Time: Thursday, 29/Aug/2024: 13:45 - 15:15 Session Chair: Ábel Bereményi |
Location: Room 037 in ΘΕE 01 (Faculty of Pure & Applied Sciences [FST01]) [Ground Floor] Cap: 45 |
Paper
Hoping for Community in a Technologically Decelerated World
1University of Vechta, Germany; 2Universität Oldenburg, Deutschland; 3Universität Göttingen, Deutschland; 4Universität Kiel, Deutschland
Presenting Author:Each phase of accelerated growth within a society also brings with it desires for deceleration. In view of technology-driven social transformations such as digitalisation, datafication or platformisation, critical perspectives on the role of technologies in society have been gaining traction, with the desire for a more just, humane and less technology-centred degrowth society becoming more widespread (e.g. Guenot & Vetter, 2019). These perspectives interweave critique of contemporary, technology-driven social transformation, with an interest in futures and futurity (e.g. Appadurai, 2021). Against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, austerity, right-wing populism and technological acceleration, there is increased uncertainty today about many things in everyday life that could previously be taken for granted. Against this backdrop, this paper addresses how grassroots educational practitioners’ hopes for the future articulate a critique of the present and construe (im)possible futures.
The paper is contextualised in recent work on futures-making (e.g. Knox et al., 2020; Selwyn, 2021; Swist & Gulson, 2023). This research, sometimes based in empirical research, other times as social science fiction, critically reflects on the impact of technological change on society, creating versions of utopias and dystopias. Informed by the notion that a “historical retrospective” is necessary for the formulation of futures (Zierer, 2021, p. 13f), these studies engage with the (im)possible futures of education against the background of technological change. Drawing on the past to shape the future can, however, also restrict thought and practice (Macgilchrist et al., 2024). During the Covid-19 pandemic, this became apparent when, for example, key stakeholders took recourse to long-cherished concepts for how schooling should be transformed, rather than going beyond the already-known and well-rehearsed arguments for, e.g., more personalisation, better technology in schools or more effective leadership (Burgos et al., 2021; Zepeda & Lanoue, 2021).
Drawing on Bloch's "principle of hope" (1995), Appadurai's "traces of future" (2021) and Levitas’ "utopia as method" (2013), we utilize a critical utopian approach inspired by Muñoz (2009). The contribution adds insights to what Levitas refers to as “political pragmatism” which “prioritises short-term fixes for problems within the current system” while placing “questions of the viability or justice of that system itself, and certainly radical alternatives […] outside legitimate political debate” (Levitas, 2013, p. 132). Drawing on well-known, pragmatic concepts and approaches can inadvertently render the future smaller and less possible, rather than expanding future possibilities. As Appadurai (2021) argues, the more we think of technological futures, the less space is there for non-technological futures.
Based on interviews with school principals, teachers, (school) social workers and other educational professionals who worked with young people in school and out-of-school settings during the pandemic, this contribution explores which futures they consider desirable. The aim is to illustrate hopes for more socially just, sometimes utopian, futures using concrete, current examples from the reflection of educational practice.
After (i) presenting the theoretical-methodological framework and (ii) discussing the central findings, the paper (iii) reflects on the interviewees' wishes for more solidarity with one another in relation to research on convivial technologies in degrowth societies, debates on technological acceleration and deceleration and contemporary thinking about small revolutions and radical actions in everyday life. The contribution (iv) concludes with methodological reflections for future studies. Overall, the findings provide, we suggest, traces of futures otherwise as they are articulated in the present.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Building on three sets of inspiration from future studies (e.g. Danaher, 2021; Leahy et al., 2019; Facer & Sandford, 2010, Sardar, 2010), this paper draws on interviewees' situated articulations of the present and their hopes for alternative futures. With Bloch (1995) and Appadurai (2013), we thus aim to study hopes as traces into futures. In total, we spoke with 65 school social workers, teachers, school administrators, education policy makers and other people from institutions that provide formal and informal education for children and young adults in Germany. We conducted the semi-structured interviews during and after the pandemic school closures from May 2020 to April 2022. The interviews comprised three sections: first, interviewees’ narratives about their experiences of technology use and social inequality during the school closures; second, their accounts of how they met the challenges they experienced during the pandemic lockdown; third, their reflections on how they imagine a future otherwise. What would society look like if it were in a "utopian enclave" (Jameson, 2007) where the social inequalities they had mentioned had been alleviated?
The interviews, which lasted about one hour, were transcribed and rich points identified, i.e., moments that use the interviewer as a research instrument and follow the traces of what seems confusing, unclear, unusual or otherwise requiring explanation and in-depth exploration (Agar, 2006). For this paper, the interview responses to the third section of the interview, i.e., the questions about futures and hopes for society in a utopian enclave, were coded thematically.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The contribution identifies three contemporary themes articulating our interviewees’ hopes for technologically decelerated futures: 1) participation in decision-making, which is linked to the wish for more visibility for young people in the future; 2) mutual care, which is interwoven with the wish for support in the young people’s lives to be more reliable; 3) appreciation for other groups, opinions and ways of life, which is linked to the wish for more future interpersonal understanding. Together they point to the overall yearning for solidarity in community which needs time, occasions, role models and spaces of encounter. Community and solidarity are well-known desires and aims in activism and critical theory. Drawing on recent political theory (e.g. von Redecker, 2023), we will, however, argue that these are radical acts in educational practice that constitute tiny revolutions in contemporary (Global North) societies. While educational policy throughout the pandemic and in the post-pandemic ‘new normal’ has continued to prioritise modernist technological acceleration, these interviews articulate a longing for deceleration. They create visions of the future without a focus on high tech use. If we assume that educational research needs to move "beyond the school to the community, home and workplace" (Facer & Sandford, 2010, p. 74) then, these findings suggest, future research and interventions need to bring together actors from these educationally relevant domains to shape futures otherwise that may or may not elaborate further on enacting solidarity in community.
References
Agar, M. (2006). An Ethnography By Any Other Name ... Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 7, No 4 (2006): Qualitative Research in Ibero America-. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.4.177.
Appadurai, A., Marco, A., Neresini, F., & Sassatelli, R. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Rassegna Italiana Di Sociologia, 54, 651–673.
Bloch, E. (1995). The principle of hope. MIT Press.
Burgos, D., Tlili, A., & Tabacco, A. (Eds.). (2021). Radical Solutions for Education in a Crisis Context: COVID-19 as an Opportunity for Global Learning. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7869-4
Danaher, J. (2021). Axiological futurism: The systematic study of the future of values. Futures, 132, 102780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102780
Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years?: Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00337.x
Guenot, N., & Vetter, A. (2019). Digital Konvivial. Digitale Technologien für eine Postwachstumsgesellschaft. In A. Höfner & V. Frick (Eds.), Was Bits und Bäume verbindet: Digitalisierung nachhaltig gestalten (pp. 100–106). oekom verlag.
Jameson, F. (2007). Archaeologies of the future: The desire called utopia and other science fictions. Verso.
Knox, J., Williamson, B., & Bayne, S. (2020). Machine behaviourism: Future visions of ‘learnification’ and ‘datafication’ across humans and digital technologies. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1623251
Leahy, S. M., Holland, C., & Ward, F. (2019). The digital frontier: Envisioning future technologies impact on the classroom. Futures, 113, 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.009
Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as method: The imaginary reconstruction of society. Palgrave Macmillan.
Macgilchrist, F., Jarke, J., Allert, H., & Cerratto Pargman, T. (2024). Design Beyond Design Thinking: Designing Postdigital Futures when Weaving Worlds with Others. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00447-z
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. New York University Press.
Redecker, E. von. (2023). Revolution für das Leben: Philosophie der neuen Protestformen. FISCHER Taschenbuch.
Sardar, Z. (2010). The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—What’s in a name? Futures, 42(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001
Selwyn, N. (2021). Critical data futures. 225522 Bytes. https://doi.org/10.26180/15122448.V1
Swist, T., & Gulson, K. N. (2023). Instituting socio-technical education futures: encounters with/through technical democracy, data justice, and imaginaries. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(2), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2205225
Zepeda, S. J., & Lanoue, P. D. (2021). A leadership guide to navigating the unknown in education: New narratives amid COVID-19. Routledge.
Zierer, K. (2021). Ein Jahr zum Vergessen: Wie wir die drohende Bildungskatastrophe nach Corona verhindern. Herder.
Paper
Educational Commons and the State. Lessons from a Popular Education Experience in the City of Buenos Aires
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Presenting Author:Bachilleratos Populares (BPs) are popular education (Freire, 1970/2005) experiences for young and adults created by grassroots social organizations in the context of the social uprisings of 2001 in Argentina. Guided by a utopian and anticapitalist view, organized horizontally, assembly-led, and autonomous from the state, they constitute an example of educational commons. Since their creation, the number of BPs has continued to grow to reach the number of 86 BPs in 2015 (GEMSEP, 2016).
Drawing upon the neo-Marxist approach on the commons (De Angelis, 2017; Federici, 2019; Laval & Dardot, 2005), we consider the BPs a main example of commons in the field of education. The notion of the commons designates the setting up of horizontal, assembly-based, and anti-capitalist social initiatives organized by civil society —chiefly social movements— to respond to the social needs of communities and to resist the dynamics of enclosure (privatization) promoted by the capital-state alliance, especially in the neoliberal phase of capitalism. In coherence, these initiatives vindicate their autonomy, distancing themselves from the notion of ‘the public’, understood as ‘what is owned, managed, controlled, and regulated by and for the state’ (Federici, 2019, p. 96).
However, the BPs do not understand their autonomy as just a withdrawal from the state, which according to Hardt and Negri (2012) seems to be the defining strategy of the common. In response to the need for an educational diploma expressed by their students, the first BPs decided to take on the form of a secondary school and initiate a process of dispute before the state (Moñino, 2021) for symbolic resources (official recognition to issue degrees) and material resources (such as scholarships and teacher salaries) that the state accumulates. In this way, the BPs unfold as a contradictory experience marked by a tense relationship with the state. On the one hand, state resources have enabled their sustainability and growth. On the other hand, obtaining these resources comes into tension with their declared autonomy (Wahren, 2020). These tensions are the result of a radical contradiction in the foundation of the BPs, between the stabilizing rationale of state policies (that grant their recognition and material resources) and the destabilizing rationale of their autonomous politics, typical of the commons (Gutiérrez Aguilar, 2017, p. 59).
This work reconstructs the experience of the BPs in the City of Buenos Aires from an institutionalist and strategic perspective through two types of qualitative materials: 42 comprehensive interviews with BPs’ teachers and state managers, and a set of policy documents that have granted official recognition to 29 BPs in the city of Buenos Aires. Our analysis of this material is based on the works of Bob Jessop (2016) and Erik Olin Wright (2010). Wright’s work lays the ground for studying radical democratic and egalitarian institutional designs or ‘real utopias’, i.e., experiences of social power led by emancipatory movements, such as is the case of the BPs. While Wright turns his attention to the key role social movements, Jessop’s strategic-relational approach (SRA) provides a plural set of tools for unravelling the complexity of relations with and within state institutions. Our analysis gives response to two main tasks proposed by Wright to address real utopias: (1) to explore their enabling or facilitating conditions, and (2) to delve into their contradictions, limits, and dilemmas. In this way, this work seeks to contribute to the debates on non-state-centric educational experiences promoted by social movements.
This paper is part of the research project EduCommon. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101027465.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This contribution examines the main features of the institutional arrangement of the BPs in the city of Buenos Aires, lurking in that interplay of policies —state interventions that have granted recognition to BPs— and politics of the commons that found the BPs. We do so by taking a strategic and institutionalist approach committed to the Marxist-based works of Erik Olin Wright (2010) and Bob Jessop (2016). Wright’s work lays the ground for studying radical democratic and egalitarian institutional designs or ‘real utopias’, i.e., experiences of social power led by emancipatory movements, such as is the case of the BPs. While Wright turns his attention to the key role social movements, Jessop’s strategic-relational approach (SRA) provides a plural set of tools for unravelling the complexity of relations with and within state institutions. Thus, our analysis delves into the conditions that enabled or facilitated BPs state recognition, and the ensuing set of contradictions, limits, and dilemmas that make the BPs an example of radical institutional arrangement inevitably marked by instability.
This work draws chiefly on two types of source materials: (1) 42 comprehensive interviews (Kaufmann, 2020) held with teachers in the BPs and 4 state managers (politicians and officers) from the CABA Ministry of Education; (2) a set of public policy documents that grant recognition to the BPs in CABA. Considering that the interviews do not provide access to ‘the truth’, but allow us to access the native sense of the people interviewed (Guber, 2011), we trace in the interviews the discursive-ideological stances and strategic rationale of BPs’ activists. This way, their voices let us distill the ideological and strategic reflexivity of the actors comprising this institutional arrangement, that is, ‘agents' capacity to engage in learning and to reflect on institutional context’ (Jessop, 2001, p. 1230). Furthermore, the analysis of these materials has been enriched by the active involvement of the author of this work as a committed teacher at a BP in the south of the city of Buenos Aires since March 2023.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Findings.
Two main elements made possible or facilitated the BPs’ official recognition in the city Buenos Aires in 2008: (1) their pressure actions before the Ministry (marches, pickets, street closures, public classes), and (2) the pedagogic background of some state managers, including the then minister, that allowed them to assess positively BP’s activity. This second element reveals the key role of the ‘withinputs’ (Jessop, 2016, p. 61) of the state.
We have identified a set of ‘contradictions, limits and dilemmas’ (Wright, 2010, p. 151). Firstly, BPs are forged in a radical contradiction between the stabilizing rationale of the state policies that grant their recognition and the desestabilizing rationale of their autonomous politics, typical of the commons, and rooted in their horizontal and assembly-based format. From this radical contradiction, the relationship between state institutions and the BPs is marked by contradiction and conflict. Secondly, the liberal governmentality (Foucault, 2008), which is at the foundation of the modern state, is the main limit to recognise the particularities of the BPs, as educational commons. Liberal governmentality classifies the social world according to the dichotomy ‘public’ (state) versus ‘private’ (civil society, including the market). From this dichotomy, the state cannot recognise the emancipatory and desestabilizing rationale of the BPs, which cannot just be assimilated to the private sphere, nor to the public-state sphere. Thirdly, these tensions pose a dilemma for the BPs, which seek to obtain state resources without risking their autonomy. Thus, within the BPs, we identify a plurality of responses to this dilemma, which translates into separations within the movement of BPs.
References
De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia. Principles for the Transition to Postcapitalism. Zed Books.
Federici, S. (2019). Re-enchanging the world. Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press.
Freire, P. (1970/2005). Pedagogy of Oppressed. Continuum.
Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. Palgrave MacMillan.
GEMSEP. (2016). Relevamiento Nacional de Bachilleratos Populares de Jóvenes y Adultos. Informe 2015. Obtained in: https://www.academia.edu/40720491/Relevamiento_Nacional_de_Bachilleratos_Populares_de_J%C3%B3venes_y_Adultos
Gluz, N. (2013). Las luchas populares por el derecho a la educación: experiencias educativas de movimientos sociales. CLACSO.
Guber, R. (2011). La etnografía. Método, campo y reflexividad. Siglo XXI.
Gutiérrez Aguilar, R. (2017). Horizontes comunitario-populares. Producción de lo común más allá de las políticas estado-céntricas. Traficantes de Sueños.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard Univesity Press.
Jessop, B. (2001). Institutional re(turns) and the strategic-relational approach. Environment and Planning A, 33(7), 1213-1235. https://doi.org/10.1068/a32183
Jessop, B. (2016). The State: past, present, future. Polity Press.
Kaufmann, J.-C. (2020). La entrevista comprensiva. Dado Ediciones.
Laval, C., & Dardot, P. (2015). Común. Ensayo para la revolución en el siglo XXI. Gedisa.
Moñino, I. (2022). El movimiento de los bachilleratos populares y su interpelación en la EDJA: logros, actualidad y perspectivas. Encuentro de saberes, 10, 36-53.
Wahren, J. (2020). Bachilleratos populares en Argentina: educación desde movimientos sociales. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 33(47), 89-109.
Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso.
Paper
Emerging New Philanthropic Actors in the European Education Policy-scape
University of Strasbourg, France
Presenting Author:In these last few years, we have seen the emergence of private actors in the field of education. International advisory firms, non-profit organizations, Corporate Social Responsibility divisions of commercial enterprises, individual consultants and a growing number of philanthropic foundations entered the field of education that was almost exclusively government domain. At the same time, we are observing a shift in education philanthropy. Hence, as philanthropic investment in education is on the rise, increasingly critical questions are being asked about the impact of the activities of private actors on educational systems. New corporate donors have entered the scene, using large amounts of financial resources and employing new and ambitious approaches even as their commitments to educational philanthropy raise critical questions of accountability and legitimacy.
According to Ball (2016), some trans-national policy actors in the field of global education policy are well researched, such as the OECD, the World Bank and the European Union. Educational businesses, Ed-Tech companies and philanthropies compared have received much less attention from researchers, despite their significant impact on the reshaping of teaching and learning and on the conceptualization of education policy and governance within and across national jurisdictions (Hogan, 2015).
This presentation seeks to expand a body of research within policy sociology dealing with changes in the policy process and new methods of governing society (Ball, 2008), and to contribute to the conceptualization of policy networks in the field of education. The term “network” is used here as a theoretical device to represent a set of changes in the forms of governance of education, both nationally and globally, and as a method and an analytic technique for looking at policy communities and their social relationships (Ball, 2012,).
The popularity of the concept of “network” is an adequate methodological response to the change in governance and forms of the state. That is, the network as a device for both researching and representing policy allows policy researchers to shape their methods and analytic practices in relation to the global shift from government to governance (Rhodes, 1995, Ball & Youdell, 2008, Cone & Brøgger, 2020), or what is sometimes called “network governance”. This shift involves a move away from the administrative, bureaucratic, and hierarchical forms of state organization and the emergence of new “reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal” spaces of governance: the heterarchies. The heterogeneous range of organizations and practices that constitute these heterarchies contributes to, reflects, enable, and require the semiotic and technical re-articulation of education and educational governance (Ball et al., 2017).
In the presentation, drawn from my doctoral research, I will introduce the reasoning behind the empirical investigation that allowed me to answer the research question on how new philanthropic organizations promote social investment in European education by mobilizing their resources and present the policy-scape” in which such organizations carry out their strategies of social investment. Therefore, understanding how these actors operate in education governance fits in wider efforts of understanding European trends of education policy towards education advocacy.
Moreover, network analysis responds to the need for new methods and new research sensibilities to better understand the new organizations, forms of participation and relationships engaging in education policy and, more generally, in the expansion of neoliberal ideas (Ball, 2012). Network analysis is appropriate here both as a method for the analysis of educational governance, and as a representation of the actual social relations and sites of activity within which the work of governing is done (Ball & Thawer, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
According to Marcus (1995), in “following” as a research method, researchers are not just to follow people, but also things, metaphors, stories, and conflicts as mobile research objects. Whether working “forward” from where a policy originates or “backwards” from where it has arrived, this approach consists of tracing the places a policy has travelled through and questioning how the policy has changed or transformed along the way (McCann & Ward, 2012).
My research is interested in how networks work (Ball et al., 2017). The methodological approach of network ethnography is best suited to the attempt of my study to specify the exchanges and transitions between participants in global education policy networks, and the resources of the different actors involved (Ball, 2012; Ball & Junemann 2012). As Ball et al. (2017) put it, while there is a constant reference to the role of money in education policy literature, both at the national level and in relation to the investment strategies from private donors at the international one, these are usually passing reference, to illustrate a wider issue or problem, but the actual focus of such studies is not on money itself. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to bring money to the forefront.
Given this context, I have sought to bring ethnographic sensibilities to bear on the study of the global education policy networks, which has meant a direct engagement with network participants and activities, but also adaptability and flexibility (Ball, 2017). In particular, the different methods carried out in the various stages of the research will be introduced in the presentation.
Network ethnography involves mapping, visiting, questioning and following, that is following people, conflicts and money through four main activities (Ball and Junemann, 2012): internet searches, interviews, field observation and graph building. First, extensive internet searches around the primary actors of the studied network. Second, interviews conducted with individuals and institutions identified as highly connected, or influential. Third, participative observation of events conducted at key sites of network continuation, involving Internet visiting and meeting attending (Ball et al., 2017). Throughout the three activities, network graphs are built as tools to identify relevant individuals, institutions and relationships in relation to specific networks.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Although my study covered a research question focused on how new philanthropic organizations promote social investment in education by mobilizing their resources, the most important findings concerned the democratization of education through social investment. Indeed, new philanthropic organizations, that seemed to offer the most potential to positively shape the future of education governance, provided opportunities for students to engage with education in new ways, including improving access to educational services, supporting youth action and promoting their involvement in decision-making.
The empirical analysis was important to understand the mechanisms that encourage collaboration between public, private and non-profit actors and that help transform educational systems to enrich students’ learning experience. At the same time, it contributed to the understanding of the ways in which social investment strategies can drive change in education and can thus be useful for regional and local policy-makers and practitioners to explore new ways to foster cooperation between different actors from various social and economic spheres in education governance.
Different network graphs will be shown in the presentation in relation to topological dimensions highlighting the different roles of these organizations inside networks of social investment in education. Moreover, the empirical analysis will be presented to illustrate the fundamental activities of boundary actors, linking peripheral entities to central nodes in social investment networks in education.
Several advocacy strategies implemented through the promotion of social investment in education classified in four categories will also be illustrated in the framework of the European and Italian legislation in the field of social investment in education. Finally, particular attention will be paid to the financial resources used by new philanthropic organizations to carry out social investment strategies in education by introducing some examples of projects and the resources assigned to them in the form of grants, subsides or non-refundable donations.
References
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2016) Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy. Vol. 31(5), pp. 549-566, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232.
Ball, S. J. & Junemann, C. (2012) Networks, New Governance and Education. The Policy Press.
Ball, S. J., Junemann, C. & Santori, D. (2017) Edu.net. Globalisation and education policy mobility. Routledge.
Ball, S. J., & Youdell, D. (2008) Hidden Privatisation in Public Education. Education International, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802419474.
Ball, S. J., Junemann, C. & Santori, D. (2017) Edu.net. Globalisation and education policy mobility. Routledge.
Ball, S. J. & Thawer, S. (2019) Nodes, Pipelines, and Policy Mobility. The Assembling of an Education Shadow State in India. In Edited by Saltman, K. J.& and Means, A. J. (eds) The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform. Wiley Blackwell.
Cone, L., & Brøgger, K. (2020) Soft privatisation: mapping an emerging field of European education governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education. Vol. 18(4), pp. 374-390, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1732194
Hogan, A. (2015) The role of edu-business in new global education policy networks. School of Education. University of Queensland. PhD.
Marcus, G. E. (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 24(1), pp. 95–117.
McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012) Assembling urbanism: following policies and “studying through” the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A. Vol. 44(1), pp. 42–51.
Rhodes, A. W. R. (1995) The new governance: Governing without government, in Osborne, S., Public Management. Critical Perspectives. Routledge.