A Way Forward for EEPS: Interrogating and Consolidating Theories on the European Education Policy Space

Author(s):

Morten Hansen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

28. Sociologies of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

28 SES 02, Problematizing Europeanization

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

15:15-16:45

Room:

K4.18

Chair:

Romuald Normand

Contribution

The inclusive nature of the concept the European Education Policy Space (EEPS) has contributed to a valuable, theoretically open-ended debate about European education policy and how it is understood. But, going forward, EEPS should be discussed from a platform of greater conceptual clarity that allows for continuity in future theorisation. This article seeks such clarity by offering a holistic theoretical framework for EEPS. This leads to the following two research questions:

What spatial concepts might help engage with theories on EEPS, and how are they related?
Considering theories on EEPS from 2002 onwards, how can spatial concepts contribute to future EEPS theorising?

Because EEPS literature is a disjointed body of texts, an initial overview is offered by outlining key journals, books, and scholars central to the EEPS debate. Then, three assumptions foundational to EEPS are identified, which are that:

the dichotomy between the national and European level is inappropriate for understanding EEPS;
EEPS is always in the process of being imagined and constructed and;
space of flows are instrumental in the construction of EEPS.

Evaluating the merit of these assumptions is a daunting task and will inevitably depend on value judgments of how a field of knowledge is best built. According to Whetten (1989), a good theory or model should be built on four elements: what, how, why, and where, the four elements are paraphrased in the following list: what concepts or factors are needed to explain the phenomena studied; how are the concepts related; why is this way of seeing the world relevant for other researchers; where, when and for whom is the theory applicable?

The ‘what’ and ‘how’ elements of my theoretical contribution to EEPS are borrowed from the field of international and comparative education (Marginson & Mollis, 2001), the fields of human geography (Thrift, 2003), and system science (Flood, 1987). These elements are then organised into one three-dimensional conceptual framework. The framework is used for answering the first research question.

The ‘why’ element is then introduced by engaging substantially in examining the soundness of the three assumptions in an interplay between the EEPS literature, European policy documents, original interview data, and the original conceptual framework. The following points are also raised in this discussion:

First, in EEPS literature, policy learning is seen as co-construction of policies and indicates policy activities that are distinct from national policy activities. These initial clarifications are broadened to a discussion about scale, suggesting that the shift from place to space (from national to European) is better understood as shifting policy activities instead of shifting policy levels. Such policy activities can be bound to the Commissions’ institutional systems and structures. Describing this boundedness using scalar metaphors has conceptual weaknesses.

Second, education tests and indicators are examples of data technologies. Such technologies are important because they influence the way in which things and people move within EEPS. By conceptualising such empirical constructions (see Thrift, 2003) as spatial possibilities rather than solutions to policy problems, we have an opportunity to consider the performativity of spatial possibilities before they become policy solutions.

Finally, policy networks are used to understand global education phenomena, such as student flows, as well as local experiences, such as national policymakers navigating in EEPS. In the literature, motion is an inherent element in the conceptualisation of policy networks, which results in time becoming the assumed dimension driving Europeanisation under the label of globalisation. Through these discussions the second research question is answered.

Method

The article draws on two complementary sources and a literature review. First, 14 semi-structured elite interviews with commission officials, national experts, and other stakeholders. These interviews where sampled using maximum variation sampling strategy. By staying in Brussels for a week while conducting these interviews, this initial effort was supplemented by a snowballing strategy that led to further interviews. Second, European policy documents are used to exemplify and explore conceptual points, as well as to place some of the discussions pursued in this article within more established debates in the education literature. Finally, the literature review discusses three major themes in the EEPS literature by drawing on the developed conceptual framework. This approach is different from most literature reviews in the social sciences, which typically aim at finding gaps in the literature to be addressed in the research question (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011). Gap spotting is a commendable approach for reviewing literature but difficult when the literature is disjointed. Furthermore, while gap spotting has many advantages, it runs the risk “that the assumptions underlying existing literature for the most part remain unchallenged” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, p. 247). Challenging underlying assumptions is needed to contribute ‘why’ elements (Whetten, 1989) to future EEPS theorisation. Three observations have been instrumental in ‘where’ this study wishes to go with the EEPS literature. First, the EEPS literature is very heavy in jargon; unpacking this jargon is important because it potentially excludes a wide readership. Second, based on personal working experience from the European Commission, I am sceptical of the usefulness of the extent to which EEPS is conceptualised as fluid—it might be underestimating the rigidity of the space, making the way we think about EEPS too ephemeral. Finally, it would be very difficult to engage in these discussions starting from the internal logic of every single article and book chapter published on the subject, considering the lack of internal referencing. Therefore, identifying ‘what’ and ‘how’ (Whetten, 1989) elements in a logical and coherent way, and thus allowing for a more general discussion of the EEPS literature, seems like a reasonable and feasible starting point. Because EEPS is a complex, messy and uncoordinated literature, it is necessary to have a research strategy (and ontology) that can purposefully be used to engage with competing theories and ideas. My ontological position is based on pragmatism.

Expected Outcomes

The article presents a way forward for each of the three EEPS assumptions as identified above. The following list outlines the suggested way forward as it relates to each assumption: (1) scalar metaphors—particularly a hierarchical metaphor of level—should be avoided. As the literature develops, such metaphors may have conceptual value if EEPS literature substantiates their status. Are they explanations based on material realities or simply metaphors illuminating policy activities? (2) conceptually, the empirical construction of EEPS should have a more prominent role in the literature’s theorisation because the materialisation of spatial possibilities into data technologies can be fairly decoupled from EEPS’ policy problem or imaginaries; (3) EEPS literature still needs to develop its methodological approaches to the study of networks. Such studies may furthermore reverse the tendency in EEPS to prefer time over space as the dimension of change. As such, the major conceptual issues raised in the study are that EEPS literature should abandon the current use of scalar metaphors; that conceptualising European policy is more productive when speaking of policy activities rather than levels; and that methodological improvements of formal network analysis, amongst others, can allow spatiality to reclaim itself as the dynamic dimension of change in EEPS. Theory is never the final answer; both the conceptual framework and the suggested way forward for EEPS, are only the beginnings of a more coherent, structured, and rigorous debate, and ultimately, it is up to EEPS scholars if such an endeavour is seen as fruitful. For now, this article, demonstrates that such conversations are possible and that they do seem to hold insights relevant to fundamental EEPS assumptions.

References

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory development: mystery as method. London: Sage. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions Through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. Beech, J., & Larsen, M. A. (2014). Replacing Old Spatial Empires of the Mind. European Education, 46(1), 75–94. Cort, P. (2011). Taking the Copenhagen Process apart: critical readings of European vocational education and training policy. DPU, Aarhus Universitet, København. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Globalisation and Europeanisation in education. Oxford: Symposium Books. Flood, R. L. (1988). Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. New York ; London: Plenum. Gornitzka, A. (2006). The Open Method of Coordination as practice - A watershed in European education policy? Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Working Paper, (16). Grek, S. (2014a). OECD as a site of coproduction: European education governance and the new politics of “policy mobilization.” Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 266–281. Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2010). Governing Education through Data: Scotland, England and the European Education Policy Space. British Educational Research Journal 36(6), 937-952, Herod, A. (2011). Scale. London ; New York: Routledge. Kauppi, N. (2010). The political ontology of European integration. Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 19–36. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2010). Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 443–463. Lawn, M. (2002). Welcome to the First Issue. European Educational Research Journal, 1(1), 1–2. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium. Marginson, S., & Mollis, M. (2001). “The door opens and the tiger leaps”: Theories and Reflexivities of Comparative Education for a Global Millennium. Comparative Education Review, 45(4), 581–615. Nóvoa, A., & Lawn, M. (2002a). Fabricating Europe: the formation of an education space. Dordrecht; London: Kluwer Academic. Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (Eds.). (2011). Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe. Routledge. Pépin, L. (2006). The history of European cooperation in education and training: Europe in the making - an example. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Thrift, N. (2003). Space: the fundamental stuff of geography. In S. L. Holloway, S. P. Rice, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key concepts in geography (pp. 95–108). London: SAGE. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.

Author Information

Morten Hansen (presenting / submitting)

The University of Oxford

Saïd Business School

Oxford

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.