The use of technology in education has been a topic of interest for policymakers for many years, as is alleged to have significantly benefits for the learning experience for pupils. With the rapid implementation of digital technology in education in recent years, there has been a focus on the role of teacher qualifications in preparing students for a digital society and utilise the potential of a datafyed and digitised education system. In this regard teacher educators is commonly portrayed to play a critical role in preparing teacher students and in-service teacher use digital technology in classroom and ensuring that pupils can effectively digital technology to enhance their learn and acquire new skills.

In a relatively short period of time, the role of the teacher and concurrently teacher educator has undergone a dramatic change. The expectation placed on schools have increased, because concerns of digitalisation of society and the emphasis of the knowledge economy (Ball, 2017). In In Norway, the public debate have for a long time focused on impact of new digital technologies have had on all aspects of civil and professional society, and how schools must be able to prepare students for the digital professional lives (Engen, 2019). Teacher education is considered to have a duale role. Firstly, teacher education is expected to focus on the (pedagogical) use of digital tools. Secondly, teacher educators are supposed to teach student teachers how to foster pupils’ digital skills and digital responsibility while addressing digitalisation’s influences on society and culture, subjects’ contents, and educational practices (Nagel, 2021). The digitalisation of society and schools have been classified as transformation of epistemic and educational practices (Lund & Aagaard, 2020), and the need for teacher education to adapt and integrate digital competence in study programmes has been emphasised by several actors, including policymakers, researchers, school leaders, and teachers

The European Commission mapped out the education systems in Europe to identify the necessary competences regarding what digital competency teacher should know and be able to do (Bourgeois et al., 2019), and the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training published a qualification framework for the Professional Digital Competence (PDC) teacher (Kelentrić et al., 2017).  These frameworks can be seen as declarations of political intentions for what ought to be taught in teacher education. However, although political and professional discussions have begun, there is no clear description of what teacher educators are expected to know and be able to do (Goodwin et al., 2014; Kelchtermans et al., 2018; Loughran & Hamilton, 2016) .
In this paper we explore structure and experience, mobilising the notion of dispositif as a heuristic device, as a permeable and fluid, strategic and technical. Over the course of this paper, we want to start piecing together a new way of conceptualising Professional Digital Competency for teacher education. By utilising Bailey (2013) conception of policy dispositif to conceive both Performative and dispositional ontology at different material sites, and across and between different scales of policy practice.  These methodological and conceptual framework foregrounds analytics which understands policy as a contingent formation of diverse discursive and extra discursive elements, and policy institutions, practices and micro-settings as constituted by and enmeshed within multiple relations of power. In this way, institutional objects and micro-settings forming part of what Bailey (2013) describe as a macro-dispositif of policy. In the following we will fist develop how we understand the concept dispositif. Following this we will present Norwegian teacher education in respect reform and digitalisation. This will serve as a backdrop for the analysis and orient our use educational policy dispositif.

Dispositif is a central concept in Foucault scholarship and is often translated as "apparatus" or deployment. A dispositif is a heterogeneous ensemble that includes discourses, institutions, laws, and other elements that shape how knowledge is produced and used (Foucault, 1980). In this study, the dispositif serves as a heuristic device for analysing how different elements of, such as policies and discourses, shape the understanding and practice of digital competency in teacher education. Bailey (2013) suggests that the dispositif is a useful lens for understanding how policies and other elements of the dispositif work together to shape educational practices. Using the concept of micro-dispositifs, Bailey (2013) argues that it is possible to analyse the specific characteristics and functions of particular elements of the dispositif, such as the beliefs and practices of teacher educators. In this study, the focus is on analysing how teacher educators' understanding of PDC shapes their views on technology and digital competency in their professional development. To analyse teacher educators understanding of PDC I will use the concept epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 1999). An epistemic cultures refer to the shared practices, beliefs, and values that shape how knowledge is produced, validated, and disseminated within a particular community or field of inquiry (Knorr Cetina, 1999). I use epistemic cultures to understand the shared beliefs, practices, and values that shape how knowledge about PDC is produced, validated, and disseminated within teacher education. This paper uses group interviews conducted in the autumn of 2022 as its starting point. The interviews were conducted with four to seven educators from four Norwegian teacher education programs. These programs were selected based on their efforts to implement and develop PDC within their teacher educators and students. The interviews aimed to explore the educators' perspectives on PDC and its integration into teacher education epistemic culture.

Initial analysis show how that Teacher educators use different augmentative strategies to legitimise their work with PDC in their teacher education program. Firstly, there is a strategy that of boundary work. The participants described a process of deifying, maintaining and challenging boundaries between fields of knowledge in their work as teacher educators. There is a desire to establish new conception of teacher educators as professional, and frustration about this work . They are accommodating how the content of the subject according to the ‘affordances’ of different technologies. Secondly, there is a strategy of reordering of digital technology in accordance with ‘taxonomy’ of the teaching profession, critically scrutinising ‘promises made’ by governments and edtech of the possibilities of digital technology in education. Primarily there is a concern of how teachers traditional professional knowledge is being undermined, and a need to take bake control. Thirdly, there is described a resistance in the general staff to implementing PDC teacher education, these are often described in cultural terms. Building on this, the participants of the study highlight how discussion with other teacher educators and teachers’ students created changes to teaching practise at their teacher education programs. The initial finding suggest that the participants of the study highlight PDC can be understood as a policy dispositif. Teacher educators as a profession is grappling with how to accommodate and resist digitalisations practises in their teacher education program, and in so doing are reshaping PDC for their program. There are themes such as digital infrastructure, edtech influence and conception of professional compliance are while be pursued moving forward with the study.

Bailey, P. L. J. (2013). The policy dispositif: Historical formation and method. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.782512 Ball, S. J. (2017). The Education Debate (In series: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-First Century) (3rd ed., p. 62). Policy Press. Bourgeois, A., Birch, P., & Davydovskaia, O. (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. ERIC. Engen, B. K. (2019). Understanding Social and Cultural Aspects of Teachers’ Digital Competencies. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal, 27(61), 9–18. Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302. Kelchtermans, G., Smith, K., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Towards an ‘international forum for teacher educator development’: An agenda for research and action. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 120–134. Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., & Arstorp, A.-T. (2017). Professional digital competence framework for teachers. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/in-english/pfdk_framework_en_low2.pdf Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. harvard university press. Loughran, J., & Hamilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2016). International Handbook of Teacher Education. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0 Lund, A., & Aagaard, T. (2020). Digitalization of teacher education: Are we prepared for epistemic change? openarchive.usn.no. Nagel, I. (2021). Digital Competence in Teacher Education Curricula: What Should Teacher Educators Know, Be Aware of and Prepare Students for? Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 5(4), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4228