Advertisement

Boundary Brokers: Mobile Policy Networks, Database Pedagogies, and Algorithmic Governance in Education

  • Ben WilliamsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

Contemporary educational governance is increasingly influenced by non-political organizations and actors who work together in mobile ‘policy networks’ to influence governmental decision-making. The main aim of this chapter is to examine one particular cross-sector policy network as exemplifying a shift in the ‘governable spaces’ of contemporary education policy. It offers a novel twist on ‘networked learning’ in that it queries the cross-sectoral organizational networks increasingly driving learning agendas. The policy network consists of the organizations Nesta (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), the Innovation Unit (a social enterprise working on innovation in public services), and the RSA (Royal Society of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce), as well as others including the social innovator Nominet Trust and the think tanks Demos and the Education Foundation. In particular the chapter offers a critical examination of how this specific policy network is proposing to mine and analyse digital data from learners’ online networked activities in order to predict and pre-empt their future progress and outcomes, as part of a social and technical imaginary of the data-driven, algorithmic future of education. In this sense, the emerging forms of data-based networked learning examined in this chapter, and the organizations helping to position these technologies as a new policy agenda, represent a form of future-tense governance of education, where the emphasis is on governing, shaping and sculpting learners’ future lives and their lifelong learning trajectories through new forms of predictive algorithmic governance.

Keywords

Algorithmic governance Analytics Data Database Policy network 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for this chapter was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ref: ES/L001160/1)

References

  1. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc. New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media and Society, 11(6), 985–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2013). Popular culture, digital archives and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture and Society, 30(4), 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beluga Maths. (2013). What is Beluga learning? Beluga Learning website. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.belugalearning.com/index.php/research.
  6. Buckingham-Shum, S. (2013). Learning analytics. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214711.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Cairney, P. (2012). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2012). A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture and Society, 28, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coyle, D. (Ed.). (2009). Reboot Britain: How the promise of our new digital age can tackle the challenges we face as a country. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, J. (2013). Sampling society? The foundations of a new frontier in understanding society. Nesta website. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/blogs/big_data/sampling_society_the_foundations_of_a_new_frontier_in_understanding_society.
  11. Facer, K. (2012). Personal, relational and beautiful: Education, technologies and John Macmurray’s philosophy. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2010). Re-inventing public education: The new role of knowledge in education policy making. Public Policy and Administration, 25(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grek, S. (2014). OECD as a site of coproduction: European education governance and the new politics of ‘policy mobilization.’. Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampson, M., Patten, A., & Shanks, L. (2012). 10 ideas for 21st century education. London: Innovation Unit.Google Scholar
  17. Horne, M. (2008). Honest brokers: Brokering innovation in public services. London: Innovation Unit.Google Scholar
  18. Hultqvist, K. (2001). Bringing the Gods and the Angels back? A modern pedagogical saga about excess in moderation. In K. Hultqvist & G. Dahlberg (Eds.), Governing the child in the new millennium (pp. 143–171). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  19. Innovation Unit. (2012). Learning futures: A vision for engaging schools. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation/Innovation Unit.Google Scholar
  20. 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, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://www.harvardiglp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Jasanoff-Ch-1.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and everyday life. London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: Governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium.Google Scholar
  23. Leadbeater, C. (2011). The civic long tail: Big data and the wisdom of the crowd. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  24. Mackenzie, A. (2012). More parts than elements: How databases multiply. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maltby, P. (2015). A new operating model for government. Open Policy Making, March 17. Accessed 18 March 2015. https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2015/03/17/a-new-operating-model-for-governmentGoogle Scholar
  26. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: Quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 371, 20120382. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Margetts, H., & Sutcliffe, D. (2013). Addressing the policy challenges and opportunities of “Big Data”. Policy and Internet, 5(2), 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Learning from big data: The future of education. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  29. McGann, J. G., & Sabatini, R. (2011). Global think tanks: Policy networks and governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Mulgan, G. (2005). Reshaping the state and its relationship with citizens: The short, medium and long-term potential of ICTs. In M. Castells & G. Cardoso (Eds.), The network society: From knowledge to policy (pp. 225–240). Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.Google Scholar
  31. Mulgan, G., & Leadbeater, C. (2013). Systems innovation: Discussion paper. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
  32. Nesta. (2013a). 13 predictions for 2013. Nesta website. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.NESTA.org.uk/news_and_features/13for2013.
  33. Ormerod, P. (2010). N squared: Public policy and the power of networks. London: RSA. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/blogs/rsa_pamphlet-publicpolicy.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. Pea, R. (2014). Building the field of learning analytics for personalized learning at scale. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/law_report_complete_09-02-2014.pdf.Google Scholar
  35. Pykett, J. (Ed.). (2012). Governing through pedagogy: Re-educating citizens. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruppert, E. (2012). The governmental topologies of database devices. Theory, Culture and Society, 29(4-5), 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruppert, E., & Savage, M. (2012). Transactional politics. The Sociological Review, 59(Suppl 2), 73–92. Special Issue: Sociological Review Monograph Series: Measure and Value, edited by L. Adkins & C. Lury.Google Scholar
  42. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thrift, N. (2005). Knowing capitalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  45. Watters, A. (2014). Teaching machines: A brief history of ‘teaching at scale.’ Hack Education, 10 September 2014. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://hackeducation.com/2014/09/10/teaching-machines-teaching-at-scale/.
  46. Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: Data visualization, predictive analytics and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 123–141.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations