This study is part of a larger project called The Fiction of Numbers, in which we locate and explore the intersections between the spheres of science, public discourse, policymaking and educational practices. We specifically examine how reading becomes a specific node, or discourse, where the changing ideas on societal, sociotechnical and educational imaginaries (cf Jasanoff, 2015; Rahm, 2019; Sundström Sjödin, 2017; 2019) and solutions take place. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS), we are primarily concerned with how knowledge and facts are produced and naturalized; that is, how a phenomenon is produced as a matter of course and thus becomes difficult to question, and the ways in which values and politics of knowledge become invisible in this process (Dussauge et al. 2015; Latour, 1987, 1993). 

In this sub-study, we “trace” – in Latour’s (2007) sense of the word – specific ‘numbers’ related to reading that are regularly referred to in media as well as in educational and political settings in contemporary Sweden. The numbers are used in reading promoting arguments: it is claimed that seventeen-year-olds who read a lot have a vocabulary of 50,000 words, while their low-reading peers have only 15,000 words in their vocabulary. It is also argued that 50,000 words is what is needed to be able to read and understand a typical newspaper text. 

These kinds of numerical claims circulate in the public discourse and are often unchallenged and presented as matters of facts. Uncontested, the numbers are left to do their work – efficient in establishing truths, suggesting impartiality and transparency, ‘strengthened by the historical relationship between numbers and rationality, objectivity and control’ (de Wilde & Franssen, 2016, p. 505; see Hacking, 1990; Porter, 1995). They stabilize beliefs about reading into hard facts. By that, they also naturalize reading as something inherently good and useful, and therefore difficult to question (Sundström Sjödin, 2019). Moreover, although the construction of the problem implies the construction of the recipient, i.e. the so-called troublesome subject, in this case it remains unclear for whom exactly the lack of reading is a problem (Marres, 2005).  

In this study, we trace the specific numbers we encountered in various sites of what we call “the reading industrial complex” (Sundström Sjödin et al, in press). We trace the origins of these numbers, how they have been produced, and with what tools. In doing so, we aim to develop knowledge on how reading is constructed as a public problem and a societal desire and what role numbers play in this construction. This aim is specified in the following three research questions: I) Which actors are involved in the dissemination of particular numbers related to reading, and who are the (implied) addressees of these numbers? II) What societal and educational imaginaries and desires are embedded in these numbers? III) What are the “origins” of the numbers? How and for what purposes were they produced? Theoretically and methodologically, the study draws on concepts and sensibilities of STS to explore the processes of knowledge production and dissemination, developed in the section below. 

Aligning with STS sensibilities, we analyze things that appear as naturalized (that is, factual, closed, readymade and stable) in the ways they are settled, that is, through the stabilizing mechanisms of fact, science and truth making (Latour, 2007, p. 120; see also Dussauge et al., 2015). These mechanisms are created, negotiated and agreed upon by actors with specific interests and motives. Accordingly, we examine the ways in which reading is stabilized as something natural and intrinsically good, by focusing on actors, including numbers and quantifications, that give the numerical value political significance through these relational performances. As we trace the numbers and actors that use the numbers, in referrals and references in the interviews and documents, we look for where the quantifications and valuations (Dussauge et al., 2015) originate from, how they were created (when possible), and in what ways they have been distributed into public discourse. What actors are for example part of the dissemination of these numbers and what actors can be seen as enrolled into the issue by the numbers? Our material consists primarily of digital documents of different kinds where the numbers in question are mentioned, gathered from official websites, social media, teaching material, and government information sites. To trace the origin of the numbers, we also consulted the sources to which some of the collected empirical materials referred. In other cases, we interviewed those who mention these numbers in different contexts, including researchers, writers, librarians, and teachers.

Stabilizing mechanisms in fact- and truth making processes, such as quantifications of reading and vocabulary, has enrolled some actors while excluding other possibly relevant actors (Callon, 1986; Hamilton, 2012). The specific number that we have set out to trace – the 50 000 words a 17-year-old experienced reader would have – has been found in a number of places. These include, for example, student teacher textbooks, parent-teacher meetings at school, social media, research pieces and policy documents. The number(s) are used by politicians, researchers, teachers, and in different kinds of reading promoting work. However, the origin of these numbers remains somewhat of a mystery. They are usually cited without any reference to any source. In rare cases, they are cited with references to scientific publications which, however, do not themselves contain these numbers. In other words, it is not known on what basis this number of 50,000 originated, since it seems to have no source. Nevertheless, this enigmatic number is performative and appears to be an actor in its own right in the reading-industrial complex. No matter if they are “true” or not, the numbers do their work. In most cases, as mentioned above, these numbers are used to emphasize the importance of reading because it is believed to lead to an increase in vocabulary, which in turn is considered valuable. Thus, reading is mostly discussed in quantitative terms, leaving aside what is read and why. In other words, mastering a certain number of words by a certain age – in this case, 50,000 by the age of 17 – is presented as something to strive for. Consequently, those with a smaller vocabulary appear to be an obvious problem to be prevented or addressed.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge. de Wilde, M., & Franssen, T. (2016). The material practices of quantification: Measuring “deprivation” in the Amsterdam neighbourhood policy. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 489–510. Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C-F., & Lee, F. (Eds.) (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, M. (2012). Literacy and the politics of representation. London & New York: Routledge. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S-H Kim (eds.) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marres, N. S. (2005). No issue, no public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Amsterdam: Ipskamp Printpartners. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of certainty in science and public life. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Rahm, L. (2019). Educational Imaginaries: A genealogy of the digital citizen. Linköping University. Sundström Sjödin, E. (2017). Tracing reading to the dark side: Investigating the policy producing reading and readers in detention homes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(6), 887–900. Sundström Sjödin, E. (2019). Where is the Critical in Literacy? Tracing performances of reading, readers and non-readers in educational practice, Örebro Studies in Education, 59, Örebro Studies in Educational Science with an emphasis on Didactics, 18. Sundström Sjödin, E., Persson, M., & Pettersson, D. (In press) Läsning, ekologi och siffror: Sanningspraktiker hos en läsfrämjande aktör. Språk och litteratur: En omöjlig eller skön förening? SMDI-15. Studia Rhetorica Lundensia nr. 8. 2024