In this presentation we analyse the structure of the higher education policy network that operates in and between the Finnish national and the European Union levels. We understand this network as conductor of knowledge and knowledge-related power. Our aim is to understand how this knowledge network has been formed. We also examine how well the network can identify the key actors in policymaking. A starting point for analysing the network is that knowledge is formed in relation to other knowledge and power (Foucault 1986; 1977). For example, Swedish research has used interviews to study how knowledge became a key resource in higher education governance structures (Segerholm et al. 2020). Finnish researchers noted that the EU and the OECD can set a dominant education discourse through different networks, creating a seemingly value-free agenda, which Finland has mostly followed (e.g. Rinne et al. 2004; Kauko & Varjo 2008; Saarinen 2008; Välimaa 2012). Drawing on public data, we have formed a database on key network organs. Network analysis focuses on the most important organs, for instance the European Parliamentary Committees, the Commission’s Directorates General for Research and Innovation, and Education and Culture. In Finland the network covers the parliament’s Grand Committee and the committee for Education and Culture. Other important hubs to be analysed are the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and its working group EU30 Education. In addition, we include universities’ and universities of applied sciences’ organisations in Finland and their representation at the EU level. Our data is a two-mode affiliation social network data, which we convert to one-mode membership data for analysis (Borgatti et al. 2013). The first analysis can point out the centrality of some policy actors and establish the potential presence of cohesive sub-groups (Knoke & Yang 2008; Borgatti et al. 2013). Data is analysed with UCINET software that is designed for social network analysis. Our results reveal some key actors and hubs, and our results are in line with previous understandings of Finnish and EU higher education policy networks. We reflect on the difficulties and limitations that arise from analysing data gathered from public sources.

Borgatti, S., Martin, E., & Jeffrey, J. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Los Angeles: Sage, Print. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M. (1986). Truth and Power. In Gordon C, ed, Michel Foucault. Power/knowledge. Harvester. Cohen, R. & Havlin, S. (2010). Complex Networks: Structure, Robustness and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kauko, J. & Varjo, J. (2008). Age of indicators: Changes in the Finnish education policy agenda. European educational research journal, 7(2), 219-231. Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. SAGE. Rinne, R., Kallo, J. & Hokka, S. (2004). Liian innokas mukautumaan? OECD:n koulutuspolitiikka ja Suomen vastauksia [Too eager to comply? The OECD education policy and Finnish answers]. Kasvatus, 35 (4), 34-54. Saarinen, T. (2008). Whose Quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher education policy. Discourse 29(3), 179-193 Segerholm, C., Hult, A., Lindgren, J. & Rönnberg, L. (2019). The Governing-Evaluation-Knowledge Nexus. Springer. Välimaa, J. (2012). The Corporatization of National Universities in Finland. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Ordorika (Eds.), Universities and the Public Sphere. Knowledge Creation and State Building in the Era of Globalization (pp. 101-120). Routledge. International Studies in Higher Education.