The third paper is shorter than the first two papers. It presents preliminary results on the comparative study of the two national school reforms, which make use of social network analyses (Wassermand and Faust, 1994). The two presenters compare the Danish and the Norwegian study in terms of research question, methodologies, and findings, identifies the central knowledge networks and policy coalitions, and finally draws conclusion for the study of the national, Nordic, and global education space in both contexts. A special emphasis is placed on the contribution of the two studies for transnational policy borrowing research (Schriewer, 2003; Steiner-Khamsi, 2012; Waldow, 2012). One of the main findings to be discussed in the third comparative paper is related to the importance, content and meaning of international knowledge: (1) the role of international knowledge for “global norm-setting” on national agendas and for policy formulation varies over time, (2) international knowledge has greater influence on national agenda setting in one country as compared to the other, and (3) even though national policy actors in both countries cite some of the same international authors/organizations, there clearly exists a set of idiosyncratic international references used only in one country, and not in the other. Thus, international knowledge means something different in different contexts, and, depending on the context, is used for different purposes.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending. Building Comparative Policy Studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), Policy borrowing and lending in education (Vol. 2012, pp. 3-17). London: Nichols. Waldow, F. (2012). Standardisation and legitimazy. Two central concepts in research on educational borrowing and lending. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education (pp. 4111-4427). London: taylor & Francis Group. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8