Conference Agenda

Nico Stehr (2005) introduced the concept of knowledge politics to highlight the creation, dissemination, and use of knowledge as a new field of politics: Against the backdrop of immensely accelerated or even unchecked knowledge production, politics must resolutely devote itself to regulating the handling of this central social asset. Michel Foucault (1981) emphasized that knowledge is always political and is negotiated and regulated socially, especially beyond explicitly defined policy areas. Current developments, for example in the US and also in various European countries, are currently demonstrating a much more aggressive and explicit form of knowledge policies, which is often diagnosed as a politicization of knowledge. It is precisely in these authoritarian approaches to knowledge that political influence on organizations explicitly dedicated to the production, dissemination, and use of knowledge plays a central role. This shows once again that educational organizations have always been of central importance for the realization of knowledge policies.

Against this backdrop, our symposium will address the question of how knowledge policies and organizational knowing relate to each other and discuss what influences this unfolds on educational organizations and their offers, but ultimately also on society. We will have contributions from different sub-disciplines of educational science, which also examine specific aspects of these complex knowledge policies theoretically and empirically. At the same time, five national perspectives (Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) are included in the papers.

Denise Bergold-Caldwell (University of Innsbruck, Austria) & Marcina Singh (University of Johannesburg)examine how contemporary universities perpetuate colonial power structures that marginalize non-Western knowledge systems. Universities function as sites that actively participate in racialised knowledge hierarchies rather than being neutral learning spaces. Drawing on decolonial theory and educational organization, they analyze how universities face pressure to align with market logics for global competitiveness, which often mirrors colonial thinking. The contribution explores the tension between decolonizing universities and amplifying marginalized knowledge, asking how universities can transform from sites of colonial reproduction into pluriversal spaces where multiple worldviews can coexist."

Jörg Schwarz (University of Würzburg, Germany) will discuss relating knowledge policies and organizational knowing in program planning research in adult education. His contribution focusses on the question how time-related educational policies contribute to the reproduction and transformation of the temporal organization of programmes. Empirically, the contribution is based on qualitative analyses of national time-related policy documents and expert interviews with programme planners from the UK, Germany and Finland. Scheduling conflicts as a main barrier for participation in adult education and the general insight in the uneven contribution of discretionary time makes temporal organization of programmes a critical challenge for adult education organizations under the goal of equal opportunities for all.

Julia Elven & Mert Günel (Goethe University Frankfurt a.M. / Germany) will explore knowledge politics of New Work, combining two theoretical approaches: the economy of conventions (Boltanski & Thévenot 2006), shows which knowledge is normalized as common sense and which knowledge is contested and must be justified accordingly. The radical democracy theory (Rancière 1999) opens up the view on how speakers in discourse act politically to politicize knowledge or remove it from the political sphere. The contribution shows how New Work becomes subject of knowledge politics and how in this regard the definition of ‘real work’ but also the characterization of different generations is linked to education.

Sarah Wieners (Philipps University Marburg, Germany) is a well-established researcher within organizational education that applies critical discourse perspectives to educational and social inequalities. As a discussant, she will use this to question the contributions critically and search with us for an common conclusion.

New Work is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of new ways of working, such as flexible working hours and tasks, rethinking hierarchical structures and leadership, and focusing on new ethical approaches to work. However, regardless of the form New Work takes, it represents a new approach to work organization and thus aims to bring about organizational transformation. This transformation is contested, as the recent discussion about abolishing the legal right to part-time work in Germany shows. Using examples from the public discourse, we aim to examine knowledge politics of New Work, combining two theoretical approaches: With the economics of conventions (Boltanski & Thévenot 2006), we show which knowledge is normalized as common sense and which knowledge is contested and must be justified accordingly. With reference to theories of radical democracy (Rancière 1999, Mouffe 2005, Biesta 2011), we demonstrate how speakers in discourse act politically to politicize knowledge or remove it from the political sphere. The practical shift from a regime of action based on the unquestioned certainty of knowledge to a regime in which just valuation and action are negotiated on the basis of competing knowledge (Boltanski 2012) can thus be reconstructed as a politicization of knowledge or (in the opposite direction) as an attempt at its depoliticization for unquestioned legitimacy (Rancière 1999). Empirically we demonstrate these processes and strategies of politicization and depoliticization using examples from newspaper discourse on New Work in two national newspapers in Germany (conservative and progressive), as well as from online discussions on the internet forum Reddit. The contribution shows how New Work is becoming the subject of knowledge politics in public discourse: Employees, employers, and politicians negotiate their understanding of what work is and what work has to be in order to reproduce society; and they negotiate the character of the generations that are significantly involved in the discussion: baby boomers and Gen Z. However, the boundaries between different positions do not run along generational lines; in fact, many employers of all ages use aspects of New Work to give labor work a ‘new spirit’ – a creative, meaningful character (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005). Nevertheless, generation becomes a focal point of knowledge politics, and attributions of education on both sides are an important factor in this (e.g., aversion to learning on the one hand and lack of education on the other).

Biesta, G. (2011). The Ignorant Citizen: Mouffe, Rancière, and the Subject of Democratic Education. In: Stud Philos Educ (2011) 30: 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9220-4 Boltanski, L. (2012). Love and justice as competences: Three essays on the sociology of action. Polity Press. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3/4), 161–188. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112 Rancière, J. (1999). Dis-agreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jörg Schwarz discusses the importance of relating knowledge policies and organizational knowing in the research of program planning processes in adult education focussing on the question how unjust organizational time-structures of programmes are being reproduced based on time-related educational policies. This contribution builds upon practice-theoretical perspectives, that generally analyse programme planning in adult education as a complex organizational process that is embedded in power-relations, that is shaped by interests of diverse stakeholders and thus happens in the form of negotiation (Cervero & Wilson, 1994). This perspective can be linked to (but also expanded by) the concept of knowledge policies: The analytical focus then shifts from direct negotiations between organizational actors to overarching acts of indirect or soft control – nonetheless, it’s knowledge policies that generate fundamental shifts in organizational knowing which widely impact the programme planning practice in adult education organizations. This also applies to other areas of the educational field where organizations develop, plan and evaluate their services based on programmes (conceived of as future-oriented promises of performance; cf. Nolda, 2018). To empirically develop this approach, a focus is set on the temporal organization of adult education programmes. In practical terms, this basically means all organizational decisions on when, with which durations and in which rhythms are courses and lessons offered. These are by no means mere organizational questions, as international empirical assessments show that in the vast majority of countries, adults name scheduling conflicts as the most important barrier to participation (OECD, 2024, S. 125). Hence, the temporal organization of adult education programmes decides about opportunities for participation – and this becomes even more critical, if we take into account that discretionary time is, in any case, a commodity that is distributed extremely unevenly within society (Goodin, 2010; Rose, 2016; Tyssedal, 2021). The temporal organization of adult education programmes thus becomes a critical organizational performance challenge in fighting educational inequalities and realizing ‘education for all’ (Schwarz, 2025). The paper will present key findings from an international comparative analysis of time-related adult education policies (e.g. on paid educational leave) and how they convey specific knowledge about ‘time for education’ to adult education organizations. Based on the statistics presented above (OECD, 2024), the UK, Germany and Finland were chosen for this comparison that empirically relates the respective knowledge policies (based on document analyses) and the organizational knowing (based on expert interviews) about temporal organization of adult education programmes.

Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). The Politics of Responsibility: A Theory of Program Planning Practice for Adult Education. Adult Education Quarterly, 45(1), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713694045001001 Goodin, R. E. (2010). Temporal Justice. Journal of Social Policy, 39(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409990225 Nolda, S. (2018). Programmanalyse in der Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung—Methoden und Forschungen. In R. Tippelt & A. von Hippel (Hrsg.), Handbuch Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung (6. Aufl., S. 433–449). Springer VS. OECD. (2024). Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2024_c00cad36-en Rose, J. L. (2016). Free Time. In Free Time. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400883684 Schwarz, J. (2025). Bildung zeitgerecht organisieren? Temporal Justice im Spannungsfeld von Zeitlichkeit und Wertigkeit von Bildung. In C. Schröder, L. Alt, & N. Engel (Hrsg.), Organisation und Gerechtigkeit. Jahrbuch der Sektion Organisationspädagogik. Springer VS. Tyssedal, J. J. (2021). The Value of Time Matters for Temporal Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 24(1), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10149-1

This presentation interrogates how the enduring coloniality of power within the contemporary university persistently and consistently marginalises non-Western epistemologies. By embedding and centring knowing and acting within this debate, the presentation explores how academic structures are not neutral sites of learning but active participants in the racialised hierarchy of knowledge production and global capitalism (Quijano, 1991). Drawing on the quintessential ideas of Mignolo (2009) and Castro-Gomez (2005), these educational organisations often function as a “zero point hub” to delegitimise the other. This notion is also echoed by other decolonial scholars, such as Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) and Wynter (2003), who argue that even after the independence of African states, invisible structures perpetuate colonial logics within the university, including in the production and reproduction of knowledge. The presentation bridges decolonial theory with education organisation theorists (Akbaba/ Heinemann, 2023; Andreotti, 2011; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowen,1977) to analyse the isomorphic state of universities. Between a decolonisation of universities (Bhambra 2018) and amplifying knowledge of the former marginalized knowledge, we argue that there is intense pressure on universities to align their structures with market logics in order to remain globally competitive, for example, through global university ranking systems. Taking this as a serious issue, because market logics mimic colonial logics to a great extent, we will try to point towards possibilities. The fundamental question this presentation tries to address is how the university can transition from a site of colonial reproduction to a pluriversal space where multiple worlds and voices can coexist and act with agency.

Castro-Gómez, S (2005) La hybris del punto cero: Ciencia, raza e ilustración en la Nueva Granada (1750–1816). Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Mignolo, W.D. (2009) ‘Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-colonial freedom’, Theory Culture and Society, 26(7/8), pp.1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0263276409349275 Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2013). Empire, Global Coloniality and African Subjectivity. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books. Quijano, A. (1991). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Peru Indígena, 13(29), 11–20. Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337.