Information and communications technology (ICT) and the associated processes of digitalization are changing the way we live, work and interact. Digitalization modifies educational institutions in general and it transforms teaching and learning in particular. It is assumed that the use of new technologies in education enables new forms of self-determined participation in a digital world as well as individualized forms of teaching and learning in educational institutions. This is why digitalization is a highly relevant topic for education policy and educational research. Digitalization is also receiving increasing attention in the large scale assessments and educational policy recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD is an important international actor in education policy which has been highly influential especially since the implementation of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Education policy and the development of human capital play a central role in the OECD strategy as reflected, for example, in the skills strategy: “Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives” (OECD 2012). Sellar and Lingard (2014) argue that the OECD's education work, especially PISA, has facilitated new modes of global governance in education policy and “the constitution of a global policy field in education created through numbers, statistics and data” (Sellar/Lingard 2014, 931).

In our paper, we investigate the position of the OECD with regard to digitalization in education. We analyze the construction of digitalization in education in the OECD's policy recommendations and its position concerning this topic. Based on our analysis, we discuss possible transnational implications for education policy and educational research and point out research desiderata. As a theoretical framework, we make reference to discourse theory (Foucault 1981, Wrana 2012) and educational governance research (cf. Dietrich 2018; Moos 2009). We argue that the OECD's construction of digitalization in education influences knowledge formation on digitalization as well as practices of enunciation. It follows the idea of education as a means to develop human capital.

The study is based on a socio-scientific discourse analysis on the construction of digitalization in education in the OECD's policy recommendations. Given the assumption that discourses encompass discursive formations as social orders of knowledge as well as discursive practices that structure what may be expressed and in which the meanings and objects are constituted (cf. Foucault 1981, Wrana 2012), we address the interrelation of knowledge formation and power relations in educational policy supported by the OECD. We are especially interested in the following questions: How does the OECD construct digitalization in education? Which regularities and relations can be identified? As a result of these questions, our analysis focusses on discursive formations of OECD's education policy discourse concerning digitalization in education. The corpus of our study comprises publications of the OECD's Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) of the last 15 years (that is since education became an autonomous directorate in the OECD).

Our analysis is still to be completed (anticipated completion June 2018). At this point we can only adumbrate preliminary observations and comment on a meta level. However, the analysis of the OECD discourse on digitalization in education is scientifically relevant because it helps to question what is easily taken for granted. Moreover, even though the OECD has no formal authority to use direct forms of power, it exerts influence not only on education policy matters but also on education research (e.g. via disseminating the idea of so called “evidence based policy”). The OECD links the development of indicators and benchmarks with international comparisons on the performance of educational systems and policy recommendations and thus suggests that what seems to work in some countries is also desirable for other countries. With regard to digitalization, the OECD broadens the scope of what is measured in PISA also to issues of digitalization such as digital skills and learning environments designed to develop these skills (cf. OECD 2015, 2010). It is spreading a technocratic idea of education governance which can be assumed to have consequences for educational research and to be biased. The question arises as to what is left out. What may or may not be expressed on digitalization? What are the transnational implications to be expected for educational governance and educational research?

•Dietrich, Fabian (2018): Konturen einer Rekonstruktiven Governanceforschung. [Outlines of Reconstructive Governance Research] In: Heinrich, Martin/Wernet, Andreas (ed.): Rekonstruktive Bildungsforschung. Zugänge und Methoden. Wiesbaden. pp. 73-94. •Foucault, Michael (1981): Archeologie des Wissens. [Archeology of Knowledge] Frankfurt am Main. •Moos, Leif (2009): Hard and Soft Governance: the journey from transnational agencies to school leadership. In: European Educational Research Journal Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 397-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.3.397 •OECD (2010): Are the New Millennium Learners Making the Grade? Technology Use and Educational Performance in PISA. OECD Publishing. DOI 10.1787/9789264076044-en •OECD (2012): Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives: A Strategic Approach to Skills Policies, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264177338-en •OECD (2015): Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en •Sellar/Lingard (2014): The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of governance in education. In: British Educational Research Journal Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.917-936. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3120 •Wrana, Daniel (2012): Theoretische und methodologische Grundlagen der Analyse diskursiver Praktiken. [Theoretical and Methodological Basics of the Analysis of Discursive Practices] In: Wrana, Daniel/Maier Reinhard, Christiane (ed.): Professionalisierung in Lernberatungsgesprächen. Theoretische Grundlegungen und empirische Untersuchungen. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto. pp. 195-214.