Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:06 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
23 SES 01 C: International education policies
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Strategizing the SDGs—International Organisations and the Global Governance of Education (GloGoEd) Tampere University, Finland Presenting Author:The GloGoEd project, funded by the Research Council of Finland, examines how international organisations, specially, UNESCO, the OECD, and the EU mobilise the Sustainable Development Goals to create strategic crisis narratives to legitimise their roles, advance preferred policy solutions, enrol non‑state actors, and craft promissory futures for education beyond 2030. We present this project in response to ECER 2026’s call to interrogate how education research “knows and acts” amid shifting epistemic conditions. Our GloGoEd project is situated within a poly‑crisis landscape of pandemic, planetary emergency, war, and pressures of performativity. We ask how intergovernmental organisations and their governance instruments shape what counts as educational knowledge, who is authorised to produce it, and how it circulates between global and local arenas. In this presentation we focus our analysis on the following research question: - How do the OECD, UNESCO and EU integrate SDGs to create crisis frames in their education related documents? Though a content analysis, we identify and compare how the SDGs are used by the three different organisations to create implicit or explicit frames of crisis in education and what ideologies, policies, non-state actors and visions of the futures of education these crises narratives enable. Conceptually, GloGoEd combines the notion of externalisation (references to international scripts like the SDGs to justify arguments, e.g. Santos, 2022; Schriewer, 1990), strategic narrative (attempts to create a shared meaning of reality with the aim of shaping domestic or international actors behaviour, e.g. Miskimmon et al., 2017; Castells, 2009) and organisational legitimacy (a generalized perception of an institution and its actions as being ‘desirable, proper, or appropriate within a system of norms, beliefs, and definitions’ that are socially constructed e.g., Suchman, 1995). Together, these conceptual frameworks illuminate the analysis of the discursive work through which IGOs seek to earn or maintain socio‑political acceptability, reputation, and status (Edwards et al., 2017) by framing education as crisis‑ridden. At the same time, they present themselves, and the actors they sponsor, as necessary problem‑solvers. In this view, the SDGs operate simultaneously as standards and storytelling devices that promise specific futures while stabilising authority and orchestrating networks of public, private, and philanthropic actors. The project speaks directly to ECER’s theme by examining the ways in which knowledge is produced and disseminated in the global governance of education. It foregrounds the situatedness of knowing, what narratives are created by whom and how do they influence education policy directions globally. In this manner, the project aims to advance a critical and rich understanding of global governance practices in education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study analyses public reports, press releases, websites, strategy and policy documents produced by the EU, UNESCO, and the OECD from 2015 to the present, complemented by semi‑structured interviews with key organisational and non‑state actors identified through the document analysis. A three‑phase, pluralist design ensures triangulation and robustness of the study. Phase 1 employs qualitative content analysis to familiarise with and reduce extensive textual corpora, developing concept‑ and data‑driven categories for references, themes, and actors. Phase 2 applies critical discourse analysis to examine how language, genre, and intertextuality construct crisis, legitimacy, and promissory futures, and to surface ideological alignments and power relations. Phase 3 conducts social network analysis (using Gephi) to identify, visualise, and interrogate relational structures among IGOs and enabled actors, tracing flows of policy ideas, resources, and influence across global–national–local scales. Together, these methods integrate textual, discursive, and relational evidence to inform how SDGs function as both product and mechanism of global education governance and how strategic narratives organise actor ecosystems around crisis framing and solutionism. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We expect to shed light on how and why UNESCO, the OECD, and the EU, use crisis‑centred narratives that elevate SDG 4 as a legitimating frame. While all three organisations mobilise crisis narratives to legitimise their relevance and authority in global governance of education, they do so in distinct ways that reflect different ideological orientations, institutional mandates and governance logics. UNESCO tends to foreground education as a human right and public good; the OECD emphasises skills, measurement, and economic competitiveness; and the EU articulates education as human development aligned with digital and green transitions. We expect that these orientations shape the policy solutions promoted and the involvement of specific non‑state actors in expanding governance networks, with implications for the authority and accountability of education governance. The analysis is also expected to clarify how these narratives privilege certain ways of knowing (through benchmarking, quantification) while marginalising others, and how promissory futures stabilise organisational standing amid contested legitimacy. The network analysis is expected to make visible multi‑stakeholder configurations and pathways through which IGOs and partners diffuse policy scripts, thereby informing national reforms and local practice. For researchers and practitioners, the project will offer a framework to critically appraise transnational knowledge claims and to navigate the tensions between standardised and data‑driven governance and plural epistemologies. These findings contribute to ECER’s concern with how education research ‘know and act’ and to its broader goal of strengthening educational research’s authority in dialogue with decision‑makers and diverse forms of knowledge, by offering a critical account of the epistemic, discursive and relational mechanisms in which SDGs are mobilised to govern education globally. References Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press. Edwards, D.B., Okitsu, T., Da Costa, Ramina, & Kitamura, Y. (2017). Organizational Legitimacy in the Global Education Policy Field: Learning from UNESCO and the Global Monitoring Report. Comparative Education Review, 62(1). Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2017). Forging the world: Strategic narratives and international relations. University of Michigan Press. Morris, P., Park, C., & Auld, E. (2022). Covid and the future of education: global agencies ‘building back better’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(5), 691-711, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2022.2066886 Santos, Í. (2022). Externalisations in the Portuguese Parliament and Print Media: a complexity approach to education policymaking processes [Published doctoral thesis]. Faculty of Education and Culture, University of Tampere, Finland. Schriewer, J. (1990). The method of comparison and the need for externalization: Methodological criteria and socio-logical concepts. In J. Schriewer, & B. Holmes (Eds.), Theories and methods in comparative education (pp. 25–83). Peter Lang. Smith, W.C., Ehren, M.C.M. & Grek, S. (2024). Global governance of education: The Sustainable Development Goals as a product and mechanism?. Int Rev Educ, 70 (4), 531–545. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 Ydesen, C. (2019). The OECE’s historical rise in education: The formation of a global governing complex. Palgrave. Ydesen, C. & Grek, S. (2020) Securing organisational survival: a historical inquiry into the OECD’s work in education during the 1960s, Paedagogica Historica, 56:3, 412-427, DOI: 10.1080/00309230.2019.1604774 Zürn, M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Parallel Governance Logics in Education Policy Discourse: A Comparative Analysis of China, Flanders, and International Organisations VUB, Belgium Presenting Author:Abstract
This paper responds to one of the fundamental questions of education policymaking and governance and asks, how do policy discourses in various institutional and cultural contexts configure the relationship between technical rationality and gendered moral discourses? This motivation stems from a pervasive phenomenon where technical language emphasising efficacy frequently coexists with value-laden language conveying cultural sentiments within policy texts, with their specific configurations reflecting underlying governance logics. To systematically explore this issue, this study employs a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD), selecting three contexts with markedly divergent governance logics, namely China, embodying a strong state logic and collectivism; the Flemish Region of Belgium, characterised by professionally decentralised governance; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), acting as global normative advocates.
This study theoretically combines the institutional logics with discursive institutionalism as its analytical basis. Methodologically, critical discourse analysis of thirty-six key policy texts three policy domains between 2012 and 2024. The analysis used a mixed-methods approach. Thematic coding the presence of discourses of technocratic rationality (e. g., efficiency, evaluation) and gendered moral-care metaphors (e. g., the “silkworm” metaphor, the “teacher-as-mother” metaphor) from each text manually. Quantitative analysis was conducted to explore their distribution patterns and correlations, which allowed for a coherent interpretation by linking the micro-textual characteristics to the macro-discourse structures. Comparative analysis revealed distinct cross-regional discursive configurations. Flemish and international policy discourses were strongly influenced by professional management and globalisation logics, exhibiting strong instrumentalism with an emphasis on technical effectiveness and performance accountability. In contrast, Chinese policy discourse was still strongly rooted in familial and state logics, and metaphorical narratives are based on moral devotion and collective responsibility. A key theoretical finding showed that institutional structures and cultural values through parallel rather than interactional pathways. Therefore, it demonstrated that the intensification of technical governance and the persistence of moral discourses run concurrently under distinct logics within the same policy system.
This comparison of policy discourse practices enriches theoretical perspectives on discourse as a principal mode of governance. Policy discourse is, thus, revealed as an active practice simultaneously reproduces and reflects power relations and gender expectations embedded in institutions and culture. This invites us to to transcend reductive assumptions of the technical–moral dualism and to explore instead the ways in which they are brought together in specific configurations of governance. Thus, this article ultimately argues that, pursuit of technical rationality in contemporary in modern educational governance, the selection and design of policy discourses deserve more critical attention. Only through combining cultural contexts and gender equality achieve between efficiency and inclusivity, standardisation and localisation. That offers a comparative, empirically-based viewpoint for recognising policy discourse’s dual role as both a governance tool and a vehicle for cultural reproduction.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a mixedmethods, comparative case study design to analyze educational policy discourses in China, the Flemish Region of Belgium, and international organizations (OECD, UNESCO). Following Gerring’s (2007) Most Different Systems Design, it compares China’s centralized governance, Flanders’ federal autonomy, and supranational frameworks to explore variations in institutional and cultural influences on policy discourse. The research corpus comprises 36 policy texts from China’s Ministry of Education and State Council, the Flemish Ministry of Education and Parliament , and from UNESCO and OECD. Purposive sampling ensured authoritative, legally binding documents, capturing key policy cycles like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Data analysis followed Fairclough’s (2003) threedimensional critical discourse analysis (CDA) framework, integrating textual, discursive, and social practice levels. Qualitative analysis used dualcycle thematic coding with MAXQDA 24.7.0, conducted by a single researcher. Semantic network analysis mapped conceptual migrations, such as “inclusive leadership” to “harmonious management” in China. The mixed-methods approach bridged macropattern identification (quantitative) and micromechanism exploration (qualitative), enhancing robustness. Quantitative coding was complemented by quantitative comparisons of discourse prevalence across cases. Data processing involved text standardization (UTF8 encoding), metadata annotation, and a systematic coding workflow, ensuring analytical rigor and reliability across diverse policy contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study clarifies how institutional logics and cultural values independently shape educational policy discourses across China, Flanders, and international organizations. By integrating institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) and discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008), it reveals that technocratic discourse dominates in rationalized systems (Flanders, international organizations), while collectivist cultures (China) amplify gendered moral metaphors, reinforcing inequitable role expectations. These findings advance theoretical understanding of discourse as a mediator of institutional and cultural dynamics, bridging gaps in comparative policy analysis. Practically, they urge policymakers to critically assess how discourses perpetuate gendered labor expectations and to align policies with culturally sensitive epistemologies. Limitations include the focus on textual analysis, suggesting future research explore institutional structuration and power reproduction processes. This study offers a robust framework for analyzing transnational policy discourses, informing equitable and contextually grounded educational governance strategies. References Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441 - 464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499 Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Carstensen, M. B. (2015). Bringing ideology back in: The role of ideas in policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 598 – 616. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008553 Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Fei, X. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society (G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1947) Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture ’ s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, andpower. Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303 - 326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper We Are Still the Moral Bastion: The Technopolitical Authority of Unesco/Orealc in SDG 4 Governance Within the Chilean School System Catholic University of Chile, Chile Presenting Author:Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) represents one of the principal global educational agendas for educational inclusion and justice. Driven by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), SDG 4 consolidates an international framework oriented toward ensuring quality, equity, and lifelong learning opportunities. Among its central targets are the improvement of learning outcomes and equitable access (4.1), as well as the development of foundational competencies in literacy, numeracy, and arithmetic (4.6), among others (UNESCO, 2015). As multiple policy research studies have noted, rather than a normative declaration, SDG 4 operates today as a global public policy that demands national institutional capacities for its implementation, monitoring, and accountability (Bandola-Gill et al., 2022; Fisher & Fukuda-Parr, 2019). Within this framework, some research has provided substantive evidence regarding the initiatives that UNESCO mobilizes in the realm of global governance for the expansion and monitoring of SDG 4. Several studies have documented the transformations experienced in global data infrastructure (Adhikary, 2024; Fontdevila, 2023b, 2023a), the arrangements and interests among multiple stakeholders for meeting the 2030 targets (Ocampo Cantillo & Lazaro, 2024), as well as the technical and conceptual difficulties in promoting a genuinely inclusive agenda (Edwards et al., 2018; Ydesen & Elfert, 2023). Despite these important research advances, little is known about how UNESCO participates in the monitoring and expansion of this agenda within national educational systems, particularly in Global South contexts (Auld et al., 2019). This paper presents findings on a case study on the work conducted by UNESCO's Regional Office for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNESCO/OREALC) in the transfer, monitoring, and expansion of SDG 4 within Chilean school educational policy between 2015 and 2025. Specifically, the paper presents substantive findings regarding the mechanisms of influence (technical capacity building, financing, data provision, and expert advisory) and the techno-political learning dynamics that the organization mobilizes to institutionalize SDG 4 at the level of central Chilean educational policy. Our study is scientifically relevant to global and transnational education research because Chile is the host country of UNESCO/OREALC, one of UNESCO's historical regional enclaves for promoting international development in Latin American and Caribbean (Fuentes-Salazar et al., 2025; Pastore, 2024). This condition configures a scenario wherein the relationship between UNESCO and the Chilean school system becomes politically dense and scientifically relevant, both in technical and political-symbolic terms (Fuentes Salazar & Villalobos, 2025). My research questions are: What actors and local and global political processes are involved in the transfer of SDG 4 within Chilean school educational policy during the past decade? What meanings, strategies, and instruments does UNESCO/OREALC mobilize for the monitoring and fulfillment of SDG 4 in Chile? What facilitators, obstacles, tensions, and convergences can be identified in UNESCO/OREALC's work in the transfer and expansion of SDG 4 in Chile? Theoretically, the study is grounded in the notion of analytical institutions (Broome & Seabrooke, 2012) and policy curves (Broome & Seabrooke, 2015), two concepts developed within political economy studies. The concept of analytical institutions refers to the processes through which international organizations and their offices perceive the social environments in which they operate and integrate specific intellectual frameworks as policy solutions. Similarly, the policy curve refers to the techno-political processes and strategies that organizations deploy to increase the likelihood that their solutions will be adopted within the environments in which they operate (Fontdevila & Verger, 2025; Verger & Fontdevila, 2024). The political economy perspective allows us to highlight the granular and inherently political work that UNESCO/OREALC undertakes in the Global South, positioning the organization as more than a mere policy forum. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This research draws on analytical tools from critical policy studies (Stacey & Mockler, 2024). Specifically, the study is grounded in Network Ethnography, a perspective that has combined social network analysis with classical ethnography in the study of global philanthropy (Ball & Junemann, 2012; Edwards, 2024). This methodology has enabled me to trace SDG 4 from its supranational origins to its implementation within the Chilean educational context. In this regard, Network Ethnography has allowed me to empirically capture the relational movement between the global and the local in the current governance landscape (Ball, 2016; Jessop, 2015; Lewis et al., 2024). In accordance with the main orientations of Network Ethnography, the data production strategy includes the collection and triangulation of at least three sources of information. First, I have conducted a documentary analysis (N=109) of the intra-bureaucratic production developed by UNESCO/OREALC in support of the Ministry of Education for the implementation and monitoring of SDG 4, which includes technical meeting minutes, agreements, advisory contracts, diplomatic notes, among others. Additionally, I have conducted interviews with key actors in the SDG 4 monitoring and implementation process, including officials from Chile's MINEDUC (n=12), staff members from OREALC/UNESCO and UNESCO Paris (n=15), the Ministry of Social Development (n=2), the National Statistics Institute (n=5), and other government officials (n=5). Theoretically, these actors have been characterized as "global elites" (Lingard et al., 2015), insofar as they possess the capacity to influence the trajectories and outcomes of national educational policy. Finally, I have participated in at least two internationally relevant seminars and three technical meetings—all organized by UNESCO and MINEDUC Chile—with the purpose of analyzing in situ the interactions and public discourses, as well as the agreements and disagreements that emerge in the SDG 4 implementation and monitoring process. The analytical strategy involves the systematization, coding, and triangulation of information to reconstruct and analyze the implementation and monitoring structure of SDG 4. I draw on tools from critical and inductive policy text analysis (Stacey & Mockler, 2024) to trace critical events in the process, identify and map relevant actors and their political-symbolic positions. Likewise, I attend to the dynamics of the influence mechanisms mobilized by UNESCO to establish itself as a cognitive authority within the Chilean educational space. Finally, I attend to the techno-political agreements and disagreements between UNESCO/OREALC and the Chilean State. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings At least three major findings can be highlighted. First, the data reveal that UNESCO/OREALC has positioned itself as a central analytical institution in the process of SDG 4 expansion and monitoring in Chile and Latin America. Through the Secretariat of the Regional Coordination Mechanism for SDG 4, UNESCO/OREALC maintains a position of "regional superintendence" that enables it to control key aspects of SDG 4 monitoring, such as the methodological guidelines for report preparation and the establishment of a "conceptual regime" regarding quality, measurement, and lifelong learning for productivity—one that significantly displaces the region's former political traditions concerning adult literacy for poverty alleviation. Second, the findings reveal a distinctive political-symbolic relationship between UNESCO/OREALC and the Chilean State, characterized by a "mentor-teacher" dynamic that challenges the strong institutional presence of the OECD in Chile. Leveraging its geopolitical position and its residence in Chile, UNESCO/OREALC has operated as an "indispensable" technical and moral collaborator for the Ministry of Education, particularly during the strategies deployed by the central government to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite operating with limited resources, UNESCO/OREALC has mobilized multiple mechanisms of direct policy advisory to support the Chilean State in matters of curricular prioritization, learning measurement, and school retention. These mechanisms include the formulation of methodological guidelines for schools, the reactivation of support networks among educational institutions, and teacher training courses on ICT. Finally, the findings demonstrate a geopolitical and discursive repositioning of Chile within the Latin American and global concert. Through lobbying mechanisms, UNESCO/OREALC has positioned Chile as a "reference society" in SDG 4 compliance at the global level and has placed its political leaders in key positions within SDG 4 governance structures. Evidence of this is the appointment of the President of the Republic, Gabriel Boric, as co-chair of the SDG4 High-Level Steering Committee for the period 2024-2025. References Auld, E., Rappleye, J., & Morris, P. (2019). PISA for Development: how the OECD and World Bank shaped education governance post-2015. Comparative Education, 55(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1538635 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232 Ball, S., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, New Governance and Education. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781847429810.006 Bandola-Gill, J., Grek, S., & Tichenor, M. (2022). Governing the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03938-6 Broome, A., & Seabrooke, L. (2012). Seeing like an International Organisation. New Political Economy, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2011.569019 Broome, A., & Seabrooke, L. (2015). Shaping policy curves: cognitive authority in transnational capacity building. Public Administration, 93(4), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12179 Edwards, B., Okitsu, T., da Costa, R., & Kitamura, Y. (2018). Organizational Legitimacy in the Global Education Policy Field: Learning from UNESCO and the Global Monitoring Report. Comparative Education Review, 62(1), 31–63. https://doi.org/10.1086/695440 Fontdevila, C. (2023b). The politics of good enough data. Developments, dilemmas and deadlocks in the production of global learning metrics. International Journal of Educational Development, 96, 102684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102684 Fuentes-Salazar, J. M., & Villalobos, C. (2025). Operational experience, multi-scalar influence, and political ambivalence: Mechanisms of influence of UNESCO’s Regional Bureau for Education in the Chilean school system (1990–2024). Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103251411720 Fuentes-Salazar, J. M., Parcerisa, L., & Villalobos, C. (2025). UNESCO’s Global Governance in the School Education: A Scoping Review. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 46(46), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.5944/REEC.46.2025.41423 Jessop, B. (2015). A Cultural Political Economy Approach to the Governance of Global Social Policy. In A. Kaasch & K. Martens (Eds.), Actors and Agency in Global Social Governance (pp. 18–42). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198743996.003.0002 Ocampo Cantillo, J. J., & Lazaro, L. L. B. (2024). Transforming education or transforming the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 4)? International Review of Education, 70(4), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11159-024-10088-4/FIGURES/7 Pastore, P. G. (2024). La regionalización de la Agenda de Educación 2030 en América Latina: análisis de sus inicios desde un enfoque de problematización de políticas. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, (44), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.5944/REEC.44.2024.35811 Stacey, M., & Mockler, N. (2024). Analysing Education Policy. Theory and Method (M. Stacey & N. Mockler, Eds.; Firts). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003353379 Ydesen, C., & Elfert, M. (2023). SDG4 as a global governance tool and the quest for recognizing diversity – Implications emerging from the intersections between inclusive education and assessment. International Journal of Educational Development, 103, 102932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102932 | ||