Session Information
23 SES 06 D, Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Education Policy
Paper Session
Contribution
National and international assessment of schoolchildren’s educational performance has played an increasingly important part in discourses on policy initiatives, curriculum change and educational research, as well as in a widening media discourse (cf. Forsberg & Román, 2014). International organizations have also evolved a shared discourse on schooling as a means influencing national education systems (Dobbins & Martens, 2012). This discursive interplay between the international and the national is complex and not unidirectional (Forsberg & Pettersson, 2014). Discursive transfers impact on both borrowing and lending (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). There has been a shift from governing to governance, involving actors at different levels, within and without national governing structures (Ball & Junemann, 2012). Those international organizations involved in education mediate these exchanges and create and reshape ideas and programs while fabricating a specific knowledge-policy instrument (Carvalho, 2012). This ‘mobile’ and malleable international policy diffuses and reforms societies with differing social and political histories. In this context, the international organizations we describe collide and intertwine with embedded national policies and histories (cf. Ozga & Jones, 2006).
One concomitant of international policy organizations is the evolution of educational assessment programs such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), from the OECD, and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) staged by IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). Throughout the last 15 years, these comparative educational assessment programs have established reference points for general economic and social development and have proven to be influential in national educational policymaking (e.g. Pettersson, 2014). As such, international comparative tests are powerful instruments for change and for the standardization and legitimation of national education systems (Forsberg & Pettersson, 2015). Given the importance of this discourse, it is crucial to take cognizance of the growing body of research on International Large-Scale Assessment (ILSA), i.e. research using data or results from international comparative tests. Further, we discuss how this scholarly research is organized, disseminated and legitimized including questions about knowledge in these ‘glonacal’ times (Marginson & Rhoades, 2001).
ILSA-research is a growing, multi-disciplinary and increasingly international activity and, as such, is highly relevant for critical analysis (Lindblad, Pettersson, & Popkewitz, 2015). Various studies (Domínguez, Vieira, & Vidal, 2012; Owens, 2013; Luzón & Torres, 2011) have demonstrated how investigation of research literature is a viable and increasingly important dimension for uncovering predicable patterns within various research fields. The main objective of this study is to develop knowledge about ILSA-research and how it is organized, disseminated and legitimized. One way of investigating ILSA-research is to examine its output in terms of books, journal articles and other kinds of publications. To investigate the scholarly organisation of ILSA-research we focus on an analysis of articles within peer-reviewed scientific journals. We analyse a selected corpus (the most cited articles) of ILSA-research, wherein PISA or TIMSS data is used or discussed. Our focus is on disciplinary fields, journals, articles, authors, authors’ affiliations and nationalities. We are able to explore who inhabits and cultivate a body of academic knowledge (Becher & Trowler, 2001). The analysis is conducted within a tradition of bibliometrics (e.g. Leydesdorff, 2001), making it possible to highlight some organizational characteristics of ILSA-research as a scholarly activity. We investigate how researchers cross-reference each other and how, in doing so, they establish legitimacy for certain arguments and bits of knowledge (Kandlbinder, 2015).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2011). Education Policy and Philanthropy—The Changing Landscape of English Educational Governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(10), 646-661. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2011.583773 Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Great Britain: Open University Press. Carvalho, L. M. (2012). The Fabrication and Travel of a Knowledge-Policy Instrument. European Educational Research journal, 11(2), 172-188. Dobbins, M., & Martens, K. (2012). Towards an education approach à la finlandaise? French education policy after PISA. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 23-43. Forsberg, E., & Pettersson, D. (2014). Educational Transfer and Curriculum Displacement: The Swedish Case. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational Policy Flows in European Education: the Making and Governing of Knowledge in the Education Policy Field. . Oxford: Symposium Books. Forsberg, E., & Pettersson, D. (2015). Meritokratin och jämförande kunskapsmätningar. Forsberg, E., & Roman, H. (2014). The Art of Borrowing in Swedish Assessment Policies. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy-flows in European education: Conceptualizing and governing knowledge. East Greenwich: Symposium Books: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education. Kandlbinder, P. (2015). Signature concepts of key researchers in North American higher education teaching and learning. Higher Education, 69(2), 243-255. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9772-7 Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The Challenge of Scientometrics. The develpment, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden, Netherlands: Universal Publishers. Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2015). International comparisons of school results - A systematic review of research on Large Scale Assessment in education. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Research Council. Luzón, A., & Torres, M. (2011). Visualizing PISA Scientific Literature versus PISA Public Usage. In M. A. Pereyra, R. Cowen & H.-G. Kothoff (Eds.), PISA under Examination. Changing Knowledge, Changing Test and Changing Schools (pp. 269-302). Rotterdam: Sense Publishe. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2001). Conceptualising Global Relations at the Glonacal Levels. Paper presented at the The annual international forum of the Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA. Ozga, J., & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1-17. Pettersson, D. (2014). Three narratives: National interpretations of PISA. Knowledge Cultures, 2(4). Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending. New York & London: Teachers College, Columbia University. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice: Springer.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.