Conference Agenda

This study examines the development of epistemic authority in Swedish education policy over the last half century through the lens of Government commissions of inquiry on education. The question of how epistemic authority in education policy changes over time is addressed through an analysis of the composition such commissions. The professional background of appointed members of government commissions of inquiry on education initiated between 1968 and 2021 are analysed (covering around 250 commissions and 3700 appointments). We find that the composition of commissions has changed dramatically over the last half century. The representation professional experience from the education sector has declined considerably over time. Professional experience of education has seemingly been devalued in education policymaking. Concurrently, the representation of government ministry personnel has increased dramatically over time. We further find that these developments cannot simply be explained by shifts in the focus of the agenda of education policy but is evident also within specific policy issues. Further we find that, this shifts in representation of interests in commissions were enacted by government administrations from various ideological camps. We argue that this development paints an important background to paradigmatic shifts in the Swedish education system from the 1980s and onward (e.g. the decentralisation and marketisation of the Swedish education system). The weakend position of the education sector in shaping public policy can arguably be considered a nessecary precondition for such radical policy shifts, widley opposed by the teacher unions. The contribution of this paper to the wider field of education policy goes beyond its central empirical finding. The study demostrates a method for analysing epistemic communities authority in policy making through governmental appointment records. Further the study illustrates the utility of political science theories in understanding education policy development.

This paper critically analyses the Student Mental Health Support Scheme (SMHSS), one of Hong Kong’s most prominent mental health initiatives in education, through the dual lens of Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) framework and Robertson and Dale’s Cultural Political Economy (CPE). As student mental health has gained traction globally as a key concern for education governance, mental health policy discourse in Hong Kong have increasingly framed well-being as an individual responsibility and a site of risk management. The SMHSS exemplifies these patterns within a high-performance, tightly governed education system, where mental health is less as a structural concern and more as a matter of personal discipline, resilience, and life-planning. This paper interrogates how such representations are discursively and ideologically produced, and how they mediate what actions are rendered thinkable and actionable within policy.

Existing research in Hong Kong tends to focus on implementation challenges and programme evaluation, often lacking a critical investigation of the assumptions underpinning policy design. This study addresses this gap by asking, through the WPR framework: (1) How is the 'problem' of student mental health constructed within the SMHSS? (2) What assumptions, silences, and governing rationalities underpin this construction? And (3) How do these intersecting logics—cultural, political, and economic—operate conjuncturally to shape student mental health policy?

In doing so, the paper contributes to critical policy studies and to European and international debates on student well-being governance by examining how globally circulating discourses, promoted by organisations such as the WHO and OECD, are recontextualised within Hong Kong's governance system. Beyond Hong Kong, the case offers insights into how global well-being discourses are recontextualised, reinterpreted and enacted within different educational governance contexts.

Spanning over seven decades, Taiwan’s national scholarship program for international advanced degrees has served as a cornerstone of the nation’s modernization and human capital development (Chen, 2013). As a component of a national policy evaluation and reform project, this research explores the radical navigation required when traditional nationalistic frameworks collide with the fluid realities of globalization. This analysis of the program’s paradigm shift examines how state-led talent cultivation must be reimagined to reconcile the tensions between equity versus excellence, as well as national loyalty versus global mobility—a focus that aligns with the "Rhythm of Revolution" theme of ECER 2026.

The program’s conceptual roots trace back to the late-19th-century Boxer Indemnity scholarships initiated by the Qing Imperial government. Since the 1950s, the Taiwanese government has upheld this tradition, utilizing rigorous annual national examinations to select elite students to pursue advanced degrees abroad, primarily in North American and European doctoral programs. Traditionally, this has adhered to a "quid pro quo" model: providing substantial state funding in exchange for a mandatory return service obligation.

However, after seven decades, this model faces immense pressure to adapt to a transformed global higher education landscape. While previous policies could justify cultivating individuals strictly for state service, the current era demands "mobility intelligence"—the capacity to address global challenges while remaining in a state of professional flux. As "brain drain" re-emerges as a critical threat, nations like Taiwan must develop proactive strategies to retain talent without stifling international exposure. To navigate this complexity, the study addresses two guiding questions:

1. How does Taiwan’s national study-abroad policy navigate the meritocratic paradox between elite excellence and educational equity in its selection mechanisms?
2. How do stakeholders negotiate the tension between national repatriation mandates and the demands of global talent mobility?

While existing literature on national scholarship programs in developing economies frequently highlights specific national contexts or individual scholar characteristics (Perna et al., 2015; Chen & Chien, 2024), research examining these policies through the lens of structural dilemmas remains scarce. This study frames Taiwan’s policy as a developmental strategy navigating two critical tensions: the pursuit of excellence versus equity and the management of national loyalty versus global mobility. These dilemmas illustrate how non-Western nations negotiate aggressive global competition, providing a context for why Asian governments often prioritize international competitiveness over domestic equity (Marginson, 2019).

To unpack these trade-offs, the research integrates dual analytical perspectives:

• Micro-perspective: Extant research indicates that international study opportunities often disproportionately favor students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Salisbury et al, 2010). This necessitates government intervention to prevent scholarship programs from inadvertently reinforcing social inequality.
• Macro-perspective: This lens captures the evolving discourse on talent flow, moving beyond simple "brain drain" toward the sophisticated potential of "brain circulation" (Saxenian, 2006) and "brain linkage" (Shin & Moon, 2018). As developing nations adopt proactive strategies to attract returning professionals, talent retention has emerged as a shared global imperative.

This research offers contributions to both theory and practice:

Theoretically, it advances the understanding of state-led talent cultivation by revealing how a policy must simultaneously integrate macro-structural goals with micro-level equity concerns. It provides an analytical framework for scrutinizing how non-Western developmental states adapt their educational strategies when traditional nationalistic boundaries collide with neoliberal global mobility.

Practically, the findings inform the design of sophisticated policy instruments that move beyond binary "stay or go" mandates. By highlighting the need to balance globalization with domestic innovation, this study offers a roadmap for policymakers in similar developing nations to develop "mobility intelligence" strategies—striving to achieve a diverse array of national objectives while navigating the persistent challenges of the global talent war.

International Organisations (IOs), such as UNESCO, play increasing roles in the global governance of education (Elfert & Ydesen, 2023; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Yet, beyond claims about the increasing use of numbers and quantitative data (Grek & Ydesen, 2021; Sellar & Lingard, 2014), little academic scholarship exists about research-policy relationships involving IOs. In addition, while there is substantial research on the OECD and the World Bank (Auld & Morris, 2019; Gorur, 2011), less is known about how UNESCO engages with research (Edwards et al., 2018; Zapp, 2021).

This paper aims to contribute to the literature on IOs, network governance, and research-policy relationships by presenting analysis on how UNESCO engages with research. More specifically, this paper uses the Greening Education Partnership (GEP) as an example to show how research findings are used as elements in network governance. The GEP is a United Nations-wide climate change education initiative led by UNESCO, bringing together UN agencies, NGOs, national governments, and the private sector. Established in 2022, over 1,900 organisations have since joined the Partnership.

In this paper I demonstrate how research is central to the justification and practices of the GEP through the production and circulation of three recurring research findings presented in highly condensed statistical form. One interviewee called them “stylised facts,” as they have little connection to the research report they originate from but are framed as facts. As the paper will show, those stylised facts are used in high-level event speeches, in colourful visuals underpinning the GEP’s mission, newsletters, and other ways in which the Partnership communicates.

Conceptually, the paper draws on rhetorical approaches to research use to analyse the ways in which these facts influence the network governance of the GEP. The paper uses Aristotle’s modes of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos) to understand how research is strategically part of the GEP.

This paper is part of a larger PhD study situated within education policy sociology that looks at the roles of research in the network governance of the GEP. This paper focuses on one of the sub-research questions of this study, namely how research artefacts are used in the network governance of the GEP.