (Lawn and Segerholm 2011; Menashy 2019) as well as governing processes and Europeanisation discourses (Lawn & Grek 2012; Ozga et al. 2011). Knowledge networks are identified as important, but remain mainly uncharted in education research (Normand 2016): thus there is still work do be done to understand how they channel and formulate knowledge (cf. Menashy 2019).

Secondly, the symposium aims to analyse how knowledge is capitalised on in these networks. A substantial body of research shows that policymaking does not favour the critical use of knowledge or evidence but uses it as an instrument for political-ideological aims rather than as a tool for balanced rational deliberation (e.g. Goldstein, 2008; Stehr and Grundmann, 2012; Craft and Howlett, 2013; Klees and Edwards, 2014; Gormley, 2011; Contandriopoulos et al., 2010). Even before evidence is channelled into policymaking, its identification, collection, and selection are problematic for a balanced view (Spillane and Miele 2007; Piattoeva et al. 2018). Theories in political science emphasise political, rather than evidence-based policy process. Baumgartner and Jones (2009) start with ‘bounded rationality’, Kingdon (2003) highlights the roles of policy entrepreneurs and their readiness to push pet proposals at opportune moments, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework emphasises core beliefs of actors (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Most theories do not recognise rationality (c.f. Scharpf, 1997; Ostrom, 2005) or evidence as a key driver of politics but as part of the mix (Head, 2008).

The role of knowledge networks and how they work with knowledge are analysed in four contexts: EU (mainly Brussels), Finland, Portugal, and the UK. The results derive from three research projects. The Transnational knowledge Networks in Higher Education Policymaking (KNETS) research project analyses the concrete operation of transnational knowledge networks in higher education drawing on network analysis, interviews, and observation. A study predating and connected to KNETS studied the political use of evidence in the Academies Act in the UK with documentary data and interviews. The third research project studies the role of private foundations' use knowledge as a source of power in Portugal and Europe with the help of documents and interviews. All presentations focus on the knowledge networks, their members, as well as how knowledge is used in these networks.

A premise for this presentation is that evidence-based policy is a political concept. ‘Evidence-based policy’ is an attempt to label a political process but fails to give a correct image of what is taking place. Theories in political science recognise the value-based starting points of policy instead of evidence (Baumgartner and Jones 2009; Kingdon 2003; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Evidence can be seen as an impetus for change, for example, if an indicator focuses attention on a problem (Zahariadis, 2007), however, different forms of knowledge and evidence are not the key driver of (Head, 2008). In other words, knowledge, even when understood as broadly as in this symposium, can be seen as only one, indeed necessary, but not necessarily the most important element of a political process. The presentation draws on a published article and analyses how politics of evidence played its part in the policy process and created necessary room for action. It focuses on the landmark Academies Act (2010). This piece of legislation was put in motion rapidly after the formation of the Cameron–Clegg coalition government, the UK government responsible for English education. The act and its subsequent reforms have dramatically changed the English education landscape from public to private provision and delivery (Rayner et al., 2018; Salokangas and Ainscow, 2019; West and Bailey, 2013). The analysis tracks long-term structural changes in the education polity, its networks, and shifting preferences among policymakers. Data for the research are policymaker interviews after the reform, a mapping of think tanks, and a document analysis. The analysis shows that political-ideological preferences were derived from think tanks, and the Conservative manifesto built on skewed Swedish evidence in constructing an argument for the Act. The political choices morphed into fact-based arguments in the policy process. While think tanks had some reservations, in the Whitehall bureaucracy the argument was reformulated as a rational deliberation. This was possible because of the long-term change in the significance of think tanks, and how policymakers preferred politically informed opinions instead of research evidence. The presentation argues that the evidence-based policy emphasis is an attempt to depoliticise the scope for political arguments. It also opens questions for further inquiries in the KNETS project, such as what the power stake of academics in ‘evidence-based policy’ is.

Borgatti, S., Martin, E., & Jeffrey, J. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Los Angeles: Sage, Print. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M. (1986). Truth and Power. In Gordon C, ed, Michel Foucault. Power/knowledge. Harvester. Cohen, R. & Havlin, S. (2010). Complex Networks: Structure, Robustness and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kauko, J. & Varjo, J. (2008). Age of indicators: Changes in the Finnish education policy agenda. European educational research journal, 7(2), 219-231. Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. SAGE. Rinne, R., Kallo, J. & Hokka, S. (2004). Liian innokas mukautumaan? OECD:n koulutuspolitiikka ja Suomen vastauksia [Too eager to comply? The OECD education policy and Finnish answers]. Kasvatus, 35 (4), 34-54. Saarinen, T. (2008). Whose Quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher education policy. Discourse 29(3), 179-193 Segerholm, C., Hult, A., Lindgren, J. & Rönnberg, L. (2019). The Governing-Evaluation-Knowledge Nexus. Springer. Välimaa, J. (2012). The Corporatization of National Universities in Finland. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Ordorika (Eds.), Universities and the Public Sphere. Knowledge Creation and State Building in the Era of Globalization (pp. 101-120). Routledge. International Studies in Higher Education.

In this presentation we analyse the structure of the higher education policy network that operates in and between the Finnish national and the European Union levels. We understand this network as conductor of knowledge and knowledge-related power. Our aim is to understand how this knowledge network has been formed. We also examine how well the network can identify the key actors in policymaking. A starting point for analysing the network is that knowledge is formed in relation to other knowledge and power (Foucault 1986; 1977). For example, Swedish research has used interviews to study how knowledge became a key resource in higher education governance structures (Segerholm et al. 2020). Finnish researchers noted that the EU and the OECD can set a dominant education discourse through different networks, creating a seemingly value-free agenda, which Finland has mostly followed (e.g. Rinne et al. 2004; Kauko & Varjo 2008; Saarinen 2008; Välimaa 2012). Drawing on public data, we have formed a database on key network organs. Network analysis focuses on the most important organs, for instance the European Parliamentary Committees, the Commission’s Directorates General for Research and Innovation, and Education and Culture. In Finland the network covers the parliament’s Grand Committee and the committee for Education and Culture. Other important hubs to be analysed are the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and its working group EU30 Education. In addition, we include universities’ and universities of applied sciences’ organisations in Finland and their representation at the EU level. Our data is a two-mode affiliation social network data, which we convert to one-mode membership data for analysis (Borgatti et al. 2013). The first analysis can point out the centrality of some policy actors and establish the potential presence of cohesive sub-groups (Knoke & Yang 2008; Borgatti et al. 2013). Data is analysed with UCINET software that is designed for social network analysis. Our results reveal some key actors and hubs, and our results are in line with previous understandings of Finnish and EU higher education policy networks. We reflect on the difficulties and limitations that arise from analysing data gathered from public sources.

Borgatti, S., Martin, E., & Jeffrey, J. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Los Angeles: Sage, Print. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M. (1986). Truth and Power. In Gordon C, ed, Michel Foucault. Power/knowledge. Harvester. Cohen, R. & Havlin, S. (2010). Complex Networks: Structure, Robustness and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kauko, J. & Varjo, J. (2008). Age of indicators: Changes in the Finnish education policy agenda. European educational research journal, 7(2), 219-231. Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. SAGE. Rinne, R., Kallo, J. & Hokka, S. (2004). Liian innokas mukautumaan? OECD:n koulutuspolitiikka ja Suomen vastauksia [Too eager to comply? The OECD education policy and Finnish answers]. Kasvatus, 35 (4), 34-54. Saarinen, T. (2008). Whose Quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher education policy. Discourse 29(3), 179-193 Segerholm, C., Hult, A., Lindgren, J. & Rönnberg, L. (2019). The Governing-Evaluation-Knowledge Nexus. Springer. Välimaa, J. (2012). The Corporatization of National Universities in Finland. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Ordorika (Eds.), Universities and the Public Sphere. Knowledge Creation and State Building in the Era of Globalization (pp. 101-120). Routledge. International Studies in Higher Education.

This presentation aims to understand how knowledge is acquired and used in higher education networks, for example in the ministerial working groups and parliamentary committees. The concept of knowledge has not been clearly defined in literature on (education) policy studies. Following Foucault (1977, 1986), we understand the concepts of knowledge and power as interwoven and relativistic that are always bounded by the context. We recognize policymakers not only as users, but also as producers of knowledge who draw on different formal and informal practices and networks in policymaking (Foucault 1986). More specifically, we focus on capturing “the movement of knowledge through the world of policy” (Freeman & Sturdy 2014, 14). That is, the use of knowledge in the work of policy and how knowledge practices are legitimised through networks. This presentation is based on a research project (KNETS) that combines social network analysis (SNA), interviews (N=40), and observations. We investigate the network of key higher education policy actors connecting the Finnish and EU contexts. We started by identifying actors in both contexts that share similar characteristics regarding their role and position in the policymaking process. In Finland, the network covers for example the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and its Education division, the EU30, which is one of the main links between the EU and Finland on education affairs in the national context. In the EU, the network consists of the Committee on Culture and Education in the European Parliament and the Working Group on Higher Education in the European Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Training. The network data cover other important knowledge hubs and stakeholders operating in the field of higher education, for example organisations representing universities and universities of applied sciences in Finland and the EU. This presentation focuses on interviews and observations conducted in this network. To be able to understand the operation of these knowledge networks, we must examine the use of knowledge in practice through protocols, rituals, and language (Rhodes 2011). Our preliminary findings suggest that networks work as a source of knowledge and operate as a means of legitimatising the acquired knowledge into negotiable forms. Here the trustworthiness of knowledge producers plays a key role. Negotiations on what knowledge is selected for policy often occur prior to formal decision-making: the feasibility of knowledge is politically charged. This highlights the performativity in knowledge utilization.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Allen Lane Foucault, M. (1986). Truth and Power. In Gordon C, ed, Michel Foucault. Power/knowledge. Harvester. Rhodes, R.A.W. (2011). 2011. Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford University Press. Freeman, R. & Sturdy, S. (2014). Introduction: knowledge in policy – embodied, inscribed enacted. Rhodes R.A.W. (2008). Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford University Press.

This presentation focuses on the reinforced presence of private foundations in alliance with EdTech in educational governance, using knowledge as a source of influence. To this end, we will present an ongoing exploratory study about DigitALL, a Vodafone Foundation Portugal program for schools that aims to promote “new technologies to support the development of technical, behavioural and social skills” (DigitALL, 2023). Preliminary data, gathered by documental analysis and interviews, show that DigitALL seems a promising empirical study to discuss two features of contemporary education governance. The first feature refers to creating new networks, where non-state actors – such as private and philanthropic organizations – are becoming key actors in education governance (Ball, 2016). Moreover, after the Covid-19 pandemic, private foundations reinforced their presence in education in alliance with EdTech (Saura, 2020; Grimaldi, & Ball, 2021), exhibiting a significant capacity to influence policy, without constraints of national borders or regional and working directly with schools (Williamson et al, 2020). Data show that DigitALL was born from the Vodafone Group Foundation strategy to invest €20 million to expand “digital skills and education programmes” (Vodafone Group Foundation, 2023) and is identical to other ongoing programs in seven European countries. These data will be explored to understand the creation of a new network that gathers national and supranational private foundations, the EdTech and the schools. The second feature refers to how knowledge production, circulation and use are becoming the process of governing itself (Fenwick et al, 2014). Education governance has become more based on comparison and performativity (Grek, Maroy & Verger, 2020) and, thus, there is a growing need for knowledge to sustain policy decisions. The “governing by numbers” (Grek, 2009) is now more and more supported by infrastructures and digital platforms (see, e.g., Decuypere et al., 2021; Sellar, 2017), and taking part in digital education governance (Williamson, 2016). Simultaneously, philanthropy is becoming more concerned with the knowledge to sustain its action, because is turning more committed to impacts and results, capacity building, training, consulting, and digital innovation, which has been described as new philanthropy (see, e.g., Ball & Junemann, 2011). In this respect, DigitALL offers schools a digital platform, in-job teacher training and monitors who apply, in the classroom, a script on digital skills with students. These data converge to the idea that DigitALL takes part in the “new philanthropy canon”, using “digital knowledge” as a source of influence.

Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of education policy, 31(5), 549-566. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2011). Education policy and philanthropy—The changing landscape of English educational governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(10), 646-661. Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1-16.Sellar, 2017 DigitALL (2023). DigitALL < https://www.digitall.vodafone.pt/>, access 27 jan 2023 Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), 23-37. Grek, S., Maroy, C., & Verger, A. (2020). Introduction: Accountability and datafication in education: Historical, transnational and conceptual perspectives. In World yearbook of education 2021 (pp. 1-22). Routledge. Grimaldi, E., & Ball, S. J. (2021). The blended learner: digitalisation and regulated freedom-neoliberalism in the classroom. Journal of Education Policy, 36(3), 393-416. Saura, G. (2020). Filantrocapitalismo digital en educación: Covid-19, UNESCO, Google, Facebook y Microsoft. Teknokultura, 17(2), 159-168. Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: An introduction. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 3-13. Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology