Europeanisation of education constitutes a dynamic process in which supranational frameworks, policy discourses, and strategic initiatives shape national educational governance (Lawn & Grek, 2012). The European Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP-2021-2027) as pillar of the European Education Area (EEA) establish objectives related to digital skills, innovation, inclusion, and equity, structuring multi-level governance arrangements that connect national priorities with European strategies while interacting with institutional capacities, historical legacies, and sociomaterial infrastructures (European Commission, 2020; Radaelli, 2003).

In Greece, digital education policy is mediated through institutional actors that translate European priorities into national curricula, strategic plans, and digital infrastructures. The Institute of Educational Policy (ΙΕP) plays a key role in curricular development, educational innovation, and participation in European digital initiatives, including the adoption of frameworks such as DigCompEdu and SELFIE for Teachers (European Commission, 2020). Complementing this role, the Institute of Technology and Research in Education (CTI-ΙΤΥΕ “Διόφαντος”) operates as the technological arm of the Ministry of Education, overseeing the development and maintenance of digital platforms, ICT infrastructures, and large-scale systems such as the Greek School Network, which are central to the implementation of digital education policies.

This institutional configuration reflects broader shifts in Greek educational policy making, where European policy priorities are operationalised through national agencies and technological instruments. Over the last decades, national policy has progressively moved from an emphasis on democratisation and social integration toward modernisation agendas aligned with European discourses on performance, efficiency, and competitiveness (Sifakakis, Tsatsaroni, Sarakinioti, & Kourou, 2016).

Recent literature on education governance frames policy making not as a set of isolated institutional decisions, but as a process unfolding through heterogeneous networks of actors, including state agencies, expert bodies, policy instruments, and digital infrastructures (Landri, 2020). Building on this, Landri (2018) shows how digital governance in education can be mapped through “cartographies” that make visible the connections between institutional actors, technological infrastructures, and policy tools. Such cartographies illuminate how European frameworks are interpreted, adapted, and stabilised within national contexts, providing a lens to explore the relational and infrastructural dimensions of digital education governance. In this landscape, European policies, technological platforms, and regulatory frameworks do not operate in isolation; they intersect with national institutions, shaping priorities, coordination mechanisms, and patterns of participation in ways that are both structured and contingent (Decuypere, Grimaldi & Landri, 2021).

The study is guided by two research questions. First, which actors and policy initiatives define the landscape of digital education in Greece, and how have these actors, policies, institutional arrangements, and priorities evolved in recent years? Second, how do Greek digital education policies correspond to and integrate with overarching European digital education strategies and frameworks? These questions position digital education as a central element of Europeanisation while considering the complexities of alignment and adaptation in national contexts.

The theoretical framework integrates Europeanisation theory, Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and cartography. Europeanisation theory illuminates how European policies are translated, negotiated, and embedded within national systems (Edenhofer & Kowarsch, 2015; Landri, 2018; Radaelli, 2003). ANT frames governance as the product of heterogeneous networks of human and non-human actors-including ministries, agencies, policy documents, and technological tools-that together co-produce policy enactment (Latour, 2005; Law, 1992). Governance is characterised by a dynamic interaction among actors, who operate within networks and topologies that span local, national, and global levels (Landri, 2020). Cartography provides methodological instruments to map these networks systematically, visualise relational dynamics, and identify hierarchies, policy priorities, and influential actors (Cruz-López et al., 2022; Liebman & Paulston, 1994).

The study employs a cartography approach integrated with Actor–Network Theory (ANT) to examine the landscape of digital education in Greece and its alignment with European policy frameworks. Cartography, widely used in sociology and policy studies, allows systematic mapping of actors, policies, and institutional arrangements, highlighting hierarchies, relational dynamics, and policy priorities (Liebman & Paulston, 1994). ANT complements this perspective by framing governance as the outcome of networks comprising human and non-human actors -including ministries, research institutes, technological infrastructures, and policy instruments- and tracing the interactions through which policies are stabilized and operationalized (Latour, 2005; Law, 1992). Governance is thus understood as a dynamic configuration, where actors and institutions engage in interdependent practices across local, national, and European scales (Landri, 2020). Empirical material consists of primary documentary sources, including national digital education strategies, strategic plans, official reports from the Ministry of Education, ΙΕΡ (curricular reforms, teacher-training frameworks, digital competences) and ΙΤΥΕ (digital platforms, Greek School Network, e-textbooks, ICT innovation hubs), as well as European-level policy frameworks (e.g., DEAP 2021-2027, DigCompEdu, SELFIE for Teachers). These sources provide the foundation for identifying actors, their roles, and institutional arrangements supporting policy enactment. Analysis considers both the evolution of policy priorities and the operationalisation of initiatives, capturing how curricula, digital tools, and ICT infrastructures are mobilized to implement national strategies while remaining aligned with European objectives. The methodological approach combines qualitative content analysis with the construction of visual and relational representations of actor networks and policy landscapes (Bowen, 2009). Content analysis enables systematic coding and categorization of policy documents, revealing recurring themes, priorities, and patterns of influence. Visual mapping and relational modelling, informed by cartography and ANT, depict formal and informal connections among actors, the distribution of authority, and pathways through which decisions, technologies, and policy instruments circulate. This approach emphasizes the co-production of governance structures, illustrating how digital platforms, institutional procedures, and regulatory frameworks interact to shape policy enactment. Integrating cartography and ANT situates Greece’s digital education policies within multi-level governance arrangements, capturing structural configurations and relational dynamics. It facilitates identification of central actors, critical interfaces between national and European strategies, and the interplay of technological, institutional, and policy components. The approach offers a detailed empirical basis for examining how digital education initiatives are coordinated, implemented, and adapted, highlighting the complex networks through which governance is enacted and enabling a nuanced understanding of policy evolution and alignment.

This paper draws on a segment of my ongoing doctoral research, examining how Greek national institutions operationalise digital education policies within European strategies. The study provides an empirical perspective on digital education governance, highlighting the networks of actors, institutional arrangements, and technological infrastructures that underpin policy enactment (Ball et al., 2011). It explores how IEP and CTI mediate European priorities, translating strategic objectives into curricula, digital platforms, and school-based initiatives, and how these processes intersect with socio-technical and institutional contexts. The research is expected to reveal patterns of influence, coordination, and relational dynamics among human and non-human actors, offering insights into mechanisms through which policy objectives are stabilised, contested, and adapted in practice. Visual and relational mappings of actor networks make tangible the often-invisible configurations that shape governance, showing how priorities, responsibilities, and resources are distributed across national and European levels. Positioning Greece within the broader European policy landscape, the study examines how national institutions interpret, adapt, and enact digital education strategies. It highlights how IEP and CTI operationalise European priorities through curricula, digital platforms, and school-level initiatives while navigating institutional, technological, and regulatory constraints. Actor network mappings reveal the distribution of influence, coordination mechanisms, and relational patterns structuring governance, offering concrete insights into interactions between national and supranational actors. Findings are expected to illuminate points of alignment and tension between Greek and European policies, showing how policy priorities are negotiated and adapted in practice. This perspective contributes to theoretical discussions on multi-level governance and ANT applications, while offering practical guidance for policymakers and educators implementing or coordinating digital education initiatives. By tracing these networks and configurations, the research enhances understanding of digital education operationalisation as a core component of contemporary Europeanisation, highlighting the dynamic interplay of actors, technologies, and institutional arrangements that shape policy in action.

Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Cruz-López, L., Digón-Regueiro, P., & Méndez-García, R. M. (2022). Social cartography as a participatory process for mapping experiences of Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: an account of the design. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1966621 Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050 Edenhofer, O., & Kowarsch, M. (2015). Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017 European Commission. (2020). Commission Staff Working Document, Digital Education Action Plan 2021- 2027. Retrieved on 10-01-2026, from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/ Landri, P. (2018). Cartographies of the digital governance of education. In World Yearbook of Education 2019 (pp. 132-147). Routledge. Landri, P. (2020). Educational leadership, management, and administration through actor-network theory. Routledge. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: Governing a new policy space. Symposium Books Ltd. Liebman, M., & Paulston, R. G. (1994). Social chartography: A new methodology for comparative studies. Compare, 24(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792940240304 Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The Europeanization of public policy. In K. Featherstone & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 27–56). Oxford University Press. Sifakakis, P., Tsatsaroni, A., Sarakinioti, A., & Kourou, M. (2016). Governance and knowledge transformations in educational administration: Greek responses to global policies. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 35-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1040377 Websites https://www.cti.gr/ https://www.iep.edu.gr/