28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
The Problem of Researching Human-machine Accounts in the Sociology of Education
Carlo Perrotta
University of Melbourne, Australia
Presenting Author: Perrotta, Carlo
The recent interest in the spaces and times of networked governance that emerged under the broad umbrella notion of topology is an exciting development in the sociology of education. As stated in the NW 28 Special Call for this conference, topology represents a robust conceptual framework for the study of social constructions of time and the future. The key problem at the heart of the call is the need to identify alternative ways to think about the future, to challenge the regimes of algorithmic prediction and automation that are shaping the educational imaginary. This problem, however, requires a self-reflective discussion about the analytical scope made possible by topological thinking, which is to say, rather pithily, that the conceptualisation of alternative future narratives must be warranted by a solid empirical foundation. In this regard, a key issue is that of “topological morphology” (Decuypere et al., 2022; Decuypere & Vanden Broeck, 2020), understood as a conceptual category that can direct research efforts. Morphology, in this context, refers to spatial-temporal forms that are observable and can be subjected to empirical scrutiny, and which can be held up as either problematic (the forms we don’t want) or progressive - maybe even “hopeful” (the forms we want). In this conceptual paper, I wish to contribute to this self-reflective discussion.
One of the key theses of topology is that relations among people and sociotechnical infrastructures of digitisation are ontologically constitutive (Lury et al., 2012), leading to continuities and discontinuities which may be dynamic and flowing across borders, but are nonetheless visible and researchable. These topological morphologies mostly emerge in two ways: a) firstly, they operate as practical enactments, observable in the “generative” dynamism that occurs across spaces, times and within assemblages of people and infrastructures (Lewis & Decuypere, 2023); b) secondly, they operate as part of a political-economic discourse connected to the logic of value creation, creating topological forms by projecting into the future imagined gains, benefits and sometimes risks (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2023). As these promissory anchor points are placed in the rarefied space-time of the future, they hold the present in place, steering policy and investment strategies and creating regimes of understanding and governance.
Moving tentatively across the terrain defined by these constitutive relations is the researcher, not a neutral and detached observer but a partial cartographer drawing - sometimes creatively – the shifting boundaries of emerging morphologies. The researcher is therefore framed as an agent and a “methodological bricoleur”, self-reflectively navigating the complexities of interpretative analysis to assemble critical accounts of bordering and debordering (Decuypere, 2021).
A central methodological problem in this framework is that of the account: who or what produces the empirical accounts of topological forms? There are a few possible answers to this question, but I wish to focus on one for obvious reasons of scope. This answer posits that researchable accounts of education governance are, or will soon, emerge from the hybridisation of machine logic and human cognition (Gulson & Sellar, 2024; Gulson et al., 2022). The temporal horizon of this hybridisation of cognition is left deliberately vague. As humans and machines conjoin (or will soon do) in multiple ways, they provide (or will soon do) “synthetic” accounts of themselves and of novel topological morphologies. This conceptual and methodological argument is gaining interest in the study of education governance, and it is without doubt a valuable attempt to bridge policy sociology with recent innovations in the cultural and philosophical study of algorithms (Amoore, 2020; Parisi, 2019), which explored the risks but also the possibility of novel ethico-political opportunities arising from human-machine cognitive architectures.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper’s main contention is that an undue emphasis on the “cognitive” character of these human-machine accounts might create a methodological impasse, taking us further away from the situatedness of practice. The notion of a conjoined human-machine empirical account – understood as something visible and researchable - is framed in the work cited previously as a key moment of social construction where networks, alliances and the border politics of contemporary education governance are brought into being through a mixture of computational mathesis, sociological structuration and subjectivity. The partiality and ambiguity of these accounts are not threats to empirical scrutiny but are instead evidence of “infrastructural latencies” (Amoore, 2018): malleable and fluid affordances that arise unpredictably from the very nature of algorithmic logics and which, under unclear circumstances, may bring about innovation in policy and practice. I wish to propose a different argument: the accounts that people-plus-algorithms give of themselves are not evidence of cognitive complexity but of what could be better described as pseudo-cognition or “performed” cognition: the result of a sociotechnical-interactionist dynamic.
The notion of sociotechnical interactionism is therefore put forward here as a conceptual and methodological alternative to the psychologism of “cognitive architecture”. Sociotechnical interactionism brings to the discussion several relational concepts derived from empirical sociology. For example, it affords a Goffmanian reading of topological accounts; one that does not inadvertently eulogise the (unwarranted) more-than-human character of the phenomena under scrutiny but examines instead the relationships between actors and algorithmic infrastructures as an ethnomethodological interplay of presentational and situational micropolitics (Goffman, 1964; Marres, 2020). The accounts that constitute empirical material for a topological sociology are thus reframed: not a conjoining of human and machine logics but a collection of situational encounters with ritualistic elements inherited from computational cultures as well as from established and ossified policy praxis. Therefore, the “policy situation”, with its repetitive aspects and interactional scripts, comes back into empirical focus. My contention is that this refocusing enables analyses more nuanced than what is offered by a cognitive focus of “joint rationalities” with all its implicit (and deterministic) assumptions about psychologised agency and machinic augmentation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe topological character of contemporary networked governance and its entanglement with technologies of prediction and automation is not being contested here. What’s being contested is the empirical apparatus being assembled for its study. The sharing of cognitive functions between humans and machines - and the accounts they produce and which go on to become objects of empirical analysis - should be reframed as the outcomes of situational encounters between actors/entities, whose goals and agendas are momentarily aligned and may shift depending on the flow of the emerging topological morphology.
In conclusion, we don’t need new ontological categories that allude to post-human cognitive hybridisation to make sense of topological morphologies. It might be sufficient to reconsider the role of autonomous or semi-autonomous agents - to be understood as composite, distributed and indeed “infrastructural” rather as individuated entities. These infrastructural actors are now increasingly implicated in the micro-political dynamics of education governance. The notion of sociotechnical interactionism that I propose here also brings into view the political interplay between empirical accounts: those provided by people, those provided by machines, and those provided by humans who have become momentarily entangled – rather than cybernetically fused - with machines. Of course, several methodological challenges arise from this conclusion - chief among them the need to move beyond description in the analysis of the situational politics that bring humans into contact with digital infrastructures. As noted by Marres (Marres, 2020), this move should involve active curatorial work from the researcher: a deliberate effort to tease out empirically interesting situations from computational arrangements which are opaque, black-boxed, biased and where participation is distributed, patchy and constantly shifting.
ReferencesAmoore, L. (2018). Cloud geographies: Computing, data, sovereignty. Progress in Human Geography, 42(1), 4-24.
Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud ethics: Algorithms and the attributes of ourselves and others. Duke University Press.
Decuypere, M. (2021). The topologies of data practices: A methodological introduction. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 67-84 , ISSN = 2254-7339.
Decuypere, M., Hartong, S., & van de Oudeweetering, K. (2022). Introduction―Space-and time-making in education: Towards a topological lens. European Educational Research Journal, 21(6), 871-882.
Decuypere, M., & Vanden Broeck, P. (2020). Time and educational (re-) forms—Inquiring the temporal dimension of education. In (Vol. 52, pp. 602-612): Taylor & Francis.
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 133-136 , ISSN = 0002-7294.
Gulson, K. N., & Sellar, S. (2024). Anticipating disruption: artificial intelligence and minor experiments in education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 1-16.
Gulson, K. N., Sellar, S., & Webb, P. T. (2022). Algorithms of Education: How Datafication and Artificial Intelligence Shape Policy. University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctv2fzkpxp
Lewis, S., & Decuypere, M. (2023). ‘Out of time’: Constructing teacher professionality as a perpetual project on the eTwinning digital platform. Tertium Comparationis, 29(1), 22-47.
Lury, C., Parisi, L., & Terranova, T. (2012). Introduction: The becoming topological of culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 3-35 , ISSN = 0263-2764.
Marres, N. (2020). For a situational analytics: An interpretative methodology for the study of situations in computational settings. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720949571.
Parisi, L. (2019). Critical computation: Digital automata and general artificial thinking. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 89-121.
Williamson, B., & Komljenovic, J. (2023). Investing in imagined digital futures: the techno-financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 64(3), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
The Educational Robotics imaginary: the EdTech industry and the production of Educational Timescapes
Emiliano Grimaldi, Jessica Parola
University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Presenting Author: Grimaldi, Emiliano;
Parola, Jessica
In contemporary public debates, AI and robotics are presented as technologies that will revolutionise the future of education. Promoted by an increasingly powerful industry, iterative cycles of hypes and hopes are boosting the creation of an imaginary (Beer, 2019; Taylor, 2004) that makes their introduction into the field of education a ‘desirable necessity’. AI and robotics innovations, often referred to as “disruptive”, are presented as a way to improve (the future of) teaching and learning.
This presentation deals with the analysis of this imaginary with the aim of understanding the different educational timescapes enacted through it (Kitchin, 2023). Our analysis will focus, in particular, on the envisioning of AI-based educational robotics within that industry (Beer, 2019).
Recently, scholars have focused on the investment made by the EdTech industry in imagining digital educational futures (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2022) and, within that, on the social production of temporality (Decuypere & Vanden Broeck, 2020). This literature highlights the complexities of the relationship between technology and socio-technical imaginaries, the contingency of time-making (and space-making) and how specific forms of technological innovation in education can be related to shifting experiencing and understandings of time (Decuypere & Simons, 2020; Vanden Broeck, 2020). In line with wider debates on temporality (Kitchin, 2023), speed, acceleration, real-timing, personalisation, and efficiency are key issues (Rosa, 2003; Beer, 2019) to understand the traits of imagined educational temporalities. Likewise, the interplay between three different temporal regimes is widely discussed, an immediate, archival and predictive time (Barassi, 2020). Within those debates that mainly deal with datafication and platformisation, there is also a specific focus on processes of imagined anticipation, that look to the future not as a resource to progress towards but as a resource to be drawn into the present (Decuypere & Vanden Broeck, 2020), using anticipated outcomes to rethink current practices and identify desirable futures (Amsler & Facer, 2017).
The distinctive contribution of our presentation is to project those debates on the social production of educational temporalities on the educational robotics imaginary, a relatively unexplored field (for an example see Tafdrup, 2020). Our analysis will, in particular, focus on the social production of temporalities enacted in the Educational robotics imaginary (Beer, 2019). We will explore how the EdTech industry envisions educational robotics innovation and how this envisioning has to do with the social production of a distinct set of technologically-mediated educational temporalities.
Theoretically, we draw on David Beer’s (2019) analysis of imaginary, defined as how “people imagine [something] and its existence, as well as how it is imagined to fit with norms, expectations, social processes, transformations and ordering” (p. 18). In this perspective, the imaginary is profoundly material as it shapes practices, and in turn, practices shape the imaginary through the forging of ideals and norms (Taylor, 2004). In our presentation, we will mobilise Beer’s theoretical and analytical toolbox to explore the AI-based educational robotics imaginary and the related temporalities. Additionally, we anchor to Rob Kitchin’s analysis of digital timescapes (2023), providing us a conceptual grid to analyse the emerging forms of robotically-mediated educational temporalities. If temporality denotes the diverse set of temporal relations, processes, and forms that are embodied, materialised and experiential, and if robotic technologies have profoundly transformed these relational processes, the educational robotics timescapes could be analysed by mapping out the fluctuations in pace, tempo, rhythm and synchronicity.
Consistently, the research questions that we will explore are:
- What forms of temporality are enacted in the imaginary of robotics in education?
- What kind of pace, tempo, rhythm, synchronicity are distinctive of those forms of temporalities?
- What relations and ethics can be detected on those forms of temporalities?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodological innovation is another distinctive trait of our contribution. To address our research questions, we analyse EdTech companies’ work of envisioning through a quantitative and qualitative composite methodology, to map and understand the social making of temporalities imbued with the emerging imaginary. We combine the use of Network Text Analysis (NTA), to extract semantic networks/galaxies (Hunter, 2014) and identify the influential pathways for the production of meaning within texts (Paranyushkin, 2011), with a qualitative interpretation of these networks through the time-conceptual grid inspired by Kitchin’s work on digital timescapes.
Our first step was to select a corpus of EdTech companies providing AI-based robotics services. The sample was created by searching three combinations of terms on Google: Artificial Intelligence and Educational Robotics companies, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics solutions for education, and Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for schooling. Two approaches were used to create a sample of AI and robotics organisations. The first involved generating lists of results. The first search term developed six lists of companies related to AI and robotics. We visited their websites and selected those offering educational solutions. The second approach focused on the top results for the other two search terms. This search resulted in a sample of 40 AI and robotics organisations, ranging from consultancy to AI artefact providers.
After establishing the sample, we proceeded to examine the materials on the public websites of each organisation. Our investigation focused on two things. First, we looked at the types of services and solutions offered to explore the different types of AI and robotics solutions for education presented and to see the kinds of problems or opportunities these solutions were said to address. Second, we focused on the promises, hopes, and expectations linked to introducing AI-based robotics artefacts in a classroom.
Data were extracted using the T-LAB software. The textual material was normalised, and the dictionary was built through lemmatisation and disambiguation of words. The corpus obtained was imported into Gephi software, which organises the lemmas in an adjacency matrix, and the network structure of lemmas is formalised as a 1-mode network. NTA and, specifically, a community detection algorithm based on the Louvain method (Fortunato, 2010) mapped distinct clusters.
Through this procedure, we investigated particular semantic networks and the centrality of different time-conceptual cores. These cores are then qualitatively analysed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the forms of pace, tempo, rhythm, and synchronicity contingent on each one.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe presentation discusses five heterogenous traits of an envisioned robotically-mediated educational temporality that are enacted in the educational robotics imaginary. We relate them to the relentless work of the EdTech industry and the envisioning of a future of education co-inhabited by AI-based robotic artefacts. Specifically, the NTA allowed us to identify the centrality of five temporal concepts in the emerging educational robotics imaginary, such as potentiality, adaptiveness, automation, improvement, and efficiency and a set of related semantic networks. We will show how each of these semantic networks, combined with a qualitative interpretation of texts, allows us to discuss in detail the rhythms of such an envisaged temporality (e.g. cyclical in the case of adaptiveness), the forms of calculation of time (e.g. mechanically standardized in the case of efficiency), the temporal relations that are designed (e.g. optimizing in the case of potentiality) and the enacted modalities that establish a particular relation between the present, the past and the future (e.g. prophetic in the case of automation). In concluding the analysis, we discuss how the various and multiple forms of temporalities linked to the educational robotics imaginary are paradoxical and have significant cultural implications for how educational time is mediated, embodied, placed and experienced by teachers and students. We also reflect on how this work of temporal envisioning can be related to similarly paradoxical educational problematisations, promises, solutions, and goals.
ReferencesAmsler, S., & Facer, K. (2017). Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: Exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures, 94, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.001
Barassi, V. (2020). Datafied times: Surveillance capitalism, data technologies and the social construction of time in family life. New Media & Society, 22(9), 1545-1560.
Beer, D. (2019). The data gaze: Capitalism, power and perception. Sage publications.
Decuypere, M., & Vanden Broeck, P. (2020). Time and educational (re-) forms—Inquiring the temporal dimension of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 602-612.
Decuypere, Mathias & Maarten Simons. (2020). Pasts and futures that keep the possible alive: Reflections on time, space, education and governing, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 640-652.
Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics reports, 486(3-5), 75-174.
Hunter, S. (2014). A novel method of network text analysis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4(02), 350.
Kitchin, R. (2023). Digital Timescape: Technology, Temporalities and Society. Polity.
Paranyushkin, D. (2011). Identifying the pathways for meaning circulation using text network analysis. Nodus Labs, 26, 1-26.
Rosa, H. (2003) Social acceleration: Ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high-speed society. Constellations, 10(1): 3–33.
Tafdrup, O. (2020). Mediating Imaginaries: Educational robots and collective visions of the future. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 8(2), 33-46.
Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.
Williamson, B. & Komljenovic, T. (2023) Investing in imagined digital futures: the techno-financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education, Critical Studies in Education, 64:3, 234-249, DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587
Vanden Broeck, P. (2020). The problem of the present: On simultaneity, synchronisation and transnational education projects. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 664.
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Uncovering the EdTech Startup Ecosystem’s Discourses of (Un)certainties as a One-dimensional Contemporary Folktale
Andrea Isabel Frei1, Julie Lüpkes2
1Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich; 2University of Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Frei, Andrea Isabel;
Lüpkes, Julie
EdTech startups are being touted as steady purveyors of innovations designed to revolutionize the education system (e.g. European Schoolnet 2023; Jacobs Foundation; European EdTech Alliance 2024). In our contribution, we aim to explore the discourse produced by EdTech startups themselves and related actors, such as accelerators and investors, and it's possible implications for the development of educational technologies. These actors in the EdTech space seem to thrive on the notion that “education is broken”, and an “oncoming educational apocalypse” (Weller 2022, 83−84) by creating a cornucopia of digital solutions, and with it, ways to translate didactic and pedagogical concepts (e.g., Schiefner-Rohs, Hofhues & Breiter 2023; Jarke & Macgilchrist 2021) or managerial needs around school environments (Hartong & Breiter 2021) into algorithmic systems. Over the past years, there has been a growing body of international research from various perspectives, such as in-depth analyses of specific products. Beyond the field of education, startups have been investigated, for instance, in terms of their organizational culture and gender (Pöllänen 2021); their global startup culture and its domestication (Koskinen 2021); the sociality of networking of young tech-entrepreneurs (Pfeilstetter 2017); the rise of startup entrepreneurship as a cultural phenomenon (Hyrkäs 2016); the exploitative tendencies of startup economy (Hill 2017); or as affordance networks, symbolic form and cultural practice (Werning 2019).
Most of the existing international studies related to the EdTech startup space focus on individual stakeholder groups, like investors (Venture Capital, business angels, e.g. Ball 2019), accelerators (e.g. Ester 2017; Ramiel 2021; Nivanaho et al. 2023), and “Big EdTech” (e.g. Williamson 2022; Komljenovic et al. 2023).
EdTech startups themselves and their realities present an intriguing object of sociological education research, since startups are the actors who in practice develop educational technology, seek investment possibilities, and cater to and/or deploy a specific vision of education. Their discourses and practical working conditions are the realties in which EdTech products emerge – they are an important executive agency, made of individuals able to criticize practical contradictions and act accordingly (as considered in pragmatic sociology, see e.g. Barthe et al. 2013, 186).
To this end, we draw on empirical material from our work at a European EdTech conference, analyzing presentations from EdTech startups, investors and policy makers given at a public conference in central Europe and shedding light on the many intricate practices EdTech startups adopt to persist within the “ecosystem” (itself a powerful biological life/agent metaphor, Weller 2022, 9; see e.g. Founders Foundation 2024). In our analysis, we show how the seemingly underlying motive of a broken education, the conspicuous references to the otherworldly and heroic individuals overcoming hardship isolates the real-life actor ‘startup’ from its complex interrelationships with the actual world.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe will present results from our field study at a European EdTech startup conference held in 2022. The conference catered specifically to EdTech entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers. Our data consists of fieldnotes made 1) as participants of the summit, 2) specifically during 5 selected presentations of approx. 1 hour each given by announced speakers, 3) on-site pictures, 4) related press releases, and 5) corresponding social media content from the platform LinkedIn. We approached the whole corpus with a discourse analysis based on the sociology of knowledge approach, the aim of which is to work out patterns of interpretation in the material (Keller 2005). By several loops of coding, focusing on meaning making within the presentations and discussions we observed, some discourse patterns and metaphors of a mythological, tale-like storytelling (see e.g., Jarke & Macgilchrist 2021; Macgilchrist 2019) jumped out at us.
Hence, we decided to introduce the characteristics of the European folk tale (Lüthi 1986) as a productive lens to capture these discursive particularities. Especially the European corpus and convincing methodology of this study, the depth of the overarching phenomena described, and its prominence in European narratology, made us choose Max Lüthi’s work over other theories such as Joseph Campbell’s hero journey (which suffers from a selection bias) or Vladimir Propp´s morphology of fairytales (which concentrates on plot structure and characters). According to Lüthi’s framework, a folktale is “a world-encompassing adventure story told in a swift, sublimating style. With unrealistic ease, it isolates its figures and knits them together” and refuses “to explain its operative interrelationships in dogmatic terms.” (Lüthi 1986, 82). The folktale also envisions a world in contrast to “the uncertain, confusing, unclear, and threatening world of reality” giving us “clear lines and solid unwavering figures […] in purposeful motion” (Lüthi 1986, 85−86). Interestingly, folktale characters are not irritated by the encounter of an otherworldly being or an “alien dimension” – unrealistic beings and propositions and reality coalesce. It is in this sense that Lüthi identifies a “one-dimensionality” of the folktale (ibid., 10).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDrawing on Lüthi, we observed the construction of a contemporary folktale by EdTech startups, investors, and policy makers through elements of 1) an underlying one-dimensionality 2), otherworldly metaphors, and 3) heroic tales of entrepreneurship.
Firstly, we noted a one-dimensionality in how actors in the EdTech space speak about techno-solved futures of education and revoking a problem-ridden education system – mostly in absence of educational practitioners, researchers, let alone students or parents. Most of the speakers seem isolated from a tangible reality of and interrelationships with these groups, which does not appear to create any perplexity for the involved actors. Even for so-called impact investors, the operationalisation of the actual impact of the EdTech they fund remains intangible, uncertain, and abstract. The isolated nature of discourses produced at EdTech startup conferences creates a detachment from educational realities by establishing one-dimensional narratives.
Second, the interwoven symbolism and materiality of the mystical metaphors the actors use (e.g., a mechanical rodeo unicorn) − talking of ‘unicorns’ (i.e., a startup evaluated at 1 B$ or more), ‘centaurs’ (evaluation of 100 M$), or advising ‘business angels’ etc. seem normalised in their discourses and interactions. These otherworldly characters, denominating real life (human) evaluation and businesses, are a sign of the latent (probably intended) uncertainty of entrepreneurship.
Third, the extraordinary nature of a selected founders’ own entrepreneurial journey reminds us of a heroic tale (Blank & Dorf 2020, xxi), following a certain scheme of hard work at a very young age (indicating an innate drive), making the right choices, engaging with the right people, and having a large amount of luck. The story establishes at once un/certainty, bypassing startups’ own working realities and interrelationships.
These narratives collide with educational settings in schools, universities, and other educational institutions.
ReferencesBall, S. J. (2019). Serial Entrepreneurs, Angel Investors, and Capex Light Edu-Business Startups in India. In M. Parreira Do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi, & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the Global Education Industry (23–46). Springer.
Barthe, Y. et al. (2013). Sociologie Pragmatique: Mode d’emploi. Politix 26:103, 175–204.
Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2020) The Startup Owner’s Manual. John Wiley & Sons.
Ester, P. (2017). Accelerators in Silicon Valley. Amsterdam University Press.
European Schoolnet (2023). Is Europe close to its first EdTech unicorn? http://www.eun.org/news/detail?articleId=10119286 (18.1.24).
European EdTech Alliance. 2024. ‘Connecting the European EdTech Ecosystem’. https://www.edtecheurope.org (30.01.2024).
Founders Foundation (2024). Founders Foundation. https://foundersfoundation.de/en/ (18.1.2024).
Hartong, S., & Breiter, A. (2021). Between fairness optimization and ‘inequalities of dataveillance’. In: S. Grek, C. Maroy, & A. Verger (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2021 (76–93). Routledge.
Hill, S. (2017). Die Start-up-Illusion. Knaur.
Hyrkäs, A. (2016) ‘Startup Complexity. Tracing the Conceptual Shift Behind the Spectacle.’ Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Jacobs Foundation. ‘Learning EdTech Impact Funds (LEIF)’. https://jacobsfoundation.org/activity/leif-learning-edtech-impact-funds/ (18.1.2024).
Jarke, J., & Macgilchrist, F. (2021). Dashboard stories. Big Data & Society, 8:1.
Keller, R. (2005). Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. VS Verlag.
Komljenovic, J., Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Davies, H. C. (2023). When public policy ‘fails’ and venture capital ‘saves’ education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–16.
Koskinen, H. (2021) ‘Domesticating Startup Culture in Finland’. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 8: 2, 175–96.
Lüthi, M. (1986) The European Folktale. Indiana University Press.
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech. Learning, Media and Technology, 44:1, 77–86.
Nivanaho, N., Lempinen, S., and Seppänen, P. (2023) ‘Education as a Co-Developed Commodity in Finland?’. Learning, Media and Technology (29 August 2023): 1–15.
Pfeilstetter, R. (2017) ‘Startup Communities: Notes on the Sociality of Tech-Entrepreneurs in Manchester’. Startup Communities 8:1, 15.
Pöllänen, K. (2021)‘Organizational Culture and Masculinities in a Startup Company in Finland’. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 11:4, 117–35.
Ramiel, H. (2021). Edtech Disruption Logic and Policy Work. Learning, Media and Technology, 46:1, 20–32.
Schiefner-Rohs, M., Hofhues, S., & Breiter, A. (2023). Datafizierung (in) der Bildung. Transcript.
Weller, M. (2022). Metaphors of Ed Tech. AU Press.
Werning, S. (2019). ‘Start-up Ecosystems Between Affordance Networks, Symbolic Form, and Cultural Practice’. In: M. Prenger & M. Deuze (Eds.), Making Media (207–219). Amsterdam University Press.
Williamson, B. (2022) ‘Big EdTech’. Learning, Media and Technology 47:2, 157–62.
|
