This presentation focuses on new philanthropy in education governance in Portugal. Using an empirical study focused on EPIS (Entrepreneurs for Social Inclusion), a corporate philanthropy organization created in 2006 in Portugal, we aim to illustrate the ongoing process of reconfiguration of philanthropy agency, through which philanthropy is becoming more profit-oriented, managerial and networked. Moreover, we aim to go further on the study of new philanthropy agency, discussing the rising, diffusion and promotion of new systems of reason, or policy technology, where social inclusion has been one of the imaginaries that should guide education governance.

In previous works [Viseu & Carvalho (2018); Carvalho, Viseu & Gonçalves, 2018; 2019; Viseu & Carvalho, 2020; Viseu & Carvalho, 2021]), we have been dedicated to map and characterize philanthropic foundations in Portugal as intermediate actors (Nay & Smith, 2002; Carvalho, 2006), that is, actors involved in a set of cognitive and social operations for the construction and stabilization of interactions between ideas, individuals and technical devices. The cognitive dimension considers their self-presentation, the reasons for their intervention, how they imagine education systems and how are (or should be) governed and their autonomy in the production of expert knowledge for policies. The social dimension regards the activities’ and kind of intervention, including the structuring of new policy spaces or intra-national spaces of policy through networks (Lawn & Lingard 2002; Ball 2016).

These previews works have been inspired by literature produced in different geographies which already focused on new philanthropy strategies to gather different social actors to drive social and political change, based on accountability and numbers, and to build new systems of reason to govern educational policy, grounded on reflexivity (see, for example, Ball 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2011; Robertson & Verger, 2012; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Hogan, Lingard & Sellar, 2015; Thompson, Savage & Lingard 2011; Olmedo, 2017). In this presentation, through the analysis of EPIS social and cognitive operations, regarding two central features typical from new philanthropy or philanthropy 3.0.

First, new philanthropy emphasizes networking as a form of action. New philanthropists assume themselves as connectors and facilitators (Ball, 2008). That is why Ball & Olmedo (2011) use “network philanthropy” to emphasize these new philanthropists as “‘generative nodes’, aimed at facilitating new connections and linking opportunities” for new projects, sponsors and funders, as well as to provide access to insider information and expert knowledge. Besides, the rising of new philanthropy has been the focus of recent literature devoted to studying the growing importance that new actors play in education policy (namely non-state actors), and attentive to their relations and connections with governments and public authorities, establishing new policy networks.  

Second, philanthropy has been expanding (by an increase of mega-foundations), changing to what some authors call a "new philanthropy" or a “philanthropy 3.0” (Ball & Olmedo, 2013). Philanthropy is still committed to social action projects and to new and innovative solutions, where state and non-governmental organizations have (allegedly) failed (Stone & Moran, 2016). Yet, the concerns about the profits and the "aggressive" return on investments have intensified. It is turning to "profitable" philanthropy, concerned with "clear and measurable impacts, and [on the] results" of the investments (Ball & Olmedo, 2013, p. 34). As consequence, new philanthropy is becoming more business and profit-oriented, exhibiting concerns with return on social investment, going beyond traditional funding instrument.

Besides, we aim to go further on the study of philanthropy agency regarding cognitive operations. EPIS will be used to discuss the rising of new systems of reason or policy technology concerning three targets: the individual subject- personal empowerment; the professional and the organizations (teachers/headteachers and schools), the State.

EPIS was chosen for three reasons. First, because EPIS is a case of corporate philanthropy. EPIS was created by one-hundred founding entrepreneurs, within their philanthropic engagement. In 2006, these founders represented 35% of the national GDP and 80% of the Portuguese stock market index (PSI-20) (EPIS, 2006). Second, because EPIS is engaged in promoting "social inclusion of young people through school success”, and “to create job opportunities and social reintegration for people or groups in situations of exclusion or risk of social exclusion and failure” (EPIS, 2020). And third, because EPIS has grown on scale and presence at the national level. In 2019, three hundred schools had EPIS education programs and along the years, approximately thirty-four thousand students were involved in its programs. According to its website, EPIS runs the “the largest program for the promotion of school success in Portugal by the civil society initiative” (idem). The empirical work was inspired by network ethnography (Howard, 2002; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Olmedo & Grau, 2013), as it is special suitable to study and capture new global spatialities and new governance in education. As Hogan stands (2016), network ethnography allows to trace “education policy processes that no longer emanate from, or are constrained to, the geographical boundaries of nation-states” (id., p. 386) and better understand the interaction between actors (people or organizations) and their positions in different decision making levels, supported by new data infrastructures in education. The research design included: 1) two semi-structured interviews with EPIS Director and a member of its scientific council; 2) mapping of collective and individual actors involved in EPIS; 3) mapping EPIS features concerning its mission, programs, knowledge generation, publication and convocation activities (using mostly internet searches). Data on individual and collective actors involved in EPIS were analysed as nodes (individual or collective actors) that are tied by one (or more) types of relations (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). We intended to describe EPIS relations with other social worlds (such as business, private foundations, the academy and formal political agencies). For that, we built EPIS egocentric network which was useful to map the channels “through which the focal organization obtains resources and information from the environment” (Gulati et all, 2002, p. 281) and allowed to provide important inputs to know EPIS ecology, that is, to know EPIS practices that support the maintenance of continued and durable exchanges with actors from other social worlds.

Results show that EPIS seems a promising empirical object to analyse the expression of the worldwide reconfiguration of philanthropic foundations and, more precisely, as a sign of the concretization of a philanthropy 3.0 and as a new policy technology (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007; Ozga, 2013). Regarding the social operations, data converge to the conceptualization of EPIS as a network, which is emblematic of the new philanthropy (Tompkins-Stange, 2016). Mapping individual and collective actors which that intertwine in EPIS, data showed how it operates through networking and as an important network node that seeks to implement changes in the educational system through connections with different social worlds: academy, business and an political-administrative elite. Regarding the cognitive operations, EPIS aims to act as "political entrepreneur" and to "lead by example" (Exley, 2014). EPIS’ ambition to became a reference, in Portugal, for the “development, incubation and internalization of new methodologies” is served by new instruments to coordinated social action, including “capacity-building” programs, operating at national scale in extended contexts, working closely with the local authorities. Finally, EPIS illustrate the rising of new systems of reason concerning three targets: the individual subject- personal empowerment; the professional and the organizations (teachers/headteachers and schools), the State. Combining an evidence-based approach with teaching-learning perspectives and instrumentations brought from psychology and neurosciences, this system of reason constitutes the promise of a new educational science. Following Popkewitz (2013: 439-40), EPIS’ programs, activities and textual and digital delivers are to be discussed as “cultural thesis”: the fabrication of social inclusion as an object of knowledge and practice, by identifying problems and solutions in order to generate “value-added” to the development of new educational programs and new forms of reflexivity for head teachers, bureaucrats and politicians “to act for themselves”.

Ball, S. & Junemann, C. (2011). Education Policy and Philanthropy—The Changing Landscape of English Educational Governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 34:10, 646-661 Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. Carvalho, L. M., Viseu, S., & Gonçalves, C. (2019). Bridging worlds and spreading light: Intermediary actors and the translation of knowledge for policy in Portugal. In D. Pettersson & C. Mølstad(Eds.), Numbers and Knowledge in Education: New Practices of Comparison, Quantification and Expertise (pp. 111-126). Routledge. Exley, S. (2014). Think tanks and policy networks in English education. In: M. Hill (Ed.), Studying public policy: An international approach (pp. 179-190). Bristol: Policy Press. Hogan, A. (2016) # tellPearson: the activist ‘public education’ network, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39:3. Lawn, M., & B. Lingard (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290-307. Lingard, B. (2016). Think Tanks,‘policy experts’ and ‘ideas for’education policy making in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 15-33. Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (Eds.). (2019). Accountability Policies in Education: A Comparative and Multilevel Analysis in France and Quebec (Vol. 11). Springer. Nay, O. & Smith, A. (2002). Les intermédiaries en politique: Mediation et jeux d’instituitions. In O. Nay & A. Smith (Dir.). Le gouvernement du compromise: Courtiers et generalistes dans l’action politique (pp. 1-21). Paris: Economica. Olmedo, A. (2017). Something old, not much new, and a lot borrowed: philanthropy, business, and the changing roles of government in global education policy networks. Oxford Review of Education, 43(1), 69-87. Ozga, J. (2008). Governing knowledge: Research steering and research quality. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 261-272. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: An handbook. London: Sage. Thompson, G., Savage, G. C., & Lingard, B. (2016). Introduction: Think tanks, edu-businesses and education policy: Issues of evidence, expertise and influence. Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1). Viseu, S., & Carvalho, L. M. (2018). Think tanks, policy networks and education governance: the rising of new intra-national spaces of policy in Portugal. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(108). Viseu, S., & Carvalho, L. M. (forthcoming). Policy networks, philanthropy, and education governance in Portugal: the raise of intermediate actors. Revista Foro de Educación - Special Issue "Policy networks and data networks of governmentality in education”.