Due to neoliberal governance, accountability, evaluation, and clearly specified goals have become the buzzwords of the administration of education. Increasingly, the answer to enhancing efficiency and accountability in education, is offered through technocratic rationality, as in digitalization and new educational technologies offering effective means for management of time, space and pedagogical content. (e.g., Ball 2015; Plum 2012). In such ethos, commercialization of education has accelerated rapidly, leaving education to face novel pressures, expectations as well as transformations on a global scale. These transformations are notably characterized by an apparent constriction of the overarching objectives of education, a narrowing of the scope of accessible information, and reconfiguring the very concept of human subjectivity. (Mertanen, Vainio & Brunila 2022).

The first aim in our paper is to clarify the impact of commercialization on teacher education within the broader academic context. As Ball (2006) has argued, it is necessary to examine the impact of the increasing number of private commercial actors on education. Acknowledging that private education is undoubtedly part of organizing education in contemporary societies is imminent, thus ‘the question is no longer whether private actors should be allowed in education, but rather, to what extent and how should their activities be regulated, and to what end’ (Rizvi 2016: 2). Educational entrepreneurship has grown rapidly also in Finland, where education has traditionally been a public good and free of charge. What follows is that ideologies of ‘business rationale and attitude, emphasizing innovation, dissemination of ‘best-practices’, quick evidence for decision-making, and return on investments’ are now incorporated into education (Candido Hinke Dobrochinski, Seppänen & Thrupp 2023). Thus, we find most relevant Ball’s (2006) call for the investigation of the ethical and moral consequences of commercialization, since it affects also what in education in general is seen meaningful and why.

 In more practical terms we aim to examine the possibilities that could offer strategies for challenging these forces by asking; How do teacher education students recognize commercialization of education? and What means support their understanding of the phenomenon of commercialization, and the effects of it? These questions are interconnected within the larger framework of education governance and the effects it has on teachers. As teachers are increasingly internalizing the idea of a neo-liberal professional, as in believing that by acquiring new (e.g., technological) skills, they will improve their productivity and ‘add value’ to themselves (see Ball, 2003; Pesonen & Valkonen, 2023), they are at the same time more ontologically insecure – that is, they are unsure whether they are ‘doing enough, doing the right thing, doing as much as others, or as well as others, constantly looking to improve, to be better, to be excellent’ (Ball, 2003: 220). By examining future teachers’ understanding of commercialism in education we also aim to increase knowledge about the effects of highly individualized perception of teacher’s professionalism.

This research is rooted in the domain of discursive research methodology. In analysis we employ membership categorization analysis (MCA). MCA is predicated on the premise that culture evolves as individuals endeavor to make sense of their often intricate thoughts and experiences, imbuing them with meaning and subsequently organizing them through the utilization of diverse categories. It is worth underscoring that within the framework of MCA, individuals possess agency in their selection and application of categories, rendering the study of categories tantamount to an exploration of the localized actions and choices of individuals. (e.g., Stokoe 2012). The data of this research was produced within the context of an optional university course titled 'The Political and Economic Steering of Early Childhood Education.' Students participating in this course had a writing assignment, which encompassed a series of questions (not obligatory but offered for consideration), including: How do you conceptualize commercialism within the realm of education?; What are your hopes and aspirations concerning the commercial tools available for education?; What questions or uncertainties do you harbor regarding the utilization of commercial tools in education? In total, 20 concise essays were authored during the course, each spanning 1 to 2 pages in length. It is noteworthy that all students, apart from one, granted consent for the use of their written texts as research materials. Therefore, the final data comprises 19 essays, collectively contributing to the empirical foundation of this study. Through an examination of the categories employed by university students, our objective is to gain insight into their comprehension of the commercialization of education. As our first aim, we seek to identify what these categorizations reveal about the impact of commercialization on teacher education within the broader academic context. Secondly, we aim to understand what kind of reasoning, if any, allows, challenging of the neoliberal political culture and subject production, in which teachers (as all individuals) ought to constantly improve and be more productive and effective. MCA allows us to focus on how different categories are employed by future teachers when making sense of commercialization in education, as well as when criticizing and challenging it.

Based on our results, teacher education students struggle with recognizing values, norms and power relations within education and education policy. Our analysis shows how various categorizations are employed to justify and rationalize the increase of commercial – including private and other for-profit – actors in the field of education. Examples from data show how justification is constructed e.g., within the categories of ‘academic; research-based; quality’, and often the mandate is given by merging these categories with the commercial activities and/or materials. In one data example student explains: ’When evaluating, I would start by looking at who has produced the material in questions. Who did it and what was the aim? Is there a multinational company behind? Or maybe researchers and other professionals from the field?’ In addition to reliability, even certain kind of goodwill, is connected to commercial actors who have a background in the academic field of education. As we will explain further in our results, the examination of categories revealed that while only few used strategies of criticizing and challenging these ideals, others were shaken from what they had learned. A student explains: ‘I thought I had at least some understanding of how commercialism effects the everyday life of educational institutions. But soon I realized that it is a lot more dystopic what I imagined. I think it is scary how strongly commercialism effects the lives of children under school-age. I also see it as alarming, that there is so little discussion about this in the media.’ In our discussion we will pursue to emphasize, how the responsibility of becoming and staying aware and critical in terms of knowledge production in general, but also in terms of commercial and other for-profit actors in education, should not be tossed to an individual teacher education student or a teacher.

Ball, S. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228. Ball, S. 2006. Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball. World Library of Educationalists. London, UK: Routledge. Ball, S. 2015. What Is Policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse 36(3): 306–313 Candido Hinke Dobrochinski, H., Seppänen, P. & M. 2023. “Business as the new doxa in education? An analysis of edubusiness events in Finland.” European Educational Research Journal 0(0): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221140169 Mertanen, K, Vainio, S. & Brunila, K. 2022. “Educating for the Future? Mapping the Emerging Lines of Precision Education Governance.” Policy Futures in Education 20 (6): 731-744 Pesonen, J. & Valkonen, S. 2023. “Governing education, governing early childhood education and care practitioners’ profession?” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231172206 Plum, M. 2012. Humanism, administration and education: The demand of documentation and the production of a new pedagogical desire. Journal of Education Policy 27(4): 491–507 Rizvi, F. 2016. Privatization in education: Trends and consequences. Education Research and Foresight, Working Papers 18. Paris, France: UNESCO. Stokoe, E. 2012. “Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis.” Discourse Studies 14 (3): 277–303.