This paper is primarily conceptual in nature as we explore the possibilities of “utopia as method” (Levitas, 2013) in educational research and practice. We have come to explore the potential of utopia as method  in an attempt to address the “state of crisis” that education may be said to find itself in. Discourses of crisis in education are not new (Arendt, 1961), yet they continue to abound. For example, the lack of quality education for all (World Bank, 2019) and the “factory model” of schooling (Ellison, S., & Allen, B., 2018, p. 276), are treated as evidence of an educational crisis. These discourses point to what are deemed to be significant problems in education. While we do not necessarily disagree with these assessments of education, in this presentation we wish to take "crisis" as representing challenges faced by society, but more importantly by using the "state of crisis" as an opportunity to speculate about and imagine alternatives to the current order in education and beyond. 

Framing this paper, we specifically focus on the internationally dominant evidence-based approach and “what works” logic as a key crisis currently facing education (Biesta, 2020a). But rather than point out the problem only by offering another critique of the neoliberal order, we wish to think of crisis as an opportunity to actually disrupt this neoliberal order. In doing so, we follow Biesta (2020b) who has suggested that, “the interruption of the normal order literally makes us think—whether we want it or not—which, as such, is a good thing” (p.1). So, while “crisis” carries negative connotations within the popular imaginary, as Biesta goes on to note, “in its original meaning, crisis is not a state of chaos, but a critical moment or turning point that calls for consideration and judgement (in Greek: “krinein”)" (p.1). To interrupt the “normal order” requires us to consider the conditions that have given rise to this order of things, what it says about who we are as humans, educators and students, and how we might be able to imagine things differently.

In an attempt to properly consider an interruption to the evidence-based, “what works” order of education, we utilise Levitas’ (2013) “utopia as method” as an alternative to approaching educational research and practice. Our interpretation and adaptation of Levitas’ three modes of utopia as method - archaeology, ontology and architecture - holds in tension a speculative imagination for the future whilst engaging with educational work in the present. This is not only about the field of education offering a response to crisis, but acknowledging that education has also contributed to, and is thus partly responsible for, the current state of affairs. However, rather than utilising crisis discourse to legitimate new truth claims, this paper is concerned with the possibilities for alternative modes of doing educational work that may emerge from the instability and fragility produced by crisis.

This paper is focused on the exploration of a different approach to method in education. Drawing on a range of work primarily within the discipline of sociology and social theory, we explore more specifically what an adaptation of Ruth Levinas’ Utopia as Method could do for educational research. In doing so, we apply this method to an OECD policy case (OECD, 2018). While our method engages in aspects of critical policy analysis informed by post-structuralist understandings of power, knowledge and truth (e.g. Ball 2015; Bansel 2015; Peterson 2015; Saltmarsh 2015; Bacchi 2009), utopia as method is an experiment that seeks to keep questions of ontology central. Constituted by archaeological, ontological and architectural modes, the method involves excavation of conditions that have resulted in the current moment, critical questioning of being for both humans and the institutions we construct, transgressing the status quo and imagining alternative ways of being. While there is no prescriptive formula, ontological questions lie at the core of utopia as method. Thinking about these questions within the context of “crisis”, we look to apply the following kinds of questions to the research case: We are guided in our examination of the policy, therefore, by questions such as: How can we be in this world and respond responsibly to the prevalent crises? How can education research and practice be a guide to our responses? How can ontological questions be embedded in, and drive, education research and practice to allow for the emergence of alternative spaces? How can education engage with questions about what constitutes a good life and contribute to social change? These questions imply a commitment to social transformation, though we acknowledge that this does not mean that solutions to any perceived crisis or problem in education will be produced. This is a method that is used with full recognition that the struggle for a better world remains.

Our aim in this paper is to contribute to thinking about, and broadening, methods for educational research which also seek to bring the work of researcher and practitioner closer together. Moreover, we will suggest that utopia as method is useful for bringing This is our first attempt to put utopia as method into action. This presentation, we hope, will result in critical discussion about the possibilities and limits of the method we propose to use. We follow the approach of Lingard, Sellar and Savage (2014, 711) as we seek ‘to open up a set of issues, rather than to provide a definitive account’, but we also hope that utopia as method functions to help change education practice and, therefore, bring about change in society. We do not suggest that this is the only approach to educational research and practice, nor do we suggest that it is the best approach for all contexts. But we do hope that it can become a powerful alternative approach for those who do critical research with social transformation in mind. By carefully attending to the critical feedback we receive on utopia as method, we hope to be able to refine the approach so that it can be applied to a range of educational contexts from policy, to curriculum, and classroom practice. We expect that the approach will serve as a reminder to all of us engaged in educational research that ontological questions posed of the past, future and present can function to help us see more deeply into the problems we are researching and to set about re-thinking not only the “who” and “what” of education now, but the “who” and “what” of education into the future.

Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Viking Press. Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? (1st ed). Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson Education. Ball, S. J. (2015). Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 299–301. Bansel, P. (2015). The subject of policy. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 5–20. Biesta, G. (2020a). Educational research : An unorthodox introduction. London: Bloomsbury. Biesta, G. (2020b). Have we been paying attention? Educational anaesthetics in a time of crises, Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI:10.1080/00131857.2020.1792612 Ellison, S., & Allen, B. (2018). Disruptive innovation, labor markets, and Big Valley STEM School: Network analysis in STEM education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 267-298. Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as method : The imaginary reconstruction of society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lingard, B., Sellar, S. & Savage, G.C. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: the effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(5), 710-730. OECD (2018). PISA. Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf Petersen, E. B. (2015). What crisis of representation? Challenging the realism of post-structuralist policy research in education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 147–160. Saltmarsh, S. (2015). Michel de Certeau, everyday life and policy cultures: the case of parent engagement in education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 38–54. World Bank. (2019). The Education Crisis: Being in School Is Not the Same as Learning. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive-story/2019/01/22/pass-or-fail-how-can-the-world-do-its-homework