28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Exploring Edtech Brokers and Their Practices of Mediation
Carlos Ortegón1,2, Mathias Decuypere1, Ben Williamson2
1K.U. Leuven; 2University of Edinburgh
Presenting Author: Ortegón, Carlos
This conference contribution aims to present a conceptualization of educational technology brokers (henceforth ‘Edtech Brokers’) and their practices of mediation, focusing on case studies of Belgium and the U.K. Edtech brokers are defined as organizations that guide local schools in the procurement, adoption, and pedagogical use of edtech. This guidance occurs at the level of both hardware (laptops, tablets, smartboards) and software (apps, platforms, data infrastructures).
Brokering actors have been studied in educational policy contexts (Grek et al., 2009; Williamson, 2014), and different effectiveness-oriented streams of research have pointed out the potential of brokers for bridging the research-practice gap in classroom settings (Neal et al., 2019; Neal et al.2022). Equally, critical work has previously scrutinized how brokers make specific forms of educational transformation thinkable, intelligible, and practicable (Bandolla-Gill, Grek & Tichenor, 2022; Ball, 2019; Hartong, 2016; Williamson, 2014).
Despite their potential to alter the nature of classroom practices around edtech and to reshape the boundaries between the private industry of edtech and state education, to date almost no studies have examined edtech brokers specifically as intermediary organizations between school settings and the edtech industry. As such, this paper aims to fill this gap by presenting the results of an up-close empirical examination of edtech brokers, their distinctive sub-categories, and their concrete effects in local school settings.
More precisely, the paper presents a categorization of three types of edtech brokers (ambassador, search engine, and data brokers) and shows their main practices of mediation. This categorization accounts for the multifariousness of brokers regarding their composition, influence on local school systems, and level of connectedness with wider policy and industry sectors. By focusing on practices (see Decuypere, 2021), we aim to investigate the concrete doings of broker organizations and gain insight into their distinctive operations as they unfold in specific contexts. The paper claims that edtech brokers’ practices of mediation materialize a set of possibilities, conditions, and constraints, for edtech usage in schools at the levels of (i) infrastructure, (ii) evidence building, and (iii) professional identity of the teacher.
To explore these questions, we find theoretical support in the work of Bruno Latour and Sheila Jasanoff in defining edtech brokers as mediators (in contrast to ‘intermediaries’). According to Latour (1994; 2004), an intermediary “is what transports meaning or force without transformation” (Latour, 2004, p. 39). By contrast, mediators “transform, translate, distort and modify the meaning of the elements they are supposed to carry” (Latour, 2004, p. 39). This distinction is particularly relevant for the case of edtech brokers, since it allows us to propose that they do not only neutrally “implement” or “apply” technology in education, but in doing so, they transform present and future possibilities for edtech usage and shape exchanges between schools and the industry.
Importantly, mediators also push forward fabulations of social worlds, both utopic and dystopic. Jasanoff (2015) refers to these fabulations as sociotechnical imaginaries and defines them as “collectively held, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology” (p.4). This is central to understanding that mediations of edtech brokers invoke and materialize, through concrete practices, certain futures about education while rendering alternative options unlikely, undesired, or even impossible.
The research questions that guide this contribution are:
- What are brokers’ distinctive practices of mediation and in which ways do they shape edtech usage in schools?
- What are the sociotechnical imaginaries about education promoted by edtech brokers through their mediations?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFirst, our categorization of edtech brokers is informed by a systematic online web search of grey literature (reports, governmental documents, and evaluations produced by governments, NOGs, civil society, non- and for-profit organizations, and consultants), focusing both on the transnational context (e.g., European Commission, UNESCO) as well as the countries of interest (Belgium, U.K.). As a result of this exploration, we conceptualized three types of edtech brokers that encompass the different types of edtech brokers that are currently operating at a European and global level: ambassador, search engine, and data brokers.
Based on this categorization, and second, we analyzed three specific broker organizations that are currently operating in either Flanders or the U.K., each case being a prototypical example of each type of edtech broker. These companies are Belgian ambassador Broker Fourcast (previously known as Fourcast for Education), British search engine broker Edtech Impact, and British data broker Wonde. The data for our analysis were retrieved from the companies’ websites, their organizational reports, and their communications on social media. To better understand the distinctive characteristics of each organization within their country of operation, this information was contrasted and triangulated with the previously mentioned policy documents regarding school digitization both at a European level and at the national levels of U.K. and Belgium
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFirst, we share an overview of the proposed categories of edtech brokers. In brief, ambassador brokers are the organizations that represent either a single technology provider (e.g., Google, Microsoft) or a selected sample of the edtech industry. Their main goal is to act as a representative or ‘ambassador’ of the brands they promote, encouraging their products and advocating for their educational potential. Search engine brokers are the organizations that work as search portals that focus on “delivering evidence” about what works in edtech. They have a strong emphasis on providing ‘bias-free advice’ and ‘evidence-based recommendations’ (Hillman, 2022). Lastly, data brokers are the organizations that support schools in managing, regulating, and analyzing the data produced by schools when using edtech. They act as gatekeepers of the information of schools, and hence regulate and moderate the data flow between schools and edtech companies.
Second, we disentangle three main practices of mediation of brokers and the imaginaries that give support to, and materialize through, these mediations. The first practice shows how brokers contribute to building the infrastructure of schools. Our main claim is that edtech brokers play a significant role in deciding the form of schools’ digital infrastructure, and this process is guided by imaginaries that promote values of fast adaptability and easiness of use. The second practice depicts how brokers use different evidentiary mechanisms to guide the adoption and usage of edtech into schools. This practice is supported by the sociotechnical imaginary of pushing forward a scientifically reliable transformation that immunizes schools against inefficient edtech. Finally, the third practice of mediation focuses on how brokers promote a particular professionality of teachers. Through different forms of pedagogical training and guidance, brokers push forward the imaginary of the teacher as a proactive professional that is always learning and even inspiring change colleagues and students.
ReferencesDfE. (2019). Realising the potential of technology in education: A strategy foreducation providers and the technology industry.
DfE. (2022). Future Opportunities for education technology in England.
Decuypere, M. (2021). The Topologies of Data Practices: A Methodological Introduction. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 67–84.
European Comission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027
Flemish Government. (2019). Visienota: “Digisprong” Van Achterstand naar Voorsprong ICT-plan voor een kwalitatief digitaal onderwijs in uitvoering van het relanceplan “Vlaamse veerkracht”
Gould, R. v, Fernandez, R. M., & Fernandezt, R. M. (1989). Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks. In Source: Sociological Methodology (Vol. 19).
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2009). National policy brokering and the construction of the European Education Space in England, Sweden, Finland and Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21.
Hartong, S. (2016). Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: The growing influence of ‘hidden’ data mediators in education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 523–536.
Hillman, V. (2022). Edtech procurement matters: It needs a coherent solution, clear governance and market standards.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). One. Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (pp. 1–33). University of Chicago Press.
Kerssens, N., & van Dijck, J. van. (2021). Platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 250–263.
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2).
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press.
Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., & Brutzman, B. (2021). Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice.
Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., Mills, K. J., Lawlor, J. A., & McAlindon, K. (2019). What types of brokerage bridge the research-practice gap? Social Networks, 59, 41–49.
Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.
Williamson, B. (2014). Mediating Education Policy: Making Up the “Anti-Politics” of Third-Sector Participation in Public Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(1), 37–55.
Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in Education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE.
Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Education International Research Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19.
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Re-thinking the Use of Broker Agency: a Broke Term Describing the Boundary Management at the Swedish Institute for Educational Research
Annika Linell
The University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Linell, Annika
In the field of education, there are a diversity of international organisations functioning as policy actors (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). On a global level, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has become one of the most influent agents of transnational education governance (Grek, 2009). Due to the de-nationalization of educational policy (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012), organisations such as OECD has had an increasingly greater impact on the day-to-day policy and practice in Europe, as well as on a national level (Grek, 2020). Since the emphasis on evidence in education have increased (Levinsson & Prøtz, 2017) various of initiatives have been taken in order to support the use of research in policy and practice. OECD’s (2022) project “Strengthening the Impact of Education Research” can be considered as one such example. Acting at the boundary of various policy actors’ interests, values and perceptions, OECD are conceptualized as a boundary organisation (Grek, 2020), facilitating cooperation and communication between research and policy (Parker & Crona, 2012).
Drawing on Guston (2001), the boundary organisation is a way of illustrating and understanding organisations mediating role to reduce tensions between research and policy (Guston 1999; 2001). The boundary organisation obtains its stability from ‘being accountable and responsive to opposing, external authorities’ (Guston, 2001, p. 402) and could be understood as a series of “delegations of authority from principals to agents within or between organizations” (Ibid. p. 401). While cooperation is an important adaptive strategy, when boundary organizations incorporate representatives of external groups into their decision-making structures, it is always carried out by projecting authority ‘by appealing to either face in a strategic fashion’ (Guston, 2001, p. 405). Since various stakeholders place diverse, and sometimes conflicting demands on the boundary organization, Parker and Crona (2012) highlight the importance of ‘boundary management’ as an adaptive, navigating, and negotiating continuous process to handle these dynamic tensions over time. What distinguish boundary organisations from other types of organisations is their capacity to reduce these tensions by meeting three criteria; first the use and creation of boundary objects and standardised packages, second the participation from both side of the boundary where they serve a mediating role, third the existent of activities where both politicians and researchers have shared partnership (Guston 2001, p.400-401).
Even if OECD, by others, is conceptualised as a boundary organisation OECD use the term broker agency when describing organisations mediating between heterogeneous groups of researchers, policy makers and educators. One such organisation, among many, that OECD call a broker agency is the Swedish Institute for Educational Research (SIER). SIER was established by the Swedish government in 2015, with the mandate to synthesise research that can provide knowledge support for professionals at various organisational levels. This task includes cooperation between research and professionals where SIER serve a mediating role. The term broker agency was coined by OECD in 2007 and since then the term is disputed, due to its origin within the field of business and finance (OECD, 2022). Brokering is defined by OCED as “initiatives aimed at bridging the divide between policy makers and researchers as well as assessing the quality of evidence available” (2007).
The terms boundary organisation and broker agency have different origin and are built on diverse logic and different expectations on knowledge management. This paper aims to deepen the understanding of the diverse logic and perceptions on knowledge management built in respective term; boundary organisation and broker agency, and the possible merit and shortcomings of either definition for describing the cooperation at SIER acting in-between politic, research and practice in the educational sector.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo deepen the understanding of the differences of logic and perceptions on knowledge management in-between politics, research and practice in the educational sector, a concept analysis of the terms, boundary organisation and broker agency, were made. The collected material was then coded according to a grounded theory framework (Charmaz 2014). After coding the material, a close reading of the literature was done by focusing on the codes in relation to arguments on what grounds the definitions of the organisations were either a boundary organisation or a broker agency. The in-depth analysis with the appurtenant codes of the two terms were then juxtaposed. The contrasts were then compared with the management at SIER.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results indicate that both terms; broker agency and boundary organisations have limitations in relation to SIER and their ways of handle tension between groups of heterogenous actors. The term broker agency has for instance an inbuilt perception, as it is described in the literature, as if there is a division between politic, science and practice, a borderland rather than a boundary. The divide of politic, science and practice may be an inadequate way to define SIER as a broker agency due to the embodied aspect of both politic and science in various stakeholders at SIER. Except that the literature portrays a broker agency with a traditional view of dissemination of research, as a linear rational process which compared with SIER is an incorrect description, due to the ongoing negotiation between researchers and practitioners were SIER act as a mediator.
When it comes to the term boundary organisations it aligns more with the ongoing process at SIER but the third criteria; the existent of activities where both politicians and researchers have shared partnership should also cover shared partnership between researcher and practitioners. However, into what extend the shared partnership should be done to be defined as a shared partnership is still open for discussion. This implies that the use of boundary organisation could be a more appropriate term for SIER instead of broker agency.
ReferencesCharmaz K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks
Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Guston, D.H. (1999). Stabilising Boundary between US Politics and Science. The Rôle of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization.
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, technology, & human values, 26(4), 399-408.
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), 23-37.
Grek, S. (2020). Facing “a tipping point”? The role of the OECD as a boundary organisation in governing education in Sweden. Education Inquiry, 11(3), 175-195.
Levinsson, M., & Prøitz, T. S. (2017). The (Non-)Use of Configurative Reviews in Education, Education Inquiry, 8(3), 209-231, DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2017.1297004
OECD (2022). Who cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d7ff793d-en.
Parker, J., & Crona, B. (2012). On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 262-289.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2012). Standards-based curricula in a denationalised conception of education: The case of Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 342-356.
|
