28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
An STS Approach to Wikipedia: Unboxing the Rhythms of Acceleration and Deceleration
Charlotte Sermeus
KULeuven, Belgium
Presenting Author: Sermeus, Charlotte
In today's neoliberal society, learning is imperative, demanding rapid assimilation of new information. Platforms like Wikipedia play a crucial role in facilitating this pursuit, with numerous studies emphasizing their educational benefits and their impact on enhancing the learning experience. However, a significant concern revolves around the temporal dimension inherent in this narrative.
What Rosa(2013) calls technological acceleration causes us to feel that we must speed up to keep pace with the changes of everyday life, i.e., social acceleration. This in turn causes several problems, such as the decrease in “real” production or consumption due to time constraints. For education in the broad sense, this necessitates accelerated learning, risking the creation and grasping of knowledge (which run parallel to what Rosa calls production and consumption), i.e. that it isn’t “real” grasping and creation anymore. Technological and social acceleration are intertwined, necessitating consideration of both aspects to address the challenges they pose.
Motivated by the narrative of accelerated learning, this study employs a Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspective to investigate if Wikipedia replicates this narrative. This perspective means that Wikipedia is seen as a specific effect generated by the interplay of different actors in a specific setting. This approach allows for seeing how a practice like Wikipedia is enacted and for identifying important actors and micro-practices.
Aligned with the broader field of STS, akin to Thompson's research (2012), it enables exploration of how networks, composed of human actors and non-human actors (including technologies) alike, structure and restructure the world in particular ways (Law, 2004). This approach sensitizes us to the fact that both human actors and non-human actors are needed to enact any practice and it helps us to see how that relation between actors enacts something like a policy document, educational technology, a website like Wikipedia or even knowledge (Thompson, 2010, p. 95; Decuypere & Simons, 2016).
One of the main interests of STS is the how-question: how particular things come to be (Decuypere & Simons, 2016; Sorenson, 2008). The goal is, then, to investigate how a relational constellation - a network - is distributed and to convey in what way a practice is performed. The goal in this contribution is to detangle the practice of Wikipedia. What I mean by this is the following: in a traditional representational approach, some actors that play a critical role are overlooked or ignored, they get “black boxed” (Decuypere & Simons, 2016, p.34). The objective is to open that black box, to look at the actors involved in the enactment of Wikipedia, to investigate how they are distributed and relate to each other, and to see how they effectuate Wikipedia (Decuypere & Simons, 2016). This approach ensures an apt vocabulary to describe this and open the black box that is Wikipedia.
Engaging as a Wikipedia editor and documenting activities, I constructed socio-material anecdotes, facilitating the creation of detailed mappings. This approach led me to the discovery of how the interplay of certain actors with other actors enact a rhythm. Thus, an STS approach made it possible to see that there are multiple acceleration dynamics that influence the learning and knowledge production practices on Wikipedia. However, instead of completely following today's dominant narrative on acceleration in learning, my research also demonstrated multiple deceleration dynamics.
I conclude this paper by stating that these deceleration practices play an important role in the quality of learning and knowledge production. Secondly, I point out that only by slowing down myself, I was able to investigate these practices. It is thus important for future research to slow down to focus on the unprecedented possibilities in and of the present.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo detangle Wikipedia, I partook in the everyday practice of Wikipedia, i.e. I (mainly) expanded and edited existing online articles. The point was to analyse how actions and practices come about through and in relationships. A way of capturing this, was by recording the edits I made. The goal of using screen recordings was “to bring objects out of the background” (Thompson, 2012, p. 98) and to push my own vision to the background.
The next step was to identify events. Here, I “followed the actors”: I observed what an actor compels other actors to do (Thompson, 2012; Latour, 2005). The following questions were posed to direct the selection process: Who or what is acting, what are they doing and what is related to what? (Adams & Thompson, 2016, p. 33). These questions were not only leading for the selection process but also for the writing of the socio-material anecdotes. These anecdotes were a way to “turn a technological object into the central character of a narrative” (Latour, 1996, p. vii). These anecdotes, written with an averted vision, provide actors a way to speak as well as a way to speak with them. They provide us with a space to grasp what is happening, to analyze the conversation, by allowing us to start from the event at hand and “trace out a range of associations” (Michael, 2000, p. 14; Adams & Thompson, 2016). They allow us to slow down and really pay attention to the technological (Thompson, 2012).
The second “layer” of analysis lies in simultaneously unravelling translations. Translations give an insight in how assemblages develop and “how actors interface with others” (Adams & Thompson, 2016, p. 8). Translation indicates an ordering in the network: Translation thus is a process that effectuates ordering effects, a process of actors negotiating with other actors for a place in a heterogeneous network (Adams & Thompson, 2016; Law, 1992; Latour & Woolgar, 1979). The goal here was to see how the patterning of an assemblage came into being. Where in the first layer of analysis the focus was on asking questions about what relates to what, this layer emphasizes the how (Adams & Thompson, 2016).
Thus, here, I examine how actors influence each other and enact certain practices and more importantly, particular rhythms.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDue to my analysis, I was able to detail multiple acceleration practices. An STS lens allowed me to follow certain actors and discover how not only knowledge gets enacted but also time. The acceleration narrative in learning can be found on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not only characterized by acceleration practices, which correspond with the dominant learning narrative, but Wikipedia also has a lot of practices in place to counter this. For every acceleration, a deceleration can be found. This already starts with the content policy. By encouraging reliable sources and neutral language, a Wikipedian is naturally forced to slow down, to hesitate, to think. Other deceleration practices ensure time, time for the Wikipedian to think about what they edited, deleted, reverted, ... In sum: to hesitate.
I thus found two main categories, practices of acceleration and practices of deceleration, which severely impact important parts of the learning on and with Wikipedia. Subsequently I categorized these practices by introducing further subcategories. Practices that accelerate the learning experience can be divided into 3 subcategories: (1) practices that accelerate knowledge production, (2) practices that accelerate the verification process of knowledge production and (3) practices that enable the learner to learn faster. Next to the acceleration practices, another important set of practices was found. This set concerns practices that decelerate, viz. that slow down (1) the production of knowledge, (2) the verification of said knowledge and (3) learning.
An important concluding note is that these results were only possible because I, myself, was forced to slow down. The anecdotes here were an aid that forced me to slow down, and it was only then I was able to map the acceleration and deceleration practices of Wikipedia. It is thus important to slow down to unearth these mechanisms that otherwise remain in the background.
Referencesde Mourat, R., Ricci, D., & Latour, B. (2020). How Does a Format Make a Public? In Reassembling Scholarly Communications (pp. 103–112). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0012
Decuypere, M., & Simons, M. (2016). On the critical potential of sociomaterial approaches in education. Teoría de La Educación, 28(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.14201/teoredu20162812544
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1716449
European Commission. (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. https://www.uil.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/05/european-communities-amemorandum-on-lifelong-learning.pdf
Facer, K. (2016) Using The Future in Education: Creating Space for Openness, Hope and Novelty. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Alternative Education (pp. 63–78). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41291-1_5
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Trans.). Harvard University Press. 29
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life. The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage
Latour, B., & Porter, C. (1999). Aramis or the love of technology. (C. Porter, Trans.; 3rd print.). Harvard university press.
Law, J. (2004) After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge
Leshnick, A. (2022). Deletion discussions on hebrew wikipedia: Negotiating global and local ideologies. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211067836
Michael, M. (2000). Reconnecting culture, technology and nature: From society to heterogeneity. Routledge.
Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/rosa14834
Simons M. & Masschelein J. (2008). The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. Educational theory, 58(4), 391-415.
Swillens, V., Decuypere, M., Vandenabeele, J., & Vlieghe, J. (2021). Place‐sensing through haptic interfaces: Proposing an alternative to modern sustainability education. Sustainability, 13(8), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084204
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
Vannini, P. (2017). Low and Slow: notes on the production and distribution of a mobile video ethnography. Mobilities, 12(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2017.1278969
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Teachers' Diversity-sensitive Digital Practices in the Classroom - A Participatory Research Project
Rebecca Schmidt
Paderborn University, Germany
Presenting Author: Schmidt, Rebecca
The aim of this contribution titled 'Teachers' Diversity-sensitive Digital Practices in the Classroom - A Participatory Research Project' is to shed light on the question of how school teachers can address a diverse student population in their daily classroom practices under the condition of digitality. Utilizing the theoretical framework of practice theory (Schatzki, 2001) I explore digital practices in the classroom together with teachers, facilitating a participatory research project.
Within the European discourse on educational technology in schools, three main areas are investigated: Educational Governance, School- and Classroom Studies, as well as Data- and Information Literacy / Competence Research. This research project contributes to the area of classroom studies. Presently, a focal point of investigation focusses the question of how teachers, students, and technology interact (Macgilchrist, 2023). Practices involving digital artifacts are recognized for their significance in shaping social and educational frameworks (Wolf & Tiersch, 2023).
Grounded in the theoretical framework of practice theory, classroom studies investigate how digital devices generate a pluralization of attention through visualization on smartboards and Apple TVs, necessitating educators to adeptly navigate students’ attention across diverse screens and devices (Herrle et al., 2022; Rabenstein et al., 2022). Other studies investigate the effects of displaying students' notes and question how these become the center of attention as teachers can mirror every device in front of the class (Wolf & Tiersch, 2023). Here questions about privacy and the code of conduct using digital technologies within schools are raised.
Without succumbing to an argumentation of techno-solutionism, this research project investigates how educators can facilitate diversity-sensitive digital teaching to grapple with current challenges such as inclusion in schools. Diversity sensitivity is not solely understood as an awareness of multicultural backgrounds but as a sensitivity towards global and intersectional power relations (Budde, 2021; Walgenbach, 2017). In alignment with power-sensitive approaches towards the concept of diversity, this research project contributes to a discussion about the teachers’ and the technologies’ position within the classroom. By investigating practices with digital artifacts, the research project aims to explore how teachers can construct their teaching practices addressing intersecting power dynamics.
With an intersectional perspective (Crenshaw, 2023), the contribution investigates how school teachers can facilitate students' diversity in the classroom while critically reflecting on their own position and power dynamics within digital educational spaces. Participatory research is a collaborative process in which a teacher partners with the university-based researcher, to investigate a self-chosen specific research question. The current collaboration focusses on the question of how students' digital note-taking can be performed regarding inclusive and language-sensitive digital teaching with tablets for students with refugee or migration backgrounds.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipatory research (PR) draws on thinkers like Paolo Freire, who theorizes participation, democracy, and pluralism as vital components of social inquiry, aiming at equitable knowledge production and social change. Working towards a vision of a participatory, democratic digital future that is shaped by collective agency and equity, PR focuses on social investigation, education, and action. The research builds on concepts of feminist scholars like 'situated knowledge' by Donna Haraway (1988) as well as decolonial perspectives on teaching and learning (Bozalek, 2011).
Doing a collaborative research inquiry fosters participation and equity between the teacher and the university-based researcher. They collaboratively develop the research project together and investigate context-specific digital teaching practices. The research question, as well as the focus of the research process, are developed in collaboration between the teacher and the researcher. PR provides the opportunity to reflect and reduce hierarchies within the research process by challenging traditional subject-object relationships (Bozalek, 2011). It overcomes the construction of the research object as other and allows to facilitate collaborative learning, improvement of classroom practices as well as meaningful learning (Vaughan 2019).
Conducting grounded theory-based research (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), qualitative 'active interviews' (Hathaway et al., 2020; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995), and classroom observation data is gathered. Within the 'active Interview', both participants interactively co-construct the interview situation together. The interviews focus on the teachers' lesson planning, their didactic decisions before and during teaching as well as on the self-reflection of their teacher role.
Additionally, classroom observation data on practices with digital technologies is collected. Here, the situatedness (time, space, context) of digital practices within classroom interactions is central.
During the process of research and analysis, academics informally feedback the results of the analysis, discussing it in brief interactions at school, as well as in formalized interview settings (Nind, 2011). Thus, the data analysis with the coding process of the grounded theory methodology is done by the university-based researcher, discussing and reflecting intensively on the results with the teacher iteratively.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe first preliminary results stem from the above-mentioned research about language-sensitive digital teaching with tablets for students with refugee or migration backgrounds. These results can be grouped into three dimensions: the use of translation software, the reflection on the teachers’ positionality as German native speaker, as well as visualization practices.
Firstly, these results show that establishing translation software use is beneficial for teachers and students. Practices, where students can choose and use specific tools routinely to translate words or phrases help students to navigate their way through assigned tasks as well as through digital learning environments (e.g. Learning Management Systems). The teacher also established diversity-sensitive digital practices, aiming to support students to simplify the text on their own. Students could assess different tools and use them. They gain independence in their learning process as they do not rely on the teacher for help.
Secondly, the participatory research project allowed the teacher to reflect on their own practices with digital technology. Coming from a monolingual socialization (Gogolin, 2008) the teachers acknowledged the different positions and backgrounds of the students and shifted their teaching routine to incorporate digital practices that support multi-lingual students.
Thirdly, practices of visualization are used not only to display the tasks of the lesson but also to enable the teacher to model the writing process like spelling, reformulating phases and collaborative writing practices in front of the class. It is also used to assess students’ work in public and give (peer-) feedback. Thus, digital artifacts such as teachers’ and students' notes can be displayed in the classroom at any time. During the participatory research, critical attention is raised about power dynamics, privacy and the code of conduct concerning the visualization of students' work.
ReferencesBozalek, V. (2011). Acknowledging privilege through encounters with difference: Participatory Learning and Action techniques for decolonising methodologies in Southern contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.611383
Budde, J. (2021). Die Schule in intersektionaler Perspektive. In T. Hascher, T.-S. Idel, & W. Helsper (Hrsg.), Handbuch Schulforschung (S. 1–20). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-24734-8_35-1
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). SAGE.
Crenshaw, K. W. (2023). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. In Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education (3. Aufl.). Routledge.
Gogolin, I. (2008). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Waxmann Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830970989
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Hathaway, A. D., Sommers, R., & Mostaghim, A. (2020). Active Interview Tactics Revisited: A Multigenerational Perspective. Qualitative Sociology Review, 16(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.16.2.09
Herrle, M., Hoffmann, M., & Proske, M. (2022). Unterrichtsgestaltung im Kontext digitalen Wandels: Untersuchungen zur soziomedialen Organisation Tablet-gestützter Gruppenarbeit. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 25(6), 1389–1408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-022-01099-8
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview ([Nachdr.], Bd. 37). SAGE Publications.
Macgilchrist, F. (2023). Diskurs der Digitalität und Pädagogik. In S. Aßmann & N. Ricken (Hrsg.), Bildung und Digitalität: Analysen – Diskurse – Perspektiven (S. 47–71). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30766-0_3
Nind, M. (2011). Participatory data analysis: A step too far? Qualitative Research, 11(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404310
Rabenstein, K., Macgilchrist, F., Wagener-Böck, N., & Bock, A. (2022). Lernkultur im digitalen Wandel. Methodologische Weichenstellungen einer ethnographischen Fallstudie. In C. Kuttner & S. Münte-Goussar (Hrsg.), Praxistheoretische Perspektiven auf Schule in der Kultur der Digitalität (S. 179–196). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35566-1_9
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction. In K. Knorr Cetina, T. R. Schatzki, E. von Savigny, & K. Knorr-Cetina (Hrsg.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (S. 10–23). Taylor and Francis.
Walgenbach, K. (2017). Heterogenität—Intersektionalität—Diversity in der Erziehungswissenschaft. UTB.
Wolf, E., & Tiersch, S. (2023). Digitale Dinge im schulischen Unterricht. Zur (Re)Produktion pädagogischer Sozialität unter dem Einfluss neuer medialer Materialitäten. In C. Leineweber, M. Waldmann, & M. Wunder (Hrsg.), Materialität – Digitalisierung – Bildung (S. 66–84). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.35468/5979
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
The Imagination of a Longed-for Well-ordered Digital Administration of Education in Portugal
Catarina Gonçalves
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Presenting Author: Gonçalves, Catarina
Deterministic discourses that conceive of technology as independent from other social sectors and consider technological developments to be the cause of far-reaching social transformations are widespread (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Wyatt, 2008; Wajcman, 2015). Within this contemporary thinking, we can find different narratives, with varying degrees of optimism, amongst which a rhetoric of techno-solutionism stands out, a Promethean vision which sees technology as a human good that contributes inexorably to the emancipation of the species (Martins, 2003).
The application of technological developments regarding the collection, processing and storage capacity to the education sector has been crucial for the parallel development of quantification and number-based policies in education. This means digital technologies have been enablers of data-driven policy-making (Ozga, 2008; Williamson, 2017; Landri, 2018; Grek, Maroy & Verger, 2021; Williamson, 2017, 2021; among many others), deepening and supporting the phenomenon of datafication (Williamson, 2017). Although the collection of data on education is nothing new, the importance of these changing digital policy processes shows that there is a digital layer added to what has already been taking shape in the governance of education. This layer includes its own actors, worlds, instruments, types of knowledge, possibilities for action.
Educational policy in the European space is nowadays entirely embedded in a digital environment of commensuration, where “good” outcomes are compared, visualized, and desired (Landri, 2018). This European digital environment is constituted by many instruments, some of European scope, but most working at national and local level, collecting, sorting and distributing data, often for later use by European aggregating platforms, such as the Education and Training Monitor. Educational policy research needs to study the digital instruments that make all this possible, it is important to understand the ideas they carry and the imaginaries surrounding them, as well as to follow the trail of their construction and the actors involved in their doings.
To understand how digital technologies are intertwined with educational policy we must distance ourselves from the above-mentioned deterministic thinking, but also observe and analyse those very ideas in the education sector. What are the imaginaries on technology that surround digital educational governance? How can we describe these imaginaries more concretely, where and by whom are they produced and reproduced? What ideas are shared among different actors and which are not, and how do these relate to practice?
This study analyses one of such digital objects: Escola 360 (E360). This is a web platform designed and developed by the Portuguese Ministry of Education, together with IT and consultancy companies. It serves at the same time local school pupil management and the administration of the education system. It is a real-time national web platform where an individual file is kept for each student from the time of entrance in the education system. It’s the software teachers access as they start each class to enter attendance data and lesson summaries, where student enrolment is carried out nation-wide, ministry staff check individual or aggregated data. It has some innovative features, like cross sector non-human automatic processes for information checking with social security, health or law services, for example.
Studied as a public policy instrument, E360 is analysed as an instrument loaded with meaning (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007), not as neutral device, a simple technical object, but rather as an artefact carrying ideas that deserve the researcher’s attention (Wajcman, 2015; Kitchin & Dodge, 2011; Beer, 2017). By describing these ideas, the purpose of this study is to understand the discursive construction surrounding E360, as a means to discuss the imaginaries on technology that surround digital education governance both nationally and in the European education space.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe approach and procedures of this study are inspired by the proposals of the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse analysis (SKAD) (Keller, 2007, 2013), which offers a view of discursive manifestations that is in line with the political sociology perspective (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007) that frames this study.
Keller (2007) sees discourse as “a regular relationship between a specific set of enunciation practices and materialities and a semantic content that proposes a certain symbolic structuring of the world” (p.297). Thus, SKAD combines and moves away from, on the one hand, the Foucauldian approach that analyses discourses as emergent and abstract structures and doesn’t really take into account the actions of social actors and, on the other hand, the excessive importance that Berger and Luckmann attributed to the “banal and everyday knowledge of ordinary people” (p.296). A discourse does not exist independently of its manifestations, nor are discursive practices proof that discourse as an abstract structure exists. They are the realisations of a construction that can only exist in the making.
This importance attributed to actors, without losing the notion of a “specific structuring of linguistic acts dispersed in time and space” (Keller, 2007, p.296) that frames their actions, is particularly interesting in the study of educational public policies from the perspective of public action, for which actors are one of the fundamental elements and therefore deserve the attention of the researcher. That said, we must keep in mind that actors are but one of the fundamental elements, deeply interconnected with others. And this web – also discursive – frames, enables and constrains their actions, deserving attention itself for all those reasons.
To gather data I observed team meetings, collected policy documents which frame the key digital reform moments in Portugal and conducted interviews to key actors: the team coordinator and Deputy Director of the Directorate General for Education and Science Statistics, team members working for IT and consultancy companies, and school actors who participated in the E360 development. In line with SKAD, I conducted an immersive and inductive content analysis to all the material.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThrough the study of the discursive construction around E360, we get a glimpse of the imaginaries on digital education governance in Portugal. I will present these by showing how information technologies are pictured as a solution to a problem – a distance between what there is and what there ought to be. This solution is framed in a generic deterministic thinking which imagines optimistic impacts of digital technology upon society and education. A techno-solutionism that envisions a new and inevitable well-ordered administration of education in Portugal.
I first describe this imagined solution in more general terms, that is, how it reveals the place and the role of information technologies in public administration, its relation with the administered and how these subjects are portrayed. Secondly, I describe the imagined solution for the administration of education, focused on how E360 is depicted, what its characteristics promise for the administration of education at pupil, school and system level.
All along it will become clear how digital education governance is described by all actors as the construction of a better, well-ordered world through information technologies. And how the design and development of E360 is inscribed in that same fabrication of a better and well-ordered administration of education in Portugal.
This Promethean vision will then be confronted with a less reassuring experience when actors actually design, develop or use the dispositive. Tensions and contradictions arise, chaos shows up every now and then, choices are made for different kinds of reasons. Maybe order will not be so well-ordered. These results allow us to discuss how digital education governance is taking shape nationally through E360 and also to get some insight on the imaginaries on technology and their relations to practice within digital educational policy-making in the broader European context.
ReferencesBeer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13.
Grek, S., Maroy, C. & Verger, A. (2021). Introduction: Accountability and datafication in education: Historical, transnational and conceptual perspectives. In S., Grek, C. Maroy, & A. Verger (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 2021: Accountability and Datafication in the Governance of Education. New York: Routledge.
Keller, R. (2007). L'analyse de discours du point de vue de la sociologie de la connaissance. Une perspetive nouvelle pour les méthodes qualitatives. Atas do Colóquio Bilan et Prospectives de la Recherche Qualitative. Recherches Qualitatives, Hors-Série: 3, 287-306.
Keller, R. (2013). Doing discourse research. An introduction for social scientists. London: Sage.
Kitchin, R. & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landri, P. (2018). Digital Governance of Education: Technology, Standards and Europeanization of Education. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lascoumes, P. & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments — From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 20(1), 1-21.
MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (1985). Introductory Essay. In D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology. How the refrigerator got its hum (2-25). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
1985; Wyatt, 2008; Wajcman, 2015
Martins, H. (2003). Dilemas da civilização tecnológica. In H. Martins & J. L. Garcia (Coords.), Dilemas da civilização tecnológica. Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.
Ozga, J. (2008). Governing Knowledge: research steering and research quality. European educational Research Journal, 7(3), 261-272.
Wajcman, J. (2015). Pressed for Time. The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. London: Sage.
Williamson, B. (2021). Digital policy sociology: software and science in data-intensive precision education, Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 354-370.
Wyatt, S. (2008). Technological Determinism Is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (165-180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
