This symposium analyses how knowledge in education policymaking is socially constructed in knowledge networks. The term ‘knowledge network’ attempts to capture the processes and relationships in groups of policy actors created through networking, in which cross-sector, formal, and informal links are forged among policymakers, officials, special advisers, think-tank members, academics, lobbyists, and other stakeholders (Rhodes 2008). As has been found in comparative education research, these networks do not follow the borderlines and legislative restrictions of states or other regions, but work in and between them (e.g. Verger et al. 2012). We understand knowledge broadly: it can be scientific or based on political judgement and practice (Head 2008).

The symposium aims to understand the two key aspects in understanding the social construction of knowledge networks: their role in policymaking, and how these networks capitalise on knowledge.

First, different symposium presentations build understanding on what the knowledge networks are. From the theoretical perspective the importance of knowledge networks is obvious, given how the waves of decentralisation, managerialism, and privatisation have diversified the formal structures of policymaking and governance in a complex mass of interconnected levels and social networks (e.g. Maroy 2009; Ball & Junemann 2012; Ferlie et al. 2008). Researchers have a growing interest in analysing knowledge’s use in education policies (Fenwick et al. 2014; Carvalho 2013) and expert networks’ creation of the infrastructure for dataflows (Lawn and Segerholm 2011; Menashy 2019) as well as governing processes and Europeanisation discourses (Lawn & Grek 2012; Ozga et al. 2011). Knowledge networks are identified as important, but remain mainly uncharted in education research (Normand 2016): thus there is still work do be done to understand how they channel and formulate knowledge (cf. Menashy 2019).

Secondly, the symposium aims to analyse how knowledge is capitalised on in these networks. A substantial body of research shows that policymaking does not favour the critical use of knowledge or evidence but uses it as an instrument for political-ideological aims rather than as a tool for balanced rational deliberation (e.g. Goldstein, 2008; Stehr and Grundmann, 2012; Craft and Howlett, 2013; Klees and Edwards, 2014; Gormley, 2011; Contandriopoulos et al., 2010). Even before evidence is channelled into policymaking, its identification, collection, and selection are problematic for a balanced view (Spillane and Miele 2007; Piattoeva et al. 2018). Theories in political science emphasise political, rather than evidence-based policy process. Baumgartner and Jones (2009) start with ‘bounded rationality’, Kingdon (2003) highlights the roles of policy entrepreneurs and their readiness to push pet proposals at opportune moments, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework emphasises core beliefs of actors (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Most theories do not recognise rationality (c.f. Scharpf, 1997; Ostrom, 2005) or evidence as a key driver of politics but as part of the mix (Head, 2008).

The role of knowledge networks and how they work with knowledge are analysed in four contexts: EU (mainly Brussels), Finland, Portugal, and the UK. The results derive from three research projects. The Transnational knowledge Networks in Higher Education Policymaking (KNETS) research project analyses the concrete operation of transnational knowledge networks in higher education drawing on network analysis, interviews, and observation. A study predating and connected to KNETS studied the political use of evidence in the Academies Act in the UK with documentary data and interviews. The third research project studies the role of private foundations' use knowledge as a source of power in Portugal and Europe with the help of documents and interviews. All presentations focus on the knowledge networks, their members, as well as how knowledge is used in these networks.

Ball S.J. & Junemann,C. (2012) Networks, New Governance and Education. The Policy Press. Baumgartner, Frank. R, and Bryan D Jones. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Carvalho, L.M. (2013). The Fabrications and Travels of a Knowledge-Policy Instrument. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 172-188. Fenwick, T. J., Mangez, E., & Ozga, J. (2014). Governing knowledge : comparison, knowledge-based technologies and expertise in the regulation of education. Routledge. Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5 Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. Kingdon, John W. 2003. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Longman. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education : governing a new policy space. Symposium Books. Maroy, C. (2009). Convergences and hybridization of educational policies around ‘post-bureaucratic’ models of regulation. Compare, 39(1), 71-84. Menashy, F. (2019). International Aid to Education. New York: Teachers College Rhodes R.A.W (2008). Policy Network Analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (2012). Global Education Policy and International Development: New Agendas, Issues and Policies (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.