The project presented in the abstract represents a prolongation of previous projects on the global influence of the technology giants on educational policy, and on the networks and channels of influence on a national level (Haugsbakk, 2021). The ambition of this new project is to make the local educational level in Norway a starting point, to take the point of view of the local schools. Which actors do they meet in the field of educational technology as they enter the extensive digitalisation processes we have been witnessing over the last 10-15 years? Who are the most important and influential actors? What kind of advice and impulses do the local schools encounter? And what networks are they included in?

Teaching and learning is not uniform due to different contexts, and it is interesting to detect possible differences between the local, national and global levels of education. However, the similarities are many. The previous projects have shown that despite the differences between countries, between political and educational systems, traditions and values, there are a number of similarities in the field of educational technology worldwide. These similarities include on a general level how the use of new technology is valued as a way of improving teaching and learning, but also how networks and relations are developed and function. The same kinds of concepts and arguments for introducing new technology have been used.

 Research internationally shows how the technology giants have set the agenda, and that the development has been significantly intensified during the pandemic. This has resulted in the emergence of new multisector coalitions and more complex networks which have potentially profound pedagogical implications (Regan & Khwaja, 2019; Williamson & Hogan, 2020; Perrotta, Gulson, Williamson & Witzenberger, 2021).

The most important actors and networks on the local level will probably mainly overlap with those that have been most visible nationally. In the previous research the main actors have been categorised as follows: governmental actors, commercial actors (consultants in educational technology and salesmen of equipment and software), representatives of the global technology giants, the Norwegian edtech industry, educational institutions, academics and the media  (Haugsbakk, 2021). On a local level we might include local authorities (politicians and local school leaders), schools (principals and teachers) and parents.

There might be some differences between the national and local level both in terms of which actors are the most prominent and the relationships between them. This applies to the commercial actors. The large tech giants dominating nationally and internationally are less visible. Smaller, national companies are at the forefront, though they can be in different forms of partnership with major suppliers of goods and services. The role of the media is at least partly different as for instance the local newspapers are quite close to the decisions made by the municipalities and the innovations launched in the schools.

The commercial actors will have a main focus in the analyses as they appear to be the key actors also on a local level. The analyses will be based on several years of research related to the influence of commercial interests in education. They include research from the 1960s on “commercial pressures on the local schools” (Larmee, 1965), but the most relevant research is mainly from the last 20 years on levels above the local. Interesting research has been done related to the influence of the IT industry in the US  (Picciano & Spring, 2013; Cuban, 2017) and the UK (Selwyn & Fitz, 2001), the emergence of the global education industry (Verger, Lubienski & Steiner-Khamsi, 2016) and the influence of edu-business on international organisations (Hogan, Sellar & Lingard, 2016). 

The project is based on literature studies and document analysis. The contributions made in international research regarding the technology companies’ influence on educational policy will be a part of it. But there are many challenges when it comes to obtaining relevant information about actors and networks, especially local. Some activities are undocumented and based on informal contacts. A main approach will be to search for websites providing relevant information. Municipal archives will contain documents about the considerations made before the purchase of equipment and services, and also documents showing the offers made by the commercial actors. Media coverage of the processes of buying and implementing new technology in the local schools might contain interesting information. That also goes for public debates in the media on these issues. Two or three municipalities will be used as the main cases. The document analyses will take their cue from discourse analytic approaches (Wetherell, Taylor & Yates, 2001). The analysis of the actors and networks are inspired by network analysis, a kind of network ethnography, which goes into the new flexible networks (Ball & Junemann, 2012). A next step of this project might include interviews with the key actors.

A main ambition is to get an overview of actors and networks in the field of educational technology on a local level and how they operate. The most important actors and networks will probably overlap with the ones dominating nationally. But there will be interesting differences, firstly in terms of which commercial companies have the leading roles and how they address the local schools and municipalities, and secondly in terms of the role of the media. An important goal will then be to find out what role the major global technology companies play in this and how they gain influence. The project might also provide a platform for developing new policies in this field and to increase our capabilities to make more informed and knowledge-based choices regarding the challenges posed by the dominating commercial actors.

Ball, S. J. & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy Press. Cuban, L. (2017) Silicon Valley Takes Over Classrooms: Yes and No (Part 1). https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/silicon-valley-takes-over-classrooms-yes-and-no-part-1/ Haugsbakk, G. (2021). Technology giants, educational policy and a preliminary mapping of networks and channels of influence in a Norwegian context. Seminar.net, 17(2). Hogan, A.; Sellar, S. & Lingard, B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and neo-social accountability in education. The case of Pearson plc. In: A. Verger, C. Lubienski & G. Steina-Khamsi (Eds.): World Yearbook of Education 2016. The Global Education Industry. Routledge. Larmee, Roy A. (1965). Commercial Pressures in Schools. Theory Into Practice. 4(5), 176-180. Perrotta, C.; Gulson, K. N.; Williamson, B. & Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and the distributed labour of platform pedagogies in Google Classroom. Critical Studies in Education, 62:1, 97-113. Picciano, A.G. & Spring, J.H. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex. Ideology, technology, and profit. Routledge. Regan, P. M. & Khwaja, E. T. (2019). Mapping the political economy of education technology: A network perspective. Policy Futures in Education, 17(8), 1000-1023. Selwyn, N. & Fitz, J. (2001). The Politics of Connectivity. The Role of Big Business in UK Education Technology Policy. Policy Studies Journal. 29(4). Verger, A.; Lubienski, C. & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The Emergence and Structuring of the Global Education Industry. Towards an Analytical Framework. In: A. Verger, C. Lubienski & G. Steina-Khamsi (Eds.): World Yearbook of Education 2016. The Global Education Industry. Routledge. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. J. (2001). Introduction. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (eds). Discourse theory and practice. A reader, (1–8). London: Sage. Williamson, B. & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International. https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_eiresearch_gr_commercialisation_privatisation